Sitting of 18 December 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the likely impact of privatisation on electricity prices; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): Competition in electricity generation and supply, combined with price control where monopolies remain, will put downward pressure on prices to the benefit of the consumer.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to see that the undoubted efficiencies arising from privatisation are passed on in the form of reduced costs and to ensure that any additional future costs arising from nuclear decommissioning are not passed on as extra costs?
    Mr. Wakeham: The regulatory regime will provide for benefits to be passed on to consumers. On nuclear energy, as in the past, electricity customers will continue to pay the best estimate of the cost of the decommissioning when they purchase electricity. We have taken powers to contribute to these costs should they subsequently increase.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: With regard to the impact of privatisation on electricity prices, does the Minister understand the sense of moral outrage that there will be throughout the country at today's announcement that Lord Marshall is to receive a golden handshake of £250,000? Does the Minister agree that because of his record of advice on nuclear power and the dishonest costing of nuclear electricity, Lord Marshall's decisions and advice have cost us billions of pounds? Would it not be a suitable epitaph for Lord Marshall if the Minister had the courage to cancel the last of the pressurised water reactors and scrap Sizewell B?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government have made clear their intentions on Sizewell B. We wish to see the completion of that project. As several hon. Members know, I have today received and accepted Lord Marshall's resignation as chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board. Lord Marshall feels that in the light of my recent decisions on nuclear power he is unable to continue as chairman of the CEGB and as chairman-designate of National Power. In accepting Lord Marshall's resignation, I pay tribute to his long and distinguished career in pubic service and to his stewardship of the CEGB during the past seven years.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the low cost prices given by the CEGB in the past for nuclear electricity have now been largely discredited? In the light of that, is my right hon. Friend inclined to believe the new high cost prices for nuclear electricity that have been given in different circumstances—with the CEGB being responsible for privatised nuclear electricity—or does he think that they, too, should be treated with a pinch of salt?
    Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend is aware, because he studies these things closely, the indicative prices that we

    3
    received from National Power reflected the City's perception of the financing of nuclear power. That perception made the indicative prices so high that they were unacceptable the Government. The future prices of nuclear power are at present being discussed with the Nuclear Electric company. I have no doubt that satisfactory arrangements will be made.
    Mr. Barron: What exactly does the Secretary of State mean by "downward pressure on prices"? He knows that the major fuel source of electricity is British Coal and that for the past three years there has been a real reduction in the cost of that coal, with a saving in the current financial year of £850 million on the contract. However, at the same time, by Government diktat during the past two years, there has been an increase in electricity prices of 15 per cent. Given that the new contract with the generator will continue to have the benefit of that cost reduction from British Coal, which will accumulate in the third year to a saving of about £450 million, why will not the Secretary of State tell the House and consumers that electricity prices will go down as a consequence of those massive savings?
    Mr. Wakeham: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the efforts of British Coal and its work force to stabilise the price of coal in recent years and its continued determination to do so. What I mean by downward pressure on prices is that competition in generation, which is responsible for 75 per cent. of all electricity costs, will be a force for reducing prices.

    Gas Industry (Competition)
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations have been received about opening up competition in the gas industry.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have received a number of representations about competition in the gas industry.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that competition is beginning to develop in the gas supply industry, as evidenced by the formation of Quadrant Gas by Shell and Esso which will undoubtedly bring price and other benefits to consumers? Against that background, how does he foresee competition developing along the lines envisaged in the Gas Act 1986?
    Mr. Wakeham: Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted that new companies are beginning to compete in the market place. They include not only Quadrant Gas but Associated Gas Supplies and Kinetica Ltd. There are good prospects for producers wishing to sell gas directly to the industrial market. The Government's decision that 10 per cent. of all new gas supplies should be sold to customers other than British Gas is promoting competition. As my hon. Friend knows, the power generation sector offers a significant prospect for the early development of competition in the gas market.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree that an uncontrolled expansion of gas burning for power generation could result in an even greater escape of methane into the atmosphere than occurs at present, and that the escape of methane is an important, if not the most important, contributor to the greenhouse effect?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's latter statement is wrong. CO2 emissions are by far the biggest contributor
    4
    to the greenhouse effect. However, he is right to make that point. No form of energy generation is without its risks and problems, but gas has substantial advantages over several of its competitors.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to facilitate competition in the gas industry is to open a trunk pipeline to Europe? Will he do everything possible to bring that about?
    Mr. Wakeham: At present there is no great demand for that, but there is a considerable improvement in the competitive environment for gas. I should like to see how that develops before taking further steps.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State accept that, contrary to his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), the latest estimates in the current issue of Nature are that the escape of methane into the atmosphere contributes as much as the burning of fossil fuels in power stations to the greenhouse effect?
    Before the right hon. Gentleman authorises any gas burning in electricity generation, should he not get together with the 12 area boards forming the non-fossil purchasing agency, which has just missed the 1 December deadline for 1990? Before he allows the new players in gas to sell gas for electricity generation he should first make sure that the gas board has made its pipelines as gas-tight as they can be, instead of leaking 2 or 3 per cent. of the gas into the atmosphere. Secondly, he should get together with the waste disposal authorities to ensure that landfill gas is used first for conversion into electricity through small turbines. That would make a major contribution to resolving the greenhouse gas problem.
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked several questions, and I am not sure that I accept most of what he said. He asked me to confirm what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said about methane, but he did not repeat what his hon. Friend had said in his question. I stand by what I said.
    The full effects of all the different forms of gas emissions are not fully known and that is why the Government are encouraging the panel that is considering those matters. That is why we recently submitted evidence to it, which is available in the Library if the hon. Gentleman wants to see it.
    Mr. Butler: Since privatisation, has the price of gas fallen or risen, and is that any evidence of increased competitiveness?
    Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend is wise enough to know the answer to his question before he asks it, I confirm that the price of gas has fallen.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the implication for coal burn from Scottish mines of the Government's decision to exclude nuclear power stations from their privatisation proposals.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): That will depend on commercial decisions to be taken by the South of Scotland electricity board.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister be a little more forthcoming about what is happening to coal burn? We now have only one effective Scottish pit and its future depends on securing its outlet to the Longannet power station. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that an agreement will be concluded soon between the SSEB, or what remains of it, and British Coal to ensure the continued employment of at least one deep mine coal complex in Scotland?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a great deal of competition to coal in Scotland. That competition comes not only from nuclear power, to which his question is addressed, but from gas; and the competition from gas will increase.
    Recently £70 million has been invested in Longannet. I visited the pit fairly recently and morale is growing, with some reason: the pit is attaining record output per man shift and hitting good seams of coal. There is everything to play for at Longannet. Scotland has a rich diversity of fuel sources and the coal industry must compete against them.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the Minister reflect on that answer? He must be well aware that in Scotland we are currently locked in a legal battle in the courts over precisely what the coal burn should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) spoke about Longannet, but I have a constituency interest in Monkton Hall colliery. That colliery is mothballed and whether it will be resuscitated depends on the coal burn and on the outcome of the present legal wrangles. Will the Minister be a bit more positive instead of standing back and saying that it is a matter of commercial decisions reached by the people involved? He should say that he will do his best to see that the legal wrangles are resolved so that we know what the coal burn will be in Scotland.
    Mr. Spicer: If I followed the hon. Gentleman's advice to see that the legal wrangles were sorted out, he would accuse me of interfering in the courts. The courts are currently sitting and I understand that they will pronounce on the matter soon. We must await their decision. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to intervene in the affairs of the courts. If I did he could accuse me of intervening in the judiciary.

    United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the representative of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association; and what matters were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Associations on 8 November, when a number of North sea issues were raised.
    Mr. Ross: Before the Minister next meets the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, will he take time to study the evidence given by the Manufacturing Science and Finance union to Lord Cullen's inquiry on Thursday? That evidence identified that at least one offshore operator—Philips in the Hewett field—had agreed with the union to apply offshore the health and safety regulations that apply onshore. Because of the operators' determination to apply those conditions
    6
    offshore, employees' confidence in the system has increased. When the Minister next meets representatives of UKOOA, will he press the example of Philips on other United Kingdom offshore operators?
    Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listen carefully to any evidence relating to safety in the North sea, and MSF and put forward many recommendations. As he will be aware, Lord Cullen is still carefully considering much of he evidence and we await his report, which will be produced some time next year. We shall then look closely at the recommendations.
    Mr. Doran: In his discussions with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, has the matter of steel supplies for gas pipelines arisen? Is the Minister aware that because British Steel's refusal to invest in the plant necessary to produce the quality steel required by the industry, millions of pounds worth of orders are going abroad? Japan is the only country that makes the quality of steel necessary. Will the Minister discuss with UKOOA efforts to encourage British Steel and others? It is not within his ministerial responsibilities, but I know the efforts that his office has made to encourage investment and expenditure in the United Kingdom. Will he take responsibility for this problem and see what can be done about it?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is right; conversations certainly take place between the operators and British Steel about the possibility of obtaining more steel from British Steel. As he is probably aware, Sir Robert Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, is a member of the oil industry advisory board which discusses such matters and was present at the most recent meeting.

    Nuclear Industry (Investment)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what his proposals are for the future of the nuclear industry investment programme.
    Mr. Wakeham: The first priority is the successful completion of current programmes, including Sizewell B and the major projects at Sellafield. The question of Nuclear Electric building new nuclear stations will be considered in 1994.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State accept that the row over the privatisation of nuclear power has done more harm to the industry than even the Windscale fire of 1957? With the industry under attack on all sides from greens, the coal lobby, the European Parliament, the Irish Dail and a number of nations throughout the world, is it not about time that he made some far more reassuring noises about future investment in these stations?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government have made it clear that we have not abandoned nuclear power. We recognise its strategic value in diversity, security of supply and the reduction of fossil fuel emissions. As I said, Sizewell B will be completed to maintain the PWR option. The prospects for nuclear power will be reviewed in 1994. I hope that during the intervening period we can look at some of the costings of nuclear power to see whether we can reduce them.
    Mr Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable dismay in the Welsh counties that faced the prospect of PWR stations at the Government's reluctance to give any compensation towards the costs that they incurred in preparing their cases against those PWR stations, which are now not being built? Will the Secretary of State reconsider the matter to see whether those local authorities can be properly compensated?
    Mr. Wakeham: In such circumstances it is not normal for the Government to compensate people for, rightly, seeking representation and incurring expense while presenting their case. I should have thought that people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred would be well satisfied with the outcome; I cannot say that I was, but I had to live with those circumstances.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some European countries have successful private sector nuclear power stations? Is there anything to stop that happening in this country if nuclear power becomes competitive again?
    Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely nothing. What I said about reviewing the option in 1994 related to Nuclear Electric, which will be a state-owned successor company to the CEGB. That company's prospects will be reviewed again in 1994, but it is perfectly open for anybody who so wishes to make the necessary planning applications if they believe that to be a sensible course of action.
    Mr. Rost: Before Lord Marshall is made a scapegoat for the nuclear fiasco, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that if his advice to build PWRs had been taken 10 years before it finally was, we should probably have a family of them now producing economic electricity?
    Mr. Wakeham: I certainly do not intend Lord Marshall to be made a scapegoat for anything. He is a distinguished public servant who served Governments of all types; but, as someone more significant than I has said, "Advisers advise, and Ministers decide."
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a scandal that over the past two or three decades this Government and successive Governments have been kidding the people that nuclear power is cheap, efficient and safe—and cheaper than coal? Now the truth has been blurted out: it is two or three times dearer than coal and other forms of energy. Is it not also disreputable that the Government, who have been conning the British people, should hand over £250,000 to Lord Marshall and accuse him of being a scapegoat? I know a lot of poor people in my constituency who would be happy to be called a scapegoat and handed £250,000.
    Mr. Wakeham: I understand that the hon. Gentleman must have been pondering his question while I was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) a moment ago, when I said that I did not want anyone to treat Lord Marshall as a scapegoat. I paid him a well-deserved tribute and said that he was a distinguished public servant.
    The hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in some parts of these matters, would be well advised to read carefully some of the evidence given—modesty forbids me to disclose who gave it—to the Select Committee on Energy last week. It was pointed out there that many economic factors in the various forms of energy generation
    8
    have changed. Oil, gas and coal are much cheaper relative to nuclear power than they were. The hon. Gentleman will be wiser when he has read that evidence.

    BNFL
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what matters he has discussed with British Nuclear Fuels plc since his recent announcement on the future for nuclear power.
    Mr. Wakeham: I met Mr. Harding on 16 November when we discussed a range of matters concerning the company.
    Mr. Jack: The answer that my right hon. Friend gave to an earlier question on the future of the nuclear industry will be warmly welcomed by my constituents who work at BNFL's plant at Springfields and who have striven hard to improve their productivity. Can he assure me that in future negotiations with the Nuclear Electric company over the price of nuclear fuel there will be no return to cost-plus negotiating and the consequent loss of the benefits of competitive tendering in this area?
    Mr. Wakeham: Those are commercial matters for BNFL and the Nuclear Electric company, but I very much share my hon. Friend's view that cost-plus contracts are not the best way forward, and I hope that proper contracts will be negotiated. I have been particularly impressed by BNFL's progress. In 1988–89 Springfields increased its exports by 25 per cent. and contributed to BNFL's record exports of £169 million.
    Mr. John Evans: Has the Secretary of State discussed with BNFL or anyone else the fears of a growing number of nuclear engineers and scientists about the inherent dangers of a PWR pressure vessel collapse? Is he aware that an increasing number of our nuclear engineers are so worried about the risks involved that they believe that Sizewell B and the whole PWR programme should be abandoned?
    Mr. Wakeham: That sounds like a partial account of the position. I have had no discussions with anyone on that subject. Safety is the paramount consideration at all times in the operation of nuclear power. That will continue to be so in the future, and we have an outstandingly good record.

    Combined Heat and Power
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on plans to expand combined heat and power schemes.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I will continue to encourage wherever possible interest in combined heat and power. Ultimately, decisions are for the private sector.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Leicester city council and Leicester Energy Ltd. on the pioneering work that they have carried out with combined heat and power? The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the problems that have affected that scheme and will recall the meeting that took place in his office when he was kind enough to show us his collection of clockwork teddy bears. Will he join me in wishing the forthcoming new talks well and hoping for a happy conclusion? Will he give an

    9
    undertaking that if the talks do not succeed his Department will do all that it can to save this environmentally safe and cost-cutting scheme?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman reminds the House, I was delighted to be able to see him and some of his colleagues from Leicester at the beginning of the summer recess. I hope that I left him with the impression that nobody would have been happier than I if the scheme as it then was could have gone ahead. As he knows, ultimately the negotiations between the East Midlands electricity board and Leicester Energy Ltd. did not come to fruition. If further options come forward I shall certainly do what I can to facilitate them. However, in all fairness to the hon. Gentleman I must make it quite clear that there is no question of any subsidy from the taxpayer.
    Mr. Rost: Should not my right hon. Friend accept, however, that if two thirds of the energy that is presently thrown out of power stations in cooling water were used for district heating in cities, it would not only save huge amounts of fossil fuel but would be environmentally beneficial? Should he not therefore consider giving combined heat and power the same sort of support that he is giving high-cost electricity from nuclear and from renewable sources?
    Mr. Morrison: In the main I certainly accept the principle of what my hon. Friend says. I know that he has been a strong supporter of combined heat and power for a long time. Ultimately, the matter comes down to commercial factors. As my hon. Friend may know, in one other city, Nottingham, there is a small district heating scheme. I hope that that example can be repeated on a larger scale in other cities. As he also knows, apart from that scheme there are many combined heat and power examples in other parts of the country. In industry there are 120 and in buildings there are about 300. Therefore, I think that the idea is catching on very well.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that the best thing he could do to encourage combined heat and power schemes would be to follow the example of the Secretary of State for Energy and simply announce that the electricity boards would have to allow combined heat and power stations to be base load stations, in the same way as he has announced for nuclear power stations? If that were done, the economics of combined heat and power stations would be immediately transformed and they could produce the cheapest electricity in the system.
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman puts forward an alluring and very attractive idea which would make a simple solution. However, he will understand that if I agreed with him here and now, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might find ourselves in great difficulties and my ministerial career would be quickly at an end.

    Community Insulation Programme
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the community insulation programme.
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action is being taken to assist low-income households with home insulation.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend announced recently his intention to take powers for a proposed new scheme of insulation grants for low-incomes households.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that expenditure on loft insulation and pipe insulation has fallen from £32·6 million to £9·6 million this year? Is he also aware that as a result of Government cuts resources have fallen by 15 to 20 per cent? In view of that, how can he uphold the Government's intention stated in 1983 that Britain would become the most efficient energy-saving nation in Europe by 1990? With only three weeks to go, how can he manage that?
    Mr. Morrison: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, the decrease has come about in part because people are not moving house at the rate that they were a year ago. In terms of general efficiency measures, if the hon. Gentleman examines the facts he will realise that the efforts of the Energy Efficiency Office over the years have been very successful. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are still significant gains to be made. The nation still spends about £40 billion per year on energy. The current estimate is that we could save up to 20 per cent. of that, which would amount to some £8,000 million. I agree with the general drive of what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you disallow question No. 24 for oral answer?
    Mr. Speaker: No. For many years it has been the practice that questions up to No. 25 can be linked.
    Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new scheme to be introduced will improve access for low-income households, along the lines of the scheme under which 700,000 have been assisted since 1982?
    Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend said, some 700,000 low-income households have benefited from the old scheme. I expect that when we have worked out the details of the new scheme, considerable numbers—an increase on the present level—will benefit from that scheme as well.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the new terms and conditions of the obligation to supply subsequent to vesting day under the Electricity Act 1989.
    Mr. Wakeham: Obligations to supply electricity will rest with those authorised to supply by licence or exemption under sections 5 and 6 of the Electricity Act 1989.
    Mr. Smith: I thank the Minister for that interesting reply, but is it not the case that under the present model of privatisation, which is not the model passed by the House, Britain stands to become the only advanced industrialised country which does not protect the supply of electricity to the consumer? Does this not show utter contempt for British consumers and prove that privatisation is not a means to an end but a discredited end in itself?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. The area boards will continue to have an obligation to offer terms for a supply. Every customer will be able to find a supplier, and regulations

    11
    will continue to prescribe the quality and safety of supplies. Licence conditions on all suppliers will ensure current standards of security.

    British Gas
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend and I met the chairman of British Gas last month when we discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.
    Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister share with us his forecast, or that of the chairman of British Gas, for the future use of gas over the next 10 years in the generation of electrical power?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman has probably heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say, both in this Question Time and on previous occasions, we believe that the generation of electricity by gas will be on the increase in the next decade.

    Nuclear Levy
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the level of the nuclear levy.
    Mr. Wakeham: The size of the fossil fuel levy will depend on the prices negotiated for nuclear and fossil fuel electricity. These have still to be agreed.
    Mr. Griffiths: What will be the upper and lower limits of the nuclear levy? How much will that cost the taxpayer and what would be the advantage to the consumer if coal-fired power stations were allowed to compete freely and on the same basis with nuclear power?
    Mr. Wakeham: The cost of nuclear power is being paid for by the consumer. A fossil fuel levy, or a nuclear levy as the hon. Gentleman refers to it, will not change those arrangements. For the reasons that I gave in my original answer, I am not in a position to quote the amount of fossil fuel levy. However, the decision that I made with regard to nuclear power on 9 November will mean that the fossil fuel levy will be somewhat lower than it would otherwise have been.

    Severn Barrage
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has any plans to finance the construction of a barrage across the estuary of the River Severn.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Prospects for the Severn barrage project will be reviewed on completion of the financing and organisational studies to be carried out by the Severn tidal power group.
    Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that the scheme will not be delayed unnecessarily by his Department? The scheme will generate 7 per cent. of the electricity demand of England and Wales from a renewable source, allow 200,000 man years of employment during construction and create up to 30,000 additional jobs, which will tremendously boost the
    12
    south Wales economy. It will reduce the effect of the greenhouse problem and it will not create an acid rain problem. Will the Minister give us that guarantee?
    Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I agree wholeheartedly with everything that he has said. The financing and the commercial objectives have, however, to be considered. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the sums involved in the construction of a barrage of such a magnitude are vast, and that problem is not easily overcome. Financial considerations must be addressed carefully because the cost per kilowatt hour would appear to be of considerable magnitude for the first 30 or 40 years. Subject to that, I wish the project as much of a fair wind as the hon. Gentleman does, subject to environmental and other considerations.

  THE ARTS

    North West Arts
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Minister for the Arts what funding North West Arts received in 1989–90.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The overall forecast income for the north-west arts council in 1989–90 is just over £3 million.
    Mr. Jack: That was an excellent answer. My right hon. Friend will be aware at this Christmas time of the joy that can be brought to people through brass band music. I ask my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Freckleton prize brass band in my constituency, if he will do all in his power to ask North West Arts why it is not as yet giving any help to small village-based community music, such as brass bands? The Freckleton prize brass band is saying to me that my right hon. Friend should ask North West Arts to put some brass back into its band.
    Mr. Luce: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in brass bands in the area that he represents. He will know that I do not take decisions in the precise allocation of funding for brass bands or any other arts. It is a matter for North West Arts and, to some extent, for the Arts Council. I hope that my hon. Friend will put his question directly to them.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise the serious threat to the provision for the arts in the north-west next year arising from the introduction of poll tax, which will make it extremely difficult for many local authorities to maintain the present level of funding? Will this not place in jeopardy financial provision for the Halle orchestra, the Mechanics arts centre and the Townelet museum and art gallery in Burnley?
    Mr Luce: I have every conviction that any local authority with a pride in its arts activity will continue to have that pride. It will be directly accountable to ratepayers for whatever support it decides to give. It is interesting to reflect that in Scotland, where the community charge has been operating for several months, the level of local authority support for the arts continues at a reasonable level.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, visiting the Terrace when seven brass bands played earlier this year, and the men, women and young people who played in those bands remember your visit

    13
    with pleasure. May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and at the risk of sounding slightly ethnic, ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for more brass for brass.
    Mr. Luce: I note the enthusiasm for brass bands. I am sure that the various regional arts associations will note the views of the House.

    Stolen Treasures
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has had from the Society of Antiquaries about problems of identified stolen art treasures being auctioned in sale rooms abroad; the difficulties of reacquiral of such objects by the churches and other organisations from whom they were stolen; and the need for Her Majesty's Government to satisfy article 7 of the United Nations Educational. Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention, relating to a wide definition of cultural property.
    Mr. Luce: I have received a number of representations from the Society of Antiquaries on this subject.
    Mr. Dalyell: I am gratified. Would that not make the Government more effective in dealing with future Icklinghams?
    Mr. Luce: I appreciate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about stolen works of art, or alleged stolen works of art, and the Icklingham case of Roman bronzes is foremost in everybody's mind at the moment. I am seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on this issue tomorrow.
    I have thought carefully about the UNESCO convention, but various other avenues are available to us. It is right to say that the Metropolitan police arts and antiques squad has been reconstituted. A computerised data base to index stolen art works is about to be set up. That will take place in January. The trade is already operating two codes of practice. The various procedures are fairly widespread. I remain to be convinced that the UNESCO convention, which is a fairly bureaucractic and cumbersome procedure, is the right way to deal with this difficult problem.
    Mr. Cormack: As a fellow of the society, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this whole issue very carefully? It is a serious matter. As UNESCO is no longer the absolute charade that it was a few years ago, it would help enormously if my right hon. Friend would ratify the convention.
    Mr. Luce: Of course I take my hon. Friend's question seriously, but there is a general point to be made. The whole question of export controls is to be reviewed under the 1992 procedure, and that will apply to works of art and the restitution of works of art. The matter can be considered in that context.
    Mr. Fisher: The Minister knows that the measures that he has outlined will not secure the return of the bronzes, which are now in New York. Does he accept that he has responsibility for our heritage and, in particular, those bronzes, which were illegally excavated, illegally exported and, in effect, have been stolen from Mr. Browning, who has a good claim to them?
    14
    If the Minister is serious about the matter, will he raise it with the United States Government? Is not that the only way of ensuring that the bronzes are returned to their rightful country, Great Britain?
    Mr. Luce: Of course I am serious about the issue, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the police are currently investigating the matter. There has not yet been a court case to prove that the bronzes were stolen. If there is, and if that is the conclusion, further action can be taken.

    Departmental Budget
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the increase in his Department's budget for the coming three years.
    Mr. Luce: Between 1989–90 and 1992–93 my Department's budget will increase by 24 per cent.
    Mr. Martin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome reply. What is in his budget for an improved programme of building and maintenance for our national galleries and museums?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because one of the most important parts of my recent decision to increase the three-year funding is to put added focus on improving the fabric of our national museums and galleries to ensure that they are in good shape during the 1990s. It is a campaign of unprecedented importance and I have earmarked £180 million over the next three years to that effect.
    Mr. Boyes: In this the 150th year of photography, do not the Government stand condemned for doing precious little about such a major and important historical event? Will the Minister ensure that some cash from that 24 per cent. rise in his budget goes into photography so that young photographers and galleries can do something for themselves, because the Government, typically, are doing nothing for them?
    Mr. Luce: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He knows that the science museum in Bradford has an extension housing the national museum of photography, film and television. It is a major centre of great importance to the whole of the country. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that there is little support for photography. This evening I am going to the royal academy to view a major exhibition of photography. There is a great deal of support for photography throughout the country.

    British Library
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister for the Arts when the British library project is expected to be completed.
    Mr. Luce: The complete building will be operational by 1996, although the first main phase will be opened in 1993.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this major and exciting project underlines the Government's commitment to the arts in all their forms? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that the British museum reading room will remain open?
    Mr. Luce: I can assure my hon. Friend that the round reading room, which is of historic importance, will be kept

    15
    open under the overall responsibility of the British museum after the British library has moved to the new St. Pancras building. On my hon. Friend's first question, which is of great importance, the new British library is the Government's biggest civil construction today and the biggest cultural construction of the century. There could be no better evidence of the Government's commitment to the arts and the library world than this major new centre of excellence. It will provide remarkably improved services to the reader, in much better environmental conditions, and it will all be located in one building instead of the present 18.

    North West Arts
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met a representative of North West Arts; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I met the chairman of North West Arts in his other capacity as chairman of the Council of Regional Arts Associations on 25 July this year when various matters were discussed.
    Mr. Fearn: Among the matters that were discussed, did the Minister talk about the allocation for the education budget that North West Arts would be allowing this time? It appears that money for education connected with the arts is being cut, and North West Arts is concerned about that. It means that children in school will not receive what they have been receiving in the past.
    Mr. Luce: It is for North West Arts to decide how much work it does in that area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I are carrying out a joint study on best practice in terms of the relationship between schools and artistic activities through theatres, museums, galleries, and so on. My right hon. Friend and I attach great importance to that and hope that it will lead to enhanced arts activity in the schools.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend believe that North West Arts has sufficient funds to fund the "In your own words" project, about which I have written to him and which has achieved a great deal of international recognition?
    Mr. Luce: It must be for North West Arts to give a direct answer to my hon. Friend. However, I have no doubt of the importance of this and I look forward to meeting him to discuss the matter.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Disciplinary Action
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will specify the particular guidelines, pursuant to Official Report, 27 November, column 436, which apply to action being taken against senior civil servants who authorise the disclosure of Law Officers' advice to the Government.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Such a situation would be covered by the general guidelines in the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: Had they not been engaged in protecting their Prime Minister from being found out by the House, would not Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell have been liable to the same kind of criminal charges which, for a lesser offence, Clive Ponting faced? Once persons, however eminent, get away with these bad habits, as with Rover and the way in which the Prime Minister got rid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, do they not do the same thing again in relation to the House which, were I so indelicate as to mention it, would mean that I would be suspended until Christmas?
    Mr. Luce: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not go into more detail. We have been over this time and again. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that there are detailed guidelines and he has no doubt referred to the copy that is available in the Library. On Westland, the matter has been debated on many occasions and I have nothing further to add.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister believe that European Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan was right when he said that Messrs Ingham and Powell improperly disclosed a Law Officer's report? If the Minister believes that, why are those two people in a completely different category from anyone else in the Civil Service? The Minister at least owes civil servants an answer to that question.
    Mr. Luce: As I have already said, and am delighted to say again, I have nothing further to add in relation to that case other than to say that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell are outstanding civil servants.

    Central Policy Unit
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what guidance is issued to senior civil servants at attendance of meetings of the central policy unit.
    Mr. Luce: Guidance on the circumstances in which civil servants may attend or participate in activities organised by outside bodies is set out in the personnel management handbook, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that, according to recent press reports, civil servants have been attending committees of the Centre for Policy Studies, a body established by Sir Keith Joseph and the Prime Minister a few years ago? Will he confirm that civil servants are at liberty to attend briefing committees of bodies that are associated with political parties?
    Mr. Luce: Clear guidelines are set down as to what civil servants can and cannot do. One key criterion is whether or not a particular organisation is part of a party political organisation. That is not the case in respect of the Centre for Policy Studies. Clear guidelines lay down that if civil servants attend meetings they must show impartiality, observe the confidences of Government, and show discretion in respect of any controversial issues.
    Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his contribution to the White Paper on the financing and accountability of next steps agencies. It is a great step forward in the programme for setting up agencies within Government.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the White Paper a new trading funds Bill, which will allow many of the newly constructed agencies of Government to operate within more commercial disciplines. That is good both for management and for the best use of Government resources.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister agree that this country has a long and honourable tradition of civil servants, including senior civil servants, being divorced from party politics? Is it not unfortunate that a number of civil servants, certainly those based at No. 10—Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell immediately come to mind—are very much associated in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members and in the minds of the public with a Conservative Government?
    Mr. Luce: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He knows as well as I do that the Civil Service demontrates the highest standards of impartiality. There is no shadow of doubt about that. It has demonstrated that impartiality under Labour Governments as well as under the present Government.

    Museums (Opening Hours)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he has had with the Civil Service unions about museum opening hours.
    Mr. Luce: I have had no discussions with Civil Service unions about museum opening hours. This is a matter for the directors and trustees of the national museums and galleries.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should encourage families to visit museums and galleries, but that all too often they are closed in the early evening, at weekends and on bank holidays, which are the very times when families could visit them? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Civil Service unions to play their part in making possible an extension of opening hours?
    Mr. Luce: I am impressed by the more flexible opening hours that museums now operate. Recently, the Victoria and Albert museum, for example, reintroduced Friday opening as a result of voluntary donations. The natural history museum has extended its Sunday opening hours, closing at 6 pm instead of 1 pm, and the imperial war museum is open daily from 10 am to 6 pm. That all demonstrates greater flexibility and concern for the public interest.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I associate myself with the question asked by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). Clearly one wants to encourage higher museum attendances through more flexible hours, but would not another way of doing that be to drop all admission charges, whether voluntary or mandatory. because they become a tax on knowledge?
    Mr. Luce: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should involve himself in the question of museum attendances, because this year will see higher attendances at British museums than ever before in our history. A total of 100 million people will have visited our museums,
    18
    compared with 68 million four years ago. The degree of support for, and attendance at, museums is at an unprecedented level.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a private sector organisation were to carry the value of stock that is carried by the average museum, it would have to remain open all the hours that God sends, and certainly at times most convenient to the public?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right, but his remarks stray a little from the subject of the Civil Service. Museums and galleries have a large reserve of works of art, but there is more and more evidence that they lend them out to other institutions. I am doing all that I can to encourage that process.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next intends to hold discussions with representatives of Civil Service trade unions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: I meet representatives of the Civil Service trade unions from time to time. A wide variety of matters are raised.
    Mr. Skinner: Notwithstanding all the Government's recent attacks on the pay of various sections of the working class, especially the ambulance crews, will the Minister confirm to the Civil Service unions that the Government do not have a pay policy? They were elected not to have one in 1979. As the Government's official policy on devaluation is rapidly taking place—there has been a 13 per cent. reduction in the past 12 months, which probably equates to a three percentage point increase on the inflation index—will the Minister tell those unions that their pay should be increased by at least that amount, on top of the 13 per cent?
    Mr. Luce: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not realise that Civil Service pay and the pay of specific groups, such as the ambulance men is the responsibility of individual Departments or for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide. I am startled that the hon. Gentleman prefaced his question by talking in class terms. Nothing is more divisive than considering public issues in terms of class and nothing could be more neolithic than the hon. Gentleman's attitude.

    Civil Servants (Morale)
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on measures taken to ensure the safety and maintain the morale of civil servants at risk from terrorist activity.
    Mr. Luce: There are a number of precautions in place to protect civil servants against the risk of terrorist attack. Other contingency measures are ready to be implemented if needed. It would not be in the public interest to reveal individual measures.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that Government buildings other than those of the Ministry of Defence, need protection against terrorist attacks? What will he do to reassure civil servants who work in those buildings that the Government are concerned for their safety?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is right. The first concern of Ministers must be the safety of their civil servants. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the
    20
    necessary steps are being taken to maintain a proper level of security, whether protection is provided by civil servants or by other agencies.

Storm Damage
3.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the storms over the weekend and on what plans he has to assist with any damage caused.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to report to the House about the violent storms that hit many coastal areas of the British Isles over the past weekend.
Tragically, it has been reported that eight people lost their lives, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing heartfelt condolences to the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives. I also extend my sympathy to those who have suffered damage to property or have been hurt.
It is apparent that the storms were severe and caused widespread damage, particularly in coastal areas. Obviously it is too soon to assess exactly how much damage has been done, the amount of work necessary and how much it will cost to put it right.
I am grateful to all the emergency and voluntary services who took part, often at great personal risk. The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies lies with local authorities. They have wide discretionary powers to spend money for such purposes under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, and they normally include an amount in their budgets to meet such contingencies. They also have the necessary local knowledge, resources and expertise to deal with such emergencies.
My hon. Friend asked whether the Government will bring additional national taxpayers' money to assist with the costs of dealing with the results of the storm. Under a model scheme designed to deal with the extraordinary costs arising from emergencies, known as the Bellwin scheme, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State provides special financial assistance to local authorities in certain exceptional circumstances. These are, in an emergency or disaster involving destruction of or danger to life or property; where, as a result, a local authority incurs expenditure on taking immediate action to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience in its area; or where those costs are not normally insurable.
The scheme has been used twice in England recently, following emergencies created by the severe weather during the winter of 1986–87 and the great storm of 1987, and once in Wales in 1987, following floods. We cannot yet tell whether the immediate emergency works necessary to deal with the aftermath of the storm will justify activating the scheme, but I have asked my officials to liaise with the local authorities whose areas have been worst affected to enable a judgment to be made as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be in touch with local authorities about arrangements there.
Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply and join him in thanking all the emergency services and local authorities in my area who acted so promptly in response to the flooding during the weekend. I am told that Preseli-Pembrokeshire district council dealt magnificently with the floods at Newgale,
22
which were shown on national television, and in which, as far as can be ascertained, we lost a police car. I must also praise the Royal Air Force at Brawdy, which airlifted people out of the Dale peninsula when they were in danger of being drowned. I am sure that the whole House joins the Minister and me in thanking those services for what they have done.
I represent a constituency with a long coast, so we have particular problems. Will specific help be given to coastal authorities in view of the severe damage that has been done? Will he consider assisting local authorities, if severe strain is put on their resources, by giving them extra help over and above that provided through the Bellwin formula?
Mr. Chope: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words about the emergency services and all those who pulled together to improve matters in his area. Coastal protection is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will examine any submissions from local authorities under the Bellwin formula.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I first offer my deepest sympathies to the families of the men who were lost in the firth of Clyde? Skipper Billy Irving was a fine professional fisherman and a member of the Clyde Fishing Association, of which I have the honour to be an honorary president. As Skipper Irving was going about his hazardous business when his vessel, the Destiny, foundered just a couple of hundred yards from Gourock, can the Minister, who is not responsible for these matters, convey to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who I am pleased to see on the Treasury Bench, the need for a fatal accident inquiry? Can he also convey to Scottish Office Ministers our anxieties about this loss?
Mr. Chope: I shall be very pleased to do that.
Mr. David Harris: On behalf of Cornish fishermen, I join those who have expressed their condolences, especially as we lost two of our fishermen just a few weeks ago. As my constituency—the Isles of Scilly and along the arc of Mount's bay—bore the brunt of the storm during the weekend, will my hon. Friend the Minister convey to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the urgent need to review coastal protection measures, especially in the Porthleven area which, as the whole nation saw on television last night, was especially badly hit by the storm? There is a need for an extension of coastal protection works and possibly a review of their extent. Will my hon. Friend kindly convey that message to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? No doubt I shall be knocking on his door very soon with local authorities.
Mr. Chope: Hon. Members are not the only people who are familiar with that part of the country. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will find solace in my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I also join in sending our condolences to the families of those whose lives were lost. We congratulate on their courage and heroism the emergency and voluntary services, not least in Cornwall and the Isle of Scilly which, as the hon. Member for St.

23
Ives (Mr. Harris) said, bore much of the brunt of the storms. In past occurrences, local authorities have encountered problems with getting funds through quickly enough to tackle the problems, particularly given their current financial constraints. Although I accept what the Minister said about the formula, and that it is not yet possible to ascertain whether it will come into play, will he ensure that everything is done to ensure that any funds that are needed are brought into action as quickly as possible with as few bureaucratic problems as possible?
Mr. Chope: I am happy to give the hon. Member that assurance. It is important that local authorities act now to repair the damage, without waiting for any bureaucratic procedures.
Dame Janet Fookes: Will my hon. Friend ensure that central Government make a speedy decision about what help is available, because delay adds to the uncertainties and difficulties of local authorities that are faced with the immense bill for capital works for coastal defences?
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will ensure that action is taken as quickly as possible.
Mr Harry Barnes: May I associate myself with the condolences that have been expressed, and voice my concern about the speed with which the Bellwin scheme is operated? When there was gale damage in the south of England some time ago, when we were in recess, the emergency was handled within five days, but when there was gale damage in Scotland, it was 13 weeks before the Bellwin scheme was applied. Local authorities have not applied the Bellwin scheme to many other cases which it should have covered. I am concerned that it should be applied to this case. The Minister said that the scheme covers amounts that are "not normally insurable". Is that traditionally part of the Bellwin scheme, or has it been added to it?
Mr. Chope: That has always been part of the Bellwin scheme. On the last occasion, there was a five-day gap before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to report to the House. This time, the delay has been between 24 and 36 hours. The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is why we are not able to say at this stage whether the Bellwin scheme will apply.
Mr. Anthony Steen: As the sea level is rising because of the greenhouse effect, while the Minister is working out his criteria for local authorities under the new community charge, will he give special grant to those areas with coastlines of more than so many miles? My constituency has 88 miles of coastline. Does he agree that some factor should be included in the formula so that, when such a catastrophe occurs, local authorities already have a fund which they can make available to repair any damage which occurs? For example, at Hope cove, a wall was completely destroyed, and at Blackpool sands an entire beach has disappeared.
Mr. Chope: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that emergency capital and reconstruction works can be undertaken by local authorities and the National
24
Rivers Authority and considered for grant by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if they meet the normal criteria, even if there is no prior approval.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that part of Lymington in my constituency was very seriously flooded, to a depth of 5 ft? Is he further aware that, thanks to the New Forest district council setting up a control post at 3.30 am on Sunday, and thanks to the tireless efforts of the police, the fire brigade and the social services, many of the problems have been resolved? Is he further aware that Hurst spit, which provides protection not only to my constituency but to all those along the Solent, has been breached in a number of places? Can he confirm that the compensation to which he referred earlier will cover that, should the district council require financial assistance?
Mr. Chope: I cannot decide at this stage whether any particular item of damage would be counted for compensation, but I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's point into account.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to give precedence to those hon. Members whose constituencies have been directly affected.
Mr. David Martin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that any funds allocated will be extra money and will not affect sanctions on local government expenditure when it is reckoned at the end of any particular financial year?
Mr. Chope: If additional money is payable under the Bellwin scheme, it will be in addition to the normal rate support grant.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend be making a statement before the House rises for the Christmas recess so that local authorities know what their financial position will be? Clearly, the decisions that they must take about what can be afforded will be related to whether the Bellwin formula will be operative.
Mr. Chope: I hope that local authorities, which budget to deal with such emergencies, will not be inhibited in making the expenditure necessary to put right the damage. We shall take a decision as quickly as possible about whether the Bellwin formula should apply. The ball is in the local authorities' court, because it is for them to make the necessary application.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why is it that one Department cannot pay local authorities, which have lost millions of pounds over the past 10 years as a result of the Government's actions, some money to help them out when there has been a disaster, because the Minister says "It is a complicated formula which will take a long time to work out," but when the Department of Energy has to find £250,000 to pay Lord Marshall a tidy sum for kidding the people—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is miles wide of the subject.
Mr. Skinner: Why do the Government have double standards—one for local authorities and another for people such as Lord Marshall?
Mr. Chope: I am afraid that it is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he should wish to bring party politics into this tragedy.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The homes of quite a number of families in Holywood in my constituency were flooded at the weekend. Extensive damage was done to homes, furnishings and personal belongings. Insurance companies will not provide rapid or adequate payment. I therefore appeal to the Government to help to mitigate the emergency in the area by ensuring that prompt compensation is made to help them until insurance companies pay out.
Mr. Chope: It is clear from the comments of hon. Members that speed of action is all-important in this case.
Mr. Tony Banks: While we do not have a seaboard in Newham—or we certainly did not have this morning when I left it—we in the inner city are concerned about the risks that people who supply us with our fish must run. At times such as this, they and their hazardous jobs are high in our minds. It was good of the Minister to praise the emergency services.
As Ministers regularly do so on occasions such as this, would it not be better to pay the emergency services, such as the ambulance workers, the money that they deserve? Will the Minister say whether all the local authorities in the south-east and in London have been fully compensated for the storm damage that he mentioned of October 1987? Certainly in the south-east, there is still much evidence of the damage that occurred on that day.
Mr. Chope: So far as I am aware, all the claims made under the Bellwin scheme for the 1987 storm have been settled. We all praise the emergency services, but it is important to remember that many people work in these circumstances for nothing—particularly, for example, those who work for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.
Mr. Clive Soley: The whole House will unreservedly agree with the Minister's remarks about compassion for those who lost their lives and for their families; that goes without saying for every hon. Member. We should like to know whether the Government will discuss with insurance companies what they think is a fair assessment for people who are not covered by insurance, including local authorities. That is important, because not all risks are insurable. It falls on the Government to consult insurance companies as well as local authorities.
We are worried about charities. Hon. Members have commented on the important work of the voluntary sector. Will the Government be prepared to recognise its contribution by considering grants for it where it has cost extra money to involve itself in rescue services?
26
Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the emergency services—including, specifically, the ambulance service, which at times has not been given the support of management that it deserves? Now is an opportunity for the Minister to associate himself fully with the work done by the ambulance service, despite the current industrial dispute.
My final point is of immense importance—I believe that this is the first occasion when such an issue has been before the House when Conservative Member after Conservative Member has asked for extra money for the local authorities. Most Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), have spent most of their political careers working out ways in which they can cut, undermine and demoralise the power and resources of the local authorities, yet as soon as there is a bit of trouble in their constituencies, they all want the local authorities to solve it.
One answer that I did not hear the Minister give, and which I should like him to give, is in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) who put his finger on it when he asked, "If the local authorities get any money, will they later lose it?" I want a clear commitment from the Minister now that extra money will be available, not that it may be available. We understand that he cannot say how much, but we need to know that it will be available and that it will not later be taken back, as the Government have consistently taken back such money over the past 10 years, emergency or no emergency.
Mr. Chope: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman should try to make party political points on this occasion. It is common right across the House that we pay tribute to the work of the emergency services, whether the fire service, the ambulance service, the police or the voluntary organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. We genuinely appreciate their work. This Government give generous grants to the voluntary sector. We have recently announced some generous arrangements for rate relief for charities' premises. I hope that local authorities will exercise their discretion to make that relief even more generous. The Government have a good record of commitment to the voluntary services.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if any money is paid to local authorities under the Bellwin scheme, that money will belong to the local authorities and will certainly not be taken back by the Government. There would be no purpose in that. However, no decision has yet been taken on whether the Bellwin scheme applies in this case. We shall have to wait to see the submissions from the local authorities. I hope that they will bring them forward as soon as possible.

Local Government Finance (Wales)
3.51 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on local government finance in Wales. I have already made it clear that, in order to assist local authorities in Wales, I would announce the 1990–91 grant settlement before Christmas. I propose to lay the reports for 1990–91 on Wednesday; but I am today placing in the Library a paper detailing my settlement decisions. I will be sending copies of the reports and of further technical data to all Welsh local authorities on Wednesday.
In summary, the settlement provides for a realistic level of total standard spending of £2,114·5 million, well up on the equivalent figure for 1989–90. Aggregate external finance at £1,738·5 million is increased by no less than 8·6 per cent. Within this, and as compared with my provisional estimates in November, revenue support grant has been increased by a further £10·4 million to £1,141·3 million, and the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account has been reduced by the same amount to £443 million.
This is an excellent settlement. It is good for non-domestic ratepayers because a uniform poundage of 36·8p across Wales will provide the certainty and stability they have been seeking and because their contribution of £443 million, which is only 20 per cent. of local government spending, is over £10 million lower than I predicted in November.
It is good for community charge payers because it presents local authorities with an outstanding opportunity to keep community charges down. They know, and their electorate will know, that the burden of overspending is borne entirely by charge payers. This will bring realism to the local authority budgeting process.
The increase in total standard spending should allow authorities to maintain, and where appropriate to develop, services—particularly if councils achieve the efficiency savings which the Audit Commission has identified and which, commendably, they have been seeking.
There is no reason for local authorities to budget to exceed total standard spending, and no reason for the average community charge in Wales to be more than £173. This is the true measure of the excellence of this settlement for the Principality.
Charge payers will expect their councils to set their community charges in line with this settlement. They will very quickly appreciate that expenditure increases which exceed this will result in higher charges, and will wish to satisfy themselves that they are not being asked to pay the price of overspending and inefficiency. It will be for councils, particularly those whose spending exceeds their standard spending assessment and who set higher charges, to justify their decisions to their electorate.
Similarly, charge payers will not expect those councils whose spending falls below their standard spending assessment to increase their spending by more than I have allowed for if they are already efficiently providing an appropriate level of service.
I intend to introduce a scheme of community charge transitional relief, carefully tailored to reflect Welsh circumstances. For 1990–91, I am providing £20 million in grant to fund this scheme; resources will also be made available for the following two years. This scheme replaces
28
and improves upon the safety net that I proposed in July. It is carefully targeted and cost-effective. I have placed in the Library provisional details of the communities which may receive additional grant. The scheme is fully funded by the Government and an area safety net will not be required. This additional grant will reduce the average community charge which should be payable in Wales to about £165.
In addition, community charge rebates will be available for those on low incomes, and I urge all charge payers who may be eligible for a rebate to apply for one to their local councils. Those on the lowest incomes in Wales will actually be better off with the community charge than if they had received a 100 per cent. rebate under the old rating system.
Under this excellent settlement, central Government and non-domestic ratepayers will together finance around 85 per cent. of local government revenue expenditure in the Principality. It follows that only 15 per cent. of local government expenditure will be met by charge payers. In the light of this, charge payers have every right to expect their local councils to protect their interests by budgeting sensibly, by containing their spending to affordable levels and by keeping the community charge low.
Mr. Barry Jones: I must tell the Secretary of State that, based on the provisional figures announced at the end of November, Mr. Gwyn Davies, the chairman of the Welsh Association of District Councils and Mr. Fred Kingdom, chairman of the Welsh Counties Committee, are of the view that, to cover costs for next year, some 3 to 4 per cent. more money is needed. Is he aware that, when poll tax demands fall through letter boxes in a few months' time, people in Wales will wonder why the amount is so much higher than the £173 that he has widely publicised? The Secretary of State will try to put the blame on local councils but the buck starts, and it stops, with him and his statement today.
Does the Secretary of State not realise that the statement borders on a confidence trick? It is not an excellent statement: it is deplorable. It will destabilise rather than stabilise. There is no room for efficiency savings after 10 years of Conservative Government. Therefore, will he concede that the statement is some 3 to 4 per cent. short; that the standard poll tax will be not £173 but £210 per year; that 2 million poll tax payers in Wales will pay £30 to £40 extra per person than he says; that the valleys communities will be hit very hard; that expenditure provision is £80 million short of what councils say they need to spend, and that the revenue support grant is £40 million short? The statement ignores persistent high inflation, high interest rates, and salary and wage increases of 9 per cent. which must be funded. The Secretary of State has not found the money to do so.
Does the Secretary of State understand that, if local councils in Wales spend, on average, 4 per cent. more than the provisional allocation, the poll tax charge for two-adult families—according to the district councils, not the Opposition—might increase by 50 per cent. in Dinefwr, Llanelli, Pwllelli, Islwyn, Arfon, Merionnydd and Rhymney Valley; by 66 per cent. in Merthyr Tydfil, Lliw Valley and Neath; by 75 per cent. in Port Talbot; by 90 per cent. in Blaenau Gwent and Cynon Valley; and by 123 per cent. in the Rhondda. What have the valleys communities done to deserve such a system? This is supposed to be the season of good will, but today the

29
Secretary of State for Wales is implementing a deeply unpopular measure. He should know that Wales hates the whole concept of the poll tax.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the people who will benefit from the poll tax settlement will be those who occupy large, high-rateable-value houses? Has he forgotten that the transitional relief will be phased out over three years, just after the next general election? What a coincidence. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this statement will not help district councils to increase the number of environmental health officers and their back-up technical staff in a year when Wales has suffered serious outbreaks of listeria and salmonella. Yet again, he leaves our councils short in that sphere.
How can local councils step up their excellent work to encourage new industries if, as a result of the statement, they will be short of the means to create new jobs? How can our councils build new homes when they estimate that their spending will be 13 per cent. down on their current expenditure? The Government have enforced the sale of 72,000 council houses in Wales, but they have not given the councils the means to build new council homes.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman wrapped the poll tax round the necks of the Welsh people? Surely the poll tax in Wales in a Tory tax. It is the Secretary of State's tax, as he has given the poll tax to the people of Wales. Does he understand that, when the general election comes, there will be nobody behind him in support?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has come out with a long statement, most of it totally inaccurate. Without exception, all the percentages he quoted are inaccurate. Let us get one percentage absolutely correct—the one for his constituency. There, on average, the community charge will be 15 per cent. below the average domestic rate charged in the past. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to convey to his constituents the adverse effects of the settlement.
It is nonsense to say that a settlement which is 7–1 per cent. above the budgets of the local authorities for the previous year is a scandalous cut in local government expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman wants to adopt a system under which there were scandalous cuts, he will have to go back to the time when he was a Minister at the Welsh Office. In his final three years at the Welsh Office, there was a cut in real terms in the rate support grant every year. I am glad to say that, in the past four years, there has been no cut in real terms in the rate support grant.
The hon. Gentleman also said that, after 10 years of Conservative Government, there was no room for any improvements in local government efficiency. That is one of the classic quotes from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. The Audit Commission recently had meetings with the local authorities, which agreed that a host of improvements could be made in efficiency. It is deplorable that, given his responsibilities, the hon. Gentleman should suggest that local authorities in Wales should not look for further improvements.
I am delighted to say that one of the results of new business rate is that the valleys will pay £11 million less in business rates than under the present system. That is very much to their advantage, and the scheme I have announced this afternoon contains additional great advantages for those valleys. Opposition Members always cite the terrible low incomes of those in the valleys. In the Rhondda, the substantial number of people who have been
30
receiving 100 per cent. rebates under the rate rebate scheme will receive 130 per cent. rebates under the new scheme.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall be here to support him after the next general election. However, even his legendary skill at extracting blood from the Treasury's stony heart—which has brought such great benefits to Wales generally and ensured that the levels of poll tax in Wales will be appreciably lower than in the United Kingdom as a whole—cannot make sense of this nonsensical system for financing local government. Can it be right that a local authority such as Rhuddlan in my constituency, which has managed its affairs with skill and prudence, should find that its grant has been cut by £750,000·20 per cent. on its last year's grant? This will oblige it to increase the poll tax by 50 per cent. Does not that show that, despite my right hon. Friend's efforts to modify the effect on Wales, the system is preposterous and those who denounced it from the start were absolutely right?
Mr. Walker: I think that my hon. Friend will discover that, when local authorities study the figures and my announcement this afternoon, they will find that the figures he has given are not accurate. Instead of the average rates in Rhuddlan being £201 per adult, as they were under the rating system, they will be £199. As a result of the new system, in the other part of his constituency, the district of Colwyn—a place which has many retired people —there will be rate reductions of about 17 per cent.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Secretary of State for telling us how prosperous local government is in Wales. In that context, will he explain why each of us in rural areas meets weekly ever-increasing queues of young people who can no longer find housing in their own area? Will he explain why unmarried mothers with children whom they are looking after increasingly have to go into unsuitable halfway house accommodation where they cannot look after their children properly? Will he explain why, in the context of the prosperity of which he boasts, local authorities can no longer meet those priority housing needs?
Mr. Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that we have substantially increased expenditure on Housing for Wales, which, in turn, is substantially increasing its grant to housing associations throughout the community—that is having a considerable impact. Under the settlement, we have ensured that, under the new statutory arrangements, there will be a substantial increase in expenditure on improvement grants and the backlog of improvement grants, which are important in many rural areas.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has fought an effective and successful fight to gain a reasonable settlement for Wales as a whole, he will appreciate that I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) because together we represent the borough of Rhuddlan in this House. Is my right hon. Friend also aware of the concern in the borough of Delyn where the settlement appears to have been penalised because of the way in which it finances expenditure on industrial development?
Mr. Walker: The system that is operated in local authorities has operated for several years. It was discussed with local authority associations as to whether any change should be made, and the associations agreed that the existing system was the right one to keep. Therefore, Delyn's financing process was one that it used knowing what the past rules were and the fact that the local authority associations did not want any change in those rules.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State recognise, as he did a while ago, that our Welsh local authorities are not inefficient, but have a splendid record? Will he also recognise that the unrealistic poll tax figures which he has put out are seen by all local authorities for what they are: simply a red herring to disguise the full implications of what will undoubtedly be an unpopular policy?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman says that an increase of 7·1 per cent. on the budgets of the local authorities for last year is a red herring. However, it is a perfectly accurate assessment with which, due to the improvements in efficiency which have taken place, the Welsh authorities can certainly cope. I am delighted that in Newport the likely reduction, compared with the rating system, will be about 14 per cent. per adult.
We have not yet heard what scheme of local government finance the Opposition intend to bring in. They announced one scheme and abandoned it due to its unpopularity. Presumably, given reductions like those in Newport and Cardiff, they will not go back to the rating system. The people of Wales need to know soon exactly what the Labour party will do about local government finance.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. friend on his statement and advise him not to shout too loudly in this House about his achievements, in case our English colleagues hear exactly what the people of Wales have managed to achieve. Is it not true that in Wales 67 per cent—two thirds—of all local government expenditure comes from central Government, whereas the comparable figure in Scotland is 56 per cent. and in England only 46 per cent.? That is an excellent achievement.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that my ratepayers, who now number 50 per cent. of the electorate, will be pleased to find that in future everyone who has a vote in local elections will make some contribution to the services that they enjoy?
Mr. Walker: Certainly the average community charge in Wales will be £100 per person lower than in England or Scotland. The people of Wales should rejoice about that; it is something that I find it difficult to explain to my constituents in Worcester.
Mr. Alan Williams: Has not the Secretary of State been proved wrong yet again? Does he recollect how dismissive he was in November when he forecast a figure of £173 and I forecast one of £200? He regarded my figure as scaremongering.
The Secretary of State said that the burden of overspending would be borne entirely by the chargepayer, but is it not equally true that the burden of under-provision will also be borne entirely by the charge payer if the gap is offset by cuts? As the figure that the right
32
hon. Gentleman announced today—of 7 per cent.—is lower than inflation, has he not announced a formula that will mean savage cuts in Wales in the next 12 months?
Mr. Walker: In November I gave a figure of £174; I now give it as £173, which, with the rebate scheme that I have announced, will come to £165.
If the inflation rate for this year proves to be above 7·1 per cent. and if there is no improvement in efficiency, it could be argued that local authorities and charge payers will be squeezed, but that will be as nothing compared with the 8 per cent. drop in real terms that took place when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Welsh Office.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite what he has said today, the valley communities, of which Neath is one, will be especially hard hit? Is he aware that we prefer to accept what we are told by local government officials–that there will be a 3 to 4 per cent. shortfall? Is he further aware that, in a two-adult household in Neath, there will be an increase of 66 per cent. as a result of the poll tax? How does he think that we will be able to afford to pay for roads, environmental protection, schools and the promotion of jobs? Is not this testimony to what the valleys initiative has been all about?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's figure of 66 per cent. for Neath is not correct. With the interim relief, it will be much lower than he has suggested.
My answer on spending in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is: it depends. If he is arguing that will be a 3 or 4 per cent. gap, he is saying that we should be giving Neath an 11·1 per cent. increase on last year's budget—
Mr. Coleman: Yes.
Mr. Walker: If that is what is required in the hon. Gentleman's view, the people of Neath will have to see what it means and compare it with the present system, under which 85 per cent. of all local government expenditure in Wales is met either by the business community or by the Government. In no other part of the United Kingdom is only 15 per cent. of it met by the charge payers.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: But is it not true that, stripped of its gloss and technicalities, the right hon. Gentleman's statement, once interim relief is over, will mean that the real poll tax charged to working-class home-owning households in valley communities such as New Tredegar, Merthyr Vale, Aberfan and Brithdir will increase hugely as compared with the position under the present rating system?
How can the Secretary of State possibly justify that? I know that he has nothing to lose in those communities but he has gained nothing politically. However, he has a reputation to lose. He was supposed to be sensitive and caring to the needs of the valley communities, but he will destroy any reputation by implementing this inequitable system.
Mr. Walker: Without the interim relief, which makes quite a contribution in Merthyr Tydfil, the community charge would go to £167, compared with an average of £131 per adult previously. Merthyr will also have the benefit of its share of the £11 million lower rates on businesses in the valley area. There are many people in Merthyr on low incomes and they will get the benefit of

33
much better rebates than under the previous system. A total analysis of Merthyr shows a very good result. The total cost in Merthyr to a charge payer who does not receive any rebate at all will be £100 a year less than for people in England or Scotland.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State said that the total standard spending of £2·114 billion will be "well up" on the equivalent figure for this year. Can he tell us the percentage by which it will be up, and whether the amount was agreed with local authorities? Does he stick by the assurance which was widely broadcast in the Welsh press last month, that no one will face an increase greater than £25 a year?
Mr. Walker: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I think that I will probably have to change the figure and say that nobody will pay more than £20. However, I cannot be certain about that. That will apply in all communities designated for the relief under the system that local authority associations in Wales agreed was the best system to apply. It will also apply to people who are not in such communities, but in all communities designated for the relief it is likely that people will finish up with a maximum increase of £20. I shall try to get the exact constituency figure. It is substantial.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State agree that he seems to be brushing aside the assessment of every district council and county council in Wales of the amount that they really need? In my county of Mid Glamorgan the councils have worked out that their needs assessment is greater by about 3 per cent. than the amount to be provided by the Welsh Office. On that assessment alone, those councils will need £20 a head in poll tax more than the Welsh Office estimates. The council treasurer in the district of Ogwr, half of which I represent, has said that the figures so far provided do not take account of the fact that last year about £800,000 was taken from the reserves to maintain the services in the borough. The Welsh Office assumes that the borough can do that again this year, but it cannot.
The Welsh Office has not yet announced the new debt redemption rules, which will have an effect on the amount of poll tax that has to be levied. The Welsh Office seems to be assuming that everybody who registers for the poll tax will pay, but we know that in Scotland at least 10 per cent. did not. That has to be taken into account. Will the Secretary of State admit that, all in all, it is the Welsh Office that has got it wrong and not the local authorities in Wales?
Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will excuse me while I reply to the previous question asked by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The percentage increase is 9·4 per cent.
Under the present arrangements, I do not think that there will be a substantial increase in the borough of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). The hon. Gentleman claims that all local authorities suggest that their spending will be higher than the Government estimate. I have had the privilege of being a Member of the House for 30 years, under Governments of every complexion, and I have never known a rate support settlement under any Government being greeted by local authorities with the words, "The Government have given us exactly what we want and have agreed with our
34
estimates." But the worst period was under the last three years of the last Labour Government in which the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was at the Welsh Office.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Minister realise that many poor people who do not qualify for rebates, although they work on low pay and live in poor quality housing, even with transitional relief will face increases of 25 or 30 per cent. in their bills? When that transitional relief goes in two years' time, hundreds of thousands of people in Wales will find their bills doubled. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those people?
Mr. Walker: I would tell them not to listen to the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Kim Howells: The Secretary of State is no doubt aware that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has identified a number of problems, endemic to the valley communities, that will require large expenditure. These include cleaning up the environment and identifying landfill sites full of methane. How will local authorities pay the huge amounts of money that will be needed to drain such sites without the kind of increases that have already been suggested?
Mr. Walker: On the general improvement in the environment in the valleys, the total expenditure going, for example, on derelict land clearance is on an all-time, historic scale and way above any level previously achieved, and it is a committed programme for the next three years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that all the remaining hon. Members who wish to ask a question are Front-Bench spokesmen. I ask them to have consideration for the 40 hon. Members who wish to take part in the coming debate. I should appreciate it if they were brief.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I thank the Secretary of State for Wales for the letter that he sent me today apologising for the wildly inaccurate and misleading figure that he gave me in an answer to an oral question that I asked a week ago today. Will he avoid further embarrassment for himself by revising the figure of the standard poll tax that he has given, with which every treasurer in Wales seems to disagree? Will he agree with these local authorities, which have a fine record of good value service, and say that the average ratepayer in Wales faces an increase of 20 per cent.? Or will he wait to send every poll tax payer in Wales a letter of apology because he has cruelly misled them today?
Mr. Walker: I sent the hon. Gentleman a letter that clearly stated the nature of the figures, and gave him two figures instead of the one that I had presented. I then sent a copy of that letter to the Library. To suggest, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that there was something terrible about that when the letter confirmed that the average wages in Wales and in his constituency in real terms were much higher than when the Government took over from the last Labour Government, is wrong.
I should hate the public to get a false impression from what the hon. Gentleman has said. The people of Newport will be paying less under the community charge then they were under the rating system, and I shall see that all the

35
electors of his constituency are circulated with these figures, so that they can compare them with those in the scare campaigns that the hon. Gentleman has conducted on the community charge.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will know that teachers' pay is well over half the education budget, and that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already announced that teachers' pay will be increased by 7·5 per cent. from 1 April next year. That figure is likely to be increased by the interim advisory committee. Therefore, how does the Secretary of State expect Welsh local authorities to manage with what is a GDP inflator of about 5 per cent. when this year, they have to make special provision for local management? How can they ensure that local management will get off on a good footing with this great burden?
Mr. Walker: The 7·1 per cent. increase in budgets—9·4 per cent. of total spending—and the potential improvement in efficiency will enable authorities to cope with the problem of teachers' pay.
Mr. Ron Davies: Why did the Secretary of State use the figure of 2 per cent. on which to base his inflation forecast?
Mr. Walker: He didn't.
Dr. John Marek: In view of the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Clywd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), and of the fact that he will inflict it on the people in Wales from next April, would he give the House two or three sentences of full, wholesome and unstinting praise of the poll tax?
Mr. Walker: Certainly. The people of Wales should be grateful for and pleased with any tax that produces the result that the people of Wales, on average, pay £100 per person less than the people of Scotland and England, and under which 85 per cent. of local government expenditure is met by the business community and Government.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Secretary of State tell the local authorities of Wales how they are supposed to make up next year for the shortfall announced over the weekend by the EC of £20 million a year, if not £25 million, in European regional development fund receipts over the next few years?
36
Will he explain why it is that the people of Wales are asked to choose between believing the right hon. Gentleman, who says that the 7 per cent. or 7·1 per cent. increase is okay, and non-political city treasurers like John Markham in Cardiff, who says that 11 per cent. is necessary and that the right hon. Gentleman's settlement is causing great anger in the city hall?
Mr. Walker: If there is one city in the United Kingdom that should be pleased about going over to the community charge, it is Cardiff, where it is likely to result in a 22 per cent. cut in domestic contribution. That is the largest reduction in Wales and no safety provison—[Interruption.] I look forward to making sure that the people of Cardiff recognise how lucky they have been.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will not the Secretary of State accept that many of his figures are misleading? Will he not accept also that his statement makes nonsense of consultation, and that it has been condemned by hon. Members on both sides of the House? He has stuck precisely to both the total standard spending level and the aggregate external financing level with which he started the process. The right hon. Gentleman has not listened to councillors and treasurers throughout Wales, who have explained that this level of settlement is inadequate. Will he listen to the House and accept that a standstill in local authority spending will require a level of standard poll tax of more like £210 than his £173, and that only after belt tightening? The right hon. Gentleman is the person who is introducing poll tax in Wales, and the people of Wales know that he is the person who will be responsible for the heavy level of poll tax that will be contained in the demands that fall through their letter boxes.
Mr. Walker: The manner in which the Labour party is trying to urge local authorities in Wales to go in for extravagant expenditure—[Interruption.] The Labour party says that an increase of 9·4 per cent. in total standard spending is inadequate and unreasonable and that much more should be given—that is from a party which cut rate support grant in real terms year after year when the Labour Government were in office—when the fact is that we have made a perfectly reasonable and sensible assessment. There is no reason why the community charge in Wales should not be the figure which I have given, of £173 on average.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is widely expected that the ombudsman's report on the Barlow Clowes scandal will be available to hon. Members tomorrow. As you will know, the report is especially important to me as the first Member of this place to ask the ombudsman to undertake an investigation. In a letter that I have received from Sir Anthony Barrowclough, he tells me of his intention to
"arrange for all 650 Members to be notified, on the day the report issues, that a copy of the report will be available for him (or her) to collect from 3.30 pm that day (from the Vote Office)."
The letter also states:
"I understand from the Department of Trade and Industry that the Government will be publishing its response to the report at the same time."
If the Secretary of State is to make a statement in response to the ombudsman's report simultaneously with its publication, will that not put hon. Members in difficulty? We shall presumably have to choose between obtaining the report from the Vote Office and listening to the Government's response in the Chamber. Nor will there be any opportunity even to try to influence the Government's response. Indeed, we shall not have seen the report, which has been known to Ministers for some weeks, before the Government give their response. Is there any help or guidance that you can give to the House on this important matter, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: First, I am not aware officially that a statement is to be made tomorrow. I understand, however, the difficulty which has been mentioned. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House, who is on the Government Front Bench, will have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. There may be—
Mr Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I have not finished yet.
There may be other opportunities during the week— perhaps during the Consolidated Fund debate or during the Christmas Adjournment debates—to deal with this matter.
Mr. Michael: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having received a letter similar to that referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I wrote immediately to the ombudsman and asked for sufficient copies of his letter for all my constituents who have been worrying over many months in a similar way to the constituents of my right hon. Friend. I asked the ombudsman to ensure and guarantee straight away that there would be sufficient copies so that each of my constituents could have one.
All those who have contacted me over the weekend have stressed that they want to see exactly what the ombudsman has said. They want their own copies of the report. As it appears that we cannot question individual Ministers because of the independence of the ombudsman, is there some way in which you, Mr. Speaker, on our behalf, can draw to the attention of the ombudsman the importance of Members of Parliament, who seek to serve their constituents, being provided with sufficient copies to give to indivdual constituents?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the report will be laid tomorrow, and it will then be available in the Vote Office. I am not certain that it is within my responsibilities to ensure that every constituent who has been affected should receive a copy, but no doubt sufficient copies will be available for hon. Members to pass on.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given you prior notice, through the Clerk Assistant, about the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill. The matter is urgent because the Bill begins its Committee stage tomorrow, and I well understand that a motion needs to be moved if the Bill is to be committed to a Special Standing Committee, at which there can be hearings, before we begin our discussions in Standing Committee.
This matter involves £10,000 million for the PSA and £3,000 million for the Crown Suppliers. That amounts to billions of pounds, so the matter cannot be peripheral. It is highly desirable that the Government make arrangements, as they can do very easily, to withdraw the Bill from Standing Committee and instead have two or three hearings under the Special Standing Committee procedure. The new head of the PSA should be heard, and so should the trade unions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very busy day ahead and I think that I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. The relevant motion was not moved last week when it could have been moved. Any hon. Member could have moved the motion, but that did not happen. There is nothing that I can do about it now.
Mr. Dalyell: May I explain why it was not moved? At that time, it was not clear that the Government would not answer parliamentary questions. They said the trade union evidence was tendentious, but when asked what was tendentious about it, they replied in general, and would not be specific. There needs to be a proper inquiry of two or three sessions before we discuss the Bill in Standing Committee.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may well be right hut, unhappily, the opportunity has been missed. Perhaps on future occasions what the hon. Gentleman has said about motions on the Order Paper relating to the Special Standing Committee procedure should be borne in mind. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is to serve on the Committee, so he can raise these matters when it meets.
Ms. Joyce Quin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter about which I have given you notice. It appears that today the Government have made a major and detailed statement on the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, via a written answer to a parliamentary question. They have done so despite the fact that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry asked the Minister to make a statement to the House, and despite the fact that the matter is of great interest to many hon. Members. The written answer appears to have been originally designed as an oral statement because it ends with the words, with which we are all familiar, "I commend them"—the changes—"to the House".
The privatisation of a large part of the ECGD and the weakening of our export promotion drive when Britain has a projected £20 billion trade deficit is obviously a matter of great concern to hon. Members. I wish to protest most

39
strongly about the statement being made in the form of a written answer rather than as an oral statement that could be properly questioned and debated.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady gave me notice of that matter. The terms of the written answer are not a matter for me. I do not know whether the final sentence that she mentioned should have been there. I fully understand the wish to the House to have numerous statements, but we have to consider the pressure on our time for debates. Today, no fewer than 40 right hon. and hon. Members seek to participate, and if we have numerous points of order, some will, I fear be disappointed.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench spokesman and he ought to have some regard for his colleagues.
Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The non-statement to the House involves 770 jobs in Cardiff. I seek your guidance, as a somewhat unusual device was used. At 12.15 pm today, an officer in the private office of the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry attempted to buy off the demand for a statement by asking hon. Members representing south Wales with an interest in the 770 jobs at the ECGD insurance services group in Cardiff to attend a meeting at his department at 4.30 this afternoon. That is a revolutionary way of conducting government, as I had always understood that this House was the Parliament of the British people.
Mr. Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is also a Front-Bench spokesman.
Mr. Michael: The trouble is that it is disgraceful to have decisions thrown at us in this way. I do not like taking up the time of the House any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). If the Government were not trying to scrap jobs, ignore hon. Members on both sides of the House, ignore the firms which want the ECGD to continue in existence, and ignore the chamber of commerce and all the advice, we would not have to waste the House's time with points of order. I hope that the Government's attention can be drawn to that.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not a matter for me whether oral statements are made. However, I am sure that those who are responsible will have heard what has been said.

Orders of the Day

  Broadcasting Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I repeat that there is great pressure to participate in the debate. I therefore propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 and 8 o' clock. I hope that those hon. Members who are called before that, and certainly those afterwards, will bear the limit in mind as it will enable the Chair to call more of the hon. Members who wish to participate in this important debate.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who hopes to be called outside that period, may I ask whether it would not be better and fairer for all, since a large number of hon. Members wish to speak, if the limit on speeches was from 6 to 9 o'clock?
  Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, that is perhaps a consummation devoutly to be wished, but it is not within my power.
  4.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  The Bill owes a great deal to the excellent report on the future of broadcasting that the Select Committee on Home Affairs published in June last year. The report recognised that British broadcasting has a rich tradition with great achievements to its credit, and so does the Bill.
  One thing that the Bill does not do is mark the demise of public service broadcasting. The programming remits of BBC1, BBC2, Radios 1 to 4 and BBC local radio will not be touched in any way by the Bill. Channel 4 in addition to its public service obligations, will continue to be required, as now, to be innovative and distinctive, and to cater for tastes and interests not adequately met by Channel 3. Channel 4 will become responsible for the sale of its own advertising time, but financial underpinning will be there if necessary. The Welsh fourth channel will also continue with its successful programme remit. Three of the four terrestrial channels will thus have the same programming obligations as now. Channel 3, however, will also be expected to continue to produce good programmes, as will Channel 5. When our proposals are outlined, I do not believe for a moment that anyone will be able to argue, other than tongue in cheek, that we are creating a "philistines' charter" or "yob television".
  The Bill provides a sensible regulatory framework for a new age in broadcasting in which technological change has brought vastly increased choice. It points no accusing finger at the conscientious way in which the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the Cable Authority have done their jobs under the Broadcasting Act 1981 and the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, but those measures are simply out of date.
  Since the publication of the White Paper, we have taken account of a wide range of views. On important issues—ranging from the quality tests and the licence allocation

  41
  procedure to the night hours and the ownership rules—we have made substantial changes, but the basic principles on which the Bill is constructed remain.
  First, we want viewers and listeners to enjoy the increased choice that is now possible. Therefore the Bill authorises Channel 5, three new national radio services, local multi-channel franchises able to use microwave as well as, or instead of, cable, and many new local and community radio stations. We do not know precisely how fast broadcasting will expand, but expansion there will certainly be—and the legislation must cater for it.
  The appetite for a much wider choice of local radio stations is clear. When the IBA recently offered a further 23 local radio contracts, the scheme attracted no fewer than 540 letters of intent, with little indication that all that the promoters wanted was pop and more pop. Under the future arrangements, new stations will cater for a wide range of tastes, from jazz to classical music. They will reflect the interests of neighbourhoods, of ethnic minority groups, and of other communities of interest—and there will be three new national independent radio channels.
  Secondly, the Bill fully recognises that aspects such as programme quality and diversity, regional links, healthy and widespread ownership of broadcasting companies and proper geographical coverage cannot simply be left to take care of themselves. It therefore provides sharply focused statutory safeguards for all of them. It also incorporates a wider and more flexible set of enforcement sanctions, including financial penalties and performance bonds.
  Thirdly, the Bill acknowledges that television and radio are powerful media with potential—if abused—to offend, exploit and cause harm. It therefore contains safeguards for programme standards on taste, decency, accuracy and balance—and extends them to all United Kingdom based broadcasters. It removes the broadcasters' exemptions from the law of obscenity and incitement to racial hatred, and it establishes a key role for the Broadcasting Standards Council in overseeing standards of taste and decency. It also implements the Council of Europe convention and the EC directive. Those instruments contain enforcement mechanisms that the United Kingdom can activate against broadcasts originating in other European countries where programmes are pornographic or glamorise violence. The Bill also provides draconian sanctions against those who support unacceptable foreign satellite services receivable here.
  Many points will arise in the debate, but there are three key matters with which I ought to deal now. They are competitive tender, ownership and quality.
  Our proposal that Channel 3, Channel 5 and certain other licences should be allocated by competitive tender has two main objectives. First, we want to establish a fairer and more objective system for awarding franchises than the present one, which has few defenders, but at the same time to ensure high standards and diversity. Secondly, we have a clear duty, which some campaigners gloss over far too quickly, to ensure that the taxpayer gets a proper return for the use of the valuable and scarce national resources constitued by broadcasting rights and, in particular, the use of the frequency spectrum.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Home Secretary used the phrase "gloss over". Will he give one concrete example of what he means by that?
  Mr. Waddington: I mean that if the state is to allot to certain persons a valuable legal right, the state is entitled to claim in exchange a return for the taxpayer. One is not talking about the right of individuals but about claiming for the taxpayer a return on the valuable rights allotted by Government.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Would not the taxpayer derive more benefit from the auctioning off of those national resources if the money raised were invested in programme production and training? That would represent better value for the taxpayer than the Treasury amassing more and more money that it cannot spend for fear of inflation.
  Mr. Waddington: I do not accept that argument for one moment. A person entering into the bidding process will have very much in mind what he can afford to pay. He will therefore pay the proper price for the valuable right that he is given. That will be fair both to him and to the taxpayer.
  If we are to enjoy high standards and diversity, there must be ownership rules. The Bill includes in schedule 2 much clearer and more extensive ownership rules than anything that we have now. There is no chance whatsoever of British broadcasting falling into the hands of a bunch of tycoons or a cluster of conglomerates. To prevent that, the Bill provides the means for implementing the limits on ownership which were clearly set out by my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in his announcement of 19 May.
  Non-EC ownership will largely be prohibited. National newspapers will not be permitted to hold more than a 20 per cent. stake in a direct broadcasting satellite channel, Channel 3, Channel 5 or national radio licensee. Satellite channels targeted at the United Kingdom, whether based here or abroad, will be subject to a similar 20 per cent. restriction on interests in those other licensees.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that a newspaper proprietor, for example, who already owns three or four newspapers but only one football club—that is the kind of society in which we live, where the Government are more concerned about football clubs than about the media—will be able to exercise formidable power and control with 20 per cent. share ownership? That is particularly true when one considers that the Prime Minister has only a 5 per cent. interest in the Cabinet, as one of 20 members, but she still runs it.
  Mr. Waddington: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in deciding on those restrictions the Government addressed their mind carefully to the need to ensure that national newspapers would not be subject to the degree of influence and control that he fears.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary stated categorically that all satellite broadcasters, whether based in this country or abroad, would be subject to the 20 per cent. newspaper ownership rule, but he knows very well that no such provision appears in the Bill. The Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), stated at his press conference that Sky Television would not be subject to such a restriction because it had already invested so much money in the United Kingdom. The Minister of State appears to rule out Sky from that criterion, but may we be clear whether or not it is subject to the 20 per cent. national newspaper ownership rule?
  Mr. Waddington: Satellite broadcasters other than direct broadcasting satellite channels will not be able to have an investment greater than 20 per cent. in other channels. I refer to satellite broadcasters other than DBS broadcasters. I thought that that was the matter of concern to the right hon. Gentleman. Non-DBS broadcasters will not be able to make an investment of more than 20 per cent. in another broadcasting channel.
  Mr. Hattersley: The 20 per cent. newspaper ownership rule applies also in respect of Channel 3 and Channel 5, but does it apply to satellite channels?
  Mr. Waddington: My understanding is—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked for a reply. If he does not like the reply that he gets he can pursue the matter later. If he wants the matter amplified, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will amplify it in his reply later today.
  I have told the right hon. Gentleman what I understand to be the position—that concentration of ownership will be kept in check, and that no one will be allowed to own even the proposed maximum of two regional Channel 3 lincences if both are large or if they are contiguous. That provision can be waived only when one or two contiguous franchises become clearly unviable, and only then when separate regional programming for each of the two areas will be maintained.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: At a recent meeting with local authorities and an all-party delegation from the Border Television area, the Home Secretary gave an assurance that they would not be allowed two franchises which are parallel and which have common boundaries. That assurance is not in the Bill. Will the Minister clarify that today?
  Mr. Waddington: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I have made it absolutely plain that it will be possible to own two franchises, but not if they are both large, or if they are contiguous.
  Mr. Buchan: The Minister has talked about ownership percentages. Did he notice that the Minister of State, in his statement, defended the Government's position on the rules on cross-media ownership, but said that it would not apply to Rupert Murdoch's Sky Television, because that venture was already running and had cost Mr. Murdoch "vast amounts of money"? If that is the case, how will the Government cope with over-monopolisation of the media?
  Mr. Waddington: I am beginning to understand why the right hon. Gentleman for Sparkbrook is so upset. We are talking about two different things. It is perfectly correct that there is a limit of 20 per cent. on ownership in DBS and that there is no limit of 20 per cent. in non-DBS satellite channels. That is right, because DBS channels represent the allotment of valuable rights, given to the Government by international agreement. There is enormous potential for a large number of non-DBS satellite channels, but only five DBS channels have been allowed as a result of international agreement.
  I now understand what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was talking about. I was talking about something entirely different. I pointed out that satellite broadcasters other than DBS broadcasters cannot have more than the 20 per cent. investment in DBS or any other
  44
  broadcast channels. Now that we have that absolutely plain—[Interruption.] It was the right hon. Gentleman who—
  Mr. Hattersley: As I know that the Home Secretary likes to speak in plain language—there is none plainer—I will ask him the simplest question. Is he saying that Sky Television and Mr. Murdoch are alone in not having any reservations or limitations placed on what newspapers they own?
  Mr. Waddington: That is absolutely untrue. The Bill will apply to all satellite broadcasters other than DBS. I have explained the present situation in words of one syllable. Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand it, I am sure that everyone else can.
  The order-making power in schedule 2 will also be used to ensure that no one person is allowed to gain control of the six largest local radio stations. Even though there could be 200 to 300 independent stations by the end of the 1990s, control of the six largest would still give a person too much dominance—almost a network by the back door —so there will be supplementary limits.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it correct that the Bill excludes church and religious bodies from having a full say on this? Will they be able to enter the television and broadcasting arena?
  Mr. Waddington: Church bodies cannot own television channels. A similar prohibition exists today, and I think that that accords with the wishes of most people.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given the moral decline in Britain, and the considerably greater church attendance in the United States, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there could be a case for allowing the Church to own channels so that religious broadcasting is not left entirely in the hands of a small clique?
  Mr. Waddington: We have reached a sensible middle way, because Church organisations will be able to own radio channels. I doubt whether the majority of people wish us to go back on a system which has operated since the introduction of independent television and allow those organisations to own independent television channels.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the past 12 or 13 years there has been an agreement that certain national events—the cup final, the Derby and Wimbledon—should not be exclusive to one channel and would be available for widespread broadcasting? Will he give an assurance that the Bill would not allow those national events, to be bought exclusively by, for instance, Sky Television, which could charge for them?
  Mr. Waddington: The Bill will continue to provide protection for major events, and no broadcaster will be permitted to show listed events on a pay-per-view basis.
  I urge hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that it is an extraordinary view of the promoters of the events if it is believed that they will wish to sell the rights in the full knowledge that the events will be shown only to a minority of people in Britain.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his generosity in giving way. He will understand the importance of watching sport

  45
  to many people, in particular the elderly and the housebound. It is essential that they are not prevented from watching by some arrangement—not necessarily pay television, which I appreciate is ruled out—which means that ITV or the BBC, the national networks, are priced out of showing major events such as the cup final, the grand national and Wimbledon. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that that will not happen?
  Mr. Waddington: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows what Mr. David Broomfield, the press officer of the Football Association, said yesterday:
  "However, we are conscious that the Cup final is an important international happening, and it is therefore unlikely that we will see the day whereby it was broadcast only on satellite television."
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the problems is that existing broadcasters have simply been downright stingy about the amount of money that they are prepared to pay? A little competition will help them to stump up well-deserved money for national games such as football and cricket.
  Mr. Waddington: One hears little about the rights of promoters in all these arguments. One hears only about the rights of television companies. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for restoring some balance.
  The quality debate raises the most important questions of all. Here, hon. Members agree, I think, that we must take extra care to distinguish genuine argument from the voice of vested interest, especially as this voice is sometimes subtle and seductive rather than shrill. It is not unfair to point out that the present franchise holders are not there just for the love of it—they are there to make money and they are very successful in that aim. That does not mean that they do not deserve a fair hearing or that they do not wish to provide a good service—I am sure that they do—but some of the hyperbole that has been used should perhaps be discounted.
  Mr. George Walden: Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend paid tribute to the high standard of British broadcasting. The Bill requires a "sufficient amount of time" to be given to programmes of quality. That is an expression of ardent idealism which reflects the spirit of mediocrity in which the Government are engaged. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that such language will encourage quality, or will it feed the fears that I and many of my hon. Friends have that, when he talks of an auction and a franchise, what will come out will be not so much a quality hurdle as a limbo dancer?
  Mr. Waddington: I cannot agree with a word of what my hon. Friend says. He seems to overlook the fact that the words of which he complains are remarkably similar to those in the present broadcasting legislation. It is also a distortion to talk as though the only requirement which has to be met to pass the quality threshold is the requirement that there must be sufficient programmes of high quality. That is only one of the requirements which have to be met. First, the plans have to cater for a wide range of tastes and interests. Secondly, there will have to be high quality news and current affairs. Thirdly, there will have to be regional programmes, and some of them will have to be made in the regions. Fourthly, 25 per cent. of the programmes will have to be made independently.
  46
  Fifthly, consumer protection requirements will safeguard taste, decency, accuracy and balance. That is a lot more than my hon. Friend suggested.
  Before an organisation is able to bid for a Channel 3 or Channel 5 franchise, it will have to pass a quality threshold. The chairman of the IBA, and chairman-designate of the ITC, Mr. George Russell, has described that quality threshold as a Becher's brook, and he is quite right. Those who wish to be franchise holders will have to provide diverse programme services which are calculated to appeal to a wide range of tastes and interests. They will have to give the viewer high quality news and current affairs programmes. There will have to be a sufficient amount of other programmes of high quality. A proper proportion of the material must be British or from other European countries. At least 25 per cent. of qualifying programmes must be made by independent producers. Channel 3 will be required to show regional programmes, including programmes produced in the region. Between them, Channels 3, 4 and 5 must also cater adequately for schools programmes.
  Furthermore, even if a company gets through the quality threshold, the ITC will have power in exceptional circumstance to accept other than the highest bid. If it were possible to spell out all the circumstances which might be considered exceptional, we would do so, but I do not believe that it is. If the ITC uses the power, however, it will have to state and justify its reasons.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Nowhere in that list is there any definition of children's programmes, the times at which they should be shown or the percentage of them which will be other than schools material. Television is one of the most vital ways in which children receive stimulation and it is crucial that they should continue to receive high-quality programmes. Will the Home Secretary undertake to write such a requirement into the Bill?
  Mr. Waddington: It is almost inconceivable that a person would pass the diversity and catering for a wider range of tastes and interests requirements if he put nothing in his schedules in the way of children's programmes. [HON. MEMBERS:"Where does the Bill say that?"] There is nothing in the present legislation either. When broadcasting legislation was last considered, the House turned its back on the idea of long lists of requirements, so why should one be considered necessary now? For a bidder to pass the quality test, the ITC will have to be satisfied that his plans will cater for a wide range of tastes and interests.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: The Secretary of State talks about quality requirements, but can he explain to the House and to the people of Scotland why there is no mention of Gaelic broadcasting in the Bill, especially when we have heard so many discussions about it in the past year and as his predecessor promised in June that proposals for Gaelic broadcasting would be presented? The people of Scotland are disgusted at the whole performance.
  Mr. Waddington: I am delighted with the hon. Lady's intervention, and I have some good news for her if she will contain herself for a moment or two.
  Channel 3 and Channel 5 are intended to be popular, mass audience channels. We should not try to turn them into new versions of Channel 4 and BBC2. Nevertheless, the requirements that I have outlined are exacting and are

  47
  hardly a prescription for yob television. Indeed, the safeguards are greater than those which exist at present. Where, for instance, are the powers now to find franchise holders, or to require them to put up substantial performance bonds as a guarantee that they will live up to their programme promises? The ITC will have far more extensive enforcement powers than the IBA, one of whose problems has been that it has had few sanctions at its disposal short of the nuclear weapon of licence revocation.
  Some people hanker for a detailed definition of quality, but frankly I do not think that that is on. The ITC will be able to issue illustrative guidelines, but it will not issue a blueprint—rightly so, as there is no single right way to pass, for instance, the diversity test. The winning applicant's detailed programme promises will, however, be incorporated into the licence conditions. There will be a clear commitment to quality, capable of rigorous enforcement.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Does the Home Secretary agree with the Minister of State that parts of the Bill are not set in stone? Is he prepared to reconsider the basis of Channel 5 and the suggestion made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs report of a national channel made up of local affiliates?
  Mr. Waddington: No. I believe that our arrangements for Channel 5 are exactly right.
  Already there have been demands for all sorts of additional statutory requirements for programming, but if we were to give way to all the demands of the various lobbies and special interests, the new legislation would finish up far more onerous and prescriptive than the old. As long ago as 1954, Parliament wisely rejected the list approach. Those who seek guarantees for, for instance, religious or children's programmes, can take comfort from the multiplication of outlets as channels increase and from the diversity requirement on both Channel 3 and Channel 5. I imagine that the ITC would take some convincing that a service which did not offer any programmes of that kind was genuinely diverse, but this is also where the complementary nature of Channel 4's remit comes in. In addition to its public service obligations, it will continue to be required to cater for any tastes and interests not adequately met by Channel 3 and 5.
  I wish to concentrate on key topics rather than go through the Bill clause by clause, so I will give no more than a brief guide to its structure. Part I establishes the Independent Television Commission in place of the IBA and the Cable Authority. Both George Russell and I want a smooth transition and maximum continuity of expertise. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, I will announce shortly the setting up of the ITC and the Radio Authority in shadow form.
  Part I also deals with the regulation of Channels 3, 4 and 5, Channel 4, Wales, satellite services, and services using the spare capacity of signals such as teletext. It requires the ITC, among other things, to issue codes on how the due impartiality requirement is to be applied, on programme standards more generally and on advertising and sponsorship. Part I also includes requirements for schools programmes and subtitling for the deaf.
  48
  Part II deals with local delivery services—local multi-channel franchises using cable and/or microwave transmission. [Interruption.]
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members are trying to listen to the excellent exposition by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. We cannot hear because of the bunch of yobboes on the Opposition Benches below the Gangway—[Interruption.] Could they please be asked to be silent?
  Mr. Waddington: It would be a pity if they went out of here as ignorant as they came in. It might be to their advantage to listen.
  Among other things, part II makes local delivery operators responsible themselves for the content of any foreign services which they carry from countries outside the EC and the Council of Europe.
  Part III establishes a new Radio Authority in place of the IBA radio division, and deals with the regulation of national, local, satellite, cable and institutional radio services, and with spare capacity services using radio signals. The key requirement in this part is that radio should expand in such a way as to increase choice for the listener.
  Part IV re-enacts the provisions dealing with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and part V puts the Broadcasting Standards Council on a statutory basis. Part VI applies the law of obscenity, incitement to racial hatred and defamation to all British broadcasting services.
  Part VII substantially strengthens the powers and penalties available against pirate broadcasting. Part VIII contains the new offences of supporting an unacceptable foreign satellite service, and deals with miscellaneous matters such as listed sporting events and transfer to the BBC of responsibility for collecting the licence fee.
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House the good news for which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was waiting. At a later stage we shall be bringing forward provisions on Gaelic broadcasting. These will be based on a Gaelic television production fund, to be paid for by the Exchequer and administered by a committee of the ITC. The fund will commission the production of programmes in the Gaelic language. We plan that the ITC should have power to require relevant Channel 3 licensees to show Gaelic programming. The programmes would be made either by broadcasters or by independent producers. We intend that the fund should be able to finance 200 hours of Gaelic programmes a year in addition to the present 100 hours, which we would expect the BBC and the relevant Channel 3 companies to maintain.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Home Secretary will appreciate that many representatives of all parties have campaigned long and hard on that issue. How did he decide on the sum of £;8 million? He mentioned a committee of the ITC. What direct representation from the Gaelic community will there be on that committee? Token Gaelic representation is insufficient, as we want those people to have real clout.
  Mr. Waddington: A number of those matters are open to discussion. The hon. Lady will hear the details later, and I do not think that anyone would bless me if I went through them all now. It is worth bearing in mind that there are 80,000 Gaelic speakers in Scotland—less than 2

  49
  per cent. of the Scottish population—so I should have thought that most fair-minded people would consider our proposal to be a very good deal indeed for Gaelic speakers in Scotland.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Waddington: I am sorry, but I must press on.
  There are also some matters not now in the Bill. I should tell the House that we shall be bringing forward provisions ending the cosy duopoly of programme listings, privatising the IBA transmission system and dealing with transitional arrangements. Also on this supplementary agenda are the detail of the independent production requirement on the BBC, provisions in regard to offshore pirate broadcasters and the ending of needle-time restrictions on the playing of records by radio stations.
  Finally, I remind the House that a Conservative Government introduced ITV in the early 1950s, independent local radio in the early 1970s, Channel 4 at the beginning of the 1980s, and the independent productions initiative a couple of years ago. At each stage the pessimists prophesied doom and gloom—and every time they have been confounded. On 22 May 1952, Lord Reith likened the introduction of commercial broadcasting to smallpox, bubonic plague and the black death, and on 25 March 1954 Herbert Morrison for the Opposition said:
  "we regard the whole present scheme as objectionable and, indeed, futile … this Bill is the enemy of a reasonable culture in broadcasting and television."—[Official Report, 25 March 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1472–74.]
  Today's pessimists should consider how their comments may sound in 30 years' time. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: At least the Home Secretary will agree with me that today we debate fundamental changes in the organisation of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. As broadcasting has such a crucial effect on all our lives, we are also considering a major influence on the conduct and character of our country during the rest of this century and beyond.
  The criteria against which the Bill must be judged are the quality of broadcasting which it encourages and the choice of programmes that it would make available to listeners and viewers. The Government claim, as the Home Secretary appeared to be doing today, that their proposals are likely to increase choice and improve quality. They are almost alone in that contention. The most distinguished and experienced figures in broadcasting are united in the belief that, if the Bill becomes law, standards will fall and choice will be diminished.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I know that the hon. Gentleman is eager, but I should like to get on a little before I give way to him.
  The Bill also fails when measured against an obligation of even greater importance than choice and quality—the protection of democracy.
  In Britain an increasing threat to genuine democracy is the concentration of the ownership of newspapers and
  50
  broadcasting companies in the hands of fewer international media companies. Some parts of the Bill might have been written with the express intention of meeting the needs and fulfilling the ambitions of one of them—Mr. Rupert Murdoch. Already the Government have allowed Mr. Murdoch to acquire two national newspapers without the scrutiny of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. In part, the Bill might have been dictated during one of Mr. Murdoch's cosy lunches with the Prime Minister.
  I take the clearest example of the favour that Mr. Murdoch and his like are to receive, and it is the clearest proof that, in the true meaning of the words, the Bill will reduce choice and not increase it. Clause 157 deals with what are called "listed events"—a subject on which the Home Secretary gave a sort of answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). He was right to acknowledge that his predecessor had written the Bill, but we are intrigued about whether the Home Secretary has read it. It was clear that he did not understand what is meant by clause 157, which deals with listed events—great sporting occasions such as the grand national, Wimbledon and the cup final, which attract massive audiences. At present, no single company is allowed to acquire the exclusive right to screen them. We all know that the Bill prohibits them from being screened through pay television, but that is not the question.
  Mr. Waddington: That is precisely what I said was in the Bill.
  Mr. Hattersley: It is exactly what the Home Secretary said but, unfortunately, it is not exactly the question that he was asked, which concerned protection against one company having the exclusive right to screen those promotions and against their being able to monopolise the screening. Under the Bill, that protection is being removed. It will be possible for a single satellite or cable company to acquire the sole right to broadcast, for example, the Grand National and to prevent national broadcasting companies from screening it at the same time or at all.
  Satellite and cable television is currently watched by 3 per cent. of the viewing public. Let us assume that, by the time the Bill becomes law, the figure has trebled and Sky Television buys the exclusive right to screen Wimbledon, the cup final or the grand national.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): Why does the right hon. Gentleman make that assumption?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall tell the Minister of State exactly why I make that assumption in a moment, but let me carry him with me on the assumption and then I shall try to justify it.
  Let us assume that Sky buys the right to screen the grand national. Last week, the Football Association behaved quite reasonably about this, but on the radio the Jockey Club said that in a free market it would sell its rights to the highest bidder, whatever the company might be. Instead of every family with a television set enjoying the chance to watch that national event, the opportunity would be restricted to fewer than 10 per cent. of British families. What sort of extension of free choice is that? It is simply the freedom of Rupert Murdoch to use his wealth and power to exploit the viewer. It represents his right to

  51
  dictate the terms on which British families enjoy television and the Government's willingness to be an accessory to that blackmail.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Give way.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is the most vocal and active Parliamentary Private Secretary that I have ever known. I shall give way after I have dealt with the question from the Minister of State which, like the PPS, he shouted from his seat rather than asking in the normal fashion.
  The Minister of State asked why I should assume that Mr. Murdoch would want to buy the rights to one of those exclusive events. The answer is that that is what he always does when developing his broadcasting systems. It is his established technique. He buys a tempting programme and uses it as a loss-leader for the rest of the rubbish that he broadcasts, such as cartoons, old movies, pre-digested news and extended advertisements dressed up as consumer magazines. His aim is not to extend choice but to reduce it.
  By popular demand, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and then to the Minister of State.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for eventually giving way. Does he understand that if any satellite broadcaster or what he would regard as a minority broadcaster were attracting the size of audience that he supposes, with no basis for his figures, they would be unable to afford to pay as much money as other broadcasters? Without attracting an audience, they would be unable to compete. Therefore it would be self-correcting. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to deny the sports that he is talking about access to money for their products.
  Mr. Hattersley: I say only two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, his suggestion is belied by the experience of other countries, where minority satellites and cable companies have got their foot in the door and prised it open by making exclusive claims for events and saying to viewers, "Either you watch what we offer or you do not watch that programme at all."
  Secondly—I shall develop the point in a moment if I get the opportunity—television, like football clubs and newspapers, has the unfortunate habit of attracting men who want to buy it not simply to make money but for prestige and political influence and as an entrée into other institutions and forms of life. They are prepared to lose to establish their position by saying, "I own this television company."
  Mr. Mellor: Currently, if a satellite channel proprietor —there are more satellite channel proprietors than Mr. Murdoch—were to put in a bid, the right given to the BBC and ITV is to match it; they have no automatic right otherwise to show the programme. It is interesting that thus far no satellite operator has done so. The Bill makes one change, in that it says that it will be possible, although not on a pay-per-view basis, for the proprietor of a great national sporting event to sell to the highest bidder
  52
  In the right hon. Gentleman's pursuit of the Labour party's demonology theory about Rupert Murdoch, will he consider, first, that there is no reason why those who own a great sporting event should want to restrict its viewing to a few per cent. of the public? Secondly, the Labour party talks about money, but I wonder where the public interest lies, vis-à-vis the right of some broadcasting organisations to obtain sporting events at an undervalue or the right of the public who admire them to see them properly funded. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is the duty and obligation of the House, in perpetuity, to restrict the rights of individuals who promote sporting events to sell their products?
  Mr. Hattersley: It is the duty of the Government to make great national occasions available to all the viewing public rather than a small proportion of them. That is the overwhelming view of the viewing public who have expressed an opinion.
  I suspect that, like me, the Minister of State does not regard the grand national as the most important sporting occasion of the year, but, slightly to my surprise, many millions of people do. The Jockey Club and those who organise great sporting events have said on television and radio, in the Minister of State's terms, that they would sell the rights to the highest bidder. That seems to be not in the national interest but in the interests of a small number of satellite and cable broadcasters and perhaps in the interests of the Government, with their narrow view of these matters. It is not in the interests of media diversity and opportunity, which is what the Bill is supposed to be about.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I must get on. I shall give way in a moment but, like other hon. Members, I am restricted by the 6 o'clock rule. It is important that I do not forget it, as I am inclined to do.
  I take this opportunity to make clear Labour Members' absolute commitment to greater diversity of media ownership. I make it clear that to us the problem of media ownership is not simply cross-promotion—newspapers plugging their own television channels, which is the subject of the inquiry that was announced last week—but cross-ownership. We should have a general reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the concentration of media ownership in fewer hands. Its terms should be the extent to which British newspapers and broadcasting companies are owned by a handful of individuals, and how the Government can best bring about disinvestment and greater diversity in the industry.
  The Bill will facilitate concentration in one particular. This is the second point that I raised with the Secretary of State and I hope that the Minister of State will make this clear when he replies. Under the Bill, the proprietor of a national newspaper is not allowed to own more than 20 per cent. of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 company—that is quite right. However, why does not that prohibition apply to all satellite companies? Such an obligation could be placed on satellite companies by requiring them to relinquish ownership of British newspapers if they want to broadcast into Great Britain.
  I understand that the Government—either their officials or Ministers—have told the British Satellite Broadcasting company that the membership-ownership

  53
  rule will be applied to it by secondary legislation—by some sort of order explicitly to prevent a satellite company that is based in Britain from being owned by or having any close connection with a British newspaper. If it is to apply to BSB, why will it not apply to Sky?
  I present the Minister of State with another hypothesis. If Sky grows to the size of a Channel 3 company, why will Mr. Murdoch still be allowed to own five national newspapers—
  Mr. Roger Gale rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  Once upon a time the Government pretended that it was impossible to limit the connections between newspapers and ownership of Sky because that company is registered in Luxembourg. In the House of Lords, Lord Ferrers said that it was technically impossible to apply such a limitation. That fallacy having been exposed, this Minister of State discovered another reason for letting Mr. Murdoch do what he likes—to own a television company that broadcasts into Britain and five newspapers. The Minister of State gave his reason at a press conference a week last Thursday when he stated:
  "A vast amount of money has gone into getting this thing"
  —"this thing" being Sky—
  "off the ground",
  and implying that we should not legislate. That seems a new principle of Conservative Government—those who spend enough money can make up the laws as they go along to suit their convenience—
  Mr. Gale rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask me a question, I am delighted to give way.
  Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not appreciate the difference between BSB, which is a domestic satellite licensed by the United Kingdom, and Astra which is a non-domestic satellite? Is he seriously suggesting that this control should not only be exercised over Mr. Murdoch, who happens to uplink from the United Kingdom but could just as easily uplink from anywhere else in Europe, but should be extended to every newspaper proprietor throughout Europe who uses a foreign satellite? If so, how will the right hon. Gentleman make that work under EC directives and the Council of Europe convention?
  Mr. Hattersley: What I am suggesting—this is perfectly compatible with EC regulations and with English law—is that if someone owns a company that broadcasts into Great Britain, that person shall not be allowed to own the British newspapers that he possesses at present. The control would not require us to take any action against the satellite broadcasting company; it requires us to take action against the domestically based British newspaper. That can be done with complete ease, and should be done by anybody who does not believe in the concentration of the British media in fewer hands.
  The Government's attitude towards satellite television demonstrates most graphically the misconception at the heart of the Bill. Real choice for viewers depends on a diversity of programmes, not simply on the proliferation of the number of buttons on a set that it is possible to
  54
  press. If pressing buttons produces no more than alternatives on the same dreary themes, choice has not been increased—it has been denied.
  The Government confuse pressing buttons with making choices not least because, as the Bill demonstrates, they possess no coherent theory of broadcasting. The only attempt at a principle by which the Bill is guided is the weary old call for deregulation—an idea that clearly has not been thought through and which is not even applied with anything like consistency.
  The Government preach deregulation but insist on possessing the power to veto appointments to the membership of the Channel 4 Corporation. When he replies, perhaps the Minister of State will tell us how this light-touch Government, this freedom-of-broadcasting Government, this deregulating Government, justify that little act of pointless authoritarianism. Opposition Members believe that the time has come to reduce, not increase, Government patronage. The Government appoint too many of their nominees to positions of authority and influence without check or limitation. In our view, neither the governors of the BBC nor the members of the Independent Television Commission should be appointed by the Government alone. They should be nominated by the Government and approved in office by a Committee of the House. Indeed, that rule should apply to all senior Government appointments.
  A second proposal in the Bill is not so much incompatible with the claim of deregulation as in exact opposition to the notion. I refer to the whole of part V, which sets up the Broadcasting Standards Council. I admit at once that, in common with others, I was quite wrong about that institution. I feared that it was potentially sinister. I now realise that it is immediately ridiculous. It will possess no effective powers and have no real purpose, except to pretend to keep a promise that the Prime Minister gave at an unguarded moment and which she continues to repeat, although the Bill proves that what she continues to offer cannot and will not be realised.
  In the debate on the Loyal Address, the Prime Minister announced that the Broadcasting Standards Council would be given the power
  "to keep the violence that is unacceptable off our screens." —[Official Report, 21 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 31.]
  However, no such power is mentioned in the Bill. As is so often the case, I take it that the Prime Minister said what she thought convenient at the time rather than what she knew to be accurate. I maintain my surprise that Lord Rees-Mogg, for whom I have considerable respect, should be prepared to lend his name to this silly and pointless exercise, which has been made all the more silly and pointless by the Government's welcome decision to extend the obscenity and racial incitement laws to cover television. That should be the proper and only limitation on what broadcasters are allowed to broadcast.
  Choice and quality in television depend in part on the way in which the franchises to broadcast are allocated and on the rules that govern that right, as well as on the price that is paid to maintain it. Companies can obtain contracts through a process which, in general, encourages a wide variety of high-quality programmes, or by a system that puts a premium on neither standards nor choice.
  In their proposals for licensing satellite companies, the Government have clearly abandoned all interest in quality and diversity. They expressly absolve the satellite companies from fulfilling the minimum obligations that

  55
  are required of domestic companies. Clause 31 (a),(b) and (d) absolves them from that duty. However, as the minimum obligations are in themselves wholly inadequate, the idea that the Government are protecting quality, diversity and choice even in the terrestrial channels does not withstand a moment's examination. The claims for quality and diversity are based on the concept of minimum standards that a company must agree to accept before it can bid for a franchise and which must be maintained after the contract is made if a financial penalty is to be avoided. But nobody believes that the financial penalty will be large enough to act as a real deterrent.
  I shall now make another of my assumptions—that the standards set out in the Bill are respected. But the question that immediately arises is, "What are those standards worth?" The answer is, "Not very much." When those standards were first set out, the then Home Secretary described them as a "threshold", but by the time the White Paper was debated, the metaphor had changed to "hurdle". I prophesied at the time that they would soon become a fence, but I had not allowed for the verbal exuberance of the new Minister of State, whom I heard on the radio two weeks ago describing them as a "Becher's brook".
  Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman's standards of taste and accuracy are no higher than usual. It was the chairman of the ITC, Mr. Russell, who used the phrase, "Becher's brook". I merely retailed it around for him.
  Mr. Hattersley: I compliment the Minister on his unusual modesty. I heard him use that expression in undeniable terms on the radio. If he wants to disown it now, I shall give way again.
  Mr. Mellor: If it is the right hon. Gentleman's case that there is no quality threshold worth having, surely he should be reassured that the chairman-designate of the ITC and present chairman of the IBA says that it is to be a Becher's brook—that is, if the right hon. Gentleman is interested in reassurance rather than making cheap points.
  Mr. Hattersley: I will come to a compact with the Minister that either we support everything that the chairman of the ITC suggests and implement everything that he proposes or, if the Minister will not accept that proposition, and pursue the metaphor, we can take a walk round the course to see how formidable an obstacle Becher's brook is.
  Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree the Government are busy making Becher's brook even easier to jump?
  Mr. Hattersley: I want to examine this barrier. Clause 16 defines the basic requirements that any company must fulfil before it can make a bid for a Channel 3 franchise. They include the requirements
  "that a sufficient amount of time is given … to news programmes and current affairs programmes … of high quality … that a sufficient amount of time is given to programmes (other than news and current affairs programmes) which are of high quality … a sufficient amount of time is given to … regional programmes."
  The Home Secretary, not normally a conciliatory man, will agree that those are not over-precise definitions of the standards.
  56
  I admit that they are only the beginning. There is also an obligation to appeal to a variety of tastes and include a proper proportion of programmes made in Europe. Again, those criteria do not suffer from an excess of intellectual rigour. Certainly, clause 16 gives the new ITC the right to define the terms. The Home Secretary must not pretend that the new ITC will be able to impose standards as exact as those upon which the IBA can insist now.
  We were promised a light touch, and a light touch we certainly have been given. At present the IBA can ask for —it can demand—religious programmes, children's programmes, drama and documentaries. It is no good the Home Secretary saying to the House, "Don't worry, it is not written into the Bill but trust me and the Commission to propose it." According to the Government's propaganda, the purpose of the Bill is to lay down minimum standards. To take refuge in the idea that the minimum standards can be taken for granted without being specified is a negation of all that the Government previously claimed. More importantly, the new Commission cannot negotiate with the companies for the new right to broadcast.
  When he replies to the debate, I should like the Minister of State to describe what will happen in the following circumstances. Two bidding companies apply for a franchise. In their prospectuses, both demonstrate their acceptance of the minimum standard set out in the Bill. One offers a programme prospectus that is superior to the other in terms of quality and diversity but it makes a bid lower than that of its inferior competitor. In those circumstances, can the commission award the contract to the programme company that offers the best programmes but the lowest tender? We know that the Bill does not allow that to happen, yet the Government continue to claim to care about quality.
  The commission cannot invite the highest bidder to improve the quality of its programmes. Nor can it invite the company with the best programmes to increase its offer. Certainly, clause 17(3) provides for the Commission to reject the highest bid in exceptional circumstances. But no one has any idea what those circumstances might be. If the Home Secretary, who has written into his Bill the right to exclude a bid in exceptional circumstances, had the faintest idea what those circumstances were, he might have revealed them to us in his speech.
  Mr. Spearing: Did my right hon. Friend notice that in justifying the procedure the Home Secretary prayed in aid taxpayers' rights and value for money for the nation? Will he invite the Home Secretary now, or perhaps in Committee, to calculate the difference between the hypothetical high and low bids in terms of quality such as my right hon. Friend postulated, and divide that difference between the two into a weekly amount that every household in the country will have to pay? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be a small sum?
  Mr. Hattersley: I have the answer to my hon. Friend's equation. The Exchequer will receive very little extra for a substantial reduction in quality.
  Mr. Walden: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that I should like to reinforce. Surely the point is that the more people are encouraged to bid for the channels, the less they will be able to put into programmes. As a result, the much-vaunted Becher's brook will decline.
  Mr. Hattersley: I agree with that and I hope to give some examples of exactly the position that the hon. Gentleman describes.
  No one has any idea what the exceptional circumstances might be in which the commission could refuse the highest bid. Clearly, the commission would be crazy to risk discovering them in court, so it will give the contract to the highest bidder. The chairman of the IBA, who will be the new chairman of the commission, does not believe that the powers granted to him by the Bill will give him the chance to choose high quality in preference to high cash offers. He has said that to me in terms. As the Minister of State hangs on his every word and repeats them with such assiduity, why does he believe that the chairman-elect of the commission is wrong to fear that the complications in choosing between a high bid and lower quality will result in a deterioration in quality? Everyone else believes that that will be the case.
  I suggest that a compromise is possible when choosing between bids, and I urge it on the Government. It was originally suggested by the Peacock committee, which was set up by the Government in preparation for the Bill, and the chairman-elect of the commission also urges the Government to accept the compromise. It should be possible for the commission to accept a lower bid if, in its judgment, that bid gives the viewer better value for money in terms of the programme service provided. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and endorsed, as I understand them, by some Conservative Members. I hope that, in the spirit of ecumenism, the Minister of State will consider that genuine attempt to compromise between now and 9.30 pm or in Committee.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: We are all in favour of better value for money. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me, on behalf of my constituents, where in the great Labour plan for quality we shall find the soap operas, game shows and murder mysteries which I and many British people thoroughly enjoy?
  Hon. Members: On television.
  Mr. Hattersley: As my hon. Friends say, we shall find them on television. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that I would not be party to any Bill that put "Coronation Street" in jeopardy—[Interruption.] About "EastEnders" I make no such assurance, but "Coronation Street" is absolutely sacrosanct.
  I accept that the compromise that I suggest requires the Government to move away from one of their principles. It is the right of the franchising authority to negotiate with companies bidding for the right to broadcast. The IBA enjoys that power at present. If the Government denied it to the commission, they would wilfully abandon one of the principal methods of improving both quality and diversity.
  It is possible to appreciate the importance of the negotiations only if we fully understand the method by which the Bill proposes to award contracts, a feat—
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Not in the middle of a sentence, but I shall do so in a moment. That is a feat apparently beyond the leader writer of The Times, whose sycophantic editorial on the subject of contract procedures simply got the facts wrong.
  58
  The Bill does not propose an auction of television franchises—would that it did. Auctioning contracts is by no means our choice of method for awarding the right to broadcast, but it is a good deal better than the requirement to make a single blind bid in a sealed evelope. I remind the Minister that an auction of a sort was the second compromise urged on the Government by the industry. I commend it to him as an alternative way in which to assure value and quality. If the Government allowed a second bid it would be possible for a company to begin with a modest offer, committing most of their resources to programme-making, and if its bid was lower than that of another company it could make a second, larger offer, if necessary budgeting for lower-quality programmes.
  From our point of view that is a far from perfect method, but it is much superior to a system that requires a bidding company to risk everything on a single tender. In consequence, that encourages the bidding company to risk everything to concentrate its resources on inflated offers rather than better programmes.
  The only possible justification for the single blind bid is the calculated decision to use the allocation of television franchises as a means of raising revenue—the maximum amount of revenue. Maximising revenue and protecting quality are two mutually incompatiable objectives. Money spent on buying the franchise will not be available for the production of expensive, high-quality programmes.
  Mr. Dykes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the form of words relating to such changes should be agreed by all parts of the House? It is important that there is a consensus about such an important measure which transcends the different sides of the House. The form of words could be elaborated on later through a straightforward amendment tabled in Committee. That Committee stage must be an intelligent one, not the ritual to which we have become accustomed in recent years. The ITC will also construct the relevant clauses relating to its operations and it could encapsulate some suggestions about those changes. If such changes are not considered by the Government. the ITC will inevitably be a weak regulatory organisation.
  Mr. Hattersley: I agree, and I hope that I can demonstrate that by saying that the Opposition, who want the normal—dare I say—contentious Committee, do not include in their first speech on the subject two proposals for compromise. They are not ideal to the Opposition, and the two suggestions that I have made would not naturally be introduced by us were we to have a free hand. I have suggested some areas in which quality and choice might be protected, which maintains the Government's view about how the Bill should be structured in general. My certain wish is that the Committee should improve the Bill rather than be a Committee of ritual battles over clauses, which often does not get us very far.
  In not quite such an emollient tone, it is important to stress that one complicating factor of the single bid is the sort of people who will be encouraged by the nature of the system to write down a figure, put it in an envelope and send it to the franchise authority. Recently the Minister of State refused to accept that the Australian experience might be reproduced here. All the evidence suggests, however, that we might face exactly the same problems, not least because of the risk of rogue bids coming from outside the industry.

  59
  Discussing the prospectus with the IBA, as programme companies now do, maximises the participation of the professional broadcaster in the franchise negotiations—the man or woman who is interested in programme-making. The blind bid encourages cowboys. There is a type of individual who will bid for television companies for reasons that are only obliquely concerned with television —political influence, glamour, prestige and political connections. Newspapers and football clubs have the same attraction. The people who buy them often do so for the wrong reasons and with disastrous consequences. The Australian experience could be repeated here and we should remind ourselves what it was.
  In that country three national commercial networks were bought by the highest bidders with no previous television connections. Mr. Alan Bond bought Channel 9 for 1.3 billion Australian dollars—shortly after it was valued at 0.15 billion Australian dollars. Mr. Christopher Skane bought Channel 7, but that company is now in liquidation. Mr. Frank Lowry bought Channel 10 and his company has made such immediate losses that half of them have been formally written off.
  Faced with such a situation—bidding too much and making promises just to get the company—the new owner has only one option. Profit in television is a simple equation—profit equals advertising revenue minus production costs. With so much extra advertising time on offer because of the Bill it will not be possible to increase advertising revenue pounds per minute, and the only option will be to cut programme costs. Let us consider those programme costs. BBC and ITV drama costs between £;350,000 and £;400,000 an hour. Old films are available for between £;2,500 and £;5,000 an hour. If firms overbid and find themselves overstretched, their inevitable and unavoidable action will be to reduce high-quality production and high-quality broadcasts and turn towards lower, cheaper quality programmes. In one way that shift is being encouraged by the Government, as the Bill undermines the concept of public service broadcasting.
  The obligation of cable or MVDS companies to carry BBC channels among their programmes will be abandoned if the Bill becomes law. The Secretary of State said that no such obligation existed in present law, but it exists in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. That Act is to be repealed, however, and the obligation to carry BBC programmes on cable transmissions is not included in the Bill. As recently as September the then Home Secretary said that what is known as the "must carry" rule would be maintained. If, as I am sure the Government hope, cable prospers, an increasing proportion of people will obtain their entire viewing from such outlets. They will, as the Bill now stands, risk being denied access to public service channels—BBC 2, BBC 1 and Channel 4. The previous Home Secretary wished to protect their right to enjoy access to those channels and he promised that it would be maintained. Why was that promise broken?
  In Cambridge, at the same time as promising that that access would be maintained, the right hon. Gentleman also promised the BBC would remain "the cornerstone of broadcasting", complemented by commercial channels. How can the BBC remain the cornerstone of broadcasting if it is not available to every television viewer, especially those who do not receive their signals from cable?
  60
  Universal availability is an essential feature of public service broadcasting. When the Minister replies I hope that he will tell us why it is to be abandoned. I hope that we will be told in turn—as the newspapers were told 10 days ago—that the Government are genuinely prepared to examine changes and amendments. They could demonstrate the good faith of that promise by agreeing that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee. It would therefore be subject to the expert scrutiny that a Bill of this importance deserves. I promise here and now that a Special Standing Committee will not take any longer than the normal procedures, but it will ensure that we examine the Bill more thoroughly and sensibly than going through the ritual confrontation.
  If a Special Standing Committee is not possible, I hope that we will be spared the ritual rudeness during the Minister's wind-up speech and that questions will be answered calmly and contradictions in policy explained. If that is not the rule and if there is no suggestion of a willingness to amend and compromise, all the talk about open minds and doors will be demonstrated to be so much public relations guff.
  In the meantime we shall, of course, vote against the Second Reading. Our vote will be cast for real diversity and genuine quality, for neither of those essential objectives is protected by the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that the 10-minutes limit on speeches operates from six o'clock.
  5.59 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Many people in this debate will want to talk about the quality of programming, but there is another matter that hon. Members may well not discuss and to which I want to refer briefly: a mechanism for the provision of training. I referred to it when we discussed the White Paper earlier this year. It is extremely important to safeguard the industry's future by having some mechanism to ensure that training is properly provided.
  I hope that it will be unnecessary to extol the virtues and importance of training. Certain special industries in this country, such as special effects, have produced films such as the Bond films and "Star Wars". The special technicians, who have demonstrated their expertise in this country, have, over a period, gone to Hollywood. Due to the failure to provide proper training here, we have not generated a second generation or echelon of people, and we no longer have the expert capability.
  In a franchise business, which is what we are talking about today, managements frequently have recourse to the old argument that they do not have a long enough security of tenure to provide training programmes. They use that as a sort of alibi. Some mechanism should be devised that is linked to the levy, and perhaps also to the percentage of the net advertising revenue formula, to enable contractors to contribute towards a training programme.
  If we consider the importance of the new technology, high-definition television, we see that if we do not spend enough time and effort on training people who are both in front of and behind the camera about the importance of high-definition television, we shall run the risk of

  61
  becoming a Third-world nation. This country's television and film production industry is maintained only by the expertise of the people working in it.
  In talking about quality, I shall draw on my experience gained during five years in the Ministry of Defence, when I frequently adjudicated on procurement contests—if I may use that word. In those cases, we were looking for the lowest bid, not the highest, but the principle was exactly the same. We never said that we would always take the lowest bid, but that we would seek the lowest bid and then look at other criteria. I am worried that the ITC will be so completely boxed in that it will have no discretion to take account of the other essential criteria: the amount of money to be spent on programming. If that is not clearly stated and the ITC does not have the ability to take that into account, I fear that we shall be driven further towards lower programme standards.
  I speak as someone who is not enamoured of present television programmes. Teachers in my constituency say that it is becoming impossible to persuade schoolchildren to participate in team games after class because they want to go home and watch a particular programme. I do not find that encouraging in relation to the wider use of television in society.
  I am extremely anxious about the quality of television, as are many other hon. Members. I seek assurances from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that he will be prepared to allay my concern and build into the Bill some discretionary powers of the ITC to use in the circumstances that I have described. If I am not given those assurances, I shall have to consider carefully whether I can support the Bill this evening.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I am totally surprised and delighted at being called so early in this debate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I promise not to call the hon. Gentleman so early in future.
  Mr. Buchan: I recall that the last time that somebody seemed to be totally astonished was Rupert Murdoch, although a competent written speech had been written for him. In that speech, at the television conference in Edinburgh this year, he started by saying that in economic matters, competition was always to be preferred to monopoly. From then on he talked about the economics of television to an audience of people who were artists, singers and in the theatre, and journalists concerned with news and facts. For him, it was sufficient that he could prove a case of profit coming from competition, as opposed to monopoly.
  The same criterion applies once we have bids for television stations. If we have an auction bid, we are saying that we are seeing what money we can bring for the Treasury. As I understand the Home Secretary's responses to some of the earlier interventions, that was exactly his position. He seemed to suggest that we should have regard to the Treasury and the revenue coming in. However, in public service broadcasting we are not dealing with enormous figures. Advertising on commercial television will not cost the Treasury huge amounts of money. The remaining duty of public service broadcasting—which is also laid on existing commercial television, but which the Bill removes—will not be costly.
  62
  When we consider what television is, we should be prepared to pay a great cost. I am worried that Ministers do not seem to understand television's potential greatness. Today, man can speak to man at the same moment throughout the world. That is amazing. We can see the horrifying events in Tiananmen square and see the daily events in Wenceslaus square and know that something great and good is happening, to which we can respond. That is an amazing development in human communications and experience. We have been given an instrument with which we can expand human experience and improve communications.
  The Bill is the most important piece of legislation we have had in this House for the past 10 years. Communication between man and man is what matters. All else flows from the understanding between humans. None of us questions—although the Government are trying to privatise it—the cost and devotion of time, energy and intellect to our universities and educational system. We know that our children must be educated, and we have an instrument that can enhance and develop that education. However, we are concerned only with how to maximise the money gained from this marvellous instrument.
  In future, if we survive and live to see a time when we cease to have Governments with such a drab monotony of thought, we shall look back with amazement at throwing away such an opportunity. It is not enough for hon. Members to intervene and ask whether plays and games would be allowed on television. Of course television should provide entertainment, relaxation and the luxury of seeing such programmes. However, more important—people accept this—are documentaries. As soon as we commercialise broadcasting, we face the problem that there will be no means of allowing exciting, dangerous or risky experimentation.
  I shall give the case which I gave to Rupert Murdoch, whose channels must make maximum profits. I asked him whether, if a man who had never been heard of, but who happened to be called Attenborough, asked him to devote much time and money to putting on a series of programmes about wildlife, he would have bought the series. The answer is that he would not. It is only because we have public service broadcasting that Attenborough has built up a mass viewing for such programmes. If someone had asked me five or 10 years ago whether I would pay for subscription broadcasting of such programmes I would have thought it nonsense—there would be no interest in them. But we who have accidentally come across these programmes have suddenly realised how marvellous and fascinating they are.
  The criminality inherent in the Government's Bill is that this sort of development will not take place, because every time, the audience will have to be maximised, and that will involve two conditions.
  First, a programme must be easily understood: it must not turn people off; it must not involve experimentation or anything new. Secondly, a programme must not disturb too many people: they must not switch it off; it must be fairly tranquil pap. I am no expert, but I believe there is good and bad rock music; likewise, there will be better and worse pap, but by and large it will not be experimental, it will not break new ground, it will not energise people or extend human experience. Above all, it will not offend. I think, with Hamlet, that unless there is offence not much happens.

  63
  I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said that the Broadcasting Standards Council was nothing to be worried about. I foresee a double jeopardy. It might have been right to bring the Obscene Publications Act 1964 into broadcasting—in some ways it was anomalous that it should have been missing, although I greatly distrust the Government handling anything of that sort. Now, in addition, the Government are bringing in the Broadcasting Standards Council—under Rees-Mogg, of all people—and that presents the double jeopardy.
  The council will not go for the sleazy, suggestive pap: it will go for the serious programmes. Writing in 1907, Bernard Shaw listed the plays that the Lord Chamberlain had banned in that year. They included "Oedipus Rex", his own "Mrs. Warren's Profession" and Ibsen's "Ghosts". As Bernard Shaw pointed out, any commercial manager in London could put on plays about brothels or adultery as long as they were fun, but as soon as they became serious—like "Ghosts"—they were banned. As long as they were light, such plays were an open sesame for profit, for sleaze-makers. Just to prove the point, hon. Members may recall that Lord Rees-Mogg's favourite programme is "'Allo 'Allo"—sleazy titillation with undertones of Gestapo bondage.
  To conclude, I want to quote Nye Bevan—I have quoted Murdoch enough. Bevan said that there is no need to look at the crystal ball when you can read the book—and we can read the book. Hon. Members who read my book will discover more about the subject—
  Mr. Tony Banks: An excellent book.
  Mr. Buchan: The book deals with what has happened to broadcasting when it goes commercial—for instance, in Australia, where there was immediate reduction in the number of serious programmes. Channel 9 in Australia has no current affairs, arts, religious or educational programmes and no documentaries, and 20 per cent. of broadcasting time is given over to advetising. The foreign radio and television broadcasting that I know best is that of Italy, where—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that I must now call the next hon. Member to speak—
  Mr. Buchan: —the new commercialised channel 5 devotes more than 27 per cent. of its time to advertising.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. John Gorst:
  "the Government's plans provide a most insecure and unpromising field for investment on the part of programme contractors."—[Official Report, 25 March 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1473.]
  "if this Bill becomes law, future historians will deem it to be one of the most irresponsible measures of modern times."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 1954; Vol. 188, c. 284.]
  "I trust we shall reject this Bill, not only because commercial television is undesirable but also because it will not be of value."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 1954; Vol. 188, c. 303.]
  I reassure my right hon. Friend the Minister that those are not my words—they were spoken by Labour spokesmen on broadcasting back in 1954. I apologise for resorting to a somewhat banal and childish deception, but
  64
  my point is a serious one. My motive was not party political. I could equally well have quoted the late Earl of Halifax, a Conservative Peer, who said that, because the principle of public service seemed more important than the principle of commercial competition, he felt unable to support the Second Reading of the Television Bill back in 1954.
  At every stage of our broadcasting history we have been nervous about taking the next step. My theme is simply that, as in the past, we tend to say that we have heard it all before—the faint hearts have always shouted louder than those who were bold, although the more enterprising may eventually have won the day. That is not to say that caution is out of place. Nor does it imply that broadcasting is unimportant. Everyone agrees that it is important. We can go further in agreement and say that innovations carry risks, so sensible precautions must be taken to avoid making mistakes. Today's debate is essentially about taking sensible precautions. Although it involves examining the facts leading to the best results, it also means ignoring the spurious cries of woe from various vested interests.
  There is no shortage of special pleading. It comes from narrow-minded and enlightened people just as much as from self-interested or altruistic people. Let us examine first the cries of woe. Certain themes have constantly recurred in debates over the past 30 years. Will the change be viable? What about the quality of programmes? What about hostility to advertising? Dislike of private profit and accusations of triviality have been voiced. It has been said that ethics and morality will be debased and that changes will constitute a waste of our resources. The enemies of change are not always the upholders of the public conscience. Sometimes they are merely defenders of vested interests.
  Back in the 1950s, the keynote was the defence of the BBC monopoly. The Opposition spokesman at the time said:
  "There are … principles of our public life, one of them being that changes in great established national institutions should not be made without broad agreement."—[Official Report, 15 December 1953; Vol. 522, c. 328.]
  I believe that I have already heard that argument today.
  There is an innate dislike of commerce, too. Speaking for the Opposition, Lord Macdonald went so far as to ask:
  "Is it wise for this country to follow up this craze that we find growing rapidly in some countries to commercialise everything? … Surely there are some things which are too sacred to be commercialised."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 May 1952; Vol. 176, c. 1371.]
  In the 1960s, the rationalisation was that private profit could never serve the public interest. The excuse articulated by the Labour spokesman was that the language of priorities dictated that due to lack of resources we should make no progress. In the 1970s the emphasis switched again. It was then a cocktail of technical difficulties and trivialisation.
  Finally, having reached the 1980s, we are virtually back at square one. We have returned to where we started, back to the dying days of Lord Reith's era, and once again one has a growing sense of having been down this road before. Lord Reith said:
  "nothing could be more certain than that Gresham's Law will apply and dominate".
  With those words, the great patriach of broadcasting thundered against the breaking of the BBC monopoly and foreshadowed today's discussion about the auctioning franchises driving out the good. In ever more scathing

  65
  tones Lord Reith denounced even more wicked possibilities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary spoke of Lord Reith's references to smallpox, bubonic plague and the black death, and Lord Reith ended the speech in question by saying:
  "Somebody is minded now to introduce sponsored broadcasting into this country."
  and
  "A principle absolutely fundamental and cherished is about to be scuttled."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 1952; Vol. 176, c. 1295–7.]
  For "sponsored broadcasting" we need only substitute the word "deregulation" and not much seems to have changed over the years.
  Today we are witnessing a replay of two well-worn tunes from earlier decades. The first is that we must preserve the status quo as far as possible and at all costs, keep the BBC as it is, not upset the existing pattern of ITV contractors and freeze the formula for Channel 4. The second is an admonition that quality, standards and viability could be victims of innovation. Having listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) one would think that a third had been added—a threat to democracy itself.
  Opposing these novel changes is an unholy alliance. Once upon a time it was the bishops in harness with the vice-chancellors and the BBC. Nowadays it is a less plausible alliance—the television entrepreneurs, safely entrenched in their citadels of power but hand in hand with the industry's creative people. Together they seem united against any invasion of their private, privileged territory.
  Nothing that I have said should be taken as suggesting that I do not believe in pressing for the highest possible standards in broadcasting. The broadest spectrum of economically viable choice, not to mention economical use of technical and financial resources, is also highly desirable. Everyone admits, however, that we are moving into a new era of broadcasting and that the old methods of awarding franchises are not necessarily the best. The Government's plans must be thoroughly examined and probed in Committee, as they will be, and the Minister has already said outside the House that there will be reasonableness. That is commendable and highly desirable, but it has to be set against an equally important factor—the fact that we must put behind us for ever Lord Reith's thundering pronouncement that intellectual and ethical objectives
  "are here and now at stake."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 1952; Vol. 176, c. 1297.]
  They are not, they have not been, and they will not be.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Jack Ashley: I followed the Home Secretary's speech with great interest. He will understand why I am opposed to the swashbuckling philosophy behind the Bill. It will make money for the Treasury at the expense of programme quality. Competition is one thing, but it is bad to have moneybags at the expense of viewing standards. I am strongly opposed to the Bill.
  I should like to speak on just one aspect of the Bill, and I shall be brief. It is about the group that the Home Secretary mentioned in his speech—deaf people. He said that there is provision in the Bill for helping deaf people, and he and the Minister of State, Home Office have said that they want to help. I appreciate that. Deaf people have political significance for every hon. Member because they
  66
  are to be found in every constituency. They are deprived of television if they are totally deaf or very hard of hearing. They simply cannot follow it without subtitling; in some cases, they need sign language. It is sad that so many deaf people should be excluded from television in that way.
  For decades, they have been excluded because there was no subtitling. After subtitling was introduced, it was slowly extended, and today there is some provison. I should like the House to look at the amount of subtitling that exists. There is subtitling on several programmes, including documentaries and wildlife programmes. There is Oracle and Ceefax subtitling for various programmes on BBC and ITV. They do a good job. Independent Television News has live subtitles on its news programmes and is to be warmly commended for that. The little misspelling and few seconds delay on the Oracle subtitling on ITN is irrelevant. What is important is that it makes ITN news meaningful to the deaf viewer, whereas BBC news programmes are meaningless pictures. I hope that the BBC will think again and provide proper subtitling for its news programmes.
  The Bill says that there will be a mandatory increase of 10 per cent. in the subtitled hours of commercial television programmes. I welcome that recognition of need by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State. However, a 10 per cent. increase is lamentable. There are about two hours of subtitling per channel per day, although there are over 500 hours of television per week. A 10 per cent. increase in those two hours means an increase of 12 minutes per channel per day, and that is not good enough. The Government cannot be serious. The figures cannot be challenged. I know that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State want to help, but such an increase is not acceptable.
  Mr. Mellor: I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should understand exactly what the Bill says, because we want to meet him and those who feel strongly about this issue. The 10 per cent. increase is only for the first year of the new Channel 3 franchises. Thereafter, we expect the Independent Television Commission to suggest a new target each year which will increase year on year. The precise extent by which it should increase is a matter upon which I feel sure the ITC will want to hear the views of the House as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. The 10 per cent. increase is just a start, and we see it as an increasing commitment every year.
  Mr. Ashley: The Minister has made an important statement, which I hope the ITC will bear in mind, because the Bill does not say that. The Bill says that the Commission needs to make the increase "greater"—not greater than 10 per cent.—in successive years. What does "greater" mean? If one is trying to minimise subtitles and make profits, "greater" could mean 1 per cent. or 0·1 per cent., and that is my anxiety.
  I am delighted by what the Minister has said. The spirit of his intervention must be taken on board by the ITC. That is the end of my speech. Subtitling is crucial, because it is the key for deaf people. The Minister's statement is a big advance.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: I shall concentrate on one feature of the Bill—the provision, or lack of provision, for Christian or other religious broadcasting. The Bill is

  67
  deficient and unsatisfactory in this respect. However, I am encouraged by, and appreciative of, the attitude taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State about religious broadcasting in the informal exchanges that I and other colleagues have had with him. It is clear that he has an open mind about this topic.
  Let me highlight some of the defects of the Bill under this heading. It accentuates the negative on religious broadcasting. There is barely a word about it, except in terms of prohibition and restriction. In the very engine room of the Bill, clause 2, a positive duty is laid on the new independent television commission
  "to facilitate the provision of … a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests."
  It is to provide those services by licence.
  Yet clause 5 goes on to disbar and disallow any Christian body from becoming a licence holder. The so-called wide range of interests to be created for by licensees is open-ended in all sorts of directions, but in the direction of the Christian Churches and other religions, the door is conspicuously and deliberately closed. So, alongside governmental and bureaucratic bodies infinitely more limited in their appeal, Churches are disbarred from taking part as licensees. This is unreasonable and unacceptable.
  I remind my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of what the Bishop of St. Albans said in his commentary on the Bill:
  "churchgoing is still the most popular, voluntary communal activity of the British people".
  It far exceeds, for example, attendance at football matches, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend and the Government have really seriously thought through the desirability of specifically disbarring the most popular national communal activity from being promoted, through banning its sponsors and promoters from taking their wares on to the air as licenceholders.
  Some might argue that the United States television experience, involving scandals like that of Jimmy Bakker, provide evidence enough that we should not go down that road. However, the Bill already provides adequate safeguards to prevent such abuse—for example, the quality provisions in clause 6 and the fund-raising regulatory powers in clause 7. I urge the Government to consider open-mindedly, sympathetically and carefully the possibility of removing this fundamental limitation on the future of religious broadcasting.
  If the limitation is persisted with, it will have the effect of de-licensing, and thus forcing off the air, an existing excellent cable channel carrying mainstream Christian religious output to 65,000 homes in Glasgow, Coventry, Swindon, Croydon and Ealing. The material in this output was recently described by the Cable Television Authority as "worthwhile and accessible". Could anything make the point more vividly about the Bill's accentuation of the negative than its proposal to wring the neck of such programme options? In this context, the views of the Central Religious Advisory Committee for the BBC and IBA on this issue are not the views of the Church of England as a whole, nor those of the wider Christian church.
  The so-called radio option provided for in the Bill is not so restrictive, but it does not meet the case. I remind my
  68
  hon. Friend the Minister of the point made by Mr. Clive Calver, the general director of the Evangelical Alliance in a recent letter to The Times. He said:
  "If churches were to apply for radio licences they would be denied management control of their own output. Clause 83 (2) requires that a licensee should 'exclude from its programmes all expressions of views and opinions of the person providing the service … on religious matters'.
  By this caveat a radio station run by a local church could not even broadcast its own live worship to the community it serves."
  The religious broadcasting on sound radio option is a good start in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. The very fact of the admissibility of sound radio broadcasting should be regarded as the first chink in the curtain which could be extended to visual broadcasting.
  Part of the Government's defence of their position as set out in the Bill is their declared confidence that, notwithstanding the prohibition of television station ownership, plenty of prime time will continue to be given to religious programmes under the new regime, as there is at present. The Government believe that the BBC will continue to feature religion on both channels, as it does now. Although the Government frankly acknowledge that there is no statutory requirement for religious programmes to be shown on ITV, they believe that the generalised provisions of clause 2(2)(b) about catering for
  "a variety of tastes and interests"
  will be sufficient for the safeguarding of prime time religious programmes.
  Who is kidding whom? Does my hon. and learned Friend really believe that the abandonment of an overt public service obligation for the new commercial services, coupled with the new franchises tendering regime, will do anything other than marginalise Christian or other religious programmes? Unfortunately, it is no answer to argue that good quality and popular religious programmes such as "Highway" and "Songs of Praise" will continue to command prime time. Admittedly, they can command up to one third of the entire population of viewers, but the harsh reality is set out in this quote from the Bishop of St. Albans in his paper from the Church of England committee for communications:
  "Although the size of audience is important, the crucial factor is its composition. A large audience of impecunious people does not interest advertisers. Since advertising breaks are not allowed in the middle of religious programmes, they are not among the high revenue earners.
  It is the buying power of an audience, and not simply its size, which appeals to advertisers. Unless there are conservation safeguards in the new system, genuine audience choice will be inhibited.
  In 1988, some ITV programme controllers attempted to move 'Highway' from its popular slot early on Sunday evening. 'Highway' is always in the top 100 programmes, drawing up to 10m viewers each week. Its unattractiveness to programme controllers is that its audience is neither young nor wealthy, so it has little appeal for advertisers."
  That is the harsh reality. That is the reason that mainstream, prime-time religious programmes will go by the board and religion will be marginalised. That is not compatible with the sort of attitude that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, among others, takes towards the importance of religion in broadcasting.
  I share and thoroughly advocate the views expressed by the pressure group Christian Choice in Broadcasting, which insists that it is
  "essential that: channels committed to general programming should include religion; the wide selection of special-interest channels should include at least one with a religious emphasis."
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: There will be plenty of time in Committee to examine the Bill clause by clause and line by line. I shall use my 10 minutes today to examine the principles behind the Bill and to explain why there is a fundamental difference in values and in approach to the Bill between Conservative Members and Opposition Members. I hope that Conservative Members will not try to excuse the Bill with the line. "There is a small part that I do not like, but I can vote against that in Committee." They should examine the values behind the Bill and decide on Second Reading whether they support or reject it.
  I shall take the Government at face value and believe them, temporarily, when they say that their basic principle is to provide for greater choice. It has been demonstrated conclusively in the debates that have preceded this one that greater numbers of programmes will not provide greater choice. We have seen that demonstrated in the listed events for sport. If the free market is allowed to apply, whether for sport or anything else, there can be no argument from a Thatcherite Government point of view that if a channel can afford to pay for a national event, it should have it, and that it is up to individuals to decide whether to have a satellite dish, or whatever else is required, to receive it.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that there is a need for regulation to ensure that the nation as a whole can see national events. It is the result of skilled scheduling that areas which constitute minority interests now become majority interests. For example, who would have thought 10 or 15 years ago that snooker would be a major national event when world championships are being played? That is achieved by scheduling within a programme remit that has balance because the various events are shown during the course of an evening in a major national network programme.
  Programme quality is already being affected. It is not pie in the sky to say that if franchises are auctioned programme quality will be affected in future. Any television company will say now that there is a need already to cut programme budgets because it is saving for the franchise auction. It is inevitable that companies will have to do that. My hon. Friends and I are not scaremongering when we say that the quality of programming will be affected. If cash is the first priority, quality will he affected and it is being affected now.
  If there is a proliferation of channels there will not be more money to create programmes. We know that viewers spend about five hours a day watching television and that most adults watch for 25 hours a week. No one seriously suggests that when we have a proliferation of channels people will be watching more television. They will be spreading their viewing through more channels and there will be lower programme budgets to deliver the quality of programmes required by those operating the channels. That means that less money will be available for each programme.
  We all know that good programming requires money. Who would have the nerve to send John Pilger to Cambodia with a film crew for a long time to make outstanding television documentaries on a restricted budget? John Pilger's programmes have demonstrated the power of television to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The response has been reflected in the letters which have reached our mailbags. There must be considerable commitment if such programmes are to be produced. As
  70
  my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said, who would be able to permit film crews to make wildlife programmes over long periods with reduced budgets? Many types of programme would be at risk if budgets were cut substantially.
  There is a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House because Conservative Members seem to think that the Bill is essential because of new technology. Technology is marvellous, but it is our servant and not our master. The technology of satellite and cable television enables us to make better programmes and any programme-maker who allows technology to get ahead of the story—to spin screens round, and all the other incredible things that can be done, which I can barely understand despite having made programmes in the past—will not improve the quality of the programme. The basic story line and concept must be good. If the Government have the will to regulate satellite and cable television properly to ensure that they are the servants of programme standards and that technology is not the master, they will be successful.
  I fear that the real motive behind the Bill is not the stated one. I absolve a fair few Conservative Members who are in their places because I am sure that, by definition, they are those who have doubts about the Bill. I fear that the real motive is that the Government prefer to receive their news and current affairs via The Sun rather than "World in Action". They are happier in a world where the Daily Star provides the information about what is going on in the world and not "First Tuesday". They are not so interested in that outstanding documentary programme, which was the first to spell out the innocence of the Guildford Four. I wonder how many people wish that events which take place in the United Kingdom were not examined in detail by means of investigative journalism.
  In 1987, the broadcasting research unit of the Home Office reported on the public's view of their sources of news and information. It stated that 67 per cent. cited television as the medium they most trust, 11 per cent. cited radio, and 8 per cent. cited newspapers. I am stunned that the percentage citing newspapers was so high, but it is clear that under the present regulatory framework the public see television as their most reliable source of news and current affairs. I am not surprised that some Conservative Members look forward to the day when newspapers and not television will be the main source of public information on news and current affairs. The House would be spending its time far more effectively if it were seeking ways whereby the press, as an important medium of current affairs, was brought up to the standards of broadcasting. Instead, however, the philosophy behind the Bill seems to be to drag broadcasting down to the standards of the press.
  Behind the Bill lies a distessing philosophy. I regard television as a miraculous medium. It is one that I barely understand despite having worked in it, and one with a phenomenal capacity to communicate to peoples of all nations. How do the Government respond to the miracle of this means of communication and its miraculous extension through cable and satellite technology? They ask themselves how much money they can make out of it, how much they can get from the auctioning of franchises and whether it will satisfy the advertisers—a depressing, mean-spirited, narrow-minded response to a marvellous means of communication.
  My right hon. Friends and I rejoice at what telvision can do. We do not want it reduced to musak in the lift, as

  71
  in the United States and most other countries where there has been deregulation. We want to see television used for what it is within a proper regulatory framework. That is the only way of guaranteeing real choice and real standards. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two sides of the House, and if we accept the Bill we shall be going down the road towards pap.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Julian Critchley: If I hesitate for a moment before speaking, it is only to allow time for my aunt to come in from the garden—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: What was she doing out in the dark?
  Mr. Critchley: She has a lavatory at the bottom of the garden.
  Last year I was invited by a friend in the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] No, but he invited me to speak at a supper club in his constituency. I shall not say where, merely that if we divided the map of the United Kingdom into four quarters, it would fall in the south-western quarter. Conservative Members know what such occasions are like. If I recount the menu—half a grapefruit with one red, Cyclopian eye in the middle; rubber chicken with half a tinned apricot or peach looking rather like a fried egg—it is only to explain to the House what my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has endured for the past four years.
  The subject of my speech at the supper club in the south-western quarter was broadcasting. I chose it for a purpose, because broadcasting is one subject about which most Conservatives know absolutely nothing, but about which we hold very strong views. In the demonology of our great party—and by God, our demonology is full of candidates of one kind or another—the BBC holds a very special place. Sooty and sulphurous, the corporation has, or so it is believed, a long history of letting down the side. It is unBritish—its reporting during the Falklands war; it is snide—it makes jokes about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; it is limply impartial—when events call for a robust partiality.
  I am sorry to say that, for a certain sort of Conservative, the BBC is certainly not one of us. In consequence, it has been given until 1996 and has been restricted to a licence fee that can raise no additional money—it is simply indexed—to enable it to meet the challenge of Channels 3, 4 and 5. Was not the BBC described by someone who lives not a million miles from Downing street as a nest of Marxists? If so, given the events in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, it deserves to be made a protected species.
  The Bill has its origins in the White Paper, which in turn sprang from the loins of a Cabinet Sub-Committee. That Sub-Committee was presided over by the Prime Minister herself. There is nothing new in that; most of them are. However, it included the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was his idea that the franchises should be auctioned to the highest bidder to raise the maximum amount of revenue for the Treasury. I understand that he is doing something like that with his memoirs.
  To return to my speech at the supper club—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: It may be the only one for some time.
  Mr. Critchley: That is my ambition.
  My audience appeared to regard the BBC as the enemy—"that Robin Day"—while ITV was judged in part by the irreverence of "Spitting Image" and by what many saw as the Left-wing bias of its news and current affairs. I found that extremely disturbing. They had no wish to see their distinguished Members of Parliament on the telly. Bringing the cameras into the House would, I was told, encourage politics—by which, of course, they meant the politics of our opponents. Conservative Members, as we all know, have nothing to do with politics of any sort.
  It is well known that the Home Office is in something of a fix. On the one hand it believes—or its masters believe—in deregulation. Some of them believe in the magic of the market. To a Manchester liberal, and we have far too many of them in the Tory party, more does not mean worse; it means giving the man in the street what he craves—32 buttons on his television set, each one giving him access to one form of "Neighbours" or another. Such Manchester liberals are the worst sort of elitists. As my hon. Friend "the other Walden" has written:
  "They shelter their children in expensive preparatory schools while handing over other people's children to the forces of the markets."
  On the other hand—this is the fix in which the Home Office finds itself—the Home Office, or some of its masters, is worried about sex. Lord Rees-Mogg has been recalled to the colours with the sole purpose of defending the nation against the heated imagination of Mr. Dennis Potter. We live in a country in which nanny insists that we wash our hands before lunch, while she washes her hands of what we do between breakfast and lunchtime.
  We should not permit the franchises to fall into the hands of the highest bidder. A channel on television is a scarce resource and must be allocated to the applicant who submits the most impressive prospectus. The Minister has already said—I think on the BBC—that nothing in the BBC is set in stone. In that case, will he consider my suggestion that his proposal on auctioneering should be stood on its head? There should be a simple rent, set by and payable to the Government. The other bid, over and above that, should be the amount of money that the rivals are prepared to spend on programmes—not on soaps, game shows or cheap Australian imports, because we already suffer from a form of Australian cultural imperialism—but on drama, news and current affairs. Unless that concession is clearly made, I do not think that I shall vote for the Bill.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Bill gives us an opportunity to review the whole question of radio and television. The review must be used not to weaken existing standards, but to reaffirm the true role of broadcasting, which is to inform, educate and entertain. It is sad that the Government appear to be using the opportunity to sell stations to the highest bidders. The quality threshold must be regarded as a plateau, not as an obstacle to be jumped and disregarded later. The "highest bidder" concept is wrong as it cannot be in the best interests of viewers or the country to place such a powerful medium into the hands of those whose only qualification might be that they are richer than anyone else.
  I welcome the establishment of the Broadcasting Standards Council and will be watching closely to see how it uses the powers given to it under part V. However, I am

  73
  concerned that under clause 129 certain cable and microwave transmission services seem to be excluded from the scope of the council's monitoring. If we are to have such a council, it should be responsible for examining all broadcasting services without exception. Perhaps the Minister will explain why, under part II, some licensed services are excluded from the council's responsibility?
  Like the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I am surprised and disappointed that the Bill gives so little support to the deaf and hard of hearing. I had hoped that, with about 4 million viewers falling into that category, much more consideration would have been given to their needs. I hope that amendments will be passed in Committee to provide more facilities for the deaf, and I was pleased to hear what the Minister said earlier on that matter.
  The restriction on Christian broadcasting is resented by many people, especially in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland agree fully with the concerns expressed in Great Britain about religious bodies being restricted from being involved in broadcasting. Under the provisions of schedule 2, such bodies can have no involvement in holding television service licences. Clause 83 places restrictions on editorial control of radio programmes. As was said earlier, that will disadvantage an existing Christian output on a cable channel. The Cable Authority has said that it regrets that the new legislation is "unnecessarily restrictive". I know that the Minister has received many representations on that issue and I urge him to think again and to allow Christian or religious bodies to compete in the marketplace in the same way as other groups.
  I draw the House's attention to how the Bill will affect Northern Ireland. Provision is made in clauses 139 and 140 to bring television and radio under the obscenity law in England, Scotland and Wales. I was surprised to see that no similar provision has been made for Northern Ireland. Citizens in Northern Ireland should enjoy the same protection from obscene material as citizens in the rest of the kingdom. Perhaps the Minister can explain how that has happened and, if necessary, ensure that an amendment to the Bill is tabled in Committee.
  I support the properly controlled but urgent evolution of radio in Ulster. I ask the Minister to say what criteria will be used by the new authority to decide how many stations are desirable and where those stations will be located. How and where will those criteria be obtained?
  Radio enthusiasts in Ulster think that there is room for between six and 20 new stations in Northern Ireland. At present there is general agreement that Radio Ulster, Radio Foyle and Downtown Radio provide a good service for their own section of the market. However, there is clear evidence of a large audience looking for a different format.
  That evidence is the undoubted success of stations based in the Irish Republic which beam programmes into Fermanagh and Armagh, Newry and Craigavon, as far up as Belfast and in the north-west of the Province. It becomes more imperative every day that new local Northern Ireland companies are given the opportunity to cater for that obvious market and thus provide an exciting and creative radio industry in Ulster, so that in the words of the Bill they can offer
  "a wide range of programmes"
  for a
  "variety of tastes and interests"
  74
  Northern Ireland has been well served for 30 years by our existing television station—Ulster Television—which, as a result of hard work, dedication and expertise, has become a success in terms of viewing figures, profitability and local esteem. It is a great compliment that Northern Ireland people know it as "our station". Ulster Television employs about 270 staff and produces 400 hours of wide-ranging and diverse programmes a year. It is committed to grant-aiding the arts and sciences and provides sponsorship for sport, education and job creation to the tune of 5 per cent. of its annual television profit. Its board and management are involved in the life of the community and most of its reporters and presenters are from the Province.
  Despite 21 years of terrorism, the station has managed to overcome the problems presented by a divided society and separate cultures, to become fully accepted by the whole community. That praiseworthy position is due to the company being locally owned and controlled. It is a remarkable achievement and is made even more so when one considers the subtleties of circumstances in Northern Ireland.
  We must not lose sight of the many extra disadvantages that will be faced even by a local company. Sales revenue from Channel 4 will be lost. There will be increased competition from Channel 4, Channel 5 and five satellite channels. The privatisation of transmitters will impose extra costs and, on top of that, there will be the unquantifiable burden of tendering. Sadly, the IBA's most recent financial projection is more negative than before.
  Right hon. and hon. Members do not need to be reminded of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. The presentation of sensitive material requires careful handling and the careless use of information could, in extreme circumstances, result in tragedy. The emphasis on the wrong word or the careless use of a phrase can cause anger in some sections of the community. Because of those real difficulties, it is essential that broadcasting in Northern Ireland should be controlled and manned by local people who are sensitive to local problems. It could be a disaster if control of television were to fall into the hands of people lacking the inside knowledge that it so essential to anyone involved in the media in Northern Ireland.
  I make the House aware of those many problems hoping that the Minister in his reply will concede the necessity for dealing with Northern Ireland in a different but sympathetic way so that in Ulster we will have not only a truly local operation but a viable one, too.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Timothy Raison: The White Paper that heralded the Bill is entitled "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality." I favour competition and choice, but the greatest of the three is quality. In a sense, that is the theme and essence of today's debate. It is the particular job of Government to ensure that the best of our culture is handed on from one generation to the next, and we are right to examine the Bill to see what it contributes to what I regard as the battle to preserve and enhance our civilisation.
  A number of simple actions can be taken. One would be to make Radio 3 audible throughout the country. It is infuriating to drive to one's constituency, only to find that Radio 3 has disappeared from the airwaves. I would much

  75
  rather see Radio I converted to Radio 3 than the present situation continue to exist. Other matters are more difficult and complex to resolve. Notable among them is the way in which ITV contracts are to be allocated, and I shall deal with that aspect later.
  The Government have taken a number of wise decisions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was right to point out that Channel 4 has been safeguarded. As he said, it was a great Tory invention. He is right also to keep the BBC basically intact. Three of the four existing channels will remain as they are; although, goodness knows, they are far from perfect, by and large they provide a reasonably good service. Those are all, in essence, decisions for achieving quality.
  The most vexed question is how the ITV contracts should be allocated. When it comes to Channel 5, I hope that its boundaries will not be coterminous with those of Channel 3. In the present system, there is a strong bias in favour of the conurbations. I represent a part of the country that is commonly described as part of the home counties, and which is not a conurbation. As a result, it enjoys virtually no regional broadcasting. It is beginning to be served by local radio stations, but long after the conurbations. To be fair, Central Television has set up a Central (South) region, which goes some way to meeting the problem, and I congratulate it on that. Nevertheless, I hope that Channel 5 will not observe the same old boundaries.
  Most important of all is the allocation of the contracts for Channel 3. The question of auctioning or tendering for that channel is the main problem. Of course there are vested interests, and special pleadings galore. We all know that the existing franchise holders badly want to win the contracts again, and are arguing as hard as they can that that should be so. However, the doubts go beyond that aspect, and I share some of them.
  We do not know whether the Government's proposed system will drag down quality. Perhaps it would be worth reaching a compromise whereby only Channel 5 is allocated under the new tendering system. We can then see how that works out, while continuing to operate the present system of awarding franchises for Channel 3—perhaps for a shorter period than five or seven years. At the end of that period, we can make a judgment on whether the tendering system has the drawbacks that have been attributed to it, or whether it works perfectly satisfactorily. I like the idea of more competition, but we should wait to see how the tendering system works in one instance before committing ourselves to a major step, and one that could prove damaging.
  Clause 33 seems to me to be unnecessary. It empowers the Independent Television Commission to require Channels 3, 4 and 5 to transmit party political broadcasts. Surely we are here presented with an opportunity to dispense with such broadcasts. We all know perfectly well that they range from the mediocre to the mendacious. Few people in our country, from whatever quarter they may come, would defend them. There is a serious reason for dispensing with party political broadcasts. The current experiment in televising this House is succeeeding and the decision to broadcast our proceedings is unlikely to be
  76
  reversed. It would be far better if, every day, five minutes more could be broadcast from this House, and there were no more party political broadcasts.
  Perhaps the Bill should be a little more adventurous about impartiality in television programmes. Clause 6 focuses on that important aspect. I do not suggest for one moment that news programmes should be other than impartial, but perhaps we ought to accept the possibility that some programmes should be licensed to be partial rather than impartial. Mention has already been made of "World in Action", which everybody acknowledges is a radical programme with a strong political slant. Why not allow "World in Action" to come clean, but then ensure that a corresponding programme is broadcast with a bias in the opposition direction? Why should we pretend that everything is so dispassionate when that is evidently not the case?
  The most important among the points I have made is that concerning the award of contracts, which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will consider sympathetically.
  7.15 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I must admit that my poor dear aunt is no longer with me, and I am unsure how long it will take her to home in on the speech that I want to make. Nevertheless, I draw the attention of the House to one aspect that I believe is tremendously important. Most right hon. and hon. Members, when speaking about television, have in common the fact that, although they talk about television, they never watch it. Most right hon. and hon. Members do not even watch television when they are on it themselves. That is the greatest sacrifice that any politician can make. However, every day a substantial percentage of the population use television as a means of obtaining not only information and education but plain enjoyment. That is not only wonderful but something we should encourage.
  The Bill fails to deal with the most important sector of the television audience, which is children. Our country has a long history of making high-quality and varied children's television programmes. Specific attempts were made, originally by the BBC and then by ITV, to programme for different age groups and to produce not only traditional stories but original material. I am deeply concerned that the Bill provides no specific safeguards for that sector.
  I have for some time endeavoured to obtain from the hon. and learned Minister of State a guarantee that he is prepared to write standards for children's broadcasting into the Bill. With surprising modesty, he has not been prepared to give me a specific answer. He seems to believe that, if there is lots and lots of television, that must automatically be good for children, but that is neither my experience nor that of many parents.
  In fact, there are considerable reservations about the present trend among ITV companies. Some of their original children's programmes have been cancelled, while new material has not been developed. There are clear signs that, as financial horns have been drawn in, children's programmes are suffering disproportionately. The increase in the number of television channels has not brought an automatic improvement in quality but has frequently meant observance of the lowest common denominator. That is noticeable in the BBC as well as among the ITV companies.
  Mr. Gale: Surely the hon. Lady acknowledges that there has never been any statutory provision of any kind in respect of children's entertainment in the charter of the BBC or the IBA. The only company about which I know a great deal, Thames Television, increased its children's programme staff and produced more children's programmes last year than ever before.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Many considerations are not written into charters. Like many institutions, television operates not to written rules but largely to unwritten rules—for example, in respect of the transmission of foreign material.
  When Doreen Stephens was head of family programmes at the BBC, she said that one of her points of principle was
  "the duty and responsibility to use the medium of television to enrich and enlarge the child's experience."
  She felt that children should be stimulated by the programmes they watched, so that television did not serve purely as an automatic nursemaid. Her other principles were:
  "That children should be entertained and enjoy the programmes they watch.
  That children should be treated with respect as people, without condescension or concession.
  That children should not be over-protected in the choice and presentation of the content of their programmes."
  We should take care to ensure that all those principles are incorporated in any future planning for the expansion of television. We must accept that, if we simply allow television to become a matter of open competition, we shall increasingly see an influx of the type of children's material which has the specific aim of selling toys, and developing particular commercial involvements.
  Small children and children up to their early teens do not have sufficient experience to be automatically choosy about the quality of the material they watch. That does not mean that we should assume a certain level of censorship, but we must be careful to ensure that they are not subject to sleazy, low quality, narrowly aimed material.
  I have considerable doubts about some of the programmes shown now. I do not look at children's television any more; I look at ordinary television. But I have a secret army—mostly called Dunwoody, most of whom have small children—who give me acute accounts of what is shown. They are already concerned about children's programmes that include torture chambers or that use poor English and about a number of game shows in which small children are subjected to indignities that are not in their interest and can upset them. That is already happening.
  As the Bill develops, I hope that we shall have a calm understanding that children's material is not cheap to make, but is often as expensive as adult programmes, and that it takes a long time to get a return on the original material.
  Children's programmes do not automatically mean cartoon films imported from America. Nor should they be a demonstration of a particular form of game show or, dare I say it, low-quality imported material from parts of the world where they manage to make a series of programmes and need to make a profit by circulating them as widely as possible, irrespective of what that does to the audience.
  I want good children's programmes, and I want my children and grandchildren to be proud of an industry that
  78
  for a long time has put specialised programmes for children of different ages high on its list, and has been appreciated worldwide for the quality of its programmes.
  I can see nothing in the Bill that will safeguard the material shown on television. I have heard nothing in what the Minister has said today that makes it clear that the Government intend to build safeguards into the Bill in Committee, and it is for precisely those reasons that I shall vote against the Bill tonight.
  A country that sells its children short in culture, literature or in the material that they enjoy daily in their homes, is a pretty miserable, tatty country. We have to ensure that that is not the United Kingdom.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I declare an interest as a member of British Equity, a member of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians and a member of the television branch of the National Union of Journalists.
  There are 167 clauses in the Bill. Those right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Home Affairs Select Committee will be gratified to see that many of our findings are reflected in many of those clauses.
  Hon. Members who hope to serve on the Standing Committee will wish to consider a number of issues. We shall want to re-examine the "must carry" provisions that will be lost with the abolition of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, and we may seek to reimpose a must-carry provision for BBC1 and 2. We should reconsider the provisions currently mooted for Channel 4, to determine whether it is realistic to ask the competitor companies that operate Channel 3 to underwrite and promote Channel 4's programmes. We may need to reconsider the Secretary of State's right or need to be able to veto the non-executive directors of Channel 4.
  We may need to consider cross-ownership, with particular reference to community radio. My hon. and learned Friend may like to think about the many local newspapers that might be able to provide a better service to the reading and listening public, if they were able to own community radio stations.
  We may have to reconsider the provisions for Channel 5 and the network arrangements that will exist in a new Channel 3. Undoubtedly, we shall need to consider further the difference between cross-media ownership and intra-television ownership. We shall certainly want to examine the provisions for deaf viewers. The privatisation of ITV transmission systems will need detailed consideration, and the provisions for broadcasting data and teletext will need to be examined.
  None of those issues has been discussed in any depth in the House this afternoon. I am particularly sad that the debate has effectively been hijacked by the self-styled Campaign for Quality Television which largely represents the huge financial interests of some huge companies.
  I am a television director and producer by trade and I have produced a large number—
  Mr. Walden: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gale: I have very little time, and I know that my hon. Friend seeks to make a speech in a moment.
  Mr. Walden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support the Campaign for Quality Television,

  79
  and I wish to make it clear, after the rather offensive remark of my hon. Friend, that, unlike him, I have absolutely no economic or financial links with television.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member should be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Gale: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) will endeavour to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will make his speech in due course. The Campaign for Quality Television has the backing of some large vested interests.
  Out of 167 clauses in an important Bill, very few have received more than scant attention from the media, which has sought, or has only been able, to focus on one issue. At the moment, I am reasonably satisfied that the arrangements made by BBC1 and 2, and the provision for the remit of Channel 4, will provide quality television, as I define it, as a producer and director. I am also satisfied that the quality threshold for Channel 3 will provide a satisfactory structure for the future of that channel.
  In Committee, hon. Members will need to reconsider the other provisions of the Bill, and perhaps give the ITC the right to take into account the value of quality bids made by those who enter their auction room.
  The Bill sets up a framework for broadcasting into the 20th century. By the year 2020, it is likely that every household in the country will have a cinema-style screen, 1·5 in deep, hanging on the wall, that will bring a choice of 20 to 30 channels via satellite transmission, cable head end and interactive cable. A person will be able to sit in an armchair at home watching the television, see an advertisement for a product, recall it at the end of the programme, view it through a mail order catalogue or review the commercial, decide on the merits of the product, order it and pay for it through interactive cable. That is technically possible now, as is the provision of home education—I thought that that would have appealed to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham—home shopping, home banking and home medicine.
  If anyone has any doubt about whether that is possible, I quote briefly from a press release from British Telecom, dated 14 November 1989, which says:
  "The Government has given the green light to British Telecom's trial of its pioneering communications vision for the 21st century.
  This will use optical fibre 'pipelines' carrying television, high fidelity stereo-radio, telephone calls, information technology and other interactive services to houses and businesses.
  The company has been granted a special licence … to convey into integrated voice telephony and entertainment television over a trial optical fibre network at Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire.
  The licence runs from October 21, 1989 to December 31, 1992."
  That system will probably be up and running in homes by the end of next summer. The House is confronted with a colossal potential. An enormous opportunity will be presented to programme-makers, programme-providers and everyone in the entertainment industry, and it is depressing that many right hon. and hon. Members and people outside regard the Bill not as an opportunity but as a threat.
  It is vital that we seize the opportunity with both hands, that we try to prevent the waste of time and energy on warring satellite systems, that we pursue in the interests of
  80
  the United Kingdom the development of satellite delivery and above all, that we pursue and encourage the development of fibre-optic cable systems.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) into the realms of science fiction because the Bill seems to me to be essentially about ideology and interference—the Prime Minister's Meddlesome Matty syndrome—in a system which "ain't broke, is doing quite well and don't need fixing".
  The Bill is not about pluralism. Pluralism and competing channels are with us already. The Bill will add only one—fifth—television channel, which has unlikely prospects in any case. We welcome pluralism. It adds excitement, interest and diversity. The problem is to provide for standards, for quality and for production in the new pluralistic environment.
  Pluralism—having more channels—must weaken basic provision through the duopoly. It drains away money and viewers. On the whole, the effect on the networks in the United States has been adverse. In such circumstances, we should strengthen the basic provision. That is what people will continue to rely on. It will continue to provide the basic continuity of production and the basic quality of television in Britain. We should strengthen it in the face of the threat of more competition and more pluralism. It can survive. I am not saying that it will disappear and disintegrate, but the Government are compounding the problems caused by more competition by aiming a body blow at existing channels, the existing duopoly and the existing basic production facilities.
  The Government believe that the market will provide. That just does not work in the media. Indeed, the reverse is the case. The more open and unregulated the market is, and the more intense the competition in the media, the more organisations are driven down market, the more standards fall and the more they are driven to the lowest common denominator. Anyone who wants proof of that should consider the quality of the British popular press, which is totally unregulated and in intense competition, and compare it with the American popular press, which is effectively protected by local monopolies which give it some insulation from competition.
  Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: Contrast British television, which is regulated and not that intensely competitive, with American television and its standards. Those two examples prove that the market does not provide for quality. It drives down to the lowest common denominator—
  Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: No.
  We are in danger of producing that in British television. We sustain standards—
  Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman is talking so fiercely about competition, would it not be in order for him to declare his personal interest in this matter?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has a financial or other interest in this matter, he must declare it. I am sure he will declare it.
  Mr. Mitchell: My interests are declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I present a programme for Sky Television. If that is the only point that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) wants to make, it is trivial and irrelevant.
  The remorseless drive down market by intense competition will be compounded by the Bill. The Government are damaging the existing structures of television. They are doing that, first, by the slow strangulation of the BBC through a licence fee which has not kept up with inflation and thus reduces the pool of money available to television and weakens the BBC in the longer term. I am sorry that the BBC has stayed out of this argument, congratulating itself on coming through unscathed in the Bill, because it will suffer in the future.
  Secondly, the Bill scoops out more revenue for the Treasury from the pool of money available for television production. That reduces the money available for quality. The Economist suggested that money that is siphoned out should be used for production of quality. That is an admirable solution, but it is not what will happen under these proposals. Thirdly, the Bill weakens the existing structure by the insane auction system to which the Government have stuck so obstinately that it must be the Prime Minister's baby. That is the only explanation for the obstinacy with which the Government are sticking to their ridiculous auction idea, which removes all discretion from the ITC and opens the door to the media barons and especially to the continentals, whom we cannot prevent from coming in.
  While the Government may not view the prospect of Berlisconi in Barnsley with any great horror, when it comes to Bertlesman in Basildon or Hachette in Harpenden, their electors will begin to take a different view. The bidders will just not know how much to bid. They will be in competition with people who are buying contracts for status, or for other reasons. That will siphon more money out of the pool available for quality production. That clause must be altered. The Minister has suggested that we should take account of the overall interests of the viewer, and that that might be a way to alter the arrangement, because the continuity of "Coronation Street", "Emmerdale Farm" and "The Bill" will be far more important to the viewer. That might allow us a way to alter it, but the clause must be altered.
  The fourth thing that the Government are doing to harm existing structures is to loosen regulations. We hear of the light touch, but they do not want the light touch when it comes to matters moral. They have Lord Rees-Mogg free to pursue his masturbatory fantasies across the screen, pursuing the nipple count or the coitus coefficient. There is no light touch there. They want a heavy hand—the sweaty, heavy hand—when it comes to regulation in that respect. The real problem is not that kind of standard, but standards of quality and of production. The Broadcasting Standards Council has no remit there—when it comes to quality, excellence and good television, the Government want a light touch.
  The IBA has done a good job. The light touch has worked there. It has provided for the effective development of good production centres in the regions. It has provided for quality centres of excellence in the
  82
  regions, which it is important to sustain. The Bill does not adequately sustain either by insisting on local production for the regions and for the network. We have to have both. Production has to be local—in Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester—because it is more expensive to do it there than in London. It costs about £100,000 more to produce Yorkshire Television's "A Bit of a Do" in Leeds—to which it brings jobs, and where it adds to the local centre of excellence and uses local skills—than it would in London.
  The Bill will undermine such regional production. I am worried about the effect of such changes on current affairs coverage. When current affairs programmes lose about a third of the audience with which they start, why should companies go to the trouble of supporting staff to inquire with the trenchant journalism of "Death on the Rock", which the Government clearly hate, when they can put on a mindless chat show or an import at far lower cost? Why should they produce culture or an arts programme? I am worried by the falling standards which I saw this year in entries to the British Petroleum arts journalism competition of which I am a judge. Why should companies bother to produce such programmes when they cost so much?
  The Bill makes no provision for networking, but that is crucial when it comes to costs. How will programmes be networked? Will there be open war between different companies, as there was at the start of independent television, which would be enormously expensive?
  I am worried about what is happening to television now. The latest schedules are most disappointing. They are unimaginative. There are no big projects, no interesting ideas and no innovation. Companies are instead taking on a fight with their staff to drive down wages and conditions or to sack a large number of them, thus impairing their capacity to produce programmes. If that is a sign of what is to come, it is a sign of a desire to get more money out so that they can make a bigger bid to keep the contract. It is also a sign that standards are bound to decline because resources devoted to production at regional centres of quality and excellence, where skills feed on each other, will be weakened and undermined. Independent production is no substitute.
  I am worried about the basic principles of a Bill which provides for more channels, but not for more revenue, more effective maintenance of standards or close regulation to provide better quality television in Britain. It is a doctrinaire Bill which bears no relevance to the problems of production in Britain. It aims a body blow at the industry in which Britain leads the world and it offers the television viewer nothing but a debasement of standards.
  7.40 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Many Christians believe that, if the Bill is not amended, the Christian voice on television and radio will be increasingly gagged in the coming years. I should like to make four points in support of that. First, the Bill denies any religious body the right to own or operate a television station. Secondly, the Bill ensures the sole right of secular ownership of all television stations. Thirdly, the Bill does not ensure that commercial radio or television will continue to include religious programmes. Fourthly, the Bill does not ensure that Christian bodies will have the freedom to sponsor programmes on television.

  83
  The Bill should ensure that commercial radio and television stations are required to broadcast religious programmes. It should ensure that Christian and other religious bodies are permitted to participate in broadcasting in exactly the same way as every other group in society. If political and commercial interests can present their cases on television, that right should be granted to Christian and other religious bodies. Christian bodies are permitted to publish books or newspapers. They have the right to participate in running hospices, playgroups, sheltered dwellings, rehabilitation centres, schools, unemployment projects, AIDS hospitals and community centres, so why not television stations under proper regulation? As many religious bodies aim to strengthen family relationships and encourage honesty, self-sacrifice and discipline, instead of putting up a barrier to them, the Government should encourage them.
  If commercial interests alone are to control the spiritual output of commercial broadcasting, how can it be responsible and balanced? If the future of broadcasting is really to offer choice, why are viewers and listeners to be denied the choice of what Christians and other religious bodies can offer?
  Northern Ireland, has been well served by the independent broadcasters. Downtown Radio has maintained a very high standard, as has Ulster Television. I agree with my colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), that there is room and opportunity for other local radio and television broadcasters in the Province.
  We are informed that the Government have set their face against a new radio station in the north-west of the Province. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the Government have in mind for community and commercial radio in Northern Ireland. What is happening? Business interests are now busily engaged in buying up the opportunities that are afforded to them in the south of Ireland. A powerful radio station operates half a mile from the Londonderry border. Commercial interests have to go to the South of Ireland to broadcast. That opportunity should be localised, and business interests in Northern Ireland should have the right to their own broadcasting stations and the ability to present acceptable programmes to the people. I trust that the Government will give that careful consideration, because it is important that commercial and community broadcasting is developed right across the Province and not limited as it is now.
  I want to place on record the fact that the two independent services—Downtown Radio and Ulster Television—have provided an excellent service and deserve the praise of the community. I am sorry that I cannot say the same for the BBC in Northern Ireland, which seems to be more interested in spending the money raised from television licences on programmes that cause an outcry across the political and religious divide because of their obscenity and blasphemy. I want to stress that in the House tonight.
  It is important that community radio in Northern Ireland is ordered to present to the localities that it serves programmes that will be helpful, good for the children and good for the community. Northern Ireland has a great well of talent, and that talent should be used. How better than
  84
  in the new broadcasting scheme? Therefore, I trust that the Government will keep those matters in mind when they make their decision.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friends have already made much of the fundamental case against the Bill, so, in the short time available, I shall concentrate on its impact on Welsh television and broadcasting.
  In one sense, I felt a measure of relief in looking at the Bill, at least in regard to the provisions relating to S4C. In general, those clauses have accepted the continuing role of S4C. The road has not been easy as a difficult and delicate balance has to be struck in Welsh television. In my view, S4C has been successful in the remit that Parliament gave it when it was established—to provide a comprehensive service for the Welsh language.
  I wish to draw the Minister's attention to two aspects of the Bill which might endager that success. I shall deal with one now and one later in my remarks. First, during the 1990s, S4C will be greatly dependent on the buoyancy and impact of advertising. If that advertising declines, as many forecasts suggest, there may be a financial crisis for S4C somewhere in the mid-term of its next period of service. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider the concept of a safety net to deal with such a problem, should it arise. I shall make my second point about S4C later in my speech, as it relates to the role and relationship of Channel 5 to Welsh broadcasting and Welsh television.
  Having made those few placatory remarks, on the central issue of the auctioning of franchises and the licensing of the one commercial television station in Wales—it will therefore be not only our regional but national commercial station—I share every one of the fears, worries and concerns that have been expressed, not only for the reasons given by my hon. Friends but for the further reason mentioned briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). At least, under the current system, a television company that seeks the powerful monopolistic commercial television franchise in Wales must justify its presence in Wales. Its studios, board of directors and supervisory management must all belong to and identify with the society that they serve.
  The Bill provides for programmes of a regional character, but there is not one provision that will compel the highest bidder for a regional or national franchise to have a regional or national presence in Wales or oblige its board of directors or supervisory management to identify and have roots with the region or nation that they plan to serve. I am glad to say that, under the present arrangements, because the franchise is for HTV West and HTV Wales, the IBA has insisted on dual representation at board and supervisory level and at programme and production level.
  I shall no doubt continue to have many quarrels with HTV; there is bound to be creative tension in the relationship between a local politican and the local media. I have no brief to speak for HTV Wales, but I cannot deny that it is rooted in Wales, that it identifies with Wales, that its management are Welsh and that it has a major regional and national presence. I frequently quarrel with it, but I cannot deny its Welshness, its sense of identity, its sense of belonging and its roots in the society from which its money

  85
  comes. There is not one provision in the Bill that will ensure that the highest bidder for a franchise will have such a presence, such roots or such an identity.
  The lack of identity is reflected in the watchdog arrangements. Except for one measly paragraph at the bottom of the lengthy schedule 1, there is no provision for the ITC in Wales to establish a regional or national presence. I hope that the Minister will assure us that it will have a Welsh identity. Will there be an advisory committee, or a sensitive and able directorate such as that represented by Mr. Eirion Lewis and his staff at the Welsh IBA? The Bill offers no assurance of that, merely a paragraph saying that it may be possible to establish some advisory committee structure.
  The public are shut out of such operations. At least under the existing arrangements, however flawed they might be, when franchises came up for renewal there was some attempt at public consultation. The viewers served by the franchise holder were able to express their views. The system may have been flawed and may not have operated as effectively as it should have, but at least a process of public consultation was required.
  The Bill makes no provision for proper public consultation on decisions about who shall hold the licence in a region or, in our case, in Wales. Therefore, a large proportion of the Welsh public will be shut out of taking part or being involved in any shape or form in the process of deciding who shall control the national commercial monopoly in Wales and what programmes and schedules it offers.
  I want to bring to the attention of the House a matter that has not been discussed so far—the function and role of Channel 5. I have a map showing its predicted coverage and the fact that significant and important parts of the Principality will not receive it. I am sure that the constituency of hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) will not be covered, but neither will most of the valley communities. Most of our television is received through relay stations, and if the proposed system for Channel 5 goes ahead, significant areas of the Principality—and, indeed, of the rest of Britain—will not be covered by it.
  The figure of 70 per cent. coverage for Channel 5 covers many problems, but I want to explain to the House the impact that that may have on the delicate balance and consensus that has been achieved on broadcasting and television in Wales. At present, S4C is an alternative to Channel 4. There are many frustrations among people who want to see Channel 4 programmes in Wales, but fortunately we can say that sooner or later, Channel 4 programmes will appear on S4C. However, some of its scheduling is capricious, to say the least. If, on top of that, many people in Wales find that the fifth channel will not be available, the careful and delicate consensus that we have achieved may be destabilised. I can hear the telephone calls coming in now saying, "What is this talk about choice? I couldn't get Channel 4 and now I can't get Channel 5."
  Many people along the south Wales coast are turning their eyes and aerials to the Mendips to avoid S4C and to obtain Channel 4. Many communities have not done so and many will not want to do so, but if they have to turn their eyes and aerials to the Mendips to get Channel 5, their anger and frustration will rise and the careful balance that we have achieved in the Principality may be broken.
  86
  I should like to refer briefly to the interesting article written by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), in which he described the Bill as being "towards a thicker Britain". There are many variations on that, because I think that it may lead towards a duller Britain. I was reminded of one of the great 18th-century satirists, Alexander Pope. In his poem, "The Dunciad", he described the Empress of Dulness in the following terms:
  "See now, what Dulness and her sons admire;
  See! what the charms, that smite the simple heart
  Not touch'd by Nature and not reach'd by Art."
  That could be an epitaph to the Bill, unless we are able to change the hearts and minds not only of the Empress of Dulness but of her sons, too.
  7.58 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I must disclose my interest as the independent chairman of the Broadcasters Audience Research Board, which was set up by the BBC and ITV companies as part of the Annan report's recommendations.
  I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that the Government are to be congratulated on providing, in this massive Bill, a wide review of all broadcasting services—terrestrial, satellite and radio. They have brought before the House contentious legislation, which is fair enough, and comprehensive legislation, which gives us the opportunity to consider the spectrum and use of the air waves which, for so long, we have been denied. The release of additional space on spectra and other airwaves was negotiated for ages in Geneva and enables us now to start planning broadcasting's future—for television and radio.
  I wholly applaud much of the Bill, including the fact that at long last radio is coming out from under and making its own case. It will now have its own authority and can develop vastly, whether it be nationally, regionally, or on a multi-community basis. We welcome that. It must be of huge interest to all hon. Members and is a matter for congratulation.
  It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I welcome the Welshness of HTV, about which he waxed so eloquently. He put absolutely into context the fact that regional television in this country has grown up, flourished and will continue. I am especially grateful that the Bill's discussion of television embodies the commitment to the regional system. I am also grateful to Mr. George Russell, the current chairman of the IBA and shortly to be chairman of ITC, who has confirmed that in his view the map should remain largely unchanged.
  Regionalisation is the real key to this issue. We should not be discussing anxieties about the auctioning of franchises and bids were it not for the recommendations of the Peacock committee. If my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State does not already know this, I must confess that there was nothing as surprising as the report of the Peacock committee. After all, the committee was inquiring into the financing of the BBC, but it came up with no recommendations for advertising on the BBC. That was the greatest possible surprise. Even the hon. Member for Great Gatsby—Grimms' fairy tale country as I now know it to be—accepts that it is a matter of total ignorance to many people. As one of those who was involved at the time, I must stress that it was confidently expected that the report would inevitably provide the answer to the ITV-BBC problem. It was said that there

  87
  would be national television advertising from another totally accepted national channel which would bring the ITV and BBC systems into clear competition. However, it was not to be.
  Thus, until Channel 4 either has greater audience penetration or until Channel 5 comes along and achieves a national public—albeit of only 70 per cent. of the population—to bring about national competition, we are left with the problem of how to tackle the monopoly of the ITV companies. That is the issue that has given rise to all the fraughtness and fret. It is a duopoly in terms of audiences, but in terms of paid-for advertising space—although I admit Channel 4—we have a major monopoly.
  The restraints on awarding franchises to monopolies have put my right hon. and learned Friend into such a twist. That is why we have all these little subtleties of hand, such as the ownership issue and the bearing down on co-ownership. We are saying, "You can have two, but they must not be contiguous," and, "You can have 20 per cent. if you are a newspaper magnate, but you must not touch if you are an advertising agent."
  All those funny things are not at all logical. It is absurd to talk about newspapers as though they should be a protected part of the media scene. Good heavens, that was the position way back in 1955 when we first had ITV. There were some anxieties then that television would put newspapers out of business and that they must therefore be given special priority treatment. That was the genesis of this, but now we are discussing "You may or you may not". It is a far-flung thing. I can hear Lord Reith rattling in his urn as he thinks that there is a real threat that the editor of The Times—no less than its owner—might become the owner of a television channel. I can imagine what he would say about that. He would probably rely on his old dictum, "The best form of government is despotism, tempered, of course, by assassination."
  We now have a great opportunity. When it comes to determining the regional concepts of the Bill, I urge my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to rooting the new franchises in the regions. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was quite right—production resources must be based in the regions. Therefore, I welcome clause 16(2)(c) which seeks to specify that
  "regional programmes so included are made within that area".
  I like the sound of that, but I warn my right hon. Friend that accommodation addresses will not do. There must be no brass plates on temporary warehouses. We want regional production facilities.
  The other side of clause 16 deals with the question of 25 per cent. independent production. Will it require a regional commitment to that percentage or to a proportion of that percentage? If it does not, like the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I fear that there will be an enormous influx of trainloads of people coming up from London to provide such services, but going back and producing the material down here. In giving an accolade to the regional system, one side of the coin must be the location of the roots, in programming content and in production, in the regions concerned.
  The absolute method of selection is also causing a fuss. Obviously, there is great difficulty when awarding monopoly franchises, albeit under careful restraint. Those who are to prepare bids must not only attach a tender price
  88
  with an annual rental over the 10 years; they will also have to face a substantial levy on the amount of profit that can be earned. Those people will have to be keen to achieve what they want to achieve, bearing in mind that the next five to 10 years of their franchise will see a steady increase in other media that are capable of carrying advertising. They will face steadily increasing competition at a time of heavily increasing costs and, I trust, a great regional commitment to quality programming.
  We must trust the ITC. There can be no question from hon. Members of any party that, whatever the difficulties of the IBA to start with, it is now well accepted. The Government want lighter regulation, a heavy involvement in franchises and the auctioning of franchises—and there is, they must accept, a slight inconsistency in that. The Government should trust the commission to determine the qualitative rating of bids placed before it. Indeed, under the existing arrangement, the Government should encourage the commission to intervene in exceptional circumstances. I was glad to receive a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary stating that, because
  "the ITC will have the power in exceptional circumstances to select a lower bid",
  the Bill
  "will make the award of licences an altogether more open matter"
  We want to know just what those exceptional circumstances might be. I hope that they will not be too exceptional. I hope that the exceptional circumstance is that we shall have qualitative ratings much higher than the level of the cash put down. I hope that those ratings will allow the ITC to say, "In our best judgment, it would be wrong to proceed with the highest bid on the table because the second highest bid is worth substantially more in terms of the quality that is offered." I hope that the qualitative commitment will be sufficient to be declared an interest compatible with the provisions.
  The selection process is on the periphery of this issue. The real issue is the extent to which public service broadcasting and the ITV regime, which is a proud part of public service broadcasting, may or may not conflict with the public interest. At that stage, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must consider whether things have gone too far. I hope that public service broadcasting, as identified in the Bill, will largely follow the public interest. The public interest has supported this system of broadcasting. It has certainly supported the regional concept of broadcasting. It has supported governance by the IBA, albeit now with a slightly looser rein.
  It would be tragic if the opportunity now presented for the future of broadcasting were to be lost because of an awful disagreement between the regulating body and the industry, between the industry and the advertisers who pay the industry and between the Government and all sides who will believe that they are not adequately dealing with the nitty-gritty of selection or with raising the last penny from the Treasury. That does not matter one rap compared with the glorious opportunity for seeing another chapter of properly supported, well regionalised television. I wholly commend the Bill.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) made an extremely agreeable speech, but he has been too optimistic

  89
  about the meaning of certain words. For example, "exceptional" does not mean what he would have it mean—it is exceptional. The hon. Gentleman was also too optimistic about the impact of the Bill on regional broadcasting. A system which could cause the contraction of the regions from 15 to eight through acquisition is a threat to the regional basis that we have come to accept and which we regard, as the hon. Gentleman does, as central to the attractiveness of television in this country.
  The average person in this country watches television for 25½ hours per week, which is about 60 per cent. of the leisure time available to those in work. It cannot be argued that that figure reveals great dissatisfaction with the quality of television today. None the less, new technologies such as satellite, cable and MVDS delivery systems offer new opportunities to cater for specialist and local interests and to provide a wide variety of dedicated channels. As that capability opens out, the requirements of regulations will alter. Competition for advertising revenue is bound to intensify and pressure on the media to boost audience ratings will be increasingly strong. The ability of broadcasters to provide the mix of entertainment, education and information that has hitherto made up the best of British broadcasting is at risk. Most people will not thank a Government who simply multiply the number of buttons that viewers and listeners can press but subtract from the variety and quality. That is the essential threat posed by the Bill.
  More than 3,000 submissions have been made since the publication of the White Paper. Most contain comments on the proposal to award licences for television and radio to the highest bidder. The Home Secretary did not show any support for the proposal in response to those submissions, and his absence for a large part of the debate suggests that he is not interested in the views of the House. The junior Minister also absented himself from the debate and is similarly uninterested in it.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: He will be back soon.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Government treat the views of those who are involved in the industry with complete contempt. The Government's views are under scrutiny. None of those who submitted an opinion in response to the White Paper have supported the proposed blind auction for franchises. Most of those directly involved in broadcasting accept that competition for franchises should be more transparent than in the past, but they have urged—so far, to no avail—that the licensing authority should be empowered to consider not only the bid price but what is offered for that price. To propose a system for auctioning services which does not allow comparisons to be made between price and quality in the name of consumer choice is simply fraudulent. The system advocated in the Bill will maximise Treasury receipts from broadcasting and minimise the funds available for programme making.
  Only in respect of Channel 4 does the Bill seek to require the diverse programme content which characterises current broadcasting in Britain. Indeed, the provisions for Channel 4 highlight the weaknesses of the provisions in respect of other channels. The Bill seems to reflect the Government's hatred of the present independent broadcasters, particularly their handling of news and current affairs. The Government's reaction to "Death on the Rock" and to Lord Windlesham's report shows their
  90
  prejudices. How else is one to explain the decision—not yet referred to in the debate—to bar the independent television companies from the ownership and editorial control that they now have over the national news service?
  The proposal to give the news service to a company or companies nominated by the friends of the Government in the shape of the licensing authorities, brings the Government altogether too close to controlling the news. Incidentally, the provision that the Radio Authority shall seek to require that
  "undue prominence is not given … to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on religious matters or matters of current political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy"
  smacks of institutionalised censorship. What is becoming unacceptable in eastern Europe should not become the norm in Britain. How, other than in terms of a vendetta against the media, is one to explain a bidding system which favours large conglomerates over existing specialist television companies? Not only the British conglomerates but European giants such as Hachette and Berlusconi, will be favoured by the proposed system.
  The Bill contains no safeguards against takeovers of British companies comparable with the safeguards operated in European countries. It provides no reciprocity. As the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) acknowledged earlier, the Government have been accused of attacking the universities and the Churches as the repositories of independent advice, and that is so, but now it is the turn of independent television to suffer for having offered a platform for independent opinion.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Further to the hon. Gentleman's previous point, does he agree that the danger of using price as the only basis for tendering for new franchises will mean that any European incursion will, by definition, by irresistible because any other method would be ruled out of order by European laws and directives?
  Mr. Maclennan: That is absolutely correct. I believe that the solution would be to limit the stake of any one company in a channel. The system of franchise allocation can be explained only in terms of a vendetta. One need go no further, but further evidence is the unbelievably favourable position of the franchisee following the award of a franchise. The franchise is virtually awarded in perpetuity. It can be re-awarded after only six years, without further submission to competition. That gives the lie to any suggestion that the Government favour competition. The arrangements whereunder a franchisee may apply at any time after six years to have the licence renewed are a mockery. All the fears expressed about the prospects of over-bidding for the initial licence are fully justified when one considers how much is at stake when acquiring the initial licence.
  The Government cannot claim that the dangers are unreal. The experience in Australia is highly germane, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) explained, but it is not unique. In France the firm Bouygs recently purchased more than 50 per cent. of the major channel TF 1 for 3 billion francs, which has since been recouped by a ratings war to gain advertising revenue. Other French companies are feeling the draught. The Government are having to consider reintroducing regulations.
  Further evidence of the Government's political purpose in seeking to oust those whom they distrust is to be found

  91
  in the provision that the Secretary of State should have the final say in the appointment of the Channel 4 directors. As Sir Richard Attenborough has said, what is at stake is not the stewardship of public money but the maintenance of independent, innovative broadcasting.
  The Bill's proposals on cross-ownership and ownership by newspapers are disturbingly inadequate. They will allow a further erosion of competition, the entry of Rupert Murdoch into independent television and radio and a reduction in the number of television regions from the present 15 to eight. In the United States, under the 1955 Federal Communications Commission rules, ownership of radio plus newspapers and television in the same market is prevented. Under those rules, Mr. Murdoch has been forced to divest himself of two newspapers and a television station. We should follow that route.
  The Government claim to be committed to the preservation of regional television. If that claim is to be made good, three major changes are required. First, licensees must maintain full regional production and transmission of facilities within the region. On that, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) was right. Secondly, ownership must be confined to one ITV licence. The Government's proposition that small companies are legitimate targets for large ones is simply not acceptable.
  Thirdly, the Bill must make suitable provision for a network. As the chairman-elect of the commission, Mr. George Russell has said that no independent company produces more than 30 per cent. of the programmes that it shows that its ability to transmit high quality programmes depends upon the network. Furthermore, it is desirable to secure fair access to the network for the smaller companies and to prevent the larger franchise holders from reducing competition by exercising complete control over the internal tariffs.
  The arrangements allowing for multiple bidding must be changed. They may favour—no doubt the Government hope that they will—the first-time entrant to broadcasting. They would make the maintenance of a network between now and the auction wholly untenable.
  Regional broadcasting offers the opportunity to bring the cultural diversions of our regions into everyone's home. The Government, however, have shown their weak commitment to such diversity by their treatment of Scotland. There is no provision for a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish member of the ITC board—and there should be. There are provisions in the Bill to prevent the takeover of all the English regions, but there is no comparable provision for Scotland [Interruption.] The Whip on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) may have no interest in Scottish television. That does not surprise me in the least and that may account for the poor support for his party in Scotland. There are many people—
  Mr. Mellor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Whip cannot speak for himself I feel compelled to defend him. The point that was being made is one to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) should address himself. He has fallen outside the 10-minute rule. It would be a courtesy to other hon. Members waiting to speak, especially as the Front-Bench
  92
  spokesmen are prepared to shorten their replies, if the hon. Gentleman would keep within the reasonable confines of 10 minutes.
  Mr. Maclennan: If the Minister had done me the courtesy of coming in to listen to my speech, his remarks might carry some weight. As he absented himself for the greater part of my speech, I shall continue in my own time. I am wholly in order and I intend to take my time. The House will not allow minority parties to be put at a disadvantage in the debate in the way that the Minister would like. The Home Secretary took three quarters of an—
  Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am tempted not to interrupt this hysterical attack, but it would be right to remind the House that the Minister was outside the Chamber for an extremely brief moment. He has been in the Chamber for the rest of the debate.
  Mr. Maclennan: Such interruptions merely take up the time of the House.
  The most serious omission from the Bill for Scotland and those other parts of the country where the population is scattered over a wide area is the absence of provision to equalise transmission costs. That absence particularly threatens the future of the radio companies operating in Wales and Scotland which serve the more remote areas. The Bill is also silent about the transmission costs of television. The transmitter at Crystal Palace serves millions in London, but it takes eight transmitters and 68 relay lines to serve the northern half of Scotland. The Government have not promised that their plans to privatise the lines owned by British Telecom will not place intolerable burdens on companies in sparsely populated areas. The Bill makes no provision for Gaelic, but I welcome the step announced by the Secretary of State this afternoon. We shall look closely at the funding offered in support of it.
  The Government have sought to remove the sting of the criticism that they are unconcerned about the quality of broadcasting by emphasising the importance of the so-called quality threshold in the bidding process. The only specific consumer protection provided by the Bill is defined in terms of taste and decency. The licensing authority, operating in the shadow of Lord Rees-Mogg's Broadcasting Standards Council—a wholly unnecessary quango—has a duty to codify the rules and to supervise their application.
  There is no comparable obligation on the authority specifically to secure the at-risk services—children's programmes, social action programmes, programmes for the disabled and the ethnic minorities and, most notably, religious programmes. Perhaps the Government believe that all that should be left to the BBC. Perhaps those obligations are intended to compensate the BBC for the almost inevitable loss to cable and satellite broadcasters—should the Bill go through in its present form—of major sports events such as the cup final, Wimbledon and the grand national.
  Those who have complained about the time taken to set out the points that the Social and Liberal Democrats wish to place before the House would do well to remember that this is the only intervention in the debate from a party which speaks for about a quarter of the electorate.
  If there is intensive competition for ratings by Channel 3 and Channel 5, which are not to have any quality or

  93
  regional remit, the BBC will be faced with the nasty choice of either going down market or losing its audiences. Either way, the case for the retention of its licence fee will be undermined, which is no doubt what the Government intend.
  When the Home Secretary concluded this afternoon, he said that fears about quality were voiced in this House when independent television was established in 1955, and his acolytes have echoed that thought. It is certainly true that fears were expressed, but it is also true that those criticisms were entirely justified. Their justification was made plain by the Pilkington report in 1962, the recommendations of which were acted upon in 1963 when the regulatory system—broadly, that under which our broadcasters operate today—was introduced. It was the Finance Act 1963, not the 1955 Act, which gave the television authorities specific powers over schedules and programme standards.
  If the Bill is not amended in the light of our experience and that of other countries which have gone down the deregulatory road, it will deprive the British people of the enjoyment, entertainment, information and education that is at their fingertips today. Otherwise, as in 1963 so in 1993, a further Bill will be required to clean up the Government's mess.
  8.26 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith: I must declare that I am a non-executive director of London Weekend Television, and I do not have any shares in it.
  I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I do not know anyone who works at the sharp end of television who subscribes to the gloomy view that he has expressed. In such circles, among those who are looking forward to the change, there is no question of the Government's action being motivated by political malice and all that rubbish. That may go down well with the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but it does not count for one iota with those who are involved in television. On the contrary, they believe that the Government are right to recognise the technological changes that are taking place.
  The technology associated with cable and direct broadcasting by satellite was bound to have an impact on the present structure. If the hon. Gentleman is content with the present structure, good luck to him. The British people think that it is pretty good, and they are right. I do not claim for one moment that everything in the Bill is perfect. I shall mention one or two problems briefly, as I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to participate. They have waited all afternoon to do so and they sat here with considerable patience listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has also displayed such patience while sitting here all afternoon. He disappeared for a few moments while the hon. Gentleman was galloping through a few more paragraphs.
  Those who are worried should accept one simple fact—change must take place. There is no way to avoid such change, and if we tried to do so we would be invaded by those who have direct broadcasting by satellite who are not answerable to this House or to any of our regulations. If that happened, British television would be at a severe competitive and qualitative disadvantage. We have to
  94
  change the structure. There is much in the Bill for regional television and there is a great deal to play for in the House and in Committee.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has already said that the Bill is not cast in tablets of stone. There are things that can and should be changed. Following the publication of the White Paper, I welcome the Bill, which is far-reaching and which offers an interesting framework upon which we can improve the quality of British television. I do not know exactly how it will all work out. I do not know anyone in British television who knows what the future will hold.
  Those who predict doom and gloom remind me far too easily of those who were anxious when the initial Bill on commercial television was presented.
  I always remember Lew Grade saying to me, "Why don't you go tell your friends in the BBC"—he associated me with the BBC because I worked there—"to lay off light entertainment, because they don't know the job? We fellows in commercial television know how to do it." We all know what happened. The BBC has often outstripped ITV in quality and popular appeal with some of its programmes in light entertainment, which appeal to what some describe as the lowest common denominator of the British people. The commercial companies, through Independent Television and some of their serious programmes and documentaries, have often outstripped the BBC in audience appeal, as well as appealing to the elite.
  We are in open country. Should we embrace it? Those I know in television—
  Mr. Chris Mullin rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I really must get on.
  Those I know in television, knowing that something has to happen, have looked to the future because they know that it will be more competitive. They have got rid of the restrictive practices that bedevilled British television—and high time too. They also know the wide range of choice which can be achieved if more buttons are available on the set.
  The range of choice in British radio and television is not good; it is extraordinarily bad. If I want to listen to a greater variety of music, I shall go to the States—San Francisco, New York, Chicago. If I want television serving a high-density audience—this country could serve a tremendous concentration of people—I would rely not on British television but on American television. In New York there is a far wider range of choice, which is not relegated to the ghetto at 11 pm, 12 pm or after 9.30 pm, but is shown at prime time.
  Let us not have this false belief that British television leads the world and will continue to do so. It will not. The choice we have is so limited that people boast of programmes that Granada used to make 10 or 15 years ago. What has it made since? The time has come for a shake-up, and I am glad that the Government are taking this role.
  The balance between obtaining quality and paying for the programmes is difficult to achieve. Some people would like to continue with the present arrangement. What is it? There is always some lord on the board who comes forward with a nice menu with no price tag. He would use his lobbying techniques on those on the IBA who decide to award the contracts. Hon. Members from both sides know

  95
  that, more than once, the proposal could not be afforded and the sums had not been properly calculated. Often, such people were not even asked to produce real figures. In the end, they did not do what they said, and nothing happened.
  If we are to give people this great opportunity to make money—they do make money out of this, and if they work for the BBC they also have an interesting living—we are entitled to ask them to put a price tag on their proposals. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister must stick to the price tag proposal. But he has not got the balance right. I shall not give my reasons for thinking that, because many others have given the arguments, and no doubt many other hon. Friends of mine will do so later. I hope that he will stick to insisting that some money should be put down on deposit and some idea should be given of how much their proposals will cost. Otherwise, all sorts of fancy people will come forward with brilliant, beautiful ideas, knowing jolly well that they will not be able to deliver them.
  The Economist has come forward with the interesting idea that companies should pay rent to the Government and show that they wish to spend so much money on certain programmes and have them costed. London Weekend Television and other companies have suggested that a requirement of the bidding process now advocated is that a quality hurdle should be linked to what they call a business credibility hurdle. By that they mean that the applicant would have to show signed options for the programmes in his schedules, including provisional contracts with facility companies—the independent companies.
  All kinds of ideas are being kicked around; if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister would take some of them on board he could lay the ghost of the quality argument versus those trying to make a quick buck.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I doubt if there is a more powerful medium available to man at the end of the 20th century than television. Its power to exercise control and to effect change in society is absolutely immense. Advertisers are prepared to pay vast sums of money for just 30-second slots of television time because they know that with that time they can help to shape, influence and ultimately control consumer demand in capitalist countries like this one.
  Only yesterday I read an article in the quality press claiming that the revolutions in eastern Europe were, to a remarkable degree, television revolutions and that television images—whether of western affluence or of mass demonstrations in support of political change—were critical in loosening the grip on power of regimes which, until only a short time ago, seemed impregnable to any kind of reform or change.
  We know from our own experience of powerful television documentaries such as John Pilger's on Cambodia, that they make such impact on people that it is possible not only to change attitudes within Government, but even to change Government policy in our own country. When we think about the Bill, it is absolutely essential to remember that we are dealing with a subject of awesome political, social and economic importance. That is particularly true of Scotland. Within
  96
  the context of the United Kingdom, Scotland has had to learn to co-exist with its much larger and more powerful and dominating neighbour, England. That has already affected the choice available to viewers and listeners in Scotland.
  Some of these effects are more important than others. Of less importance is the fact that we are subjected to the blatant bias of English commentators who, when commentating on football games involving the English national team, assume that everyone watching wants England to win. That assumption cannot be made about television audiences in Scotland.
  Of much greater importance is the consequence of metropolitan bias in the national news bulletins. In Scotland we are essentially offered what the metropolis believes to be of national or international importance. When the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 passed through the House, it did so without surfacing in any national news bulletins. However, when legislation implementing the poll tax in England and Wales passed through the House, there were almost nightly reports of the poll tax debates in this Chamber. That shows the sort of bias that we in Scotland have to suffer because of the metropolitan nature of so-called national television in our country.
  In Scotland we have learnt over the years that the best way forward is to try to ensure that television in Scotland comes increasingly under the control of Scottish-based companies which produce programmes in Scotland and transmit them from Scotland for Scotland. The key question about the Bill is whether it makes more likely progress towards that desirable goal. However, I believe that it makes it less likely, not more. There are a number of reasons for that.
  A number of safeguards exists within the present proposals. For example, clause 14 places a statutory obligation on the ITC to construct the new Channel 3 on a regional basis. That is fine. The Minister of State who has responsibility for broadcasting policy in the Scottish Office recently made a statement during the Scottish Grand Committee debate on broadcasting in which he made it clear that he welcomed the prospect that, under the new proposals, Scotland would continue to enjoy the benefits which the present regional structure of three ITV companies provides. That is good.
  Yesterday, in The Observer, Mr. George Russell, the chairman-designate of the new ITC, confirmed that it was the commission's intention to retain the broad pattern of the ITV map. That is all welcome, but is it sufficient? Does it guarantee a continued existence for the Grampian area television service, the Border area television service or the Scottish area television service? It does not in any way guarantee it.
  There is an extraordinary contradiction in the Bill. In clause 14(6), the Government have found it necessary to include a safeguard that prevents the ITC from determining that the whole of England shall be one regional area, but it has not found it necessary to include a similar safeguard for Scotland. Given the relative sizes of England and Scotland and the number of regional companies in Scotland, I should have thought it far more necessary to include a safeguard for Scotland than for England. Yet clause 14(6) makes it posssible for the whole of Scotland to be one region. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that, somewhere down the line, the

  97
  Government do not rule out the merger of the existing three regional companies in Scotland into a single regional company—
  Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend talked about the Border Television region, which covers areas on both sides of the border. Will my hon. Friend consider the position of a television area dominated by Strathclyde and the fact that people on the Scottish border would object to that? I am glad that my hon. Friend supports the existence of a television station spanning the English and Scottish sides of the border.
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are not raising this as a fanciful idea or as a spectre. Mr. George Russell, the new chairman of the ITC, has made it clear that the ITC is not committed to the existing map of the ITV areas—it is committed to it merely in broad terms. Mr. Russell has not ruled out the possibility of fine tuning around the fringes—we can only hope that he does not mean the Celtic fringes—of the ITV regional map.
  Mr. Russell went on in yesterday's article to say that the Government have allowed for the ITV companies to bid for any—or, if they wish, for all—of the other areas. Today the Home Secretary gave an assurance that no licensee would be allowed to bid for two contiguous areas, but his predecessor made it clear in an answer last May that the restrictions on ownership of Channel 3 areas were only an initial limit. So the Government do not rule out in the long term the possibility that Scotland might be left in the same position as Wales and Northern Ireland—areas which will have single regional channels to provide their services.
  There are important lessons to be drawn from commercial radio in Scotland. In the beginning, there were four independent commercial radio stations in each of the four major Scottish cities—Radio Clyde in Glasgow, Radio Forth in Edinburgh, Radio Tay in Dundee, and Radio North Sound in Aberdeen. I understand that Radio Clyde has now taken over North Sound and I know that Radio Forth has already taken over Radio Tay. I read only recently in the Financial Times that Radio Clyde is now set to take over Radio Forth, too. So, of an original four independent stations, two now dominate the Scottish scene and ultimately there may be just one. If that can happen to radio in Scotland, I see nothing to suggest that it could not happen to television.
  Nothing in the Bill rules out the possibility of the concentration of ownership and control of commercial television in Scotland—and not necessarily in the hands of someone from Scotland. An outsider might come in; nothing in the Bill prevents outsiders from bidding for franchises in the regions of this country. Nothing in the Bill will prevent one of those bidders from subsequently concentrating all the franchises in Scotland under one ownership and control. Nothing in the Bill will prevent the new licensees from dismantling existing production facilities in Scotland; nor will anything in the Bill require them to establish equivalent production facilities of their own.
  The Government may argue that these are the consequences of opening up the market in television and that ultimately the viewer will benefit from them, but few Opposition Members share their complacency. We believe that the consequences of the changes outlined in the Bill will be that money will be everything—enough money to
  98
  outbid rivals for a franchise, then enough money earned from the franchise to pay back the initial outlay for winning it. All this will mean choosing programmes with high viewing figures—programmes that are capable of producing high revenues. That means going for the cheaper option of buying in programmes from the network and not investing in locally and regionally produced television of high quality. In the end, this will mean undermining the financial basis of smaller regional companies such as Grampian and Border.
  The Home Secretary said that the Bill will not mark the demise of public service broadcasting in this country, and that may or may not be true. However, it certainly marks the demise of independent, locally produced commercial television in areas such as Scotland. For that and many other reasons, I shall vote against the Bill tonight and hope to amend it later.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will forgive me if I do not follow his path, although it is clearly a matter of great concern to him and his constituents.
  I speak as chairman of the all-party cable and satellite TV committee, which I joined four years ago because we have in my constituency the oldest, and one of the best, of the cable companies operating in this country. Swindon Cable was established in 1984, and it provides an excellent service for a growing number of my constituents. I want to speak mostly about part II of the Bill, which refers to cable broadcasting.
  Before doing so, I should comment on quality and diversity, themes which have concerned a large number of hon. Members on both sides. One of the effects of the increased diversity of available television is dear to my heart—the fact that later this winter we shall be able to watch live, ball-by-ball coverage of the English cricket games against the West Indies on Sky Television. That may not appeal to all hon. Members but it commends itself to those of us who regard cricket as one of the finest flowerings of the English character—and, to a lesser extent, of the Welsh and Scottish characters. I hope that many in this House and elsewhere are pleased at this development. Let us be prepared to accept that we have already derived great benefit from what has happened.
  Cable television is predicted to reach half the population by 1995, but clause 70 constitutes a snag in its steady progress. Clause 70 proposes a percentage levy on qualifying revenue of cable companies set up and licensed by the ITC. If this levy is pitched too high, it may discourage investment in the spread of cable; indeed, it may put off future investors altogether. Do the Government want to encourage such investment? We have already heard about the inevitable growth in the provision of television in this country, but that growth could be stultified, and so I seek an assurance that that is not the Government's intention.
  Will my hon. and learned Friend also consider the effects of his proposals on cross-ownership, and the prospect of foreign ownership of United Kingdom television companies? There is a real chance that the 20 per cent. maximum share ownership will mean that Yorkshire Television, for example, could become an Italian company, or that Grampian could become a West German company. I am not being xenophobic when I say that this

  99
  will not be in the interests of television watchers in parts of the country that are affected. Is my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State prepared to look again at his proposals, to ensure that such a situation will not arise?
  Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to deal with that would be to augment and reinforce the quality criteria?
  Mr. Coombs: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will address himself to that during this debate or in Committee. Can he also say whether he has ruled out retrospection in terms of the way in which he proposes to treat non-DBS companies? What role does he see as suitable for the Monopolies and Mergers Commisson in dealing with questions that arise in the course of the development of the legislative framework proposed by the Bill?
  In the course of his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) mentioned religious broadcasting. He also mentioned my constituency, because one of the religious channels in this country is available for my constituents who are viewers of Swindon Cable. Schedule 2 needs to be rethought. There is a danger that, if we allow the Bill to go forward as drafted, religious broadcasting will be severely curtailed. I do not think that the House wishes that to happen; nor do I think that it is the wish of many people in Britain. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to look carefully at what is proposed in the Bill.
  Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House when the transitional arrangements for cable companies will be announced and whether existing cable systems will continue to be required to carry the four existing terrestrial television channels? That matter is causing a great deal of concern to cable companies.
  Will my hon. and learned Friend justify to the House the apparent disparity in the level of fines that can be imposed on television companies under the Bill? A maximum fine of £50,000 is proposed for the non-DBS companies, such as Sky Television, whereas Channels 3 and 5 and DBS companies would be required to pay in the first instance 3 per cent. of revenue and in the case of subsequent offences 5 per cent. That could amount to many millions of pounds, and there is a case in justice for it being looked at again. I am extremely happy to support the general framework of the Bill. There is no doubt that the changes in technology that have been developing over the past few decades make it inevitable that we should have a fresh look at the whole question of broadcasting. That makes this Bill inevitable, and I wish it well.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Jim Sillars: The factor that has come through to me in this fascinating debate is the elitist nature of the forum. We are all political activists and that tends to make us a small minority in society. I was a bit disturbed to find proof of that elitism in the amount of exaggeration by hon. Members. They have exaggerated the role of television in human communications, especially at a higher intellectual level. No one has said that, as well as having virtues, television in terms of communication has important defects. For example, it is far too visual. The pictures presented, even in current affairs programmes of
  100
  so-called high quality, are far too often more important than the content. We have had good examples of that in the coverage of United States presidential elections, where television has been open to considerable manipulation by the participants.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sillars: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, so he need not bother to try to intervene.
  We have had the problem of perhaps one of the most vacuous presidents of the United States coming across on television to the American electorate as pretty reasonable. Television is like other methods of communication in that it has virtues and defects. It seeks to serve us in terms of entertainment, information, education and stimulation of the intellectual process. When we talk about quality we are really talking about getting the right balance between television's propensity to entertain and our perceived need for it to inform, educate and stimulate intellectually.
  I should like to make two points in the time available to me and I shall be brief to allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate. The points relate to part II and especially to the proposed Channel 3. I and my hon. Friends oppose in principle the concept of blind auction licences, even though the Bill modifies them by calling for some requirement of a quality test.
  Perhaps one of the most effective attacks upon Rupert Murdoch's McTaggart lecture appeared, paradoxically, in The Times of 30 August in an article by Brian Appleyard. He gave the real answer to Rupert Murdoch when he said:
  "The BBC and ITA were established on the basis that the market was morally and socially inadequate".
  That is why we require tests for quality, and we cannot simply open up television or any other system of broadcasting to the marketplace.
  Like other hon. Members, in recent weeks I have heard the rumours and read press speculation about the Government conceding on the question of quality tests. I had hoped that we were heading for a two-stage test and that applicants for a licence would submit programming propositions for a test of quality. Only after they passed that programming test would they proceed to the blind auction.
  Leaving aside the argument about whether the money should go to the Treasury or into television for better programming, if there were a two-stage test, more hon. Members would be much happier. However, that is not the case. The cash bid and the so-called quality test are combined in clause 15 and the legislative language in clauses 16 and 17 gives additional weight to the cash bid factor over the quality factor. Clause 17(2) is the giveaway, because if says that, if two bids are equal in terms of cash, the licence is put back out for another cash bid. If quality really mattered, the bids would be tested on the quality of the programming. It is almost inconceivable that two organisations putting forward exactly the same cash bids would be absolutely equal in every respect in terms of programming.
  I have heard the Government say that the quality test will be the Becher's brook. Will it be the first-time round Becher's brook or the second-time round one? As everyone who has watched the Grand National knows, on the second-time round, there are big holes in the fence because horses have fallen through it the first time. It is possible to have a test, but one full of loopholes.

  101
  My second point concerns the Bill's failure to give statutory recognition to the regional make-up in Scotland. Here I am at one with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), although I am not at one with him about what happens to the England football team. I may be in a minority in Scotland, but I supported England in the World cup in 1966 and I was pleased when it won. I cannot guarantee that I will watch every ball rolled in the cricket in the West Indies because I find cricket boring, but I am a great admirer of the skills and structures of English football.
  As I said, the Bill fails to give statutory recognition to regional make-up in Scotland, and fails to ensure that a regional structure exists, not simply through publishers' contract methods but through companies with a full regional facility base, anchored in their community. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, clause 14 recognises that England is not a region. The point that we are making about Scotland, and this goes well outwith the ranks of the Scottish National party, is that a nation has regions in its make-up and it is important that those regions are recognised, and manifested, in a broadcasting system.
  The history of independent television in Scotland shows that there is a great deal of worth in having more than one company operating within the nation. We are seeking Government recognition of the regional variations and of the need to have that reflected in statute.
  I urge on the Government the need to guarantee in the Bill regional and national access to the network because there are considerable jobs implications in that. Scottish Television is a good example of the benefits of greater access to the network. STV has increased the amount devoted to programmes for network from £3 million to £15 million in the past three years. This has allowed 300 well-paid, highly skilled jobs to be retained in Scotland that might otherwise have been lost. Access is extremely important.
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most positive aspects of S4C in Wales is not only that it supports the Welsh language as the minority language of half a million of our people, but that jobs in television provide an extended base from which we can take advantage of opportunities to develop the cultural industry?
  Mr. Sillars: Yes, and we must understand that we are moving away from the old industrial revolution and metal-bashing and into a different era of human activity, in which the intellectual processes are extremely important, as is one's ability, within a region, nation or larger grouping, to add value to the intellectual processes and bring enormous economic benefits to the people so engaged. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board.
  My hon. Friends and I will vote against the Bill because there is a fundamental difference in philosophy as to where the market should operate. We wish to put on far more restraints than the Government do.
  9.2 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this most important Bill. Sadly, I have no financial interests to declare. I am not a consultant to anybody and I have never been an employee of any broadcasting company, but I was a member of the
  102
  BBC general advisory council, I gave evidence to the Peacock committee and I must have appeared on virtually every television or radio programme with any claim to serious content, and more than a few without. I support the Bill, and I should very much like to be a member of the Committee examining it.
  The framework provided by the existing legislation is out of date, and reform is absolutely unavoidable. This reform seeks to widen choice, not restrict it. It will regulate with a light hand and not with endless bureaucracy, although in one or two places the heavy hand of excess bureaucracy is there.
  I put it to Ministers that, as a Conservative, deregulating Government, we should start from the proposition that we should interfere as little as possible. I say that with some passion, having listened to speeches from the Opposition Benches, particularly from members and erstwhile members of the Labour party, say that Government should control the media. I think that we should always be wary of Governments who want to regulate the media, whether from the highest motives or not. It is always dangerous for politicians to start telling the press what they can or cannot do.
  Let there be no mistake—the broadcast media are moving away from the narrow, tight, licensed arrangements of 30 or 40 years ago to something much closer to the print media in which there is a much wider variety and a bigger range of choice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), when he was Home Secretary, likened it to a book shop in which there is a much wider range of choice. The simile probably goes too far, but there is no doubt that the kind of controls that were appropriate in the 1950s and 1960s are no longer appropriate.
  It is my view, indeed, that we are bending over backwards a little too far to prevent monopoly ownership. The Bill requires all broadcasters to keep quiet about their own opinions. It provides that licence holders must not express their views on matters which are in current political or industrial dispute. I recognise that that provision has been placed in the Bill in the interest of balance, but why should licence holders not express their views? Is that not a recipe for greater blandness and not greater choice?
  In the print medium, there is no such requirement. As a result, we have The Sun, which the Opposition hate, and the Daily Mirror, which Conservative Members hate. We have The Daily Telegraph, which turned me into a Tory many years ago, and The Guardian, which had exactly the same effect. Because we do not make such rules in the print medium, we have far greater diversity, and the result is a much livelier pattern of publishing. We are in danger of saying that we shall have many more television channels, but they will all produce the same bland material, the same opinionless stuff, and that is not real choice at all.
  Then there is the argument about quality. I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with great care. He really talked a load of poppycock. We in this place should be careful about setting ourselves up as standard setters for the rest of the nation. We watch hardly any television at all, and when we do, the odds are that we are watching only ourselves. There are only three rooms in the House for watching—BBC 1, BBC2 and ITV. There are no facilities for watching Channel 4 and none for cable television, satellite television or regional stations—radio or television. For most of the time we do not have the foggiest idea what our

  103
  constituents are watching anyhow. We should be extremely wary, therefore, as we sit on these green Benches, of setting ourselves up as people who watch a lot of television when we do not, and telling those people who watch a lot of television what they should be watching. It is a very dangerous business.
  Quality is like sovereignty—it means a lot, but it means different things to different people. There are those—the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is one—who talk of the need to maintain quality. I sometimes think that what such people mean is the right to maintain the quality of the programmes that they like, preferably with public money.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) talked about Radio 3, and I appreciate that he was honest in his approach. When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that maximising quality and maximising revenue were mutually exclusive, he was talking rubbish. I put it to him—he did not really answer the question—that soap operas, murder mysteries and quiz shows which we all like to see, do attract huge audiences and huge export income and win many prizes. About 11 million people watched the Ruth Rendell mystery last night, and about the same number watch ITN on a Saturday night, as I know to my cost. We should be aware of that. There is no conflict between what is good and what is popular.
  We should also reject the point that has been made about "major events". There is some question-begging about what constitutes a major event. Those of us who are interested in racing might regard the Cheltenham gold cup and the Arc de Triomphe as choicer events than the grand national. The question of whose choice is a major event, the circumstances of, and arguments about opening all events to the highest bidder demonstrates to me that the Opposition do not understand how anybody ever makes money or anything, particularly in the mass media. That is not done by restricting the audience and making it as small as possible. It is done by making the audience as big as possible, especially if the finance is coming from advertising. The logic of the Opposition's argument for the wider availability for major events is that such events should all be shown on all channels simultaneously. That is such a preposterous notion that it demonstrates the paucity of their argument.
  The Opposition's view that there is a conflict between quality and finance also suggests that we should look only to public service broadcasting for quality. That is nonsense. The most commercial organisation operating in the broadcasting medium is the BBC. If we are looking for who pays huge salaries to personalities on television, we should not look to Sky Television: we should look to the Wogan show and one or two others we could think of. If we are looking at who is bidding up the price and the costs of sports programmes, we should look to the BBC. It does a cracking good job, but it is doing it with our money. We should be wary of simply assuming that that is necessarily the way to do it in future.
  BBC Enterprises Limited is the world's largest exporter of television programmes, with a turnover of more than £150 million last year. Like others of my hon. Friends, I have sat in hotel rooms in San Francisco and turned on the public service broadcasting channel, paid for by subscription, and watched "To the Manor Born", "Yes,
  104
  Prime Minister" and the BBC wildlife programmes. They earn a mint overseas, and they were all made with our licence fee money in this country.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Lady concede the obvious fact that the programmes that she is praising, and which are praised in America, are often the products of regulated broadcasting?
  Mrs. Currie: On the contrary: the kind of programmes I am talking about are the product of mass marketing media. They are designed to attract millions of people—[Interruption.] They, like the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I intend to pay the hon. Gentleman a compliment, if he will only shut up long enough to listen to me.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Lady does not understand.
  Mrs. Currie: Programmes like "Yes, Prime Minister" are designed in a commercial world by mass media for a mass audience of people with the taste and intelligence of the hon. Gentleman. There are millions like him. It does not need to be done with taxpayers' money.
  I have one suggestion to make. Much of the argument about the sale of franchises arises because the money is to go to the Treasury. I suggest that a proportion of that money, which goes to the Treasury from the highest bidder —and I think it should be from the highest bidder—should be allocated to what we currently call public service broadcasting. We already give money to schools broadcasting and Open university broadcasting—indeed, we have just allocated a chunk of money to Gaelic broadcasting—and it is all tremendously popular. If we did a little more of that, the Opposition would not be screaming at us for choosing the highest bidder—they would be urging us to choose the highest bidder and would then be arguing about where the money should go to. Then there could be some public service broadcasting on all the channels, the importance of the licence fee to the BBC would be reduced, and people would be more interested in and favourable to the system.
  The proposed changes are in good Tory tradition. We introduced ITV in the 1950s, independent local radio in the 1970s and channel 4 in the 1980s. Armageddon was threatened each time, but it did not happen. I support the Bill.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Broadcasting is the most influential medium of mass communication; no more effective means of communication has been devised. Even before the Bill was published, members of the Home Affairs Select Committee and others recognised the great changes in the technology of broadcasting and its management.
  It is a great pity that the Bill, which was the Government's great opportunity to introduce landmark legislation, does not put excellence and quality at the top of the agenda. There is no doubt that the auctioning of the franchises to the highest bidders will affect quality. At the heart of the Bill is not a commitment to excellence or quality, but a desire for money.
  We do not need a crystal ball to see what the future holds for broadcasting; we need only look at what has happened in America since deregulation. I and other members of the Select Committee were transported, on

  105
  taxpayers' money, to America to watch television. We saw the experience of programme makers. The 14 channels that I sampled on New York television all consisted of game shows and advertisements. We looked forward to returning to Britain to watch "The Sooty Show" and other programmes made here.
  I oppose the suggestion that companies should be able to bid for more than one franchise at a time. I believe that that will be a recipe for chaos and will destroy the network of independent television companies at a time when there needs to be stability. I do not accept the proposals and the schedule concerning cross-ownership. It is sufficient for a legal person to own one franchise, but he should not be allowed to own any other franchises in the network or any newspapers.
  I welcome the proposals for the establishment of Channel 5 but regret that it will be received by only 70 per cent. of the country. I do not accept the basis on which the channel is to be scheduled. It would be more appropriate to provide for mega-regions in the franchise or to allow the affiliation of local television stations on a citywide basis to a national channel. I disagree with the proposals that will allow the channel to be sold off to the highest bidder. If the Minister is looking for a home outside London for Channel 5, there is no better place than the quiet midlands city of Leicester, which lies modestly in the heart of England.
  I regret that there has not been greater emphasis on regional broadcasting. The current franchise areas are too big. The east midlands—Leicester, Nottingham and Derby in particular—lose out to competition from the west midlands. Although I accept that people in Leicester and the east midlands identify with midland personalities and issues, when awarding the franchise it will be necessary to be more certain that the local nature of regional broadcasting is reviewed.
  I accept that there was a need to create a separate radio authority. However, I do not believe that it is right for the franchises to go to the highest bidder. I commend the proposals of the Independent Broadcasting Authority in its recent granting of 23 commercial stations. I visited one of those commercial stations—Sunrise Radio which covers the whole of west London,—and I consider that the targeting of the audience had been extremely important.
  I welcome what the Minister said about access to television for deaf people. There are 4 million deaf viewers and I accept the need to increase subtitling and sign language. The Minister should make it clear what he means by "greater access" to broadcasting. A specific percentage should be mentioned above the 10 per cent.
  I regret that nothing in the Bill will help those who will not be able to afford the benefits of the technological changes that have occurred. I am thinking particularly of the pensioners in my constituency. I had hoped that there would have been a clause in the Bill—I accept that it is not necessarily to do with the BBC—to exempt pensioners from the payment of television licences. With the arrival of cable, pensioners in Leicester will have to pay roughly £10 a month to obtain the benefit of cable television. In addition to the television licence, they will have to pay an additional £120 a year. For many pensioners, television and radio are their only forms of entertainment. If we are serious about extending the choice available to all sections of our community, we should ensure that pensioners have greater access.
  106
  No one denies the Government's desire to open up the airways to improve broadcasting. We support that, but we do not support the proposals before the House, which will put the interests of the Treasury, advertisers and the television companies above those of the listeners and the viewers who know exactly what they want from good television and radio. The Bill is guaranteed a stormy passage. With the threats of a rebellion by Conservative Members, there is a danger of it becoming a soap opera in its own right, with the Minister of State cast as Jason Donovan and the Prime Minister as the Finchley version of Mrs. Mangle.
  The Government say, "Never mind the quality, feel the bank balance." I say that the values of a nation can be judged by the quality of its broadcasting. Let us give our people the best, and create the climate and conditions that will allow broadcasting talents in our country to flourish.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I begin by declaring an interest as a director of a local independent radio station. I welcome the Bill because it will provide more choice in radio and television, and more choice will always be good news.
  This country's commercial radio industry was slow to develop because of restrictions and unrealistic demands by an IBA backed by a Government system which did not encourage the development of commercial radio. I do not blame the IBA for the difficulties and restrictions under which it was compelled to work, in the form of the legislation that founded commercial radio. The IBA also achieved many good things, and it should be congratulated on the quality that it introduced into commercial television and radio.
  Commercial radio had a difficult time establishing itself in this country because the services that the public wanted proved to be very different from the proposals contained in the original franchise applications. As a consequence, many applications promised a lot but had to be amended when the radio stations began broadcasting and needed to meet the needs of the market. Today, people enjoy listening to commercial radio, and the number of hours that it broadcasts has increased steadily. That change has come about through the passage of time and by people in the marketplace correcting the faults of the original concepts.
  The new light touch Radio Authority will be good news for radio and should enable the expansion that the Bill foretells. Over the past few years, listening hours have climbed steadily, and that will continue as new stations go on the air. In the years from 1974 to 1979, under a Labour Government, commercial radio had a difficult time. It was not encouraged to expand, and the system established by a Conservative Government in 1973 was capable of being stifled. However, commercial radio has expanded considerably in recent years and now provides a much better service.
  I turn to the problems that television may face as it expands under the Bill's proposals. The danger is that the number of violent and sexually explicit programmes could increase unless there is proper control. A proper Broadcasting Standards Council will be necessary to achieve that, and to ensure that the right sort of people end up in control of our television stations. It would be a major

  107
  mistake if the standards that we see in newspaper journalism today are mirrored by the television companies of the future.
  More and more newspaper journalists are contemplating joining the new TV stations. Already, we have seen the fabrication of news programmes on existing TV stations. Will the Bill be able to handle that type of situation? Does the journalist who organised the Jeffrey Archer frame-up, for example, and who is currently a director of a television station, represent the type of journalism that the Government will allow on television in future? Should someone found to be a liar in open court or to have committed perjury be a director of a TV station broadcasting to children and others? Should someone who has twice been guilty of contempt of court or who has been involved in tax evasion through Netherlands Antilles and Cayman Islands companies be permitted to become involved in providing television services in this country?
  Such problems can easily arise in the case of satellite television broadcasting, because in that instance the fiscal control and management of revenues is impossible to achieve. When people direct revenue through Netherlands Antilles and Cayman Islands companies, the Government, through the Home Office and the Treasury, must consider legislation to ensure that the Finance Bill covers that.
  I hope that the Government will realise that maintaining television standards also means maintaining the standards of the directors of television companies. High standards are required.
  In America, Rupert Murdoch's station, Fox Television, had a consumer revolt. Violence in their programmes was so bad that people got together and boycotted the advertisers' products in the supermarkets. It was an extremely effective revolt because the advertisers contacted the television station and said, "We do not want our products boycotted. We will not advertise on your station unless you stop violent programmes." Ultimately, violent programmes were stopped.
  Perhaps viewers in Britain who are not satisfield with the standards of new television broadcasters—for example, Sky—will have to envisage boycotts of the advertisers' products. It is effective. If we find that the Broadcasting Standards Council has become a toothless wonder like the Press Council, and that it is not effective, we must introduce powers for fines through the right legislation.
  Advertising revenue pays for programmes and supports the stations. Therefore, that revenue is the best thing to withdraw, as it will ensure that the providers of programmes stand up and say, "We must have better quality programmes". If they do not provide better quality programmes, legislation will ensure that their revenue is withdrawn. Withdrawal of advertising revenue is the only effective sanction on the provision of bad programmes.
  We want high-quality television programmes produced by the right people—people who do not fabricate news programmes. We do not want some of the present standards of newspaper journalism in television programmes. The best way to ensure that programme standards are maintained is to ensure that there are lavish penalties on providers of television programmes that do not reach the right quality and standards.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Home Secretary for what he was able to say at the beginning of the debate about the provision of extra subtitles for people whose hearing is impaired. That is a great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who has led a campaign with support from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I was very pleased that the Minister was able to spell out that the Bill is a first year target, and that it is expected that it will be built on year by year. Naturally, we want the period of progress to be spelt out, properly to enfranchise those people whose hearing is impaired and to give them more access to television.
  I also thank the Home Secretary for what he said about Gaelic broadcasting, which is not just of interest in Scotland. We want to ensure that the body will be generally representative of the Gaelic community, and that it will be properly independent when it makes decisions on commissioning and scheduling. I also welcome the extra-terrestrial and satellite channels that new technology has made possible, but, unlike the Government, the Opposition are not mesmerised by the prospect. We want to try to ensure that it will be used to widen real choice and diversity, to protect and promote quality and to stretch interest.
  There has rightly been praise for much of our television system. Across and between four channels, it has achieved a programme mix, variety, range and quality which has two essential features. First, it enables us to talk to each other, to think aloud and to be heard, to be tempted and teased into new interests, whether about the environment and nature or about snooker and darts, and to be entertained and reminded of our distinctive culture and —yes—our Britishness. Secondly, it has, by and large, kept a balance between the broad and varied interests of viewers and the demands of advertisers. All this has been achieved on the basis of sensible regulation. It was not delivered by the naked market forces that the Bill would unleash and which have so damaged television elsewhere in Europe.
  Regulation was recognition of television's special nature and powerful influence in the shaping of minds and opinions. We should also remember that the commercial network grew and developed beside standards set by the BBC. Most important of all, at peak viewing hours it was required to screen a mix of programmes in specified areas —news and current affairs to inform and educate, and drama, arts, children's religious programmes to entertain and reflect our cultural beliefs and values. True, too many voices and views remained unheard or not heard enough, especially among disadvantaged groups and our ethnic communities. True, the voices and cultures of our nations and regions are inadequately heard on the network. True, too, under the present Government there has been too much Government interference with the broadcasters.
  Let us consider the following:
  "Any community must have some settled purpose",
  wrote Mr. Robin Harris, a new policy adviser to the Prime Minister in a remarkable post dated job application published in the Evening Standard on 11 December. It seems that his job is to cloak the iron lady in a velvet dress

  109
  while she deals with the problems of society and community, the existence of which she earlier denied. With a whiff of perestroika, Mr. Harris added:
  "I believe it possible in general terms to state the kind of life people should lead"—
  wait for it—
  "and which the state should encourage and help them to lead."
  Not social engineering—perish the thought—but wise words in regard to the Bill and what it will allow us to watch on our screens. He continued, perhaps with children's programmes in mind:
  "should not the state publicly and systematically discriminate positively in favour of families?"
  To underscore the point, he added:
  "Education is above all the way in which one generation introduces the next into their common culture."
  He then singled out religion as most important, and described it as
  "the single most important continuing influence on society."
  Mr. Harris has clearly not read the Bill in which his employer, the Prime Minister, had such a large hand. It rejects the idea of any settled purpose and relieves commercial television of any obligation, in or out of peak hours, to carry programmes about current affairs which help to shape our society, or to carry children's programmes or religious programmes. It abandons any notion that commercial television has a role in offering a guide to the kind of life which Mr. Harris says that
  "the state should encourage and help".
  Far be it from me to cause any dissension between a No. 10 policy adviser and the Prime Minister, especially as the two senior Home Office Ministers here owe their present jobs to such a dispute, but instead of the approach advocated by Mr. Harris, the Government propose that commercial television should be advertiser-pushed rather than viewer-led. That is what the preposterous system of blind auctioning will mean.
  As one experienced television producer told me,
  "There is more to making a programme than simply filling screen hours."
  Those who make programmes decide when to show them and those who watch them are entitled to ask, "What did that add to my quality of life? Did it make me laugh or cry? Did it tell me something that I did not know? Did it excite or stimulate me? Did it entertain or astonish me, or was it a mixture of all or some of those?" If a programme—any programme—cannot meet such a quality test, we might as well as watch a moving roll of wallpaper.
  Let us be clear that the argument is not about snobbery or elitism. Research shows that, despite the groups into which advertisers divide us according to how much we have to spend, there is very little difference between what we watch on any evening. Readers of The Guardian or The Independent are just as likely to watch a games show or a soap as readers of the Daily Mirror or the Daily Mail are to watch a factual programme.
  Under the Bill, it is certain that Christmas television 1989 will be better than Christmas television 1993, which will be poorer, less varied and more of the money-making same than now. As advertisers demand the largest audiences for their particular products, quality will be pushed down and real choice and variety in peak hours will be restricted. That is not guesswork—it is the inevitable consequence of the idea that what we watch on our television screens will be decided by a blind auction among those with access to the largest amount of cash and, as has been said several times in the debate, extra cash spent off screen will mean less cash on screen. Television is to be
  110
  sold in the same way as second-hand cars or unwanted household items. Buyers of such articles make a quick quality check before they bid, often with the same disappointing results as the Bill will ensure.
  We know from France, Italy and West Germany what deregulation has meant—not what it might mean, but what has actually happened since deregulation. It has lessened real choice for viewers and served up more of the same with fewer factual programmes and more soaps usually foreign—and game shows. In France there is a move to restore some regulation due to the poorer quality television.
  The Government say, "It will not happen here because we are different—we have the so-called quality threshold." But the quality assurances in the Bill are worthless. For example, the Government say nothing about what the IBA calls "streams" of programmes to be shown in peak hours. They are totaly silent on the matter of networking, on which the federal ITV system is built. Networking—how much and when it will be available to smaller stations—is essential, as it will give them a bite at higher audiences and often more costly programmes.
  Mr. Gale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the independent television companies are working on a policy of networking by consent which is to be put to the Minister later?
  Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming my point. The Bill contains nothing about networking. No one can make a sensible bid for a franchise without knowing what networking there will be. The proportion of factual and entertainment-based programmes on the new Channel 3 and Channel 5 is critical to make a reality of choice in peak and non-peak viewing hours.
  Now on the ITV stations, about one third of the screen time is devoted to factual programmes, inviting viewers to see and better understand what is going on around us. An impressive 84 of every 100 people rely on television as their main source of information about the developing world and the environment. In part, those programmes are made because the present rules say that they must be. Without those obligations, there will be fewer of them because they are expensive to make and they will probably not get as much peak-time showing when they are pushed down or off the schedules.
  An important point is illustrated by the fact that Third-world and environmental programmes shown at peak hours on ITV and BBC have an average audience of 4 million to 5 million. When they are shown off peak, they have an audience of between 1 million and 1·5 million. When they are shown at peak time on Channel 4, the audience is about 1 million to 1·5 million—about the same as the off-peak audience for BBC1 and ITV. The new Independent Television Commission needs powers to influence programme range and diversity during peak-hour viewing if the Government are to fulfil their stated ambition to protect choice and variety. Otherwise, as we have seen in Europe, advertisers will try to grab those slots and design programmes to attract more viewers or the viewers whom they think they need to buy their products.
  Audiences are more loyal to commercial radio than to television. It is essential that commercial radio is able to continue and to expand social action broadcasting and citizen broadcasting, which offer help to those who need it

  111
  and encourage others to give it, and to promote speech-based programmes. Radio has an important educational role to play which is of value to people from childhood to old age.
  In Committee, we shall try to give the Independent Television Commission those and other extra powers, and to enable the new Channel 5 to be set up in the north and to be based on a regional mix of networking and home-made regional programmes.
  So much of the future of what will be on our screens is left open in the Bill, which is perhaps why the Minister of State has said that he will listen and respond. He can do so tonight by joining us in giving the Committee that will consider the Bill the power to hear evidence before decisions are taken which will last into the next century.
  Instead of building and developing our broadcasting best—especially in the face of new competition from satellite, which will take years to become of more than marginal viewing and will not be available to all—the Government want to demolish the foundations of much of the broadcasting system. They put cash ahead of quality and they invite the promotion of the trivial as they treat viewers and listeners as no more than parcels of people to be sold to advertisers. That insults the range of their tastes and their intelligence.
  Under the Bill, viewers and television stations are for sale to the highest bidder—choice, diversity and variety can go hang. The viewers and listeners should be in the driving seat, but the Government want the advertisers to reign. That is why we shall oppose the Bill.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of many hon. Members, I am disappointed that a number of hon. Members had to sit through the debate without being able to participate in it. Despite the efforts of Front-Bench spokesmen to shorten wind-up speeches, I am sorry that that happened because it is a deeply frustrating experience. I single out one hon. Member who I suspect may have been mildly critical of the Bill, but I am particularly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  Apart from a few minutes, I sat through the debate and regret that I will be unable to deal with all the points made. I shall try to deal with as many as I can.
  It is appropriate to recollect the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). He began by saying—[Interruption.] Ah, here he comes, making an entrance like a real trouper. He said that it was a matter for congratulation that the Government have introduced such a comprehensive Bill.
  Before I deal with the detail—a lot of which, I acknowledge, is very important and which will give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and his team and myself a great deal to talk about in Committee—it is right that we should recognise that this is a truly comprehensive Bill. It represents a great leap forward for British broadcasting. It contains many issues on which we all agree. No one has thought to challenge the desirability of a major expansion of radio, with three new
  112
  national independent radio channels and a host of local radio channels to cater for the wide range of tastes that we know exists out there.
  Already, the IBA has been able to grant 23 additional radio licences under its existing powers, for which it received over 500 expressions of interest. The announcement made just a day or two ago that another licence in London had been awarded showed the range of groups applying. For instance, no fewer than eight groups wanted to run a classical radio station in London. In fact, the winner was an "easy listening" franchise, whatever that may mean. The fact that the IBA had to discriminate between one lot of music and another is a sign of how invidious is the task of picking between one group and another.
  These matters of quality do not speak for themselves. I have have heard some hon. Members refer to "quality" as though it were a "speak your weight" machine that would automatically register a precise quality rating so that one could make relative quality judgments between different bids. Beyond a certain point, it is difficult. I should not have chosen to have to make a distinction between any of those classical musical applications or to put all of them on one side and choose "easy listening" instead.
  The other point on which we all agree is that the framework of public service broadcasting should remain around the BBC, as it does, and that the Bill should take the opportunity to make Channel 4 even more secure in its remit. To those who make unduly pessimistic assertions about the future of television, even if—it is a very big "if—one accepts the pessimism about Channel 3, which of course I do not, it must be relevant to our consideration of the future of British broadcasting that three of the four main terrestrial channels remain exactly as they always did—
  Mr. Grocott rose—
  Mr. Mellor: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been allowed only 15 minutes to reply. That being so, I think that I should be allowed to answer the debate.
  It is interesting that only one point can be challenged about the way in which we have dealt with Channel 4, and with respect to those who hold those views, their point seems a little wide of the mark. At the moment Channel 4 is entirely the creature of the IBA. The authority broadcasts its programmes, approves its schedules and decides its income. Under the new arrangements, for the first time Channel 4 will broadcast its own programmes, decide its own schedules and, to the extent that its advertising sales are successful, fix the level of its income. With the greatest respect to those who hold contrary views, I believe that for the Government to have the right to approve nominations put forward by the ITC is not excessive, having regard to the prime desire and requirement of Channel 4 not to be privatised, but to remain as a public corporation, which it will.
  Another thing with which hon. Members agree is the enhancement that we have given to Gaelic broadcasting and to the maintenance of S4C, about which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke. I had a meeting with the managing director of S4C the other day and he is well satisfied with the remit that he has been given.

  113
  Interestingly, there has been no challenge to the fact that for the first time we shall regulate what appears on satellite television. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested that the Bill was about deregulation. With the greatest respect, we could not have produced a Bill with 167 clauses and 12 schedules if it had been about deregulation. It may be about modifying the manner in which we regulate but, for example, it extends regulation for the first time, to non-DBS low-powered satellite channels which at present are outside any direct United Kingdom regulatory control.
  The regulation in the Bill goes beyond matters of taste and decency. Channels will be required not to editorialise on political or controversial matters, to preserve due impartiality in dealing with such matters, to present news accurately and impartially and to control advertisements. That is far from a move towards deregulation. We assume that we have the right to stop innovations. We do not. They will happen anyway and it is sensible to set them within a framework of regulation. That is what the Bill does.
  I understand that there is a good deal of anxiety about our proposals for Channel 3. Having established that, there is a great deal in the Bill on which hon. Members of whatever party affiliation agree. That is why I regret that there will be a Division on the Bill tonight. I acknowledge that serious issues will need to be addressed in dealing with Channel 3 franchises.
  I was sad that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—who is pointing towards me but not listening—said complacently, "If it ain't broke, don't mend it." I should have thought that we were all agreed on one matter in this debate, wherever else we may part company. There is precious little about which to be complacent when we consider the performance of Channel 3. That is no fault of the IBA. We have set the statutory framework.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Mellor: No, I shall not give way. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Many of the people who apply for franchises will have to consider seriously the performance of Channel 3. If it is to be a worthwhile business to be in, they will have to improve the performance. In 1984, ITV 1—Channel 3, as it will now be called—had on average 48·7 per cent. of the audience. That has fallen in the space of five years to 41·7 per cent. in the first three-quarters of this year. Channel 3 is supposed to be a mass audience channel.
  The figures become even more striking when we consider the percentage of families who own a television who watch a channel at peak times. In 1984, on average 15 per cent. of families with a television watched BBC 1 at peak times. That remains the case in 1989. For ITV Channel 3 the figure was 21 per cent. in 1984 and 16 per cent. in 1989. If we are worried about quality, the first thing that we should ask ourselves is whether—I believe that there is a strong case for it—the quality of Channel 3 should be improved. Viewers are voting with their feet in increasing numbers. Or do we believe that Channel 3 is a monument of our culture—touch not a hair of its head? I hope that we shall be able to explore the reasons behind that thinking.
  Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Mellor: No. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is persisting when I have given up 15 minutes of the time for my reply. The hon. Gentleman spoke for almost as long as I have to reply. I am trying to reply to the debate.
  In the Bill we have sought sincerely to set out the basis upon which we can more sensibly allocate Channel 3 franchises. We have sought to find the basis on which a quality threshold can be erected which George Russell, chairman of the IBA, described as a Becher's brook. Only those who are able not only to satisfy the ITC as to the credibility of their programming, but, as my hon. Friend for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, able as never before to produce business plans and show the financial wherewithal to undertake such programming, will he able to participate in the tendering procedure that will allow a bid to determine the issue.
  It is not envisaged that the quality threshold will be anything other than a high fence to jump. It is not envisaged that those who jump it will display the wide range of quality bids suggested. The purpose of that threshold is that it should pose a genuine obstacle and a lot of people should not be able to get over it.
  I understand and appreciate the anxieties that have been expressed by hon. Members and I appreciate that the question of quality goes to the heart of the Bill. The balance between quality and money is a matter of great significance. In clause 16 we believe that we have set forth a basis upon which the ITC can properly regulate the system. The fact that in "exceptional circumstances" the ITC will not be obliged to accept the highest bidder means that we have provided an important area of discretion.
  I repeat that the wording of the Bill as it presently stands is not set in concrete. There will be plenty of opportunity in Committee to consider the wording as it relates to the quality threshold and to consider whether the discretion given to the ITC is adequate. I take up the offer made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook of sensible debates in Committee on this issue.
  Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister tell us the answer to the question that intrigues us all—what are the possible exceptional circumstances in which the highest bidder might be turned down?
  Mr. Mellor: It is interesting that George Russell has also refused to deal with that—[Interruption.] The reason is simple; he does not want to bind his hands in advance of seeing the bids as they come in. The right hon. Gentleman asked me the question and, having answered for George Russell, I shall answer for me. If it were possible to define what we meant by "exceptional circumstances" we would not need an exceptional circumstance provision—[Laughter.] One would have a list, but a list is restrictive and does not give one scope for the exercise of discretion. One would be tied down unnecessarily. Opposition Members laughed more loudly than I suspect many of the Channel 3 comedy shows would have allowed them to do. If they can come up with a sensible alternative I put them on notice to do so. It is not as easy as all that.
  In the end we assume that it is up to us to save our British broadcasting, but in reality it is up to us to allow British broadcasting to develop. It is up to us to put the minimum number of problems in the way of viewers and listeners getting the choice that they want. In our enthusiasm to do good we should be careful of patronising

  115
  the public. I believe that the public are infinitely more sophisticated than we give them credit for. When given the opportunity the public will not settle for the lowest level of pap. I do not believe that most of us, if we are sensible, say when we meet our constituents in the high street, "Because you are only capable of settling for the lowest level of pap we have to spend hours in this place saving you from yourselves."
  Some people have complacently said that all we need do is retain the status quo. The IBA carried out a survey, however, and asked the public about their viewing preferences—49 per cent. said that there was nothing on the television that they wanted to watch at the time they wanted to watch it.
  The Bill stands in the great tradition of developments in broadcasting, all of which took place under a Conservative Government. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 238.

  Division No. 23]

  [at 10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  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)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gran, James

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Day, Stephen

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Devlin, Tim

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dicks, Terry

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Eggar, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Favell, Tony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

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

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Franks, Cecil

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Freeman, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gardiner, George

  Butcher, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Butler, Chris

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  116

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Madel, David

  Gow, Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, Harry (Baling N)

  Maples, John

  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

  Mates, Michael

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hague, William

  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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayward, Robert

  Mudd, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Neubert, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hill, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Norris, Steve

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

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Paice, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Irvine, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Irving, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Janman, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knowles, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knox, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Peter

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Speed, Keith

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Speller, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  117

  Stern, Michael

  wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Waller, Gary

  Stokes, Sir John

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Sumberg, David

  Ward, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wheeler, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Whitney, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilshire, David

  Thorne, Neil

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wood, Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Tracey, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Cox, Tom

  Alton, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Anderson, Donald

  Cryer, Bob

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  Battle, John

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beggs, Roy

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Douglas, Dick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Benyon, W.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Eastham, Ken

  Blair, Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blunkett, David

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Boateng, Paul

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Boyes, Roland

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

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

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Flannery, Martin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Flynn, Paul

  Buchan, Norman

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Buckley, George J.

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Galloway, George

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  George, Bruce

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clay, Bob

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Clelland, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cohen, Harry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Coleman, Donald

  Gould, Bryan

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Graham, Thomas

  Corbett, Robin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  118

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Nellist, Dave

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Brien, William

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Henderson, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prescott, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howells, Geraint

  Radice, Giles

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hoyle, Doug

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Simon (Soulhwark)

  Rogers, Allan

  Illsley, Eric

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Janner, Greville

  Rowlands, Ted

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kennedy, Charles

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Clare

  Lambie, David

  Sillars, Jim

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Litherland, Robert

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Snape, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Soley, Clive

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Loyden, Eddie

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McAllion, John

  Stott, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Strang, Gavin

  McCartney, Ian

  Straw, Jack

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McKelvey, William

  Turner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Vaz, Keith

  Maclennan, Robert

  Walden, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  McWilliam, John

  Wall, Pat

  Madden, Max

  Wallace, James

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Walley, Joan

  Marek, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Martlew, Eric

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Maxton, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Meacher, Michael

  Wilson, Brian

  Meale, Alan

  Winnick, David

  Michael, Alun

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Worthington, Tony

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Mr. Frank Cook and

  Morley, Elliot

  Mr. Frank Haynes

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Corbett.]
  Question put:-
  The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 303.

  Division No. 24]

  [10.15

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Flannery, Martin

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Flynn, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Alton, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Foster, Derek

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fraser, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Galloway, George

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  George, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Battle, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beggs, Roy

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bell, Stuart

  Gould, Bryan

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Thomas

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

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blair, Tony

  Hardy, Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boyes, Roland

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bradley, Keith

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Caborn, Richard

  Home Robertson, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howells, Geraint

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cox, Tom

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Crowther, Stan

  Lambie, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Leighton, Ron

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Doran, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Douglas, Dick

  McCartney, Ian

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McFall, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McGrady, Eddie

  Eadie, Alexander

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  120

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Maxton, John

  Sillars, Jim

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Snape, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morley, Elliot

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Straw, Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nellist, Dave

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  O'Brien, William

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Vaz, Keith

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Walden, George

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wall, Pat

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, James

  Pike, Peter L.

  Walley, Joan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Prescott, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wilson, Brian

  Robertson, George

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Frank Cook and

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Allason, Rupert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amess, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amos, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Butcher, John

  Ashby, David

  Butler, Chris

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butterfill, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baldry, Tony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cash, William

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chope, Christopher

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Churchill, Mr

  Bevan, David Gilroy

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

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cran, James

  Bowis, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jack, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Jackson, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Evennett, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Fallon, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Favell, Tony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Kilfedder, James

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Forman, Nigel

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Forth, Eric

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Knapman, Roger

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Franks, Cecil

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Freeman, Roger

  Knowles, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Knox, David

  Gale, Roger

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Gardiner, George

  Lang, Ian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Latham, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Gorst, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Gow, Ian

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Lightbown, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Lilley, Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gregory, Conal

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Lord, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Grylls, Michael

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Hague, William

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Madel, David

  Hannam, John

  Malins, Humfrey

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

  Mans, Keith

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Maples, John

  Harris, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mates, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Mellor, David

  Hill, James

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mills, Iain

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Moate, Roger

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Neale, Gerrard

  122

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stevens, Lewis

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Sumberg, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Summerson, Hugo

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Trotter, Neville

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Wyn (CONWY)

  Viggers, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waller, Gary

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Watts, John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Wells, Bowen

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wheeler, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Speed, Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speller, Tony

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Yeo, Tim

  Squire, Robin

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

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

Broadcasting Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act;

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Lilley.]

10.29 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall not detain the House for long. As I understand it, the resolution is fairly broad and, therefore, I can raise a number of issues based on the resolution and on the financial effects of the Bill which are outlined on pages ix and x.
The Secretary of State is empowered to make out of money voted by Parliament—which we shall no doubt be agreeing to shortly, on the nod—a start-up loan not exceeding £5 million for the Independent Television Commission and £3 million for the Radio Authority. As to the money that is to be spent by the commission, under the terms of clause 26 it will examine the provision to be made for Channel 5. I have no doubt that a number of regions will make representations, but Yorkshire and Humberside, with a centre based in Bradford, should be given serious consideration.
Clause 128 establishes the Broadcasting Standards Council, which will have annual running costs of approximately £1 million, and which will deal largely with a code of sex and violence. Hon. Members have already mentioned the very light hand with which the IBA has guided the running of commercial television stations. In fact, it has done so with an extremely light hand. I hope that the Broadcasting Standards Council will turn its attention not just to sex and violence on television, although I do not deny that control of those aspects is important.
The IBA completely ignored the legislation affecting natural breaks. When feature films are given their theatrical release, great efforts are made to ensure that they suffer no interruptions. But when shown on television, they are arbitrarily chopped about, to allow for the insertion of advertising. The BSC should introduce some form of regulation covering the intrusion of advertising, so that it is kept separate and distinct from programmes. Several film makers have been appalled at the way in which their efforts have been mutilated by the arbitrary insertion of commercial breaks at intervals that are convenient not for the viewer but for advertisers. The powers of the Broadcasting Standards Council should be amended in Committee to cover that problem.
Clause 5, dealing with the Bill's financial effects, is the Bill's most controversial section, because it provides for the auctioning of licences. It is suggested that the revenue thus yielded will total at least £210 million. I suspect that that is one of the main reasons for the legislation.
There is one curious aspect of the bidding procedure, about which the Broadcasting Consortium has expressed reservations. I quote from that consortium's circular, which I imagine has been sent to a number of right hon. and hon. Members. The consortium comprises a number of concerned organisations at which one would be hard put to cavil. They include Age Concern, Alcohol Concern, the British Council of Churches, Community Service
124
Volunteers, the Deaf Broadcasting Council, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Council of Women, Oxfam and Save the Children Fund.
The consortium comments:
"The auction process (Clause 17) whereby the licence goes to the highest bidder will give money to the Treasury but will therefore take out of the system finance, that could and should be spent on improving the range and quality of programmes. This bidding process encourages higher bids than may be affordable. The incentive for prospective licence holders is to put in a higher cash bid to the Treasury rather than invest their resources in more than just meeting the quality threshold. There must be a danger that the highest bidder will have overbidded and have insufficient finances left to fund the range and quality of programs received. If a price can be fixed for the franchise renewal, why can't it be fixed at the outset?"
That comes from an organisation that does not have a financial vested interest, and has only the concerns of the consumer at heart. It is an important representation that goes to the heart of the Bill.
There are also some curious side issues regarding the tendering procedure. The Minister can issue qualifications for the licence by order including those, for example, for what I am sure will come to be known as the 20 per cent. rule.
Clause 163 empowers the Minister to issue orders, but it does not state whether they will be affirmative orders whether the negative procedure will be used.
Clause 163(1) provides:
"Any power of the Secretary of State to make regulations or an order under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
Clause 165 gives a number of definitions, but they do not include a definition of a statutory instrument. Therefore, it seems that the Secretary of State will be able to alter the various qualifications for licences, and the orders that he may issue are contained in schedule 2(2)(2), which provides:
"The Secretary of State may, in the case of any category of relevant services not falling within sub-paragraph (1]), by order prescribe the maximum number of licences which may at any time be held by any one person to provide relevant services falling within that category."
The House has debated ownership of the media tonight. Here is a snippet from the Bill, which shows that the Minister may change, by order, the degree of ownership. Schedule 2(2)(5), defines the category of 20 per cent., stating:—
"The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) amend sub-paragraph (1), (3) or (4) by substituting a different percentage for the percentage for the time being specified there;"

Those sub-paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) relate to the proportion of ownership that may be held by the proprietors of national and local newspapers. They are quite important powers.
I suspect that clause 163 means that the statutory instrument will not be subject to parliamentary procedure, and I realise that that is of academic interest to the House. The Minister can correct that if he chooses. If that is not the intention, he may say so.
A Bill normally includes information about whether the affirmative procedure is required. That would be most desirable because under it, the matter comes before the House, is debated and there has to be a resolution of approval. Where the negative procedure is used there can be a prayer.
Many statutory instruments do not go through the House and are not subject to any parliamentary

125
procedure. If the Bill is passed, containing that facility for the Minister, an important part of the power of the Bill can be exercised by him. The power is given by the House without its ever seeing the instrument. We are considering an important part of the media, and that aspect of the Bill is less than satisfactory. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that he will alter that in Committee, to ensure that the relevant delegated legislation comes before the House.
Clause 17 suggests another curious set of circumstances, because the commission will have powers to issue rules governing the circumstances where a person who has submitted a bid cannot take over the bid because of a breach of the commission's rules. Clause 17(8) provides:
"Any such rules shall be published by the Commission in such manner as they consider appropriate, but shall not come into force unless they have been approved by the Secretary of State."
That is not just delegating powers to the Secretary of State, it is delegating powers to the Secretary of State which he delegates to the commission; but the commission makes the rules that the Secretary of State can approve. The clause does not say that he has to approve a draft or that he has the right to refuse, although that might be implied by the fact that he has to approve them. Nevertheless, these rules, which govern an important part of the Bill—cash bids—will not come before the House. I see no requirement for the Secretary of State to bring such measures to the House by way of affirmative instrument or the negative procedure so that hon. Members have at least a slim chance of debating the issue for an hour and a half.
The power in the Bill lies in clause 17 and the cash tender provisions. It is wrong that Parliament should hand over powers over which it can no longer exercise any scrutiny. Powers such as that to determine when an Act will come into effect are delegated all the time. The House hands over many such powers to Ministers. They are routine and technical and nobody would cavil at them. I suggest that these powers, however, are germane and central to the operation of the Bill and that we should make the alterations that I have suggested.
I do not think that present arrangements for the control of delegated legislation are satisfactory. Even the minimal scrutiny that we have now is being sidestepped here. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance. I regret that the Bill has been given a Second Reading. I voted against it. There is obviously plenty of room for improvement in its detail to allow the House some involvement in its application.
10.42 pm
Mr. George Walden: The Bill is predominantly about money—perhaps a little too much so. My main anxiety follows that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—it concerns the auctioning of franchises.
One thing that nobody can say about the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is that it was well structured. He began by paying tribute to the best traditions of British public service broadcasting and ended by mocking the ghost of Lord Reith, who was the inspirer of those best traditions. I wonder whether that is a precedent—the first time a Conservative Home Secretary has mocked the ideals of Lord Reith. For my pains, I have been dubbed, with others, a Jeremiah. I tabled a motion, as have others, which together collected about 80
126
expressions of reservation about the Bill. That is an awful lot of Jeremiahs. It is perfectly reasonable to be pessimistic about the future of British broadcasting in view of the way in which the Government have handled not only the Bill but, much more importantly, the White Paper.
Despite the arguments put by interested and non-interested people against the franchise option right from the start of the discussion when the White Paper was issued, the Government have gone ahead with it. One is entitled to ask why they have gone ahead, having so comprehensively lost the argument.
I was shocked by the sheer shoddiness of Ministers' arguments in defence of the Bill. First we heard the contention that we had encountered all this pessimism and all those Jeremiahs 20 or 30 years ago when commercial television was introduced. That is an extremely shoddy argument because, as the Government acknowledged with their next breath, we now face a technological revolution, which quite obviously and self-evidently poses far greater threats to the quality of broadcasting than were posed in the completely different circumstances of 30 years ago. That is a shoddy and shameful argument to come from Ministers.
The Government then assure us that there is no threat to the BBC or to Channel 4, that the Bill is not concerned with them and that we are preserving the tradition of public sector broadcasting. That, too, is a shameful and misleading argument. Anyone who has spoken to people high up in the BBC and Channel 4 knows perfectly well that those people are aware that if the quality goes down in ITV—that fulcrum of British broadcasting in the centre ground—the BBC will be dragged down after it. That is what we should be debating. If we had not had such a disgracefully intellectually shallow White Paper, that issue would have been tackled right at the start. Of course the quality of the BBC and Channel 4—such as it is—is in danger. So it is quite shoddy for the Government to take the feeble line that somehow the BBC is safeguarded by not being mentioned in that context.
ITV and the terrestrial and commercial channels as they now exist are and will be at the fulcrum of the broadcasting revolution. On the one hand there will be the public service channels and traditions as exemplified best by the BBC, and on the other hand there will be satellites and all the new forms of broadcasting made possible by the advance of technology. If that central fulcrum is tipped downwards —and that is what the Bill will do—the whole industry will slide. The process has already begun. Opposition Members were quite right to point out that some broadcasting companies are already spending less on programmes in anticipation of the Bill.
We have faced a barrage of extremely cheap and shoddy arguments from the Government which, frankly, are totally unworthy of them, particularly relating to a Bill of such enormous social consequence. Why have the Government got themselves into this position? Here I stress that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is not responsible for the Bill. He is the victim of legislative inertia which has come about because the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, cannot face the prospect of admitting that they are wrong, even when they have been proved wrong by the overwhelming body of opinion.
How did they get themselves into this corner? Let me offer three explanations. I regret to say that the first one obviously involves the animus against the broadcasting

127
establishment. It is sad to say that, as it implies that the spirit of the Bill is affected by political pique against the duopoly—the broadcasting establishment—but that is the only conclusion that I can draw. The resentment against the present broadcasting establishment is, to some extent, reasonable because it has been complacent on quality, because it has shown gross efficiency—to be fair, that has now been corrected—and because there has been political bias on the BBC.
One could argue, therefore, that the Government's evident resentment against the duopoly is reasonable. But —this is the main point—we must surely look wider than that. On such a major Bill, it would be wrong and irresponsible of the Government to be influenced to the slightest degree by political pique because they are setting the future standards of British broadcasting. If they are to be influenced by political pique, let them remember that they are taking it out on the public, not on the broadcasting duopoly, and it is the public who will suffer.
The second thing that strikes me when considering the Government's motives is the sheer narrowness of their concept of broadcasting. There is a philosophical misunderstanding of how the cash nexus is applied. In the Bill, the doctrine is that the cash nexus must prevail above all—we are debating the money resolution—and considerations of public service are secondary.
The Treasury wants to make as much money as possible from broadcasting. It is completely naked about that, but what does it mean? What will it do with the few grubby extra fivers that it will get from the debasement of the British broadcasting system? It may spend them on remedial lessons for the semi-literate. That is my humble suggestion as to how it might dispose of some of the money. The Treasury—I specifically stress "the Treasury" because I do not believe that this is a Home Office point—is cynically saying, "Why cannot everyone benefit from the debasement of public service broadcasting?" That is the kernel of its argument, which is why it is such a shallow and despicable argument for a Tory Government to put.
The third motive is the most depressing. I detect in the attacks on Lord Reith, which I suspect mark a new and very sad stage in the development of the Tory party, what I call a "bread and circuses" philosophy. I do not believe that the Government care much about the quality of television that people watch. The unspoken philosophy is, "They watch trash, they like trash, so we shall give them more trash." That is what is behind the Bill, because no one who had thought about it in historical or social terms or who had read a book about popular culture, of the kind that people have been writing for hundreds of years from Dr. Johnson onwards, could put their name or subscribe to this cheap and shoddy Bill.
The Government are at a stage from which they cannot retreat, and that is sad. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister made noises about possible compromises, which I considered carefully, but they do not go to the heart of the matter. If they had any imagination or sense of responsibility—that is what it amounts to—they would study hard the alternatives put forward, particularly by the Campaign for Quality Broadcasting. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has courteously received and talked to those people. All that the Government would have to do is show a modicum of political courage
128
and say, "No, we haven't got it right; this time we aren't right just because everyone else is taking the opposite view." This time the Government should have the courage to stand their proposal on its head.
Perhaps the Government do not understand what I am making such a fuss about, or even what I am talking about. In that case, I have no means of conveying my meaning to them, but if they do not make a fundamental change in their attitude on this auction of franchises, not just a mealy-mouthed compromise, and if they want to know what I am going on and on about, let them imagine how the history books in 10 years' time, at the turn of the millennium, will look back at the present Administration. The history books will say, "They did well in the Falklands, they raised the standard of living and they gave Britain back a bit of self-confidence", but then they will say, "but they also made it a cheaper and nastier country" —because that is what this Bill is all about.
In conclusion, I want to explain why I voted against the Bill, bearing in mind that we are discussing the money resolution. I do not find the talk about compromise at all reassuring, because the Government in their despicably shallow White Paper started from such an extreme position on the cash nexus alone that even if they move to the middle ground they will not have moved very far towards sanity. I do not hold out much hope to my hon. Friends who, like me, are disturbed by the Bill, in terms of what will happen in Committee. I am sorry to say that I suspect that the Government will not show sufficient political courage to say, "Look we've got it wrong, so we're going to turn the proposal on its head and take a lead."
I leave the Government with one bit of advice about their future speechwriting if they do not take that course. To start with, they will have to take out all the stuff about "family values" because people will laugh in their faces if they go ahead with the Bill and continue to preach about family values. The sort of people who are interested in these franchises are not very interested in family values.
Secondly, the Government can stop suggesting that the Church of England is falling down on its spiritual duties to the nation. That sort of high-sounding stuff will have to go out of their speeches, too, because one cannot sell the most powerful cultural medium in the country for a few bits of silver and then blame it all on the bishops.
Finally, the Government's speechwriters will have to stop all the stuff about how the teachers must do a better job in the classroom. One cannot take that line if one is simultaneously dishing the dirt on the selfsame children in their homes.
One way and another, we can look forward to some pretty thin speeches on political subjects from the Tory Front Bench. Rather than get themselves into the absurd and hypocritical position of going on about moral and spiritual values and the rest while selling out to the cheapjacks in broadcasting, I suggest that the Government think again.
10.58 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made a brave and courageous speech. I hope that his hon. Friends who disagreed fundamentally with what he said will at least admire his courage in saying it. His speech clearly came from someone who believes strongly in the subject which

129
he was debating. I am glad that I stayed long enough to hear him. Knowing how the Conservative party is intolerant of opposition, especially in its own ranks, I hope that nothing untoward happens to the hon. Gentleman on the way home this evening. When the ancient cry of "Who goes home?" goes up, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will select a couple of stalwart friends to accompany him across the park or wherever else he is going.
During the previous debate—I am now speaking on the money resolution—it was interesting that Conservative and Opposition Members agreed on several issues. At one stage, I felt sensitive about being considered to be unadventurous and something of a conservative. It put me in mind of a poem that Christopher Logue wrote in 1966. In a debate on the money resolution I shall not go through it, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is exceedingly long. It gives a serious of reasons why people should vote Labour. It said, for example:
"I shall vote Labour because God votes Labour.
I shall vote Labour because my husband looks like Anthony Wedgwood Benn."
That rather dates it.
"I shall vote Labour because I want to shop in a covered precinct stretching from Yeovil to Glasgow.
I shall vote Labour because if I don't vote Labour my balls will drop off;
I shall vote Labour because the Queen's stamp collection is the best in the world."
It concludes by saying:
"I shall vote Labour because deep in my heart I am really a Conservative
The standard of public sector broadcasting in Britain is genuinely admired not only here but around the world. In attempting to conserve it and move away from the ludicrous idea of auctioning franchises, Opposition Members are conservatives on the grounds that we recognise that certain standards and institutions are worth conserving. That is the whole point; that is why I welcome the words of the hon. Member for Buckingham, and associate myself closely with them.
I do not intend to cover all the points made in the Second Reading debate. Opposition Members are worried because, if we are wrong, we may be embarrassed in a few years, but no damage will have been done. But if the Government are wrong, enormous damage will have been done to something important. It is not for us to disprove the Government's position. It is for the Government to prove their position because they propose such a fundamental change in the structure of broadcasting.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said that television was better in the United States. I have seen television in the United States, and I cannot say that I thought that it was better than British television. No Conservative Member has pointed to a country where the standards, choice and variety on television is better than in this country.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am fortunate to spend a good deal of time in southern California. The range and intellectual content of programmes and the choice available to the public is vastly greater than anything in Britain.
Mr. Banks: I had been wondering where the hon. Gentleman had been in recent months. I have now discovered that he was in southern California. I hope that
130
he was serving the interests of his constituents well. The United States is an enormous country, and television in southern California might be better than that—
Sir Eldon Griffiths: In London.
Mr. Banks: No, in Washington and New York. My experience is based not on frequent visits but on several visits on parliamentary business such as fact-finding tours. I watched television in New York and Washington, and I did not find that the standard or variety was better than here. The hon. Gentleman will not find support for his view among members of the population who have seen American television.
We oppose the Bill because more channels do not necessarily mean more variety. More television does not even mean better television. If there are to be 57 varieties of the same and more chewing gum for the eyes, we shall not be any closer to obtaining the standards of excellence and variety that we expect.
We want to conserve what is good, but we are not reactionary and just resisting the idea of change. Many things could be done to the structure of television and broadcasting to improve it immeasurably. So far, nothing in the Bill or in the money resolution offers us such improvements.
We will resist the Bill in Committee. In view of my modest contribution tonight, I hope that the Committee of Selection might even contemplate putting me on that Committee. I should like to cross swords with the Minister. For the moment, however, we are united in grief as Chelsea supporters. I am sure that that small common point will be lost when we get down to discussing the Bill.
We believe that the Government's proposal will undermine standards that are accepted in this country as being among the finest in the world. On this occasion I am proud to say that I am a conservative with a small "c".
11.5 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I share the hesitations of those who are pausing for thought before they vote the moneys for the Secretary of State to operate under the Bill now it has received its Second Reading. I share some of the anxieties encapsulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and by other earlier speakers.
As Conservatives we are rightly proud of the system that we set up about 30 years ago, which combined the BBC services with those of the new ITV companies. That system was approved despite ferocious opposition from the Labour party, and by luck as well as by judgment the mixture has worked extremely well. I share the dismay about the encomia expressed for American television, as I think that, apart from Australia, its television is the worst in the world. I allow myself to be chauvinistic about our television, which is unusual for me, as I am a true internationalist and a keen European. By luck and by judgment, we have the best television in the world and we are rightly proud of it.
When the Minister replied to the debate, he had the opportunity to refer to the possibility of giving serious reconsideration to the tender, auction, maximum-bid, sealed-envelope system proposed in the Bill. That is an obnoxious system if ever I heard one and it is a pity that my hon. and learned Friend did not offer the House the concession that, in Committee, profound amendments would be made to the proposal, including the

131
augmentation and reinforcement of quality considerations and criteria. With his usual adroitness, all that my hon. and learned Friend referred to was the possibility of rewording some of the threshold descriptions. That is inadequate to those of my hon. Friends who share my genuine hesitations.
I am not one of those Conservatives who would attack the Archbishop of Canterbury—I do not need to create a macho image by doing so—because I support him. He said that broadcasting is not just like an ordinary business and that there is a big difference between making programmes to make money and making money to make programmes. Mostly by luck rather than by judgment, we have achieved that unique combination contained in the latter phrase. That has benefited the public interest and has provided the essential balance in the duopoly system produced by the right kind of competition. Channel 4 is living proof of what can be done by mixing intelligent commercialism with the necessary subvention.
Most of my colleagues were keen to criticise Channel 4 when it started, claiming that it was subversive and that it would be inimical to the political opinions that we might represent. Now I find that, virtually without exception, most of my colleagues praise Channel 4 and regard it as a great success. It has contributed to the general average quality of television.
What a shame that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister was unable to give those necessary concessions. That is why we should hesitate before we vote on the money resolution, and why I urge colleagues with my feelings of hesitation to vote against the motion or to abstain on it, as on Second Reading.
11.12 pm
Ms. Diane Abbott: Before voting on the money resolution, the House should consider a few matters. When the previous Home Secretary spoke on the original White Paper, one theme of his speech was the notion of regulation with a light touch. As one who has worked for two ITV companies, I find that notion one that fills me with horror.
I have experienced regulation with a heavy touch. I worked for an existing ITV station, TV-am, which was regulated with a heavy touch. I remember the day when the man from the London electricity board came round to cut off our electricity because the company had not paid the bill, and the month when nobody received their salary on time because the money was not in the bank.
I remember, after we had had perhaps possibly our third change of ownership, sitting at my VDU when the new chairman, Lord Marsh, came round. We fell to talking about the previous chairman, Peter Jay. Lord Marsh said to me, "Funny thing about Peter Jay—we" meaning the board members—"knew he knew nothing about business but thought that he knew all about
132
journalism." I said, "Funny you should say that. The journalists knew he knew nothing about journalism but thought that he knew all about business."
Those were the kind of people that the old, unregulated system allowed to run ITV companies. Within months of TV-am getting the franchise, it was able to dump virtually all the proposals with which it won the franchise. If that was heavy regulation, Opposition Members look forward with trepidation to light regulation.
The other issue that we should consider before voting on the resolution is the concentration of ownership, which was raised on 7 November. The then Home Secretary said that there should not be a concentration of ownership. Mr. Ruper Murdoch owns four national daily papers and one satellite television company and is widely rumoured to be in the running to bid for LWT when the auction takes place. If that is not a concentration of ownership, I do not know what is.
If the Bill will not address the position as regards Rupertt Murdoch, it is idle to talk of its ensuring that there is not a concentration of ownership. It will not do for the Minister to mouth "Robert Maxwell" over the Dispatch Box to my hon. Friends. We do not care who has the concentration of ownership. The sort of concentration of ownership that people like Rupert Murdoch currently have in British broadcasting and media is inimical to the interests of a free press and democracy. We want the Government to come forward with serious proposals against it.
Many Conservative Members do not understand how regulation works. It is not enough to say that the companies will be obliged to do something about children's programmes and regional programmes. The reason why regulation has worked in the past is that it is quite specific about when those programmes go out and about their quality. Under the Bill, companies will be allowed to get away with their obligation to children's television by putting out dirt-cheap, ages-old Popeye cartoons in the middle of the night. The Bill contains nothing to stop a company getting away with that.
It seems that, in the headlong pursuit of market values, Conservative Members are willing to throw away all that is good about British television. Having worked for an ITV company, I would not go overboard pontificating about standards—
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act;

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.

Broadcasting Bill [Ways and Means]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the inclusion of—

(1) provisions under or by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act by the Independent Television Commission established under the Act are or may be required—

(a) to pay or forfeit sums to that body in connection with such licences;

(b) to pay sums to that body as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission; and

(c) to make payments to the Channel Four Television Corporation established under the Act;

and provision for sums falling within sub-paragraph (a) or (b) to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(2) provisions under or by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act by the Radio Authority established under the Act are or may be required—

(a) to pay or forfeit sums to that body in conection with such licences; and

(b) to pay sums to that body as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission;

and provision for such sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(3) provisions under which the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of the Act) are required to pay sums as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and provision for such sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(4) provisions requiring the payment of any other sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, this is an entirely separate debate. I know that the Minister is aggrieved at not having been able to reply to the earlier debate, so may I ask for your indulgence in this debate, and ask you to allow the Minister to answer some of the points from the earlier debate, given the wideness of this motion?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Both motions are wide. If the Minister seeks to catch my eye, I shall certainly call him, and I am sure that he will respond to this debate.
11.15 pm
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Before I come to the detailed points in the motion—as I shall—it would be right to comment briefly on the extraordinary speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden).
I very much admire my hon. Friend's clarity and passion, but his speech—I say this with the greatest affection and respect—was studded with an arrogance that did him no credit. He is not in a position to deliver a lecture to his fellow Conservative Members in the terms that he did.
My hon. Friend said that the duopoly showed many signs of complacency, inefficiency and occasional bias. That is true, but he did not suggest what he would do about that. Many of us feel that it is the public, whom he seeks to protect from what he described as filth, who require some protection against the complacency, inefficiency and bias—to use his terms—that are evident in some of the programmes broadcast by the BBC and the independent television companies—
Mr. George Walden: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I will not. I sought to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech, and he did not show the courtesy of allowing me to do so. My hon. Friend's speech went way over the top, and I want to record the fact that he does not speak for many Conservative Members.
What we seek for our constituents—this motion will give them it—is a much wider range of choice, because they are for the most part adult, sophisticated people who are perfectly capable of forming their own judgments. I remember the famous phrase, "Trust the people". I am prepared to trust the people to make their own judgments, provided that they are given a wide range of choices.
British television—I am as entitled to my opinion as anyone else has been the best in the world. A great deal of it remains incomparably so, but we have been overtaken in some areas, notably by the United States and, to a lesser extent, by the Federal Republic of Germany.
There is a much wider range of choice of good and bad programmes in the United States. I spend a good deal of time there, as does the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), in pursuit of British interests, and I want to mention some of the programmes that are available in America but are not available here.
In California, which takes services from across the country, there are about 50 channels. I concede at once that about 10 or 15 of them purvey trash—the same sort of trash as the BBC and ITV buy from the Americans to show here. I want nothing to do with those programmes; but there is, at the same time, a range of other quality and minority channels that people in this country cannot even hope to receive.
For example, in southern Calfornia, there is a channel wholly devoted to the environment—to nature, animals and forestry. We sometimes buy bits of that marvellous programming. Another channel is wholly devoted to the Hispanic and Mexican minorities in California. Another is devoted to the Japanese minority, who pay for it—and good luck to them for doing so.
Cable News Network is a well-known 24-hour-a-day news programme which people can turn on and get direct news from the whole world of a quality that at the moment we do not match. I regret that, but it is true.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Eldon Griffiths: No. I want to deliver my speech as quickly as possible.
Another programme confines itself to verbatim debates not only in the two Houses of Congress and the state legislatures but to debates in universities on the most esoteric and complex subjects. Such programmes are not available here. The American public are not more intelligent than our public, but they have a wider choice and they exercise it. I hope that the Bill, enabled by the ways and means resolution, will give the British people more choice so that they can make their own judgments.
I shall end as I started, with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who spoke at length—
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is outlining in great detail the qualities, as he perceives them, of American television. Will he give the House some validation of his view by telling us how much time he has spent watching

135
American television? Has he visited America casually or does he visit it regularly? Has he gained his information over a regular period of many months?
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman. I spent 17 years in the United States as an editor of Time and Newsweek International and of the Washington Post. I frequently go back to the United States to deliver lectures at universities and I go there on business trips. I keep close contact with American television and I think that I speak with knowledge of the subject.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Eldon Griffiths: No, I must get on with my speech.
If the Reith standards of the BBC had remained at the core of our broadcasting I would be perfectly happy with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. However, time has moved on and, unfortunately, the BBC all too often engages in what my hon. Friend described as bias and in what I would call occasional vendettas.
A large proportion of the American air force is in my constituency. A year or 18 months ago, the BBC suggested in a programme that the pilots of its F111 aircraft were sex-crazed maniacs who for strange psycho-sexual reasons were desperate to "nuke" the Soviet Union. That programme was a total travesty. It was then virtually repeated in the BBC's own publication. Protests were made at every level, but at first the BBC arrogantly refused to have anything to do with them.
In the past week, too, the BBC once again produced a travesty of the truth when it suggested that the American air force had interfered in the business of the House by suggesting that, if the Government privatised the Property Services Agency, the American air force would object in some way or another. The American air force did no such thing. The BBC lied and knew that it was lying.
That is one of the problems that we have to face. One cannot discipline a broadcasting organisation. Having been an editor, I would resist any effort by politicians to do so. However, it is necesssary for our people to have a wider range of choice so that, as sophisticated individuals, they can make up their own minds. My complaint about my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is that he simply will not trust the people.
11.23 pm
Mr. John Browne: I rise to deliver a brief speech. In so doing, I declare a financial interest in the broadcasting industry. Above all, the Bill tackles the technological advances which already face us. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) because I do not think that there is any attempt on the part of the Government to "dish the dirt". As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, the aim is to trust the people. After all, with the vast amount of choice that is to become available, the individual viewer and not the executive of the television company will become the programmer.
Technically, quality is a relatively easy thing to get a grip on. The essential problem is one of programme content, and it is vital because of the enormous power and influence of television. We have seen growing evidence of
136
the fact that bad language and violence on television are beginning to affect behaviour in real life, so this is a most important issue, and one that is difficult to define.
Quality also varies according to individual taste. When the golf enthusiast sees a lot of golf on televison, he feels that he is seeing television on high quality, but the tennis enthusiast seeing endless golf might feel it to be low quality. It all depends on the individual tastes and interests of the viewer.
Sir Anthony Grant: As a golf enthusiast, I cannot allow my hon. Friend to get away with that. The quality of golf reporting in Britain is superb. In America, it is awful.
Mr. Browne: I shall not disagree with my hon. Friend, who is a far better golfer than I am. None the less, the definition of quality varies according to the taste and background interests of the individual making the judgment. Quality is a subjective, individual value judgment. It also varies with time. A television audience 40 years ago, before golf was widely played or American football widely known over here, would have considered programmes on such sports to be low-quality television.
I hope that the Government will allow the ITC tremendous flexibility. If they appoint people with good and proven judgment, of varying backgrounds and interests and representing a wide spectrum of age groups, the flexibility permitted in the Bill will be important in allowing those people the freedom to exercise their judgment.
It has been said that competitive tender bidders will outbid themselves, and that quality will suffer. I do not agree, and the most important reason for my disagreement is the single word "competition". Competition will come from DBS, cable and the other terrestrial stations, such as BBC 1, BBC 2 and Channel 4, which will remain—and they will remain as benchmarks. The competition in television is for viewers. If viewers do not like a programme, they will switch channels. Effectively, the viewers will become the programmers. If the programmes are no good, the viewers will not watch them. If, in the viewers' perspective, the standards of programmes drop, they will switch to other programmes. The Bill caters for that in a clever way, by allowing that flexibility for the ITC.
Control is an important issue. I accept that cross-ownership has existed for some time, but with global information societies, this is an increasingly serious problem. Cross-control is a more serious issue, so we should keep looking at the 20 per cent. hurdle. In a company with many small shareholders, a 20 per cent. shareholder can exercise "effective" control. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister should examine that aspect in Committee.
Another important sector is religion. We have to ask ourselves exactly what counts as religion and to ensure that cults with religious titles do not creep in under the guise of genuine religious organisations. That is another important matter for the Committee.
All in all, I think that the Bill tackles a difficult subject in a way that will correctly adapt to the technological change that we now have to accept. The Bill allows for flexibility and for real choice to be exercised by the viewer. By trusting the viewer, we shall have the best quality that we can possibly get in the circumstances. The flexibility

137
being allowed for the ITC will be greatly to the benefit of maintaining that quality. I think that the Bill should be supported.
11.30 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I shall intervene only briefly in this debate. It might be slightly repetitious, but I do not think that it would be out of order to express the hope once again that even at this stage my hon. and learned Friend the Minister might refer to the possibility of concessions being made in Committee. That would help hon. Members on both sides of the House who have genuine and profound anxieties about the proposals as they stand. We are not nit-picking or being difficult for the sake of it. We are not trying to appear to be pseudo-intellectuals, which is always difficult for any politician, anyway.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend to accept that we have serious problems to resolve in our own minds, having had conversations with many people about these matters. It is a fact, not merely an opinion, that if the maximum tender system comes into play only a long time after the quality threshold has been passed, those with the most financial muscle are bound to secure tenders for the new franchises, without any exception that I can discern on any near horizon.
Although the House has voted against the Bill being considered by a Special Standing Committee—I voted against the proposition because I think that the Bill can be perfectly well dealt with by a normal Committee—I think that it would be helpful to the House, even at this late stage, when we are considering the more technical aspects of the ways and means motion, for the Minister to offer some assurances about the proceedings in Committee. Over the years we have become used to consideration in Committee being meaningless, save for one or two exceptions in the form of significant and principal Bills in recent Sessions. Consideration in Committee has become a ritual. The argumentation is supplied by either side and one or two minority parties chip in occasionally.
Nothing else happens. Divisions are of no significance, as the Government always win because of the Committee's composition. I am old-fashioned and naive, perhaps. I thought that, occasionally, a Government would accept genuine and improving amendments when it became clear that it was important that certain changes should be made. Surely there should be intellectual adjustments in Committee when there has been serious reconsideration. That does not mean that the Government would be surrendering the commanding heights of their favourite proposals for the greater development of the market economy, and surely broadcasting must be an example par excellence where such changes could be made on that basis in Committee.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has already told the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), with enthusiasm, that he will welcome genuine discussions, and perhaps even some changes, in Committee. We are used to Ministers saying that sort of thing at this stage. When the Bill goes into Committee, however, the old ritual starts again. The Government Whips say that nothing must be changed, because all Conservative Members voted for the Bill on Second Reading. In effect, they say, "This is just going through the motions. We must get the Bill through Committee as
138
quickly as possible." Most of the hon. Members who are supporting the Government get on with their correspondence and pay little attention to the debates. That is the reality of Committee proceedings nowadays.
Perhaps this debate is being televised. I doubt it, because those who are responsible for the cameras tend to go home now. I think, however, that it would be a good idea if the public knew rather more about these matters. It would be interesting if the proceedings of the Committee that considers the Bill were televised. I think that only two Select Committees have been televised so far. The Public Accounts Committee was televised once or twice, and I think one other Committee during this Session. If those who are responsible for the broadcasting contract in the House read my words, perhaps they will consider that the Committee that considers this Bill would provide excellent television. That would enable the public to take a closer interest in the Bill and hon. Members would not necessarily feel obliged to read their letters and to undertake their correspondence.
If anyone thinks that I am criticising my colleagues, far from it. Hon. Members are overworked and they have to do their correspondence in Committee. They receive so many letters and there are only a certain number of hours in the day. They do not have time to be in Committee for long hours and—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long way from the ways and means motion.
Mr. Dykes: I shall return immediately to the theme of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the way in which hon. Members do their work, and it flows over into the Committee stage.
With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), I think that he misunderstands the notion and definition of quality. He meant the subjective pleasure, or lack of it, which any viewer can get from different types of programmes, depending on his cultural propensities—and I know that my hon. Friend has many, as do other hon. Members. Others were thinking more of the element that is included in the financial considerations for the potential new franchisee, which is a definition of quality that should be decided and implemented at that stage, not at a previous stage when there is some uneasy definition of a Becher's brook threshold of quality, well before the actual financial application in a sealed envelope is made.
I hope that my hon. Friend now understands the important difference between those points. I think that others have also misunderstood. Again, it denies us the opportunity to hark back to what has been best in the British combination of television. With all due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), with his great knowledge of the United States, and therefore also of American television, the general opinion of most well educated Americans to whom I have spoken, and many Americans who have travelled to other countries and are, in a sense, the man and woman in the street, is that by and large they have Mickey Mouse television. Advertisements take 15 or 16 minutes of every hour, which is double what is allowed under United Kingdom regulations. The advertisements, unlike those on British television, are not witty, amusing and self-effacing in promoting the sale of products, but just monotonous slogan advertisements.

139
My hon. Friend—with justification, in view of the argument that he deployed—quoted a number of more esoteric public interest programmes. They certainly exist in the USA, often subsidised and subvented by the state governments. The CNN international news network is a great success, but my hon. Friend and I know what happens when we flit between the 30 channels on the New York service. The minority channels might strike us as better because they are in a foreign language, but they are usually the same programmes—the quiz shows, the soaps, the rubbish and the cartoons. That is the fate of American television. We are going down that path with these proposals.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dykes: I do not think so, as my hon. Friend was not here for most of our debates.
That is the danger that we face with these proposals, unless there are central alterations to what my hon. and learned Friend enunciated earlier of just sticking to the financial tender system.
There are many aspects to which, if there were time, I would refer, but it would be out of order. Hon. Members should hesitate before approving this motion. I understand that this debate has no time limit, so they should oblige the House to think profoundly about the dangers before voting on the motion.
11.38 pm
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I shall be brief. At the end of a day's debate on this subject, I am almost astounded at the way in which the House seems to have been gripped with some sort of fervour of unreality. Many of the speeches have been over the top. If we look back on this debate in 10 years' time, some may be somewhat ashamed of the Armageddon pictures that they have painted.
All my family, apart from me, have made their livelihoods in television. Many of the programmes that they made were successful, and many of them were forgettable. It is remarkable that most hon. Members' memories today have been selective. They have remembered the good programmes and called them "quality", but they have forgotten the bad programmes. It is almost as though the bad programmes never existed—as though the programmes on every channel which died the death, often after hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds worth of development, have been entirely forgotten.
Many right hon. and hon. Members also seem to forget that speeches of the kind heard today were made on the introduction of the IBA, BBC 2, and Channel 4. Today we are merely helping the process of developing a fifth channel of terrestrial television, and thereby broadening the broadcasting base, by using a technology which already exists. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) stated specifically that the Broadcasting Bill is leading us down the road to cartoons, soaps and quizzes. How can he take such a view when we are clearly already in the era of cartoons, soaps and quizzes? We are also already in the era of vast choice in broadcasting, and an extra channel will make no difference.
140
The terms of the ways and means motion are similar in many respects to the existing system. The Government are not tearing up the existing system but leaving in place the majority of its provisions and maintaining its funding for the foreseeable future. I ask the House to consider whether allowing extra choice means going down the path towards total destruction of our children's lives. Is there really any truth in Miss Biddy Baxter's claim that children's television programmes will hardly be able to be made once the Broadcasting Bill becomes law? There will always be dedicated broadcasters producing children's programmes and every other type of programme. Many of those programmes will "pay", and many will not. Happily, however, there will be a broad range of channels, some of which will "pay" and some of which will provide a public broadcasting service.
A sad aspect of today's debate has been the way in which quality has largely been dictated by those who already make television programmes—almost as though people currently unable to do so have no understanding of what quality means. Nor has it been mentioned that the existing structure allows certain individuals working for the BBC to receive salaries as high as £350,000 or £400,000 per year from public funds. If more channels mean that competition among broadcasters is lessened, so that the price paid for them is lowered, I for one shall welcome that.
I find it somewhat obscene for a broadcaster to criticise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for paying judges and generals £70,000 per year from public funds when other people are unemployed while the broadcaster himself is receiving a salary of four or five times that amount from public funds. There is a great deal of hypocrisy, cant, needless fear and exaggeration—and many speeches which will not mean very much in the long run, thanks to the programmes that will continue to be made by our excellent established broadcasters and by others new to the profession.
As for Sky Television, I defy anyone to watch Sky News and to argue convincingly that it is biased one way or the other. I must declare an interest in that my sister occasionally presents a programme on Sky Television, but I am sorry to say that I have not watched it—only because it is not the kind of programme that I usually watch. My preference is for news and sport, and Sky's news and sports channels are excellent. If they are examples of the "degradation" that television will suffer, right hon. and hon. Members must have their interpretation utterly wrong.
I will raise one sticking point with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. The extra choice in radio will be welcomed by many minority and regional groups and by other dedicated interests throughout the country. However, although I support the Bill, the quality threshold must be examined in Committee. For me, the sticking point will be that, if ball-by-ball test match commentaries are no longer broadcast on the radio, I may change my mind about the Bill.
11.45 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) declared an interest in television production, but I think that he understands that most right hon. and hon. Members represent the interests of the viewers.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I said that most of my family are involved in television production, but that I am simply a viewer.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that clarification, and, as a viewer, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in my remarks and in the questions that I shall put to the Minister.
This debate is something of a curiosity. We are used to money resolutions by which the House authorises money to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to implement the purposes of a Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) quite properly specialises in drawing the House's attention to that. However, we are now discussing a Ways and Means resolution, and that is the opposite, as it is concerned with raising money.
For example, the Chancellor's Budget is concerned with the ways and means of raising revenue. A ways and means resolution is unusual in a Bill because it means—the Government have made no secret of it, although it has not been a major feature of the debate so far—that they expect to get revenue for the Consolidated Fund as a result.
Paragraph (4), the final paragraph, of the ways and means resolution refers to
"provisions requiring the payment of any other sums into the Consolidated Fund."
The ways and means resolution makes provision for money to be so raised for payment to the ancillary bodies—the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, Channel Four Television Corporation and the new radio authority. The Government clearly envisage a substantial payment into the Consolidated Fund, and the Home Secretary said as much, in an aside, when he opened the Second Reading debate. He said that the Bill was designed to get as much money from television as possible to pay into the Consolidated Fund, and he stated that as if it were a virtue.
Colleagues in the Chamber now may remember that I challenged the Home Secretary, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), about how much it would amount to per person per week in taxation. The individual amount is small, but the income to the Consolidated Fund is not known.
What sort of sums does the Minister expect to raise each year from what must be seen as a tax on television? Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but at the moment television costs in Britain are paid by the licence fee, which funds the BBC, and by advertising revenue. As I understand it, the Bill maintains the BBC, which individual licence holders pay for, but reverses the flow of money in to the Exchequer, because as a result of advertising, the Exchequer will take its cut.
Clause 114(1) makes it plain that,
"Where the Authority receive in respect of any licence any of the amounts specified in subsection (2), that amount shall not form part of the revenues of the Authority but shall"
be paid into the Exchequer. In other words, the authority deducts what it costs to keep itself going, and pays the surplus into the Exchequer.
Clause 114 refers us to two other clauses—the Bill is complicated—one of which, clause 96(1), refers us to clause 80(1)(c) in respect of fees. A money collection mechanism is hidden in the Bill. It is not written clearly on the face of it, but is done by reference to previous clauses.
Clause 110 is about the cash bids that will be put in to obtain a franchise. As I read it, clause 110 provides that
142
that money also will go to the Exchequer. We have here a system of television taxation. It is hidden. It is not clearly on the face of the Bill, but it is an integral part of it. I invite the Minister, when he replies to the debate on this important motion, to tell me whether I have got it wrong. If I have not, we are imposing a tax on broadcasting analogous to a tax on newspapers or books. If the Minister would like to tell me now that I have misread the Bill, I shall be pleased to give way to him. If he does not, I can only assume that I am correct.
So far, this matter has not received the attention it deserves. If we pass the motion, we are surely agreeing in principle that the Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister, some political adviser or the Government communications publicity manager should specify what sums should be paid over. We are taking out of the common ether, which is surely public property, a system of hidden taxation which means that the taxes can ultimately be paid for only by advertising revenue.
Mr. Hanley: Could revenue not also come from the sale of products and other merchandise?
Mr. Spearing: I understand that the television authority which the Bill envisages is not a marketing concern. It is a marketing concern only in respect of awarding licences for transmission. I am not aware of its being involved in the production or sale of articles or anything else. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it has such authority and wishes to correct me, I shall gladly give way again. If it has such authority, I suspect that it is in respect of transmission stations, electrical equipment or something ancillary to its main function. It is unlikely that substantial revenue is involved.
Clause 157 was mentioned briefly on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook properly said that it would be possible for one of the satellite stations which is not covered by the monopoly 20 per cent. limitations to put in a bid for one of the listed national events. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a bid from being successful. Clause 157(1) provides:
"The Independent Television Commission shall do all that they can to secure that any programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a listed event shall not be included on pay-per-view terms in any service provided by the holder of a licence granted by the Commission under Part I of this Act."
I emphasise the words
"shall do all that they can".
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary himself made it quite clear that the ITC does not have the power to stop it. So the phrase "do all that they can" is uncharacteristic of any Bill that I have seen, because it does not provide the powers to prohibit.
Will the Minister of State kindly give me his attention? He has had plenty of time to consult on these matters before tonight. Is it not a fact that the proprietor of any satellite station, but in particular Sky Television, which is not covered by the 20 per cent. rule, could make a bid for the cup final or any other major sporting event—the cup final probably commands the greatest potential viewership—and pay a substantial sum? Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that sum goes to the Independent Television Commission or straight to the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook described that sum as a loss leader, but he did not go on to say why it might be a loss leader.

143
Although I am not well informed about technology, I understand that one needs a bowl to receive those television stations, particularly Sky. Therefore, some capital investment is required. At present, that station faces the difficulty that its viewership is limited and there are not all that many bowls around, although the number is probably increasing. If the proprietor of Sky Television or any other station—I am not singling out Sky, although it has different status under the Bill—goes to the Football Association and puts in a massive bid for several million pounds which tops any bid from any public corporation, that station would get exclusive rights.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said that he would not like choice to be restricted, but if such a station won, he would not be able to choose to watch the cup final on a BBC or existing ITV channel. He would have to buy a bowl or use some other subscription service.
There would be great encouragement for people to invest in one of those bowls. I am old enough to remember how people saved up to invest in televisions so that they could see the coronation. People would invest in satellite bowls so that they could see the cup final and they would say, "It is a lot of money just to watch the cup final, but it will give us viewing afterwards." That would be to the considerable advantage of whichever contractor won, because people would get the bowls, and the potential viewership of that contractor would immediately shoot straight up.
That is the possible effect of clause 157 as drafted. Of course, that has revenue implications, because, under the mechanism which I have just mentioned, the Exchequer would be able to get more money out of that contractor via the Independent Television Commission.
I shall conclude by reiterating the two points that I have raised. First, it appears that the Bill contains a means of hidden taxation on the British people via the television system of the future. It means that Her Majesty's Government can assess the Independent Television Commission, the viewers and the sellers of merchandise for an unspecified amount. Inevitably that will have a secondary effect on quality, as the mass of merchandise and viewership will be in a better position to pay such taxation.
Secondly, by not providing powers to limit the listed events to the existing public television services, the Bill could give a shot in the arm to any satellite broadcaster who wishes to invest in a loss leader. I invite the Minister of State, in his reply to this important debate, to correct me if I am wrong in either of those broad assertions, as I believe them to be true. I challenge the Minister to tell me whether they are true. If they are, the Bill contains something far worse than has been recognised so far tonight, and there have already been enough speeches on those lines.
11.59 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I do not wish to detain the House, but I want to make a few remarks on the ways and means resolution.
Having listened to the speeches, I support the Bill because the general impression that I have from all the wise pontificating is that the Bill will not make much
144
difference to broadcasting standards. It might make them a bit better or a bit worse, but I think that it is unwise for anyone to reach any conclusions about that and, by and large, I think that it is a more sensible business arrangement.
I wish to ask the Minister a question, and I hope that he will think carefully about it. Under the resolution, much cash will be given to the Consolidated Fund and to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Is there any way in which it might be used to deal with the greatest threat to standards in Britain—the programmes that will be launched to this country from other countries by satellites featuring soft and hard pornography and the most dreadful violence? I appreciate that that is a difficult problem. The Government have imposed minor rules, whereby, if a pornographic programme advertises Coca Cola, we can have a bash at Coca Cola in Britain, but the Minister must be aware that that is a limited control.
It is a waste of time talking for eight or 10 hours about minor changes in the standards of British broadcasting when we face a horrific and savage assault on them purely as a result of satellite activities. It is not as though they will transmit from far distant places. We know that in some European countries plans will shortly be announced to transmit soft and hard pornography. Is there anything that we can do to arrest that trend? Can we do anything through the United Nations? We know that resolutions of the Council of Europe are entirely ineffective, because some are being widely disregarded.
If the Minister cares about broadcasting standards, as every father of young children does, will he do anything to restrict or control the activities of friendly countries—some on the continent of Europe and some a bit further away—which will be sending pornographic programmes into the homes of Britain? If we care about broadcasting standards, we should regard that as a crusade and not spend hours discussing what may be marginal changes in standards arising from the provisions of the Bill.
12.2 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I should like to detain the House briefly to place on record two technical matters arising from the ways and means motion. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will not reply to them tonight but will take the opportunity to discuss them with colleagues at the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry and perhaps mention them in Committee later.
The first relates to the development of cable television. Some people have said that the installation of cable in this country has been slow. If that is so, and I believe that it is, those who served on the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 bear some responsibility, because it was they—I was one of them—who prevented foreign investment in cable in Britain. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has sought to make provision in the Bill to rectify that, and I hope and believe that investment will be encouraged and that the development of cable will be swift.
In the motion and in the Bill there is the possibility of a levy on cable. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider with his colleagues whether that might be a disincentive to investment and whether it is wise.
My second point relates to the Consolidated Fund provision. Money will go not only into the Consolidated Fund but from it, and through the Department of Trade

145
and Industry, into the Eureka project and the development of high-definition television. It has become apparent during that programme that HD television has been and is being overtaken by the development of digital television transmission. It is technically possible to transmit enhanced definition television that is receivable by sets currently owned by the British public. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to discuss with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry the possibility of withdrawing from that element of the Eureka programme and pursuing as swiftly as possible the introduction of enhanced definition television and the development of a British digital television industry.
12.4 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): In deference to those who have spoken, I shall respond briefly, but in deference also to those who did not expect that the debate would last for so long after Second Reading, I shall keep my remarks brief. There will be a long Committee stage for those who wish to deal with these matters in greater detail, as perforce I shall have to do.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is a great expert on statutory instruments. Indeed, he chairs the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I enjoyed his remarks about the powers of secondary legislation under the Bill. A constant dilemma of legislation is that, wherever possible, one wants to avoid secondary legislation that involves loss of parliamentary control. Equally, if some elements of the regulatory regime were included in the Bill, there would be the danger of setting in concrete on the face of the legislation matters of regulation that might with advantage require changing as circumstances change.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the adequacy or otherwise of parliamentary scrutiny. I have served on Standing Committees with the hon. Gentleman, who knows that I am always prepared to take seriously any suggestions about adding in parliamentary scrutiny to proposals for delegated legislation and I shall consider the Bill in Committee in that light, and with great room for those points.
Like the hon. Member for Newham, South, (Mr. Spearing) and others, the hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned the financial arrangements. With respect to the hon. Member for Newham, South, there was nothing novel in the proposition that the Government take a significant sum—it will be about £150 million this year—by way of a levy or tax from the ITV companies. Labour Governments did that—there is nothing new about it. Indeed, it would be novel if Governments were not prepared to do that, because the grant of a franchise is the grant of a monopoly or near-monopoly of selling television advertising, which is an extremely valuable boon. The late Lord Thomson of Fleet was rash enough to describe it as a licence to print money—something about which proprietors of other ITV franchises have always been rather embarrassed—but as so often with a pithy phrase, it conveys an essential truth. Governments have always thought it right that, for the benefit of the taxpayer, they should have a share of that money.
The difficulty is in determining how the share should be assessed. Governments have had different stabs at it—for example, using profit and net advertising revenue, or NAR
146
as it is inelegantly known, or some combination of the two. All that we are proposing is that it should be a dual figure, comprising the lump sum in the tender that is made to those who cross the quality threshold and a sum of money representing a proportion of advertising revenue that will be fixed by the ITC. As has been said, clause 156 does that.
On the point about major sporting events, I do not think that I can do better than simply to repeat the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). At the moment, Sky or any other satellite channel could bid for one of the major sporting events and the only right that the present law gives to the BBC and ITV is the right to match that bid. Thus far, no such bid has been made.
I confidently expect and believe that major sporting events will continue to be seen on the main channels. That will come about, first, because it is profoundly unlikely that satellite television could mount the sort of bid necessary to secure such coverage. Secondly, as a number of sporting bodies have made clear, they are interested in the projection of their sport into as many households as possible. They are not interested in restricting access to their sport, and their sponsors are certainly not interested in anything other than the programme being shown in a large number of homes.
I am not sure how much more we can debate the matter at this point, because it comes down to a simple issue. Because we are afraid of the effects on public opinion of the scare campaign that we shall not see the FA cup, are we to perpetuate the system whereby, in effect, the state intervenes to prevent the proprietors of large sporting events from selling their product as they see fit, or are we to rely on the common sense, on the reality, that it is unlikely that large sums of money will be made available by others? That could have happened under the present arrangements. Proprietors of major sporting events have the same interest as the rest of us. They want their sport to be seen widely.
Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that the Minister is worried about the time that the House is taking on these fundamentally important matters. Some of us are elected here as a Parliament, not a charade.
I take it from what the Minister said about sport that nothing that I suggested is impossible. I am grateful to him for his explanation about taxation. In Committee, does he envisage putting a limitation on returns such as the Consolidated Fund which are consistent with the returns that he alleges have been made under certain Governments since the foundation of the IBA?
Mr. Mellor: I will do the hon. Gentleman the honour of considering that point, but I shall not give a detailed response now. I assure him that I do not consider that I am taking part in a charade. I confidently expect to spend many hours on the detailed consideration of the Bill. I am not sure that we should conduct a Committee stage at 12.10 am on the night of Second Reading. That is a fair point and, having sat here for eight hours, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware that I am not participating in a charade.
It has saddened me enormously to find myself, for the first time since he became an hon. Member, on the other side of a debate from my hon. Friend the Member for

147
Buckingham (Mr. Walden). Clearly, he feels deeply about the matter and that is why he spoke in the terms that he did.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was fully entitled to say that Lord Reith likened the introduction of commercial television to the introduction of bubonic plague. That is an uncomfortable fact but nonetheless true. All the major changes in broadcasting since the war have come about because people were prepared to ride on in the face of tarted-up worst-case scenarios, which were claimed by critics to be the natural and inevitable consequence of what was proposed. Although that point is not a complete answer to any proposal, it is well worth making. We are faced with similar allegations today.
I should have thought that it was to the Government's credit that BBC1, BBC2 and Channel 4 will remain the same. My hon. Friend was perhaps caught in a downward spiral of logic when looking for a reason to damn the Government's proposals on the BBC. He said that the BBC would be dragged down by what was happening to Channel 3.I do not accept that anything detrimental will happen to Channel 3. The BBC has a secure income from the public, which has no choice about paying and has to pay ever-increasing sums. The BBC, properly, also has a large income from its commercial activities. The idea that it will be dragged down is well wide of the mark. It has a public service remit. It is not much of a compliment to the BBC to suggest that it would be dragged down.
The key point that my hon. Friend must understand is that Channel 3 is not such a monument to our civilisation that it cannot be improved. Whether or not he or others think that it is a monument, it is clear that increasing numbers of British people do not. Its audience share has fallen in absolute terms on every indicator. The key message is that there is a great deal of room to improve Channel 3. That will come about first because the quality threshold is a genuinely serious severe hurdle for people to surmount. Secondly, for the first time, the ITC will have powers to regulate the system rather than just having an ultimate power which, because it is ultimate, is never used to remove a franchise.
The ITC will now have the power to hold people to account and to look at a group's plans to see whether it is
148
capable of sustaining the big promises that are made. I believe that that represents a far more sophisticated power, and it will give us a better Channel 3.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend does not see the glaring defects, as I do, in the present arrangements. When Southern Television was replaced by TVS, three or four groups sat in different hotel rooms. They were told from the cloistered meeting rooms of the IBA that X had got it, not A, B or C. We knew not why. Once we have a more open process, with a quality threshold and the possibility of people making a commercial bid, we shall have the openness and accountability that is presently missing. I know that my hon. Friend disagrees, but it is not worthy of some of the extraordinary adjectives that he employed. I am sorry about that because it pains me as I deeply approve of my hon. Friend's stand on many issues.
I hope that I have not outstayed my welcome. I hope that the House will accept the way and means motion and will wish the Bill on its way to the undoubted scrutiny that it will rightly receive in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the inclusion of—

(1) provisions under or by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act by the Independent Television Commission established under the Act are or may be required—

(a) to pay or forfeit sums to that body in connection with such licences;

(b) to pay sums to that body as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission; and

(c) to make payments to the Channel Four Television Corporation established under the Act;

and provision for sums falling within sub-paragraph (a) or (b) to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(2) provisions under or by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act by the Radio Authority established under the Act are or may be required—

(a) to pay or forfeit sums to that body in connection with such licences; and

(b) to pay sums to that body as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission;

and provision for such sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(3) provisions under which the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of the Act) are required to pay sums as contributions towards the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and provision for such sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(4) provisions requiring the payment of any other sums into the Consolidated Fund.

Package Travel
12.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5382/88 and 7996/89 relating to package travel; and endorses the Government view that any proposal must strike a balance between consumer protection and the need to avoid undue burdens on the travel industry, which would adversely affect the price and range of holidays available to consumers.
Next to the home and the car, the family holiday must rank as one of the most important items of expenditure in the average British household budget. As might be expected with an island nation, a large proportion of holidays are taken abroad, and during 1988 some 13 million overseas package holidays were taken. This makes the United Kingdom one of the largest exporters of holidaymakers in the Community, and it is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of this sector.
The sheer popularity of the package holiday is a tribute to the success of the package travel industry and to the excellent value for money which the large majority of holidays sold represent. It is possible for consumers in this country to find packages to just about every conceivable destination and, increasingly, covering just about every conceivable activity, As has been highlighted by the European consumer body, Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs, the United Kingdom package tour operator is able to market a much less costly package holiday than his Community counterparts—comparable packages can work out up to 30 per cent. cheaper. We have been concerned, therefore, to give very careful consideration to the proposals emanating from Brussels for a directive in this area.
The consumer is particularly vulnerable when he books an overseas holiday, pays in advance for the service and then has a substantial part of it performed overseas. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between some clarification and strengthening of the consumer's rights and increasing prices to the point at which ordinary people can no longer afford them.
The Government have held that the consumer is entitled to expect that the tour operator will provide him with precisely the holiday that he booked and not an approximation to it. He should get the hotel that he chose from the brochure and not one up the road. He is entitled to expect that he will pay the price quoted in the brochure and not be surcharged unless it is made crystal clear to him at the outset that surcharges may be made and in what circumstances. He is also entitled to expect the services comprising the package to be performed to a reasonable standard. In extreme and, I hope, very rare circumstances, the deficiencies in services may lead to death or personal injury. Damages are potentialy very high and the extent of the tour operator's liability is important.
The consumer will not be best served if, in providing him with increased protection, the tour operator is forced to increase prices beyond the consumer's reach or to forgo inclusion of certain holiday destinations or holiday activities. Nor are consumers well served if newcomers are discouraged from entering the market. The Government
150
have been equally concerned, therefore, that any increased liability imposed on the tour operator should be equitable and insurable.
That brings me to the array of proposals which have come out of Brussels and on which we have tried to keep the House informed. I should like to bring the House up to date on what has been happening.
Recent discussions have centred on a proposal under development by the current French presidency, which it hopes will form the basis of a compromise for adoption by the Commission. The presidency is to be congratulated on its strenuous efforts to pull this more balanced proposal together, even at this late stage of negotiation. I warmly praise the work of officials at the Department of Trade and Industry who have borne the brunt of the negotiations. They have done a magnificent job to represent the views of the Government, the consumer and the industry in some difficult and complex negotiations. During those negotiations, the Government have been mindful of concerns which fall broadly under three headings.
With regard to the scope of the proposal—article 2—we believe, first and foremost, that the directive ought to be confined to tour operators and their direct competitors. That statement requires some elaboration. To apply widely the stringent provisions envisaged would mean the severe limitation, if not the complete demise, of activities such as day trips to an event or activity and the rental of holiday cottages with ancillary services such as fishing rights. In that respect, the effects on small enterprises could be catastrophic. It would also mean that the likes of schools, clubs and churches would have to think carefully about continuing with traditional outings and holidays. One also has to question the wisdom of embracing ad hoc business travel arrangements in a directive intended to apply primarily to package holidays. We shall continue to negotiate with those principles in mind.
The presidency proposal is therefore a step in the right direction—
Mr. Conal Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on this important point. Will he tell the House why he would resist the safeguard for those who go away on a trip for 24 hours, whether they be members of Church parties, political parties, or others? They need that fundamental protection and it seems inexplicable not to give it to them. Why is the Minister seeking to remove it?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend touches on a difficult point, on which neither the Council of Ministers nor I have totally made up our minds. Either one forces the full protection of this directive on anyone who, in any circumstances, arranges a trip of any kind, and there is something to be said for doing that, or one recognises that a wide range of innocent, one-off, non-profit-making activities could be brought to an end if we forced on them the full rigours of the directive. It is a finely balanced argument on which we wish to await the exact proposals of the Council of Ministers before making up our minds. However, I am mindful of the difficult choice which must be faced.
The presidency proposal is a step in the right direction in that it seeks to omit from the definition trips lasting less than 24 hours. We believe that this will take day trips such as a coach trip to the zoo out of the scope of the directive. We also welcome the stipulation that, for an additional

151
service to count towards the definition of a "package", it should not be ancillary to transport or accommodation and should be significant in relation to the contract as a whole.
With regard to the liability of the package organiser—article 5—the liability provisions lie at the heart of the proposals for a directive on package travel. The Government believe that an acceptable proposal would need to strike a fair balance between the interests of the parties, be insurable at acceptable cost and not reduce the range of holidays available. We accept that the organiser should be strictly liable for the provision of the services agreed, but where consequential damages, death or personal injury are concerned, the extent of liability should be limited in some way. I submit that the vast majority of consumer concerns about their package holidays have to do with just that principle, and I have a steady flow of correspondence on which to base that conclusion.
The presidency proposal is also a great step forward on that central issue. It proposes liability for proper performance of the contract, including non-performance due to faults of suppliers such as hoteliers and carriers. We hope, however, that the final proposal will include defences for contributory negligence, acts of third parties and unforeseeable events which could not be forestalled. In our view, inclusion of contractual limitations set by international conventions is fundamental.
As for the financial guarantees—article 7—if the liability provisions lie at the heart of the proposals on package travel, to continue the visceral analogy, those on financial guarantee must be the guts of it. The Government believe that the essence of a workable provision must relate to a free and informed choice, not only for consumers, who must be able to see by what means the organiser intends to cover his liabilities if things go wrong, but for organisers, who must be free to make the most appropriate and cost-effective arrangements. To introduce compulsory licensing of all organisers within the scope of the directive would mean excessively bureaucratic and expensive intervention by the state.
Compulsory insurance for every claim which might arise is also unreasonable and ignores the plight of very small enterprises or new companies in the sector without a track record to enable them to get insurance at economical cost. This would do no favours to consumers because, inevitably, it would drive up prices unnecessarily and reduce competition. Most packages in the United Kingdom are sold through organisers who are fully bonded against insolvency and there might be a case to require others to make arrangements which would provide protection for consumers in those circumstances. We would welcome a proposal which would underpin that approach but allow organisers flexibility to make appropriate arrangements.
At the outset, the Government placed reservations on the proposals for a directive on package travel, not only on the general content of the Commission's proposal but also on the chosen treaty base, article 100A. That is the base which was established by the Single European Act and is designed to facilitate the rapid achievement of the single market. We have been sceptical about whether there is a strong case for choosing that treaty base for this proposal, which struck us as very much a measure for the protection
152
of consumers. On the other hand, however, package travel is a highly specialised area for a number of reasons, and in the light of the final compromise proposal and whatever justification is put forward in the recitals for a Community measure in this area, we may reach a different view.
The reasoning in favour of a balanced set of proposals which take due account of the needs and wishes of both parties must be self-evident to everyone. I invite the House to agree with the motion.
12.26 am
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This directive is, in a number of areas, a pale shadow of the original draft and it offers only limited protection for holidaymakers. I do not recognise the rosy picture that the Minister has just painted, and nor do hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers who annually run the gauntlet of surcharges, airport delays, overbookings, dangerous facilities, switched destinations and unsuitable accommodation.
I welcome the efforts of the travel industry to ensure that more than 10 million people enjoy package holidays every year, but I also share the concern of the I million holidaymakers whose holidays have given cause for complaint.
The Minister has never made a secret of his desire to ensure that the directive gives less protection to the tourist than to the tourist trade. It comes as no surprise that the Government cannot welcome unreservedly even the modest package of measures to protect the travelling public that this directive offers.
Sadly, when the Commission suggested measures to protect holidaymakers, the Government lobbied to weaken the proposals, not to strengthen them. This directive allows people's holidays to be cancelled up to 24 hours before departure. It now offers no protection to the person crossing the Channel for a day trip—the first draft did. It sanctions bigger surcharges on the consumer than did the original, and provides no right to written reasons for surcharges. It burdens the consumer who has suffered with the need to prove negligence in some areas. It removes the requirement for brochures to detail contract conditions and for local tourist authorities to assist in resolving disputes.
There are some safeguards, which the Minister quaintly describes as burdens on the trade, but we want to know from the Consumer Minister about the burdens on the consumer—the burden of buying a holiday paid for in advance, with no guarantee of specific accommodation or even price. I am told that, when things go wrong on a package holiday, it is difficult to find anyone to take responsibility.
In six key areas, this directive is defective and far weaker than its original draft. The 1 million holidaymakers whose holidays were spoilt last year are entitled to know why a directive that offered them so much better provision has been watered down.
The Government have never made a secret of their concerns, not for the travelling public but for the travel trade. On 22 April, the Minister's predecessor spelled out his key fears in a letter. He said:
"Another important implication of the directive from the tour operators' point of view is that it may circumscribe their present abilities to restrict their liabilities when a third party (eg, a foreign hotelier) fails to provide the service contracted."

153
By 22 August we had a new Minister, whose comments on this directive to protect holidaymakers were even more hostile. He wrote that his Department
"considers that the proposal … is unnecessarily burdensome and fails to strike a fair balance between consumer and supplier interest."
I note that the Minister nods in assent. That was followed by three months of the most disgraceful lobbying by the Minister to weaken the directive. By 8 December the Minister had failed the consumer. He was able to write that the proposal
"has moved towards a more acceptable balance between consumer and supplier interests."
He has used similar words tonight.
The changes in the proposals were severely criticised by consumer groups. The European Union of Consumers deplored what it called
"sabotage on behalf of government experts".
It spoke of
"compromises which are less and less favourable to consumers."
With more and more people going abroad, the need for consumer protection has never been greater.
My attention has been drawn to the plight of Mr. Clement, who booked a five-person apartment in Corfu. The total trip cost over £1,300 but the apartment was already occupied when he arrived. When he eventually got in there was room for only four beds, the kitchen was filthy, the shower was broken and when the toilet was flushed waste came up through a grille in the bathroom floor. The company representative was unhelpful and when he asked for compensation Cosmos offered nothing. He wrote again and was offered £50. He eventually had to resort to a court summons to receive a higher amount. He needed on-the-spot help from independent local tourist authorities to ensure that his holiday was satisfactory in the first place.
Under the directive, tour companies can still limit their liability to supply the holiday as booked and paid for. It appears that one can spend £400 on a holiday and the blame for failure can be shifted to some foreign supplier, often with impunity. The seller of a £400 television cannot legally tell the purchaser to seek redress in Japan or West Germany. In that respect, perhaps the travel trade is getting off lightly.
A holiday is bought on trust and paid for in advance, yet is subject to changes that may appear arbitrary and without a guarantee that the item supplied is the item that was purchased. The Minister should investigate whether practices such as surcharges and combining holidays when there are not enough bookings should be permitted unless they are advertised as such. He should spell out what redress is available to tourists at the holiday location.
In May, the Consumers Association carried out a study on travel agents. It asked a number of them for the cheapest flight to Europe and four out of five got it wrong. The Which? verdict was "appalling". The association asked for a holiday on an island suitable for an elderly grandmother and only two out of 36 got it right. The Consumers Association concluded that most agents were poorly informed.
The Minister recently gave his verdict on the travel industry. In a long-distance video presentation to a world conference in Mexico on the travel trade, he said:
"The industry has set itself a standard which is going to be very difficult to maintain."
154
To hear the Minister one would think that this country has the highest standards, the best public protection and the lowest levels of consumer dissatisfaction. That is simply not the case. A survey of package travellers by the European Commission shows that while 27 holidaymakers in every 100 interviewed in Italy experienced problems with their package holiday, the figure for Britain was 37 in every 100. Those surveyed in France and Germany had lower dissatisfaction ratings, of 31 and 32 respectively. The Commission revealed a serious crisis of confidence in the British travel industry.
That fewer than 5 per cent. of people pursue their complaint raises a major question about the current complaints procedure. The Commission stated:
"The reason … is that the consumer, having paid the price in full before departing on his holiday feels that by making a formal complaint he may well find himself involved in an endless argument which if it has to be terminated in a courtroom may cost him more money than he can afford."
Article 6 in its original form would have helped to tackle that problem.
I pay tribute to the work of the Association of British Travel Agents to try to monitor and improve standards. The revised ABTA code of conduct will give welcome protection to its consumers after November 1990, especially against negligence resulting in injury or death, and it makes provision for higher compensation in the event of a holiday being cancelled or altered. There is still scope for the trade to substitute holidays on a massive scale. Holidaymakers can still get a holiday in a hotel different from the one that they booked, and cannot cancel the holiday if the hotel is in the same category in price. Holidaymakers may still be forced to accept changes, such as the absence of advertised child care, because these are not seen as material alterations.
Welcome though the codes of conduct are, powerful trade regulations and sanctions are no substitute for Government-led consumer protection. Only last year, the Director General of Fair Trading had to step in an warn ABTA that holidaymakers were being surcharged for fuel price increases when world fuel prices were falling. In spite of the Minister's much-loved codes, supposedly prohibiting this unjustified type of surcharge, it went ahead. In his latest report, the director general, Sir Gordon Borrie, says:
"Examples of costing subsequently submitted by ABTA failed to convince the Office that unjustified surcharging had not taken place."
Before this revised directive, surcharges of under 10 per cent. of the cost of the holiday were to be absorbed by the tour operator, and the reasons for surcharging were then to be set out in writing. Now, there are virtually no limitations on surcharging.
We have no specific legislation that exclusively protects the holidaymaker. Despite the enormous scale of our holiday industry, the United Kingdom lags behind several other European states in establishing specific legislation on the holiday trade. Other countries have specific laws that define the rights of the consumer and the obligations of tour operators. France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain all have such laws. In this country, the operators do not require a licence from the Government. The only licensing of any part of the trade is carried out not by the Government but by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Some countries have laws to protect the travelling public. In some—Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain—those laws are backed with licensing of all travel companies. The laws exist not because the consumers there

155
have more need of them than we do. France and Italy, which featured so much more favourably in the Commission's study than the United Kingdom, also have laws and licensing. They have laws because their Governments aspire to give holidaymakers greater protection than ours will give.
Although ABTA covers 90 per cent. of the holiday trade, that still leaves more than 1 million holidaymakers with minimal protection. In his video from Acapulco, the Minister made it clear that he has no plans to force travel companies to abide by ABTA's new code of practice, but the need for protection has never been greater. That number of 1 million holidaymakers with complaints is growing, not shrinking. Standards are not improving, they are declining.
The Consumers Association published its survey on holidays in January. A fifth of holidaymakers reported that the tour operators made a change in their holiday arrangements, and half those changes were made during the actual holiday or within a fortnight from departure. Two thirds had their flight time changed, and for nearly one third, the resort itself or the accommodation was changed. The survey found that most holidaymakers were perfectly happy with their tour operator, but it also reported a significant drop in people's rating of tour operators since the last survey in 1986, with 9 per cent. expressing clear dissatisfaction with the operator, as against 7 per cent. two years previously. Sadly, when the Commission suggested measures to protect holidaymakers, such as an arbitration service by local tourist officers, the Minister, to use the words of the Secretary of State, felt for his wallet.
This is a minimum directive. When the legislation is implemented here, the Minister should seek four safeguards for the consumer. He must consider banning surcharges. He should ensure that the holidaymaker does not have to establish negligence so as to obtain redress. He must examine the need for joint liability between the operator in the United Kingdom and the agent abroad, with the appropriate on-site advice and help. He should enshrine in legislation the standards that ABTA applies to its members where these are higher than standards in the directive, including strict liability for property damaged.
The Minister began by stating that British holiday-makers get the cheapest holidays. We know, however, that cheapest is not best and that value for money is not synonymous with cheapness. Thousands of holidaymakers believe that they are not getting value for the money that they have paid. That is because they did not receive the holiday for which they asked, not because their expectations are too high.
We do not endorse the Government's hostility to EC directives that are designed to strengthen consumer rights. Travel organisers should provide the holiday that is booked. The price at the time of booking should be the price that is finally paid. On-the-spot, independent arbitration should be considered. If an hotel is not the one advertised, there must be immediate help if the holiday is to be saved, not the right to register a complaint on return after the holiday has been ruined. To put it simply, people want the holiday that they have booked at the price that they have paid. Sadly, neither the directive nor the Government are backing the holiday consumer.
12.41 am
Sir Anthony Grant: I do not agree with much of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, but in this short debate, I want to refer to a specific matter and a different one from those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
First, I declare an interest in the Guild of Business Travel Agents, a body which I have had the honour to advise for many years. The guild consists of about 50 of the largest companies that specialise in business travel. The companies have a turnover of £2·8 billion and they are responsible for four out of five business flights to and from the United Kingdom.
The guild is not to be confused with ABTA, the Association of British Travel Agents, although many of the guild's members have shared membership and on many issues the guild and the association go along the same path. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to speak better than I can on behalf of the association.
Following the Single European Act, the Guild of Business Travel Agents took the initiative in an endeavour to form a European guild dealing with business travel exclusively, but the business travel agents in the United Kingdom are not happy with the directives as drafted. We are a trading nation. We depend on exports and it is essential that we manage to move our business men about the world speedily, efficiently and economically.
I noted that the Minister said that he considered the proposals as a whole unnecessarily burdensome and added that they failed to strike a fair balance between consumer and supplier interests. I think that he was probably right. Therefore, I congratulate the Minister and Europe on achieving some amendments. I say to my hon. Friend that we do not help the ordinary traveller by crucifying the agent who has to move him. There is a balance to be struck, and the Government are right to draw attention to the overburdening nature of the proposals that are before us.
Even more inappropriate is the directive on business travel itself. I was pleased when the Minister said, in emphasising the changes that would have to be considered, that the implications of including some business travel in the directive required further consideration. So they do. I do not believe that the Commission understands business travel and how the proposals will affect business travel. The basic intention of the scheme is to place liability on the tour organiser, the person who assembles two or more components of the package.
As drafted, business travel appears to be caught up in the articles. The Commission has not dealt with a number of issues—for example, it has not considered the composition of business travel and the definition of "package". Article 2 defines "package" and the commentary on the articles refers to all sorts of matters that are not relevant to business travel. It refers to travel to and from the holiday place, excursions to places of interest or pleasure, sporting holidays, school buildings and sporting equipment. All those relate to holiday traffic and are not relevant to business travel.
The Commission paid no attention to the move towards management fees. Business travel agents are increasingly operating not on a commission basis but by fees charged

157
to their large corporate clients. The Commission also did not deal with the fact that in business travel, the customer often specifies his choice of what he wants to do.
Nor did the Commission consider the question of incentive travel. For example, Ford or any other vast organisation may wish to have an incentive travel scheme to send its dealers or salesmen to a certain place. It will instruct a well-known business travel agent to arrange that. The business travel agent will have no direct dealings with those who are travelling; its contractual basis is with the large corporate client. In any event, most businesses that engage in business travel are already covered by insurance.
If the proposals come into force, they would inhibit proper business travel and lead to the detriment of our economy. They would increase costs, and the insurance would inevitably be passed on to the consumer. The protection of the business traveller conies not from European directives or bureaucrats in Brussels, but from the vigorous and healthy competition that already prevails in the business travel sector.
It would be quite absurd for the liability arrangement for poor Mr. and Mrs. Snooks going on their hard-earned holiday to be applied to, for example, ICI ordering flights, hotels and cars for its salesmen throughout the world. Article 5 is inappropriate and unacceptable to the business travel world. I hope that ad hoc business travel will not be included and that the Minister can give me a few words of encouragement about that. If not, when he goes to the Internal Market Council at the end of the week, I hope that he will press this case with his customary forthrightness.
12.47 am
Mrs. Llin Golding: I have looked long and hard for an opportunity to raise a certain matter, and I think that this debate is an appropriate time to do so. Two years ago there was a sad case of a young constituent of mine who died while away on holiday. There was a problem with the insurance cover, as that young person was not insured for death by natural causes, but only for accidental death or for any sort of accident.
The parents brought the young person home to Britain after a pathologist in the EEC country that she was visiting had carried out a post mortem. A British pathologist told me that such was the quality of that post mortem that the body was not in a fit state for him to carry out a proper examination.
I am concerned about this. Most people do not realise that when they take out additional insurance cover it does not cover death by natural causes. Quite often, when a pathologist abroad has done the post mortem, he comes up with some inconclusive reports, and it is unclear whether the death was accidental or due to natural causes. That distinction can make an enormous difference in an insurance claim or in any claim against the tour operator, who usually subcontracts the additional insurance.
I wonder whether that aspect could be taken into account. The cover that is provided and not provided could be clearly set out. With more and more elderly people going abroad for their holidays—often for two or three months at a time—it is becoming increasingly important that they be made aware that death by natural causes is often not covered by the insurance policies offered by tour operators.
12.50 am
Mr. Conal Gregory: The House debates this matter at a significant time. Package holidays numbered fewer than 4 million in 1977, but by last year the figure had increased to 13 million. The Office of Fair Trading, in statistics to which my hon. Friend the Minister did not refer—perhaps significantly—reveals that one in five of those package holidays resulted in complaints. I am full of praise for my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing this important EC matter before the House in advance of any final decisions being made, and he will go with our best wishes to round up the matter on 21 December under the current presidency.
I also praise the Commission for taking the initiative to protect consumers. Many right hon. and hon. Members will recall that last Monday, the European Year of Tourism received its official send-off in Strasbourg in the presence of that mystery man, the tourism Commissioner, Antonio Cardoso E Cunha. Although we have not yet seen him in the United Kingdom, we shall welcome him, if and when he comes to this House. It is jolly nice to know that the Commissioner, together with the 12 Tourism Ministers of EC member states and representatives of the six EFTA countries, was present on that occasion, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will eventually meet him and use the opportunity to praise him for attending the launch of European Tourism Year.
In that connection, I praise the European Member of Parliament for York, Edward McMillan-Scott, on being one of the leading lights in European tourism.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will recall the remarks of my noble and learned Friend Lord Broxbourne in a debate in another place on 15 December, when he quoted Laurence Stern's remark that
"an English man does not travel to see English men."
I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Conservative parliamentary tourism committee, secretary of the all-party tourism committee and as a consultant to Consort Hotels, which is the largest consortium of independent hoteliers in the United Kingdom.
It is ridiculous that consumers cannot take out a contract via a travel agent that incorporates all the necessary safeguards. As my hon. Friend the Minister correctly said, after the lifetime or perhaps twice-a-lifetime purchase of a house, the next most significant purchase is a motor car, and the third—the second most regular purchase—is a holiday or package tour. However, there is great consumer dissatisfaction with them.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) made a very forthright speech, and what a change it is for the Opposition to take tourism seriously. His predecessors referred to it, quite unnecessarily, as a Mickey Mouse industry and one fit only for those who appreciated the subject. I am glad to see the change that has occurred in the Opposition's attitude, although I would still like to read a definitive statement from them on the subject.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I want to place on record the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends do not take the view that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We appreciate the employment consequences of tourism and we know that it provides a great many people with pleasure and recreation. We take tourism very seriously, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of that fact.
Mr. Gregory: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are extremely welcome. One of my wishes is to read the Labour party's statement on tourism, which has not yet been forthcoming. Perhaps I may look fonvard to receiving it in Santa's stocking..
The problems to which I refer should not be shirked. One is disability. Members of the Association of British Travel Agents in Yorkshire encountered a problem. Relatives of a young couple advised them of a wish to go on holiday, but one relative had problems with asthma, and needed ground floor accommodation. When they got to their holiday destination, that request had not been fulfilled. Perhaps the agent was not putting the information through correctly to the operator. I suspect that he was, but that it had not got through to the ground handler, and to the accommodation on time.
Changes in flights are another problem. Many couples, particularly pensioners, like to travel in the middle of the day in daylight, and will undertake a holiday only on that basis. Will the directive safeguard that, and will people get adequate compensation? I am afraid that in most cases the brochures state that compensation is payable only if there is a delay in excess of 12 hours. Pensioners may go to the airport one or two hours before their flight and can be delayed for 14 hours before they get a single penny in compensation. They are not like my right hon. and hon. Friends, who rush there 45 minutes before their flight.
Will the Minister say, "Yes, that is in the implied terms but it will not lead to greater compensation," or will we see more consumer safeguards?
Another problem is when holiday dates are changed. People who work at the Rowntrees or Terry's factories in York, or in other important factories in Britain, have specific dates for their holidays and they have agreed them with their partners. A few days before their holiday, they find that the dates are changed.
Luggage delays are another common problem. I recall the rather nice cartoon in which a gentleman goes into a travel agent, probably on Boxing day when holidays feature on television, and says that he would like to go to a destination in a sunny spot, but he is not too concerned where as long as his luggage can accompany him. When one loses one's luggage, or it is damaged, the airline compensation amounts to the staggering figure of £13·80 per kilo. Frankly, that is a paltry figure if one loses a suitcase full of clothes.
I would hate to see my hon. Friend the Minister—if he had gone to Acapulco rather than Brussels and had lost his suitcase—have to stand up in the same clothes throughout the ABTA convention, with compensation of £1180 per kilo. The figure is inadequate, and he would know that if he had attended that international conference.
Overbooking is another problem. A Yorkshire couple booked a holiday through an ABTA operator and found that the floor area of their hotel bedroom measured 7 ft by 3 ft. If either of them wished to change, the other had to leave the room or get on the bed. Is that the sort of compensation that will be covered by the directive?
There is a lack of information in brochures about such things as how many Mediterranean hotels have fire doors, or safe lifts. I could continue in that vein.
I have contacted the president of ABTA to see whether it could put the matter right. Travel agents are the experts. Did they enjoy good facilities and travel en route to their
160
recent convention in Acapulco, Mexico? To my surprise, I found that Mr. Ron Ellison, managing director of Square Deal Travel, said:
"We do not want excuses. We want explanations. Even if just one thing went wrong, that would be one too many. We are supposed to be travel professionals."
He was commenting on some of the problems in Acapulco. Mrs. Beryl Wilcox, of Jones Travel, also an ABTA member, said:
"I have enjoyed the convention but I have had problems coping with the heat. And I have just found out that my flight in the morning is not there."
I could go on with a series of complaints from ABTA members. If they cannot get it right, who can?
The Consumers Association questioned travel agents for accuracy of information and unbiased advice. It found that 83 per cent. quoted the wrong fare in answer to its request for the cheapest scheduled flight to Geneva, Paris or Brussels and that 27 gave a completely incorrect fare—in six cases it was £82 too much. The moral is that those who want independent, good and accurate information should go not to an ABTA agent but to the public library or ask around. I made inquiries about a flight at one of the travel agents in my constituency and was quoted over £250 more than by another, although the young lady had a brochure which showed a quite different price within 2 ft of her. That shows that training is at rock bottom in the trade.
There are, of course, non-ABTA agents. Some 10 per cent. of people who book package holidays do so without the safeguards of ABTA. One example involves Sunseeker Holidays, which operates from Leeds and Hull and left 700 tourists stranded abroad in September. It was not bonded or a member of ABTA. What advice would my hon. Friend the Minister give those people about how far they will be helped by the directive? I am aware that the new ABTA code is to be much wider and will include the total package. That is good. If people go on holiday to Greece and the coach does not turn up, they cannot be expected to get their solicitor to sue the Greek coach operator. The agent and the operator should take on that responsibility.
Insurance is inadequate. Under the insurance offered by most companies and by ABTA agents—the silver and gold schemes—people have to be stranded in an airport for more than 12 hours before one penny is coughed up. The message that should go out from the House tonight can be summed up in one sentence. This is marketing hype and there is not enough honesty or training. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to correct that.
We should consider the legal safeguards. There is no holiday legislation, so major regulatory control lies in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, section 1 of which provides strict liability offences for the false description of goods. For the majority of complaints about the holiday trade, however, the important provisions are in section 14, which provides offences for recklessly or knowingly making a false statement about
"services, accommodation or facilities in the course of any trade or business".
The inclusion of the key words "recklessly" and "knowingly" means that, to obtain a conviction, the prosecution needs to prove an element of guilt or guilty knowledge on the part of the maker of the statement. That

161
compares unfavourably with the strict liability offences created in relation to goods by section 1 of the Act. I appreciate that skill and care—implied terms, in other words—are contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, but we should consider the false statement. There have been several cases to help the House in this respect.
There are two precedents to which I would like to draw attention. The first is that a false statement about a future event needs to be false when it is made. That is the case of Beckett v. Cohen in 1972. The second is that it is not reckless if events happening subsequent to the making of the statement render is false. That was the case of Sunair Holidays v. Dodd. We should consider amending the law to ensure that we introduce either holiday legislation or strict liability offences for services, with appropriate definitions under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The proposed directive goes further than the ABTA codes as it imposes on organisers a strict liability for the package.
In conclusion, will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify two points? Paragraph 3 of article 6 states
"that in each of their territories there is available whether provided by public or private bodies a rapid, efficient, inexpensive and independent procedure for use by the consumer in dealing with his complaints ".
Can my hon. Friend throw some light on the identity of that rapid, efficient, inexpensive and independent person or body? Does he look favourably on the idea of a tourism ombudsman?
There is before the House an early-day motion signed by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties calling for a tourism ombudsman, drawing attention to the sad inadequacies of the Association of British Travel Agents and stressing the fact that we want the independence of a tourism ombudsman. We have one in banking and we had one in insurance. I was one of the Members of Parliament responsible for getting the building societies ombudsman on the statute book. We now need that safeguard for those who buy package holidays abroad.
Even at this late hour, we should mention those who holiday in the United Kingdom. I believe that they have better safeguards than holidaymakers anywhere. If someone who lives in the west country and sensibly chooses to take his holidays in Yorkshire, and in particular York, finds that the hotel accommodation and services are inadequate or not to the level that he has expected, he can contact the regional tourist board, and if the person or organisation is a member of that board, it can take appropriate action and provide compensation. That is a big plus.
I hope that when my hon. Friend or his representative goes to Brussels on 21 December, he will stress the fact that in Britain we take complaints very seriously and we expect our counterparts in the EC to do the same. He goes with our blessing, but with the caveat that we would like him to fight as strenuously for the consumer as he has done so ardently for the travel trade.
1.6 am
Mr. Richard Page: I begin by placing it on record that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Association of British Travel Agents that has been referred to once or twice during the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the courtesy and attention he has given members of the travel industry whenever they have come to see him to discuss the directive.
It is a touch difficult to talk directly about the directive because, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, it has been a moving target—and sometimes a fast moving one—which was constantly changing shape. However, it is now slowing down and starting to assume a definable profile. There has been a general welcome for the aims of the directive in the House and in the travel industry. If other countries in the EC had organisations such as those in Britain, matters would have been dealt with more speedily and there would not have been such a need for the to-ing and fro-ing that has taken place in the past year. I wish to make two or three points about the directive, mainly arising out of the need for definition. The first relates to scope.
I should like to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) about business travel. I believe that it was never intended to bring business travel into this holiday directive. However, I recognise the great difficulties in definition. I suggest that when my hon. Friend goes to Brussels he regards it as though it were a suit of clothes. One can have either a bespoke suit of clothes or one can buy one off the peg. Bespoke business travel is when a business man orders individual, special travel requirements which should not be covered by the directive. However, if there were business travel agents or operatives advertising package business travel of a standard nature to a standard destination, those arrangements should be swept into the terms of the directive.
There is a need to define accurately what is a package holiday. In the United Kingdom, we tend to think that travel is an essential part of a package holiday. We do not recognise the differences between a package holiday in this country and on the continent. Many people in continental countries do not regard travel as part of the package. They book their accommodation and excursions but make their own travel arrangements, as we see when we are foolish enough to travel in France at the end of July or the end of August. Many Frenchmen book a package holiday but make their own travel arrangements.
As I understand it, under the directive two out of three categories—travel, accommodation, excursions—will constitute the basis of a package holiday. It is important to remember, therefore, that it goes a little wider than we at first appreciated. Someone booking a cottage in the Lake District with a little pony trekking included will be subject to the requirements of the directive and will receive the protection that it offers.
A further aspect is the need to define an organiser. As I understand it, he is someone who organises package holidays on a regular basis. Immediately, we run into the problem of defining "regular". My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has already drawn

163
attention to the possible spread of that definition and to closed groups, such as someone taking scouts on their annual holiday or a local clergyman taking people to Lourdes. That definition must be clearly understood so that people know whether they are protected by the directive.
Another major aspect which must be considered comes under article 5. The Minister must be congratulated on bringing the article more into line with United Kingdom law. The reverse burden of proof is removed, so there is a requirement to show negligence. That offers a defence to any liability such as force majeure. It is important that, wherever possible, we remove the element of doubt from the directive so that people know exactly where they stand. I do not want woolly definitions which allow people to change their interpretation as things develop.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) made some points with which I agreed and, he will not be surprised to hear, many with which I did not. I should like to point out the dangers of the superficial attraction of, and his enthusiasm for, on-the-spot arbitration or treatment when one is abroad. The holidaymaker would be far better served seeking redress against the travel operator back in the United Kingdom in a slightly calmer and more reasoned atmosphere. He would do better to progress his case through the necessary procedures rather than trying to do so in a great rush in a foreign country, where language may also be a problem.
Much reference has been made to the new ABTA codes, which have been approved by the Office of Fair Trading. They offer improved protection for the consumer and show a steady uplift in standards. Many holidaymakers and possibly some hon. Members do not appreciate that there is already a procedure whereby people who have a feeling of grievance can get independent redress. If they feel that they have an objection or complaint, provided that they booked through an ABTA agent, they can go to the conciliation service, and if that fails they have the opportunity to go to the independent arbitration system administrated by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators with the cost subsidised by ABTA.
I understand from the figures given to me that in 1988 some 411 cases were referred, of which 320 were found in favour of the consumer. As I have said, it is an independent system and I understand that the costs are subsidised by ABTA members.
Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the important point about the procedures that are available. He referred, correctly, to two procedures—conciliation which, with great respect, is not independent because it is funded by ABTA, and arbitration which is, indeed, independent. If it is such a good procedure, however, why is there no travel bible to which an individual can refer to see past cases and judge whether there is a precedent and to see what level of compensation might be payable or whether it is frivolous? I understand that seven fully trained lawyers undertake this work, but that each works in a vacuum without any published
164
records. If the system of independent arbitrators is to continue, does my hon. Friend commend the idea of their having the benefit of past judgments?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes his point, but he has pre-empted the next stage of the process, to which I was about to refer in passing. There has been much reference to the idea of an ombudsman. I know that ABTA is examining the need to revamp or reorganise the arbitration system. To that end, it has called in independent experts to advise on the effectiveness of the arbitration and how it could be improved. It is not for me to pre-empt the findings, but no doubt, in the fulness of time, the independent auditors will make their report.
In March 1988 the then draft directive estimated the package holiday market at 25 million. A series of figures have been quoted and each time they have increased. The figures given to me, however, outbid the lot because I understand that the package holiday business in West Germany totals about 18 million holidays, in the United Kingdom it is just under 14 million and the rest of the Community makes up 6 million. We are therefore talking about 37 million package holidays per year. The sheer size of the market demands the protection of a directive across the whole of the EEC. In reading the directive and all the changes that have taken place, I ask the House to endorse the Government's view as encapsulated in the motion.
1.18 am
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Every hon. Member who has spoken has had a great deal to say about the directive itself. I do not want to say a great deal about it because the points have been well covered. Listening to most of the speeches made me realise that I am rather lucky that our family goes on holiday only to either Scotland or Pakistan, where problems simply do not arise.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the point that he made at the end of his speech about article 100A of the Single European Act when he seemed to speak faster than during the rest of his speech, thus giving me the impression that something significant was happening. When I looked around me and saw the smiling faces, I realised that something dramatic had happened. The Minister knows that the legal advice given to the Government and the Select Committee on European Legislation is that there is no question that this could reasonably be regarded as an article 100A proposal.
The legal advice given to the Select Committee on European Legislation on the directive was:
"The internal market element is insignificant—or even theoretical, if one looks for evidence about just how the proposal would affect 'the free movement of goods, persons, services … … If an element of such dimensions is sufficient to found recourse to Article 100A, then the scope of that Article is virtually limitless. Neither the context of nor the background to Article 100A suggests that this could be right."
Some people may think that that is simply an attempt to find a legal quibble. I was fascinated that the Minister has spent all his time corresponding or talking to officials since I raised the point. He must feel an element of guilt about it. I never thought that the day would come when the Minister, of all people, would apparently serve the interests of people, such as Mr. Delors, who propose to expand the extent to which the Community makes laws which apply to countries and leave domestic parliaments out.

165
The Minister must be aware that, when the Single European Act was passed, it was made abundantly clear to the House and to our people that some internal market issues would be decided by majority vote but that the majority of issues would be decided by unanimous vote. The Minister must be abundantly clear from all that has been said by legal advisers and on the Single European Act that this is not a 100A directive. At the end of his speech he said, "Yes, we had doubts about it in the past, but on reflection we think that it may be a 100A." If the Government cave in on this one and do not put up a battle on article 100A, the House of Commons may as well shut up shop and call itself a county council. Mr. Jacques Delors has said that in his view 80 per cent. of all legislation will be made through the Community's non-democratic institutions. If we allow this directive to go through under article 100A without a battle, the figure will be well above 90 per cent.
Why have the Government apparently changed their mind? Will the Minister be willing to go along on 21 December and fight or will he say, "The directive has been moderated so we shall not fight"? I hope that he will regard the matter as serious because it is desperately serious for our democracy. He knows that the directive cannot be passed under article 100A. If the Government are not prepared to battle on this, I wonder if they are willing to battle on anything.
1.22 am
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have come here at this late hour to guide me in my deliberations on this important matter. It is important, if for no other reason, than that so many British people avail themselves of the holidays offered by our package holiday industry. As always when EC directives are considered by the Council of Ministers, we shall end up—if at all—with a directive which will inevitably be the result of a compromise among 12 different member states.
In this case some member states, such as Britain, send many of their citizens on package holidays each year. Other states receive them. Given that difference of perspective, the House will not be surprised that it has been difficult to reach consensus on the directive. If we end up with a directive, I counsel hon. Members that it may not meet all their exact requirements. That may explain why, should a directive emerge from the Council of Ministers, it may be less than ideal and may not meet all the views expressed this evening. I assure hon. Members that we shall endeavour to take account, as far as we can, of the reasonable points that they have made.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and I may have to agree to disagree about almost every aspect of this matter. That difference starts with the industry, which the hon. Gentleman painted in a black way. I have an upbeat and optimistic view of that industry, and he was right to quote what I have said unashamedly about it. It has served our people well and it provides a large number of holidays for many people. Perhaps I should declare an interest as I take a package holiday every year. I have already booked it for next year and I have always been happy with those holidays.
Sir Anthony Grant: Did my hon. Friend holiday in Acapulco?
Mr. Forth: I never got to Acapulco. At the time that I might have been there I was in Brussels representing Her Majesty's Government and our people to the best of my ability in the Council of Ministers.
Although I have often praised the British holiday industry, I am not blind to its faults. There may be a place for a directive of the kind under consideration now so that perceived loopholes either in our law or in the more general provisions relating to the holiday industry can be filled in. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South when he talks about a crisis of confidence. I share his praise, however, for the ABTA code of practice, which has been updated and improved. That code takes our industry a stage further and the latest code provides standards in most respects superior to those provided by the directive.
The hon. Gentleman was busy criticising me for single-handedly removing most of the directive's effective provisions. He appeared to forget that I sit in solemn conclave with representatives from 11 other member states when I consider such things. I must reach agreement with them. Whether the directive has been watered down, strengthened or whatever is the result of what 12 Ministers from 12 different member states have been able to agree.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: When the Minister introduced legislation on this matter, will he embody in it the higher standards of the ABTA code, which we both believe to be desirable?
Mr. Forth: No, I will not give that assurance. If the directive is agreed and put in place by the Community we shall be obliged, as a member state, to put the appropriate regulations in place. That answers one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). We will endeavour to fill in the details that he has identified as missing from the directive. If those details are not clarified once the directive is agreed we shall have to clarify them in our regulations. We would attempt to do so responsibly—no doubt after consultation with the industry and consumer groups as is our practice when seeking to make regulations.
I cannot give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South as I envisage that our regulations would reflect the wording of the directive. If the industry chose to continue to have a code of practice that went beyond that directive I would welcome and support that decision. I see no need, however, to legislate to give effect to that code. It is far more effective when it is operated on a voluntary basis.
I give my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) more or less the assurance that he seeks. It is true that business travel was never intended to be part of the directive. It was fairly late in the day when we identified the danger that my hon. Friend correctly pointed out and which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West. We have always had serious reservations about that matter and I raised it at the Council of Ministers. We expect that the final text to the directive, should it be agreed, will have attached to it a minute statement by the Council and the Commission to clarify that the directive will not cover
"business trips which involve separate bookings of transport and hotel accommodation which do not constitute elements of a pre-arranged package, even though they are invoiced simultaneously."

167
That is Community jargon for saying, broadly speaking, that business travel will not be within the directive's scope. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). She was absolutely right to bring this tragic constituency case to the attention of the House this evening. I cannot give her any comfort in terms of the wording of the present directive, but I draw to her attention the words in the new ABTA code, endorsed by the Office of Fair Trading. It says:
"A tour operator shall include as a term of any contract relating to the sale of their foreign inclusive holidays or tours—"
I come to the important words—
"a provision stating that every assistance shall be afforded by them to a client who through misadventure suffers illness, personal injury or death during the period of their holiday arising out of an activity which does not form part of the foreign inclusive holiday arrangement".
ABTA provides a form of words that may have assisted the hon. Lady's constituent had they been in place at the time. I hope that they will now help anyone who finds him or herself in the same tragic circumstances. I invite the hon. Lady to take up the point with ABTA to see whether it can satisfy her. If it cannot, she should by all means come back to me to see whether I can assist her.
Mrs. Golding: I thank the Minister for that assurance. I took up the matter with ABTA, which was helpful. Thomson's made quite a large ex gratia payment, but that does not solve the problem of the pathologist's difficulty in establishing the cause of death. It means a lot to families to know why people have died, and the EC could put a lot more pressure on pathologists to bring them up to the standard of those in this country.
Mr. Forth: I understand the hon. Lady's important point. The standard of pathology available in member states in the Community is not a matter for this directive. The hon. Lady might wish to raise the matter with the Commission through her Member of the European Parliament or pursue it with the Department of Health. I do not think that the point is for me or the directive.
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend has just referred to clause 483 of the ABTA code. I understand that that is a voluntary assistance package of up to £5,000 when an incident occurs which is outside the normal run of events.
Mr. Forth: That ties in with what the hon. Lady has just said and shows that we must not forget, when considering this matter, that we are fortunate to have in this country an industry that has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide a voluntary code and mechanism whereby complaints can be dealt with. Even the industry and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) would say that the mechanism has never been perfect, but the industry has been, and still is, working to see whether it can be improved. We should encourage and value that, and praise, not criticise, it.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), as always, has shown an enormous amount of knowledge and experience of this matter. He asked me some relevant and, as usual, difficult questions which I shall do my best
168
to answer. If I fail to answer all his points, I shall write to him to give him a proper answer, but I shall pick up one or two of his points.
My hon. Friend made general points about flight and date changes which, I think, are covered under article 4, paragraph 5, of the directive in its latest wording. It says:
"if any of the essential terms of the package are … altered by the organiser before departure, the consumer may, within seven days of receiving notification of the change:—either withdraw from the contract without penalty,—or accept a rider to the contract specifying the alterations made and their impact on the price."
That goes some way towards answering his points. I should like to look at it again to see whether it is completely adequate, but there is a recognition of my hon. Friend's fair points about the distress that can often be caused, usually to elderly people or those who are not as robust as hon. Members undoubtedly are. To be here at this hour of the night they have to be robust—but I shall not explore that further.
My hon. Friend then made an important point about bonding and insurance. I refer him again to article 7 of the directive, which says:
"The organiser and/or retailer party to the contract shall provide sufficient evidence of ability: in the event of insolvency, to refund money paid over and to repatriate the consumer, and—to cover compensation for losses suffered as a result of the failure to perform or the improper performance of the contract."
So the directive requires that a reasonable amount of cover be provided, although it is right to leave it to the discretion of the operators to decide how to do that.
Although ABTA provides cover for ABTA members, if the directive were agreed, it would extend that safety net to all operators.
Mr. Gregory: I think that my hon. Friend has partly missed the point. I was talking about non-ABTA members who subsequently go into liquidation, and I gave the example of a firm based in Yorkshire which had gone into liquidation as recently as September. There is little point in pursuing it through the courts if it has already gone into liquidation.
Mr. Forth: Yes, but the article that I read out refers to ability in the event of insolvency to refund money paid over or to repatriate. That covers my hon. Friend's point.
My hon. Friend the Member for York also referred to the ombudsman. His reference to a "rapid and inexpensive means" has been dropped from the directive; it did not survive the rigorous examination of the Council of Ministers. However, I endorse what he said about the principle of an ombudsman and I hope that the industry will urgently press on towards introducing another mechanism for dealing with complaints.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West is an expert in this area, and I acknowledge his contribution to guiding ABTA towards a positive approach to this directive. I have already answered his point about business travel when discussing the scope of the directive. Pony trekking and cottages are matters of great concern to at least one other member state—I am sure that he can guess which one—and I hope that his point about them and their organisation on a regular basis will be covered while putting the regulations in place. His points may not be entirely covered in the directive, even when it is complete.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is unflagging in his anxiety to ensure that we do

169
not become supine in the face of the onslaught on our sovereignty by the institutions of the EC. I am not sure that this is the right issue on which to take a stand, however. My hon. Friend spoke as usual with great passion, and he knows very well that I have shared a number of his views over the years about unnecessary extensions of the Community's competence. My hon. Friend is here, as he always is, to use the opportunity that the House has been given to examine the matter. It is not as though we are trying to slip this through on the quiet, undebated. The House is discharging its responsibility and has been given the chance to do so, and I hope that my hon. Friend acknowledges that.
My hon. Friend asked whether the treaty base was suitable in this case. I have given that much thought and have come to the conclusion, with some reluctance, that this may be a legitimate internal market matter. This is an important business which involves millions of people throughout the Community and which crosses national boundaries. Some member states send people on holiday; others receive them. It is right that the Community should try to provide reasonable safeguards, given the movements of people and the transaction of Community business across these borders. He and I may not be able to agree on that, but if he gives the matter some thought he will see that it is not the matter upon which to fight the final battle on sovereignty.
I have tried, perhaps at excessive length, to answer the questions asked in the debate. Having heard my replies, I hope that hon. Members will see fit to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5382/88 and 7996/89 relating to package travel; and endorses the Government view that any proposal must strike a balance between consumer protection and the need to avoid undue burdens on the travel industry, which would adversely affect the price and range of holidays available to consumers.

PETITIONS

  Opencast Mine (Gateshead)
  1.40 am
  Mr. John McWilliam: The humble petition of residents of Gateshead metropolitan borough council sheweth
  That the proposal to opencast mine coal in the area to the South of Marley hill and remove the coal by road would result in the net destruction of jobs, cause blight to the countryside and congest the already inadequate roads.
  It gives me great pleasure to present the petition. The hole that is proposed will be enormous, as will the damage to industrial development which the two local authorities propose. The roads are totally inadequate. I am grateful for this opportunity to present the petition on behalf of my constituents.
  To lie upon the Table.

Deaf People (Broadcasting)
1.41 am
Mr. Allen McKay: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House I wish to present a petition not only on my behalf and that of my constituents, but also on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) and his constituents. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is ill and cannot present his petition. The petition contains the signatures of 1,500 of our constituents and relates to deaf people and television. The broadcasting authorities are not providing complete access to television for deaf viewers by providing, for example, subtitles or sign language. At least 4 million people are affected.
Deaf viewers are equal members of the general public and are entitled to equal access to television programmes. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I gratefully present to the House on their behalf the petition asking for the equal access that they rightly deserve.
To lie upon the Table.
1.42 am
Mr. Eric Illsley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and the people of Barnsley about facilities for deaf people in relation to broadcasting. The petition shows that broadcasters are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers through the use of subtitling, teletext or sign language. This affects about 4 million viewers who have a right to equal access to broadcasts. It gives me great pleasure to present the petition.
To lie upon the Table.
1.43 am
Mr. Dave Nellist: Like my two hon. Friends the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), I also have a petition, signed by more than 300 constituents and residents of Coventry, who are concerned, as I am, about the inadequate provision of choice for those who are deaf or hard of hearing, who cannot listen to radio and who miss 90 per cent. of

171
television programmes—those which are not subtitled. It is appropriate to present the petition on the day when the Broadcasting Bill received its Second Reading. Clause 32 of that Bill refers to the minimum number of hours per week during which programmes with subtitles can be broadcast. I hope that the petition will be noticed by those hon. Members who will serve on the Standing Committee.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the people of the constituency of Coventry, South-East and elsewhere sheweth that the broadcasters are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers, for example with subtitles or sign language.
The number of viewers affected are at least 4 million.
Deaf viewers, as equal members of the general public are entitled to equal access to television programmes.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using Teletext subtitles, sign language or other means, and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
I endorse the petition and associate myself with all its sentiments, although not with the mediaeval language in which they have to be framed.
To lie upon the Table.

Unitary Taxation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
1.44 am
Mr. Michael Grylls: I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will not take it amiss if I welcome him to the debate as the seventh in a distinguished line of Financial Secretaries who have dealt with this problem for 14 years. It has been the longest-running issue that Parliament has seen for a long time. This is the third Adjournment debate in which I have had the opportunity to raise the issue, and that in itself speaks of the longevity of the issue.
Because of this history, there is no need to spend any time in describing what the problem is over unitary tax. Its application has been internationally condemned as an iniquitous form of corporate taxation. It has been condemned by Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, the United States, the OECD, the EEC, the US Administration and Her Majesty's Government. In the House, it is very much an all-party issue, as I am sure you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been condemned by all parties. That condemnation has been refreshed today by the tabling of a new early-day motion, which has already been signed by 150 hon. Members. I think that more will sign in the coming weeks. We have applied our minds to it over the years, but it has yet to be solved.
This is a timely moment to have the debate because the US Administration and the British Government are about to start a major review of the progress on the issue. If the review is only about progress, it may be only a short meeting, but I hope that it will include discussion of future action, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will participate in the review. We need to assess how we can take this matter forward, and nail it once and for all.
Whatever may be said about what has happened in California, it still uses unitary taxation on a worldwide basis. It has introduced a limited form of legislation that allows companies, on the payment of a fee, to elect to be taxed not on a worldwide basis, but on the basis of a water's edge method. Electing to pay the fee for something that is wrong, and has been condemned internationally, is nothing less than disgraceful. That is the morality of Dick Turpin, the famous highwayman, who said, "Give me your money, and then you will be allowed to proceed." That is what has happened in California. Therefore, I am glad that the British Government and the United States Administration have firmly recorded their opposition to the legislation in California because it does not deal with the problem and kill it off once and for all.
There is one glimmer on the horizon. New proposed legislation in California would abolish the election fee and ease some of the other concerns of British companies operating in California. If the legislation is to have any chance of moving forward, it will need the active support of the United Kingdom Government, who must lean on the United States Administration in Washington, to encourage and help them to ensure that the legislation does what it must to be effective.
British businesses are concerned about the legislation, and they do not like, and have to deal with, such factors as the length of the election period, which they believe is

173
still too long. The details of information—the spreadsheet that they have to provide to the state of California—mean an enormous amount of administrative, non-productive bureaucratic work for the companies, which should not have to do it. They also do not like the ability of the state of California arbitrarily to deny them access to the water's edge solution. They do not think that that is right.
At the moment, the legislation is flawed, and British business operating in the United States, with important investments for our companies, do not consider that the problem has been solved. The Californian legislation in 1986 was no solution, and we have proof of this.
A recent survey carried out by the Unitary Tax Campaign, which has led this issue and been the driving force behind the move for reform, had 51 replies to a survey of British businesses operating in California. Of the 51, 42 stated that unitary tax was extremely onerous. Yet only six were prepared to opt out of unitary taxation. That was because current legislation was much too risky. That result—six out of 51—shows a complete lack of confidence in what California has put forward as a so-called solution. It shows that the so-called solution to current Californian law is nothing less than a sham, and we should not be afraid to say so.
Why are companies not electing to get out of worldwide reporting and to move towards a water's edge solution? I think that it is principally because they are opposed in principle in unitary tax on a worldwide basis. They believe, I think rightly, that if they support current legislation, they will support legislation that they think is wrong.
Companies object to the fee. It cannot be right to pay a fee to do something that is entirely normal in every other civilised industrial country. Companies do not like it and they will not elect because of the uncertainties. California's record as a taxing authority does not inspire them with any great confidence.
Over the years, we have returned to this issue time and time again. The campaign to try to get it resolved has been led by Great Britain through the CBI and, above all, by the Unitary Tax Campaign, a grouping of leading companies in Britain that has lobbied hard and long in America to resolve the issue. It is time that we told our friends in Washington and Sacremento that 14 years is too long and that it is time that the issure was resolved. Let us tell them that the partience of the House is running out, as California refuses stubbornly to resolve it. After 14 years it is time for us to be tough. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to tell the House that the Government are still much concerned about the issue, want to see it resolved and are prepared to introduce tough action to see that that happens.
We have effective leverage in our hands, called section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I hope that at least we shall hear tonight that that section will remain firmly on the statute book until unitary tax on a worldwide basis is abolished in America once and for all. It is important that section 812 remains, to show the Americans that we are determined to resolve the issue. When the tax is abolished, the section can be removed from the statute book, because it will have done its job.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us that he will participate in ministerial meetings to show the Americans that we mean business. The House has been considering this issue for too long. Clearly 14 years is too long. I hope that this is the last Adjournment debate that I shall ever have to have on the matter, and
174
that we shall see the abolition of unitary tax, which has been so damaging to so many British companies over the years.
1.53 am
Mr. Nicholas Brown: This is a timely debate on an extremely important matter. The entire House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) for having raised it this evening. I do not wish to detain the House for long, because the Financial Secretary's reply is the important part of the debate and I look forward to hearing it. I want, however, to underscore a number of matters that have been raised by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West.
First, California's unitary tax regime as applied to non-American companies is no more acceptable to the Opposition than it is to the Government. It is unacceptable that it has continued for 14 years. The issue is not one for the United Kingdom alone. American's other friends, traders, investors and partners all have a similar interest in reaching a solution, but perhaps it is for the Government to put themselves at the head of organising concerned representations on a international basis.
My understanding is that the American Administration are committed to limiting unitary taxation to the water's edge by federal legislation, if necessary. I do not regard the present fee-paying option as anything like a fair or satisfactory settlement. It certainly does not meet the Administration's stated objectives. It smacks of protection money and nothing more.
In 1985, the British Government issued the statement:
"In the light of the President's statement, the Government will enter into negotiations with the Administration to amend the UK-US double taxation convention so as to prevent the application of the unitary method of taxation to UK companies."
I understand that that statement has yet to be given effect. It should be, and soon.
During debates on the 1985 Finance Bill, there was discussion about whether new clause 27 should be inserted. It was, with all-party support. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) set out the Opposition's position, and it remains the same. I refer to what is now section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
The present unitary tax arrangements in California amount to no more than a sophisticated and populist protectionist device. I accept, but regret, the necessity of inserting what was new clause 27 into the 1985 Bill. It was done not because we thought it right for its own sake, but as a response to a very unfair form of taxation being carried out by a country with which we otherwise have close and friendly relationships.
Although now the law of the land, the provisions of that new clause have not been applied. I must make it clear that an incoming Labour Government would reserve their right to apply the clause, whether or not the Government do so. If it is on the statute book, it can be applied. When the Financial Secretary responds, I hope that he will agree to send a message to our friends across the Atlantic that is slightly firmer than just restating the fact that unitary taxation is not cricket. He should do a little more than that.
1.57 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) on securing his third Adjournment debate on the important subject of worldwide unitary taxation and also on the lucid and forceful way in which he expressed his opposition to that form of taxation.
Worldwide unitary taxation is very much a subject that my hon. Friend has made his own. He has campaigned tirelessly on both sides of the Atlantic for some years and it is a tribute to him that he has united both sides of the House in pursuit of his campaign. That is shown both by the early-day motion, which has about 150 signatures from hon. Members of all parties, opposing worldwide unitary taxation, and by the helpful and constructive speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on behalf of the Opposition. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which strengthens the Government's position in negotiating on this issue.
I pay tribute to the Unitary Tax Campaign, especially its chairman Peter Welch. Since it was founded in 1978, it has dedicated itself solely to the elimination of worldwide unitary tax. Its members include a substantial majority of the United Kingdom corporate direct investors in the United States.
I must straight away reaffirm both the Government's opposition to worldwide unitary tax and their support for the aims and objectives of the Unitary Tax Campaign and other bodies which have campaigned against worldwide unitary tax. The British Government are opposed to worldwide unitary taxation because it is contrary to accepted international tax principles, manifestly unfair and damaging to international investment. It is contrary to the accepted international principles, which indicate that each country should levy tax only in respect of profits which arise in that country's jurisdiction. It is manifestly unfair, since it can result in international companies paying tax to more than one Administration in respect of the same profits—and even paying taxes in a country where they are making losses simply because they are making profits elsewhere, in another country. It is damaging because it is bound to discourage the flow of international investment, which is mutually beneficial to host and source countries, as well as undermining normal relations between tax authorities.
That is why the British Government have pursued their opposition to worldwide unitary taxation as vigorously as possible through all appropriate channels—directly to the Californian state authorities, jointly with the United States Federal Government whose support in this matter we greatly welcome; in conjunction with our European Community partners; in supporting British companies in their court actions; and in taking legislative power to strengthen our bargaining position. Those pressures and the sustained work of the Unitary Tax Campaign have not been without effect. Barclays won a notable victory when the Californian Superior Court ruled its worldwide unitary taxation unconstitutional. Unfortunately, however, the United States legal mills grind slow and the final outcome is far from sure.
Another success of a kind is that California has so far taken two steps to meet the widespread concerns of international investors. First, in 1986 it passed legislation to allow companies to elect not to be taxed on a worldwide
176
unitary basis, but companies which so elected had to pay fees and were committed to the election for a period of years and the Californian authorities still retained the right to impose worldwide unitary tax in certain circumstances —for example, if they found any of the voluminous data that they require unsatisfactory. Secondly, in 1988 California passed legislation which reduced the election period to five years and made certain other rules more workable.
Despite those changes, the Californian tax regime remains profoundly unsatisfactory. It is not acceptable that British companies should have to pay a fee to elect to be taxed on the normal "water's edge" basis. Nor is it acceptable that after paying such a fee they may still be deprived of that right if they cannot comply to the state's satisfaction with its onerous requirements.
Consequently, we have kept up the pressure and in the last year alone the Government have supported British companies in court with amicus briefs, and played a prominent part in the Community's demarche on unitary tax to the US Treasury. That elicited a potentially useful response—that the state's use of unitary tax
"remains a serious concern"
and
"may constitute an impermissible interference in the conduct of the nation's foreign affairs."
Finally, we sent a senior member of our Washington embassy to accompany the British delegation to California in connection with legislation being prepared there last summer.
Last March, my predecessor announced that we were prepared to defer initiating action under the potentially retaliatory legislation that the House passed in 1985, which would deny tax credits relating to dividends paid by US subsidiaries of companies with headquarters in states with unitary taxation. We did this in recognition of the progress that had been made towards resolving the unitary tax issue. We further made it clear that if it became necessary to take such action after the end of December 1989 it would not apply to dividends paid on or before that date.
My hon. Friend asked for confirmation that the Government intended to retain the potentially retaliatory legislation that the House passed in 1985. I gladly state, quite unequivocally, that at present there is no question of the repeal of that legislation.
Earlier this year my right hon. Friend who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury proposed that, in the light of subsequent progress, we should review the situation jointly with the United States Treasury later this year. United Kingdom officials have, in consultation with the Unitary Tax Campaign and other representative bodies, initiated that review.
The survey information to which my hon. Friend referred will be of great value during the review. The question of any further undertaking not to act under the 1985 legislation will be considered as part of the review. Hon. Members may also rest assured that the anxieties that they have expressed today will be brought to the attention of the United States Government. I shall forward to the US Government the report of today's debate.
A couple of years ago, the Governor of California opened a trade office in London to attract British business to California. The United Kingdom already has substantial investment in California and there is every sign that it wishes to continue and to increase such investment. I therefore urge the California state authorities to think

177
again if they want the flow of investment from Britain to California to continue. I urge them to abolish completely the election fee and substantially to reduce the election period and the compliance burden of foreign companies so
178
that British industry will once again be able to take its full part in investing in California, to the benefit of all concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on public libraries.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Official Travel (Rail)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last travelled on official business on a public transport train in(a) London and (b) Singapore.

  The Prime Minister
  I regret that for reasons of practicality and security it is difficult for me to travel by rail on official business. I do so when a suitable opportunity arises. I last travelled by train from King's Cross, London to an official function on 31 August 1989. I last made a journey on the mass rapid transport system in Singapore on 31 July 1988.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Disabled People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what percentage of staff employed within the Civil Service on 1 November were then registered as disabled persons.

  Mr. Luce
  The latest figure available is 1·3 per cent.

TRANSPORT

  A1 (Roadworks)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his reply of Monday 4 December,Official Report, column 93, to the hon. Member for Stockton, South, he will make a statement on the extensive roadworks being undertaken on the A1 in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  The roadworks now being carried out on the A1 in Yorkshire are essential maintenance works to protect the structural integrity of the road and at the same time keep it in a safe condition. The present scheme at Scotch Corner is for major resurfacing, whereas the other schemes in progress are short-term minor works. In accordance with the Department's policy, the works are phased and spaced out as much as possible to keep traffic disruption to a minimum.

  Travel Concessions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make an order under section 93(7)(f) of the Transport Act 1985 to enable men between the ages of 60 and 64 years to receive the same travel concessions as are currently available to women.
  2
  Mr. Portillo
  I have no plans to change the present arrangements which link eligibility for travel concession for the elderly to state pensionable age.

  Air Services
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions he sets down on the number of hours that crews of British airlines may fly; and what information he has on the restrictions that apply to foreign registered and operated air services.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is the Civil Aviation Authority that is responsible for the regulation of the working hours of crews of British airlines, in accordance with the Air Navigation Order 1989. The order requires that no member of the flight crew may fly for more than 100 hours in any consecutive 28-day periods or more than 900 hours during the period of 12 months expiring at the end of the previous month.

  Furthermore, the order requires operators to establish a scheme for the regulation of crew duty times and the scheme must be approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. The Civil Aviation Authority provides guidelines, CAP 371, to assist operators to develop acceptable schemes. The guidelines cover such matters as rest periods, standby duty, days off, extended range operations by two pilots, delayed reporting times, acclimatisation to local time, the records that must be kept and the reports that must be made.

  Guidelines are also issued by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. I understand that other states' regulations are in general comparable with the Civil Aviation Authority's requirements.

  A40, Acton
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the work of cutting down shrubs on the central reservation of the A40 Western avenue at Acton was scheduled for the current time of year; what assessment he has made of the effect of the work on the journey time from Uxbridge to London; and if he will give intructions for this work to be postponed until the new year.

  Mr. Atkins
  This work is part of a rolling programme to provide central reservation safety fencing and guard railing on trunk roads. The work along the A40 Western avenue is being co-ordinated by the Department's agent, the London borough of Ealing, and is being carried out in the interests of safety. Some disruption is inevitable, but efforts will continue to be made to minimise any inconvenience to the public.

  Work will be suspended over the Christmas and new year holiday and should then be completed in mid-January.

  A40, Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long the present work on the central reservation of the A40 in the London borough of Ealing has taken; what it is costing; when it is expected to end; and if he will make a statement.
  3
  Mr. Atkins
  These works are part of a rolling programme to provide central reserve safety fencing and pedestrian guard railing on the A40 Western avenue in the London borough of Ealing.

  The current phase of these works began in mid-September and is expected to be completed by mid-January 1990. The total cost of these works is approximately £960,000.

  Further works will be required in the coming months. I will write to my hon. Friend when the contractual arrangements have been finalised.

  Near-Miss, London-Belfast Route
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will ask the accident investigation branch to investigate the near-miss involving a civilian aircraft travelling from London to Belfast on the evening of 11 November and then publish the results of the inquiry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No near-miss, or airmiss, was reported for the date and time referred to. However, a mandatory occurrence report was filed with the Civil Aviation Authority by the captain of a British Midland aircraft en route from London to Belfast.

  It is for the chief inspector of air accidents to determine whether an investigation into an incident or accident shall be carried out. I understand that the chief inspector has found no reason for instituting an investigation in this case. It is thought possible that there may be a meteorological explanation to the phenomenon observed.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorists have had their licences withdrawn as a result of medical advice given to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre regarding lack of fitness to drive a motor vehicle; and if he will make a statement on the procedure for advising the licensing authorities on such matters.

  Mr. Atkins
  The figures available are given in the table:

  Year

  1984–85

  5,821

  1985–86

  8,216

  1986–87

  9,318

  1987–88

  10,442

  1988–89

  10,891

  Advice about the obligation to notify the onset or worsening of medical conditions which might affect ability to drive safely is printed on all driving licences. Further information is available in the leaflet "What you need to know about driver licensing", Form D100, which is available from most Post Offices.

  I will write to my hon. Friend to give fuller details about the statutory powers available to the Secretary of State in this area of driver licensing and how the driver licensing centre carries out its medical investigation of drivers.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorists over the age of 75 years hold current driving licences; and what proportion of these has been declared medically fit to operate a moter vehicle.

  Mr. Atkins
  No details are available of the number of drivers over the age of 75 years.
  4
  There are 1,656,818 current licence holders over the age of 70, all of whom have been considered to be medically fit to hold a driving licence; 117,586 of these drivers are recorded as having a medical condition. All drivers are obliged by law to notify DVLC of the onset or worsening of medical condition which could affect their ability to drive safely.

  American Airlines
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what attempts are being made by the Government to persuade American airlines to adopt a more flexible attitude towards new routes and services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom pressed the US Government during talks held between 29 November and 1 December to join the United Kingdom in addressing the broad question of liberalising the air services arrangements between our two countries. We also suggested an exchange of opportunities to meet the shorter-term ambitions of the airlines of both sides. Arrangements are in hand to resume these talks shortly.

  Foulridge Bypass
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest assessment of the level of overcrowding in the Foulridge bypass; if he will bring about an early start to the construction of the Foulridge bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  These are matters of Lancashire county council as the highway authority for the A56 north of Burnley. I understand that the council hopes to start construction of a Colne-Foulridge bypass in late 1991. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budget he has set aside for information to the public on the London assessment studies after publication of the next stage of the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  The cost of providing information is included in the overall budget for the studies.

  Free copies of the reports have been provided to local authorities throughout the study areas with a request that they should be put on display to the public in main libraries and suitable locations. They will also be sent to representative organisations in the study areas. Summaries of the consultants' work and leaflets giving the Department's initial views and request for comments are also available at those locations, or free of charge direct from the consultants. A short summary in Bengali of the options for consultations in east London will be available from Ove Arup.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many residential properties his Department has acquired along the line of the east London river crossing; how many have been offered to housing authorities; how many have been refused; and how many are currently unoccupied.
  5
  Mr. Atkins
  The Department owns 111 residential properties along the line of the east London river crossing; 54 are let to the London borough of Greenwich and three to the London borough of Bexley; 35 are let to various housing associations; 13 are let directly to individual tenants; and six are currently unoccupied.

  There is no readily available record of refusals.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to introduce a national corporate orange badge scheme to enable essential medical staff to park to visit disabled people in city centre areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  Arrangements already exist whereby police and traffic wardens exercise discretion in respect of parking controls where doctors or nursing staff on urgent visits display the authorised British Medical Association badge. We are not aware of any reasons to extend these arrangements.

  By contrast, the orange badge scheme conveys specific parking concessions to enable severely disabled people themselves to get close to their destinations.

  M3
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had negotiations with the main contractor on the Compton to Bassett section of the M3 to widen all bridges and gantries to enable his Department to construct a fourth lane at some time in the future; and if he will make a statement as to his policy for a fourth dual lane on the M3 at Winchester.

  Mr. Atkins
  The section of the Compton to Bassett section of the M3 motorway north of Leigh road, Eastleigh, is being constructed with dual three-lane carriageways. However, as a prudent measure my Department has negotiated with the contractor a small modification in the design of one bridge to allow for any possible future widening that may be required.

  As my hon. Friend is aware, proposals for the remaining section of the proposed M3 motorway round Winchester were considered at the 1985 public inquiry and the re-opened inquiry in 1987–88. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are considering the reports of the independent inspectors who conducted the inquiries and they will announce their joint decisions as soon as possible. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further until that decision is announced.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an early statement concerning resurfacing work on the Severn bridge and associated problems and the consequent hold-ups on the M4 motorway.

  Mr. Atkins
  From Tuesday 12 December eastbound traffic on Severn bridge was restricted to a single lane in the interests of road safety due to unexpected difficulties with skid resistance on the new road surface. This caused 6
  extensive delays. Two-lane working was restored on Friday 15 December. The underlying cause of the problem is being investigated.

  SCOOT Programme
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many countries have bought the SCOOT programme for traffic signals developed by his Department.

  Mr. Atkins
  Six.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the cost of constructing the Jubilee line extension will be paid for by(a) developers, (b) fare payers, and (c) the Treasury.

  Mr. Portillo
  In my right hon. Friend's written answer of 16 November to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)Official Report column 398, he said:
  "The Jubilee extension will cost about £l billion in today's prices to which developers will over time be making a cash contribution of over £400 million."
  We do not yet know the full total of developer contribution as negotiations with some are still continuing. London Regional Transport's present fare revenue is not earmarked to particular projects; and the fare revenue that will be generated by the Jubilee line extension itself will depend upon decisions on fare structures and levels that will not be determined by London Regional Transport until much nearer the opening of the line. In the meantime the Government will meet that proportion of the costs of the line not covered by developer contributions.

  Panamanian Registered Ships
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what calculation he has made of the likely impact on British owned Panamanian registered ships which will arise when the United States Administration bans Panamanian flag carriers from United States ports;

  (2) what information he has on British owned Panamanian registered ships re-flagging as a result of the impending ban on Panamanian flag carriers from United States ports;

  (3) what representations he has received from British shipowners following the decision of the United States Administration to ban Panamanian registered ships from United States ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The General Council of British Shipping has objected to the ban on principle. It has told us of one United Kingdom shipowner who may re-register a Panamanian flagged vessel that operates in the United States trades.

  Traffic Pollution
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has of the likely atmospheric pollution caused by the increase in traffic as forecast by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department's traffic forecasts are of demand up to 2025. But it is not possible to foresee the
  7
  extent to which it will be possible or desirable to meet forecast levels of demand for such a long period ahead. Another cause of uncertainty is that the total level of vehicle emissions will depend upon the progress of current initiatives to reduce emissions by individual vehicles.

  Port of London Authority
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the rank and function of Mr. P. Graham Hewett within his Department; if he will indicate on how many occasions Mr. Hewett had meetings with(a) officials of the Port of London Authority and (b) the authority itself in the period 1 January to 31 July; and if he will indicate the purpose of such meetings and the subject matters discussed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Mr. Hewett is an assistant secretary currently employed in the European and general division of the Department. Between January and November this year he was seconded to the Port of London Authority at its request in connection with the financial reconstruction of the authority. The terms of his secondment and his work there were entirely for the PLA; Mr. Hewett, during his endorsement, did not report to my Department.

  Congestion, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to reduce congestion in London; and when he expects to see the first results.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House on 14 December (Official Report, columns 1184–86) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 12 December,Official Report, column 538, what was the cause of the technical fault on the Swansea coastguard line, timed at 15.25; how it was detected; and how it was made good before the 999 call to Swansea timed at 15.35 on 16 August.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information can be obtained only from British Telecom.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 27 November,Official Report, column 81–82, what was the origin of the VHF radio call timed at 15.22.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The radio call, from Milford Haven coastguard to Swansea coastguard, passed information received as a result of a re-routed 999 call, concerning an incident at Ilfracombe. The logged time of 15.25 at Milford Haven reflects completion of both the telephone call and the relaying of the information to Swansea, while the logged time of 15·22 at Swansea reflects the initial radio call from Milford Haven indicating distress information.

  Roads (Funding)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much local authority expenditure he intends to accept for transport supplementary grant in 8
  1990–91; what supplementary credit approvals and what level of annual capital guidelines he will be issuing for local roads expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have decided to accept £466 million of local authority highway expenditure for transport supplementary grant in 1990–91. Grant will be paid on this expenditure at a flate rate of 50 per cent. The total of £233 million TSG is nearly 15 per cent. higher than for 1989–90.

  I have also decided to issue supplementary credit approvals of £50 million and total annual capital guidelines of £352 million, bringing coverage for local roads and parking for 1990–91 to £635 million. The capital allocation for 1989–90 is £513 million.

  Seventy new major (over £1 million) schemes will be supported through TSG for the first time. Among these are the Birmingham Heartlands spine road; a major new link road from the M57 to the A562 in Merseyside; the Littlehampton bypass; further stages of both the Avon ring road and the Leeds inner ring road; as well as the Thornaby bypass and the Beddington-Mitcham relief road other important improvements in both urban and rural areas. Twenty-two of these schemes will directly assist inner cities.

  Some 270 other major schemes will continue to receive TSG support, including 90 in inner-city areas. Most of these are already under construction or are due to start in the current financial year.

  Local authorities have reported completion of 59 TSG-supported schemes costing £245 million in 1988–89 and a start of works on 65 such schemes costing £401 million. During 1989–90, they plan to complete a further 62 schemes costing £290 million and start 76 costing £538 million.

  In deciding the distribution of transport supplementary grant for 1990–91, I have considered carefully the transport policies and programme document submitted by each local highway authority, and have looked at the extent to which authorities' programmes relate to roads of more than local importance. Many local authority roads—such as major urban roads and roads on the primary route network—carry significant amounts of through traffic, and thus complement the trunk road network. Improvements to such roads are important locally because they save lives, reduce congestion and relieve communities from the effects of through traffic. They are also of national benefit by aiding the efficient flow of goods, people and services. TSG reflects the national taxpayer's interest in helping local authorities to improve these roads.

  I have also given special priority this year to schemes which will assist in the regeneration of our inner cities. New and improved roads are often crucial in unlocking inner-city potential, either by removing through traffic from inner-city streets, thereby relieving congestion, increasing safety and improving the environment, or by providing high-quality access to the motorway network for inner-city industry and commerce.

  Many smaller schemes on heavily trafficked roads produce very significant accident savings and other benefits. My right hon. Friend has therefore also taken into account £38 million of expenditure on minor (under £1 million) schemes for grant in 1990–91.

  Annual capital guidelines, together with supplementary credit approvals, will provide local highway authorities with the necessary resources to meet the balance of their

  9
  TSG-accepted expenditure and to undertake a further wide range of improvements and expenditure to which TSG support does not extend.

  The amount of expenditure accepted for TSG, the amount of grant, the annual capital guideline, and the

  Local authority capital expenditure on roads 1990–91

  Authority

  Net expenditure accepted for TSG

  Transport supplementary grant

  Supplementary credit approvals

  Annual capital guideline

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Metropolitan districts

  Bolton

  2·684

  1·342

  0·000

  1·945

  Bury

  1·698

  0·849

  0·000

  1·315

  Manchester

  9·632

  4·816

  0·187

  8·198

  Oldham

  1·228

  0·614

  0·000

  2·443

  Rochdale

  0·378

  0·189

  0·000

  1·036

  Salford

  5·096

  2·548

  0·000

  3·882

  Stockport

  0·916

  0·458

  0·000

  0·959

  Tameside

  0·806

  0·403

  0·000

  1·438

  Trafford

  0·778

  0·389

  0·000

  1·566

  Wigan

  1·744

  0·872

  0·000

  2·065

  Knowsley

  1·792

  0·896

  0·000

  1·397

  Liverpool

  1·500

  0·750

  0·000

  1·397

  St. Helens

  5·882

  2·941

  0·340

  3·007

  Sefton

  0·738

  0·369

  0·282

  0·689

  Wirral

  0·900

  0·450

  0·220

  1·299

  Barnsley

  3·148

  1·574

  0·132

  2·142

  Doncaster

  1·414

  0·707

  0·000

  1·897

  Rotherham

  2·486

  1·243

  0·000

  1·908

  Sheffield

  11·092

  5·546

  0·270

  6·191

  Gateshead

  1·944

  0·972

  0·000

  1·991

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0·124

  0·062

  0·000

  2·920

  North Tyneside

  0·306

  0·153

  0·000

  0·542

  South Tyneside

  1·400

  0·700

  0·000

  1·242

  Sunderland

  1·694

  0·847

  0·000

  3·033

  Birmingham

  15·790

  7·895

  0·744

  9·811

  Coventry

  2·948

  1·474

  0·825

  1·537

  Dudley

  1·150

  0·575

  0·000

  2·272

  Sandwell

  1·504

  0·752

  0·000

  2·672

  Solihull

  0·856

  0·428

  0·000

  1·325

  Walsall

  5·502

  2·751

  2·693

  0·490

  Wolverhampton

  5·684

  2·842

  2·111

  1·748

  Bradford

  4·934

  2·467

  0·127

  4·115

  Calderdale

  0·192

  0·096

  0·000

  1·428

  Kirklees

  0·120

  0·060

  0·000

  0·735

  Leeds

  5·264

  2·632

  0·088

  3·876

  waKefield

  0·314

  0·157

  0·000

  2·457

  Shire Counties

  Avon

  13·428

  6·714

  0·491

  7·230

  Bedfordshire

  5·182

  2·591

  0·132

  3·659

  Berkshire

  3·764

  1·882

  0·239

  5·723

  Buckinghamshire

  2·306

  1·153

  0·000

  2·087

  Cambridgeshire

  3·864

  1·932

  0·000

  4·316

  Cheshire

  8·308

  4·154

  0·000

  6·174

  Cleveland

  10·884

  5·442

  0·000

  6·174

  Cornwall

  5·594

  2·797

  0·000

  4·670

  Cumbria

  4·652

  2·326

  0·000

  3·326

  Derbyshire

  1·164

  0·582

  0·000

  4·353

  Devon

  6·788

  3·394

  0·407

  7·622

  Dorset

  5·732

  2·866

  0·000

  4·544

  Durham

  4·820

  2·410

  0·000

  2·932

  East Sussex

  6·142

  3·071

  0·660

  5·082

  Essex

  13·372

  6·686

  0·373

  11·533

  Gloucestershire

  3·866

  1·933

  0 000

  3·215

  Hampshire

  15·278

  7·639

  5·910

  4·274

  Herefordshire and Worcester

  2·676

  1·338

  0·000

  2·585

  Hertfordshire

  6·050

  3·025

  0·000

  4·700

  Humberside

  10·624

  5·312

  0·000

  7·677

  Isle of Wight

  0·828

  ;0·414

  0·000

  1·202

  Kent

  25·100

  12·550

  9·853

  8·869

  Lancashire

  25·746

  12·873

  0·000

  16·496

  Leicestershire

  6·094

  3 047

  0·000

  4·477

  Lincolnshire

  3·148

  1·574

  0·000

  2·481

  Norfolk

  11·346

  5·673

  2·889

  4·428

  Northamptonshire

  5·698

  2·849

  0·000

  5·115

  Northumberland

  2·962

  1·481

  0·000

  2·265

  10
  supplementary credit approvals which the Government intend to issue for highway expenditure for each local highway authority are set out in the table. Councils are being informed individually today of their own figures.
  11

  Authority

  Net expenditure accepted for TSG

  Transport supplementary grant

  Supplementary credit approvals

  Annual capital guideline

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  North Yorkshire

  6·888

  3·444

  0·000

  4·909

  Nottinghamshire

  3·828

  1·914

  0·000

  3·986

  Oxfordshire

  4·924

  2·462

  0·000

  5·352

  Shropshire

  3·132

  1-566

  0·000

  3·540

  Somerset

  6·312

  3·156

  0·000

  4·486

  Staffordshire

  5·826

  2·913

  0·000

  4·390

  Suffolk

  6·374

  3·187

  0·000

  5·782

  Surrey

  12·660

  6·330

  2·746

  6·359

  Warwickshire

  0·984

  0·492

  0·328

  2·112

  West Sussex

  9·064

  4·532

  0·000

  6·045

  Wiltshire

  5·970

  2·985

  0·000

  4·714

  London Boroughs

  City of London

  0·202

  0·101

  0·000

  0·461

  Barking and Dagenham

  3·496

  1·748

  0·000

  3·622

  Barnet

  0·322

  0·161

  0·000

  0·571

  Bexley

  4·268

  2·134

  0·000

  2·869

  Brent

  0·014

  0·007

  0·000

  0·736

  Bromley

  7·668

  3·834

  0·000

  4·328

  Camden

  0·378

  0·189

  0·000

  1·095

  Croydon

  1·776

  0·888

  0·000

  1·890

  Ealing

  4·858

  2·429

  1·710

  3·592

  Enfield

  9·762

  4·881

  6·480

  0·429

  Greenwich

  0·038

  0·019

  0·000

  1·149

  Hackney

  0·372

  0·186

  0·000

  0·791

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·296

  0·148

  0·000

  1·303

  Haringey

  5·442

  2·721

  2·780

  0·661

  Harrow

  6·428

  3·214

  0·000

  5·668

  Havering

  0·430

  0·215

  0·000

  0·568

  Hillingdon

  5·484

  2·742

  4·917

  2·297

  Hounslow

  0·558

  0·279

  0·279

  0·540

  Islington

  0·336

  0·168

  0·000

  0·549

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·570

  0·285

  0·000

  0·694

  Kingston upon Thames

  1·132

  0·566

  0·000

  1·881

  Lambeth

  0·308

  0·154

  0·000

  0·280

  Lewisham

  3·974

  1·987

  0·000

  3·081

  Merton

  14·200

  7·100

  1·150

  7·282

  Newham

  3·582

  1·791

  0·000

  2·869

  Redbridge

  0·268

  0·134

  0·000

  0·598

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·344

  0·172

  0·000

  0·633

  Southwark

  0·498

  0·249

  0·000

  1·701

  Sutton

  1·180

  0·590

  0·000

  3·168

  Tower Hamlets

  0·182

  0·091

  0·000

  1·007

  Waltham Forest

  0·112

  0·056

  0·000

  0·726

  Wandsworth

  2·022

  1·011

  0·000

  3·429

  Westminster

  0·734

  0·367

  0·000

  4·589

  Western Environmental Improvement Route
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he received to the public consultation on the western environmental improvement route which took place in the spring.

  Mr. Atkins
  Some 7,000 responses in one form or another were received to the consultation exercise. These, together with any further comments made in the context of the London assessment studies, will be taken fully into account in reaching a decision on the future of the Western environmental improvement route.

  Speed Limits
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 84, how many representations he has received in favour of a speed limit (a) higher and (b) lower than 70 miles an hour; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 December 1989]: This year I have received 95 letters concerning the 70 mph
  12
  maximum speed limit. Of these 13 were in favour of a higher limit; 29 asked for a lower limit and 53 for the rigorous enforcement of the existing limit.

  The maximum speed limit on motorways was fully reviewed in 1984 and 1985. I am satisfied that the existing limit allows for safe and sensible maximum speeds in normal driving conditions and gives a correct balance between the need for fast, convenient travel and safety.

  Car Pollution
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has conducted a comparative study of the pollutant gases and particulate matter released from(a) cars run on leaded petrol, (b) cars run on unleaded petrol, (c) cars fitted with catalytic converters run on unleaded patrol and (d) diesel engined cars, each in terms of weight carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide per mile.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 December 1989]: The Department has not conducted a comparative study of the type suggested, but the following points may be of

  13
  assistance. There should be no difference in emissions, other than of lead, between non-catalyst vehicles running on leaded or unleaded petrol. Sulphur emissions are directly related to the sulphur content of fuel, which is regulated in the United Kingdom to 0·3 per cent. by weight for diesel and 0·2 per cent. by weight for petrol. Particulate emissions from petrol engines, provided they are not worn out and burning lubricating oil, are negligible compared with particulate emissions from diesel engines.

  Co (g/mile)

  HC + NOx (g/mile)

  Particulate (g/miles)

  EC Directive 83/351 (the current non catalyst standard)

  23–24

  7·6–11·1

  No standard until October 1990

  EC Directive 89/458 (the future standard to be applied from 1992)

  7·6

  2·0

  0·44 (diesels only)

  The standards set by directive 89/458 will be revised when the emission directives are consolidated in the near future. The consolidation will include a revision of the drive cycle used in the test. At present it is 2·58 miles long and simulates urban driving. The revised cycle will he 6·8 miles long and include some high-speed driving. It is likely that a reduction of about 27 per cent. in the particulate limit will also be included in the consolidation.

  Health Services
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has had to date from organisations treating and providing services for the elderly and chronically sick about the effect of the current National Health Service plans, and how many of these representations are in favour of the proposed changes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have received a large number of representations from a wide variety of sources. Many ask questions, many support some or all of our proposals, some refer only to specific aspects. It is not possible to distinguish individual representations in the way the hon. Member requests.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Violence to Women
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to ensure that women are made less vulnerable to crimes of violence through a review of the present framework of legislation and its application in order to sustain a more appropriate relationship between the damage done to victims and the penalties awarded to convicted criminals.

  Mr. Cope
  The criminal law is reviewed on a continuous basis, but the application of the legislation concerned is a matter for the courts to determine, taking into account all the circumstances of each individual case. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the maximum penalty in Northern Ireland for attempted rape has recently been

  1989

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Number of searches

  Total number of searches carried out

  19

  56

  40

  53

  32

  Total number of inmates searched

  15

  31

  24

  25

  22

  Number of prisoners searched once

  11

  17

  15

  15

  16

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  4

  12

  8

  7

  5

  14
  In general, the same gaseous emission standards are achieved by both petrol and diesel engines. The emission standards on the current urban cycle type approval tests are expressed in grammes per test (g/test). These standards, recalculated in grammes per mile (g/mile), are as follows:

  increased to life imprisonment, and that any sentence regarded by the Attorney-General as too lenient can now be the subject of a reference to the Court of Appeal.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what function is served by the Northern Ireland negotiating body on teachers' salaries.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  To negotiate the remuneration and terms and conditions of service of teachers in recognised schools in Northern Ireland. It is also the vehicle for consultation by the Department of Education on matters relating to teachers' superannuation.

  Prison Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many strip searches were made on female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry monthly since July, giving the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search;

  (2) how many strip searches were made on female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry, monthly since July; giving the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; on how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search.

  Mr. Cope
  Details of the numbers of and reasons for strip-searches made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry from March 1989 to June 1989 have already been provided—Official Report, 28 July 1989. Details from July 1989 to November 1989 are as follows:
  15

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Number of prisoners searched more than twice

  —

  2

  1

  3

  1

  Reasons for search

  First admission on remand/awaiting trial

  4

  9

  9

  17

  11

  First admission on sentence/final discharge

  9

  24

  19

  12

  9

  Attending remand court

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attending trial

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inter-prison visits

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Pre-release home leave

  5

  20

  9

  6

  3

  Compassionate home leave

  —

  —

  —

  4

  2

  Visits to outside hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Returning from bail application

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attendance at court for bail

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  Fines paid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Working out scheme

  —

  2

  2

  12

  4

  No prohibited article was found during these searches and no prisoner refused to be searched.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the dates of the five meetings of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference between 1 January and 31 July 1990.

  Mr. Brooke
  No dates have yet been fixed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Meal Requirements)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will include in the relevant code of practice a requirement for the provision of drinks to prisoners on remand or in custody, additional to the existing statutory right to have three meals in any 24-hour period.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The term "meals" in the code of practice is always interpreted as including drinks, and the custody officer will respond to reasonable requests for drinks between meals. This will be clarified in the revised code which we are now preparing.

  Vehicle Security
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of all reported crimes are listed as thefts of, or thefts from, motor vehicles;

  (2) what percentage of offenders involved in theft of, or thefts from, motor vehicles are apprehended; what percentage are convicted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available published information can be found in the annual Command Paper, "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales": the latest issue, for 1988, is Cm. 847, and a copy is available in the Library. In 1988 about one quarter of all notifiable crimes recorded by the police were thefts of, or from, motor vehicles, and about a quarter of these offences were cleared up. The number of persons prosecuted and found guilty of thefts of or from motor vehicles in 1988 is given in the following table:
  16

  Persons proceeded against and found guilty of thefts of and from motor vehicles—England and Wales 1988

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  Percentage found guilty

  Theft of motor vehicles

  6.111

  4,080

  67

  Theft from motor vehicles

  10,796

  8,316

  77

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning the implementation of British summer time throughout the year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following the publication in June of the Green Paper "Summer Time—A Consultation Document" (Cm. 722) a total of 30,797 representations have been received to date. We hope to have completed an assessment of them in the near future.

  Prison Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the number of body searches, cell searches and cell changes and strip searches carried out on each of the category A prisoners being held at Her Majesty's Prison, Durham monthly, since July, if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search.

  Mr. Mellor
  Records are not kept of the occasions when rub down searching or "frisking" is carried out in prisons and it is not the practice to disclose detailed information about security arrangements such as that requested about the frequency of cell searches and cell changes.

  Establishments are not required to record all strip searches and comprehensive records are available only in respect of category A women prisoners, of whom there were four in Durham prison between 1 July and 30 November. The number of occasions on which each was strip searched in each month during this period is shown in the following table:
  17

  Prisoner

  A

  B

  C

  D

  July

  —

  —

  2

  —

  August

  1

  1

  —

  1

  September

  1

  3

  1

  4

  October

  —

  4

  4

  3

  November

  2

  2

  2

  2

  No unauthorised article was found. On no occasion did the prisoners refuse to be strip-searched.

  Strip-searching is a routine security measure to which all inmates— male and female—are subject, both for its deterrent effect and as a means of discovering unauthorised articles.

  Falmouth Police Station
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet made a decision on Falmouth's new police station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I will write to my hon. Friend about a new police station at Falmouth, when decisions on the major building programme for 1992–93 have been made early next year.

  Chilean Residents
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Chilean nationals resident in the United Kingdom have(a) permanent residence, (b) student visas (c) occupational leave and (d) refugee status.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not directly available in the form requested. Annual figures of the number of Chileans accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom, and of the number admitted to the United Kingdom as students, are published each year in "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" (most recently in tables 22 and I, respectively, of the 1988 volume, Cm. 726). Annual figures of the number of Chileans granted refugee status in the United Kingdom, or exceptional leave, are published in the Home Office statistical bulletin "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom" (most recently in tables 7 and 8 of the 1988 volume, Issue 25/89). Copies of both these publications are in the Library.

  Jamaican Nationals
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Jamaican nationals have(a) been interviewed and (b) refused entry to the United Kingdom for each month since January 1989; and what are the annual figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table. All Jamaican citizens are interviewed on admission. Figures for those subjected to further examination are not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Jamaican citizens admitted to, and refused leave to enter and removed from, the United Kingdom

  Year/month

  Total admitted1

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  1979

  35,000

  48

  1980

  31,000

  82

  1981

  31,000

  54

  18

  Year/month

  Total admitted1

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  1982

  30,000

  63

  1983

  30,200

  60

  1984

  28,600

  44

  1985

  29,700

  69

  1986

  30,500

  131

  1987

  31,600

  269

  1988

  30,600

  424

  1989

  January

  2,600

  75

  February

  1,700

  79

  March

  2,000

  82

  April

  2,200

  71

  May

  2,300

  59

  June

  3,800

  65

  July

  4,500

  75

  August

  3,900

  55

  September

  3,300

  72

  October

  n.y.a.

  58

  1 The 1989 figures are provisional.

  n.y.a. Not yet available.

  Pub Bombings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers of the west midlands serious crime squad have been suspended; how many of these were involved in the preparation of evidence that led to the prosecution of the Birmingham Six; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands that five officers who have previously been members of the serious crime squad are currently suspended from duty, and that none of these was involved in interviewing those convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times, and under what powers, officers of the Metropolitan police have interviewed either Paul Hill or Gerard Conlon since their acquittal on charges arising from the Guildford and Woolwich public house bombings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that Metropolitan police officers have stopped Paul Hill once since his acquittal. The examination was part of routine checks at Heathrow airport under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to reduce the level of support currently available to civil defence community volunteers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government maintain their commitment to community volunteers and support such activity through civil defence grant aid, but expenditure incurred by local authorities on volunteer arrangements must be balanced against that on other statutory civil defence functions. It is the aim of a current review of community volunteer schemes to ensure that effective and realistic arrangements are in place.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the county councils and
  19
  district councils in England and Wales which do not conform to regulations in respect of emergency control centres in accordance with the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983.

  Mr. John Patten
  Statistics in connection with the provision of local authority emergency centres were given in "A report on implementation of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 in England and Wales at October 1988" which was published in January 1989 and a copy of which is in the Library. Advances on the position shown in that report are now being considered in the light of more recent information provided by local authorities.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the need to ensure that deaf people have access to parliamentary programmes.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received representations from right hon. and hon. Members and others on behalf of viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing, requesting subtitling or use of sign language in news, current affairs and parliamentary programmes. The Broadcasting Bill contains provisions to encourage more subtitling in programmes generally.

  Police Videos
  Mr. Tony Banks
  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 on the reasons behind the decision to have police video cameras present at Thames magistrates court on 12 September; and as to what use will be made of the video produced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that there was considered to have been a significant possibility that a demonstration outside the court on that day would result in disorder. It was decided to video the demonstration to provide contemporaneous evidence to support any prosecutions which might have ensued. In the event the demonstration passed off quietly and it was not necessary to retain the video tape for evidental or any other purposes.

  Mr. Leroy Russell
  Mr. Tony Banks
  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 on the action being taken by the Metropolitan police at Forest Gate, London E7, to return the £960 belonging to Mr. Leroy Russell of 90 Gwendoline avenue, London E13.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that this money was seized from Mr. Russell's home by officers of the Metropolitan police following his arrest there on 25 July 1988. The police will retain the money for as long as the matter remains sub-judice.

  Police
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will produce a table showing the average age of police constables by police authority area.
  20
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 December 1989]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Police Authority Area

  Average age, Constable rank as at 31 December 19881

  Avon and Somerset

  33

  Bedfordshire

  32

  Cambridgeshire

  33

  Cheshire

  33

  Cleveland

  33

  Cumbria

  32

  Derbyshire

  33

  Devon and Cornwall

  34

  Dorset

  34

  Durham

  32

  Dyfed Powys

  33

  Essex

  33

  Gloucestershire

  34

  Greater Manchester

  32

  Gwent

  32

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  32

  Humberside

  33

  Kent

  33

  Lancashire

  34

  Leicestershire

  32

  Lincolnshire

  34

  London, City of

  33

  Merseyside

  33

  Metropolitan Police

  31

  Norfolk

  35

  Northamptonshire

  32

  Northumbria

  34

  North Wales

  33

  North Yorkshire

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  31

  South Wales

  33

  South Yorkshire

  32

  Staffordshire

  32

  Suffolk

  33

  Surrey

  33

  Sussex

  34

  Thames Valley

  32

  Warwickshire

  35

  West Mercia

  33

  West Midlands

  32

  West Yorkshire

  32

  Wiltshire

  33

  1 This is the latest date for which analysis of age and rank is available. An analysis of England and Wales for all ranks can be found in Appendix 12 of HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary's Annual Report 1988, a copy of which can be found in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mining Engineering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department gives to Britain's mining engineering industry in its efforts to improve its export performance.

  Mr. Redwood
  The DTI and FCO provide a wide range of information, advice and services to firms involved in exporting from the United Kingdom and these are available to the mining engineering industry where appropriate. The DTI's projects and export policy division provides particular support for British companies bidding for major overseas projects.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total net cost or contribution of the nationalised industries within his responsibility in the period of 1974 to 1979; and what was the net contribution of these industries in the period 1979 to the latest available year, taking account of both corporation tax and receipts from privatisation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The way in which the expenditure plans and financing requirements of the nationalised industries was recorded changed in 1976–77 when the concept of an external financing requirement was introduced. Before that published figures concentrated on the capital requirements of the industries, whether or not they could be financed from internal resources or required Government or market funding. Figures for the two periods 1974–75 to 1978–79 and 1979–80 to 1987–88 are therefore not available on a comparable basis.

  The following figures show, for the nationalised industries for which the Secretary of State had responsibility in these periods, outturn capital expenditure for 1974–75 and for later years the net effect on the public expenditure totals, taking account of net privatisation receipts. Corporation tax payments do not affect the public expenditure total. Information on tax paid is available in the published report and accounts of the relevant nationalised industries and has not been included in the following totals.

  For 1974–75 and 1975–76 outturn capital expenditure was £2,925 million.
  For 1976–77 to 1978–79 the net effect was an addition of £2,616 million to the public expenditure total.
  For 1979–80 to 1987–88, the last year for which outturn figures are available, the net effect was an addition of £591 million.

  The industries covered by this answer are British Aerospace, British Shipbuilders, British Steel Corporation, Post Office (including Telecommunications and National Girobank until separation), British Telecom and Girobank, the receipts from the sale of shares in British Aerospace and British Telecom are included in the figures, but the sale of shares in British Steel took place after 1987–88.

  Sources: White Papers for the Government's public expenditure plans for the period 1975 to 1988, Command numbers 6721–II, 7439, 7841, 8175, 8494, 1 and II, 8789 II, 9143 II, 9428 II, 9702 II, Cm. 56 II, Cm. 288 I, Cm. 605, Cm. 621.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the net cost or contribution of the nationalised industries within his responsibility in 1978–79.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The outturn financing requirements of all nationalised industries in 1978–79 were published in the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81 to 1983–84", Cm. 7841, in March 1980. The net effect on the public expenditure totals of the requirements for British Shipbuilders, British Aerospace, British Steel Corporation, and the Post Office (including figures for Telecommunications and Girobank) was an addition of £845 million.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the net cost or contribution of those industries within his responsibility which are still nationalised or companies which were state owned in 1988, or the last available year.
  22
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest available outturn figures for contributions to the public expenditure total for nationalised industries and wholly Government-owned companies within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were published in January 1989 in chapters 5 and 21 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92" Cm. 605 and 621. The net effect in 1987–88 of British Shipbuilders, British Steel Corporation, Post Office and Girobank taken together was a reduction of £271 million.

  European Patent Office
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts he is making to ensure that patent protection obtainable from the European patent office by smaller firms and academic institutions in England and Wales is as comprehensive and effective as that available to other applicants in other parts of the world and particularly the United States of America.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We believe that all applicants, including small firms and academic institutions, can obtain patent protection from the European patent office which is already as comprehensive and effective as that available in other parts of the world including the United States of America. Differences do however exist between the national patent laws of different countries and we are actively involved in international negotations to minimise them.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contracts, including those relating to privatisations, the Government have awarded since June 1979 to accountancy firms held to be lacking the necessary professional conduct, efficiency and competence by the disciplinary committees of the accountancy profession.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on Government contracts with accountancy firms is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the firms criticised by the joint disciplinary scheme run by the accountancy bodies; and whether any firms or their successors criticised by the joint disciplinary scheme have subsequently supplied personnel for the joint disciplinary scheme committees hearing allegations of unprofessional conduct by other firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual reports of the joint disciplinary scheme, copies of which are in the Library. Membership of the scheme's committees is a matter for its executive committee.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many seats on the auditing practices committee have been held by individuals from accountancy firms sued by the Government for negligence, criticised by his Department's inspectors in their reports and criticised by the joint disciplinary scheme;

  (2) whether any accountancy firms reprimanded by the joint disciplinary scheme have subsequently been allowed to have representatives on the accounting standards committee, the auditing practices committee or any of the working parties.
  23
  Mr. Redwood
  As I explained in the replies I gave on 27 November at column 92–93 and 13 December at column 702 to questions by the hon. Member, membership of the auditing practices committee and the accounting standards committee is a matter for the consultative committee of Accountancy Bodies. Members of working parties are appointed by the relevant committees.

  ECGD
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  Based on the findings of the Kemp review of future status options for ECGD businesses, that the Cardiff-based insurance services (covering exports on short-term credit) and the London-based project group (handling exports of projects for capital goods on medium-term credit) should be split and run as separate organisations, the Government's intention is that insurance services be converted into a company and that private capital should be introduced quickly thereafter. These changes are being made to enable ECGD to take advantage of the opportunities offered by 1992 and to meet the increased competition which will arise. They will also ensure that its intra-Community business is maintained. Equalising the legal and economic framework for credit insurance in Europe, with private sector capital, is a necessary condition for fostering United Kingdom trade within the Community.

  The company will follow the normal practice of credit insurance companies operating in the commercial market in the use of reinsurance. The Government's aim is that this should be obtained from the private market. However, I recognise that in relation to certain of the political risks currently covered by insurance services there is at present insufficient private market capacity.

  Thus, in order to maintain facilities for exporters, the Government are prepared to see a transitional period of up to three years from the date of the introduction of private capital during which a reinsurance arrangement will be in place between Her Majesty's Government and the company. During this period the company will work to complete adequate reinsurance arrangements with the private market with the aim of phasing out residual Government reinsurance.

  When the new company is formed the intention is that staff who transfer to the company should do so on broadly comparable terms to those which they presently enjoy as Crown servants. ECGD staff will be asked whether they wish to remain within the Civil Service, or to transfer to the new company. ECGD will use its best endeavours to meet their wishes where these are consistent with the business needs of ECGD and the company.

  These changes will require legisation at the earliest opportunity. It is the intention that the new company be established on 1 April 1991. Advisors will be appointed shortly to assist ECGD in carrying out necessary preparatory work.

  Over the last three years, ECGD's insurance services have introduced major improvements to the range and quality of its services. It has developed a unique underwriting system and rapid credit limit service designed to meet the needs of its customers in the 1990s, particularly in the single European market. The changes I have
  24
  outlined for the insurance services group are vital to enable it to meet the challenges which will be thrown up by the single European market and so ensure that we develop further what is a significant national asset for our exporters. I am confident that the changes I am proposing are the best way to secure jobs for the future.

  In relation to ECGD's project group, the Government have decided that export credit and financing support should continue to be provided.

  The ECGD's project support activities will remain within the Government, but the precise form of ECGD's organisation—whether it should remain a Department or acquire agency status—will be decided as soon as possible.

  The Government are anxious to reduce the costs which have been associated with ECGD support for project exports in recent years. It will, therefore, continue to press hard internationally, for multilateral agreement aimed at eliminating subsidies which distort export credit and aid. In addition, to reduce the risk of losses in the future, radical new methods for managing ECGD's political risk portfolio will be introduced. Substantial premium increases for project business will be necessary, especially for business in the higher risk markets to ensure that ECGD premiums are better matched to risk. I believe that exporters will accept the need for this and will regard it as preferable to the withdrawal of facilities.

  The changes I have outlined are essential if ECGD is to be able to maintain and improve the quality of support it currently provides to United Kingdom exporters. The overwhelming majority of the representations which have been made by interested outside parties have fully supported these changes. I commend them to the House.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his current projections on the expected job losses at the National Engineering Laboratory and the date by which those reductions in staffing will be achieved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The business plan for NEL and the resources it will need, is being prepared. Current projections are that the laboratory will require about 400 staff in total and the necessary staff reductions will take place during 1990.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he has received and appraised the projected business plan for the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he proposes to announce his intentions arising from the projected business plan on the future of the National Engineering Laboratory.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have not yet seen the business plan for the National Engineering Laboratory, but I will see it in due course. The contents of the plan will be commercially confidential and I do not intend to make an announcement about it.

  Alcohol Duty
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much(a) excise duty and (b) import duty is levied on a one litre bottle of whisky containing 40 per cent. alcohol imported into the United Kingdom from Japan.
  25
  Mr. Redwood
  The excise duty levied on a one litre bottle of whisky containing 40 per cent. alcohol imported into the United Kingdom from Japan is £6·31. The import duty is 14p.

  Women's Employment Schemes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what submissions he has made to the European Commission, whether via normal interdepartmental channels or directly to the European Commission, to seek continuation of the present level of funding plus allowance for inflation for women's employment and workshop schemes; and what response has been received.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the same question by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has for decentralising the Civil Service establishment from London to the regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ryder
  As announced by right hon. Friend, the then Paymaster General, on 31 March 1988 (column 610–11), the Government's policy for relocating Civil Service work does not involve targets set by the centre. Departments review the location of their work in accordance with central guidelines, and their Ministers announce their decisions. Since the beginning of 1988, plans to locate or relocate over 14,000 posts away from London and the south-east have been announced, and further announcements are expected in due course.

  Civil Service (Privatisation)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that in any future privatisation of parts of the Civil Service, staff will be given the option of transferring and remaining within the Civil Service.

  £ billion

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Cash figures

  0.5

  0.6

  0.7

  0.9

  1.1

  1.0

  Real terms figures (1988–89 prices)

  1.0

  1.1

  1.2

  1.3

  1.4

  1.3

  Corresponding figures for earlier years are not readily available.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the taxation of benefits to employees accruing from the provision of workplace nurseries and creches.

  Mr. Major
  Employees pay income tax on their earnings whether received in cash or in kind. A subsidised place in a workplace nursery or creche is a benefit in kind and any subsidy is a proper subject for tax. The costs to the employer of subsidising workplace nurseries—or otherwise financing childcare for employees—is allowable against corporation tax.
  26
  Mr. Ryder
  No. Cases differ, and need to be judged on their particular merits.

  Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report an estimate of the increase in real disposable incomes as a result of the separate taxation of husbands and wives at current rates of income, taxation and inflation; and what proportion of the total is expected to accrue to those in the upper and lower quarters and tenths.

  Mr. Lilley
  The decrease in income tax liabilities in 1990–91 due to the introduction of independent taxation is provisionally estimated to be about £950 million. That would lead to an increase in real disposable income of less than half a per cent. Estimates of its distribution are not available in the form requested, but about a third of the benefit would be to individuals with incomes of less than £5,000 a year.

  Those estimates make no allowance for possible behavioural effects. The effect of independent taxation on the composite rate of tax on bank and building society interest will be taken into account in the rate set for the year 1991–92.

  Department of Transport (Expenditure)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out general Government expenditure by the Department of Transport for the years 1974–75 to 1983–84, in cash and real terms, consistent with the figures for 1984–85 to 1992–93 that are set out in tables 3 and 4 of the 1989 Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Tables 3 and 4 of the 1989 Autumn Statement public expenditure press notice set out figures for central Government's own expenditure, by Department. Figures for central Government's own expenditure by the Department of Transport in the years 1978–79 to 1983–84 consistent with those given in the 1989 Autumn Statement are as follows:

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now review the policies of taxation in relation to benefits to employees from the provision of workplace nurseries and other child care facilities by employers.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) on 3 November at column 361.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the components of the trade weighted index for pound sterling's exchange value; and what precentage of the weighting is accounted for by currencies linked to the exchange rate mechanism.
  27
  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the "Economic Progress Report" for December 1988, published by her Majesty's Treasury, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Of those countries represented in the index, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Republic of Ireland, Spain and Denmark participate in the exchange rate mechanism.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are in post at the current time; what the figure was 10 years ago; what was the average pay of a civil servant in 1979 and what it is at the present time; what are the figures in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  There were 567,073 civil servants in post on 1 July 1989 compared with 732,275 on 1 April 1979. The average pay of a civil servant, taken as the pay of an administrative officer—the grade with by far the largest number of staff in post—at the top of the scale was £3,627 in April 1979 and £8,305 in October 1989; that represents an increase of 129 per cent. or, after adjusting for inflation, a real increase of 14 per cent.

  Capital Account
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the financing of the capital account is made up of(a) the sale of United Kingdom businesses to organisations based abroad and (b) other categories, for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The value of acquisitions by overseas companies in 1988 financed from overseas shown in "British Business" (19 September 1989, page 20, table 5), is a substantial part of the figures of direct investment by overseas residents within the total capital transactions account shown in table 8.1 of the "UK Balance of Payments", 1989 edition (the CSO Pink Book). Copies of those publications are in the Library.

  Medical Insurance
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to hasten the implementation of the provision of the Finance Act to introduce a tax allowance to help elderly subscribers to medical insurance; and what representations he has received from insurance companies expressing concern about their ability to meet customers' demands for tax relief to take effect from 6 April 1990.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue has been consulting the private medical insurers on draft regulations to ensure a smooth introduction of the relief. I understand that all the major insurers are planning to offer contracts by 6 April 1990 that will meet the requirements for the relief.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to limit(a) the total sum or (b) the proportion of the sums originally voted which may be carried forward by a Deaprtment from one financial year to another as a result of (i) capital or (ii) running costs underspends; and if he will make a statement.
  28
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The end-year flexibility scheme for central Government capital expenditure enables Departments to carry forward underspends of up to 5 per cent. of their eligible provision plus any carryover entitlement from the previous year not taken up in a Supplementary Estimate, or £2 million—whichever is the greater. The end-year flexibility scheme for running costs enables qualifying Departments to carry forward underspends of up to ·5 per cent. of their eligible running costs provision or £50,000—whichever is the greater.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are taking to acquire additional information technology skills from the private sector.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following a procurement exercise involving 12 potential suppliers and a very thorough evaluation of proposals, HM Customs and Excise has, with the assistance of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, selected Logica Communications and Electronic Systems Limited, to provide staff to assist with the maintenance and enhancement of existing IT systems and the development of new projects, and BIS Applied Systems Limited, to assist in the area of project management and control.

  The first project to benefit from those arrangements will be VAT II, which has been set up to develop a replacement for the existing VAT system initially implemented in 1973.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the non-publication of forecasts of overseas sector capital flows has on the process of making projections, in the Autumn Statement or elsewhere, of the future exchange rate.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: Although forecasts of overseas capital flows are not published, the Treasury does look carefully at the capital account as part of the detailed figuring underlying the published forecast.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the implications for the enforcement of regulations concerning the wildlife trade and the implementation of CITES of the effect on specialist skills, including intelligence gathering and criminal identification, resulting from the proposed move of the Customs and Excise endangered species branch from London to Southend.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: There is no reason to suppose that the proposed relocation from London to Southend of the small group of Customs and Excise headquarters staff dealing with import and export controls on endangered species will have any significant effect on the level of enforcement.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the exchange of letters with British Aerospace was made available by the Inland Revenue to Touche Ross when it acted for the National Audit Office.
  29
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: The National Audit Office did not ask the Inland Revenue to make available any papers.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to destroy publicly all ivory stocks seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: No. I do not think that it would be sensible to commit Customs to a policy of invariably destroying, whether in public or not, all ivory seized by it as illegally imported. I shall, however, ensure that it continues to dispose of all such goods in a manner acceptable to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has overall responsibility for endangered species policy in the United Kingdom. Certainly, none will be disposed of in a way that offends current conservation principles.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will name each of the chairmen of the nationalised industries; and if he will give details of salaries and other remunerations applicable to each.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply 7 December 1989, columns 311–12]: I regret that there were errors in the table of my earlier reply. The correct information requested is set out in the following table.

  Chairman

  Nationalised Industry

  Salary1 £

  Sir Robert Haslam

  British Coal

  160,000

  Sir Robert Reid

  British Railways Board

  90,950

  Mr. C. Campbell

  British Shipbuilders

  21,675

  Mr. D. Ingman

  British Waterways Board

  33,700

  Mr. C. Tugendhat

  Civil Aviation Authority

  60,000

  Sir Philip Jones

  Electricity Council

  94,380

  Lord Marshall

  Central Electricity Generating Board

  111,000

  Mr. J. C. Smith

  Eastern Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. J. F. Harris

  East Midlands Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. J. J. Wilson

  London Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. B. H. Weston

  Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. B. S. Townsend

  Midlands Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. D. Morris

  North Eastern Electricity Board

  80,000

  Mr. K. Harvey

  North Western Electricity Board

  49,005

  Mr. G. A. Squair

  South Eastern Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. D. A. Ross

  Southern Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. J. W. Evans

  South Wales Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. A. W. Nicol

  South Western Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. J. Porteous

  Yorkshire Electricity Board

  57,390

  Mr. W. Newton

  London Regional Transport

  80,000

  Mr. M. Joughin

  North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board

  39,750

  Sir Bryan Nicholson

  Post Office

  102,000

  Mr. I. S. Irwin

  Scottish Transport Group

  59,825

  Mr. D. J. Miller

  South of Scotland Electricity Board

  66,900

  Mr. B. Henderson

  Anglian Water Plc2

  43,860

  Sir Michael Straker

  Northumbrian Water Group Plc2

  30,638

  Mr. W. Grove

  North West Water Group Plc2

  61,275

  Mr. J. Bellak

  Severn Trent Plc2

  49,020

  Mr. W. Courtney

  Southern Water Plc2

  43,860

  Mr. K. Court

  South West Water Plc2

  51,063

  Mr. R. Watts

  Thames Water Plc2

  49,020

  Mr. J. Jones

  Welsh Water Plc2

  43,860

  Mr. W. Hood

  Wessex Water Plc2

  40,850

  Mr. G. Jones

  Yorkshire Water Plc2

  54,825

  30

  1 Actual salaries. Some Chairmen are part-time.

  2 The 10 Water Authorities were vested as Companies Act companies owned by Government on 1 September, and privatised on 12 December.

  Chairmen are also eligible for performance bonus schemes with a maximum limit of 25 per cent. of salary.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Microwave Ovens
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to encourage retailers to provide an inquiry and advisory service to purchasers of microwave ovens in the light of his Department's recent report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have encouraged the Retail Consortium to ensure that its members stock the updated instructions for the safe use of domestic microwave ovens issued by oven manufacturers.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has recorded any incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle born since animal proteins were withdrawn from cattle rations.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle his Ministry is currently monitoring to assess the possible vertical transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; what the parameters are of this research; and if he will make a statement on progress of the research to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Three hundred and thirty progeny of BSE-affected dams and the same number of control animals are being monitored on three of the Ministry's experimental husbandry farms. The study is designed to determine whether maternal transmission occurs either in utero and/or in the immediate period after birth and, if so, at what incidence. The animals will be maintained on experimental husbandry farms until seven years of age unless death or the need to cull intervenes. The brains of all animals will be examined histopathologically and all carcases will be destroyed. Because of the long incubation period for this disease, results will not be forthcoming for some time.

  Casualty Animals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to encourage the development of on-farm slaughter facilities for casualty animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The legislation already permits on-farm slaughter of casualty animals. It is an offence to transport casualties if by reason of their unfitness it will cause them unnecessary suffering.

  Dairy Herd
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to reduce the incidence of campylobacter and leptospira infection in the national dairy herd.
  31
  Mr. Maclean
  There are no statutory or voluntary measures relating to campylobacter in cattle. However, the veterinary investigation service will, on request, provide assistance in diagnosis.

  A chargeable voluntary component in the cattle health scheme provides herds infected with leptospira hardjo with a programme to control or eliminate infection.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the use of quinolone antibiotics as prophylactics.

  Mr. Maclean
  Products containing quinolone are not licensed in the United Kingdom for prophylactic purposes.

  Animals and Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks on the import of live animals and birds will be available after 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is intended that those from non-EC countries will be imported only via approved frontier inspection posts, for both animal health and welfare purposes. The European Commission has yet to make any proposals to the Council for animal health controls on intra-Community trade in live animals and birds after 1992. The Commission has submitted proposals on the protection of animals during transport but negotiations on these has yet to begin.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what figures are easily available regarding the importation of both pet birds and captive birds for 1988; and how many birds in each category(a) were dead on arrival and (b) died in quarantine.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures have been compiled for the numbers of commercially imported birds arriving at approved quarantine premises during 1988. These will be available very shortly and will include mortalities both on arrival and during the statutory quarantine period.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which voluntary organisations received grants from his Department for each year since 1986; and for what purposes these were given.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since 1986 the following voluntary organisations have received grants from my Department for the purposes shown:

  (i) National Proficiency Tests Council—to enable the Council to devise, promote and maintain standards of proficiency tests in agriculture and horticulture in England and Wales.

  (ii) The National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs—to help towards the cost of the Federation's activities in agricultural education.

  (iii) Farming and Wildlife Trust—to make provision for the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the countryside.

  (iv) Society for the Responsible Use of Resources in Agriculture and on the Land (RURAL)—to promote exchanges of views through the organisation of conferences in all aspects of rural land use and the use of resources in agriculture.

  (v) The Countryside Commission for "Operation Silvanus"—to promote the better management of existing woodlands on farms.

  32

  (vi) British Trout Association—to promote exports of United Kingdom farmed trout products to targeted third countries.

  Lead-contaminated Feed
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to assist livestock producers whose cattle have been cleared following tests for lead-contaminated feed but are unable to obtain slaughtering facilities for their fat cattle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  In all our discussions with the industry on this incident, we have repeatedly assured all concerned that meat derived from animals cleared for slaughter conforms to the rigorous standards laid down by the Department of Health and is perfectly fit for human consumption.

  We are urgently carrying out scientific work to see whether the restrictions currently attaching to the slaughter of such animals can be eased without risk to public health. I shall ease the restrictions just as soon as it is shown to be safe to do so.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will amend the statutory environmental monitoring programme of the Sellafield reprocessing plant as a condition of its authorisation, to require British Nuclear Fuels Limited to take and analyse samples and carry out external exposure rate measurements on the four-mile intertidal stretch of the River Esk in Cumbria and publish the results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  BNFL's statutory environmental monitoring programme already includes gamma dose rate measurements at Hall Waberthwaite in the intertidal stretch of the Esk. It also includes ground level river bank monitoring in the area. The results are submitted to the Ministry and to the Department of the Environment and BNFL publishes an annual report. The Ministry is not aware of any factors which would justify amendment of the programme in this area. However, the programe is continually under review.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he has assessed the public radiation exposure of people who live close to the four-mile intertidal stretch of the River Esk in Cumbria; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will undertake a detailed radiological assessment of public exposure to radioactivity in the four-mile intertidal stretch of the River Esk in Cumbria, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The River Esk has been monitored closely for more than 20 years. The Ministry carefully studies the time spent by people close to the Esk and we have found that the length of time people spend regularly there is very small. We have recently completed a new survey and the report on that work is being prepared for publication.

  Our routine monitoring includes a number of locations where regular measurements of external dose rates are carried out. These are locations which are representative of the highest levels of external exposure which are likely to result from public occupancy of intertidal areas. Our

  33
  report for 1988 records measurements at 11 locations in the Ravenglass estuary (which includes the Esk) and most locations were monitored monthly. For the Esk six locations were monitored. Detailed statistics of this monitoring including estimates of public radiation exposures at these locations are published annually.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates when his Ministry has reassessed habit surveys of members of the public around the Sellafield reprocessing plant in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  Habit surveys in respect of discharges from Sellafield have been carried out in each of the last 10 years except for 1980.

  Agricultural Training
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the review of agricultural training announced by his predecessor on 20 March is now complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  When my predecessor and his fellow Agriculture Ministers appointed Mr. John E. Smith as chairman of the agricultural training board in March this year and at the same time asked him to undertake a review of agricultural training, the scale and complexity of his task was widely realised. That Mr. Smith has completed this review within the very tight time scale allowed is a real reflection of the commitment with which he has approached the job.

  On behalf of my fellow Agriculture Ministers, I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Smith for the expeditious and thorough way in which he has conducted his review, for the breadth of the consultations that he has undertaken in such a short space of time and, above all, for the clarity and incisiveness of his report and of his recommendations. I am arranging for the report to he published straight away and for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  In his terms of reference Mr. Smith was called on to report to Agriculture Ministers and, on their behalf, I have informed Mr. Smith that he can go ahead with the relocation of the board's headquarters from West Wickham in Kent to the national agricultural centre at Stoneleigh in Warwickshire and put in hand the new countrywide structures based on 14 local agricultural training boards in England and Scottish and Welsh training boards. Through this restructuring the Government will be looking for a greater contribution from the industry to the board's costs and I therefore welcome Mr. Smith's own recognition of the industry's responsibilities in this respect.

  As other recommendations in the report touch on interests of other colleagues and have longer-term implications, the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and I will, in conjunction with the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, for Employment and for the Environment, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, be giving detailed consideration to those proposals.

  Plant Breeding Institute
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the past 10 years, he or his predecessors, either by direction or informally, secured changes in the accounting conventions followed by the Plant Breeding Institute; and if he will make a statement.
  34
  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Plant Breeding Institute was a registered charity and a grant-aided institute of the Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC). In 1987 its plant breeding assets were sold, and the remainder of the institute then became part of the AFRC Institute of Plant Science Research (IPSR), also a registered charity. The council's accounting convention follows Treasury rules for Government accounting, revised from time to time, which are in the public domain. The IPSR charity now finances its activities from the proceeds of the 1987 sale of assets. Although it no longer receives grant-in-aid from the AFRC, its activities are managed in line with AFRC's financial plans by virture of a memorandum of understanding established between the AFRC and the IPSR.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Repairs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the amount of money that is needed to fully repair all the schools in England and Wales.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Judgments about what constitutes "full repair" vary. The 1987 report of the DES survey of school buildings estimated that the cost of implementing the main structural requirements related to the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 and the other physical requirements in primary and secondary schools in England was about £1·1 billion (although this estimate is subject to sampling error). Since then substantial sums, both capital and current, have been, and continue to be, devoted to improving school premises. The repair of schools in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Vocational Degrees
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made towards increasing vocational degree places at universities and polytechnics.

  Mr. Jackson
  There is no standard definition of the term "vocational" as applied to degree courses. Many courses have at least some vocational element. Between 1979 and 1987 (the latest year for which figures are available) the number of degrees awarded annually by universities and the Council for National Academic Awards increased by about a quarter, from 101,600 to 127,100. I expect the proportion with a vocational element to have followed broadly the same trend.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the Government grant allocations to student unions for universities and polytechnics by polytechnic and university; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for universities and polytechnics to determine the level of their grants to their student unions. The Government do not make specific allocations for this purpose.

  Hyperkinesis
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information and guidelines his Department provides to local education authorities to ensure that head teachers are fully aware of the hyperkinesis condition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No guidance has been issued to local education authorities about hyperkinesis.

  Further Education (Salaries)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give figures for the average salaries of further education college lecturers for each of the last 10 years, expressing each annual increase in percentage terms(a) in relation to the rise in the retail price index and (b) in relation to the rise in average non-manual earnings; and how many further education college lecturers have resigned in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The average salaries of further education college lecturers on 31 March of each of the last 10 years are given in the table, together with the annual increases in each year relative to the retail prices index and average non-manual earnings.

  Average salaries of full-lime lecturers1 in colleges of further education (excluding PCFC institutions), England and Wales

  Average Salary

  Annual Percentage Increase

  Relative to the RPI

  Relative to average non-manual earnings

  Year ending 31 March

  £

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1979

  6,207

  —

  —

  1980

  7,461

  9·2

  7·6

  1981

  9,366

  3·1

  0·2

  1982

  10,111

  -3·6

  -6·6

  1983

  10,681

  -3·4

  -3·2

  1984

  11,229

  1·1

  -3·7

  1985

  1,856

  0·4

  -2·4

  1986

  12,744

  0·5

  0·3

  1987

  13,572

  3·3

  -2·1

  1 Includes all academic staff on grades up to and including Principal.

  Actual average salaries for 31 March 1988 and 1989 are not yet available. Lecturers' pay was increased on a staged basis over the period April 1987 to April 1989. The percentage increases in each of the two years relative to the RPI and average non-manual earnings are as follows:

  Year ending 31 March

  Actual

  Relative to the RPI

  Relative to average non-manual earnings

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1987–88

  10·3

  6·1

  1·9

  1988–89

  6·.0

  0·0

  -4·3

  The level of salary increase to be awarded to lecturers in 1989–90 has not yet been settled.

  The Department does not collect information specifically on resignations. The table sets out the numbers, in percentage terms, of lecturers leaving full-time service in each of the last ten years.
  36

  Annual percentage of lecturers in colleges of further education (excluding PCFC institutions) leaving full-time service in the maintained further or higher education sector in England and Wales

  Year ending 31 March

  Further education colleges excluding PCFC institutions

  Per cent.

  1979

  6·0

  1980

  5·8

  1981

  5·6

  1982

  5·4

  1983

  5·5

  1984

  6·0

  1985

  6·8

  1986

  6·5

  1987

  7·0

  Note: The figures for 1979–85 include lecturers at non polytechnic institutions in the PCFC sector.

  These figures include retirements and movement from full-time to part-time service. In a survey by the employers' organisation, LACSAB, of turnover and wastage in further education in the academic year 1987–88, losses to employment outside the sector amounted to 2·4 per cent. of employment.

  Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide estimates of the costs and savings, as per annex E of the White Paper, in respect of(a) net change in grant, (b) net change in benefits, (c) gross loan outlay, (d) loan repayments and (e) public sector borrowing requirement effect for each of the years from 1990 to 2027, as in annex E of Cmd. 520, on the basis that a 30 per cent. age participation rate is attained by 2015, showing the effects of (i) 80 per cent. take-up, (ii) 90 per cent. take-up and (iii) 100 per cent. take-up.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department does not currently project student numbers in higher education beyond the turn of the century.

  The following tables show annex E revised to take account of the increase in student numbers since Cm. 520 was published. The tables show the effect of take-up rates of 80 and 100 per cent., and of inflation at 3, 5 and 8 per cent.

  Table (i)

  Top-up loans costings

  Revised student number projections

  Costs and saving—3 per cent. inflation—80 per cent. take-up

  United Kingdom

  (£ million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in grant

  Change in benefits

  Loan outlay

  Loan repayments

  PSBR effect

  1990

  0

  -68

  178

  0

  110

  1991

  -24

  -69

  214

  2

  118

  1992

  -46

  -70

  243

  10

  118

  1993

  -66

  -69

  269

  23

  110

  1994

  -86

  -69

  294

  43

  96

  1995

  -105

  -69

  318

  68

  77

  1996

  -126

  -69

  347

  93

  59

  1997

  -149

  -72

  384

  115

  48

  1998

  -174

  -75

  426

  134

  42

  1999

  -199

  -77

  464

  150

  39

  2000

  -221

  -78

  497

  163

  35

  2001

  -240

  -78

  522

  181

  22

  37

  Year

  Change in grant

  Change in benefits

  Loan outlay

  Loan repayments

  PSBR effect

  2002

  -258

  -78

  545

  206

  3

  2003

  -275

  -78

  568

  225

  -11

  2004

  -292

  -78

  591

  240

  -19

  2005

  -309

  -78

  613

  251

  -26

  2006

  -325

  -78

  634

  260

  -29

  2007

  -340

  -78

  654

  264

  -29

  2008

  -358

  -78

  669

  278

  -45

  2009

  -358

  -78

  669

  303

  -70

  2010

  -358

  -78

  669

  333

  -100

  2011

  -358

  -78

  669

  358

  -125

  2012

  -358

  -78

  669

  379

  -146

  2013

  -358

  -78

  669

  401

  -168

  2014

  -358

  -78

  669

  420

  -187

  2015

  -358

  -78

  669

  436

  -203

  2016

  -358

  -78

  669

  449

  -216

  2017

  -358

  -78

  669

  461

  -227

  2018

  -358

  -78

  669

  470

  -237

  2019

  -358

  -78

  669

  477

  -244

  2020

  -358

  -78

  669

  484

  -251

  2021

  -358

  -78

  669

  492

  -258

  2022

  -358

  -78

  669

  499

  -266

  2023

  -358

  -78

  669

  503

  -270

  2024

  -358

  -78

  669

  505

  -272

  2025

  -358

  -78

  669

  507

  -274

  2026

  -358

  -78

  669

  509

  -275

  2027

  -358

  -78

  669

  510

  -276

  Table (ii)

  Top-up loans costings

  Revised student number projections

  Costs and saving 3 per cent. inflation 100 per cent. take-up

  United Kingdom

  (£ million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in grant

  Change in benefits

  Loan outlay

  Loan repayments

  PSBR effect

  1990

  0

  -68

  222

  0

  155

  1991

  -24

  -69

  267

  3

  170

  1992

  -46

  -70

  304

  12

  176

  1993

  -66

  -69

  336

  29

  172

  1994

  -86

  -69

  367

  53

  159

  1995

  -105

  -69

  398

  85

  139

  1996

  -126

  -69

  434

  116

  123

  1997

  -149

  -72

  480

  144

  115

  1998

  -174

  -75

  532

  168

  115

  1999

  -199

  -77

  581

  187

  117

  2000

  -221

  -78

  621

  204

  118

  2001

  -240

  -78

  652

  226

  108

  2002

  -258

  -78

  682

  257

  88

  2003

  -275

  -78

  711

  282

  75

  2004

  -292

  -78

  739

  299

  68

  2005

  -309

  -78

  766

  314

  65

  2006

  -325

  -78

  792

  325

  64

  2007

  -340

  -78

  818

  331

  69

  2008

  -358

  -78

  836

  347

  53

  2009

  -358

  -78

  836

  379

  21

  2010

  -358

  -78

  836

  416

  -16

  2011

  -358

  -78

  836

  448

  -48

  2012

  -358

  -78

  836

  474

  -73

  2013

  -358

  -78

  836

  501

  -101

  2014

  -358

  -78

  836

  525

  -124

  2015

  -358

  -78

  836

  545

  -144

  2016

  -358

  -78

  836

  561

  -161

  2017

  -358

  -78

  836

  576

  -175

  2018

  -358

  -78

  836

  588

  -187

  2019

  -358

  -78

  836

  596

  -196

  2020

  -358

  -78

  836

  605

  -205

  2021

  -358

  -78

  836

  615

  -214

  2022

  -358

  -78

  836

  623

  -223

  2023

  -358

  -78

  836

  629

  -229

  2024

  -358

  -78

  836

  632

  -231

  2025

  -358

  -78

  836

  634

  -233

  2026

  -358

  -78

  836

  636

  -235

  2027

  -358

  -78

  836

  637

  -237

  38

  Table (iii)

  Top-up loans costings

  Revised student number projections

  Costs and saving 5 per cent. inflation 80 per cent. take-up

  United Kingdom

  (£ million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in grant

  Change in benefits

  Loan outlay

  Loan repayments

  PSBR effect

  1990

  0

  -68

  178

  0

  110

  1991

  -24

  -69

  214

  2

  118

  1992

  -60

  -70

  261

  10

  122

  1993

  -93

  -69

  304

  23

  119

  1994

  -124

  -69

  343

  44

  107

  1995

  -153

  -69

  381

  71

  89

  1996

  -184

  -69

  424

  99

  72

  1997

  -218

  -72

  475

  125

  61

  1998

  -256

  -75

  533

  149

  54

  1999

  -291

  -77

  586

  170

  48

  2000

  -323

  -78

  631

  189

  41

  2001

  -348

  -78

  664

  214

  25

  2002

  -359

  -78

  669

  246

  -14

  2003

  -359

  -78

  669

  273

  -41

  2004

  -359

  -78

  669

  293

  -61

  2005

  -359

  -78

  669

  308

  -76

  2006

  -359

  -78

  669

  318

  -86

  2007

  -359

  -78

  669

  322

  -90

  2008

  -359

  -78

  669

  334

  -102

  2009

  -359

  -78

  669

  360

  -128

  2010

  -359

  -78

  669

  390

  -158

  2011

  -359

  -78

  669

  413

  -181

  2012

  -359

  -78

  669

  429

  -197

  2013

  -359

  -78

  669

  446

  -214

  2014

  -359

  -78

  669

  459

  -227

  2015

  -359

  -78

  669

  469

  -237

  2016

  -359

  -78

  669

  476

  -244

  2017

  -359

  -78

  669

  483

  -251

  2018

  -359

  -78

  669

  488

  -256

  2019

  -359

  -78

  669

  491

  -259

  2020

  -359

  -78

  669

  496

  -264

  2021

  -359

  -78

  669

  502

  -270

  2022

  -359

  -78

  669

  508

  -276

  2023

  -359

  -78

  669

  511

  -279

  2024

  -359

  -78

  669

  512

  -280

  2025

  -359

  -78

  669

  512

  -280

  2026

  -359

  -78

  669

  512

  -280

  2027

  -359

  -78

  669

  512

  -280

  Table (iv)

  Top-up loans costings

  Revised student number projections

  Costs and saving 5 per cent. inflation 100 per cent. take-up

  United Kingdom

  (£ million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in grant

  Change in benefits

  Loan outlay

  Loan repayments

  PSBR effect

  1990

  0

  -66

  222

  0

  155

  1991

  -24

  -69

  267

  3

  170

  1992

  -60

  -70

  327

  12

  185

  1993

  -93

  -69

  379

  29

  189

  1994

  -124

  -69

  429

  55

  182

  1995

  -153

  -69

  477

  89

  167

  1996

  -184

  -69

  530

  124

  153

  1997

  -218

  -72

  594

  156

  148

  1998

  -256

  -75

  666

  186

  150

  1999

  -291

  -77

  733

  212

  152

  2000

  -323

  -78

  783

  236

  152

  2001

  -348

  -78

  831

  267

  137

  2002

  -359

  -78

  836

  308

  91

  2003

  -359

  -78

  836

  341

  58

  2004

  -359

  -78

  836

  366

  33

  2005

  -359

  -78

  836

  385

  14

  2006

  -359

  -78

  836

  399

  1

  2007

  -359

  -78

  836

  402

  -3

  2008

  -359

  -78

  836

  419

  -19

  2009

  -359

  -78

  836

  450

  -51

  2010

  -359

  -78

  836

  487

  -88

  2011

  -359

  -78

  836

  516

  -117

  39

  Year

  Change in grant

  Change in benefits

  Loan outlay

  Loan repayments

  PSBR effect

  2012

  -359

  -78

  836

  537

  -137

  2013

  -359

  -78

  836

  558

  -159

  2014

  -359

  -78

  836

  574

  -175

  2015

  -359

  -78

  836

  586

  -187

  2016

  -359

  -78

  836

  595

  -196

  2017

  -359

  -78

  836

  604

  -205

  2018

  -359

  -78

  836

  610

  -211

  2019

  -359

  -78

  836

  614

  -215

  2020

  -359

  -78

  836

  619

  -220

  2021

  -359

  -78

  836

  627

  -228

  2022

  -359

  -78

  836

  635

  -235

  2023

  -359

  -78

  836

  639

  -240

  2024

  -359

  -78

  836

  639

  -240

  2025

  -359

  -78

  836

  640

  -241

  2026

  -359

  -78

  836

  640

  -241

  2027

  -359

  -78

  836

  640

  -241

  Table (v)

  Top-up loans costings

  Revised student number projections

  Costs and saving 8 per cent. inflation 80 per cent. take-up

  United Kingdom

  (£ million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in grant

  Change in benefits

  Loan outlay

  Loan repayments

  PSBR effect

  1990

  0

  -68

  178

  0

  110

  1991

  -24

  -69

  214

  2

  118

  1992

  -79

  -70

  287

  10

  129

  1993

  -129

  -69

  352

  23

  130

  1994

  -175

  -69

  411

  45

  122

  1995

  -217

  -69

  466

  75

  105

  1996

  -260

  -69

  525

  107

  88

  1997

  -306

  -72

  592

  139

  75

  1998

  -343

  -75

  639

  169

  53

  1999

  -353

  -77

  659

  196

  32

  2000

  -359

  -78

  669

  222

  10

  2001

  -359

  -78

  669

  252

  -20

  2002

  -359

  -78

  669

  291

  -88

  2003

  -359

  -78

  669

  320

  -88

  2004

  -359

  -78

  669

  339

  -107

  2005

  -359

  -78

  669

  350

  -119

  2006

  -359

  -78

  669

  355

  -123

  2007

  -359

  -78

  669

  351

  -119

  2008

  -359

  -78

  669

  357

  -125

  2009

  -359

  -78

  669

  379

  -148

  2010

  -359

  -78

  669

  406

  -175

  2011

  -359

  -78

  669

  426

  -195

  2012

  -359

  -78

  669

  439

  -208

  2013

  -359

  -78

  669

  454

  -223

  2014

  -359

  -78

  669

  466

  -234

  2015

  -359

  -78

  669

  474

  -243

  2016

  -359

  -78

  669

  481

  -249

  2017

  -359

  -78

  669

  487

  -255

  2018

  -359

  -78

  669

  491

  -259

  2019

  -359

  -78

  669

  493

  -261

  2020

  -359

  -78

  669

  497

  -265

  2021

  -359

  -78

  669

  503

  -271

  2022

  -359

  -78

  669

  509

  -277

  2023

  -359

  -78

  669

  512

  -280

  2024

  -359

  -78

  669

  512

  -280

  2025

  -359

  -78

  669

  512

  -280

  2026

  -359

  -78

  669

  512

  -280

  2027

  -359

  -78

  669

  512

  -280

  40

  Table (vi)

  Top-up loans costings

  Revised student number projections

  Costs and saving 8 per cent. inflation 100 per cent. take-up

  United Kingdom

  (£ million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in grant

  Change in benefits

  Loan outlay

  Loan repayments

  PSBR effect

  1990

  0

  -68

  222

  0

  155

  1991

  -24

  -69

  267

  3

  170

  1992

  -79

  -70

  359

  12

  198

  1993

  -129

  -69

  440

  29

  212

  1994

  -175

  -69

  513

  57

  213

  1995

  -217

  -69

  582

  94

  203

  1996

  -260

  -69

  656

  134

  192

  1997

  -306

  -72

  740

  173

  189

  1998

  -343

  -75

  798

  211

  170

  1999

  -353

  -77

  823

  245

  147

  2000

  -359

  -78

  836

  277

  122

  2001

  -359

  -78

  836

  315

  84

  2002

  -359

  -78

  836

  363

  36

  2003

  -359

  -78

  836

  400

  -1

  2004

  -359

  -78

  836

  423

  -24

  2005

  -359

  -78

  836

  438

  -39

  2006

  -359

  -78

  836

  443

  -44

  2007

  -359

  -78

  836

  438

  -39

  2008

  -359

  -78

  836

  447

  -47

  2009

  -359

  -78

  836

  474

  -75

  2010

  -359

  -78

  836

  508

  -109

  2011

  -359

  -78

  836

  533

  -134

  2012

  -359

  -78

  836

  549

  -150

  2013

  -359

  -78

  836

  568

  -169

  2014

  -359

  -78

  836

  582

  -183

  2015

  -359

  -78

  836

  593

  -194

  2016

  -359

  -78

  836

  601

  -202

  2017

  -359

  -78

  836

  608

  -209

  2018

  -359

  -78

  836

  613

  -214

  2019

  -359

  -78

  836

  616

  -217

  2020

  -359

  -78

  836

  621

  -222

  2021

  -359

  -78

  836

  629

  -229

  2022

  -359

  -78

  836

  636

  -237

  2023

  -359

  -78

  836

  640

  -241

  2024

  -359

  -78

  836

  640

  -241

  2025

  -359

  -78

  836

  640

  -241

  2026

  -359

  -78

  836

  640

  -241

  2027

  -359

  -78

  836

  640

  -241

  Student Maintenance Award
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what level of net student maintenance award was paid to mature students aged 50 years and over in each year since 1979–80; and what is to be the estimated level for each year up to 2007–08, at 1988–89 prices.

  Mr. Jackson
  Mandatory award-holders aged 50 years or over qualify for the main rates of grant appropriate to the location in which they study and may also be eligible for supplementary allowances paid to older students and students with dependants. Data on average net awards paid to this category of student are not collected separately. Nor are the projections for grant levels following the introduction of the top-up loan scheme disaggregated for this category.

  Higher Education (Student Numbers)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the numbers of students in higher education for each year from 1990 to 2017 if steady progress to the attainment of 30 per cent. age participation were maintained between 1990 and 2015.
  41
  Mr. Jackson
  Our latest projection indicates full-time equivalent student numbers rising from about 760,000 in 1988 to about 820,000 in 1992. Numbers are then expected to level off until 1995 as a result of the substantial decline in the relevant age group before rising again to about 890,000 by the end of the century. These totals projected are formed in part by age participation indices for young home initial entrants to higher education of 15, 19 and 23 per cent. for 1988, 1992 and 2000 respectively. Student numbers in higher education have not been projected beyond the turn of the century.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements for repayment of loans under the proposed student loan scheme are to apply in the case of graduates no longer resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jackson
  Graduates living overseas will enjoy the same terms as those resident in the United Kingdom. Arrangements will be made for the recovery of outstanding payments from such students. It will be in the interests of all borrowers to repay their loans.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will consult disability organisations on the review of discretionary payments to disabled students.

  Mr. Jackson
  Yes. In addition to my meetings with the all-party disablement group on 28 November and with a group of Members of this House on 9 November, meetings have been arranged between officials of the Department of Education and Science and representative groups.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department monitors the administration of the disabled students allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The administration of the disabled students allowance, within the terms of the mandatory awards regulations, is a matter for local education authorities in pursuance of their duty to make awards. In monitoring authorities' spending on mandatory awards, the Department collects annually figures for the total assessments for the allowance made by each authority and the number of students for whom these are made. In its monitoring of the operation of the proposed student loan system the Government will pay particular attention to the position of disabled students.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether students with disabilities and terminal illnesses will be guaranteed a loan under his proposals for top-up loans for students.

  Mr. Jackson
  Yes. All students on a relevant course who meet the ordinary residence requirements will have access to the additional resources without regard to other personal circumstances.

  Harrow Clinical Research Centre
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take regarding the proposed closure of the Harrow clinical 42
  research centre; what discussions his Department has had with the Medical Research Council concerning the proposed closure; what representations he has had concerning the proposed closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  In September my right hon. Friend received advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the Medical Research Council's clinical research initiative. The board recommended that the resources now invested in the clinical research centre should be redeployed with phased developments at a number of other centres. This proposal requires more detailed study and my right hon. Friend is expecting to receive further advice from the advisory board in the spring. The Department and the Health Department are to be kept informed of the progress of this work, particularly as regards capital costs, the redeployment of resources and the implications for NHS provision.

  School Buildings
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many temporary classrooms there are in schools in(a) Somerset, (b) Devon, (c) Dorset and (d) Wiltshire;

  (2) what proportion of all primary and secondary schools were built before 1903 in (a) Somerset, (b) Devon, (c) Dorset and (d) Wiltshire; and what is the average in England.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is not collected by the Department.

  Governing Bodies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has agreed revised instruments of government for further education and higher education colleges under local education authority control, where the proposed size of the governing body in each college meets the maximum permitted by section 152 (1) of the Education Reform Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  To date, my right hon. Friend has approved 228 instruments of government proposed by local education authorities under section 151 of the Education Reform Act. The governing bodies provided for by these instruments range in size up to 23 members.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those further education and higher education colleges, together with their local education authorities, which originally and initially submitted revised instruments of government in accord with the Education Reform Act 1988 and where the proposed size of the governing body of each college was in excess of 20; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Brighton City Technology College
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will detail the annual revenue allocations to the Brighton city technology college between 1989–90 and 1995–96 and itemise the headings under which expenditure can and will be made;
  43
  (2) if he will give the details of the annual allocation for books and equipment for Brighton city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Recurrent grant will be paid from the date of opening of the Brighton city technology college and will be comparable to spending on maintained schools in similar areas. Recurrent grant will cover all the school's normal running costs, including books and equipment.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of the teacher-pupil ratio established for Brighton city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The teacher-pupil ratio in city technology colleges will be comparable to the ratio in maintained schools in similar areas. As yet, no firm teacher-pupil ratio has been determined for the Brighton city technology college.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed uses of the £2·5 million capital sum allocated to Brighton city technology college for 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will itemise future capital allocation to the school until 1995–96.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  To date the only capital payments for the establishment of the Brighton city technology college have been incurred on the purchase of the Woodingdean site. A detailed feasibility study is currently being undertaken which will give a clearer idea as to the capital requirements of the college.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide details of the anticipated regime of inspections, auditor assessment and value for money scrutinies to verify the proper expenditure of public funds on Brighton's city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The accounts of the Brighton City Technology College Trust will be fully audited as a condition of the funding agreement which my right hon. Friend intends to sign with the sponsors of the college. The agreement will define the terms under which grant will be made.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide details of the likely annual expenditure by Brighton city technology college on new buildings, building repairs and building maintenance between 1989 and 1995–96.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A detailed feasibility study is currently being carried out on the establishment of the Brighton city technology college. The study will give a clearer idea on expenditure needs and cashflow requirements.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what criteria expenditure of public funds on Brighton city technology college was assessed as a higher priority than an increase to East Sussex county council education allocation for capital spending on new buildings, classroom replacement, repairs and maintenance and new equipment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The CTC programme dos not compete for funds with LEA capital allocations. It is funded from resources that would not otherwise be available to 44
  education. It is an investment we are prepared to make because the best practice developed at CTCs will permeate the whole education service. The programme has also generated an unprecedented response from industry; already over £43 million has been given.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps have been taken by his Department to ensure that(a) Greenleaf Planters Ltd., (b) South Weald Properties Ltd. and (c) other private sector investors in the Brighton city technology college will be able to meet the percentage of the private sector investment that the Government currently expect them to find.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As a prelude to the funding agreement I intend to sign with all principal sponsors of city technology colleges, there has been an exchange of letters with the sponsors of the Brighton CTC setting out their commitments and the conditions under which their sponsorship has been accepted.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the dates and locations of meetings between his departmental officials, representatives of the Michael Faraday Trust, Brighton Steiner school and East Sussex county council officials.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There has been no single meeting including all the parties listed by the hon. Member. However, the chairman of the CTC Trust and representatives of the sponsors for the Brighton CTC met elected members and officials of East Sussex county council in July in London. In addition officials of my Department have had a number of routine meetings with representatives of the sponsors and the Michael Faraday Trust, in London and Brighton.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when officials from his Department first made contact with the Michael Faraday Trust and representatives of the Brighton Steiner school to discuss locating a city technology college in Woodingdean, Brighton.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The first meeting of officials and sponsors wishing to establish a city technology college in Brighton was held on 19 May. Since then, the sponsors have set up the Michael Faraday Trust.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when sanction was first given and by whom for the authorisation of public expenditure commitments for the setting up of the Brighton city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science authorised negotiations to begin on the setting up of the Brighton CTC in May this year.

  Craft and Design
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is his intention to bring craft and design education into the curriculum for Scottish schools; and whether he will draw up plans to ensure that design and technical subjects are part of the curriculum by 1992.

  Mr. Lang
  I have been asked to reply.
  45
  Craft and design technical subjects already feature in the curriculum of Scottish schools. Courses are available leading to awards at the ordinary, standard and higher grades of the Scottish Certificate of Education. A review of the primary and early secondary curriculum is currently under way to identify and give guidance on good practice. Craft and design and technical subjects will be covered in this review.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Vietnam
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about non-Government organisations which are providing development assistance to Vietnam, and the amounts of assistance in each case.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A number of British NGOs are active in Vietnam. They are independent agencies and receive no Government funding for their programmes there. Consequently, the Government do not maintain records of their activities in Vietnam. The agencies would no doubt be willing to make this information available to the hon. Member.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has to facilitate transportation of food supplies to famine-striken areas of Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The £2 million tranche of emergency aid for Ethiopia, which I announced on 27 November is being channelled through British voluntary agencies largely for the purchase of trucks for food transport.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he has considered the use of Royal Air Force helicopters to drop food supplies to famine-stricken areas of Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will consider repeating the successful Operation Bushell undertaken in 1984, using Royal Air Force Hercules aircraft, to air drop supplies to famine-stricken areas of Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Within Government-held areas supplies are at present being delivered by road. As for areas in northern Ethiopia not held by the Government, there are at present no agreed arrangements for delivery, either by road or by air, of food supplies from the Government side. If such access were agreed road transport would be by far the most effective means of moving supplies in the volumes required. The UN operated an extremely effective airlift into Tigray in 1984–85 and again in 1987–88. If airlift operations proved necessary, the UN has funds to hand, some of which we contributed, for this purpose.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Westland helicopters have been supplied to India in the British Government's aid package; and if he will make a statement as to the effectiveness of this package.
  46
  Mrs. Chalker
  The British aid programme grant funded the supply of 21 Westland WH30 helicopters, together with spares, at a cost of £65 million. The helicopters were delivered on schedule at the agreed cost. They are operating mainly in the Indian oil and natural gas industry.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Anglo-Australian Understanding
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will support the proposed exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall in the week commencing 15 January on the theme of Anglo-Australian understanding.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for this exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall for a week from 15 January 1990.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to the development of windpower farms, oil exploration and the possibility of radioactive waste disposal on the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There have been no proposals to use the islands for the disposal of radioactive waste.

  Wind power generation was examined in Lord Shackleton's reports of 1976 and 1982 but considered to be inadequate for the islands' needs. Experiments on the islands have not yet shown that wind power generation will be an economical proposition. However, the Falkland Islands development corporation is recommending soon that a proper study of the wind regime in the islands be undertaken.

  No decisions have yet been taken on a possible regime to control exploration and development of mineral resources.

  Tamil Community
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held by Her Majesty's high commission in Sri Lanka with representatives of the Tamil community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The high commission is regularly in contact with members of all communities in Sri Lanka.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held with environmental organisations since the Paris convention in October concerning the future of Antarctica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  FCO officials frequently meet representatives of wildlife link to discuss Antarctica matters. The last meeting was in September. No request for a further meeting has been received since then.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held with representatives of the people of Diego Garcia; if there are plans to allow full resettlement of the island; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The commissioner for the British Indian ocean territory, who was in Mauritius for other purposes, saw a delegation of former plantation workers from the Chagos Islands at their request on 20 September. Those concerned are increasingly integrated into the Mauritian community. There are no plans for resettlement of the islands.

  Television Films
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sums his Department has paid to the Fox network and the Discovery channel in the United States for(a) the production and (b) the screening of a series of television films on Britain.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  "Focus on Britain" is a series of programmes for American television produced by the British consulate general in Los Angeles in association with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The series is designed to help promote British interests—principally exports and services—in the United States. Seventy-five per cent. of production and other costs are met by sponsorship from British companies and organisations. Twenty-five per cent. is paid for by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Queue lengths for settlement applications

  October

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Post

  Queue

  Actual

  Estimated

  Actual

  Estimated

  Actual

  Estimated

  Actual

  Estimated

  New Delhi

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  4

  3

  3

  4

  3

  4

  3

  3

  8

  8

  8

  7

  6

  5

  6

  5

  4

  12

  11

  10

  10

  11

  9

  9

  8

  Bombay

  1

  3

  3

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  6

  7

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  3

  9

  10

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  4

  10

  12

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Dhaka

  1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  8

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7

  3

  3

  3

  8

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7

  3

  3

  4

  22

  20

  21

  21

  23

  23

  11

  9

  Islamabad

  1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  3

  3

  2

  2

  7

  9

  8

  9

  11

  12

  4

  5

  3

  13

  14

  17

  16

  20

  18

  14

  9

  4

  15

  16

  18

  26

  20

  29

  23

  13

  Karachi

  1

  3

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  6

  6

  5

  5

  5

  3

  2

  2

  3

  11

  11

  10

  10

  10

  7

  2

  2

  4

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  4

  4

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:

  Q1 Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases.

  Q2 All spouses, and all children under 18 years.

  Q3 Fiancé(e)s and other applying for the first time for settlement.

  Q4 Re-applicants.

  The estimated waiting time is the time given to an applicant as an indication of the time he or she must wait
  48
  No money has been paid to either Fox Television or the Discovery Channel for production costs. Fox Television was paid a total of $252,525 for airtime in 1988 and $121,175 in 1987. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's 25 per cent. share of these amounts was $92,425.

  The Discovery Channel (a cable network seen in over 40 million United States homes) paid to show "Focus" programmes in 1989 and payment has also been received for in-flight showings from Virgin Atlantic Airlines.

  Indian Immigrants
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long people are waiting on average for(a) interviews and (b) second interviews in queues 1, 2, 3 and 4 at each British post on the Indian sub-continent; what were the comparable figures for 1988, 1987 and 1986; and what are the projected waiting times in 1990.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Waiting times to first interview for settlement applications in the month of October in the four years 1986 to 1989, which are given in the table, show a reduction in waiting times.

  Few applicants in the queues require a further interview. The waiting times between first and second interviews vary considerably depending upon how quickly the applicant returns with the additional documentation requested.

  I cannot, at this stage, anticipate what waiting times will be in 1990.

  before their interview. Actual waiting time is the time an applicant will have waited since lodging his or her application.
  49
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to improve the arrangements at the British High Commission in Dhaka for interviewing those applying for settlement in the United Kingdom; and if he will arrange for security glass to be removed from interviewing booths.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The arrangement for interviewing settlement applicants in Bangladesh are satisfactory and we have no plans to change them. Glass screens are provided for the security of interviewers and interpreters. They are no different from those in many public and commercial offices in this country and will not be removed.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making for blood samples, needed for DNA testing purposes to be collected in Sylhet.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no plans to make arrangements for blood samples to be taken in Sylhet.

  Contras Demobilisation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what co-operation Her Majesty's Government will give to the United Nations in order to make the agreed process of demobilisation of the Contras effective.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Nations has not sought our assistance in this matter.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to eliminate the illegal use of monofilament gill nets in Scottish waters.

  Mr. Lang
  Orders prohibiting(a) the use of all gill nets for fishing for salmon and sea trout within half a mile of the shore and (b) the carriage of monofilament gill nets in British fishing boats within six miles of the Scottish coast came into force in 1986.

  This and earlier legislation is enforced by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland by means of boardings and inspection of vessels and surveillance both at sea and from the air. In addition any such nets found unattended are confiscated.

  Poultry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of premises requiring inspection under the provisions of the Testing of Poultry Flocks Orders in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is estimated that as at June 1989 there were 4,623 flocks in Scotland falling within the various categories described in the poultry flock orders.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many outside accountancy firms are employed by his Department; whether such employment is 50
  subject to any guidelines; and whether he takes steps before employing an accountancy firm to discover whether that firm has been censured by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in their inquiries under the Companies Act.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In 1989, my Department has employed five firms for the provision of accountancy-related services. In commissioning such work, steps are taken in accordance with departmental guidelines and account is taken of the best evidence available about the competence of firms, both at the time of invitation to tender and of appointment.

  Health Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the estimated increases in(a) personnel and (b) finance to implement the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients," for the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An additional £3·95 million has been allocated to the NHS in Scotland for 1989–90 to assist in the early stages of implementing the White Paper proposals. For 1990–91, my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 6 December that the provision for spending on health in Scotland is planned to increase by £220 million over the current year. This will bring the provision to over £3 billion (£3,041 million) for the first time. By 1992–93, total health expenditure will be fully £500 million higher than in the current year. In accordance with normal practice, allocations to health boards for 1990–91—including recognition of White Paper initiatives—will be determined and notified to boards in the early part of next year. It will be for boards to decide on their personnel requirements in the light of local circumstances. We fully expect that the initial extra costs will be outweighed in the longer term by improvements in the operation of services and the better management of resources.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the key aspects of health authorities' environmental policy and practices which he monitors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In Scotland the lead responsibility for environmental matters rests with the departments of environmental health of district and islands councils.

  Health boards are responsible for monitoring their own environmental health policies and practices and for issuing medical advice as necessary. There are regular meetings between representatives of local authorities, health boards and the Scottish Office to discuss environmental health issues.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many students will be enrolled at colleges under his budgetary control in the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (2) what are the projected student numbers for all the Scottish central institutions in the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  The projected student numbers at the colleges in receipt of grant-in-aid will be set out in the Scottish commentary on public expenditure to 1992–93, which will he published in the new year.
  51
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the existing and projected academic staff numbers for all the Scottish central institutions in the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  The results of the 1989 census of academic staff in colleges of further and higher education in Scotland are not yet available. Projections of academic staff numbers are not made centrally.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to allow new town district councils to purchase vacant houses from their respective development corporation at any point in the period prior to the dissolution of the development corporation.

  Mr. Lang
  The potential role which district councils play in the ultimate disposal of development corporation housing stock will be considered by the Government during the consultations with the development corporations, district councils and representative tenant groups in the course of winding up each corporation, as set out in paragraph 5.10 of the White Paper "The Scottish New Towns: The Way Ahead" (Cmnd. 711).

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the current market value of the housing stock owned by each of the Scottish new towns and the number of houses owned by each of the new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not possible to calculate an absolute market value for the housing stock of the new town development corporations, and the Government have no plans to put it on the market. The number of houses owned by each of the Scottish new town development corporations, as at 30 November 1989, was:

  houses

  East Kilbride

  11,415

  Livingston

  8,475

  Cumbernauld

  7,159

  Glenrothes

  6,388

  Irvine

  4,003

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he gives to development corporations as to whether to consult sitting tenants prior to any changes in the management of the new town housing stock.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the county councils and district councils in Scotland which do not conform to regulations in respect of emergency control centres in accordance with the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The progressive establishment of local authority emergency control centres features in regular discussions between the Scottish Home and Health Department and local authorities. Almost all Scottish authorities have designated emergency control premises, some of which are fully operational. Others require further work to meet the minimum standards set in departmental guidance.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the time of firemen is reckoned to be devoted to emergency call-outs.

  Mr. Rifkind
  This information is not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number currently employed by(a) central Government and (b) local government, who have been directly related to the collection of (i) domestic rates and (ii) the poll tax in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The collection of domestic rates was the responsibility of regional and islands councils as is the collection of the community charge. Figures for the numbers of local government staff involved in these functions are not held centrally. Central Government staff are not involved in the collection of the community charge any more than they were involved in the collection of domestic rates. The numbers of such staff primarily involved in policy issues affecting these matters has fluctuated within the period, generally within the range of eight to 10.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of poll tax payers by region, in Scotland at the latest date; what is the number who are(a) one instalment behind, (b) two instalments behind, (c) three instalments behind, and (d) the account is statutorily in arrears.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of people included on the community charges registers as liable to pay the community charge as at September 1989 was as follows:

  Regional/Islands Council

  Number liable (to nearest 100)

  Borders

  78,000

  Central

  206,400

  Dumfries and Galloway

  111,400

  Fife

  269,000

  Grampian

  378,000

  Highland

  147,800

  Lothian

  604,700

  Strathclyde

  1,762,200

  Tayside

  295,600

  Orkney

  14,300

  Shetland

  16,000

  Western Isles

  22,300

  The other information requested is not held centrally.

  Sand Eels
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to limit sand eel fishing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The sand eel fishery off Shetland has been closed since 1 July 1989. A licensing scheme has been introduced in the Minch to prevent fishing pressure on those sand eel stocks becoming excessive.

  Officials will be discussing the latest scientific evidence on the state of sand eel stocks with the fishing industry next month. Decisions on the 1990 fishing season will then be taken.

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the courses which applied for acceptance under the postgraduate students allowances scheme in 1989–90, indicating which were successful.

  Mr. Lang
  The details the hon. Member requires will take some time to assemble and I shall write to him as soon as possible.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of students on post-graduate courses at Scottish universities and central institutions have been(a) Scottish, (b) from the the rest of the United Kingdom and (c) from overseas, in every year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The percentages are given in the table.

  Place of domicile

  Session

  Scotland

  Rest of United Kingdom

  Overseas

  1979–80

  47

  18

  35

  1980–81

  52

  17

  31

  1981–82

  53

  16

  30

  1982–83

  51

  18

  31

  1983–84

  51

  18

  31

  1984–85

  50

  19

  32

  1985–86

  48

  19

  33

  1986–87

  45

  19

  36

  1987–88

  46

  18

  36

  1988–89

  44

  19

  36

  Notes:

  1. The figures relate to full-time courses.

  2. In 1979–80 only university courses are covered.

  3. The percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

  Natural Heritage
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) of 28 November,Official Report, column 188–89, if he will indicate how he has responded to requests for assurances concerning the independence, duties, funding, staffing and location of the proposed Natural Heritage Agency for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has stated publicly that the proposed Scottish natural heritage agency will have the same independent status as the present Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission for Scotland, will have resources commensurate with the needs of conservation in Scotland, and will have similar duties to NCC and CCS. Staff in NCC and CCS have been assured by Government of an offer of employment on terms and conditions not less favourable taken as a whole than they have at present. It is too early to decide on the location of the proposed new body.

  More detailed proposals on these and other issues will be included in the further consultation.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action his Department is taking to(a) prevent further damage to water, wildlife and trees in particular caused by pollutants such as acid rain, (b) sponsor further research on this matter and (c) help in restoring water, wildlife and trees to their original healthy state.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Agriculture (Research and Development)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has decided a future strategy for agricultural research and development in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has today published a paper entitled "Strategy for Agricultural Research and Development". It reports on the successful implementation of the proposals in the strategy paper published by the Department in December 1985, reviews the developments which underlie the formulation of a revised strategy for the future, sets out the objectives of the Department in funding agricultural and related research and development, and explains how these objectives will be met in the years ahead.

  Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Microwave Ovens
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he has taken to ensure that strict health and safety standards are observed in respect of all microwave ovens located in the Palace of Westminster.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  All microwave ovens provided in the House for approved purposes are supplied with full operating instructions and are checked annually. Those under the control of the Refreshment Department are operated by staff who are aware of the correct procedures. In the light of current concern I shall, however, refer this matter to the relevant House authorities for further consideration.

THE ARTS

  Arts (Leicester)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next proposes to visit the city of Leicester to inspect arts facilities.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans at present to visit Leicester, which I last visited in September 1988.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of the Office of Arts and Libraries' budget has been allocated to museums and galleries for 1990–91.

  Mr. Luce
  One hundred and eighty two million pounds or 37 per cent. of my Office's budget for 1990–91 has been allocated to museums and galleries.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to deal with the repair and refurbishment of museums and galleries.

  Mr. Luce
  I announced on 16 November that the provision for the building and maintenance programmes at the national museums and galleries which I sponsor will
  55
  increase by 34 per cent. to some £64 million in 1992–93. This will bring the total provision for building and maintenance over the next three years to over £180 million.

  New Libraries
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many new libraries have been established in the last three years.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not kept centrally, but I understand that recent research suggests that between January 1987 and December 1989, over 75 new library buildings or substantial extensions to buildings were completed. Capital expenditure on libraries by local authorities in England, which includes spending on new buildings, has increased from £23 million to over £41 million in the three years to 1988–89.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to improve access to arts venues by the disabled.

  Mr. Luce
  As I announced last December, I have given £150,000 to the Carnegie Trust ADAPT fund to improve the accessibility of arts venues to the disabled. I am pleased to report that the question of accessibility is receiving much attention from arts orgsnisations. Additionally, I am aware that the Arts Council and the Museums and Galleries Commission both have disability officers to ensure that the needs of the disabled are fully considered.

  Arts Funding
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations on arts funding he has received following the Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to say that I have received a number of letters of appreciation from chairmen and directors of institutions which have benefited from the revised allocations I was able to announce on 16 November.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the breakdown between the public and private sector of funding of the arts in the last financial year of which records are available and 1978–79.

  Mr. Luce
  Central Government expenditure on the arts has increased from £129 million in 1978–79 to £439 million in 1989–90 (a growth of 240 per cent.). There are no comprehensive figures for private funding of Arts activities but I welcome the evidence that it has been expanding, particularly in the areas of sponsorship and of sales.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he will next meet the chairman of the Arts Council; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Museum Staff
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will estimate the number of staff in post at museums now; and what was the figure 10 years ago; what has been the average real increase in rates of pay since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The most recent available figures for museum employment in the United Kingdom are for 1984 when the census of employment showed some 28,000 people employed in museums and galleries. Numbers of staff in post at the national museums and galleries which I sponsor are currently 5,413, compared with some 4,200 in 1979, at which time the national museums and galleries on Merseyside were not include in the figures.

  Estimates of average real pay increases for museum staff are not available. However, for all non-industrial grades in the Civil Service, with which staff in the national museums and galleries are analogous for pay and grading purposes, real salaries have increased by around 20 per cent. since 1979.

  Live Music
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy on the encouragement of live music.

  Mr. Luce
  Through the funding of the Arts Council, it remains the Government's policy to ensure that as many people as possible have access to performances of live music, of a high standard of quality.

  Creative Activity
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on levels of support for schemes to involve children and young people in creative activity.

  Mr. Luce
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science and I are jointly funding a booklet about ways in which the arts can stimulate a child's imagination and widen the boundaries of classroom learning. It will be circulated free to all supported schools in England, Scotland and Wales in the new year. In addition, within my area of my responsibility, the Arts Council, the regional arts associations and the national museums and galleries fund a range of schemes aimed at introducing children and young people to the arts.

  Kent Opera Company
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received regarding the withdrawal of grant funding to the Kent Opera Company.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a number of representations about the future of Kent Opera. This is, however, a matter for the Arts Council.

  Young Musicians
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what support he is giving to schemes, events and opportunities for young musicians.

  Mr. Luce
  Both the Arts Council and the regional arts associations fund a range of schemes designed to encourage and promote young musicians.

  Wilding Proposals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many jobs he estimates will be affected in the east midlands if the Wilding proposals are implemented.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not yet taken any decisions about Mr. Wilding's recommendations.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the effect of inflation upon the grant to the Arts Council over the last three years.

  Mr. Luce
  Over the three years 1987–88 to 1989–90, the Arts Council's grant will have increased by 14·5 per cent. During the same period, inflation, as measured by the GDP deflator, will have increased by an estimated 20·8 per cent. I have taken these figures into account in deciding the Arts Council's grant for the next three years when it will increase by a further 22 per cent.

  Fund Raising (Tax Incentives)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what consideration he has given to the survey conducted by Touche Ross management consultants on the impact of tax incentives on arts and museum fund raising; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  A variety of suggestions have been put to me on taxation incentives for the arts and the Touche Ross report has been an informative contribution. The introduction of new taxation incentives is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Women's Arts and Crafts
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to women's arts and crafts to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Luce
  Yes. I am glad to sponsor the "Great American Embroidery Exhibition" in the Upper Waiting Hall and I have written to the hon. Lady confirming my intention.

WALES

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts over £92,500 have been let by his Department in the 1988–89 financial year and in the present financial year to date; and how many of these were(a) automatically reviewed and (b) open to competition by advertisement throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many outside accountancy firms are employed by his Department; whether such employment is subject to any guidelines; and whether he takes steps before employing an accountancy firm to discover whether that firm has been censured by the Department of Trade and Industry in their inquiries under the Companies Acts.
  58
  Mr. Peter Walker
  At the present time six accountancy firms are employed either solely or jointly by my Department. Firms are invited to tender for the provision of advisory services on the basis of their suitability to provide the relevant advice. In making appointments, consultations and enquiries are undertaken as necessary and where appropriate in the light of advice given by Treasury on consultancy appointments. The figures do not include accountancy firms that I have appointed to act as auditors to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department.

  Quangos (Appointments)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy, on making appointments to the chairmanship of quangos in Wales, to ensure that such appointments are not used as stepping stones for potential parliamentary candidates.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I appoint chairmen of non-departmental public bodies on the basis of their personal qualities and experience.

  Poultry Testing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on 11 December, what is his estimate of the additional cost falling on county councils in Wales in respect of their enforcement of the new Testing of Poultry Flocks Order.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information is not available on the resources that county councils in Wales are allocating to work in connection with the two new orders requiring registration and testing of poultry flocks.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussion he has had with north Wales health authorities concerning the payment to Mersey regional health authority of money for cancer treatment for north Wales patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None. The funding of English health authorities, including Mersey region, to provide treatment to patients from Wales under the arrangements introduced in the White Paper "Working for Patients" is presently the subject of discussions between officials of the Welsh Office and the Department of Health.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of deaths where hypothermia was mentioned as a cause; and what is his estimate of the total number of deaths where hypothermia was the underlying cause of death in Wales in each year from 1978 to 1988.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The numbers of registered deaths of residents of Wales caused by hypothermia or where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate are shown in the table:
  59

  Deaths where hypothermia was:

  Year

  mentioned on the death certificate

  recorded as the underlying cause of death

  1978

  46

  n/a

  1979

  73

  31

  1980

  41

  16

  1981

  57

  n/a

  1982

  53

  25

  1983

  29

  12

  1984

  37

  17

  1985

  60

  33

  1986

  49

  24

  1987

  41

  19

  1988

  36

  12

  Note:

  For 1979 onward based on 9th Revision ICD Codes 991.6 and 778.3.

  Baby Cots
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 259, whether he will provide comparable figures on intensive care baby cots for 1983–84 and 1979–80;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 7 December, Official Report, column 358, whether he will provide comparable figures on intensive care baby cots for 1979–80 and for the latest available year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The answer of 29 November,Official Report column 259, was based on information derived from a one-off enquiry undertaken to inform the advisory group on perinatal intensive care services in Wales. As a consequence comparable figures for earlier years are not available. The more general quarterly bed-use inquiry provides comparable statistics relating to special care baby cots for the years requested, and these are shown in the table:

  Special Care Baby Unit Cots (average daily available)

  1979–80

  1983–84

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  HM Stanley

  19·0

  19·0

  15·0

  Ysbyty Maelor

  24·0

  24·0

  22·0

  East Dyfed

  Bronglais

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  West Wales General

  8·18

  8·0

  11·0

  Gwent

  Nevill Hall

  15·0

  15·0

  15·0

  Royal Gwent

  25·0

  25·0

  20·0

  County

  18·0

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  St. Davids

  21·0

  21·0

  21·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  Bridgend General

  15·0

  15·0

  —

  Princess of Wales

  —

  —

  15·0

  East Glamorgan

  10·04

  10·0

  10·0

  St. Tydfils

  8·0

  —

  —

  Merthyr General

  —

  8·0

  8·0

  South Glamorgan

  UHW

  25·0

  24·38

  24·84

  St. Davids

  16·0

  16·05

  16·0

  West Glamorgan

  Morriston

  16·0

  14·67

  15·97

  60

  1979–80

  1983–84

  1988–89

  Neath General

  15·0

  15·0

  10·0

  Pembrokeshire

  Withybush

  —

  13·0

  13·0

  Full-time Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the staying-on rate in full-time education in each of the counties of Wales in 1987–88 and 1983–84 of those aged(a) 16 years, (b)17 years, (c) 18 years and (d) all ages.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The percentage of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds and all ages staying on in full-time education at schools, tertiary and further education colleges, and universities for the academic years 1987–88 and 1983–84 are shown in the table:

  16

  17

  18

  16–18

  1987–881

  Clwyd

  49

  32

  21

  34

  Dyfed

  54

  40

  25

  40

  Gwent

  49

  33

  18

  33

  Gwynedd

  52

  37

  23

  38

  Mid Glamorgan

  47

  31

  16

  31

  Powys

  57

  39

  21

  39

  South Glamorgan

  53

  35

  22

  36

  West Glamorgan

  52

  35

  22

  36

  1983–841

  Clwyd

  52

  34

  19

  35

  Dyfed

  53

  39

  23

  38

  Gwent

  49

  31

  17

  32

  Gwynedd

  51

  34

  22

  35

  Mid Glamorgan

  49

  26

  14

  29

  Powys

  55

  41

  19

  38

  South Glamorgan

  46

  31

  18

  32

  West Glamorgan

  51

  33

  18

  34

  1 Pupils aged 16, 17 and 18 as a percentage of 15 year old pupils one, two and three years earlier.

  Radiation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he has assessed the public radiation exposure of people who live close to the area immediately around the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will conduct an aerial radioactivity survey of the whole of north Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he will undertake a detailed radiological assessment of public exposure to radioactivity in the area immediately around Trawsfynydd nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Earlier this year, as part of a research project for the Welsh Office, whole body monitoring of volunteers from north Wales (including some from the vicinity of Trawsfynydd) took place at Ysbyty Gwynedd. This was a follow up to an exercise which took place in October 1987.

  The preliminary results of this monitoring have shown the levels of radioactivity present in the body to be low and in fact, to have fallen significantly in comparison with the earlier measurements. As such they present no cause for concern. The individuals who took part in this survey have been made aware of the results of the tests.
  61
  Additionally, the aquatic environment monitoring report No. 21 prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, showed that in 1988 the most highly exposed group around the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station received only 7 per cent. of the internationally recommended dose limit of 1 millisievert per year.

  Consideration has been given to a detailed aerial survey of the areas of north Wales where restrictions on the movement of sheep remain in force. It is felt unlikely that such a survey would add significantly to the data already held on levels of radioactivity in sheep, soil and vegetation in those areas.

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many children he estimates spent the Christmas holiday in bed and breakfast accommodation in Wales other than as tourists during each of the years 1983 to 1988;

  (2) how many families he estimates spent the Christmas holiday in bed and breakfast accommodation in Wales in each of the years 1983 to 1988 inclusive, other than as tourists;

  (3) how many families in Wales he estimates will spend the 1989 Christmas holiday period in bed and breakfast accommodation other than as tourists;

  (4) how many individuals he estimates will be in bed and breakfast accommodation in Wales other than as tourists during the Christmas 1989 holiday period;

  (5) how many people he estimates spent the Christmas holiday in bed and breakfast accommodation in Wales for each of the years 1983 to 1988 inclusive, other than as tourists.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on the number of household accommodation temporarily under part III of the Housing Act 1983 in bed and breakfast accommodation is collected only with respect to the last day of each quarter. Information is not available on type of household or of the number of children within household. Available information for the 31 December of each year is shown in the table. Estimates for the 31 December 1989 will not be available until April 1990.

  Households accommodated in Bed and Breakfast accommodation1

  Number

  1983

  17

  1984

  31

  1985

  20

  1986

  35

  1987

  45

  1988

  41

  1 Under part III of the Housing Act 1985.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors he has identified within the process of food production as making a significant contribution to the increased number of food poisoning cases reported in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 6 December.

  South Glamorgan Women's Workshop
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what submissions he has made, to the European Commission, whether via normal interdepartmental channels or directly to the European Commission, to seek continuation of the present level of funding plus allowances for inflation for the South Glamorgan women's workshop; and what response has been received.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  European social fund support for the South Glamorgan women's workshop in 1989 is a matter for the Department of Employment. However my Department has submitted an indicative funding proposal to the European Commission in respect of European social fund support for the workshop in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 in the context of the proposed integrated development operation for industrial south Wales. This integrated development operation programme has still to be approved by the Commission.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he asked the Welsh Language Board to draw up a strategy for the Welsh language; on what date he received such a strategy; whether he has accepted the strategy so prepared by the Welsh Language Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I established the Welsh Language Board in June 1988 with a remit to consider all matters relating to the Welsh language. The board sent its strategy document to me on 23 May 1989. The board has subsequently published further, more detailed proposals, the practical implications of which are currently being considered.

  Cleddau Bridge
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of central Government assistance in each year since 1970 to the former Pembrokeshire county council and Dyfed county council towards the cost of the construction and maintenance of the Cleddau bridge, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No central Government assistance has been specifically directed towards Cleddau bridge. Dyfed and Pembrokeshire county councils have received unhypothecated capital and revenue resources from central Government in support of their expenditure including that associated with Cleddau bridge.

  Hospice Movement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has any plans to alter the funding of the hospice movement in Wales on lines similar to those recently announced for the funding for Scotland;

  (2) whether, in any new funding plans for the hospice movement in Wales, he will make it his policy to include help for both units that provide a bedded service and those that provide day care only.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am considering plans to offer financial assistance for terminal care in Wales and will be making a statement in due course.

  Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers and percentages of the unemployed totals removed from all Welsh unemployed registers as a result of changes that took effect in August in the redundant mineworkers payments scheme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Latest estimates suggest that in Wales about 500 miners have decided to take advantage of the change in the redundant mineworkers payment scheme. It is of course entirely optional for the redundant mineworkers to decide whether or not to register as unemployed.

  Travel-to-work Areas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the travel-to-work areas in Wales which had(a) over 10 per cent. unemployment and (b) between 5 and 10 per cent. unemployment in October 1989, are (i) development areas and (ii) intermediate areas.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Two development areas had over 10 per cent. unemployment and nine had rates between 5 and 10 per cent. in October 1989. All 11 intermediate areas were in the latter category.

  Baglan-Lonlas Motorway
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when it is now proposed that a start will be made on the Baglan-Lonlas motorway section; and if he will give further consideration to the need to divide the work into two parts and build a bridge to relieve the existing conditions.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Tenders for the Earlswood-Lonlas section were received on 15 December and provided they are of satisfactory construction should start before the end of this financial year. Combining the remaining contracts would not achieve an earlier completion of the motorway. An improvement scheme at Baglan roundabout is currently under way, and others at Briton Ferry and Earlswood roundabouts are expected to start early in 1990. All are designed to improve traffic flows on the A48 trunk road.

  Neath and Port Talbot Hospital
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when it is now proposed that a start will be made on the new Neath and Port Talbot district hospital.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is for the West Glamorgan health authority to decide when it wishes to start work on this proposed hospital, subject to the necessary departmental approvals. The authority is currently considering the Department's response to its draft submission for approval in principle.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish information on the achievements of the urban programme and urban development grant for 1987–88.

  Mr. Grist
  I am pleased to announce the publication of the urban programme and urban development grant 64
  annual report for 1987–88. The report details the contribution both grant mechanisms are making towards easing the problems of economic and social deprivation in Wales. Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and House Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  British American Tobacco (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to respond to the effects of the recent BAT factory closure in Liverpool.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The services of the local jobcentre will be available to those who lose their jobs at the BAT factory in Liverpool. My Department, through its employment service and Training Agency, operates a wide range of employment, enterprise and training measures to help those made redundant find new jobs, retrain or set up businesses of their own.

  I understand that this closure has not yet taken place.

  Unemployed Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether unemployed claimants are assessed as showing good cause for rejecting the offer of an otherwise suitable vacancy from the employment service if they can show that their mortgage repayments were such that they would represent an unreasonably high proportion of the wages they would derive from the employment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether unemployed claimants are assessed as showing good cause for rejecting the offer of an otherwise suitable vacancy from the employment service if they can show that the necessary child care costs they would incur were such that they would represent an unreasonably high proportion of the wages they would derive from the employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Is is for the adjudicating authorities to decide whether a person can show good cause for refusing to apply for or accept a particular vacancy. The Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989 require them to take into account the expenses that would necessarily and exclusively be incurred by the claimant for the purposes of the employment, if they would represent an unreasonably high proportion of the expected remuneration from the employment. However, mortgage repayments and child care costs are general financial commitments and not expenses for the purposes of the employment.

  A claimant does not have good cause for refusing any employment if the reasons relate to their income or outgoings, or those of any other member of their household.

  Enterprise Allowance and TVEI
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide estimates showing for each financial year from 1987–88 to 1990–91 the amount of actual or planned expenditure on(a) the enterprise allowance scheme, (b) the technical and vocational education initiative and (c) work-related further education.
  65
  Mr. Eggar
  Records are kept on the basis of the standard financial year for accounting for Government expenditure which runs from 1 April to 31 March.

  The figures provided for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are based on actual amounts spent by the Department of Employment Training Agency (Ex MSC, Ex Training Commission) and are taken from published accounts.

  The figures for 1989–90 are based on the cash limit in the estimate.

  The figures for 1990–91 are based on PES 88.

  £ million at cash prices

  Enterprise allowance scheme1

  Technical and Vocational education initiative

  work-related further education

  1987–88

  195·8

  57·8

  112·0

  1988–89

  196·7

  92·1

  111·4

  1989–90

  187·0

  117·3

  101·5

  1990–91

  185·9

  139·1

  103·4

  1 Note for EAS

  (a) The scheme transferred to the Employment Service 26 October 1987. The figure shown for 1987–88, however, is for the full year.

  (b) The scheme was transferred back to the Training Agency in April 1989.

  Earnings
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the highest and what is the lowest rates of pay for jobs currently advertised at Burnley job centre; and what are the national average figures.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 14 December 1989, the highest rate of pay for jobs advertised at Burnley jobcentre was up to £240 per week and the lowest rate £66·40 per week.

  National average figures for vacancies advertised at jobcentres are not kept and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspectors there were in the Health and Safety Executive on 1 December 1979, 1 January 1980 and 1 December 1989, in the agriculture, general factory, specialist factory, explosives, industrial air pollution, mines and quarries, and nuclear inspectorates; and what was the total number of Health and Safety Executive inspectors on each of these dates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total number of inspectors in(a) the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorates; and (b) the total number of inspectors in HSE on 1 December 1979, 1 January 1980 and 1 December 1989 were as follows:

  1 December 1979

  1 January 1980

  1 December 1989

  (a) Total inspectors in Inspectorates

  Agricultural

  188

  188

  162

  Factory

  709·5

  703·5

  582

  Specialist1

  211

  210

  184·5

  Explosives1

  13

  13

  11

  Industrial Air Pollution2

  48

  48

  —

  Mines and Quarries3

  115

  114

  —

  Mines

  —

  —

  13

  Quarries

  —

  —

  47

  Nuclear Installations

  93

  92

  150

  (b) Total inspectors in HSE1

  1,449·5

  1,442·5

  1,221·5

  66

  1 Specialist inspectors (including Explosives inspectors) are currently in HSE's Technology Division. Prior to 1 July 1985 specialists formed part of HSE's Factory Inspectorate.

  2 Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate transferred to the Department of the Environment on 1 April 1987.

  3 On 1 October 1989 the Mines and Quarries Inspectorates were separated.

  4 Include those working outside their Inspectorates on eg line management duties, contributing to policy or technical standards work.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money was received by the Health and Safety Executive for each financial year since 1979; and how much was asked for by the Health and Safety Executive in each of those years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Gross financial provision to the Health and Safety Commission for each financial year since 1979, expressed at 1989–90 price levels, is as follows:

  £(000)s

  1979–80

  108,363

  1980–81

  121,934

  1981–82

  122,363

  1982–83

  118,265

  1983–84

  122,426

  1984–85

  119,576

  1985–86

  119,000

  1986–87

  116,315

  1987–88

  117,718

  1988–89

  117,086

  1989–90

  118,290

  Figures have been adjusted for purposes of comparison, to remove provision during 1981–82 to 1984–85 for HSE's dispersal to Bootle and provision for the industrial air pollutant inspectorate until it was transferred to the Department of the Environment in 1987.

  Discussions regarding funding for the Health and Safety Commission are confidential and take place in the context of the annual public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of staff employed by the Health and Safety Executive on 1 December 1979., 1 January 1980 and 1 December 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total number of staff, including casuals, employed by the Health and Safety Executive on 1 December 1979, 1 January 1980 and 1 December 1989 was as follows:

  1 December 1979

  1 January 1980

  1 December 1989

  4,226

  4,206·5

  3,682

  Women's Employment
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what submissions he has made to the European Commission, whether via normal interdepartmental channels or directly to the European Commission, to seek continuation of the present level of funding plus allowance for inflation for women's employment and workshop schemes; and what response has been received.

  Mr. Eggar
  The level of funding for these programmes will depend on the Commission's European social fund allocation to the United Kingdom and the priorities of its
  67
  Community support framework for objectives 3 and 4 of the funds. The Commission has announced annual allocations for the United Kingdom for 1990–1992 some 19 per cent. lower than in 1989, and has yet to agree its Community support framework. When it does my Department will seek equitable allocations for all United Kingdom programmes according to the needs of our labour market.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the responsibility of the training and enterprise councils for the continued development of the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mr. Eggar
  All training and enterprise councils will be working closely with their local education authorities to help develop and implement the technical and vocational education initiative. The LEA is contracted to deliver TVEI by the Training Agency.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the relationship between the local careers service and the local training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  In drawing up its business plan every TEC will want to consult the careers service to ensure that the training needs of young people in the local area will be met.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing the sums of money paid out in section 4 grants to the tourist industry in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total section 4 assistance paid out by the English Tourist Board to tourism projects in England was:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1984–85

  8·44

  1985–86

  7·81

  1986–87

  9·50

  1987–88

  11·86

  1988–89

  13·19

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Breath Testing
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), on 5 December,Official Report, column 131, he will set out the grounds on which a police officer may stop a motor vehicle.

  The Attorney-General
  For the purposes of my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East on 5 December, I had in mind the power contained in section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The divisional court has ruled that the police, in the exercise of powers under 68
  section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, are not prohibited from the random stopping of cars provided that the officer does not behave oppressively or capriciously.

  Trials (Delays)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the longest period in recent years between offence and trial; and if he will give details of the case.

  The Attorney-General
  Statistics relating to the period of the time between the date of an offence and the date of a trial are not collected. Accordingly, the information which is sought is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he takes to ensure that private and voluntary residential and nursing homes charge fees at a reasonable level.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The levels of fees charged are a matter between proprietors and residents or their relatives.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of board and lodging expenditure for residential care accommodation in Northumberland in the last financial year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Transitional Payments
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many transitional payments have been lost as a result of a new claim being made; and what is the saving in benefit payments.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information is not collected in the form requested.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many outside accountancy firms are employed by his Department; whether such employment is subject to any guidelines; and whether he takes steps before employing an accountancy firm to discover whether that firm has been censured by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in their inquiries under the Companies Act.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Six outside accountancy firms have been employed by the Department since April 1989 on work which is normally undertaken by their management consultancy divisions. Employment is subject to central guidance and guidelines prepared by the Department. The integrity and status of firms is taken fully into account during the competitive selection process.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to determine the number of elderly persons who are(a) residents of

  69
  independent sector residential nursing homes and (b) in receipt of benefit and unable to meet the full costs of that accommodation and are being subsidised by relatives to the extent of (i) up to £10 weekly, (ii) £10 to £20 weekly and (iii) above £20 weekly.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The fees residents contract to pay for the services they receive in independent homes are a matter between the resident (or his or her relatives) and the home. In those cases where the agreed fees exceed the level of help available through income support, payments can be made from other sources towards the shortfall and these are ignored in calculating benefit entitlement.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds are currently denied benefit for not taking up YTS places at the Durham office.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not collected because refusal to take up the offer of a place on a youth training scheme need not, of itself, deny benefit to 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the percentage rate of refusals for(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans, (c) crisis loans and (d) total, for each month of the operation of the social fund since April 1988; and what he estimates the future percentage rate of refusals to be between now and April 1990.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of the refusal rates for the three types of payment are in the Library. The total refusal rate for the three types of payment can be derived from the numbers of applications decided and awards made which are also available in the Library. Estimates of future refusal rates are not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each year since 1978 the grants for simple insulation measures made available under single payments and the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The information that is available is shown in the table.

  Single payments for draughtproofing

  Total amount paid £

  Number of payments

  December 1981

  14,526

  584

  December 1982

  55,940

  2,586

  December 1983

  181,337

  8,921

  December 1984

  608,317

  23,544

  February 1986

  1,827,932

  63,503

  May 1987

  4,488,535

  128,255

  Source: Annual Statistical Inquiry.

  1. Single payments commenced in November 1980 and the first data were collected in December 1981.

  2. The data relate to all payments made during the 12 months prior to the inquiry. However, they exclude payments made to claimants who ceased to receive supplementary benefit prior to the date of the inquiry, therefore the figures quoted may be an undercount of the actual payments made.

  3. Breakdown of single payments for 1987–88 is not available.
  70
  4. Since April 1988, provision for draughtproofing has been made mainly through Community Insulation Projects funded by the Training Commission, now the Training Agency. Payments for simple measures may also be available from the social fund.

  Halliburton Limited
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, pursuant to the undertaking in the Under-Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on 25 July,Official Report, column 641, and her letter dated 6 September, reference POS (3)2487/51, he will now instruct his overseas branch to approach the liaison officer in Italy in order to establish (a) whether Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited or any of its related companies paid the correct tax and social security contributions in Italy in respect of Mr. A., and (b) whether any prosecution against the company in question has been undertaken by the Italian authorities.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The overseas branch of the Department has no jurisdiction over any action that may be taken by the Italian authorities. However, inquiries have been made with the authorities in that country and they have advised that they are pursuing the question of payment of contributions with the company. They are not, as yet, in a position to give any more information.

  Income Support
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claimants will be removed from transitional protection in April 1990 but will not benefit fully from the uprating announced on 25 October because their weekly income will not increase by the full amount of the uprating.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Based on the May 1988 annual statistical it is estimated that there will be 280,000 such claimants.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate what proportion of individuals have taken up their entitlement to community charge benefit in Scotland and in each region in Scotland.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Up-to-date figures for those receiving community charge rebates will be available shortly and I will write to the hon. Member. Estimates of those entitled to community charge rebates can be obtained only when data from the relevant family expenditure survey become available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioner households have been dependent on state pensions and benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their income in each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 7 December 1989]: The latest information available in the form requested is taken from the 1986 family expenditure survey. Information up to that date is as follows:

  Year

  Per cent

  1979

  62

  1980

  61

  1981

  61

  71

  Year

  Per cent

  1982

  61

  1983

  59

  1984

  60

  1985

  58

  1986

  58

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Note: A pensioner tax unit is a single pensioner or a married couple where the man is over pension age.

DEFENCE

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts over £92,500 have been let by his Department in the 1988–89 financial year and in the current financial year to date; and how many of these were(a) automatically renewed and (b) open to competition by advertisement throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of contracts awarded by the Ministry of Defence and covered by the provisions of the EC Supplies Directive, for which the current threshold is £142,000 (or £92,000 if the requirement is also covered by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), was 503 in calendar year 1988. Of these, 396 were awarded following advertisement in the EC Official Journal and 107 were considered to be exempt from advertising and may have been awarded to the previous suppliers. The figures for calendar year 1989 will not be available until early 1990. Figures could only be provided on a financial year basis at disproportionate cost; The EC statistics for which MOD figures are kept being collected on a calendar year basis.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many outside accountancy firms are employed by his Department; whether such employment is subject to any guidelines; and whether he takes steps before employing an accountancy firm to discover whether that firm has been censured by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in their inquiries under the Companies Act;

  (2) how many outside accountancy firms are employed by his Department; whether such employment is subject to any guidelines; and whether he takes steps before employing an accountancy firm to discover whether that firm has been censured by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in their inquiries under the Companies Act.

  Mr. Neubert
  Two outside acountancy firms are currently employed by the Ministry of Defence on accountancy type tasks. Their employment accords fully with current guidelines. The firms themselves were subject to a full and rigorous scrutiny before being contracted by the Department to carry out the tasks in question.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he can give of the number of nuclear tests carried out by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Soviet Union, France, China and other countries in each year since 1985 inclusive.
  72
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on Friday 15 December at column 883.

  Tucano
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tucano aircraft have been delivered to the Royal Air Force; and what is the percentage performance status of the contract.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Thirty-one aircraft had been delivered to the RAF by 30 November 1989. The percentage performance status of the contract is 39 per cent.

  Mentor Interactive Training
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts have been placed with Mentor Interactive Training.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Mentor Interactive Training has a number of contracts to provide computer based and interactive video training facilities to several MOD training establishments.

  BL755 Cluster Bomb
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to place contracts for a replacement of the BL755 cluster bomb.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Proposals for the replacement of the BL755 are currently under consideration.

  First World War (Executions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving to the possible exoneration of some 300 British soldiers, executed by firing squad for alleged military indiscipline in world war I; if he will procure a copy of the book "Shot at Dawn" by Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes for his Department's library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The events covered in the book "Shot at Dawn" by Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes must be seen in their historical context. The use of the death penalty in world war I was governed by a penal code which reflected the attitudes of the time. Those attitudes have changed but it would be wrong to judge the historical events of 75 years ago against current attitudes and perceptions. There are no plans to re-open the cases of those men executed. Two copies of the book are held in the Ministry of Defence library.

  Operations (Western Europe)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the total numbers of British forces, planes and tanks deployed, by country, in western Europe, and the equivalent figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of United Kingdom regular forces deployed, by country, in western Europe as at 1 April 1989 are as follows:
  73

  Deployment of United Kingdom regular forces, by country, in Western Europe, as at 1 April 1989

  Country

  Total

  German Federal Republic (excluding West Berlin)

  64,294

  West Berlin

  3,754

  Belgium

  906

  Greece

  1

  Denmark

  26

  France

  22

  Italy (including Sardinia)

  350

  Netherlands

  629

  Norway

  811

  Portugal

  67

  Spain

  229

  Turkey

  16

  Unspecified

  29

  Total

  71,134

  The equivalent figures for each year since 1979 until 1988 are not held in the same detail and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I am able, however, to offer figures of United Kingdom forces deployed, broken down between the Federal Republic of Germany and elsewhere in western Europe. They are as follows:

  Deployment of United Kingdom regular forces in the Federal Republic of Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe 1979–88

  Year

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Elsewhere in Western Europe

  Total

  19791

  64,618

  5,580

  70,298

  1980

  64,713

  5,847

  70,560

  1981

  69,109

  6,051

  75,160

  1982

  70,493

  6,237

  76,730

  1983

  67,424

  6,031

  73,455

  1984

  65,605

  6,550

  72,155

  1985

  66,586

  6,343

  72,929

  1986

  66,918

  5,982

  72,900

  1987

  66,836

  6,328

  73,164

  1988

  66,750

  6,450

  73,200

  1 1 July.

  The figures cover all United Kingdom regular forces, male and female. Army personnel from BAOR on emergency tours in Northern Ireland are added back to the Federal Republic of Germany numbers but personnel recorded as on short tours elsewhere are not included.

  All United Kingdom regular army armoured and armoured reconnaissance regiments within western Europe are based in BAOR. The figures for numbers of regiments deployments in BAOR since 1979 are shown in the next table. It is not our policy to give more detailed information on numbers of tanks deployed in particular locations.

  Numbers of United Kingdom regular army armoured and armoured reconnaissance regiments deployed in BAOR 1979 to 1989

  Year

  Number of Armoured Regiments

  Number of Armoured Reconnaissance Regiments

  Total

  1979

  8

  5

  13

  1980

  8

  5

  13

  1981

  9

  4

  13

  1982

  9

  4

  13

  1983

  9

  4

  13

  1984

  10

  3

  13

  1985

  11

  2

  13

  1986

  11

  2

  13

  1987

  11

  2

  13

  74

  Year

  Number of Armoured Regiments

  Number of Armoured Reconnaissance Regiments

  Total

  1988

  12

  2

  14

  1989

  12

  2

  14

  RAF front line units within western Europe are based in the Federal Republic of Germany. There were 12 squadrons of aircraft deployed in RAF Germany between 1979 and 1982, 13 from 1983 to 1985, 14 in 1986 and 15 from 1987 to the present day. It is not our policy to give more detailed information on numbers of aircraft deployed in particular locations.

  Military Advisers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the total numbers, by country, of British service personnel stationed in non-North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries as advisers; what is the period for which they are stationed; and what are the equivalent figures for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some 550 service personnel are on loan or seconded to the Governments of 33 countries outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Details about specific countries are generally in confidence between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the countries concerned.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to return the land at Greenham common to public use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on 13 April 1989 at column 653.

  Earnings
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out(a) the percentage in real-term increases and (b) the actual percentage increase in the pay of the following in each year since 1964 (i) Army private, (ii) Army sergeant, (iii) Army W011, (iv) second lieutenant, (v) captain and (vii) lieutenant-colonel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I regret that the available records do not enable the question to be answered for years prior to 1970.

  Since the introduction of the military salary in April 1970, the average increases in armed forces' pay for all ranks compared with the retail price index have been:

  Pay revew in

  Equivalent percentage increase for full year

  Retail price index

  1971

  1—

  9·4

  1972

  10·0

  7·1

  1973

  6·5

  9·1

  1974

  13·0

  16·0

  1975

  29·5

  24·2

  1976

  9·6

  16·5

  1977

  5·0

  15·9

  75

  Pay revew in

  Equivalent percentage increase for full year

  Retail price index

  1978

  13·0

  8·2

  1979

  32·5

  13·5

  1980

  16·8

  18·0

  1981

  10·3

  11·9

  1982

  6·1

  8·6

  1983

  7·2

  4·8

  1984

  24·9

  5·0

  1985

  7·1

  6·1

  1986

  35·6

  3·4

  1987

  4·9

  4·1

  1988

  6·4

  4·9

  1989

  6·8

  n/a

  1 There was no formal review in 1971 but an interim award of 7 per cent. was made in August 1971.

  2 A staged increase, the full amount awarded was 7·6 per cent.

  3 A 7·5 per cent. increase deterred until 1 July 1986.

  n/a Not yet available.

  It would not be possible to break the figures down to show percentage increases in pay for each of the ranks requested without disproportionate cost.

  Belize
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost in the latest year for which figures are available of the British garrison in Belize, including assistance in the Belize defence force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated cost of maintaining a garrison in Belize in 1989–90 is £29 million. It is not our practice to disclose the total cost in military assistance to individual countries.

  Air Miss (Tranent)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to send a copy of the report of the joint air miss working group on the incident involving a military aircraft and a civil passenger flight over Tranent on the evening of 2 August to the hon. Member for East Lothian as soon as that report becomes available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will send a copy of the report as soon as it is available.

  Colonel Richard Lea
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which occasions Colonel Richard Lea has been suspended from duty since June 1984; and what were the reasons for suspension.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to comment on cases which involve disciplinary action taken against individuals who are no longer serving.

  Tornado
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of training a Tornado pilot.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current cost of training a Tornado pilot to the point where he joins an operational squadron is approximately £4·4 million.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether in the last 10 years he or his predecessors, either by direction or informally, secured changes in the accounting conventions followed by Royal Ordnance or Royal Naval dockyards, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  After 13 years of operation as a trading fund the Royal Ordnance was privatised from 1 April 1987. The Royal Naval dockyards were vote funded until April 1987 when they were transferred to commercial management. During these periods the broad accounting conventions followed were those required by legislation and consequential regulations appropriate to their status.

  WE177
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 30 November,Official Report, column 357, what amounts of money have been paid to (a) British Aerospace and (b) Hunting Engineering in connection with the study of possible procurement options for the replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information requested is commercially confidential.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 30 November,Official Report, column 357, what is the nature of the arrangements that have been concluded with the United States Government enabling an exchange of information on the subject of the study of possible replacement options for the WE177 nuclear bomb.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The arrangements are in the form of a memorandum of understanding concerning co-operation on a tactical air-to-surface missile feasibility study.

  Thailand
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 30 November,Official Report, column 358, what was the annual number of visits made by British service personnel to Thailand for each year over the last four years; and what was the purpose of each of these visits.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Cambodia
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 30 November,Official Report, column 357, whether any assessment has been made of the ability of the Khmer People's National Liberation Front and the National Sihanoukist Army to control in an appropriate manner classified information that they receive.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 7 November at column 543.

  Staff (Length of Service)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of service of(a) industrial and (b) non-industrial staff employed by his Department.
  77
  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Civilian Staff (Overtime)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total amount of overtime that has been paid out to all his Departments' civilian staff for each year for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Chieftain Tank
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what importance he attaches to cost-effectiveness in the choice of a replacement for the Chieftain tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Cost-effectiveness is one of the principal factors under consideration in the choice of the next generation main battle tank.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of running each ambulance service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested, derived from the 1988–89 annual accounts of the regional health authorities (RHAs) and district health authorities in England which manage and account for these services, is shown in the table.

  Total revenue expenditure on patient transport (i.e. ambulance) services—1988–89

  Regional/district health authorities

  £

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  9,652,274

  South Tees

  4,063,738

  East Cumbria

  4,198,245

  Durham

  4,292,461

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  13,811,675

  Hull

  6,813,348

  York

  4,062,366

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  7,496,560

  South Derbyshire

  5,938,750

  Leicestershire

  5,349,592

  North Lincolnshire

  4,645,797

  Nottingham

  6,577,756

  Cambridge

  3,618,856

  East Suffolk

  3,396,348

  Norwich

  6,057,536

  North Bedfordshire

  2,942,325

  East Hertfordshire

  5,753,787

  Mid Essex

  9,148,786

  Eastbourne

  5,485,420

  Medway

  9,766,199

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  46,029,885

  East Surrey

  7,398,616

  Chichester

  1,157,371

  Mid Downs

  1,612,104

  Worthing

  1,423,770

  East Dorset

  4,502,789

  Winchester

  7,696,549

  Swindon

  3,836,516

  Isle of Wight

  939,210

  West Berkshire

  3,814,271

  Aylesbury

  3,246,717

  Northampton

  3,208,202

  Oxfordshire

  3,192,442

  Bristol and Weston

  5,356,017

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3,740,707

  Exeter

  3,325,197

  78

  Regional/district health authorities

  £

  North Devon

  1,273,991

  Plymouth

  1,839,102

  Torbay

  1,875,101

  Gloucester

  3,710,954

  Somerset

  3,028,723

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  14,485,006

  Worcester

  4,544,593

  Shropshire

  2,815,530

  Mid Staffordshire

  6,184,806

  South Warwickshire

  2,855,550

  Chester

  5,613,353

  South Sefton

  9,065,193

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  16,408,654

  Preston

  9,029,976

  Total—England

  306,282,714

  Notes:

  1. The figures are provisional (as yet subject to audit).

  2. The South West Thames Regional Health Authority accounts for all the expenditure relevant to the London Ambulance Service. Generally the other Regional Health Authorities shown manage and account for the service provided to particular conurbations within their respective regions.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department's evaluation of the Cornwall air ambulance service includes the possible consequences for the service of the granting of self-governing status to hospitals from the jurisdiction of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no reason to suppose tht the possible NHS trust status of the hospitals served by the Cornwall air ambulance will affect either its need or effectiveness.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the criteria for assessing the skills of emergency ambulance staff required to use paramedical skills gained from extended training to National Health Service training authority standard; what comparison has been made with payments made to other National Health Service staff using paramedical skills; and in offering an additional £500 to emergency ambulance staff, what accounrt has been taken of the amount of overtime they are obliged to work.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Selected, qualified ambulance staff who volunteer for extended training, are trained and certified as fit to practice in the skills of extended ambulance aid by NHS consultants. They must requalify annually. The objective of this training is to save life and reduce morbidity, and mortality. A clinical audit carried out in 1988 indicated that of 28,000 patients who received some form of ambulance aid, some 95 per cent. were still alive on arrival at hospital. There are no comparable payments made to other NHS staff. The additional £500 to be paid to fully qualified staff will be part of the annual salary and will count in full when calculating overtime and other benefits.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table, using the PACT database, showing the expenditure on prescriptions for each family practitioner committee area, together with the totals for each National Health Service region for the 1988–89 financial year; and if he will express that expenditure as a figure per head of population for each area and region.
  79
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested cannot be derived from PACT but is available to the Department as set out in the table.

  Total cost of prescriptions dispensed by chemists, appliance contractors and dispensing doctors

  April 1988-March 1989

  Total cost (£ thousands)

  Total cost per head (£)

  Cleveland

  28,092

  50·79

  Cumbria

  24,043

  49·15

  Durham

  30,680

  51·41

  Northumberland

  14.950

  49·60

  Gateshead

  10,075

  48·85

  Newcastle

  13,732

  49·11

  North Tyne

  11,282

  58·49

  South Tyne

  7,873

  50·56

  Sunderland

  16,187

  54·67

  Northern RHA

  156,913

  51·09

  Humberside

  43,177

  50·77

  North Yorks

  33,452

  46·91

  Bradford

  22,626

  48·75

  Calderdale

  9,755

  49·78

  Kirklees

  16,707

  44·51

  Leeds

  35,071

  49·42

  Wakefield

  16,183

  51·94

  Yorkshire RHA

  176,971

  48·88

  Derbyshire

  41,294

  44·68

  Leicester

  38,876

  43·90

  Lincoln

  31,465

  54·01

  Nottinghamshire

  43,023

  42·70

  Barnsley

  12,256

  55·48

  Doncaster

  15,069

  51·67

  Rotherham

  11,379

  45·19

  Sheffield

  24,837

  47·01

  Trent RHA

  218,199

  46·50

  Cambridgeshire

  27,433

  42·10

  Norfolk

  36,831

  49·48

  Suffolk

  28,874

  45·22

  East Anglia RHA

  93,139

  45·78

  Bedford

  22,807

  42·97

  Hertfordshire

  41,008

  41·59

  Barnet

  12,713

  42·17

  Brent and Harrow

  20,442

  44·99

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  28,080

  44·03

  Hillingdon

  10,167

  43·84

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  15,484

  52·43

  North West Thames RHA

  150,701

  43·84

  Essex

  68,037

  44·48

  Barking and Havering

  16,285

  42·51

  Camden and Islington

  15,483

  44·02

  City and East London

  26,517

  47·17

  Enfield and Harringey

  18,451

  40·71

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  20,533

  46·24

  North East Thames RHA

  165,307

  44·39

  East Sussex

  35,896

  50·36

  Kent

  69,585

  45·77

  Bexley and Greenwich

  17,862

  41·08

  Bromley

  12,009

  40·27

  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark

  29,858

  43·56

  South East Thames RHA

  165,210

  45·24

  80

  April 1988-March 1989

  Total cost (£ thousands)

  Total cost per head (£)

  Surrey

  41,926

  41·94

  West Sussex

  35,115

  49·92

  Croydon

  12,737

  40·16

  Kingston and Richmond

  13,242

  44·84

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  25,272

  42·88

  South West Thames RHA

  128,291

  44·16

  Dorsetshire

  34,655

  52·85

  Hampshire

  67,109

  43·49

  Wiltshire

  23,357

  41·93

  Isle of Wight

  6,837

  52·68

  Wessex RHA

  131,957

  45·73

  Berkshire

  30,869

  41·32

  Buckinghamshire

  25,087

  39·99

  Northamptonshire

  24,396

  42·78

  Oxfordshire

  23,279

  40·21

  Oxford RHA

  103,630

  41·06

  Avon

  40,246

  42·17

  Cornwall

  24,587

  53·38

  Devon

  49,330

  48·31

  Gloucester

  22,021

  41·75

  Somerset

  21,633

  47·27

  South Western RHA

  157,817

  46·13

  Hereford and Worcester

  28,835

  42·98

  Salop

  18,186

  45·38

  Staffordshire

  46,578

  45·10

  Warwickshire

  22,812

  47·07

  Birmingham

  51,029

  51·35

  Coventry

  14,879

  48·59

  Dudley

  12,884

  42·34

  Sandwell

  15,640

  52·79

  Solihull

  9,313

  45·42

  Walsall

  13,739

  52·38

  Wolverhampton

  12,774

  51·22

  West Midlands RHA

  246,669

  47·38

  Cheshire

  45,845

  47·97

  Liverpool

  26,515

  56·46

  St. Helens with Knowsley

  17,544

  50·70

  Sefton

  15,047

  50·56

  Wirral

  18,170

  54·27

  Mersey RHA

  123,121

  51·22

  Lancashire

  75,826

  54·87

  Bolton

  12,216

  46·34

  Bury

  9,470

  54·12

  Manchester

  23,340

  52·34

  Oldham

  10,480

  47·74

  Rochdale

  10,891

  52·65

  Salford

  13,916

  59·06

  Stockport

  14,546

  50·00

  Tameside

  10,835

  49·97

  Trafford

  11,847

  54·91

  Wigan

  16,258

  52·85

  North Western RHA

  209,625

  52·94

  The figures include prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists, applicance contractors and dispensing doctors.

  Total cost includes the basic price of the drug less discount plus dispensing costs and fees.

  Figures are based on OPCS estimates of resident populations for mid year 1988.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the average and (b) the range of expenditure per patient between general practitioner practices in each family practitioner committee area of the Northern health region in the year 1988–89, using the PACT database.

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Range of basic prices/patients

  Average basic price/patient

  Lowest

  Highest

  Quarter Ending

  £

  £

  £

  Cleveland FPC

  11·46

  6·64

  42·80

  July 1989

  Cumbria FPC

  10·95

  2·53

  19·21

  August 1989

  Durham FPC

  11·87

  6·90

  20·21

  August 1989

  Gateshead FPC

  10·56

  7·80

  14·85

  June 1989

  Newcastle FPC

  10·15

  2·94

  14·71

  July 1989

  Northumberland FPC

  10·85

  7·41

  16·13

  June 1989

  North Tyneside FPC

  12·54

  6·42

  21·45

  June 1989

  South Tyneside

  11·00

  8·35

  13·60

  June 1989

  Sunderland FPC

  12·05

  7·45

  17·66

  August 1989

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on patient list sizes of 500 or more of prescribing doctors within the FPC. Lists of less than 500 and of dispensing doctors are not included.

  2. The figures are net ingredient cost (basic price) of prescriptions dispensed in response to prescriptions written by practices within the FPC. They take no account of discount, dispensing costs or fees and therefore do not represent actual expenditure.

  3. The FPCs are divided into three streams for reporting purposes. Each stream has a different quarterly cycle. Aggregated annual data is not available.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many old age pensioners have died as a result of hypothermia in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Number of deaths with mention of hypothermia on the death certificate for males aged 65 and over, and females aged 60 and over, in England and Wales from 1979 to 1988.

  Year

  Number of Deaths

  Males

  Females

  1979

  238

  477

  1980

  165

  341

  1981

  175

  411

  1982

  204

  345

  1983

  149

  314

  1984

  165

  312

  1985

  238

  485

  1986

  254

  513

  1987

  156

  338

  1988

  162

  249

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of deaths where hypothermia was mentioned as a cause; and what is his estimate of the total number of deaths where hypothermia was the underlying cause of death in England in each year from 1978 to 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Number of deaths from hypothermia as a mention on the death certificate; and also as an underlying cause1 of death in England from 1978 to 1988.

  Year

  Mentioned

  1Underlying cause

  1978

  646

  n/a

  1979

  789

  404

  1980

  555

  245

  1981

  628

  n/a

  1982

  611

  300

  1983

  508

  209

  1984

  516

  249

  82
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the average and range of prescribing costs can only be made available without disproportionate expense for the last quarter. This is set out in the table. This information cannot be directly derived from PACT which is not a database.

  Year

  Mentioned

  1Underlying cause

  1985

  762

  407

  1986

  785

  411

  1987

  517

  249

  1988

  404

  181

  1 Assigned to the 9th revision (1979) International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes 778.3 and 991.6.

  1981: Not available due to industrial action by registration officers.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private residential homes have been registered in the Durham area in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table gives the total number of privately run residential care homes registered with Durham social services authority under the Registered Homes Act 1984 as at 31 March of each year.

  Year

  Number of homes

  1985

  14

  1986

  123

  1987

  134

  1988

  44

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private residential homes have been registered in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district health authority area since 1984.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table gives the total number of privately run residential care homes registered with Lancashire social services authority under the Registered Homes Act 1984 as at 31 March of each year.
  83

  Year

  Number of homes

  1985

  334

  1986

  402

  1987

  1482

  1988

  1538

  1 Provisional.

  Pharmaceutical Products
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to bring an end to the differential pricing of pharmaceutical products within the member countries of the European Community with a view to ending the current practice of parallel importing of such products from Europe.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Differential pricing of pharmaceutical products between EC member states results from a variety of factors. The issue is being addressed by the Community through the implementation of directive 89/105/EEC, which is concerned with transparency of pharmaceutical pricing arrangements. Parallel importing, which reflects different price levels in different countries, results from the establishment of a single European market with free movement of goods between member states, which the Government fully support. Parallel imports of medicines which satisfy United Kingdom standards as to their safety, quality and efficacy can be expected to continue so long as there are significant pricing disparities.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek to introduce legislation to extend the patent life of pharmaceutical products by a period which would further encourage innovation and better enable research based pharmaceutical companies to recoup their research and development costs on new inventions before they are exploited by non-innovative companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  I fully appreciate that the pharmaceutical industry invests substantially in research and development in this country and that effective patent protection is important to enable that investment to be recouped and to encourage further innovation. I am also aware of preliminary proposals for legislation under consideration within the EC Commission which would have the effect of extending the term of patents for pharmaceutical products. We are carefully considering these proposals in terms of their likely impact not only on the pharmaceutical industry, research-based and generic, but also on the price and availability of pharmaceuticals in this country.

  Environmental Policies
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the key aspects of health authorities' environmental policies and practices which he monitors.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities are responsible for monitoring their environmental policies and practices. The Department monitors as the need arises for all or individual authorities.

  Radiation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 December (1) what numbers of claims for excessive dosage of radiation have been settled; what ranges of payments have been made; and how many cases remain to be settled;

  (2) in respect of patients damaged by excessive radiation treatment at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, if he will list how many settlements have been made, how many settlements remain to be made and what is the highest and the lowest settlement made to date;

  (3) if he will list the number of payments and the total of payments made to staff who were removed from their posts following these overdoses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These are all matters for the Exeter health authority and, as far as they affect patients, for their representatives. Two physicists, who were dismissed following the incidents, received severance payments, the details of which are confidential to the two parties involved.

  Schoolchildren (Diet)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why he has decided not to accompany the publication of his report on "The Diets of British Schoolchildren" by a press conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not the usual practice of the Department to hold press conferences or press briefings on every occasion that a report is published. Publication of reports is accompanied by a press release relayed to all national newspapers and other media together with an extensive mailing to a range of magazines. Such a press release accompanied publication of this report in June 1989.

  Sugars
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) why it was decided that the publication of his Department's report on sugars and health would not be accompanied by a press conference; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether the publication of the COMA report on sugar and health was accompanied by a press conference.

  Mr. Freeman
  A press briefing, open to all journalists, was held on Tuesday 12 December on publication of the report of the panel on dietary sugars.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what weight he gave to Professor Don Naismith's participation in a sugar industry deputation against the British Medical Association's view on sugar consumption when considering his appointment to the COMA panel on sugars and health; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what weight he gave to Professor Harry Keen's speeches on sugar industry platforms and his research funding from the sugar industry when considering his appointment to the COMA panel on sugars and health; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what weight he gave to Professor John Durnin's speeches on sugar industry platforms and his participation in a sugar industry deputation against the British Medical Association's view on sugar consumption, when considering his appointment to the COMA panel on sugars and health; and if he will make a statement.
  85
  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's chief medical officer takes great care when choosing members for the committee on medical aspects of food policy (COMA) and its panels to ensure that advice is comprehensive, balanced and objective. The panel on dietary sugars, consisting of 12 members, was chosen to take account of the whole spectrum of scientific opinion regarding sugars and health. The report produced by the panel was agreed by all panel members.

  I understand that Professor Naismith was not a member of the deputation to which the hon. Member refers.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by London health authority, the current number of beds taken out of use for budgetary purposes and the equivalent numbers for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent on publicising and implementing the Government's plans for the National Health Service prior to the Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated cost of informing the public about the Government's plans to improve the Health Service is £450,000. A further £2,110,000 is estimated to have been spent on informing people working for the NHS. £85 million has been allocated to assist the implementation of the proposals in the financial year 1989–90. It is not possible to distinguish expenditure made before the Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Bed and Breakfast
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) families and (b) individuals he estimates will spend the 1989 Christmas holiday period in bed and breakfast accommodation in England and Wales other than as tourists;

  (2) how many (a) families and (b) people he estimates spent the Christmas holiday in bed and breakfast accommodation in England and Wales in each of the years 1983 to 1988 inclusive, other than as tourists;

  (3) how many children he estimates spent the Christmas holiday period in bed and breakfast accommodation in England other than as tourists during each of the years 1983 to 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These are questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors he has identified within the process of food production as making a significant contribution to the increased number of food poisoning cases reported in each of the last four years: and if he will make a statement.
  86
  Mr. Freeman
  Food poisoning organisms can enter the food production chain at any point during processing, distribution, sale and consumption. The food industry has a legal responsibility to ensure that food produced and sold is fit for human consumption.

  The increase in the number of reported cases may reflect in part both heightened public awareness of food poisoning and recent changes in the system for recording and collating data operated by the public health laboratory service.

  We have sought advice from the committee on the microbiological safety of food on the increasing incidence of foodborne illness.

  Influenza Vaccine
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that in case of influenza vaccine shortage, groups seen to be medically at risk receive priority;

  (2) what priorities for vaccination he has accorded to hospital nurses and doctors and hospital patients.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's memorandum "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease" carries advice on those individuals where protection by influenza immunisation should be considered because of special risk. These include health service staff, those suffering from certain illnesses, and the elderly and children over four years of age living in residential homes and long-stay hospitals, where use of the vaccine is not contraindicated. This advice was confirmed in the chief medical officer's letter issued on 19 September. Both documents were sent to all doctors.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he took to ensure sufficient influenza vaccine prior to the present outbreak.

  Mr. Freeman
  The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation met on 23 March 1989 to discuss the requirements for influenza vaccine for the 1989–90 season. Manufacturers were contacted during April 1989 to obtain details of the estimated number of doses of vaccine which would be made available for the United Kingdom market, and to ensure that a buffer stock would be available to the Department of Health for allocation to users if necessary. Negotiations with the manufacturers were completed by the middle of June 1989. Advice to general practitioners giving details on the use of the vaccine, and categories considered to be "at risk" was issued on 19 September 1989, prior to the commencement of the normal vaccination programme in October 1989. When during the last few days the recorded incidence of influenza cases showed a considerable increase over the corresponding figures recorded during 1988, manufacturers were contacted immediately to negotiate further supplies of the vaccine.

  Hospital Funding
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what special funding is provided by his Department to assist hospitals in the proximity of airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. It is for health authorities to determine how the resources available should be
  87
  distributed to their hospitals in line with national policy guidelines and their assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Cornwall Air Ambulance Service
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources his Department are providing to evaluate the Cornwall air ambulance service; and when he expects the evaluation to be finalised.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department will be evaluating the Cornwall service as part of a larger evaluation of helicopter ambulances. The evaluation, which will be undertaken by one of the Department's funded units will be adequately resourced and will begin in spring 1990 and run on to early 1994.

  Ophthalmology Consultants
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of consultants in ophthalmology in each district health authority in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Cataracts
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of people currently awaiting cataract operations in each district health authority in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has any plans to revise the evidence relating to deprivation payments given to the Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body by his Department; whether he intends submitting new evidence; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he intends to remove deprivation payments from the remit of the Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is a long standing agreement between the parties concerned that the contents of the evidence to the Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body are not made public before the Government have announced their decisions on the recommendations made by the review body.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he is expecting the Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body to report; and when he will be announcing his decisions on their recommendations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body has been asked to report to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, in time for decisions to be announced before the start of the next financial year.

  GP Contract (Kent)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reconsider the general practitioner contract negotiated locally in Kent.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The GPs' new contract is a national contract applying to all GPs in Great Britain.

ENVIRONMENT

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to ensure that all public inquiries established by Her Majesty's Government publish as high a proportion as possible of their documents on recycled paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Government Departments already use recycled paper for a range of document production, including some publications such as public inquiry reports.

  There are a number of technical constraints which currently prevent a wider application of recycled paper. To overcome these constraints, working groups representing Government Departments and individual suppliers have been established to draw up specification standards for recycled papers, particularly in high volume areas.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will raise the question of nylon monofilament nets and their effects on the populations of dolphins, porpoises and other cetaceans with other European Environment ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Measures to enable better protection of cetacean populations are among the topics being discussed in preparation for the third north sea conference in March 1990. Better information on interaction between fishing activity and cetaceans is one of the research needs identified, but I understand that there is no evidence at present to suggest that the use of monofilament fishing nets is posing a significant problem for cetacean populations in United Kingdom waters. The European Community is already pursuing a co-ordinated approach to the subject of pelagic drift netting on the high seas which has given rise to great concern.

  Groundwork Foundation (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to establish a groundwork foundation and trust in Nottingham; how it will be financed; what is its purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Groundwork Foundation is currently discussing with the local authorities in Nottingham the possibility of establishing a groundwork trust in the city. The proposal is still in its early stages and the area to be covered by the trust has not yet been decided. The core costs of groundwork trusts are funded by my Department, local authorities and the private sector. The Groundwork Foundation has allocated £40,000 in 190–91 to the proposed Nottingham groundwork trust from funds provided by the Department. I understand that the level of financial support from the local authorities and the private sector is still to be determined. The role of the trust will be to bring together the public, private and voluntary sectors in Nottingham to tackle the area's environmental problems for the long term benefit of the local community.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make information available about levels of air pollution in urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Following the incident of elevated ozone levels in the summer, the Government decided to make available the data collected on the Warren Spring laboratory ozone measurement network on a daily basis during incidents. We have now decided following recent adverse winter conditions that levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) collected in the same way will similarly be made available. A daily summary will be issued when any one of the WHO guidelines is exceeded.

  These are:

  SO2: 122 parts per billion (ppb)

  CO: 25 parts per million (ppm)

  NO2: 210 ppb.

  This is a further example of our determination to improve public access to environmental information. Levels of these pollutants reached in the United Kingdom fortunately do not pose significant threats to human health and we do not, of course, want to alarm people unnecessarily. Nevertheless we believe that people should have the facts and judge for themselves.

  We already have major action in hand to reduce these pollutants. Action on car exhaust emissions agreed in the European Council last June will drastically reduce emissions of CO and oxide of nitrogen from all new cars after the end of 1992 and will ensure a downward trend in the levels of these pollutants in towns and cities. The new standards will cost the motorist some 1·5 billion per year compared with current ones. We are pressing the Commission to bring forward new standards to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy diesel vehicles. We also have major commitments to reduce emissions of SO2 and oxides of nitrogen from power stations and are encouraging a few remaining local authorities who have not yet introduced smoke control programmes in affected areas to do so to ensure compliance, by April 1993 at the latest, with European directive limits on smoke and sulphur dioxide.

  Air quality standards and criteria for monitoring them are set by European Community directives for smoke and SO2, for NO2, and for lead in air. Only one breach (outside derogation areas) has occurred this year. It is of the NO, directive, for which the criterion is that a level half that of the WHO guideline must not be exceeded for more than 175 hours in a year. This breach occurred because an indoor source of NO2 interfered with the monitor in question. No other breach is anticipated.

  Council of Environment Ministers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy at the next Council of European Environment Ministers to propose that the European Commission produce an annual report on the state of the environment in the European Community, to be published in January each year, to be widely publicised and circulated.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the proposal to establish a European environment agency, it is stipulated that a report on the state of the environment in the European
  91
  Community should be published by an agency every three years. Unanimous agreement on the three-year cycle for publishing such a report was reached at the last Council of European EnvironmentMinisters in November.

  Recycling
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation requiring planning consents for retail stores to include practicable provision for the collection of re-usable materials.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We do not at present propose to introduce such legislation but planning authorities should bear in mind the benefits to the local community in arranging for such facilities to be considered where practicable at an early stage in the planning of retail facilities.

  Pollution
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to give effect to the undertaking given by the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) concerning the laying of regulations under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We are committed to the implementation of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and as soon as practicable we will undertake consultation on the regulations necessary to bring the Act into force.

  Christmas Novelty Sprays
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has any plans to ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons as propellants in Christmas novelty sprays; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has on the use of chlorofluorocarbons in novelty Christmas sprays; and if he will advise consumers not to purchase such products.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government are actively seeking international agreement to the phase out of all CFCs by the year 2000. I understand that the aerosol industry intends 90 per cent. of all its products to be CFC free by the end of the year. In the case of these Christmas novelties, I also understand that the alternative propellants available this Christmas are flammable. Because of the way these products are often used, safety factors prohibit the use of flammable material. It is proposed that one of the new generation propellants will be used in these products next year. British consumers have already shown that they can decide for themselves whether they wish to buy products which damage the ozone layer.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to require local planning authorities to consider design energy consumption of buildings when reaching planning decisions.

  Mr. Howard
  No. Such steps would be unnecessary. The energy consumption aspect of building design is covered by part L of the Building Regulations 1985.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make home improvement grants claimable by private sector tenants without a repairing lease.

  Mr. Howard
  No. Where a tenant is not required by the terms of his lease to undertake works of repair or improvement the responsibility will rest with the landlord. It is therefore appropriate for the landlord to apply for grant and for any payment to be based on an assessment of his resources.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 11 December,Official Report, column 493, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, concerning a complaint by Mr. R. Gorman of 14 Welby street, Manchester in which he states that a reply to a letter to him dated 31 July was sent on 14 October, he will investigate why this reply has never reached the right hon. Member; and if he will now ensure that a reply does reach the right hon. Member.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Investigations within my Department have shown that the letter was dispatched on 14 October. I apologise for any inconvenience and I am now sending the right hon. Member a copy of my letter.

  Toxic Waste (Wath upon Dearne)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will immediately notify the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America of the necessity for the toxic waste sent to the United Kingdom by or the behalf of the FMC Company of the United States of America to be returned from Wath upon Dearne, Rotherham, to that company; and whether this action would be in accordance with the current and binding international agreement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Environmental Protection Agency is already aware of our view that the waste at Wath upon Dearne should be returned to the United States of America and are currently considering the scope for action under American legislation. There is no binding international agreement. Although the Basel convention could cover the particular circumstances of this case, it is not yet in force.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether at any time his Department or any public agency has considered the possibility of the disposal in the United Kingdom of the toxic waste bulk at Wath upon Dearne, Rotherham.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As part of its contingency planning Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has considered possible treatment facilities for the material at Wath upon Dearne. It however remains our policy that this material should be returned to the United States of America.

  Animals and Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licences for the purposes of importing birds under the CITES regulations were granted in 1986, 1987 and 1988.
  93
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Details of all United Kingdom trade in CITES species, including but not separately identifying birds, are submitted annually to the European Commission and are included in the Commission's annual report on trade in endangered species. I have arranged for copies of the 1986 and 1987 reports to be placed in the Library of the House. The United Kingdom figures for 1988 have been submitted to the Commission, but have not yet been published by it.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are applied by him in granting import licences under CITES; and whether he takes into account the character of the applicant, as demonstrated by relevant criminal convictions concerning importation without a licence or the breaking of previous licences.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Applications for import licences are considered on their merits, in the light of advice from our scientific advisers and in accordance with the EC regulations which implement CITES within the European Community. Failure on the part of an applicant to comply with the conditions of a previous licence, or a conviction for offences under import or other relevant legislation, would be regarded as a relevant factor to be considered if further applications for import licences were submitted.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conveniently available figures he has as to how often identification experts were called out in 1988 to pass judgment on mammals, birds, reptiles and fish in relation to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  At the request of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, my Department arrange for identification experts to be called out on four occasions in 1988 to inspect animals covered by the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. However, in implementing the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, HM Customs and Excise may also seek assistance in identifying species direct from private consultants. Details of the number of such cases are not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nature Conservancy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he intends to introduce, following the proposal to break up the Nature Conservancy Council, to enable the United Kingdom Government to meet their obligations under the Berne convention on the conservation of european wildlife and natural habitats.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. The Government fully meets their obligations under the Berne convention and intend to continue to do so.

  Accounting Conventions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether in the last 10 years he or his predecessors, either by direction or informally, secured changes in the accounting conventions followed by water authorities, the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers, respectively; and if lie will make a statement.
  94
  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since 1982–83 water authorities' historical cost accounts have been supplemented by Accounts prepared under the current cost convention. There have been no changes in the last 10 years in the accounting conventions followed by the Property Services Agency or the Crown Suppliers.

  Somerset House Vaults
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the sale of the Somerset house vaults to the Quill Group;

  (2) on what basis the Property Services Agency offered to rent vaults under Somerset house for £200 per annum or to buy them for £50,000;

  (3) what guidance the London residuary body received from his Department concerning its future requirements for storage within the vaults below Somerset house;

  (4) when he intends to reply to letters concerning the sale of the Somerset house vaults from the hon. Member for Dagenham, the Quill Group and Mr. Ian Walmsley;

  (5) whether the London residuary body made any efforts to sell the vaults below Somerset house before offering them at auction;

  (6) which officials of the Property Services Agency represented the Agency at the two auctions involving vaults beneath Somerset house;

  (7) why his Department withdrew access to vaults below Somerset house from representatives of the Quill Group;

  (8) why officials of the Inland Revenue's accommodation department reversed an earlier assurance that they had no objections to the Quill Group obtaining access to vaults below Somerset House.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 7 December 1989]: I understand that the Quill Group were the successful bidders at an auction in September, but failed to complete the contract with the London residuary body. No guidance was issued by my Department in connection with this sale.

  In accordance with their normal practice for the disposal of surplus property the London residuary body entered into discussions with the occupying tenant. The Government have held a lease of these vaults for over 80 years. The Property Services Agency acts on my behalf as tenants. The lease is governed by the Landlord and Tenant Acts and the rent, fixed in 1907, is £185 a year.

  In earlier negotiations with the London residuary body a PSA offer of £50,000 for the freehold interest was unsuccessful and both parties agreed that it would be in the best interests of both taxpayers and the London ratepayers, if the vaults were exposed for sale at public auction.

  Following their successful purchase at auction in September the Quill Group instructed agents to open negotiations with the PSA for a new lease, the 1907 lease now having expired, seeking a rent of £90,000 per annum.

  On being advised by the auctioneers that the vaults were to be auctioned again on 4 December, the PSA's professional decision as prudent managers of the Government Estate was to take this further opportunity to purchase and, on this occasion, it was successful.

  Both auctions were attended by the professional head of the estates services branch of the PSA's London region estates division, accompanied by a principal grade estate surveyor.
  95
  I am writing to the hon. Member explaining these complex matters more fully and I shall also send him a copy of the letter which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) sent to Mr. Harris of the Quill Group on 30 November.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses and flats have been subjected to insulation measures under the home insulation scheme for each year since the home insulation scheme started and for each region and the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: The number of grants paid under the homes insulation scheme for 1986, 1987, 1988 and the first two quarters of 1989 appear in table 2.21(d)of "Housing and Construction Statistics Part 2", No. 38; figures for earlier years are in table 7.9 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1978–1988". Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inspectors have left Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution(a) since its formation, (b) since 1 January 1988 and (c) since 1 January 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: Seven inspectors have left Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in total since its formation including six since 1 January 1989.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inspectors were employed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution(a) at its formation, (b) on 1 January 1988, (c) on 1 January 1989 and (d) at the latest available date; and what should be its establishment.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution employed 75 professional staff at its formation; 90 on 1 January 1988; 100 on 1 January 1989 and 105 at present. The inspectorate's complement is 135 professional posts.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the inspectors at Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution have been employed by the inspectorate since its formation.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: A total of 35 inspectors have been recruited into Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution since its formation.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the inspectors now employed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are based in London; and at what centres the other inspectors are based.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution employs 104 professional staff; 46 professional staff are currently based in London but over half of these will be posted to the new
  96
  regional offices when they become operational next year. Other staff are based in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Chelmsford, Chester, Darlington, East Grinstead, Lancaster, Leeds, Lincoln, Luton, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Preston and Sheffield.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been instigated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in 1987, 1988 and 1989 for(a) air pollution and (b) toxic waste disposal.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution undertook three successful prosecutions for air pollution in 1987–88 and two in 1988–89 (records are kept for financial years). HMIP has no regulatory powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to toxic waste disposal. Enforcement responsibility lies with waste disposal authorities.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the report drafted by the late director of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, Mr. Brian Ponsford.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: The report on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution prepared for the Department's management information system (MINIS 10) was placed in the Library on 15 November.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about staff morale within Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: Staff in Her Majesty's Inspectorate are responding in positive and constructive ways to the demands placed on them at a time of fundamental organisational change. This was evident at the inspectors' conference held in late November, and is exemplified by a letter written by inspectors to a national newspaper on 11 December. I appreciate such efforts by staff to dissociate themselves from remarks attributed to unnamed inspectors in recent press reports. The committed professionalism of the staff in the inspectorate plays a vital role in maintaining and improving environmental standards.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's annual report 1988–89 to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Wednesday 13 December to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Taylor) at column 734.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to increase the establishment of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: The staff complement of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was increased from 219 to 240 with effect from 2 October 1989. An additional 10 posts have already been approved for 1990–91 and the objectives of HMIP and the resources it needs to fulfil them effectively are being kept under close review.
  97
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of the recent reorganisation within Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on his plans to introduce integrated pollution control.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: The reorganisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was intended to facilitate the integration of the four regulatory functions which were combined when it was formed. It provides the organisational structure appropriate for the effective implementation of integrated pollution control. I am pleased that such good progress has been made to date.

  Community Charge Video
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the production of a video on the poll tax in British sign language for deaf people.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: The Department has corresponded with four bodies—the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the British Deaf Association, the British Association of the Hard of Hearing and the Royal Association in Aid of Deaf People—on the potential demand for a video in BSL on the community charge and the most effective way of making it. We await one substantive response.

  Community Charge Leaflet
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that deaf-blind people have access to the information in the poll tax leaflet.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: Proposals for making information on the community charge available to the blind through braille and moon, which are currently being pursued with the Royal National Institute for the Blind, should assist some of the deaf-blind. We are considering other means of informing deaf-blind people, such as the production of a video specifically for the deaf.

  In addition, carers—including those who care for deaf-blind individuals—are one of the groups we intend to address before the new system comes into effect with information on the community charge benefit scheme and transitional relief.

  Environmental Audit
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to conduct an annual environmental audit within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: It is already my policy to take environmental concerns into account in the activities of my Department. I am considering whether procedures to achieve this should be strengthened.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received recent representations from trade unions opposing privatisation of the Property Services Agency; and if he will make a statement.
  98
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 December 1989]: My right hon. Friend met the PSA trade unions on 26 September. No other direct representations from trade unions have been received.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the figures for sewage sludge dumped in British coastal waters for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Disposals to sea of sewage sludge from the United Kingdom under licences issued under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 were as follows:

  '000 tonnes (wet weight)

  1986

  9,735

  1987

  9,016

  1988

  9,856

  About 95 per cent. of the content is water.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessments his Department has made as to the environmental impact of dumping sewage sludge in British coastal waters.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for monitoring disposals to sea from England and Wales. An extensive field assessment programme is conducted at each of the designated disposal sites; each site is visited at least biennially although some sites are studied more frequently. In addition, licensees are required to carry out an approved programme of dumpsite monitoring as a condition of their licences. Detailed monitoring reports have been published for a number of sites and copies of these are in the Library. The results of these investigations have shown that the disposal of sewage sludge has caused no detrimental environmental impact at any of the designated sites.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what controls his Department imposes on the heavy metal content of sewage sludge dumped at sea.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Licences to deposit sewage sludge at sea provide for annual limits on the quantity of individual metals in the waste. A requirement is placed on licensees to monitor the composition of sludge as dumped and to report levels to the licensing authority. The composition of sludge is checked directly by sampling by the licensing authority.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation to provide a financial incentive to commercial and industrial firms for the recycling and re-use of materials; and if he has investigated the feasibility of, and problems associated with, the kerbside collection of materials from domestic and commercial refuse for recycling.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We do not intend to introduce such legislation; although proposed legislation on pollution control and waste disposal will provide a market incentive for recycling. We are however contributing, with
  99
  the Department of Trade and Industry and the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, to the evaluation of the UK2000 recycling city project in Sheffield which includes a kerbside collection scheme for recyclable domestic refuse.

ENERGY

  Coal Mining (Productivity)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since 1983–84.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Coal's productivity has increased by over 75 per cent. from pre-strike levels.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the report of the Energy Select Committee on the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government's response to the select Committee's report was submitted on 8 November and has since been published by the Committee. We continue to monitor carefully this matter and take decisions accordingly.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment has been made by his Department of the implications for energy policy of global warming caused by the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has produced a report entitled "An Evaluation of Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Measures to Ameliorate Them', as a contribution to the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. A copy of the report is available in the Library of the House.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the trade unions involved in the offshore oil and gas industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an I met members of the AEU parliamentary group and the AEU executive on 28 November for a discussion on offshore safety.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress towards his announced timetable for the privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of plans for the electricity privatisation share issue and related matters.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government remain on target to complete the privatisation of the industry within this Parliament.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provisions he has made to ensure a level playing field 100
  between fossil fuel industries, including coal, and nuclear fuel supplies to electricity generation subsequent to vesting day.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Coal will continue to be the major fuel for electricity generation for many years to come. The non-fossil fuel obligation will ensure that nuclear power continues to play a strategic role in ensuring security of supply and that renewable sources of energy will be able to fulfil their potential as soon as practicable.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the total cumulative cost to his departmental public expenditure so far of consultancy, advertising and advice relating to privatisation of the electricity supply industry

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The total cumulative cost to my Department (as at 30 November this year) is £12·4 million.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provisions he has made to ensure a proper valuation of the electricity supply industry's land and property assets before vesting day.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Valuers have been appointed to value the land and property of each of the electricity supply industry bodies.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the likely cost implications for major industrial users of the privatisation of electricity.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Major industrial users will be able to negotiate with the supplier or generator of their choice. The introduction of competition should enable such customers to obtain competitive contracts. There will thus be a downward pressure on costs and prices.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest figures for coal imports(a) by countries and (b) by quantity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  During the period January to October 1989, 9·5 million tonnes of coal have been imported into this country. The table gives a breakdown by country of origin.

  January to October 1989

  Country of origin

  Quantity (thousand tonnes)

  United States of America

  3,879

  Australia

  1,822

  Poland

  830

  Colombia

  682

  Canada

  622

  China

  405

  South Africa

  323

  Federal Republic of Germany

  225

  Netherlands

  169

  USSR

  163

  Panama

  106

  Venezuela

  86

  Belgium

  62

  Others

  175

  Total

  9,549

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
  101
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the volume of coal imports into the United Kingdom for the current year; and if he will meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss levels of coal imports.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government do not produce estimates of coal imports for the current year. In the period January to October 1989 coal imports were 9·5 million tonnes.

  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of the coal burned in the United Kingdom in 1988 was imported.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A total of 11 per cent, of coal burned in the United Kingdom in 1988 was imported.

  Electricity Council
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the Electricity Council and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Electricity Council regularly to discuss various matters of mutual interest.

  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Electricity Council; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) today.

  Coal Industry (Pollution)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps are being taken to assist the coal industry in reducing environmental pollution and using energy more efficiently.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps are being taken to assist the coal industry in reducing environmental pollution and using energy more efficiently.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government will provide up to £8 million towards the cost of British Coal's work on the topping cycle at Grimethorpe. This offers a 20 per cent, reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared with coal fired stations which should make a significant contribution to combating the "greenhouse effect".

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the cost of completion of Sizewell B and the average operating cost per kilowatt hour.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the CEGB. I will ask the chairman to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how frequently he intends to review the ongoing construction costs of Sizewell B.
  102
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB is providing my Department with six-monthly progress reports on Sizewell B, including construction costs. Nuclear Electric will continue this arrangement and has made clear that it is committed to completing the station to time and present cost estimates.

  British Coal
  Mr. Steve Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much the Government have invested in British Coal since 1979.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much the Government have invested in British Coal since 1979.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Since 1979 the Government have financed over £6·5 billion of new investment in the coal industry and continue to invest at a rate of over £2 million every working day.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions in the past 10 years the auditors of British Coal or the National Coal Board have drawn his attention to inadequacies in their accounts.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In each of the years 1979–80 to 1988–89 there has been a qualification of the accounts of British Coal by their auditors.

  British Coal's accounts have been qualified by its Auditors from 1983–84 to 1988–89 owing to the uncertainty over the recoverability out of future earnings of the total net book amount of the corporation's tangible fixed assets. British Coal's accounts were also qualified from 1983–84 to 1986–87 owing to the uncertainty over the amount of liability arising from future claims for surface damage; and from 1979–80 to 1983–84 over provision for liabilities under the mineworkers' pension scheme and the voluntary early retirement scheme.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of the British Coal Corporation regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the manpower employed by British Coal over the next three years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is not possible to predict manpower requirements over future years since this will depend on the performance of individual collieries and the success British Coal has in meeting the requirements of its customers. Manpower requirements are however, a matter for British Coal and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
  103
  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Alternative Energy Projects (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the funding of alternative energy projects in Cornwall.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department is funding an extensive renewable energy R and D programme on projects in Cornwall and elsewhere. The major projects in Cornwall include:The Cornwall Energy Project by Cornwall County Council; The Geothermal Hot Dry Rock Project by the Camborne School of Mines;
  The Proposed Wind Farm at Cold Northcott by the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements have been made in energy efficiency in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements have been made in energy efficiency in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements have been made in energy efficiency in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The nation has substantially improved its energy efficiency over the last 10 years. Our energy ratio —the amount of primary energy used to produce each £1,000 of gross domestic product—has improved from 1·24 tonnes of coal equivalent in 1979 to 1·01 tonnes of coal equivalent in 1988; and average reduction in energy intensity of 2 per cent. per year.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made with the promotion of energy efficiency in Government Departments.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made with the promotion of energy efficiency in Government Departments.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friends for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on 13 November 1989 at column 95. The next meeting will take place on 31 January 1990.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each year since 1978 the collective estimated expenditure on energy efficiency measures in the domestic sector consistent with the figure of £73 million given for 1987–88 in paragraph 3·7 of the National Audit Office's "National Energy Efficiency", breaking the figure for each year down into assistance for(a) owner-occupiers, (b) private sector tenants and (c) council tenants.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The main components of £73 million for 1987–88 quoted by the National Audit Office consisted of direct expenditure on domestic energy efficiency measures through the homes insulation scheme and the community insulation programme (the latter also supports 104
  training objectives and so cannot be attributed entirely to energy efficiency measures). Expenditure under these schemes is given below for each financial year from 1981–82. A breakdown of the figures in the form requested is not available.

  Homes insulation scheme (£ million)

  Community insulation programme (£ million)

  1981–82

  24·3

  n/a

  1982–83

  30·0

  n/a

  1983–84

  25·5

  5·5

  1984–85

  25·3

  8·6

  1985–86

  28·0

  19·4

  1986–87

  26·5

  36·6

  1987–88

  24·8

  45·2

  1988–89

  9·9

  n/a

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the progress since June 1987 of the building research energy conservation support unit in(a) concentrating on the elderly and disadvantaged and (b) private sector housing research and development activities.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Since June 1987 the building research energy conservation unit, working for the Energy Efficiency Office:

  1. Has completed 12 demonstration projects to promote more efficient energy use in sheltered accommodation and the refurbishment of older housing.

  2. Is currently preparing a number of good practice guides and case studies for low income housing under the best practice programme.

  3. Has developed a strategy under the best practice programme designed to achieve large scale improvements in energy efficiency in private sector housing. The results of the first of these initiatives is Wimpey's new "Superspec" home which my right hon. Friend opened earlier this month and which is built to standards considerably beyond those required to meet the 1990 building regulations for energy efficiency.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the relationship between the provision of information on energy efficiency by the privatised electricity distribution boards and the role of the Energy Efficiency Office.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Officials of the Energy Efficiency Office (EEO) have already had discussions with officials of the Office Of Electricity Regulation (OFFER) whose role is to supervise the obligations of licensees to promote energy efficiency under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989.

  I have no doubt that the present constructive co-operation between regional energy efficiency offices and electricity boards will continue. For instance REEOs are members of judging panels of competitions on energy efficiency organised by electricity distribution boards. Electricity boards and the EEO frequently co-operate in the sponsorship of seminars and exhibitions on energy efficiency.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether the new scheme of grants towards basic insulation measures announced on 22 November will extend to(a) cavity wall insulation and (b) double glazing;
  105
  (2) whether the new system of grants for house insulation announced on 22 November will involve contributions to the cost by the recipients of grants.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Details of the new scheme of grants will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what conclusions the Energy Efficiency Office has reached about questions of productivity of neighbourhood energy action projects under employment training; and if he will place a copy of its conclusions in the Library.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The most recently available information on productivity was included in the Neighbourhood Energy Action publication "Energy Efficiency and Employment Training—One Year On". I have asked Neighbourhood Energy Action, from whom the report is publicly available, to send a copy to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps the Energy Efficiency Office has taken to persuade the cavity wall trade associations to develop and provide to consumers a common protection package backed by insurance guarantees; and if he will introduce legislation to achieve this objective.

  Mr. Wakeham
  With the encouragement of the Energy Efficiency Office, the Office of Fair Trading and the National Cavity Insulation Association are discussing the production of a revised code of professional practice; it is expected that this will give a wide range of consumer safeguards additional to current arrangements. I am hopeful that agreement can be reached on a satisfactory code without legislation.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report the latest international energy efficiency league table.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The following table lists IEA member countries in order of energy ratio in 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, measured in tonnes of oil equivalent per $1,000 GDP at 1985 prices.

  Energy ratio

  Japan

  0·26

  Switzerland

  0·28

  Italy

  0·33

  Denmark

  0·34

  West Germany

  0·42

  United Kingdom

  0·43

  Spain

  0·43

  Austria

  0·44·

  United States of America

  0·44

  Norway

  0·46

  Australia

  0·48

  Ireland

  0·50

  Netherlands

  0·51

  Sweden

  0·54

  Belgium

  0·55

  Greece

  0·57

  Portugal

  0·62

  New Zealand

  0·63

  Canada

  0·64

  Turkey

  0·80

  Luxembourg

  0·85

  Sources: Energy Balances of OECD Countries; OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  These energy ratios are determined by many factors, including climate and industrial structure.
  106
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any further proposals to promote the more efficient use of energy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Energy Efficiency Office will continue to promote regularly the adoption of energy efficiency measures through all its programmes.

  Neighbourhood Energy Action
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the director of Neighbourhood Energy Action; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the director of Neighbourhood Energy Action; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend met: the director of Neighbourhood Energy Action on 14 November to hear first hand about NEA's work and again on 22 November when he saw first hand, one of the community insulation projects which they help to co-ordinate. He expects to meet the director again shortly, but a date has yet to be arranged.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to review the 15 and 25 per cent. limits on the generators' direct sales to electricity supply customers.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I have no plans to do so.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for future research and development of nuclear energy.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government, in conjunction with the nuclear industry, will need to assess future nuclear R and D requirements in the light of the prospects for nuclear power, both nationally and internationally from the mid-1990s.

  High-voltage Cables
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the health implications of high-voltage cables.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Research into the problem of possible effects on human health of electric and magnetic fields from electricity power lines has failed to demonstrate a clinical effect upon human health from fields at electricity power frequencies.

  A considerable worldwide research effort is continuing on the subject. The CEGB has been funding a programme of work over many years, much of it at independent laboratories, and research will continue when the electricity supply industry is privatised.

  Officials at the Department of Energy, the Department of Health, and the National Radiological Protection Board are keeping a watch on the research which is under way. We are by no means complacent, but at present we do not see evidence for serious concern.

  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 13 November 1989 at column 14.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans at present to meet Mr. Miller.

  National Power
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chief executive designate of National Power: and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chief executive designate of National Power; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I regularly meet the chief executive of National Power to discuss matters of common interest.

  CEGB
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I regularly meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss matters of common interest.

  European Fast Reactor
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what contribution the United Kingdom will be making to the European fast reactor over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The fast reactor programme carried out by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority contributes to R and D work in support of the European fast reactor conceptual design. The United Kingdom is also contributing towards the cost of this conceptual design work.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend last met Mr. Harding on 16 November when they discussed a range of matters concerning British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  British Gas (Disconnections)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps have been taken by British Gas to ensure that the number of disconnections for debt are kept to a minimum.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The number of British Gas customers disconnected for debt is now lower than at any time since records were first kept in 1977. This reflects the agreement which British Gas reached earlier this year with the Director General of Gas Supply on new methods of debt collection with a view to reducing the number of disconnections. I am sure that Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council will continue to work with British Gas to ensure that this excellent result continues.

  Nuclear Electric plc
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman-designate of the new Nuclear Electric plc; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I intend to meet the chairman-designate of Nuclear Electric whenever necessary to discuss matters of concern to Nuclear Electric.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has reviewed the projected completion date for the Severn barrage in the light of his recent discussions regarding nuclear energy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Further work on the Severn barrage is continuing. This includes some site specific environmental work and a study of the organisation and financing issues for a barrage. Only when this work is complete will it be possible to review projected completion dates.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action is being taken to assist low-income households with home insulation.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action is being taken to assist low-income households with home insulation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  1 refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) earlier today.

  Piper Alpha
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he anticipates that the inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster will be concluded.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  This is a matter for Lord Cullen.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed nuclear power with his French counterpart.
  109
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There have been no meetings since that described in the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on 10 April at column 328.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairmen of the 12 area boards; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of the 12 area boards; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the area board chairmen regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Association for the Conservation of Energy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met a representative for the Association for the Conservation of Energy; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend met Mr. Norman Adsetts OBE, chairman of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, on 29 November. They reviewed the work which ACE and energy efficiency office have jointly undertaken to promote energy efficiency, such as the current series of joint seminars for industrialists and buildings professionals, and discussed the need to ensure that this constructive co-operation continues.

  PWR Stations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many representations he has had to date from local authorities in areas of proposed pressurised water reactor stations regarding requests for compensation for preparing of their submissions on the issue.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The only such representation which my right hon. Friend has received is in relation to the Central Electricity Generating Board (Combwich) Compulsory Purchase Order 1988, into which a public local inquiry commenced on 13 June 1989. Following the CEGB's decision to withdraw the compulsory purchase order a number of parties involved, including the consortium of opposing local authorities, has applied for my right hon. Friend to make an order requiring the CEGB to meet their costs arising from the public local inquiry.

  We are awaiting any recommendation the inspector may make to the Secretary of State on the award of costs before proceeding with consideration of these requests. We have writen to all those requesting costs to advise them of this course of action.

  UKOOA
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association (UKOOA) regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Director General of Electricity Supply
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the Director General of Electricity Supply; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Director General of Electricity Supply; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the Director General of Electricity Supply regularly to discuss various matters of mutual interest.

  Eastern Europe (Energy Needs)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what advice and assistance is being offered by his Department to the countries of eastern Europe on how they might control and manage their energy needs more effectively.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 8 December at column 444.

  In addition the Government have financed a reconnaissance mission led by the consulting arm of CEGB, through the know-how fund to look at the requirements of the electricity supply industry in Poland. It is expected that further assistance will be made available when the recommendations of the report have been considered. We would expect to help other countries with the modernisation of their power industries in accordance with their needs and when funds become available. A know-how fund for Hungary—£25 million over five years —begins operating in April 1990.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on Government support for flue gas desulphurisation equipment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the sulphur dioxide reduction requirements of the EC large combustion plants directive are met. The retrofitting of power stations with flue gas desulphurisation equipment will assist in achieving this. The choice of equipment to be used is a matter for the industry itself.

  Alternative Energy Sources
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he is taking to promote the use of alternative energy sources.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  We are supporting a major research and development programme aimed at developing commercially viable and environmentally acceptable renewable technologies to contribute to future energy supply. Over £50 million is earmarked for expenditure over the next three years. Our plans to provide a special place in future for non-fossil fuel energy in the context of a privatised electricity supply industry should give a significant boost to renewable sources of energy. Around 600MW of capacity is being set aside exclusively for renewables during the 1990s as part of the non-fossil fuel obligation. There are clear signs that the obligation has already provided considerable encouragement to the development of renewables.
  111
  Technology transfer plans have been developed for each technology classed as economically attractive such as passive solar design of buildings and landfill gas. A wide range of promotional material has been produced to aid commercial deployment and raise awareness about the potential of renewable technologies. This includes our "Review" journal, information bulletins, project profiles and summaries of the results of research programme, technical reports, technical workshops and videos.

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations have been received about opening up competition in the gas industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) earlier today.

  Fabrication Sector
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the value of business opportunities for the United Kingdom fabrication sector within the single European market post-1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  We expect new orders in goods and services on the UKCS in the early 1990s to be between £2·5 billion to £3 billion per annum, of which fabrication represents around 20 per cent. The UKCS will continue to represent some 70 per cent. of the offshore market in the Community.

  Electricity Standing Charges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much was raised in electricity standing charges in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Electricity Council. I shall ask the chairman of the council to write to the hon. Member.

  Hinkley Point C
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of Hinkley Point C.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Hinkley Point C public inquiry closed on Friday 1 December. It is now for the inspector to prepare his report and submit it to my right hon. Friend.

  Low-sulphur Coal
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the level of reserves of low-sulphur coal in Britain.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Coal reserves in England generally have medium to high levels of sulphur—on average about 1·6 per cent. Reserves in parts of Wales and Scotland have a relatively lower sulphur content. Their recoverability is for the British Coal Corporation to assess.

  Marchwood Engineering Laboratories
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will reconsider the future of Marchwood engineering laboratories, following his decision not to privatise nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Marchwood site has been allocated to Power-Gen. The Government do not intend to reopen the existing split of assets between National Power and PowerGen.

  Wind and Wave Power
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the future of research into wind and wave power.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Energy paper No. 55 "Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward" was published in 1988 and gives our view on the development strategy for the renewable energy technologies to the year 2000, including wind and wave. It remains our intention to carry out the research programme as outlined in the energy paper.

  British Gas
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many directives have been issued to British Gas since privatisation of gas on energy efficiency.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None. However condition 14 of British Gas's authorisation as a public gas supplier requires it to provide guidance to customers on the efficient use of gas. My Department promotes the efficient use of gas and other fuels through the activities of the Energy Efficiency Office, and my officials have regular discussions with British Gas on energy efficiency matters.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with British Nuclear Fuels Limited about feasibility studies of replacement for the Chapelcross and Calder Hall power stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the Chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc regularly and discuss a range of matters concerning the company. The feasibility study was one of the matters touched upon at my last meeting on 16 November.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to lift the requirement for his consent to be given before any nuclear power station is built in any county in Britain.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I shall bring into force in due course section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 under which my consent will be necessary before any power station, nuclear or otherwise, of a capacity greater than 50MW, can be constructed in England and Wales. Smaller stations will be subject to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Acts.

  In addition, a licence to install and operate a nuclear reactor must be obtained from the Health and Safety Executive under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

  The construction of power stations in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  113
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will direct British Nuclear Fuels Limited to publish details of the feasibility studies it is conducting into replacements for the Chapelcross and Calder Hall power stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The feasibility study is a commercial document and publication will be a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Energy Labelling
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will introduce legislation to bring in compulsory energy labelling.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 13 November 1989 at column 95.

  Coal Reserves
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's current estimate of the total coal reserves in Britain.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The British Coal Corporation is responsible for estimating coal reserves. Its estimate of coal in place in the United Kingdom (that is, in seams over 60 cm thick and less than 1,200 m deep, minus coal which has already been worked) is 190 billion tonnes. Strictly recoverable reserves (that is, coal in known coalfields which could be extracted with existing technology) are estimated by the corporation at 45 billion tonnes. The amount of these reserves that would actually be workable would of course depend on economic circumstances at the time. Recoverable reserves from existing mines and certain new mine projects, including the extractable and saleable coal which is sufficiently proved, of adequate thickness and quality, and in a suitable mining environment, are currently assessed at between 3 billion and 5 billion tonnes.

  Accounting Conventions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether in the last 10 years he or his predecessors, either by direction or informally, secured changes in the accounting conventions followed by British Coal, British Gas, any electricity board, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Nirex, Amersham International, British National Oil Corporation, Britoil or Enterprise Oil, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The accounts of British Coal, British Nuclear Fuels, British National Oil Corporation, Britoil, Enterprise Oil, Nirex and Amersham International have been prepared under the historic cost convention throughout the period in question.

  Boards in the electricity industry began producing accounts under the current cost convention from 1980–81, as did the Atomic Energy Authority from 1980–81 and British Gas from 1981–82. Previously accounts for these organisations had been prepared under the historic cost convention. The decision to prepare accounts under the current cost convention was taken by the organisations concerned, in the light of best accounting practice at the time.

  Halliburton Ltd.
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, following the correspondence and discussions between the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, he will now issue instructions that no tenders will be considered by his Department from any subsidiary company of Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd., until(a) its company secretary replies to the further letter sent to him by the hon. Member on 9 October about his constituent Mr. A and (b) the company offers appropriate compensation to Mr. A for all expenses and financial loss suffered by Mr. A since his road accident in Italy in December 1983.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No.

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

Share Dealing: Commission Rates
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the fact that minimum commissions for dealing in stocks and shares have generally risen by between 100 and 614 per cent. since the Big Bang, compared with an inflation rate of only 19 per cent. over the same period, such high minimum commissions do not impede the effective functioning of the share-owning democracy which they are trying to foster.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern that commission rates should not discourage wider share ownership. I do not believe they do. Some firms' minimum commission charge remains £20 or less. The average commission rate paid by United Kingdom private clients has shown a consistent downward trend from at least 1980, falling from more than 1 per cent. then to 0·61 per cent. now.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and can only assume that he has not read the leading article in the Financial Times of 5th December which takes a very much less sanguine view of the situation. Does he agree that however beneficial the Big Bang has been for institutional shareholders, it has been a disaster for small shareholders? Secondly, does he agree that a society in which the investments of millions of small shareholders consist merely of £200 or £300 of shares in a couple of privatised industries, shares which cannot be sold profitably because commission absorbs more than 10 per cent. of the proceeds,
2
cannot be considered a genuine shareowning democracy in the proper sense of that term?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord. The Big Bang, as he refers to it, has been of benefit to small investors too. They need to shop around to find the best deal. That is now made much more easy by the fact that the Stock Exchange publishes a free directory of member firms interested in private client business, giving details of their services, with in many cases commission rates. So shop around is the message to small investors.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in addition to their commissions and sometimes instead of their commissions, some stockbrokers make fixed charges and use the Financial Services Act as an excuse for doing so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, any stockbroker who charges too much is likely to lose the business that he is seeking to attract.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am as puzzled by the noble Lord's Answer as the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I was completely in favour of Big Bang but remember the great worry at the time that small shareholders would suffer. I should have thought that the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the small shareholder finds himself with large charges. Is the noble Lord quite certain in terms of what he knows of the subject that it is economic for small shareholders to buy shares at the present time? All the material that I have read suggests that it is expensive for the small shareholder to trade.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not claiming that all stockbrokers reduce their charges to small investors. Some do, and they are therefore likely to attract much more of the business from small investors; and good luck to them. The number of small shareholders in this country has increased dramatically in recent times. Indeed following the water privatisation the other day the number is now something in excess of 10 million.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that the small investor often does better if he invests with a stockbroker not in the City of London but in the provinces?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is quite right. There is undoubtedly a range of very competitive stockbroking services available outside the City of London, which I would commend to many small investors.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that even the £20 minimum commission charge, which can be found occasionally although not very often, would absorb 8 per cent. of a £250 bargain or 10 per cent. of a £200 bargain? Many privatisation allocations fall within that category.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord's arithmetic is no doubt correct, but I am told that some minimum charges are less than the £20 to which he points.

North Sea Oil: Capital Investment
2.41 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
How capital investment in the North Sea oil industry in the first half of 1989 compares with that in the first half of 1988.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, capital investment in the North Sea oil and gas industry in the first half of 1989 was 19 per cent. higher at £1·2 billion than in the first half of 1988.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he give an indication of what further investment is anticipated for 1990?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, increased investment in 1989 is good news for the health and future prospects of the North Sea and for the supply industry. Estimates from the National Economic Development Office indicate that investment will reach £3·7 billion in 1990, which is an increase of 75 per cent. compared with the £2·1 billion in 1988.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the noble Viscount place the answer in a slightly longer term perspective? It is good to see that North Sea oil investment has recovered after the accidents and crises that hit the North Sea, but how does the present position compare with the general investment we experienced in this area over the past decade? Does he believe that investment is buoyant enough in terms of exploiting the future potential of the North Sea oil fields?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have figures for 1985 onwards. Investment in that year was £2·8 billion; in 1986 it was £2·6 billion; in 1987 it was £2 billion; and the 1988 figure which I have already
4
given to the House was £2·1 billion. Investment in the first half of 1989 at £1·2 billion shows a genuine increase. The oil industry has responded well to the challenge of developing fields in an era of lower oil prices.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend gives good figures in terms of the amount invested. However, is he satisfied that the facilities and the expertise are available to exploit it to the full? I ask that because there has been some suggestion that the availability of the necessary expertise has been disbanded and spread out and therefore will not be available to enable full use to be made of the investment about which he has told us.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that most of the investment which I have outlined is supplied by United Kingdom companies and that the percentage is around 80 per cent. I think I can say that Britain has now taken the lead in off-shore oil and gas technology, notably in subsea techniques, floating production systems and slimline fixed structures.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House some indication as regards employment within the oil industry at present?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the total workforce employed on off-shore UK oil and gas installations is estimated at around 30,000. In relation to Scotland, a training agency estimated in June 1989 that 60,000 persons were involved in companies the total output of which was dedicated to the oil industry. Moreover, the numbers would be much larger if other firms supplying only a proportion of their output were included.

Ethiopian and Eritrea: Arms Supplies
2.44 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arms are being supplied by this country to Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Lord Reay: None, my Lords.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that satisfactory Answer. However, is he aware of the background to the Question? It was at a meeting at the kirk door of a small church, near where I lived in Scotland, when the sermon was being discussed —the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know the situation pretty well. The preacher had asked for help for Ethiopia. My brother-in-law, who was one of the farmers present, offered to send 30 tonnes of wheat to the country. However, someone said to him, "Well, it may go on the same boat carrying arms to the Ethiopian Government who are shooting up the lorries which are delivering that wheat to the areas where the starving people are".

5
I am glad that we are not supplying arms to the country. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord is correct in his Answer.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that we are not supplying arms to either side in the conflict. Moreover, we have not been doing so since the late 1970s.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we are grateful to the noble Lord for his assurances, is it not the case that arms are being supplied to both sides —that is, to the government by the Soviet Union and to those who are waging the civil war against them by Israel and the Gulf States? These are all countries with which Her Majesty's Government have good relations. Therefore, can he say what representations the Government are making to those who are supplying arms to a country which is on the verge of an appalling famine and which is in the middle of a wicked civil war?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Ethiopian Government continues to be supplied by the Soviet Union, and by various other Eastern European and communist countries. The Soviet Union has supplied over £4 billion-worth of arms since 1977. However, the Soviet Union has said that it will not renew its bilateral arms agreement on its expiry in 1991. It has also withdrawn its military advisers. We strongly welcome that change of approach.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I too was happy to hear the Minister's Answer. However, can he say whether he has any information about the Ethiopian Government allowing relief aid to be transported to rebel-held territories?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in our view, one of the most important issues at present is the very great need for an agreement which enables access for relief supplies to get through to those who need them in the rebel territories. In fact, there are conflicting indications of what are the intentions of the Ethiopian Government, but until now they have not agreed to the various proposals put to them as regards allowing supplies to go to the rebel areas.

Animal Welfare: EC Proposals
2.48 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consult the British Veterinary Association on European Community proposals concerned with all aspects of animal welfare.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): Yes, my Lords; we value their helpful contribution.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness is aware of the fact that I readily accept her succinct but satisfying response. However, is she further aware that, like the RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association, British veterinary surgeons
6
are much concerned about methods of transportation of animals on the Continent which would be outlawed in this country? Can she confirm that that particular aspect will be borne in mind?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness further confirm that, if what we desire should be the correct treatment of animals is not adhered to in Europe, our Government will stress the need for very effective deterrent measures?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes my Lords.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
2.49 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Cawley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Grey, E.

Jacques, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Thurlow, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Delors Committee Report: ECC Report
2.50 p.m.
Lord Kearton Lord Kearton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Delors Committee Report (2nd Report, HL Paper 3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the inquiry was conducted by Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee. Written and oral evidence was received from a body of distinguished and authoritative witnesses who are listed on page 26 of the report. The committee reiterates its thanks to them. The members of the sub-committee, who are named on page 25, worked hard on the report with vigorous discussion.
In the event, the report is a collective one, as is the tradition. I warmly thank the members whose combined breadth of experience was exceptional. I am also glad to put on record the committee's great appreciation of the help it received from its specialist adviser, Professor David Begg, of Birkbeck College, in what was his second stint with the committee. Finally, I thank once again the committee's clerk,

7
Mr. William Sleath, whose industry, ability and patience are equally remarkable. All members of the committee, particularly myself, are much in his debt.
Our inquiry began in the summer in the wake of the Madrid summit which received and considered the Delors Report. The inquiry continued into the autumn and was finished in November. The report was published before the Strasbourg summit. The report was topical then and it is topical now.
Part 1 of the report gives the historical background. Calls for the European Community to create an economic and monetary union are not new. The first plans were drawn up 20 years ago before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Real progress began in 1979 when the European monetary system was set up. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the European monetary system which aimed at closer co-operation, but did not join its key feature, the exchange rate mechanism. The objective of the ERM is currency stability. As the House will recall, countries which belong to the ERM are given a central parity against the currencies of the other member states but are allowed to fluctuate either side of that parity within an agreed band.
The parity must be defended by foreign exchange intervention or by tools of economic policy such as the interest rate. Realignments are not ruled out but must take place by muutual consent. Initially, changes in parity were fairly frequent. But since 1983 they have been rare. The states which are members of the ERM are satisfied that it has been much in their interest to belong to it. The interest and inflation rates of members have converged downwards.
When, 10 years ago, the United Kingdom decided not to join the ERM, there were good reasons. The pound was about to become a petrocurrency; inflation in the United Kingdom was high; and the European currency scene was mixed. If the pound sterling had been an early member of the ERM the strains might have been too much. The 1980s have seen the Community making great forward strides. The Single European Act amended the original treaty in many important aspects, especially by allowing qualified majority voting to be binding in selected areas and by increasing the role, although still heavily circumscribed, of the European Parliament.
Article 1 of the Single European Act states the objective as:
"concrete progress towards European unity".
The form of that unity is not defined. Article 20 deals with co-operation in economic and monetary policy, economic and monetary union. It states that,
"to ensure the convergence of economic and monetary policies … Member States … shall take account of the experience acquired … within the framework of the European Monetary System".
A later paragraph recognises that further development in the field of economic and monetary policy might necessitate institutional changes. Such changes would require unanimous agreement and the appropriate amendment of the treaty.
The 1985 White Paper on the completion of the internal market, a paper which owed so much to the
8
brilliance, vision and thoroughness of our noble colleague Lord Cockfield, who was then vice-president of the Commission, was a firm and comprehensive programme. The consequent flow of agreed directives and regulations from the Commission means that the machinery should all be in place, as targeted, by the end of 1992. Some is in place now and already operative. The establishment of the European financial area, a key objective, should be complete by mid-1990. Some difficult areas covering fiscal matters remain but they are under active negotiation. Those manifold advances have taken calls for closer European unity made by heads of state at successive European summits —calls always unanimously endorsed —beyond rhetoric. There is now serious intent.
The Hanover summit of June 1988 set up a committee under the chairmanship of the Commission president, M. Delors, to report on economic and monetary union. The members were the 12 governors of the national central banks of the Community, the vice-president of the Commission and three academic experts. All sat in a private capacity, not as representatives.
The Delors Report concentrates upon defining the means by which economic and monetary union could be achieved. The goal is a Community with policies geared to price stability, balanced growth, converging standards of living, high employment and external equilibrium.
Paragraphs 8 to 16 of the committee's report summarise the contents of the Delors Report. In brief, monetary union is clearly defined. It includes fully liberalised capital movements and fully integrated financial markets. Currencies must be fully integrated and exchange rates firmly and irrevocably fixed. Monetary union requires a common monetary policy in pursuit of common macro-economic policies. Economic union is less closely defined. It would require an effective competition policy, common policies for structural changes, the ironing out of major economic imbalances within the Community and the adoption of a prudent fiscal stance by all member countries.
Both monetary and economic union would require some pooling of individual national sovereignty. That pooling would affect areas regarded in the United Kingdom as the very core of sovereignty. However, the Delors Report stresses that pooling would not entail a United States of Europe. The Community of individual nations would continue to exist. The nations would be more closely bound together but would retain different economic, social, cultural and political characteristics.
The report emphasises that the changes put forward should be implemented in line with the principle of subsidiarity. Power would only transfer to new Community institutions where absolutely necessary.
The Delors Committee envisaged three stages to achieve economic and monetary union. Stage One would strengthen existing economic and monetary policy co-ordination. The Committee of Central Bankers would take a more active and public role in determining the direction of national monetary

9
policy. The Council of Economic and Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) would begin a surveillance of member states' economic development and produce guidelines for national monetary policy. All Community currencies would become members of the ERM.
During Stage One, set to begin on 1st July 1990, negotiations between member governments would be put in train to discuss any required amendments to the EC treaty involving the setting up of new Community institutions, such as a central bank of some sort.
Stage Two of Delors was seen as transitional with more and more collective decision-taking in economic matters, including structural changes, with an embryonic central bank in place. Changes in parity would be rare.
Stage Three would see the Council having the power to make binding decisions for members states in regard to budget deficits. Exchange rates would be locked irrevocably and a fully operational European central bank would pool all official reserves. If the Community chose to move towards a common currency, it could then do so. The Madrid summit accepted Stage One of the Delors proposals and agreed 1st July 1990 as a starting date. The competent bodies in the Commission were asked to proceed with the necessary provisions and that work is already in hand.
The Delors Report, in its famous paragraph 39, states that the decision to enter upon the first stage should be a decision to embark upon the entire process. This was not agreed in Madrid. Future progress would have to take account of the parallelism between economic and monetary aspects, fully respect the principle of subsidiarity and allow for the diversity of specific situations. Nevertheless, the Madrid meeting reiterated and restated its determination progressively to achieve economic and monetary union in the perspective of the internal market and economic and social cohesion.
Stages Two and Three of the Delors proposals were not seen as a blueprint but were to act as a basis for intergovernmental discussions. In November of this year the United Kingdom Government published an alternative route to monetary and economic union to that set out in Stages Two and Three of Delors. The proposals were well leaked beforehand and later witnesses who gave evidence to the sub-committee inquiry were well aware of them. Essentially the proposals were evolutionary, not depending on new community institutions, and relied heavily on intergovernmental co-operation and on the interplay of monetary market forces.
The extensive evidence received in the inquiry is set out in Part 2, paragraphs 21 to 64 of the committee's report. The cross headings refer to the case for economic and monetary union; to the case against; to the European monetary system and Stage One of the Delors proposals; to central controls and fiscal and budgeting policies as outlined in Stages Two and Three of Delors; to the institutional aspects of Stages Two and Three of the proposals; to the fate of the depressed regions in a monetary union; and finally to the threat of a two-tier Europe.
As would be expected, there are conflicting strands of opinion from those expressing an ultimate federalism to those expressing a sturdy scepticism about the whole process. I am sure that some of the points made will be picked up and expanded by later speakers in the debate, so I shall not dwell on the details of the evidence but pass on to Part 3 of the report—the opinion of the committee.
This begins in paragraph 65 by stressing that member states have very positively committed themselves to some form of economic and monetary union and that the Single European Act and the White Paper 1992 objectives have built up pressures towards making positive progress. The acceptance of Stage One of the Delors proposals is itself a major step forward. A key feature is that in Stage One all member states join the exchange rate mechanism.
The United Kingdom Government have been saying for some years that they will join the exchange rate mechanism when the time is right. Some years ago the pound ceased to be a petrocurrency and inflation in the UK was sharply reduced in the 1980s. Sub-committee A, in its previous reports which covered changes in membership and chairmanship, has been urging that the UK joins the exchange rate mechanism sooner rather than later. At Madrid this year the United Kingdom Government clarified their position. They would join the ERM once three conditions had been met. These were: that UK inflation must have fallen from its 1989 peak; that the present members of the exchange rate mechanism must have successfully accommodated the free movement of capital; and that a single market in financial services must have been successfully completed.
The commitee concluded that the second and third of these reservations were not serious objections. The fact that France has this very month removed the last vestiges of its control of capital movements six months ahead of schedule, with hardly a ripple on the parities of the exchange rate mechanism, confirms this. The committee's view was that removal of the residuary Italian capital controls would also go through smoothly. The directives to establish a truly single market in financial services are well in hand. Considerable progress has already been made. The sub-committee felt that there was no reason to suppose that there would be a sudden halt to the process.
The third reason has more substance. From an inflation rate of just over 3 per cent. in early 1988, the UK figure rose steadily to past 8 per cent. in the late summer of this year. After falling to 7·3 per cent., it was back to 7·7 per cent. in November. The inflation rate excluding the effect of mortgage interest is currently just over 6 per cent. The Treasury has predicted that rates will fall next year. The EC current average is about 5·2 per cent., with West Germany at 3·3 per cent.
The experience in this decade of countries already in the exchange rate mechanism is that membership exerted a discipline which led to inflation being brought down. If the UK rate is confidently expected to fall somewhat next year, there would seem to be no reason why the difference between a moderately

11
high UK rate against the EC average should be a decisive reason against entry.
Entering the exchange rate mechanism would require considerable negotiation with the existing member countries. The exchange rate parity band for the pound and possible adjustments of the other currencies would all need to be thrashed out. But the committee, having weighed the pros and cons, came down in favour of joining before July 1990 —the date on which Stage One of the Delors proposals begins.
There have been two developments since the committee reported. The Prime Minister has indicated that a doctrinaire insistence on the minutiae of the three conditions has been abandoned. On the other hand, the Bank of England has indicated that up to three years of low inflation are necessary to restore credibility to the United Kingdom's economic policy. That in itself is a most surprising statement in view of the stories we have had so persistently of our wonderful economic success.
Dr Pöhl of the Bundesbank has also expressed doubt about early entry in view of the United Kingdom's economic weakness. Recent statements by the present Chancellor have been notably cautious about the UK's economic prospects. Would that the Government had accepted the Select Committee's advice some years ago and joined the ERM then. There is a strong possibility that the present state of affairs would have been avoided.
Entering the exchange rate mechanism will always be a risk for the United Kingdom. The time will never be ideal. But past procrastination has not turned out well. My personal view is that the committee's recommendations still stand. The arguments for an early joining of the exchange rate mechanism rest on more than the economic gains to be expected, albeit these gains would be after perhaps a rather painful transitional period. The additional and stronger arguments are political.
The committee fully shares the thrust of the United Kingdom Government's reservations about undue haste in proceeding to full economic and monetary union in the Community. The completion of the 1992 directives and regulations and their full implementation are momentous. Taken alongside the progressive realisation of Stage One of Delors, together they represent an enormous move forward The changes will need to be established and their harmonious operability proven before proceeding further.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, perhaps I may intervene. He seems to have said with some confidence that the committee approved this line. Does he think that, if at that time the committee had had in front of it the statements that both the Governor of the Bank of England and the President of the Bundesbank were recommending against that action at this time because of the great risk, it would have been as adamant as he suggests to the House?
Lord Kearton: My Lords, I cannot speak for the committee because those developments have arisen in the past few days. My comments referred to my own views.
Discussions on the way forward beyond Stage One of Delors are firmly on the agenda. The United Kingdom Government have said that they think that the discussions due to start at intergovernmental level at the end of 1990 are premature. But they will take part. It is hard to believe that the United Kingdom will be a full partner in such discussions unless it is a member of the exchange rate mechanism. Yet the outcome of the discussions could settle the shape of the European Economic Community at the end of the 1990s. In the report the committee sets out its own doubts about Stages Two and Three of Delors and airs the vital issues involved. They are contained in paragraphs 70 to 80 of the report and I am sure that they will be brought out by subsequent speakers.
The sudden and dramatic changes in the political situation in Eastern Europe have heightened the importance of the future development of the European Economic Community. Some member states, notably France, have seen the Eastern European changes as making more essential, indeed urgent, speedy moves towards closer EC integration. In principle, this seems to have been accepted by the major European economic power, West Germany. An association of Poland and Hungary with the EC is already planned. Economic aid to these countries is to be co-ordinated from Brussels. Austria and perhaps other EFTA countries are also moving closer to the EC. All the evidence is that the present American Administration are very much in favour of a stronger European Economic Community. In today's world the United Kingdom is no longer a major force in the military or economic spheres but it still has a considerable political influence. However, without a gain in economic strength, this influence will inevitably be eroded.
The collapse in the Russian position, internally and externally, is rooted in economic causes, not in military weakness. The breathtaking rise of Japan, far outreaching the long-ago aim which led it to militaristic adventure and catastrophic defeat, is an economic success. The falling away of the American influence, which dominated the world for 20-odd years after the end of the second world war, is due to relative economic decline.
The weight of the evidence is that the European Economic Community has the potential to be a great economic success, acting as a magnet to neighbouring countries. It is a time of great change for the European Economic Community. The Select Committee felt that the United Kingdom should be at the centre of such developments, both giving and receiving strength from a closer union —a union whose final form would be one in which the United Kingdom had a major part in shaping and in which it would play a major role.
Joining the exchange rate mechanism in the first half of next year would go far to convince our fellow members of our serious intent matching their serious intent. Notwithstanding the reservations of Dr. Pöhl,

13
they still want us in. European businessmen want us in. We positively must take the plunge. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Delors Committee Report (2nd Report, HL Paper 3). —(Lord Kearton.)
3.11 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I wish first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and the Select Committee on another report of quite outstanding quality, deep insight and considerable wisdom. I agree broadly with the conclusions to which the committee comes. I myself gave evidence to the committee; I shall not therefore repeat everything that I said on that occasion. However, there is one important point on which I disagree with the report of the Delors Committee. The point is not dealt with directly in the report of the Select Committee, although it is touched upon inferentially.
I regard the whole process of economic and monetary union as a sequential process. The Delors Committee treats economic and monetary union as if they were two parts of a single process which had to be carried forward together, inextricably linked one to the other. I do not believe that that is either right or necessary. The correct course, I suggest, is that we move from the completion of the single market, which the heads of government last year declared was now irreversible, to the single currency, and from the single currency to the single economy. That kind of progressive approach to the problems has a number of advantages. It is not only logically more sustainable; it also means that one can make progress without necessarily facing immediately many of the problems that economic union, for example, will give rise to. We can learn from experience as we go along to ensure that the successive steps we take are better founded. I wish to quote from the report on a particular point because it bears considerably on this point. The report states in paragraph 77:
"The Delors Committee's proposals to place limits on budgetary and fiscal policy therefore seem unwise and are not justifiable".
That comment relates not to monetary union but to economic union.
If one approaches the matter in the sequential way that I would prefer, one does not have to face these major problems of fiscal policy until one comes to economic union. I shall come back to that point in a moment, but it is one of considerable importance.
I turn now to a comment made by my noble friend the Leader of the House in reply to a question that I raised following the Statement on the Strasbourg summit. My noble friend said:
"if my noble friend cares to look at Hansard of another place for 2nd November 1989 he will see that politicians in another place were not prepared to agree that the absolutely basic reason for the existence of another place should be forfeit". —[Official Report, 12/12/89; col. 1244.]
I was talking specifically about monetary union and monetary policy. With all due respect to my noble friend the Leader of the House, what he said about the absolutely basic reason for the existence
14
of another place is based on a complete misconception of both the constitutional position and of the way that events have developed over the years. If one is looking at the fundamental basic reasons for another place, the story really starts with the case of Rex v. Hampden. That was the spark which lit the tinder and started the conflagration of the civil war. At the end of that civil war and ultimately in the Bill of Rights 1688, the constitutional position we have, which forms the basis of the fundamental position of another place, was then determined. That fundamental basis is the right to vote expenditure, and the right to vote taxation to meet that expenditure. It has nothing to do with monetary policy at all.
John Hampden had never heard of monetary policy. That is not surprising because monetary policy in his day did not exist. Monetary theory and monetary policy are a development of the latter half of the 19th century. Throughout most of recorded history the medium of exchange was gold and currencies were based upon gold. It was only with the development of the banking system and of credit together with the issue of bank notes that monetary theory and monetary policy came on the stage at all. Even in those early days in the 19th century, what governments could do was very little indeed because most major currencies were still linked to gold. Where there was monetary policy it was not administered by government at all but by the Bank of England in this country. It was not until 1946 that Mr. Hugh Dalton, as he then was, nationalised the Bank of England.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: No, my Lords, Parliament did.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I remember seeing him sitting in his place in this Chamber, which was then occupied by another place, when Parliament approved the proposal put forward by Mr. Dalton as he then was (he subsequently became Lord Dalton), for the nationalisation of the Bank of England. He specifically explained that on the basis that it was to enable the Government to take control of monetary policy. Even then what the Government could do was very limited because of the existence of the Bretton Woods agreement. It was only in 1973, with the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, that politicians and Parliament secured effective control over monetary policy.
It is a very interesting reflection on the intellectual approach of our Government to these matters that they have reversed nearly all the other major steps taken by that Government of 1945–51 to bring greater areas of industry under the control of Parliament by way of nationalisation. They have done so on the grounds that they are fields in which polticians and parliaments ought not to be involved.
Again, the development of prices and incomes policies, in which at one time governments were heavily involved, are areas in which our Government say that government ought no longer to be involved. Even in the monetary field our own Government have abandoned one of the major instruments of

15
monetary policy; namely, exchange controls. They have been very critical —unjustifiably critical —of some of our European partners, alleging that they are not so anxious to abandon monetary controls as we are ourselves. That is a criticism which events have shown to be unfounded because the French Government have moved ahead of time.
The whole concept of monetary policy from the point of view of its exercise by governments is a relatively new development. It has nothing to do with the fundamental reasons for the existence of another place.
Let us look at what has happened. In 1967 —and I shall explain in a moment why I take that date —the pound sterling was worth 10 deutschemarks. This morning it was worth 2·75 deutschemarks. In other words, over that relatively short period of time, which will be within the memory of many noble Lords sitting here today, the pound sterling in relation to the deutschemark has lost nearly three-quarters of its value. I take 1967 because the period from then until now spans the life of two Labour administrations and two Conservative administrations. So the point that I am making is not a party political point at all.
If your Lordships are not satisfied with that illustration, perhaps I may give another. The big oil price increase in 1973 which sparked off the recession of the 1970s by itself would have put 4 per cent. on to price levels. In fact, by the time the repercussions had ended, the increase in prices in this country was nearer 400 per cent. than 4 per cent. That was a failure of the management of our monetary policy. Other countries did badly too, but few of them as badly as we did. That is why the deutschemark today is worth nearly four times as much in terms of the pound as it was before the events that I have just described.
The truth of the matter is that monetary policy, subject to the broad objectives being laid down at political level —in other words, is monetary policy to be directed to the avoidance of inflation? —is a technical and not a political matter. All experience shows that once politicians become involved, the results are disastrous. I see some pleasure on the faces of noble Lords opposite; but if they wish to analyse the events of those past 20 years or so in detail they will find that they have to bear a very, very heavy part of the burden of guilt themselves. That is why I believe that fundamentally the Delors Report is right in saying that monetary policy ought to be administered by a technical body —in this instance, the European system of central banks.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls quoted Dr. Pohl. It is always very, very dangerous to quote Dr. Pohl because one needs to ask oneself why he said what he said. What he said —which was reported in the press yesterday or today —was based on a view of the British economy and of our financial management which is not in any way complimentary to the efforts of our own Government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I coupled his name with that of the Bank of England.
Lord Cockfield: I shall not speak for the Governor of the Bank of England; he can answer for himself. Dr. Pöhl has been brought into the discussion on a number of occasions, and I simply suggest that people who quote him should ask themselves why Dr. Pöhl has said what he has said.
If there is one criticism of the Delors Report on the issue, and I am sure that it is what underlies Dr. Pöhl's comment, it is that the Delors committee leaves too much room for the politicians to interfere in these matters. That is why I say that one should be careful about quoting Dr. Pöhl.
I want to end by saying that I believe, as the committee believes, that it is immensely to the advantage of this country to enter into monetary union and to play a full part in the development of the single currency. I believe that we can do so without any prejudice to the considerations of parliamentary sovereignty which so concerned my noble friend the Leader of the House the other day. When we come to deal with economic union, very much more difficult issues will arise. We shall need to debate those issues in the light of developments in the next few years as monetary union comes into effect. It would be a serious error of judgment to join battle with the other member states of the Community on issues which do not arise now, which may not arise for many years to come and indeed may never arise at all.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that the House will be particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for introducing the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on the Delors proposals. I say "particularly" because, together with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, has presented us with a report which is not just up to the usual high standards of committees which he has the honour to chair but which in my view —and I hope I speak for many noble Lords —is quite exceptional in the breadth of its perception and in the quality of its argument. I congratulate very sincerely the noble Lord and his Select Committee on their efforts. I am very glad that they have received nothing but praise from all sides, and rightly so.
The subject matter of the Select Committee's report, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, pointed out, is of the highest importance. It is not concerned simply with whether we should or should not enter a particular alliance or whether we should or should not adopt a particular trading policy. We are here concerned with the whole future shape of our economy and indeed —let us not forget it —our political and social structure. In the light of that rather sombre reflection, I should say that there is one conclusion of the Select Committee that we can wholeheartedly endorse; namely, the view that we should not be pushed into unsatisfactory arrangements by purely short-term pressures. We must choose our path with care.
On the other hand, the world does not stand still and our corner of the world seems to have been moving rather fast recently. Since the publication of

17
the Select Committee's report, the political earthquake in Eastern Europe seems to have moved even in recent days further east and into the Soviet Union. The European Council has met at Strasbourg and decided to speed up the process of economic and monetary union by setting up an inter-governmental conference to discuss further steps. The Italian Government have indicated that they wish to hurry along the timetable. The Community's central bankers have decided to extend the remit of their committee, so as, in the words of their chairman, Dr. Pöhl —whom I quote with diffidence after the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield —to:
"make the Committee a kind of forerunner for the future European Central banking system".
Last and by no means least, as both the noble Lords, Lord Kearton and Lord Cockfield, said, France has decided to remove her remaining exchange controls in two weeks' time.
So the train is moving forward, and moving forward rather fast. It is clear that we in the United Kingdom must make sure not only that we are not left behind, but that we do not occupy such inferior seats as to have only a tangential say on the crucial question of in what direction the train is heading. Having established that position, we must also make heard our voice on the speed at which the train is to travel. There is a delicate balance to be struck between urging the train on —if I may continue that analogy —so as to keep up the momentum, and making sure that the destination is the right one. I must make it clear —I shall expand on this point in a moment —that, however fast or slow the train travels, there are some destinations at which we on our side would certainly not wish to alight.
We accept the Select Committee's view that we should join the exchange rate mechanism. We are in favour of early, negotiated entry. It would not —I shall be perfectly frank about this —be anything other than a tough negotiation. No government would jump in blind. I do not believe that any noble Lord would expect that; we would certainly not do so ourselves. After all, sterling is the most heavily traded EMS currency after the deutschemark. It is also a currency in which a fair proportion of world trade is still transacted. That means that the system's swap arrangements must be enlarged to take account of that fact and of the possibility —and perhaps certainty —that, with the deutschemark and sterling in the same currency bloc, the volume of any speculative attack against any one of the EMS currencies is liable to be increased.
We must obviously enter at a sensible rate. We wish to see increased support for regional policy and, as I have said before, more emphasis on co-operative growth which will allow our manufacturing industry to start to close the deficit with our European partners which has grown so alarmingly over the years.
We do not view any of those conditions as being in any way impossible; indeed, they all reflect practical concerns already on the European agenda. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. A resolution in the European Parliament which was presented to the Strasbourg summit called not only for sterling's
18
entry into the exchange rate mechanism as soon as possible, but also urged an
"active industrial policy … coupled with extensive regional policies … control of speculative movements … and the elimination of the largest intra-Community deficits and surpluses".
We are delighted that our ideas find favour with the European Parliament and even more delighted that that resolution was voted by the Conservative group in that parliament. We must congratulate it on that.
The noble Lord, Kearton, raised the issued of the differential inflation rate between ourselves and our Community partners as being a possible barrier to immediate entry. I confess that my problem in replying to that point is rather like the problem of the man who asked the way to Dublin and was told in reply that, if he wanted to go to Dublin, he should not have started from there in the first place. It is the Government who have stoked up the fires of inflation and are now trying to bomb the forests with their only bomb; namely high-level interest rates.
I explained our views on that point in our debate on the Address, and I do not wish to go over that ground again. Suffice it to say that although the Government are in something of a mess on inflation —although, perhaps for his own reasons, Dr. PM brought out that point and the Bank of England have brought it out —we do not see that as being a final barrier to early entry into the exchange rate mechanism. It means that other alternative and more effective counter-inflationary policies —in other words, not replying solely on the interest rate weapon —must be adopted to bring down the differential. But I do not underestimate the seriousness of that differential.
I invite your Lordships to consider the position that I have just outlined; namely, early negotiated entry into the exchange rate mechanism. We would consider the difference between that and the Government's position. As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said, their position seems to vary, perhaps according to the Prime Minister's moods which seem to become less and less predictable as she continues in office.
I should like to summarise the most recent pronouncements. There was the Madrid position: our inflation to be back down, free movement of capital among the present members of the exchange rate mechanism and substantial completion of the single market in financial services. Then there was the Walden interview position: in addition to the Madrid conditions, there appeared the notion that all our Community partners had in some way to run their affairs in exactly the same way that we ran ours with no more of those wicked subsidies, for instance. Latterly, there have been the Financial Times conditions which retreat back to the Madrid position, but now say only that those conditions should be "broadly met", whatever that may mean.
I have no doubt that there will be other formulations in the future. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to give us another formulation today; but, like all those formulations, it will be yet another discovered version of the synoptic gospels over which Biblical scholars will labour in order to find out what the markets will do in the following days.

19
We do not yet have a final position and I do not suppose that the noble Earl will give us one today, although we would welcome it.
It will go on like this. Unfortunately, it does not do us much good; indeed, it does us positive harm because each and every twist and turn raises doubts about the credibility of the Government's attachment and commitment to the whole principle of the thing. "Can we trust them?" is the question that the rest of Europe now asks itself. Until that is answered in the affirmative, the opportunity to have a proper say in decisions about where Europe should be heading will not be ours to grasp.
So much for Delors Stage One. But the next question is: what is to follow Delors Stage One? Here I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. There is a difference between economic and monetary union and there is no doubt that the two have tended to become confused in discussion. But what happens after Delors Stage One remains very much to be seen. All I can say now is that we hope that it will not be Delors Stages Two and Three in their present form because we share the Select Committee's reservations about those, and have some of our own as well.
The Treasury clearly took a different view about monetary union from other witnesses before the Select Committee. It believed that the definition need not embrace irrevocably fixed exchange rates and a common monetary policy. The Treasury plan for competing currencies is the demonstration of that view. Although it is described as a plan, I rather think that it is not much more than a description of how a European monetary system might operate once all members of the Community have become full members of the system and the single market in goods, services and capital flows has been achieved. It would simply result in what is called now the Treasury plan. It is therefore not so much a plan as a sketch of what might happen under certain circumstances.
However, it has the merit of pointing up some major difficulties in Delors Stages Two and Three. It comes as something of a relief to note that the Delors Committee itself did not intend those proposals as a blueprint for the future of Europe. They may be a useful starting point for debate and discussion —and we shall certainly join that debate and discussion —but as they stand I am afraid that we do not think that they will do.
Before I give two —and I promise it will only be two—out of several points of objection that we have to Delors Stages Two and Three in their present form, perhaps I may invite your Lordships to look for a moment at the background of developments in the Community against which discussions will take place. Let us very briefly summarise the changes that will take place in our political and economic landscape if and when the single market, the social charter and Delors Stage One are completed successfully. There will be free movement of people and capital throughout the Community. There will be freedom of establishment of banks and other financial institutions. There will be freedom for all
20
to conduct business without geographical restriction or nationalistic bias. Exchange rates will be virtually fixed and realignments progressively rarer. The rights of workers and the protection of employee and consumer will be enshrined in law throughout the Community. That is a formidable programme. Even by that time, assuming all goes to plan, the old Europe of national states in which we have grown up will no longer be with us; a new Europe will already have taken its place.
I do not make any judgment on whether that outcome is desirable or not. I simply invite your Lordships to consider the facts as they present themselves. It would be absurd to imagine that all that can take place without a major effort of economic, political and, I think, personal adjustment, not only in this country but in every country of the Community. I should guess that there will be many surprises along the way.
It is against that background that I believe we should look at Delors Stages Two and Three. The Select Committee report advises us that a satisfactory form of union can best be assured by waiting for proof that Stage One is a success. That seems to us to be a necessary condition but it does not follow that it is a sufficient condition —that even if Stage One is a success, the form of union that succeeds it will automatically be a success as well. There is more to it than that.
I promised your Lordships to state two reservations about Stages Two and Three of the Delors proposals. One concerns monetary union and the other concerns economic union.
First, we should not be willing to accept any system of central banks which would be independent of political control. If we are not attracted to the idea that the Bank of England should have some kind of extraconstitutional status and be in some way independent of government —and we are not attracted by that idea —we are certainly not attracted to the prospect of a European system of central banks, operating perhaps a common European currency and a common European monetary policy somewhere in political outer space —a sort of extraterrestrial "Star Trek" Bundesbank. So far as we are concerned that is not on the political agenda.
Secondly, with regard to economic union not only do we not accept that binding rules for budgetary or fiscal policy are a necessary condition for the achievement of monetary union, but for us it is politically quite unacceptable to go any distance at all down that route. A future Labour Government will want freedom of manoeuvre in budgetary policy to secure the public expenditure that is necessary to restore our battered infrastructure and our social services. We shall need freedom of manoeuvre in fiscal policy not only generally but more particularly in the light of the devolution proposals that we have for Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.
It all adds up simply to this. We accept the Select Committee's conclusion that the United Kingdom should play its proper role in the implementation of Stage One and that we should do so with enthusiasm. Furthermore, we wish to book our ticket to play our part in the debate on progress toward economic and

21
monetary union and on the different ways in which that can be achieved. We wish to be constructive in that debate. But it must be a debate the result of which is uncertain, and the debate must take place in the context of what is politically realistic in the new Europe of the single market, Delors Stage One and the social charter. That is the right approach and that is the one that we shall adopt.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to join the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord Williams of Elvel, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and his collegues for producing this admirable, clear and wise report. It could scarcely have been done at a better time. I am sure that we are all grateful for its guidance. As always, I listened with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, had to say on this topic. I feel very much persuaded by his preference for a sequential procedure from monetary to economic union rather than for the parallel route suggested in the Delors report.
Of course there are many different approaches to the Delors report but, as in everything connected with the European Community, though the means are economic the end is political. With the passage of the Single European Act and as 1992 approaches, we are reaching a point at which the political element, and questions about political ends and means, institutions and accountability, and indeed sovereignty, will come more and more to the forefront of the debate. As economic integration develops it will affect more and more closely the everyday life of ordinary people. As demands for accountability increase, the size of the democratic deficit will become abundantly apparent. The debate about the meaning of European union and the role of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will become increasingly urgent.
It is in that context, the political context, that I should like to look once more at the recommendation of the Select Committee that this country should join the ERM sooner rather than later. The economic arguments have been set forth extremely clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and the two noble Lords who spoke before me, and my noble friend Lord Ezra I know will be dealing with that matter towards the end of the debate. I do not regard myself as qualified to speak with authority on this issue but having read the Delors report, the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and the evidence submitted to those bodies, I am bound to say that, with one or two predictable exceptions, the body of expert opinion (or so I judge it) is in favour of our joining —to which we are in any case committed —sooner rather than later. It is a view, I would add, which is articulated by every member of the Government directly they leave, whether they happen to be Sir Leon Brittan, Mr. Nigel Lawson or Mr. Michael Heseltine.
If it is argued that we should not join now because our inflation is too high, it could be answered that most people have found that, by joining, their rates of inflation are lowered. If it is argued that it would
22
deprive us of using the rate of interest as a means of controlling inflation, it could be answered that there are other ways of controlling inflation, some of them fiscal. If it is said that we must wait and see whether economic convergence within the Community is such as to allow us to join, it could again be answered that membership of ERM tends to increase the pressures toward economic convergence and the achievement of it; and so on.
I should like to return to the political argument. As the report argues, it is the case that joining the ERM has become a symbol of our commitment to the European idea. No matter what the Government may say —and as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said —that commitment is not apparent to outside observers. Nor is it apparent to our colleagues and partners in the European Community. If noble Lords wish to know why, I suggest that they read the evidence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Lilley, and it will become pretty clear. However, if it has become a symbol of our commitment, it is only by joining that we shall be able to dispel that interpretation of British policy. By joining we shall, in addition, be able to influence the structure, the shape and the institutions of the European Community that is coming into being. On the other hand, if we continue to prevaricate and delay, if we set more and more vague conditions that have to be satisfied, as they have been described in the Financial Times, then the European Community will develop in monetary and economic union in our absence and our interests will be neglected.
We constantly inveigh against the shortcomings of the common agricultural policy. The common agricultural policy was made in our absence and did not naturally take into account our interests. We should remember that lesson and not repeat the mistake that we made in the past.
Finally, we shall become a peripheral element in a new Europe which can and should become a centre of political and financial influence internationally and which can and should speak on equal terms with the United States, Japan and with whatever emerges from the present Russian revolution. Thus, even if economic arguments for joining the ERM sooner rather than later were evenly balanced, the political argument seems to me to be overwhelming. It is set forth in paragraph 82 of the Select Committee's report, which states:
"To protect the United Kingdom's own interests, both economic and political, the Committee believe that it is imperative to play an active role, first in the full implementation of Stage One and then in pressing for further progress … This can only be achieved by joining the ERM soon, and the Committee suggest before July 1990".
That leads me to what I believe is the fundamental objection to the progress of the European Community in a political way of the present Government and of the Prime Minister. It is the question of sovereignty, which I do not think we should burke. Put in another way, we have to ask ourselves whether we would have greater control over our destiny within a European Community which is developing along Delors lines or outside it in isolation.

23
The policy of splendid isolation first articulated in 1896 by Goschen was a policy that was supposed to maximise, not minimise, this country's influence in a Eurocentric world, where peace was preserved by the balance of power and where by our isolation we could maintain and control that balance. That was the theory, even though within a decade of its articulation we had abandoned it. But we no longer live in a Eurocentric world but in one of increasing economic and political interdependence. One need go no further than to take the example of the Bundesbank and our rate of interest's response to the change by the Bundesbank. It is immediate. That is hardly a good example of sovereignty.
It is odd that a government who take sovereignty so seriously should prefer the diktat of the Bundesbank to the actions of a committee of bankers on which we are represented, as Delors suggests. On these Benches we do not look forward to a Europe of sovereign states. The past hardly encourages one to believe that that is a good idea. We have always believed that the pooling of sovereignty was essential to the political aim which inspired the EC. We also believe that the progress of the Community —its magnetic attraction both to EFTA and the states of Eastern Europe —vindicate that idea. Furthermore, the extraordinary events which have already been referred to in this debate in Central and Eastern Europe and the ensuing instability and flux which can only be dangerous make the creation of a strong and stable European Community more than ever important.
Finally, the prospect of the re-unification of Germany —which whatever anyone may say is now firmly on the agenda —makes the political and economic consolidation of the Community, with Germany firmly anchored within it politically and economically, more than ever important. It is for that reason that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and his colleagues for giving us an opportunity to hold this debate at this time with a report which so clearly and admirably clarifies the issue that we are discussing. Once more I should like to express my thanks to him and to his colleagues for what they have done.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate we shall have a statement that this country will join the ERM before or by July 1990; and in addition perhaps an answer to the question put to Mr. Lilley in committee by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, when he asked for the Government's interpretation of the economic and monetary union which they favour if they do not favour that which was set forth by Mr. Delors in his report.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I should like to join with others in paying tribute to the presentation of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. As a junior member of the committee I do not have a great deal to add to what he stated so well. However, I should like to speak very briefly on some points.
I believe that 1989 will be remembered in the future as the year in which the British people first
24
became fully aware of the European Community. They voted in significant numbers for a European Parliament and daily received instruction on the EMS from the press and radio. During that year not a few public figures underwent a conversion comparable to that of St. Paul; and, like all converts, entered with enthusiasm into the controversy. I hope that our report tenders advice to the Government and others in an unprejudiced way and at a very critical time.
Amidst cries of, "Missing the bus again", one had to try to forget which country vetoed our entry into the Community; and, in the face of reproaches of isolation now levelled at us, one has to try not to recall how isolated we were in 1940. However, it is perhaps appropriate at Christmas for recriminations to be set aside. I believe that now a comparatively satisfactory state of affairs must be recognised to exist from our point of view. That is compatible with the findings of our report.
I suggest that the state of affairs after the Strasbourg Council is as follows. First, it is the clear intention of Her Majesty's Government to enter the ERM when certain conditions are broadly met. Not "whether" but "when" is the cry. There was once a widely held view that the Government had no intention of joining and was interested only in spoiling tactics or, in rugby terms, "kicking the ball deep into touch". If that was once true it is, I believe, no longer so.
The committee discussed "when" and after a certain amount of argument agreed on July 1990. There were witnesses, not least Sir Leon Brittan, who could see no objection to joining now. His attitude was that "everything would be all right on the night". I confess that I do not feel qualified to judge unassisted. I feel more confidence in the judgment of those who await the fulfilment, at least partially, of certain conditions. That was the opinion of the committee. Those who say "now" are, for the most part, in the happy position of not carrying the responsibility for such a decision if it proves to be a serious mistake.
Secondly, it is satisfactory that Delors Stage One is accepted by all. However, there is increasing recognition by many that Stages Two and Three are very much open to argument and amendment. The dramatic political developments in Europe have changed the scenario. On 11th December it was stated in The Times that,
"All plans drawn up before the Berlin Wall started to crumble are threatened with obsolescence. The Delors plan is a prime candidate for rethinking.
That surely cannot be denied.
The third satisfactory feature of the present situation is that the proposed inter-governmental conference has been put off for at least a year. During that year of postponement the problems of Delors Stages Two and Three can be thoroughly and profitably studied against the background of the changing European scene. The postponement was fortuitous and revealed the delicate nature of French/German relations. It has happily prevented a rush into premature decisions.
The year 1990 may see many changes in Europe. At the end of the year the original agenda for the

25
postponed meeting may well have been overtaken by events and will be found to be too narrow. I notice that many people fall in the habit of referring to the Community as "Europe". The Community is not Europe; it is 12 European states. Europe is larger than the Community. During the next year the possibility exists of an East German election with a truly democratic vote which may include a recommendation for or against reunification. Perhaps it is wise to issue a word of warning about those who are outspoken about the dangers of reunification. By expressing their doubts and fears, may they not be hastening the wish of the Germans to reunify?
After the East German election there will be the West German election on 2nd December. During the year there will also be other meetings involving European security and future plans for NATO. The American government are clearly considering initiatives which will not find favour with some Community members. Hopefully, the European development bank will be formed and its resources may include money from countries outside Europe which will wish to exercise a powerful voice in the policy of the bank.
All those are highly sensitive matters and will interact with each other. Therefore, is it not possible that by the end of 1990 we shall find ourselves in very different scenery? In all these meetings, Her Majesty's Government, far from being marginalised, can play an equal part with their partners and our views cannot be lightly set aside. I feel certain that if the Community is to advance it should do so at a prudent speed, and 1990 is an appropriate year for thoughtful and innovative debate.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I also welcome the report of the Kearton Committee. I congratulate the noble Lord on its presentation. It was interesting to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who put the report in the context of foreign affairs of which he has vast experience.
I believe that the Delors Report contains a fundamental flaw. Stage One and Stages Two and Three are of different qualities. Stage One is different in character and in its national constitution. Yet the report imposes a requirement —I use the word loosely —that entering into Stage One means a commitment to embark on the whole process of Stages Two and Three. My noble friend Lord Cockfield referred to that as a sequential process and I understand that that may be another way of describing it. Even so, I believe that the flaw remains in that Stage One is of a different quality from Stages Two and Three.
Stage One seeks co-operation and consultation among the partners aimed at greater convergence of economic performance through the strengthening of economic and monetary policy co-ordination. It involves achieving freedom of capital movement, greater use of the ecu and joining the ERM. In essence, it is partners within the European Community consulting to make the most effective use of their individual economic resources.
26
Stages Two and Three are very different. They involve the transfer of partners' independence on key national issues to some type of corporate entity where decisions will be made centrally at some group headquarters. That would cover a range of vital national issues such as taxation, public expenditure and so forth. If that process of transfer takes place, who will "call the shots" on those vital issues?
I understand and praise the prudence of our Government and of others who show hesitation in plunging into such unknown territory at this stage. At present the governments of all member states are answerable to their electorates. They stand or fall on the performance that they produce, or appear to produce. But after Stage Three has come into operation, how will that judgment be passed by an electorate? How will the electorate respond? Will they be disenfranchised?
I turn now to the European central bank. To whom will that be accountable with its vast leverage? The trite answer is to say the Bundesbank; yet that has a responsibility to the German economy. It has independence from direct government intervention but it cannot claim to be a completely free-floating body accountable to no one. If there is a European central bank, who will appoint and dismiss the governors? Will it be the Council of Ministers, or the European Parliament, or will those powers be given to 12 wise men? Who will appoint them? It may evolve. I believe that over time we shall have a European central bank and also a common currency, but to commit ourselves to that path at this stage is quite premature.
At the risk of inviting criticism from my noble friend Lord Cockfield, I quote Dr. Karl Otto Pöhl who said:
"Economic and monetary union needs neither a central bank nor a common currency".
I am not sure what was his separate motive for that. My noble friend suggested that one should not consider Dr. Pöhl's remarks without looking at their purpose. If he was concerned that a European central bank might damage the strong anti-inflation stand and policies of the West German Government, then I can understand what he was saying. There must obviously be the fear that a European central bank would be less likely to follow the strict, strong and stringent rules of a low-inflation country and that it would finish up pursuing a policy that was the average of the 12. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made reservations on this matter which I certainly share.
With regard to the common currency, I welcome the development of the ecu. I believe that it has a more important role to play. As I have said, I believe that over time we shall develop a common European currency but that at this stage it is premature to be planning such a move. Like the committee, I urge that we concentrate on Stage One which is itself stretching and very demanding in many of the requirements which have to be fulfilled to make it work properly. We should allow Stages Two and Three to evolve in the light of the experience we gain.
I turn now to the exchange rate mechanism. I confess that over the years I have blown hot and

27
cold on the subject. I am sure that I am not alone. It is rather like trying to find a picnic spot in a motor car: you pass the ideal place before you realise it and you go on thinking that something better will turn up. That has been my view about when we should have joined the ERM. There have been times when it would have been right to do so but it is a matter for speculation as to what effect it would have had on our inflation rate and the stability of exchange rates. I believe that both would have been better.
Certainly I do not believe that today is the time for joining the exchange rate mechanism. The conditions laid down at Madrid, and since spelt out a little more fully and qualified, are right. It is necessary that there should be satisfactorily shown to be freedom of capital movement within Europe. The announcement by the French of the removal of exchange controls indicates that the concern many of us felt about their impact on European currencies was unjustified. It seems that our concern should be satisfied by July 1990 —the date when the Kearton Committee hopes that we can join the exchange rate mechanism.
On the substantial completion of the single market for financial services, I have rather more reservations. I feel there is a good deal of delay among some members of the Community. There is German reluctance to open up its market for insurance; similarly, there is French reluctance with regard to telecommunications. One wonders why some of the fire directed at the British Government for dragging their feet is not diverted towards other offenders.
I believe that it is important, before we join the ERM, for the UK inflation rate to be much lower. I hope and believe that we shall see it declining well in 1990. However, I believe it is rash to speculate that it will be down to the necessary level by July 1990 when the Select Committee believes that we should join the ERM. I understand the reservations spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow. I understand indeed that he had those reservations at the time the subject was discussed.
Turning to the exchange rate itself, I believe it is very important to achieve a stable rate for the benefit of industry and commerce. It is a key matter for them. To maintain the rate at an artificially high level by very high interest rates can be a mixed blessing. I recognise that a lower exchange rate can have serious inflationary consequences; but too high an exchange rate encourages imports and deters exports with serious consequences on the trade balance, while high interest rates add significantly to costs and wage demands. Within that package there is also a high inflationary risk. It is a difficult balance to achieve. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the speed with which he has grasped the fundamentals of the great problems that fall on his desk. I am encouraged by the way he has started and by his efforts to achieve a balance which I believe to be right.
It has been rightly said that the Conservative Party is not —nor should it ever be —the party of devaluation. We should seek exchange rates that
28
we believe to be maintainable and ensure that we maintain them in order to achieve stability. But at the end of the day the market decides and the judgment is not an easy one to make. If we can fix the rates at a maintainable level and have the policies which enable us to maintain them, then, at that time, it must be right to enter the exchange rate mechanism.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, upon the manner in which he presented the Committee's report. I also congratulate the Committee in bringing forward this report which to date, at any rate, has resulted in a fascinating and stimulating discussion. I agree with the conclusion of the Committee at paragraph 81 that:
"The Community must not be rushed into an unsatisfactory form of economic and monetary union as a result of short-term pressures".
I was glad to hear the reservations uttered from the Front Bench on behalf of the Labour Party by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I agree very much with those reservations. There is no doubt that over the past weeks and months there have been enormous pressures on the British Government and the Tory Party to go forward to economic and monetary union at a pace which would not suit this country nor the Community itself. There has undoubtedly been an attempt to stampede the Government and the Conservative Party into premature agreement on ERM and EMU.
I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister described by Mr. Heath as "a narrow little nationalist". That is not the kind of language one expects to hear from the Conservative Party in this country. No doubt it is the kind of language that Mr. Brezhnev used about Mr. Lech Walesa and Mr. Dubcek. I hope that Mr. Heath, particularly when speaking from Paris, will moderate his language a little.
This issue, involving as it does our future independence and the economic wellbeing of our people and our country, is far too serious for us to be railroaded into economic and monetary union by a powerful group of fanatical Euro-federalists. I do not believe that the people of this country want to go down that road. For millions of our people the question involves too great an inroad into our sovereignty. That sovereignty, in my view, belongs to the people and not to Parliament. Too much of that sovereignty has already been ceded to the institutions of the EC by what has been an unwary or sleepy Parliament, particularly an unwary and sleepy House of Commons.
Paragraph 82 of the conclusion speaks of the need for the United Kingdom to convince its Community partners of its European credentials. It suggests that this is more important than ever and because it is important we should join the ERM before July 1992. That is not a very good reason for joining before 1992. Before we do so we need to ensure that joining is in the best economic and financial interests of this country and to prove our European credentials —as if we had not already done so.

29
We already run a trading deficit of enormous proportions —£16 billion last year with the Community, which would collapse without that deficit; without being able to push all those imports into this country. We handed over our fishing waters with baleful effects on British fishermen. We land most of our North Sea oil on the Continent for refining. We pay to the European Community £2 billion a year for little or no return. We changed our currency to a decimal system. We decimalised our weights and measures. We put up food costs by £13·50 for each family in the United Kingdom and put thousands of workers, including farmers, out of jobs. We have ruined Britain's traditional landscape and poisoned the land with nitrates. We agreed to a system which allows this country to be out-voted on a whole range of interests; and we allow niggling regulations, like the one reported over the weekend which will ban charities from making toys for sale unless they have some sort of licence and will penalise them by a fine of up to £2,000 or six months' imprisonment. If, by all those things and many more, we have not proved our European credentials, then I do not know what more we have to do.
The word "British" is almost becoming a dirty word. If one dares to stand up for British rights one is called "a little Englander" by the Euro-cranks. Even I am called a little Englander sometimes although I was born in South Wales. That is the situation which we have reached.
However, the immediate question is whether early entry to the ERM will be beneficial. The Governor of the Bank of England clearly does not think so. We have heard about that in the debate. On Thursday of last week he was telling central bankers —it is important to know who he was telling —in Italy that the Government should resist political pressure to join the ERM before the economy is in better balance. Perhaps I may quote from the Daily Telegraph of Thursday, 14th December exactly what he is reported as saying:
"The Government should resist political pressure to join the European exchange rate mechanism before the economy is in better balance".
The article continues by explaining that the Governor,
"made it clear that premature entry would be disruptive not only for Britain but for the Community as a whole".
It further states that he,
"was anxious also to preserve Britain's right to pursue an independent monetary policy, setting interest rates to control credit growth instead of having targets imposed from outside, on a collective basis".
Even I can agree with that. The article further added:
"Looking beyond the immediate question of when Britain should join the ERM, the Governor supported Mrs. Thatcher in her opposition to rapid moves towards full monetary union, involving Treaty changes and the creation of new European institutions."
There we have it from the Governor of the Bank of England. It is clear that he believes it would be damaging for us to join the ERM at this point in time and before our economy is ready for it. Nevertheless, the EMS is supported by the Select Committee and most of the witnesses who appeared before it. However, I wonder whether the committee and all the experts are right; or are they kidding
30
themselves and the country that all we need to do to succeed is to become a full member of the ERM?
I have to say —I have said this before and I shall continue to say it —that there is no panacea to cure all our economic ills. There is no substitute for hard work and effective management of the economy. That is what we need; not joining the ERM. That will not solve the fundamental problems of our economy.
We should perhaps look at what has happened to France since it joined the ERM in 1981. First, unemployment in France has increased by 1 million to 2·5 million. In this country outside the EMS, it has been falling. In spite of this the franc is 15 per cent. higher against the deutschmark than in 1981. It should be falling to reduce unemployment, but it has been rising and hurting those people who are on the dole. The number of new jobs created in France has been very small indeed. Imports of manufactured goods have risen faster than exports and the balance of trade in manufacturing has fallen from a surplus of 11·3 billion dollars in 1979 to a deficit of 8·4 billion dollars in 1988. In France the rich have become richer; property owners have done better than wage earners; wage restraint has been the order of the day and, as a result, average wages lost 2 per cent. of their purchasing power between 1982 and 1988.
That is the experience of France within the ERM. It contrasts —although I do not like saying this —with experience in this country, where unemployment has been falling, real wages have risen and gross domestic product has grown faster than in any other country inside Europe except Germany. There is, therefore, no certainty that joining the ERM will cure all our economic ills.
Apparent support for the ERM —and I am speaking about ordinary folk —arises from the fact that people have been led to believe that interest rates will immediately fall, and fall fast, if we join the ERM. Businessmen and mortgage payers alike are, under those circumstances, likely to agree that the ERM is good and say, "Let's go in". What they do not understand is that interest rates could only come down significantly —all noble Lords on all sides of the House know this —if severe deflation were to be introduced, leading to a huge increase in unemployment and many bankruptcies. That is the alternative. It is an alternative that we ought to understand is the one that is available. That is why we should be extremely careful about making hasty decisions as to whether we go into the ERM.
I have to say to mortgage payers that there have been some very interesting articles lately about the ERM. The Financial Times of 5th December contained an article upon the subject by John Muellbauer and Anthony Murphy. I shall not refer to it in detail, but the headline was: "No ERM Entry Without a Property Tax". This theme was taken up by the Sunday Express only yesterday. The Sunday Express states in regard to the ERM:
"The only way of countering a renewed upturn in inflation would be to raise taxation to counter the impact of falling interest rates and take spending power out of the economy that way.
"The Treasury is looking for alternative ways of increasing revenues, apart from income tax. It is more than possible that

31
the new Chancellor, Mr. John Major, in order to mitigate the surge of borrowing which would otherwise take place, will direct some of his tax increases specifically at the housing market".
He may very well be thinking of introducing capital gains tax on profits made from the sale of houses. Mortgage payers who believe that they will do well out of our going into the ERM perhaps ought to think again. What they will gain on the swings, they will lose on the roundabouts.
I have said all that I wished to say. I hope that the strictures of a number of noble Lords concerning hasty decisions on EMS and ERM will be heeded. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for his report and the manner in which he introduced it.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, we are once again indebted to my noble friend Lord Kearton for introducing this debate on a report prepared under his chairmanship. It deals with a subject of tremendous importance. I make so bold as to say that, next to the question of the restructuring of the European security system —to which it has some relevance —this is a subject which will profoundly affect our lives and those of future generations. I should like to say at once that I broadly agree with the conclusions of the report.
It may have been thought to be hazardous to bring the report out just before the Strasbourg meeting of heads of government, when very important decisions were going to be taken on precisely the matters dealt with in the report. However, just a little over a week since the Strasbourg meeting we see that, broadly speaking, the balance of the conclusions of the report has been confirmed. We can now see fairly clearly what at the moment is agreed Community policy.
The inclusion of sterling in the exchange rate mechanism agreed at the Madrid Summit and the acknowledgement that this operational part of the European monetary system is a vital element in the further progress of European integration have now been unanimously confirmed. Together with the capital liberalisation measures and the energetic pursuit of the single market, it marks Stage One of the Delors programme. It is confirmed that that stage will begin next July. Regrettably, some doubt remains as to the timing of the entry of the pound. I am pleased that the earlier suggestion that one of our conditions should be the completion of the single market forms no part of the Government's policy, for it could mean a delay at least until 1992, and that reasonable progress —and various other adjectives have been used —a concept which is very well established in English practice and in English law, should be the test.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, reminded us, the Select Committee recommended in two earlier reports the entry of the pound into the ERM. It now recommends that this should happen by 1st July 1990. I respect the doubts expressed by the Governor of the Bank of England in regard to premature action. However, when I hear words like "rushing into things" and "being railroaded into the exchange rate mechanism", I cannot help reminding noble Lords
32
that if we enter next year the European monetary system will be 11 years old. That is a fairly long gestation period. I do not know of many examples in the animal kingdom of such length.
Given the fact that liberalisation of capital movements by France and Italy is to be completed by 1st July 1990 —and with regard to France it will be virtually completed at the beginning of next year —and given the intergovernmental conference to discuss the future after Stage One, which is to commence by the end of next year, I believe that it is essential that we should enter that phase in the same position as our partners. When I was more intimately familiar with the ways of Whitehall and of central banks than I am now, I would have taken a small bet that secret negotiations were already under way covering the precise circumstances of the abolition of capital controls, including such matters as closer co-operation by the tax authorities to minimise possibilities of tax evasion, a possible revision of the range of fluctuations allowed in the exchange rate mechanism and above all the date and terms of the pound's entry into the ERM and the very important co-operative arrangements to deal with post-entry disturbances. Perhaps the machine is working as it did 20 years ago. I very much hope that it is and that such negotiations are already taking place.
What will be the situation after that? We have resisted the proposal for an intergovernmental conference, but now that it is to take place, I am pleased that we have said that we will participate. An old French proverb says
"Those who are absent are always in the wrong".
It took us 17 years, from approximately 1957 to 1973, to repair the damage that we did, primarily to ourselves, by our absence from the Messina Conference, which laid the foundations for the Treaty of Rome. We may not have repaired the damage completely. I am very pleased that we have learnt the lesson.
The conference is to consider progress after Stage One. The Delors proposals for Stages Two and Three must form an important basis of the discussion and negotiation, but it will be open to the participants to propose variations and alternatives. The report before us counsels caution on the later stages of economic and monetary union. Many people, including myself, who regard ultimate monetary and economic union, whatever that may be, as desirable, recognise that major issues, not only of an economic and financial nature but of a broadly political and constitutional nature, will need to be resolved.
Before the Strasbourg summit a high-level official committee, including representatives from our Treasury and Foreign Office, prepared a report entitled On the Principal Questions Posed by the Implementation of Economic and Monetary Union. This report has not publicly received the attention which it deserves. It contains a complete and highly instructive annotated agenda covering the whole range of questions that will need to be tackled by the intergovernmental conference. In the light of this report, the Government, however doubtful they may be about Stages Two and Three of the Delors report,

33
need not fear that any of the issues that they consider important can possibly be overlooked. They can, and I hope that they will, enter those negotiations in a constructive spirit.
Clearly, a major intellectual and political debate will ensue; but it is now possible to comment on some of the elements involved. Delors assumes that Stages Two and Three will require new or revised institutions and, therefore, new treaties or revisions of the Treaty of Rome. The report prepared by the official committee to which I have referred assumes the same thing, at least by implication. The creation of a European central bank, whether or not it is federal, and a common currency would need to be based on a treaty. It is difficult to see how it could be otherwise. This would also have to lay down rules on the very difficult question of ultimate accountability combined with what is in many quarters desired —namely, independence, in day-to-day operations of a European central bank.
So far the Government have shown considerable antipathy, to put it mildly, to the idea of new institutions and to the whole concept of Stages Two and Three. There is very much in the substantive elements particularly of Stage Three as outlined in the Delors report which is highly debatable. The Select Committee has drawn attention to some of these matters, particularly the proposals relating to budgetary policy. As they stand, they appear not to be feasible on the broadest political grounds for a long time to come, if ever; nor is it established clearly—certainly not to my mind —that they are either necessary or desirable, at least in the detail proposed, given the uncertain state of our knowledge of the relation between fiscal and monetary policy and how this changes from country to country and from time to time.
The Government have already fired one shot in this battle by producing a Treasury paper entitled An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union which appeared too late to be more than briefly referred to in the Select Committee report, although the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, referred to it in his introduction. The Delors proposals for further development are of course also evolutionary in the sense that they are based on the completion and strengthening of the European monetary system and beyond it the single market, both of which necessarily require institutions and operations which are monitored by institutions. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that if economic and monetary union are to mean something more than just co-operation, further institutional developments will almost certainly be needed.
As to the Treasury paper, too much attention has been addressed to the so-called "competing currencies" element in it. The essence of the Treasury proposal is that there should be no deliberate moves beyond Stage One and that the many desirable developments which it outlines will happen, as it were, by themselves. This is based on the view, and I quote, that:
"The forces released in Stage One will reshape all our economies along new European lines. By any standards Stage One is an unprecedented endeavour whose significance cannot be overstated".
34
Stage One comprises the creation of the single market and the single financial area as well as the completion of the European monetary system. But it is significant how much of the benefits of Stage One, which in the Treasury's opinion make further deliberate stages unnecessary, are ascribed in the Treasury paper to the operation of the European monetary system, which is incidentally also credited with having produced,
"greater convergence of inflation".
It is rather ironic that, not being full members of the European monetary system, a status which we have resisted for so long, and also having displayed very ambivalent views on the role of exchange rate policy in the management of the economy, we should now place so much emphasis on this one element. However, let us remember that,
"Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety and nine persons, which need no repentence".
The essence of the proposed "evolutionary approach" is that nothing needs to be done by way of deliberate Community action, devices, mechanisms or institutions that would not spontaneously come about after Stage One, though over an unspecified period of time.
This is a perfectly conceivable picture— I admit that straight away —but one cannot help thinking that our friends on the Continent, particularly given the momentous events in Eastern Europe —in this respect I differ very much from my noble friend Lord Greenhill —and the significant developments in American foreign policy which have become evident in the past week or two are much more likely to be moved by Andrew Marvell's words to his coy mistress,
"But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot drawing near";
and one may wonder whether what has been set in train and achieved so far and on which the Treasury paper heaps such praise could have been achieved without the Single European Act, without the European monetary system and without the repeated and solemn commitments to economic and monetary union by the heads of government. Our friends on the Continent may well recall the words of Jean Monnet, who knew a thing or two about these matters:
"The best plans remain ineffective unless we include instruments for decision and a timetable".
We shall see. History has its own imperatives and we cannot now be sure what these will produce.
With all its caution on Stages Two and Three, the Select Committee takes a somewhat different view from the Treasury, for it states that:
"in the long run, exchange rate stability may well be harder to maintain without an institutional framework"
It also accepts that to exploit the gains of a single market,
"requires economic and monetary union particularly in the form of a common currency".
This being,
"an enormous step towards the Community goal of joining the leading ranks of world economics".
That surely must remain an overriding objective.

35
In this connection I should like to add a brief final word on the position of the City of London, which is important since broadly the financial sector accounts for about one-seventh of our gross domestic product. Of course I would not pretend for one moment to speak for the City on all these great matters but I believe that many in the Square Mile will agree with an extremely perceptive leader in the Financial Times a week or so ago on at least one aspect of this debate. The question is whether the eventual emergence of rigidly fixed exchange rates and a fortiori of a single currency, together with a European central bank will diminish the role of London as a pre-eminent international financial centre.
The article makes three points. First, it argues that it would be disadvantageous for the City if the United Kingdom were not fully involved in the current process for further European integration. This danger, happily, is or soon will be out of the way. Secondly, the article argues that the location of a future European central bank need have no more than symbolic significance. That is more debatable. I personally would hope very much that, even if the board of some future European central bank, if ever there is one, were to be placed elsewhere, the Bank of England would nevertheless be its operating arm, just as the New York Fed is in the present American system.
The third point is particularly important and rather novel. It is that the real "threat" to London lies in the progressive liberalisation of other markets. This may seem paradoxical. However, I think it is true, but only in the sense that any enlargement of the market, any increase in the number of participants and the scope of competition and above all any equalisation of the advantages which London has undoubtedly enjoyed because of its openness are bound to constitute a challenge, at least in the short term. But to this we have been used for a long time. I do not think that we need look to the future in this regard without confidence provided we are prepared to meet this challenge as hitherto.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, not only for the excellent and, as usual, most succinct way in which he introduced this debate but even more so for the way he chaired our sub-committee. He did so with supreme tact, enormous knowledge and not a little humour. All of us on the sub-committee and indeed noble Lords on all sides of the House are enormously indebted to him.
In June 1983 the Heads of Government of EC member states together with their foreign ministers signed the solemn declaration on European union in Stuttgart. It reaffirmed the basic European policy of economic and monetary union. As other noble Lords have said this afternoon and indeed before, there is of course divergence of opinion as to what economic and monetary union actually means. But to rely on questions of semantics as the reason for delaying participation is akin to discussing the proverbial length of that well-known piece of string.
36
It is widely accepted and indeed recommended by the report that Stages Two and Three of the Delors Report need a great deal of further consideration. But surely few people, except perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, can be in any doubt as to the next logical step here in the United Kingdom; namely, our entry into the ERM. The arguments have been well rehearsed. I shall certainly not reiterate them at length. I shall leave that to others, especially the economists.
However, I should like to say that in my view the evidence —I stress this point, because the conclusions, in the report are based on the evidence which was submitted to the committee —in favour of our entry into the ERM is overwhelming. Perhaps I may divert for just one moment and refer to the intervention made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. In this respect, speaking as a member of the committee, all I can say is that nothing has happened since the publication of the report to alter my opinion.
Those countries which already participate in the mechanism have found that is has succeeded in giving them a large degree of exchange rate stability. ERM members have increasingly benefited from low inflation and have enjoyed relatively low levels of interest rates. We should not underestimate the United Kingdom's importance in the matter. I sincerely believe that our membership of the ERM is not seen on the Continent of Europe as just the addition of another country for the sake of neatness and symmetry; rather it is seen as a major change within the ERM.
Mr. van der Klugt, who is both president of the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe and chairman of Philips, made the following comments in his evidence. He said:
"If the Community is ever going to get together it cannot be without the pound".
He then continued with an interesting sentence over which I have puzzled frequently since. He said:
"Either there is no Community or it [the United Kingdom] must be in".
Because of the perceived importance of the United Kingdom's membership, I believe that our joining would in itself encourage a period of digestion and pause for reflection before the commencement of Stages Two and Three. If we seize the opportunity and take advantage of the United Kingdom's present standing in the matter, then we also have a chance to be an enormous influence on Stages Two and Three. It is an opportunity which will otherwise surely be lost.
Failure to seize that opportunity —that is, to join the ERM by July 1990 —will not result in the rest of Europe calling a halt to the EMU. In all probability, based on all the evidence we received, the result would be quite the reverse. Mr. John Banham, the director general of the CBI, made the point that the degree of success and momentum generated by the single European market and 1992 was so great that it was bound to encourage the other members to press ahead at full speed. He said:
"That is no reason … to stand aside. I would have thought that it was a reason to get into the brake-van so that we are able to apply the brake".

37
I must comment that I personally would have preferred the analogy of the engine rather than the brake-van so that we could influence the speed in a positive manner rather than a negative manner. However, the EC is committed and will carry on without the United Kingdom, if necessary. That could well mean, as other noble Lords have mentioned this afternoon, that the much discussed two-tier Europe will emerge. Economically that would surely be highly damaging to the United Kingdom.
We were told that CBI members have already found that the United Kingdom's non-membership of the ERM has had a serious adverse effect on their ability to build profitable, long-term strategic positions in some of the key markets in Europe. As the document produced by the Treasury in November this year, entitled, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Roll, An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union, pointed out,
"Greater use will be made of low inflation currencies at the expense of high inflation ones in both transactions and deposits".
Sterling, presently a high inflation curency, will surely suffer at the expense of the deutschemark. As my noble friend Lord Cockfield pointed out in his speech to your Lordships on 22nd November this year,
"if we do not join in the monetary union, what will inevitably happen will be that the financial centre of Europe will shift from London to Frankfurt. If that happens, neither this generation nor future generations will ever forgive us".—[Official Report, 22/11/89; col. 76.]
Those are wise words.
A common currency is the logical, ultimate aim of the EMU. The Delors Committee Report pointed out that as the European financial area became a reality, governments would realise that their national monetary autonomy was increasingly illusory. In his evidence, Sir Leon Brittan said that the inevitable result of permanently fixed interest rates is in effect a common currency. The real problem is persuading people that it is so fixed. It is a psychological barrier more than anything else. It is surely a barrier which we must surmount. It must become our acknowledged objective.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, among others, said, we are at a momentous time in European history. The recent events in Eastern Europe, the rise of Japan to a position of international economic dominance and the continuing strength of the United States are all challenges which must be met and which can only be faced successfully by a Europe operating as a soundly based economic union, with the United Kingdom a fully participating member.
In conclusions, I make no apology for quoting part of paragraph 82, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. There are two sentences in that passage which are absolutely fundamental. They read:
"The need for the United Kingdom to convince its Community partners of its European credentials is more important than ever. This can only be achieved by joining the ERM soon, and the Committee suggest before July 1990".
As a member of the sub-committee, I wholeheartedly endorse that conclusion.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I believe that it will generally be agreed that we have had a series of absolutely first-class speeches which have maintained the quality and high seriousness of the opening contributions made by the noble Lords, Lord Kearton and Lord Cockfield. I feel that unless the speeches suddenly become shorter, I may have to crave the indulgence of the House to leave in the midst of the closing orations.
I know that I must not economise with time before congratulating members of the Select Committee on what I thought was an outstanding report. I noticed that the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, was always ready with a fund of questions to keep the witnesses on their toes. In something of the same spirit, like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I believe that we must not be deterred from asking questions by what appears to be the psychological intimidation of the Euro zealots who demand blind approval of every dotty Delors dream as a test of what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, called cur "European credentials".
I wish to make clear my starting position. As an Englishman, I rejoice to be part of the human, historical and geographical mosaic which is modern Europe. I have a strong stake in the Continent, and I have four Anglo-French grand-daughters to prove it. For the past 30 years among my closest personal friends have been leading professional economists, especially from France, Germany and Italy. As classical liberals they mostly share my admiration for the Prime Minster, who comes under so much criticism from Europe. They share that admiration as they share admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, as not so much the midwife of the single market, but as its chief progenitor.
We see the 12 nations as being engaged in the liberating task of dismantling decades, even centuries, of obstacles to trade and mobility that have dulled, deadened and distorted economic and social progress. That historic task has now to be pushed through against continued resistance by narrow, nationalistic and producer interests, often disguised by rhetoric about the social charter and technical standards. We have our hands full with 1992 without forever being distracted by new divisive schemes.
Of course a much widened and diverse market works better with a single, stable unit of account and medium of exchange. The gold standard and pound sterling provided that role from the end of the Napoleonic wars until the outbreak of the First World War. It undoubtedly wonderfully encouraged trade by reducing transaction costs and removing uncertainties. I suspect that M. Delors would not have approved of the gold standard because it did not require the likes of him to invent it. That distinction goes to the heart of the debate over the EMU. Hayek, whom I would argue is the greatest living European economist, has warned over the decades about what he calls the constructivists who believe that they know enough to redesign social institutions from scratch. He has pointed to the gradual emergence of markets and money, as of

39
language, as examples of spontaneous evolution and development.
The idea of inventing a new money is akin to the vain ambitions of those well-meaning crackpots who thought that they could invent a new language in the name of Esperanto. Both are examples of what Hayek has called the "fatal conceit": the pretence to knowledge and powers that we do not have. In place of such crude and clumsy construction, Hayek has shown how competition —in goods, institutions and ideas —is the optimal discovery procedure of what will serve us best. An open market, whether in mousetraps, mince pies, money or methodologies, encourages better ways of serving our diverse requirements and preferences.
It was not until his eighth decade that Hayek in 1976 stumbled on the question of whether money was a public good that had to be provided by government. The resurgence of inflation in the 1960s led him to ponder the abuse by politicians of all parties, of their control over national money. Thus, he had begun to see that through legal tender laws and exchange controls national governments could compel citizens to accept depreciating paper money. It was merely another case of the abuse of monopoly power. There has followed a rich, scholarly literature on the merits of competition in currencies, and the denationalisation of money.
Two major conclusions bear on the latest Delors Report. The first is that the monopoly of money is as dangerous as a monopoly in any other product or service. The second is that monetary authorities should be as independent as conceivable from the discretionary influence of politicans who, irrespective of party, will always be tempted to inflate in order to collect seignorage on new issues or in the hope of a short-term stimulus to output and employment.
The improved performance of the EMS since 1979, about which we have heard, provides a dramatic illustration of the merits of competition in currencies. It is the comparative stability of the deutschemark under the independent management of the Bundesbank that has provided the anchor and example to keep the franc and the lira from their old habit of depreciation. In the same way, it is the Treasury's failure to maintain low inflation that has increased the attraction of the ERM even for critics like myself who prefer floating to fixed exchange rates and believe that attempts to fix will delay adjustments and store up trouble for the future. With competing currencies, each monetary authority comes under pressure to match the stability of the best on pain of its currency being increasingly supplanted by another.
The success of the deutschemark however is the product of a unique combination of German history, psychology and competence, together with an independent Bundesbank constitutionally committed to safeguarding the currency.
I have time only to ask a number of questions. My first is a friendly question for members of the Select Committee. Why press for early British membership without emphasising that the exchange rate at which
40
we join must be sustainable? After all, it was no less an authority than Samuel Brittan who blamed the damaging failure of the experiment to shadow the deutschemark in 1988 on aiming at too low a rate. The present danger may be of entering at too high a rate.
My next questions are mostly for M. Delors. I shall see that they reach him when Hansard is published. My first is: why make a decision to join the ERM an irrevocable first step to Stages Two and Three? If the full EMS is as successful as advocates claim, what is the hurry to replace it? If the deutschemark continues to outperform competing currencies, it will increasingly be adopted as a unit of account and store of value without any edict from Brussels. If the constructivists insist on inventing a new currency at short order and imposing it in place of all existing moneys, what do we do if it proves unstable? Other noble Lords have asked the same question.
Let us suppose that the EMU is run no better than the CAP which is the chief example to date of the Commission's deplorable handiwork. What if the Treasury memorandum is right to fear a higher inflation for the EMU, nearer to the European average than to the German best? What confidence can we have in the Delors Report when paragraph 32 says that the new system will be committed to price stability, while paragraph 16 says that policies should also be geared to,
"balanced growth, converging standards of living, high employment and external equilibrium"?
That is almost a formula for a progressive debasement of the currency.
I come to my last question which is something of a knock-out. Would M. Delors wish to have his pension rights fixed in a newly invented EMU or would he, like the rest of us, prefer deutschemarks?
5.7 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I should like to congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, because he led me, as a member of the committee, skilfully through the thickets of economic and monetary union. I differ from some of my colleagues in that I regretted that a date by which Britain should have joined the EMU was placed in the report. There was no doubt that the weight of evidence was in favour of Britain joining sooner rather than later. Many witnesses were convinced that we should be more effective arguing from within rather than by remaining outside the ERM. Many of the arguments were political.
It cannot be right that we should ignore the economic arguments completely. Your Lordships may have noticed that the report suggests that Britain should join the ERM before July 1990. Notice that it suggests; it does not recommend. That may be because we had no evidence in favour of one date rather than another. It is far better not to choose any date because the Government must have discretion about the date upon which we should join.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear last week, we have already agreed to join. The only question is when. On that, she made the

41
point that the conditions were not rigid but should be broadly met. In suggesting a date, the committee would seem to have departed from its normal gubernatorial stance and to have ignored one of the most elementary rules of bargaining by suggesting that one of our strong cards should be revealed virtually before negotiations to join the ERM have properly begun.
Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Boardman pointed out, it should not be forgotten that the fulfilment of some of our conditions for entry to the ERM require action by our partners and not by us. Our records show that of the 88 measures on the single market which by now should have been adopted, we have to implement only three. The Commission's figures show that France and Germany need to implement 18, Spain 38 and Italy 50. As has already been pointed out, the most important problem is to get inflation down before we go in. Premature entry with inflation and interest rates too high may not only be damaging internally to our own economic interests but disruptive of the ERM itself. Bretton Woods worked so long as inflation was low in most countries, but it could not contain high and divergent inflation rates.
At home, premature entry might undermine our anti-inflationary policy if it induced an artificial confidence in the exchange rates requiring premature reduction in interest rates; in short, the maintenance of the exchange rate being achieved at the cost of sacrificing domestic stability.
On Stages Two and Three of Delors, as has already been pointed out, our committee urges that no particular form of economic and monetary union should be accepted before we have had experience of Stage One. The components of Stage One —the completion of the single market, the European financial area, the reform of the structural funds —are all existing Community objectives. However, as the report points out, taken together with the development of monetary co-operation —and I now quote —"Stage One becomes a quantum leap in its own right rather than purely a preparatory stage".
The Delors Report envisages moving, even before the single market is established, by administrative fiat to irrevocably fixed exchange rates. That means in effect a single currency and the need for a central bank of some kind. The strongest argument in favour of a single currency, as the report points out, is that it would enable the gains of the single market to be exploited to the full. However, the overall final objective must be to create a Europe able to compete with every other powerful economic centre, be it the United States or Japan. A single market which turned out to be not sufficiently strong to achieve that objective would have failed.
The Government, in their alternative to Delors, are in effect saying that the creation of a truly successful and competitive Europe does not depend upon adopting now a single currency but upon cultivating a Europe which is economically strong.
If the objectives of Stage One are realised, inflationary pressures will be sharply reduced, the ERM will become more stable and the economic
42
and monetary policies of the member countries will gradually converge. This evolutionary approach requires no statutory amendment, no treaty amendment. It could develop into a system of fixed exchange rates if that were eventually to be desired. But it would be wrong to decide now that the next stage must be a common currency with the necessity for a central bank. Incidentally, no one has explained how such a central bank can be made democratically accountable. There would, I suspect, be little enthusiasm for making it accountable to the European Parliament at Strasbourg. It is not easy to see what machinery could be invented for making it truly accountable to the national governments.
Finally, perhaps I may say something about the momentous changes in Eastern Europe. Our report records the virtual unanimity of witnesses on the undesirability of a two-tier Europe. But may we not be beginning to see the evolution of a multi-tier Europe which may better fit the needs and aspirations of the more complex Europe which is emerging? We already have some indication that the old narrow Community of 12 was becoming a two-tier club, a core in two parts; one part probably consisting of France, Germany, Italy, Benelux and in the future perhaps Iberia, developing out of the Schengen Agreement into an increasingly federal group. The other part of the core would consist of countries like Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Greece, full members of the Community, integral parts of the single market but detached from some of the emerging federal institutions.
Of course that will take time, but in the future there could be a third tier of countries enjoying close association with the Community, access to the market, but with only a limited influence upon the making of Community rules. A fourth tier might be other countries which had an association with the Community and access to the market but which were also eligible for aid. These last two tiers could include the EFTA countries, Turkey and the East European countries, Hungary, Poland and Czechslovakia, when they had become democratised.
In this dream of mine it would be possible for there to be movement between different tiers. Norway and Austria might at some stage join the full Community. Some parts of the Soviet Union —for example, the Baltic republics —might join the third tier. What of Russia itself? Some form of association with an extended Europe might assist it Al its present economic problems, but that is clearly outside the ambit of this debate.
A structure of several tiers might better fit the more complicated Europe which is emerging and reflect the view of most people that Europe extends much further east than the boundaries of the Twelve. At some stage in the future, on looking back we may regard the present Community as a constitutional structure invented to cater for the temporary conditions of the cold war before the Berlin Wall was breached.
It would seem that the changes which are taking place in Europe are inducing our colleagues to adopt a slower pace. As has already been mentioned, Germany has asked that the intergovernmental conference on Stages Two and Three of Delors

43
should be deferred until the end of next year. It is again Germany which has just deferred the signing of the Schengen Agreement. Maybe the additional thought which a slower pace will make possible will result in more states seeing the virtues of an evolutionary approach, especially as the consequences of Stages Two and Three of Delors become more widely known.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, on bringing an original idea on this much discussed subject into the Chamber. I do not intend to follow him down the path of a multi-tiered Europe, but at least it is refreshing to hear that view. First, I wish not only to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, but also to say that I thought his presentation of the report today was as good as any I have heard in this Chamber of the many excellent reports from that committee.
I am sorry that some time ago I had to leave the sub-committee, on which I was sitting because of other parliamentary duties on the mornings that the committee held its regular meetings. I particularly regretted missing the inquiry into the Delors Report on economic and monetary union. It is just over a decade since I was rapporteur on this subject in the European Parliament for the appropriate committee. For a year I thought of little else. European monetary union was coming out of one ear and EMS out of the other. It was a particularly interesting time as the president of the Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was campaigning to revive not economic and monetary union but monetary union alone. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will note that.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was campaigning to revive monetary union as an aim once more of the Community. Meanwhile, the parallel proposal to create the EMS was born and developed. Inevitably, EMU and EMS became mixed up as they are again today in this country—not only mixed up, but confused. I tried with insufficient skill and insufficient authority to make the clear separation which M. Delors and his committee have done. I never succeeded, even in my own committee. To many MEPs any substantial measure of economic and monetary integration was economic and monetary union. Union in the European sense is a beautiful word on a par with mother love, but much vaguer than that.
I defined EMU rigorously as a union in which a single currency replaces the currencies of member states and implies a central monetary authority. I said that it required at least the framework of a federal system and a loss of national power to conduct macro-economic policies and distinctive corporate taxation. My colleagues were shocked. They asked me whether I could be less brutal. I was confronting their beautiful dream with the reality of daylight. I tell my story today because I suspect that many Europeans have still not come to terms with the brutal reality that M. Delors is proposing. The
44
complaint has been made, even in another place, that although we have the version of M. Delors of EMU, we still do not know what union really implies and what alternatives there may be to it. Yet it was a project to which the British Government were totally committed, alongside the existing member states and the other newcomers, at the pre-entry summit in Paris as long ago as October 1972. We were to achieve EMU by 1980 and it was to be irreversible.
Even in those days there were three stages. Stage One was called the snake. Stage Two consisted of joint preparation of economic policies and Stage Three was the creation of a central banking system and fixed and immovable currency parities. Of course, it never happened. The world monetary crisis blew the snake out of the tunnel and three years later Robert Marjolin, former vice-president of the Commission, reported that never had economic and monetary policies in the Community been so discordant and so divergent.
It was not only the crisis, exacerbated by the oil problem, that caused the hitch. It was, said M. Marjolin,
"just as if the Governments had undertaken the enterprise in the naive belief that it was sufficient to decree the formation of a EMU for this to come about at the end of a few years without great effort or difficult and painful economic and political transformations".
I wonder whether even now, as my fellow Europeanists cheer on EMU, they have visualised the difficult and painful transformations that will be required. However, if complacency exists on one side, it is matched by unnecessary gloom on the other among people who fear that Europe will become a melting pot like the USA and that we shall lose a vital part of our national identity.
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in the course of his campaign, arguing that there was no need to develop the Community on a traditional federal scale. He said that a definitive monetary union could be attained on a budget of only 5 or 7 per cent. of Community GNP and that great progress could be made on half that sum. In other words, the budget of the Community would be less than the budget of any one of the major member nations. The Community, he said, should be given only those functions which it could perform better than the member nations. That concept has lately become known by the terrible name of subsidiarity.
One of the problems we have in considering EMU is that it is so technically formidable. It is, of course, the invention not of politicians but of bankers. M. Delors, a banker, had a committee full of bankers and academics. The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, also contains distinguished economists, accountants, academics and bankers. That is inevitable: the nature of the committee requires it to contain such experts. However, there is no one on the committee whom I would call a politician's politician. I began to consider who would constitute a politician's politician. I thought of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter; then it suddenly struck me that he was once a Treasury Minister. So he, too suffers from the déformation professionnelle. There were no politicians among those who gave

45
evidence. I thought I had found one when I read the letters "MEP" after the name of John Stevens. Alas, when I turned to his evidence I found that he began by stating:
"By way of warning I should explain to you that I am a former foreign exchange and government bond trader of some twelve years of active market experience".
I wish to make a plea for non-specialist politicians to enter this subject. Even today, we are all old hands at the European game and some of us are former Members of the European Parliament. No debate on Europe would be complete without the voice of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I wish to make a plea to politicians to get into this subject on a more philosophic plane. Whether the Prime Minister will keep us out of the European exhange rate mechanism until the general election is an interesting and important question. Perhaps we have to go on talking about her loss of a Chancellor; yet these are minor aspects of the question as regards whether we are going to change our monetary arrangements for ever.
Such serious political comment as has taken place is on the theme of the general loss of sovereignty that EMU might entail. That is a real problem but there are other deep problems. Every politician must ask himself what the effect would be on his own party and its principles. Today the parties are in a period of change. But whatever changes my own party is making or contemplating it will remain a party dedicated to the systematic reduction of inequality, to increased educational opportunity, to high social welfare and to minimum unemployment.
Whatever the social charter may say, would EMU place obstructions or facilities in the way of such goals? Conservatives may ask whether the entrepreneurial skills that they value so highly will have the opportunities and the respect they deserve in the new Europe, whether high profit margins can be maintained with higher levels of investment and whether lower taxation will be encouraged.
As I say, these are difficult questions. We are all looking for new solutions. Just as we on this side of the House no longer hold to simple Keynesian certainties so the other side is discovering that simple monetarism is not all that it was once cracked up to be. With less certainty than we once had that we can manage our national economies, we have to contemplate the loss of our capacity, or the capacity that we imagine we have, to direct national macro-economic policies.
Despite all that I remain a good European. The report has the usual virtues of the work of the committee. It is clear, thorough and wise. I too hope that we join the ERM before July 1990. Like the committee I accept the potential economic gains of EMU. I believe however that the political implications are also central to any decision.
The committee sees that at some stage the Community will have to face a key question; namely, how to achieve the economic advantages of economic and monetary union without jeopardising the influence that member states now have over domestic policy. So the committee argues —I believe rightly —that the constitution of the union and
46
institutions such as the European central bank will be critical. It is essential to build in safeguards for democratic accountability, both national and European. But such decisions cannot be taken until the fundamental changes for Stage One have proved successful.
Like the committee I see that a soundly based Community will be better able to face the challenges that will be brought about by the changes in Eastern Europe and the relationship of the super-powers. The great argument for EMU remains. It will give Europe a stronger voice in the councils of the world.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I notice that yet again the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has been drawn to speak immediately after me in a debate on European Community matters. It would be nice to think that this time round the remarks that I propose to make would be more palatable to the noble Baroness than hitherto, but being realistic I fear that that is unlikely.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Bonham-Carter, and many others that this is a most stimulating and extremely well written and well set out report, as one might expect. Although the version without the detailed evidence is only 25½ pages long it took me well over an hour to go through it, allowing for copious marginal notes and numerous underlinings. To do full justice to the many vitally important issues that it raises would require speeches of almost a similar duration from every speaker. Happily for all concerned that is quite out of the question. Therefore it is impossible to cover all the points raised by the report and necessary to be selective.
First, I must take issue with the committee over one most unfortunate phrase in paragraph 82, which I hope is no more than an uncharacteristic slip of the pen. This phrase was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross. The committee argues that:
"The need for the United Kingdom to convince its Community partners of its European credentials is more important than ever".
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Harris have dealt most effectively with some aspects of that unfortunate phrase. But there are one or two other aspects which I should like to mention. It should not be necessary to point out that Britain has been geographically part of Europe at least since the Ice Age and probably since long before then and part of European civilisation at least since the time of the Romans. Our European credentials are self-evident and need no reiteration.
Secondly, Europe consists of 26 nation states of which only 12 form part of the European Community. If I were an inhabitant of one of the other 16 countries I should be extremely angry at the assumption that "Europe" is synonymous with the European Community. I was delighted that my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow made the same point in a most forceful manner. It would be nice to think that his forceful remarks would be heeded by every newspaper editor and opinion former in this country. I fear that the rot must have

47
set in with the invention of that dreadful phrase "good Europeans", reminiscent of those awful Victorian hymns which exhort children to be meek and mild, obedient and good, with particular emphasis on the words "obedient" and "good".
According to this arrogant theory a person who is steeped in European culture, who speaks several European languages fluently, who travels widely and extensively throughout Europe, and who has hundreds of friends and acquaintances in every part of Europe, north and south, east and west, is nevertheless deemed to be a bad European unless he or she is an enthusiast for ever closer European integration —political, monetary, economic and cultural. By that token it would appear that my noble friend Lord Harris is a bad European despite his close family and business links with the continent of Europe. By the same token the Swedes, Norwegians, the Austrians, the Swiss, the Hungarians, the Poles and so on are deemed to be excluded automatically from the elect brotherhood of "good Europeans" by virtue of the fact that their countries are outside the European Community.
That is all part and parcel of the attitude which sees the Community not as a useful means to an end but as a quasi religion, or even as an actual religion. That is a proposition which I should delight in demolishing if time permitted, which it does not.
I turn now to the committee's detailed conclusions. Working backwards, it is heartening to read the committee's arguments for extreme caution over any moves towards Stages Two and Three of Delors. It is also gratifying that the great majority of the witnesses endorsed the need for extreme caution. It is all the more to be regretted, therefore, that the committee did not widen its net to embrace distinguished witnesses from continental Europe whose painstaking researches have led them into strong opposition to Stages Two and Three of Delors and in at least one case opposition to Stage One also. I refer, for example, to Professor Roland Vaubel of the University of Mannheim, Professor Antonio Martino of the University of Rome, Professor Pascal Salin of the Université de Paris-Dauphine, and Professor Francisco Cabrillo of Madrid University, whose conclusions can be found in an excellent Bruges Group pamphlet.
If the committee had had the time to study that pamphlet it might not have come to the conclusion in paragraph 80 that:
"Economic logic will encourage the setting up of a European Central Bank, sooner rather than later",
unless the European bank were to take shape in the rather different form suggested by Professor Martino in the pamphlet to which I referred. He suggests:
a European Central Bank with only one function: that of exchanging on request national currencies for ECU at the going EMS rate. Such a central bank would not be able to create money, would have no discretionary powers, and, therefore, would not need any form of political control on its decisions. Its action, however, would perform a tremendously important function, because the possibility of exchanging one's national currency for ECU would discipline the behaviour of high inflation countries, who would risk seeing people move out of their currencies and choose to resort to the ECU … there would be no surrender of 'monetary sovereignty' on the part of national governments, both
48
because national currencies would continue to exist and because the European central bank would not be empowered to create money".
These four continental European academics also point out that West Germany's low inflation rate is by no means entirely due to the skiful action of the Bundesbank —whose record on inflation is not quite as good as it is cracked up to be; I shall return to that point in a moment —but to the terror of inflation ingrained in every German as a result of the hyperinflation of the 1920s and early 1930s. If that innate German caution over inflation, therefore, were to be diluted by the much more inflationary tendencies of the other 11 member states (which would be bound in one way or another to influence the composition, guidelines and possibly even the day-to-day or month-to-month activities of any new European central bank), one could safely anticipate a rise in the average EC inflation rate. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, made just that point. That remains true, whoever is delegated to keep an eye on the keepers. Someone, obviously, must do so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I do not think that public opinion in any Community country would tolerate central bankers having a totally free hand in the matter.
Handing control over to the European Parliament would not help either, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, stressed. Parliamentarians like to be re-elected, particularly those from countries such as Greece where proportional representation produces wafer-thin electorial victories. In any case, the composition of the European Parliament is essentially undemocratic: I do not think that enough people are aware of that point. Luxembourg has six times as many MEPS as it is entitled to on a per capita basis and the Republic of Ireland has two and half times as many. In contrast, the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and Italy are all under-represented on a per capita basis. That may not matter so long as the European Parliament is essentially a talking shop, but it matters very much if more powers are to be granted to that institution.
Switching to paragraphs 74 and 75 of the report, it is good to see that the committee has come out strongly against excessive regional aid, which is too often bound up with pork barrel politics. One almost invariably associates pork barrel politics with inefficiency, waste and often corruption. There is quite enough inefficiency, waste and corruption associated with the common agricultural policy as things stand.
Finally, perhaps I may turn to what is probably the most important part of the report, in that almost immediate action is urged upon the Government by the sub-committee; namely, the proposal that this country should join the exchange rate mechanism within the next six months, come what may, and ideally the sooner the better. The arguments against such a course need no spelling out. They have been mentioned here several times before, not necessarily this afternoon, but on previous occasions, as well as in the press. Sterling is still a petrocurrency. It is still more widely used in world trade than any other European currency, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out. There was the declaration by

49
Herr Pöhl on 19th November and repeated, I think, subsequently, that the time is not yet ripe for Britain to join the EMS. There is the fact that joining now would lead to a credit explosion and frustrate the Chancellor's efforts to control inflation unless taxes were to be raised sharply in the spring Budget as a counterbalance to cheaper credit, which would surely be an extremely retrograde step. As my noble friend Lord Harris emphasises, there is also the difficulty in deciding what would be the least disadvantageous rate at which to join —2·70 DM, 2·80 DM, 3 DM, 3·10 DM or 3·20 DM; each of those parities has good arguments for and against. Furthermore, there is the problem that EMS membership is already posing for Spain whose peseta is grossly overvalued at the moment. It is also commonly accepted that both the French franc and the Italian lira are also over-valued vis-à-vis the deutschemark.
Another factor that has not been mentioned is that in eight out of the past 20 years the supposedly virtuous Bundesbank has permitted a German inflation rate in excess of 5 per cent. per annum. That rate would have been considered shockingly high in this country a generation ago.
Perhaps I should let the last word rest with Professor Salin, writing from Paris, who said:
"Refusing to join the EMS would be the best contribution the British government could make to real European integration".
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I in no way requested the Chief Whip to put my name down after his, but each time that I speak after him I am modestly reminded that we are in a democratic debating Chamber and there is little danger of my slavishly following the speaker before me.
I should like to thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for his introduction to the debate. It was a measure of the high standard of speeches this afternoon on what is clearly an intractable and difficult subject. Each speaker has picked out certain aspects which are of particular interest to him or her. I should also like to say how much I enjoyed hearing my noble friend Lord Cockfield, with his forceful thinking and stimulating eloquence of which so many Europeans have had the benefit for the last four years. It was a great pleasure to hear him in the House today.
There seem to be two immediate points arising from this excellent report: first, the suggestion that the United Kingdom should join the ERM by July 1990 and, secondly, that there should be no rush to an unsatisfactory form of EMU and that we should await proof of success of Stage One. While agreeing with the second conclusion, I have serious doubt as to the wisdom of being able to decide that for sterling to join the ERM in the near future will be good either for Britain or for existing members of the ERM.
The vast majority of noble Lords, including myself, have stated support for British membership of the ERM for at least the last three years. Indeed, 1985 or 1986 was probably the crucial time when we could have joined and it would certainly have been better for Britain if we had done so. We have
50
just reached a stage at which certain important movements are taking place. There has been no realignment of currencies within the ERM for almost three years. A realignment of one kind or another is liable to occur. There is also the effect of the liberalisation of capital movements on the exchanges. While France has almost completed the necessary steps —it has been said that there has been very little movement as a result —Italy still has to do so, but it is not possible at this point in time to foresee with guaranteed exactitude —if that is ever possible in forecasting an economy—what might happen.
There are also two important political developments. First, there is the formation of the European economic space, with EFTA, our largest export market, joining with the EC in a more integrated economic area. Noble Lords have spoken about Europe, the Community and the different terminology for what makes up the countries of Europe, but there is ever closer union —if I may put it like that —between EFTA and the EC. It is likely that the EFTA countries will merge much more closely in the economic and monetary sense with the EC in the near future. That is in EFTA's interests and it is seeking that. That is bound to have some repercussions. There is also the uncertainty with regard to the East German currency and the effect that that might have on the deutschemark —possibly not a great deal, but it cannot be discounted. Having lived through periods of economic stability, events in Eastern Europe cannot be ignored.
The conditions for membership of the ERM laid down by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at Madrid —namely, liberalisation of capital —will be achieved. It is almost there. Substantial completion of a single European market in financial services is now well on the way. It was announced only last week that the second banking directive has now been adopted by the Community. The insider trading directive and the mutual funds directive, known as USITS in Euro-jargon, have also been adopted. So there is a whole float of financial services directives already in place. However the third condition —a lower rate of inflation in the United Kingdom —is a more difficult proposition. My view, which was shadowed slightly by the Governor of the Bank of England —is that membership of the ERM could help achieve that aim.
But not joining today or in the near future will not in any way create a two-tier Europe. Whenever we are accused of standing on the brink, there is always that fear of a two-tier Europe. There is no fear of such an event happening. The European Community needs Britain just as much as Britain needs the European Community.
It is important to remember that very often it is the United Kingdom which leads the way and other countries which cause obstructions. Those of us who have worked at a lower level in the European Parliament —perhaps not at quite the dizzy heights of many noble Lords here present —know that over and over again the United Kingdom has been in agreement on a whole raft of proposals. It is other countries which have hesitated, caused obstruction

51
and stopped us from going ahead with proposals which had originally been a matter of agreement. My noble friend Lord Butterworth mentioned the Schengen agreement. I should like to think that if Britain had been part of that agreement those countries would not have got to the brink before realising that they were making grave and serious mistakes about the problems of immigration and crowds, problems to which they have suddenly woken up just before signing an agreement.
It is perhaps Britain's role in the Community to say: "Stop and look before you go down a certain road. Make sure that the road which you go down is clear. Make sure that the outcome is for the benefit of everybody". Regrettably the Schengen agreement was not in fact signed, but those countries have now been reconsidering. That is what happens in Community policy. It is nothing new. Britain is not the only one who sometimes hesitates before deciding which is the right road to take.
So the major preoccupation for the immediate term remains realignments and adjustments, and as other noble Lords have mentioned, agreements by other member states. I have yet to hear one noble Lord give me or any other Member of this House evidence to show that all the other member states are screaming for us to join. I have not heard one member state scream and I do not in any way intend to quote Dr. Pöhl.
Stages Two and Three of the Delors report provide a useful blueprint for EMU. But modesty alone would convince one that there can be more than one way to reach that objective. For instance. I have always believed that the need for the City to remain a major financial centre requires not only membership of the ERM but would benefit enormously from dealing in a single currency. Industry and commerce as the single European market is completed will also demand a single currency to avoid exchange costs. All who travel —and there can be no one from this House who does not cross the Channel from time to time —would certainly benefit from having one currency rather than having sheaves of notes in different currencies, particularly in view of the increased amount of travel, the creation of the single market and cross-border trade. In the meantime I hope that the increase in the use of the ecu will extend to further private transactions.
This is a short reaction to the report. It is a valuable report. I believe that there is a great deal of work to be done on Stage One, let alone Stages Two and Three. In conclusion I shall quote the Governor of the Bank of England. He gave very sound advice in his evidence on page 5 of the report:
"I think that Stage 1 needs to last until we are satisfied that, above all, the Single Market is working efficiently".
He said further that:
"we should not seek to push forward or accelerate formal movements to monetary union until there is in parallel adequate convergence in the real economic situation".
5.54 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, at this late stage of the debate I shall miss out the compliments although had I made them they would have been just as
52
sincere. Straightaway I must say that I found this to be an excellent report. Apart from one small exception, which I shall mention later, I agree entirely with its conclusions. The implications are clear; namely, that economic and monetary union in themselves are highly desirable and that steps should be taken to achieve those ends as soon as is reasonably practicable. I stress the words, "reasonably practicable".
It is necessary first to satisfy oneself that they are indeed desirable. I have no doubt whatever that if the Community is to compete effectively with America and Japan and also with the newly industrialised countries —the NICs, which are no longer newly industrialised and some of them are already well established and highly competitive —those ends are not only desirable but essential.
From 1955 to 1972 I was employed in an overseas bank. As I said before in a previous debate on the single financial area, I look back with considerable nostalgia to the period prior to 1967 when our previous colonies, including the British West Indies, the many African states, South Africa, Malta, Cyprus and other countries, were in the sterling area. At that time we had fixed exchange rates, freedom of movement of capital and reserves and in some areas overseas the British pound note in fact circulated freely with the local currency. It was a period of steady increase in trade and in the standard of living of those member countries.
With regard to the evidence, I should like first to refer to that of Mr. John Banham of the CBI. He pointed out to the commitee that the exchange rate stability or predictability were of very great importance; large and unexpected changes had been disastrous to many firms, particularly small firms which did not have the capacity to undertake currency hedging operations, which in any case were very expensive. He also pointed out that over half of our trade is now with the Community. He went on to say that his members want full membership of the ERM as early as possible and that most members support a move to fixed but adjustable exchange rates leading to a common currency. But he agreed that before moving beyond Stage One of the Delors report there must be a much closer range of inflation rates. Industrialists find it much easier to accept some transfer of sovereignty than do politicians but they still think it wrong to force the pace and agree that it may still be some time before monetary union can be achieved.
That view was strongly supported by ICI, which accepted the need for monetary union with irrevocable fixed exchange rates, a Community central bank and ultimately a single currency. In fact it was concerned that the steps to achieve that as outlined in the Delors report might unduly delay its implementation. I believe it is fair to say that industry and commerce look forward to the day when there is a common currency and hope that it will not be too long delayed.
Speaking for myself as a banker I fully agree with that view. The difficulties in quoting for contracts or even constructing catalogues with meaningful prices are immense. Alternative suggestions about leaving

53
it to the marketplace after the removal of exchange controls seem to me a futile proposition and in present circumstances would simply mean that we move to a deutschemark unit of reference —which may be all right at the present time but we do not know what will happen to Germany after what has occurred in Europe —just as the Bretton Woods system moved to the dollar when the price of gold became virtually irrelevant. That of course collapsed completely in 1971.
I come to the question of sovereignty. I have already stated the views of the wealth creators. I now turn to politicians whose motivation is the retention of power. Evidence was taken from Mr. Peter Lilley, Financial Secretary to the Treasury. At page 57 of the report he said that:
"Stage One will start on 1 July 1990. In the course of Stage One Britain and I think other countries, will become participants in the exchange rate mechanism, but it is in the course of Stage One, which has a beginning but no defined end".
What I found even more depressing was his reply to the chairman's question: "Is the Government convinced of the economic benefits of monetary union?" He replied (it is at page 60):
"It all depends on what sort of monetary union is envisaged. We certainly see the benefits of closer monetary co-operation, initially of membership of the exchange rate mechanism and of avoidance of the sort of incompatible monetary and economic policies which you mentioned".
That seems to me as cagey a reply as one can imagine. It took 45 words in order to say no. I believe that the gap between the private sector and the Government is becoming more like a ravine.
I found the evidence of Mr. Van der Klugt, the chairman of Philips, most interesting. He said and I quote it because I consider it very important:
"I believe that since the British Government have signed the Treaty of Rome,"—
and he might have added, "the Single European Act"—
"the time is past that you can pretend to be an independent unit. It must be possible to bring across that the independence of your country, the dignity of your country and the sovereignty of your country must be limited if you want to live in a world of growing relationships. I would submit respectfully that in my country and in other countries of Europe as well, including the UK, the question of sovereignty is much less important than the question of co-operation. I think the prosperity of the working population takes precedence over the imaginary question of sovereignty, at least in the old fashioned way".
While agreeing with Mr. Van der Klugt, we must ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is rigorously enforced. I am sorry to bring in this word. We seem to have a new Community dictionary. That is the latest word. I have had to find out what it means. We have already had the trouble of learning what we mean by "additionality", "cohesion". "convergence" and so on. Brussels should legislate on nothing that can properly be done by member states. On this I am probably in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the Bruges group.
Finally, as an ex-banker I ought to say something on the question of a European central bank. I have no doubt that it must come. I do not think that there is any real doubt that if we move to a common currency it is a sine qua non. My hope is that it should be as independent as possible. The independence of the Bundesbank and the independence of the Fed in
54
America seem good examples of the principle. I must regret the day that the Governor of the Bank of England lost his eyebrows, which put the fear of God into me and London bankers when I was young.
I visualise that the governor and senior staff would probably be chosen by a committee of member central banks and that the accountability would be to the Council of Ministers, which would not use its authority any more than the German Government do over the Bundesbank. I naturally hope that it will be sited in London but its location is not to my mind very important.
I conclude by congratulating the Select Committee on its conclusions —with the one exception that I mentioned. It has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and by others; that is, putting a date on entering the ERM. I should have preferred that it had said "as soon as inflation is clearly under control and there is a steady improvement in the balance of payments". That could well be before July 1990, but I am afraid that I consider it unlikely.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I never know whether it is an advantage or disadvantage for one's name to be at the end of a list of speakers. The disadvantage is that everyone has made the points that one would have liked to have made in one's own way and with one's own emphasis. As one would expect, this has happened in this case. I have signposted the points that I should like to have made, but they have already been made effectively. It would be wrong and presumptuous to repeat them. However, there may be some ad vantage in considering the issues that have been raised in the debate to try to interpret some of the parliamentary language that is not always understood outside the House.
Parliamentary debates do not take place in order for Members to perform in front of one another inside Parliament. The parliamentary debate —in particular the resultant publication of Hansard—is to let people outside the House know what Members of Parliament think. Those people have to pay the piper for good or ill. Therefore, the phraseology and the language is not always in terms that they clearly understand. A good example came from my noble friend Lord Cockfield whom I admire so much. He is one of the most formidable debaters whom I have heard in either House. He is learned in what I call the machinery side of government in a way that few people are. However, that is only one side of the issue. I refer to my noble friend Lord Cockfield because those who draw up lists recognise importance. His name was at the top of the list, and rightly so. No one was likely to be more authoritative on the points that he wished to make, and the noble Lord therefore heads the list. He is an expert on the machinery side. He showed such expertise when he spoke as Minister from the Dispatch Box.
However, he also knows how to cover up a possible weakness in his argument. There is nothing wrong with that provided that someone is available to disclose the cover-up. On this occasion it was how he dealt with the issue of whether or not we are

55
moving into a completely new area if we accept the report immediately and put it into operation at once. The noble Lord referred back to Rex v. Hampden and the civil war. He said that we had never had power over monetary policy until the Labour Government nationalised the Bank of England. He argued that it was only at that point that there was any risk of the Government directing monetary policy.
What he was covering up —I do not think that he did so deliberately —was this. While I believe that he was right that government as the Executive did not have control over monetary policy, since Rex v. Hampden, Parliament always has done. The Executive —a government —have no powers until Parliament gives it the powers. But Parliament itself has always had that power.
My noble friend, the Leader of the House had argued that if we were speedily to hand over the powers we would be knocking the bottom out of the powers of the other place. My noble friend Lord Cockfield now says: "No, they have never had such powers." I remind him that the other place is not the Government; it is Parliament. I have spent 39 years in one House or another. I recognise the political, tactical side of Parliament. My noble friend, on the other hand, has spent about 18 to 20 years concerned with the machinery side —the Civil Service. Had he had experience of sitting on the Public Accounts Committee, listening to the debates on the Consolidated Fund, he would have recognised that Parliament is jealous and has always used the ultimate power it has over the monetary policy of this country. I believe that that was what my noble friend meant in his reply. If we consider the speech of my noble friend within such argument, there will be a better understanding of the issue.
A little interpretation is necessary with regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He had a very difficult job which he did very well. It is very difficult to have to serve two masters. The noble Lord knew that he had to do so. The first master he had to serve today was the new Labour Party image. That image is based to a large extent upon exaggerating the supposed frailties and weaknesses of the Prime Minister. He therefore could say nothing openly in praise of the Prime Minister and her Government. But he had to say something; otherwise he would not be moving with the times. He therefore had to give the approach of the Labour Party to these important matters. He said, "We would agree to negotiate. How different to the woman who will not talk to anyone about anything unless they accept exactly what she says." He now says, "We shall be the great negotiators. That is the difference." The noble Lord has to build up the party's reputation in such areas where in the past it has seemed tied to dyed-in-the-wool Marxist ideas.
When the noble Lord said that if his party had the power, it would negotiate, he did not tell us the terms upon which it would negotiate. The noble Lord will be able to intervene; he will see my point. Having established that he would negotiate, as distinct from this stiff-necked person who is ruining our reputation among our friends in Europe, the noble Lord then
56
gave two or three conditions that he and his party would wish to see. He did so in order to satisfy his noble friend Lord Stoddart who made an excellent speech —
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may finish this point. I shall then be delighted to give way. The noble Lord, having made the point, added the two or three conditions that he said he would wish to follow. These are identical to those which the Prime Minister has said she wants before taking the next step. I did not recognise a great deal of difference.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, first, the noble Lord accused me of not giving any conditions of negotiation. I thought that I was absolutely clear in what I said. I do not know whether the noble Lord was asleep when I was speaking but I made our position absolutely clear—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, no, I was listening intently.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, secondly, the conditions are not those for which the Prime Minister has asked. For instance, I have never heard the Prime Minister ask for a co-operative growth strategy or for reasonable development. And so it goes on.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, that is one condition with which the Prime Minister may not agree. As regards the others, he required the exchanges to be right; he said that the inflation position must be right. Those are precisely the points that the Prime Minister is making.
For the benefit of those who will pay us the compliment of reading Hansard, I make the point that when reading the noble Lord's speech they must remember that he is an expert City man —he is one of its great authorities and jolly good at it —but he must now play the role of politician speaking from the Front Bench with an election in two years' time. He must keep his troops at the back happy —and they still do not want to go into Europe very much —and at the same time give a responsible impression to the people outside. That is the only point that I am making in that respect.
It was good that from his party's point of view the noble Lord was balanced to some extent with his noble friend, Lord Stoddart, whose speech was so good. I thought that he answered completely those people who charge this country with not being communautaire and not being prepared to play their part. We have almost changed our way of life and he set out the position wonderfully. We have said, "Yes, we want to play providing that the terms of the game are reasonably satisfactory to us". The noble Lord made a point that I completely endorse.
I want Europe to be an outstanding success as a group because we are part of Europe. However, I do not want Europe to be successful at the expense of Britain being unsuccessful. I resigned as a junior

57
minister in the Macmillan Government because I did not like the Treaty of Rome at all. That was a great sacrifice because I was ambitious and thought that I was going to be good —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Your time will come! It is early days.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I did not realise that the debate would continue for 12 or 14 years and that the time between being on and off the escalator was too long. But I have not done badly; I am not complaining on that score. All I am saying is that the speed must be taken into account.
The speech which pleased me more than any other was that of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow. He is the only noble Lord who has brought us up to date. All the other speeches, like the report, have been based on a different world. I refer to the revolution in Eastern Europe. We should now view the situation differently. The noble Lord, Lord Roll, said that he could not accept what was said by his noble friend Lord Greenhill. I am frightened of the noble Lord, Lord Roll, because when I was a junior minister he was the financial pundit in the Government. And God, he knew his stuff! I was frightened to death of him, as he knew.
I was surprised to hear the noble Lord say that he could not accept the assessment of his noble friend Lord Greenhill that the great happenings in Eastern Europe had not had an effect on what we should do. I believe that they have. A report compiled before those incidents is bound to be out of date although I do not know to what extent. However, I know the noble Lord, Lord Roll, well enough to say that if he had been living in San Francisco and had been negotiating to buy a house a month before the earthquake, he would, after that event, take another look at the contract before signing. I believe that the happenings in Eastern Europe are equivalent —
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that at no time did I say that the events in Eastern Europe had no effect whatever. I certainly do not believe that; I described them as "momentous". The difference between my noble friend Lord Greenhill and myself is that whereas he believes that the events argue in favour of delaying the process of European integration in the Community, I believe the opposite —that they argue in favour of accelerating it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, that is exactly the point that I was making. I was saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said with much more authority, that the events in Eastern Europe are bound to have affected the situation. Therefore, one can mean only that one ought not to sign the contract in the analogy that I gave until one has considered the difference that the events will make. I am surprised that the noble Lord was not on to that point before he began.
My noble friend Lord Geddes was most effective in the point that he was making, but I must disagree with him on one aspect. He sat on the committee, so I do not know from where he gained his impressions
58
other than from the evidence given to the committee. He said he believed that if we do not sign, and sign quickly, it will mean the possibility of the centre of our banking and finance moving to Frankfurt. I believe the exact opposite. I believe that if we sign prematurely —that is, at a time when it will work to our disadvantage—experts in the City of London will not take long to pack up their typewriters and files and move off to what they believe to be the most effective place. In moving here people helped to make the City of London the centre of finance. I believe that the same can happen again. We are on the perimeter of the European Community and by acting prematurely, particularly in the field of banking and the City —that is why I listened particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm —we shall do unbelievable harm. For almost a century we have never had a proper balance of trade in our favour from material goods alone; only when invisible exports have been taken into account. We rely upon them now more than ever and it would be a bad move to be premature and put them at risk.
These points have already been made so much better. However, I am saying that if, eventually, we believe it right to join the ERM let us wait until the conditions show that it is safe and proper to do so. We have heard quoted evidence from the CBI, from my noble friend and others. Why can we not listen to the evidence from the Government —that is from the government of the day, whichever party? They have access to sources of information and knowledge not available to others. The CBI knows its stuff in connection with its particular line of country. However, the Government have that plus all kinds of other information; for instance, ambassadorial reports and knowledge from any sources which are not always made public. Why should the Government be the last body to be taken into account, whatever government it may be? I believe that we have been fortunate enough in this country for a century or more to have governments which one could trust and which were not there for mean, nasty or selfish reasons. Of course they want to win elections but by and large their main concern is to give proper leadership to the country to the benefit of the people. Why cannot we take what they say into consideration?
I now wish to refer to a matter which does not concern this report but flows from the report of Sub-Committee C dealing with the social charter. I sat in the European Parliament for five years and I now sit in your Lordships' House. On more than one occasion I have paid great tribute in both places to the importance of the Select Committee's reports. In the whole of Europe the reports of the House of Lords Select Committees are looked on with greater esteem than almost any other documents. I am proud of that fact and of the standards that we should all try to maintain. However, certain little tactics occurred last week that I hope will not interfere with the feeling that the committee reports are objective and impartial in the way that they are presented.
There is no criticism at all of the chairman of the Select Committee on Europe. She cannot answer at the moment because she is not strictly within the House; she is not there but she is within hearing.

59
There is no criticism at all in that direction. It was very interesting that the social charter draft was not produced anywhere in Europe until May 1989. The EC discussed it in June 1989; the Commission draft was not produced until September 1989 and our Sub-Committee C was given the task of examining it. The last of its meetings was on 14th November.
The print of it was made on 5th December with instructions that it had to be printed at once. That has never happened before. My investigations show me that never has a report been submitted in the morning with instructions that it has to be in print and circulated on the same day. It was printed on the same day and the chairman of the sub-committee made a very effective radio contribution on the very day that the Prime Minister was going to Strasbourg to argue this country's point of view, as she saw it.
I do not believe it is the job of sub-committees to try to guide what the policies will be. Their job is to produce the evidence in the reports and it is for everyone to take into account their strengths and weaknesses. It was admitted that it was done deliberately because it was desired to get the report out before the Strasbourg meeting. That certainly could not have helped the Prime Minister. I only put that on the record. I know the noble Lord was on the committee and it is he I am talking about, among others if they were parties to what occurred. All I am saying at this stage is that I hope that future reports will not be rushed through in order to influence decisions that may flow from them.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, might I, as a member of the committee, say that the noble Lord has every right to say what he likes about the proceedings of the committee? But this hardly seems to be the moment when we are discussing the report of another committee. An opportunty will arise when we discuss the social charter. I hope at that time that the noble Lord will make any objections that he has, but not on this occasion.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, that is very proper. Perhaps I may answer that point first. I absolutely agree. That is what I wanted to do. The first person I approached to make the point was the chairman of the sub-committee himself, the noble Lord, Lord Allen. He said that there was nothing he could do. I then approached other leaders of the House who have the necessary contacts. I was told that if I wanted to put the matter on the record there was no way of breaking in. The debate that we are having now is an opportunity for the issue to be put on the record. I am now doing so in the light of advice I have received. It may have been wrong advice. For those who are listening I hope that they will take the advice and not repeat in future what happened last week.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to have made a rather serious allegation —
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I have.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel —about the conduct of our committee business in this House. I am not sure
60
that this is the right moment for him to make it. I hope very much that he will consider whether he should not withdraw the allegation he has made on the Floor of the House and deal with the matter through the usual channels.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, of course I shall not withdraw the allegation. The noble Lord has a job to do and he is following it as a Member of the Front Bench as indeed has my noble friend. This matter is addressed to the people who organise the business of the House. I have given the dates and they will now be on the record. If the noble Lord will look at those dates and see how they follow on, he can come to his own conclusions as to whether or not the impartiality and objectivity, which it is vital that our committees should have, were helped or hindered by the way in which this particular matter was dealt with last week. He can come to his own conclusions. I have come to mine.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is always an interesting experience both to listen to and in this case to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He made many trenchant and vigorous statements, some of which I found rather surprising. He was speaking about the undoubted contribution to our overseas balance of the financial services. He said that they have always contributed to a positive balance, whereas material substances —I believe that was the phrase he used —have always been traded at a loss. That is totally untrue.
The history of this country since the industrial revolution has been based on our vigorous trade in manufactured goods. We traditionally imported raw materials, converted them with our skills and sold them abroad with profit. It was only in 1983 that the balance changed. I am one of those who hopes that very soon we shall see that situation being restored. Therefore, I do not agree that we should run down the contribution —I do not know whether the noble Lord meant to —that manufacturing industry has made historically to the balance of payments in this country.
We have come to the stage in this debate, so ably and effectively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, when a degree of summing up is called for. The noble Earl will be summing up from the Government's point of view and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, from the Labour Party's point of view. I shall sum up as I see the situation, injecting a few of my own views. The debate has divided itself into two parts; the first part has been concerned with the ERM and the second with what comes after.
Our deliberations have been enormously helped by the skill with which this very difficult issue has been presented in the report of the sub-committee. It gave us the background, encapsulated it, summarised the evidence and gave us its conclusions. As regards the ERM, I believe that we as a nation have now pretty well effectively reached the conclusion that we should join. The Government have certainly been very firm in their statements to that effect —the Prime Minister on successive occasions and the Chancellor of the Exchequer during an important

61
debate on this subject in another place on 2nd November.
The Treasury's document dealing with the alternative proposals after Stage One of Delors has emphasised the importance of that stage and of the need to develop it further. Therefore that subject does not seem to be a matter for debate any further. What is the subject for debate is when we actually join. That was considered a good deal during today's discussion. The report itself recommends that we should aim to join before 1st July 1990. I shall summarise what I consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of so doing; then I shall express my personal opinion. The advantage of making it known that we intend to join before 1st July 1990 is because that is the date when Stage One of Delors takes effect. As we support Stage One it seems not unreasonable that we should make an effort to begin participating in it fully at that date.
Secondly, there is not the slightest doubt that by that time obstacles to capital flows from our major partners will have been effectively removed. We heard of what the French Government decided; we know what the Italian Government decided, and all other governments are working in that direction, but all the major partners will have dismantled their exchange control limits by that date so that that objective will have been met. The creation of a single market is proceeding apace. It is very difficult to say when a particular degree of progress made will satisfy whatever requirement might have been meant in laying down the conditions, but there is considerable progress, helped and stimulated by the British response to the creation of the single market. That will have moved forward substantially by July of next year.
Thirdly, one could say that the Government are firmly of the opinion —and I hope very much that they are right —that inflation will have begun to come down by then. If we remove from inflation the impact of mortgage interest —if it came down by two or possibly three points with luck —we would not be too far off some of the levels elsewhere in the European Community. The prospect, therefore, is that perhaps these three conditions could be met by then.
The question could be raised, "Why mention the date? Let us wait until then and, if all works out reasonably well, let us take the plunge". There is some merit in mentioning it, in spite of the difficulties which were so clearly and convincingly indicated by a number of noble Lords. The merit would be to show that we are really serious and to set up our position for negotiation in the subsequent stages. Furthermore, it could have a positive impact on the currency and eliminate one of the pressures which might lead to a further upward movement in interest rates.
If an announcement to that effect were made in advance I do not think that it should be made irrevocably. I would tend to do it using the French phrase, en principe. En principe effectively means that that is your general intention, other things being equal. If everything works out reasonably, that is what you do. My view, therefore, is that there would
62
be some merit in the Government following up their clear statement of commitment to joining the ERM when their conditions are satisfied and saying that it would be their intention en principe—subject to these conditions being reasonably satisfied —to do so by 1st July 1990 because of the importance of that date in the sequence of events.
We move on to what will happen next. I was enormously struck by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who said that this should be regarded as a sequential process rather than trying to deal with the monetary and economic aspects of convergence at the same time. There is much merit in that. If we successfully establish Stage One on a joint basis, which will be cemented by Britain's joining the ERM, then it will be right to concentrate on the further monetary implications and leave the wider economic matters to a later stage, particularly as the proposals in Delors raise a number of doubts. One part of Delors that I have doubts about is the attempt to control the budgets in the way proposed.
If one concentrates on the monetary aspects there are a number of options. Delors Stages Two or Three have clearly been presented as a blueprint for discussion, otherwise they would not have convened the intergovernmental conference that is due to take place in December of next year. We should prepare ourselves much more vigorously and effectively than we have so far for the line that we will take then. I say more effectively than so far because I am not absolutely sure where the Treasury's alternative takes us.
I read with great care the debate in another place on 2nd November. There were a number of interventions from all sides of the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking, asking whether this concept of competitive exchange rates would not inevitably lead to the total dominance of the financial market by the deutschmark. The deutschmark is already in such a strong position that, if it is left free to operate in competition with other weaker currencies, it is difficult to see any other outcome than to put it in an even stronger position. That is not what we want; that is not, I believe, what the Germans want. They do not want to be dominant within the Community. They want to play their effective role.
While the Delors proposals, therefore, may suggest things that ought to be modified, our alternative ought to be much more carefully thought out than the Treasury's current proposals, which do not seem to lead anywhere in particular. They open up a competitive market but do not indicate what the consequences will be. It is merely said "Let us hope in due course that that will lead to convergence". It might or it might not. I believe that it would lead to the total dominance of the financial market by the deutschmark.
An alternative approach, therefore, needs to be tried. I should like here to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cobbold, because he is unable to be present. He asked me to mention one alternative to which he referred briefly in an earlier debate. It is one of a number that could be considered. It is based on the supposition that we join the ERM by 1st July 1990 with normal bands and that we equate

63
in this process with the French franc at 10 francs to the pound. As a next step, in co-operation with the French, we then indicate our intention of working together towards a bilateral monetary union within the EMS over a two-year period. This would be similar to that which exists between Belgium and Luxembourg and would be fixed at an exchange rate of 10 francs to the pound with a view to common and interchangeable note and coin issues.
He then proposes that we should move forward and consider having a similar agreement between the pound and the franc —which would have been fixed at this rate for that two-year period —with the peseta, the lira and the punt. The result of this process would present an alternative grouping to the deutschmark dominated group. This would not be done in any hostile sense but in the sense of achieving a balance of currencies. The ultimate final step would be to find the rate at which the two groups could come together.
As I say, that would have the benefit of providing a balanced solution to the situation and lead to the retention of national currencies. I put that forward on behalf of my noble friend merely to suggest that there are many ways of setting about this. The important thing is that we should be able to turn up in Rome —I believe that it is in Rome that this conference takes place —fully mandated, fully prepared and in the strongest possible position to argue about the various possibilities.
There has been mention of the various tiers into which Europe might be divided. Whatever happens in that respect —whether we have one tier of the Community countries, another of the EFTA six and perhaps another with the East European countries —there is only one tier to which this country could belong, based both on our history and on our potential; that is, to the first tier. I hope that we will always remain there.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, for our part and on behalf of the majority of your Lordships I should like to join in the tributes that have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and his committee for the very thorough report that has been produced. No greater tribute could have been paid to the report than the fact that the variety of views expressed about its contents shows that each of your Lordships who has taken part in the debate has given it careful consideration.
As I listened to the different opinions, some of which were expressed by individual members of the distinguished committee, I thought of the maxim which states, "Experts should be on tap, never on top". If one were to try to obtain a collective view from the experts as to the next political steps which should be taken —it is the political dimension which, with respect, is not entirely prominent in this very technical document —it is the poltical aspect within a democracy such as the United Kingdom that deserves to receive our most urgent attention.
We not only represent the professions from which we come, the occupations or vocations upon which
64
we are severally embarked, but each of us in his own way, whether as a Memebr of another place or as a Member of this place in an advisory and revising capacity, has a duty to the people as a whole. It is to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole and in a wider sense to Europe that we are ultimately responsible. For example, who are we to say that it is in the best interests of the City of London and the practitioners within the square mile that such and such should happen? It is by no means conclusive that what is good for the City and for corporate power is of necessity to the benefit of the great bulk of the population of this country, many of whom would find it difficult to absorb the technicalities of this report. Many of them, alas, unless they are reminded by hardship or otherwise, would hardly be aware of the existence of the report.
The debate falls neatly into two parts—the desirability or otherwise, as a member of the EMS since March 1979, of this country joining the exchange rate mechanism. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has made my party's position abundantly clear in regard to that matter. There must be entry at an effective rate of exchange; there must be adequate swap arrangements between central banks; there must be full and further development of regional policy within the Community; and, above all, there must be, and there must be perceived to be, policies adopted for the encouragement of growth. Those are the specific points which my party has decided are necessary before the United Kingdom enters the exchange rate mechanism.
Many noble Lords have emphasised, in my view quite rightly, that if we were to join the exchange rate mechanism in the most advantageous and necessary circumstances that we now envisage, that might not be the cure or panacea for the nation's problems, which day by day, as the trade deficit mounts up, become graver and graver.
I found myself in unexpected agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. That is an unusual situation for me and I still dissent from many of the observations that he made upon monetary matters. However, I thought that the noble Lord was absolutely right —and he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman —in pointing out that there was a definite difference in demarcation between Stage One, which is implied with the joining of the exchange rate mechanism, and Stages Two and Three. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, put the matter very clearly and his remarks deserve emphasis. He said that, first, we must have the accomplishment of the single market, and with that the ERM. We shall then have time and a proper occasion to reappraise on a step-by-step basis where we have got to as a result of the achievement of the single market and joining the ERM. I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right.
There are some noble Lords and some people outside your Lordships' House who would join the ERM as an act of faith in pursuit of the Holy Grail, even though they did not understand what it meant or what it would imply. They pursue it because there is a European tag in front of it and, if it is European, it must be all right. I was very pleased that the noble

65
Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, made a careful distinction. He pointed out that there were other countries in Europe aside from the Twelve.
We come to the considerations which were very properly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, concerning the single market. It is accepted as axiomatic, almost without argument, probably throughout your Lordships' House and unanimously in the press, that the achievement of the single market in 1992 presents the greatest challenge to the country. This is nonsense. As noble Lords know, the single market has already been achieved to the extent of 95 per cent. We have been living within the single market or most of it, for the last 10 years, and we have been progressively developing. All that remains to be done is the completion of the financial services situation, the importance of which I do not wish to underestimate in any way. In addition, certain trade restrictions and unfair practices still exist. In relation to those practices, I observe a surprising silence by some of us in refraining from blaming the countries involved for holding back. Somehow it is quite communitaire for every other country apart from the United Kingdom to hold back on something. However, we know that in the British textile industry there are 450,000 workers whose jobs are in peril because of unfair practices and secret subventions in a number of countries which include Germany, France and Italy.
There is also the case of the subsidies given to fuel oil in the Netherlands which enable the Dutch horticultural industry virtually to drive a large number of our own horticulturalists on the South Coast out of business. One does not hear any complaint that the Dutch are being non-communitaire. So apart from those factors we already have a single market.
But is it right for us to assume that when eventually completed in 1992, the single market will be successful? The single market is based essentially on maximum play being given to market forces. This point has been adumbrated many times by the Government. Market forces have been in operation over a wide sphere of industrial activity in Europe ever since the Community's foundation. But what have been the results: Are we quite sure that this is the answer? Over the past 10 years unemployment in Europe has increased to 15 million and has only recently declined somewhat slightly owing to the more favourable results recorded by the Government in the United Kingdom. This decline is not wholly offset by increases in unemployment in France. Are we quite sure that free market forces are the answer? Are we quite sure that the working of Europe's economy on an entirely free market basis will deliver the goods?
We already know that it cannot because the whole structure of the Community, which permits and indeed encourages the development of the regional and structural fund, is in itself an indictment of the free market philosophy. As the years have passed the poorer parts of Europe have become poorer and the richer parts have become richer, a large-scale reproduction of what has happened in the United Kingdom where the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer. What virtue is there then
66
in saying that our experience in the United Kingdom will not be reproduced on a larger scale within the larger area of Europe as a whole? The answer is that we do not yet know what the results will be.
But what we do know is that it will take a long time for the Federal Republic of Germany to ruin its railway network by abolishing its subsidies to German state railways and that it will also take a long time for the French to agree to reduce their massive subsidies to the French SNCF. This is despite the fact that, sound though these subsidies may be, they do not find an echo with our Government who are busily trying to abolish the subsidies that have hitherto subsisted on British railways. There is a long way to go. One's guess is that by the time industrial subsidies throughout the Community are abolished, if indeed Germany and France are ill-advised so to do in the manner that I have described, we shall probably be well into the mid-1990s.
Another factor to be considered is the abolition of home country preference clauses and other prudential restrictions on the behaviour of insurance companies and pension funds. My information is that this has not even been considered in any detailed form by the Commission. There is a long way to go.
For those reasons we on this side of the House believe in relation to the wider question of economic and monetary union that it is unwise to look at it from a structural point of view in the way that the Commission so far has. We say that democracy in Europe is important. We are against the establishment of a central bank that is subject to no democratic control. We are against any imposition on the United Kingdom by a body that is not responsible directly and democratically to anybody else of any regime that would restrict the right of the United Kingdom to make its own budgetary arrangements and its own arrangements for ordinary public expenditure. That is where we stand.
There is an often expressed feeling which I have experienced that if one ventures to criticise or cast doubt upon a proposal from the European Commission one commits a crime in European eyes and that if one criticises one is being non-communitaire. What nonsense! We on this side of the House examine all Commission proposals with great interest and give them most careful consideration. Some are important and command immediate and instinctive sympathy. I have in mind the social charter. Noble Lords on the other side of the House may disagree with me about the significance of the social charter. I think it is a constructive proposal which will take us a long way towards convergence with many of our Community associates, particularly in Germany where they practise Mitbestimmung. We should consider any proposal from the Commission not with hostility because it comes from the Commission but sympathetically and constructively. And if it meets with approval we should support it. However, if it does not there is no compelling reason why we should be called non-communitaire for not agreeing with every dot and comma that comes out of the Commission in Brussels. In 1988, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will well know, the Commission sent

67
out no fewer than 530 draft directives, decisions, instructions or regulations for absorption by Members of Parliament in all member states. Patience is needed when examining them but there is no reason why we should not put forward criticism.
I have only one real criticism of the conclusions reached by the Select Committee. It was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon and other noble Lords. It concerns the remarkable statement:
"The need for the United Kingdom to convince its Community partners of its European credentials is more important than ever".
Why? Why should not other countries in Europe convince the British that they are sincere in what they propose to do? Why should we in the United Kingdom take this passive posture that calls upon us every time there is a scream from one quarter or other of Europe to say, "We didn't mean that. What we really meant to say was the other"? This is complete nonsense. It has become the practice —and one which I sincerely hope will stop —for us out of necessity to adopt this supine and subjective attitude towards other countries.
I believe that we are a great country. We have our defects, but so do other countries. However, I come from a generation which has lived through two wars; one took place during my childhood and the other took six years out of my life. I was taught the values and the ethos of the country into which I was born. I do not intend —indeed, I do not advise my colleagues to do so —to abandon what ought to be the centre of our existence; that is, the country which gave birth to us.
7 p.m.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I too very much welcome the report prepared by the sub-committee of the Select Committee on the European Communities. The committee interviewed a particularly wide and interesting range of witnesses. It has produced stimulating conclusions. I should like to congratulate the members of the committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for their work.
However, I have to say that the Government do not accept every detail of those conclusions. I shall say more in a moment about our views. But today's debate —which, if I may say so, has been of the highest standard —has demonstrated how much common ground there is on all sides in the United Kingdom on the subject of economic and monetary union. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. Many speakers today have stressed the need for the Community to make real progress towards economic integration before it turns to questions about institutional devices such as a central bank and a common currency. Many noble Lords have emphasised the need to preserve national political accountability in economic and monetary matters. Many have also emphasised the need for careful analysis and thorough preparation before steps vital to the future of the Community are taken. These points are central to the Government's thinking on EMU.
68
In responding to your Lordships' debate, I propose to focus on four points in particular: first, the long history of dicussions in the Community about economic and monetary union, and the position we have now reached following the Strasbourg European Council; secondly, the objectives of EMU; thirdly, the UK's approach to achieving those objectives which we set out in our paper, An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union, widely circulated throughout the Community and, I am pleased to say, receiving increasing support; and, fourthly, our reservations about the Delors Report's approach.
The idea of moving towards economic and monetary union in the European Community has a long history. In 1970, a report by Mr. Pierre Werner, who was Prime Minister of Luxembourg at the time, made detailed proposals for progressing to economic and monetary union. He proposed transferring major economic policy decisions to Community level, adopting a single currency and setting up a single central bank. As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, reminded us, the Community endorsed those proposals in 1972 and agreed that full EMU would be achieved by December 1980 at the latest. After that endorsement other events intervened and nothing much came of the Werner proposals.
Nevertheless, throughout the 1970s the Community continued to endorse the principle of progressing towards economic and monetary union, and this was reaffirmed in the Single European Act of 1986. But as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, knows, there has at no stage been an agreed definition of what EMU means or when it should be achieved.
There is now renewed interest in the possibility of moving towards closer economic and monetary co-operation. The Delors Report, published in April, set out one route by which this might be achieved. The Madrid European Council in June agreed that the first stage of the Delors prescription should be launched from 1st July 1990, and that further work should be done on developments beyond that. The European Council meeting held in Strasbourg just over a week ago took this process one step further by agreeing —on the basis of a majority view —that an inter-governmental conference on EMU should be convened by the end of 1990. The Prime Minister made clear at Strasbourg that the United Kingdom did not agree to a conference, since we do not accept the premise that changes to the Treaty of Rome are needed. But my right honourable friend the Prime Minister also made clear that the United Kingdom would take part in the conference, which would need a unanimous vote before any treaty changes were agreed.
Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, that we shall be in the driver's cab of the train mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said, it will give us at least another year to assess the dramatic changes in Europe.
In today's debate many noble Lords have emphasised the need for the United Kingdom to play a positive part in discussions about EMU. That

69
is indeed our intention, and —let me stress —it has always been our position. But it does not mean accepting ideas with which we fundamentally disagree. Contrary to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and those of my noble friend Lord Geddes, it does not mean that the only way to be good Europeans is by agreeing with our Community partners, whether on the Delors Report or on any other issue. It means that the Government will continue to put forward their views, honestly and straightforwardly.
There is no difference between the UK and our partners about the economic and monetary objectives of EMU. We all want stable prices and stable exchange rates. We all want lower costs of financial transactions, especially across borders. We all want equal access to financial instruments and services. In other words, our common objective is to achieve maximum convergence between the economic and monetary conditions which prevail in each member state of the Community; to achieve conditions in which business can operate with the minimum of risk; and in which capital, people and goods move freely and are available on equal terms in all parts of the Community. Those are the real objectives of economic and monetary union.
Some in the Community may have a further objective: to pave the way for some form of federal Europe, a Europe in which some degree of sovereignty is permanently transferred to a new supranational authority. The UK does not accept the goal of political federalism. We do not believe that Europe should become another United States of America. Europe must remain a Community of different cultures and different national governments. The powers of the centre must be kept to a minimum. It is in the interests of democracy and personal liberty that decision-making is kept at the level closest to those governed. This philosophy colours our reactions to the centralising and institutional approach to EMU assumed in the Delors Report. Clearly it has weighed strongly with many of your Lordships in today's debate.
What then is the Government's approach to EMU? It is founded on three principles: strengthening the forces which make for stable prices; increasing the influence of markets and competition; and keeping control, at the national level, of economic policy making to the maximum extent possible. This is another way of expressing the Community's own doctrine of "subsidiarity". I am pleased that so many of your Lordships mentioned that third proposal. At one point I thought that some noble Lords would not do so. Indeed, it seemed that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, would not do so, given the tone of the rest of his speech. However, he did mention it and I am most grateful for that fact.
These principles are well respected in Stage One of the Delors Report. We fully support the decision to launch Stage One next July. It will involve: the dismantling of long-standing barriers to the movement of people, goods and services through completion of the single market programme; the strengthening of competition policy; the liberalisation of capital movements; stronger coordination of member states; economic and monetary policies;
70
and the inclusion of all currencies in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system on equal terms.
Before I turn to the implications of these Stage One changes, I should touch on the question of the exchange rate mechanism. The committee reminded the House in its report that it has consistently supported UK membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system in order to reinforce the Government's goals of low inflation and a stable macroeconomic environment. The Government are also firmly committed to UK participation. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear on her return from the Madrid Summit last June that sterling will enter the ERM during Stage One of the Delors Committee's proposals. The question is not whether the UK will join, but when.
In its conclusions, the committee went on to suggest that the UK should join the mechanism before July 1990. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, did not seek to justify that point in his opening speech. I hoped that he would.
We think it unwise and simplistic to attempt to set any kind of timetable for UK entry other than that implicit in stating that we shall join during Stage One. I noted with interest the points which my noble friend Lord Butterworth made in support of the Government's position on that matter. We have made plain the circumstances in which sterling will become a member of the mechanism: when the level of UK inflation is significantly lower, when there is capital liberalisation in the Community and when real progress has been made towards completion of the single market, freedom of financial services and strengthened competition policy. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is right: the responsibility for fulfilling most of those conditions lies with other member states, not with us. We therefore believe that it would be misguided to set a specific date for UK entry. Indeed, that could give our partners quite the wrong signal about the importance we attach to the steps they themselves need to take.
I agree with the noble Lord Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that sterling's participation in the ERM is neither a precondition for success in meeting our own economic objectives nor a pancea for overcoming our economic problems. The rapid fall in inflation which we secured in the UK in the earlier part of this decade demonstrates that it is possible to bring inflation down while remaining outside the mechanism. When we join, the Government will certainly not be freed from the need to pursue an adequately tight monetary policy and business will still need to restrain the growth of unit labour costs. So no one should be seduced into expecting any immediate reduction in interest rates; indeed, membership will commit us to setting our rates at whatever level is needed to keep the exchange rate within its ERM bands.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for the compliment he paid the Government on their economic policies over the past few years. I shall of course write to him separately on the point about toys which he mentioned. Nevertheless, in the right circumstances,

71
participation in the ERM should confer economic benefits on the UK in terms of greater currency stability within Europe and support for our anti-inflationary policies. I therefore confirm that sterling will join the mechanism when the conditions that I have reiterated today have been met.
I shall read with interest the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, because I thought that I detected a noticeable change in Labour's attitude to that issue. It was a speech with a distinctly communitaire gloss, but underneath there was more than one deep reservation about the Delors recommendations. They are reservations echoed by so many of your Lordships.
The Government and my noble friend Lord Cockfield believe in the evolutionary approach, but to where we evolve is the subject of our difference. The Government have explained in their paper An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union the importance of the Stage One programme. Stage One will progressively increase freedom of trade in both goods and services, and freedom of movement of capital and labour. In economic and monetary terms, national boundaries will have been substantially removed; but here I agree with my noble friend Lord Boardman, with all his experience. This task is a huge one and will take time to complete. The concept of the single market dates back to the Treaty of Rome in 1957; yet the programme of single market measures will not be formally completed until the end of 1992. It then has to be made a reality at national level.
It was therefore entirely appropriate that with her recent experience in the Community my noble friend Lady Elles reminded us that the United Kingdom has been among the leaders in pushing for progress. It was a UK presidency which set the 1992 programme moving, and the UK is in the lead, along with Denmark, in implementing the necessary measures.
As a result of Stage One, there will be much stronger pressures on all Community countries to pursue low inflation. Stable prices will in turn mean more stable exchange rates. After Stage One we believe that the Community should continue to build on those developments. Some further measures may be needed to strengthen the operation of market forces. They include lifting unnecessary restrictions on the use of Community currencies; for instance, restrictions on where or how savings may be invested, and making it easier and cheaper to use Community currencies by moving to technological advances, particularly in the banking area. Within the framework of the exchange rate mechanism, we expect that member states will pursue increasingly convergent economic policies and that margins of fluctuation between currencies would become increasingly narrow. We see no reason why the system could not evolve into one of fixed exchange rates; but that cannot and should not be decided now.
The important thing to stress is that those developments would result from competition between the monetary policies of the 12 member states of the Community, not from centralised,
72
bureaucratic direction. That leads me to our fundamental reservations about aspects of the Delors proposals. I shall single out three in particular. The first is, the Delors Report's proposals for a single Community monetary policy run by an independent system of central banks. That makes no provision for accountability for monetary policy to national governments or national parliaments. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Boardman said, the electorate would still hold governments and national authorities responsible for their economic wellbeing, and rightly so. My noble friend Lord Butterworth was right that accountability to the European Parliament is no substitute for that direct responsibility to our own national institutions. Moreover, there would be no effective means of bringing to account the central banking system for any failings, and there can be no guarantees that it would pursue successful anti-inflationary policies, whatever the treaty might require. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, said there must be a danger that the proposals would lead to standardisation not on the best inflation performance, but on the average.
Secondly —here I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we believe that Community rules on the use of national budget deficits are neither necessary nor desirable. The Select Committee makes that point in its report, and I fully agree with its comments. Binding Community rules are unnecessary because monetary unions can and do tolerate diversity of budgetary positions. We should be clear that the Delors proposals would involve a considerable transfer of sovereignty over economic policy-making as well as monetary policy.
My third point is one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and concerns the proposal that there should be enhanced regional flows to compensate weaker member states for giving up exchange rate changes to bring about economic adjustments. We believe that the operation of the market, in which capital and labour can move freely to low-cost regions, is the way in which the Community's remoter regions will grow and prosper. The Community should move towards closer economic and monetary co-operation at a sustainable pace. It should not be necessary to make massive transfers of resources in order to cushion some parts which may not be ready for the changes concerned.
We do not believe that it can ever be possible to use new monetary institutions to drive forward the process of economic integration. For that reason I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, that real economic change must come first. Institutional change, if it is needed at all, should follow. That view has increasingly been echoed elsewhere in the Community, not least in the Federal Republic of Germany.
There is a great deal of work yet to be done on the Delors proposals and on those put forward by others, including the United Kingdom. We shall play our full part in this work. We shall not hesitate to make clear our reservations, where we have them; but our objective —to achieve the strongest possible

73
European economy —is the same as that of all our European partners.
The report from the Select Committee has stimulated an exceptionally useful debate. The Government will take full note of the points which have been made as further work on EMU moves forward.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, in making the final remarks in this long debate perhaps I may first thank the noble Earl for the tone of his comments in his summing up of the various points made. The impression gained by me is that there is an enormous amount of common ground on all sides of the House, as the Minister said. We all seem to be agreed on targets. The exact way in which we attain them is still under discussion. In other words, it comes down to tactics now and not to strategy.
The noble Earl would not expect me to agree with his reservations but I strongly welcome the positive tone of his remarks. If I may say so, it is a pleasant change that the Government's attitude has turned so much more positive in recent weeks.
I wish to thank all the noble Lords who took part in the debate. I thought that their contributions were of an amazingly high standard; they touched the whole gamut of possible interpretations. We had high philosophy, pragmatism, examination in depth and some humour and wit and we even had a little broad comedy now and then. All speakers made a valuable contribution to the debate and I am quite certain that the Minister means it when he says that the Government will read what was said in Hansard and take the points seriously. This has been an important debate, an important occasion, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roll, that the choices which this country has to face in the next 12 months will be the most critical in its post-war history.
I should like to conclude with a personal statement, with the indulgence of your Lordships. I have now finished my stint on the Select Committee on the European Communities. I am grateful to the House for the opportunity it has given me to serve on the committee. It has been a wonderful experience and most enjoyable to serve with so many able and brilliant colleagues. More than anything else I wish to pay tribute to the chairmen of the Select Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Serota, and her predecessor, Lady Llewelyn-Davies. Few members of the House who have not been members of the committee know the enormous workload it entails. There are all the sittings, the numerous reports have to be gone through, one has to decide which reports to refer to the Select Committee, attending the meetings of the Select Committees which produce the reports and guiding the Select Committees. It is a remarkable job and in my time it has been carried out by two remarkable ladies. I can only say that it has been an enormous privilege to work for both of them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989
7.20 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Your Lordships are familiar with the background to the MMC's investigation, its findings and its recommendations. These were debated by your Lordships on 16th June and the Government were able to take account of views expressed when reaching the decisions announced by my noble friend Lord Young on 10th July. I do not intend therefore to trouble your Lordships by going over old ground.
The subject of the Motion is the tied estate order which applies only to the national brewers and which contains all the measures that the Government intend to implement in respect of them. The term "national brewer" for this purpose means any brewer with 2,000 or more on-licensed premises or any group of companies with brewing interests which between them have more than 2,000 such premises.
The aim of the order is to open up the national brewers' large tied estates to competition from a wider range of drinks and suppliers. Agreements that tie an outlet to supplies from a particular brewer can in some circumstances be beneficial. The MMC recognised that they allow small brewers a secure market for their products. However, used to too great an extent, ties restrict market access by others and can be used to bolster a dominant market position. The approach embodied in this order is to limit the strength of ties when made by brewers who have substantial market power.
There are in essence three groups of provisions in the order. First, the order requires brewers or groups with more than 2,000 pubs to release a proportion of their estates from ties altogether. Half of the excess over 2,000 must be released. Thus a brewer with 6,000 pubs will be able to tie 4,000 and must release 2,000 from ties.
The second provision concerns the so-called guest beer. National brewers must allow their tied tenants and loan tied licensees to serve at least one draught cask-conditioned beer from another source.
Finally, the order requires national brewers to release ties on low alcohol beer and non-beer drinks. By non-beer drinks we mean products such as soft drinks ciders, wines and spirits. In addition, and following consultations, the Government have drafted this order to ensure that the tenant has as far as possible a genuine and unfettered choice of supplier for both the guest beer and the other drinks released from ties.
Brewers have until 1st May 1990 to implement the provisions concerning the guest beer and ties to other drinks. The release of part of their estate from ties altogether will require a substantial amount of reorganisation within their property portfolios and the Government thought it right to allow the brewers until 1st January 1992 to achieve this.
I would now like to say something about the background and the process of consultation that led

75
to the drafting of the order. The measures announced by the Government on 10th July were themselves the outcome of a wide-ranging debate about the MMC's report and its recommendations. I know that some noble Lords were concerned about the very principle of intervention in a successful industry. But governments in free market economies have always recognised that they need to reserve the power to intervene where the market is not operating properly. The MMC report provided evidence of market failures in the supply of beer, and the response the department received from the public at large after the MMC report was published suggested that the MMC's analysis struck a chord with many tipplers as well as with publicans.
The order was published for public comment on 22nd August. A substantial number of comments were received and a revised draft circulated for comment on 31st October. Because of the complexity of the order and the drafting changes that had been made to take account of earlier representations, the Government felt it right to allow a further opportunity for parties to see whether any drafting problems remained. The order in its present form incorporates changes made as a result of that process.
I have dwelt on this process because I know that some have suggested that we should have allowed more time for consultation and public debate. It is now almost nine months since the MMC report was published, and I hope it is clear from what I have said that the Government have been at pains to conduct the widest consultation at every stage.
During this process we heard arguments that the measures being proposed would bear too harshly on the national brewers and the department received many suggestions for ways in which the burdens of complying with the order could be reduced. On the other hand the department also heard from those who felt that the order did not go far enough in addressing the consumer's interests and should be tougher. The Government have tried to strike a balance between the interests of the consumer in greater choice and more open competition and the need to minimise the burden on the industry. This balance will not satisfy everyone. But I hope your Lordships will agree that a fair balance has nonetheless been struck.
We believe that this order will have a substantial effect on the market. It will open up large parts of the national brewers' estates to competition from other products. It will encourage small brewers who will have access to a larger market; provide sharper competition in low alcohol products and soft drinks; and contribute to the stimulation of an independent wholesale sector. It will be good for the consumer and good for the long-term health of the industry. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee] —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the
76
Motion and the order. As he quite rightly points out, there has been a wide-ranging debate since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission published its report. The wide-ranging debate largely consisted of successive government cave-ins to the brewing interests. We are very disappointed that the Government did not adopt the recommendations of the body for which they are responsible—namely, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Nevertheless, that debate has taken place and I do not wish to go over the ground, however sorry I may be about the result.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord some questions about the order. First, what is the position of the Community's competition department on the tie? At the time of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report it was stated that the directorate general responsible for competition was looking into the question of the tie and was due to report in the not too distant future. My understanding is that the matter is moving quite fast now. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give us an estimate of when the Commission will make its final judgment about whether the tie as such is legal in terms of the Treaty of Rome.
Secondly, am I right in thinking that the exclusion of soft drinks from the tie simply puts into United Kingdom law the block exclusion that is already given to us by the Community? Is there anything extra in this measure that is not provided by the Community block exclusion? If that is the case, why do we have to have it included in the order in the first place? I could never quite understand when I was debating with the predecessor of the noble Lord at the Government Dispatch Box exactly why the block exclusion did not apply throughout the United Kingdom on soft drinks and why we needed United Kingdom legislation to make that effective.
Thirdly, am I right in thinking that this order extends the provisions that the noble Lord the Secretary of State announced before consultations took place on the order in two directions? First, am I right in saying that what is known as the Whitbread Umbrella —that is to say, groups of interconnected brewers; the Whitbread example is the clearest one —would be caught by this order, whereas in the original provisions that were set out by the Secretary of State of the day that was not the case? In the second respect, am I right in thinking that this order extends the possibility of providing a guest real ale in premises to the large brewers, whereas previously we had been led to believe that it was only the smaller regional brewers who would have that privilege? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm whether I am right or wrong on those points. If I am right, I hope he will explain exactly what has led the Government to the conclusion to change the arrangements in those two respects.
Finally, will the order, taken together with the new primary legislation concerned with the landlord and tenant legislation, form the whole corpus of what we can expect as a result of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or will other orders and other legislation come before us? If other legislation is to come before us, when will that occur?
7.32 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to start by thanking the Minister for some progress over the period of negotiations and consultations that has taken place on the order. However, in my opinion we are faced with a sad evening in this House on three major points where there has been further dicrimination putting constraints upon the major brewers of Great Britain who own more than 2,000 outlets, thus making it difficult for them to compete for the supply of the free trade.
In this order all tied trade is treated the same, regardless of whether it constitutes a tenant or a free trade outlet tied by a loan. For all such outlets a brewer with more than 2,000 outlets himself must allow a cask conditioned beer to enter his public house. As my noble friend has said, he also has to free from a tie cider, wines, spirits, soft drinks, low-alcohol beers and alcohol-free beers. I should have thought there was a strong argument for allowing the major brewers to have every opportunity that we can give them to continue the important work they are doing in the development of alcohol-free beers and low-alcohol beers. It seems a pity that the tie will be removed in this area. These low-alcohol and alcohol-free beers are extremely expensive to produce. They involve an additional extra process, but they are a product that most people in this country want to be able to appreciate. Their quality is improving annually but there is still a lot to be done.
I shall now discuss what I regard as another unfair matter and that is the position in Scotland. In Scotland the majority of the licensed trade is undertaken in free houses. The brewers own very few outlets. However, a brewer with more than 2,000 outlets in the United Kingdom is placed at a competitive disadvantage in competing for the free trade in Scotland. Scottish and Newcastle Breweries is strong in Scotland but it is a fairly minor brewery, with fewer than 2,000 outlets. It will be able to tie for all beer, soft drinks, low-alcohol beer, non-alcohol beer, wines and spirits in all its outlets in Scotland, whereas a major brewer in England with more than 2,000 outlets will be constrained in its ability to tie. It will find itself in a weaker position in Scotland. This is an uneven playing field in which to take on the other brewers in a highly competitive business. Certainly in the case of Scotland this is a clear distortion of a free market by a Conservative Government. That is why I say this is a sad evening.
Even more nonsensical is the concept of a guest cask conditioned beer for free trade outlets tied by brewers with over 2,000 outlets. Under the order dealing with loan ties, licensed premises and wholesale premises, free trade outlets will be free of any tie within the next three months. To forbid them to enter into a voluntary supply arrangement for all their beer with a major brewing company is an unwarranted interference in the workings of the free market.
I think it is fair to say that, even if this order is some improvement on what was originally suggested, it still maintains the confusion that seems to exist
78
in the mind of the department. The department does not seem to understand the situation as it relates to property ties. The department has muddled those ties up with the loan ties. Those are two entirely different things. What is the logical reason why free trade should not be open to unrestricted and unregulated competition? What convincing argument have we had in our main debate here and in the excellent presentation of the weak case this evening by my noble friend that brewers with more than 2,000 outlets should be restricted in their ability to compete? The Government are interfering in a flagrant manner in a free and highly competitive market. In that market they are unfairly restricting the biggest and most successful companies.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in rising in front of the serried ranks of my supporters, I wish to thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I shall take the contributions in their reverse order. I shall deal first with the points raised by my noble friend Lord Kimball who asked about the position in Scotland. I believe I am right in saying that he suggested that the much larger brewers operating in Scotland who had substantial estates elsewhere might be at a disadvantage. I suspect that the issue boils down to one of competition in loan ties, for I find that in Scotland only 18 per cent. of fully on-licensed premises are brewer owned compared with 69 per cent. in England and Wales. But clearly a brewer such as Bass will not be able to offer loan ties which are exclusive to its products, whereas Scottish and Newcastle, for example, will be able to do so if it reduces its estate below 2,000 premises. However, I understand that at present the Scottish and Newcastle estate is a little larger than that. However, I do not accept that that makes the order unfair or discriminatory.
It is open to any brewer to reduce his estate below 2,000 premises and avoid the restrictions on the strength of the tie. Brewers who are already very large will be under greater restraints than others. However, this is a function of dealing with the monopoly situation. The essence of dealing with monopolies is that the largest players in the market have to live with restrictions so that others may compete on more equal terms.
Turning now to the other point raised by my noble friend, particularly relating to the question of property versus loan ties, the order applies the same restrictions to ties arising from property as it does to loan ties. In both cases such ties entered into by the national brewers must allow the person tied to buy a guest cask-conditioned beer from outside the tie. They may also only cover beer; they may not extend to low alcohol beers, soft drinks, cider, wines or spirits. There is no muddle here. The provisions are common to both. Indeed they need to be since otherwise brewers could easily get round the restrictions on the property tie by entering into loan ties. Clearly it would be anomalous to allow stronger ties in loan agreements than were allowed through ownership.
I turn now to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The first concerns the position of the

79
European Community on tying matters generally. I understand that the Commission's review is still in progress and I cannot anticipate either when the review will be completed or its conclusion. That matter is quite outside the Government's control, as the noble Lord will appreciate. We look forward with interest to receiving the Community's view in due course.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked about the exclusion of soft drinks and whether the new arrangements enshrine an existing European Community exemption. The order goes further than the European Community provisions. Soft drink ties must be abolished altogether by national brewers. The European Community allows such ties for five years provided the brewer matches the best terms. Clearly we go further than the European Community has provided for.
Thirdly, the noble Lord asked whether we should catch Whitbread now even though we did not do so before. The companies in the Whitbread group will be affected by the order in the sense that their pubs will count towards Whitbread's limit. However, that has always been the position.
Fourthly, the noble Lord asked whether the order extended guest beer to national brewers. A supplier of guest beer can be any brewer, national as well as regional, but that has always been the position. The decision will be for the licensee himself to make.
Fifthly, the noble Lord asked whether this was the sum total of the measures that we propose to bring forward. Orders may be brought forward to cover the information to be provided by national brewers to the Director General of Fair Trading. If necessary an interim order may be made to protect the position of tenants until the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill receives Royal Assent.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised by noble Lords and that your Lordships feel that the order should be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) Order 1989
Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1989
Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order 1989
Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) Order 1989
Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) Order 1989
Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989
British Gas plc (Rateable Values) Order 1989
Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989
Non-Domestic Rating (Transitional Period) (Appropriate Fraction) Order 1989
7.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh) rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 7th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I wish to move that the nine orders standing in my name on the Order Paper be agreed to en bloc.
These orders are a part of the substantial corpus of subordinate legislation under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which is necessary to implement the new system of business rating that takes effect on 1st April next year. The Non-Domestic Rating (Transitional Period) (Appropriate Fraction) Order provides a key part of the transitional scheme under which the effect of the new uniform business rate and the non-domestic valuation are to be phased in. The remaining eight orders all fix new rateable values for the so-called formula rated industries.
Under the uniform business rate locally fixed poundages will be replaced by a national poundage set in 1990–91 by the Secretary of State and updated in subsequent years by no more than the increase in the RPI. My right honourable friend hopes soon to be able to announce the poundage for 1990–91 but he has already given a provisional figure of 36. He will be aiming to raise from business broadly the same aggregate amount of rates in the first year of the new system as in the last year of the old. The UBR will remove the distortions caused by widely varying local poundages and rescue businesses from 15 years of average rate rises above the rate of inflation.
A revaluation of non-domestic property has also been carried out —the first since 1973. I hardly need say that if rates are to be retained for business property we must have up-to-date values, otherwise the old distortions will continue.
The average business will pay the same in rates in real terms under the new system as under the old but there will be a wide dispersion around the average. Businesses in the North and Midlands, especially in manufacturing, will tend to do well, while those in the South, particularly in retailing, will tend to face higher bills. The effects will be phased in for businesses facing the biggest increases over at least five years. The protection will, however, need to be paid for and we decided that the fairest way to do this was to phase in reductions in bills also. In that way the overall yield from business rates will remain the same, avoiding the need for a large subsidy from the taxpayer.
The retailing industry in particular has complained about the potential increase in its rate burden but that is entirely attributable to the revaluation, and the new rateable values in turn

81
merely reflect current patterns of retail rents. Retailers will of course benefit from the transitional protection written into the 1988 Act. I shall not deal further with that point here because of course the order we are debating tonight deals with those facing lower bills, not those facing increased bills.
The main framework of the transition was inserted into the 1988 Act by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and was debated by your Lordships' House only a few weeks ago. Broadly it provides that no rate bill will rise by more than 20 per cent. a year in real terms in the transitional period. For small properties the figure is 15 per cent. The appropriate fraction order in effect fixes the equivalent figures for properties attracting rate reductions. The order provides a formula for calculating maximum rate reductions in each year of the transition. Its effect is to place a limit on reduction in bills in 1990–91 of 10·5 per cent. in real terms for properties with a new rateable value of £15,000 or more in London and £10,000 or more elsewhere and 15·5 per cent. for properties with values below those thresholds. For 1991–92 the equivalent figures are 13 per cent. and 18 per cent.
Those figures, which are higher than we had previously thought likely, have been set using the latest information available about the revaluation so as to comply with the obligation in the 1988 Act that the transition must so far as practicable have a neutral effect on total rate revenue. They are higher in the second year partly because of the expected effect of appeals but also because the amount of protection for losers —which is confined to existing occupiers —will reduce over time as businesses move premises. We shall fix the figures for years after 1991–92 later when we have better information about, for instance, the effect of appeals.
Turning to formula rating, the eight draft orders before your Lordships prescribe either the rateable values of certain public utilities or the rules to be used in reaching those values. The orders mostly apply to utilities which have in the past had their rateable values prescribed in statutory instruments. In parallel with the general 1990 revaluation of all non-domestic property we have conducted a review of the undertakings rated in this way with a view to reaching new assessments or rules for assessment which will be effective from 1st April 1990.
The practice of formula rating certain industries started in the 1950s to overcome various technical problems associated with the assessment by conventional means of public utility undertakings. Those problems stemmed partly from case law on valuation methods and partly from the difficulties of apportioning an aggregate rateable value for the whole industry between rating districts. For the 1990 revaluation, we propose to continue the prescription of values in the following industries: water service companies and statutory water companies, the electricity supply industry, British Gas, British Telecom, the British Waterways Board, statutory docks and harbours, and also various railway operators, namely, the British Railways Board, London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway and Tyne & Wear Metro. Finally, to avoid distorting the taxation position of industries competing
82
directly in the same field, we shall for the first time be prescribing the assessments of Mercury Communications and of free-standing electricity generating stations.
In setting rateable values for those industries we have sought to reach the level of assessment that might have been made by conventional means. Where the necessary information exists we have adopted a method similar to the contractors' basis of valuation, which looks at the net cost of building or replacing a property and converts it to an annual sum by applying the decapitalisation rate. For the electricity, water, gas and telecommunications industries we have been able to use their net current cost accounts, suitably adjusted, to derive a rateable value in this way. For independent generators and the statutory water companies we have derived rateable values respectively from those of the electricity supply industry and the water service companies.
In the case of the canals, ports and railways industries no current cost accounts information is available. We have set those rateable values by reference to that percentage of turnover which we believe represents a fair assessment of other similar types of industry whose values have been set on a conventional basis.
The order setting values for the electricity supply industry is at this stage not complete. We do not as yet know precisely how the assets associated with nuclear power stations will be separated out from those of the National Power Company and we shall make the necessary order for the two new companies early next year. Their combined values are likely to reflect the total value of £598.6 million proposed in our recent consultation paper.
It is a well established practice in formula-rated industries to make an annual revision of the rateable value in the light of some global measure of changes in their use of property. Each order provides this annual review for its industry using a measure of occupation of property appropriate to its particular case. The orders introduce some major swings in rateable values which we believe are fully justified and when appropriate there will be transitional arrangements.
While I am convinced that the proposals are fair and reasonable and in line with what the 1990 revaluation will show, I do not believe this to be an ideal means of assessment. I believe that most industries currently assessed on this basis share that view. We therefore intend so far as is practicable to return all hereditaments whose values are currently prescribed in this way to conventional assessment for the next revaluation.
The assessments and provisions contained in the orders have been worked out as a result of extensive discussions with the industries involved, with the Valuation Office and with the local authority associations; they have also been the subject of public consultation. I believe that they represent fair and reasonable assesments for these industries. I hope that the House will support the orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 7th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee. —(Lord Hesketh.)
7.56 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking the care that he has in setting out the arguments in support of the orders. As he knows, it is the ninth order on the list about which I wish to speak.
The Minister said a great deal. Quite frankly, even if one understands the subject and the Minister speaks slowly —he did not speak fast —it would be difficult to assimilate the arguments, consequences and justification for even more changes on a subsequent revaluation. Many people outside the House will read with care what he said.
The Minister dealt with the matters with which we need to deal but he also ranged sufficiently widely to convince me that I am in order to set the orders in a slightly wider context. As he rightly said, we must deal not only with the direct effect of the order in which I am interested and with the marginal benefits of the latest announcement of the½ per cent. increase. He knows that we are dealing not only with the unified business rate; we are also dealing with the impending effect of the catastrophic —I would say horrendous —revaluations of certain hereditaments.
I declare an interest as secretary of the all-party retail group which comprises Members on all sides in both Houses who have connections with retailers. I am also a director of the Enfield and St. Albans Co-operative Society. I do not have any special brief from those bodies or any special plea to make on their behalf, save to say that co-operative societies include 7,000 or 8,000 shops, some large, some small, some in the North and some in the South. Many of the national retailers may well have large units in the North, the Midlands and the South.
The Minister might argue that we are talking in terms of swings and roundabouts and that you win some and you lose some. The phrase that comes to my mind is that this is just the tip of an iceberg. The matter will run and run because there are many people outside the House, and many people of his political persuasion in another place, who will be made to learn fully and painfully over the next few months exactly what they voted for when they voted for the introduction of the poll tax and the unified business rate.
Perhaps I may quote from a gentleman who has our respect —Mr. John Banham of the CBI —who said only last week:
"When reality really dawns in a few weeks' time, there may well be half a million furious business people, either with severely disappointed expectations or facing a succession of real increases of 20 per cent. in their annual rates bills".
He went on to say that the likely result would be a one point increase in the retail prices index, adding a further twist to the inflationary spiral.
Let us consider Mr. Banham's statement. I shall not make too much of the timing. The Minister was fair in saying that the last revaluation was in 1973. Another revaluation was due in 1978 when a Labour Government were in office. Eleven years have passed since then. I have been involved in all the arguments about how we can improve the present system, but the Government have grasped the nettle and
84
produced a scheme, the consequences of which we are now discussing.
One of the arguments deployed by the Minister and his colleagues—my noble friend Lord Dean who is on the Front Bench with me at this moment has engaged in those arguments as fully as I have over the last three or four years—was that it was unfair on local businesses to have to bear the burden of what were then called profligate local councils. We were told that the burden would be lifted and that they would be treated fairly, uniformly and in a businesslike way.
The Minister tells us that there is nothing final about this, but we are considering what his honourable friends have said is likely to be the figure of 36p. That is the extrapolated figure, based upon a current rate of 258p in the pound. I do not think that the Minister and his colleagues fully grasp the enormity of what that will mean to many businesses. The figure is 36p plus an allowance next year for the RPI. For every penny by which that 36p goes up, £1 billion will be added to the costs of retailers. That is absolutely catastrophic.
There are a number of ways in which those costs to retailers might be borne. The retailer who has his wits about him and sees that coming, as many have, will have made allowances in his plans. Many of them will decide that if their costs are to increase, they must be passed on to the consumer. After looking at their costs many of them will decide that they can absorb some of the costs but that extra imposte must ultimately be borne, as are all costs, by the consumer. Does the Minister appreciate that by acting in that way he is, as John Banham said, adding an extra twist to the inflationary burden?
The Minister was quite fair in saying that by and large industry will be better treated than retailing and that the North will be better treated than the South-East. I hold no brief to protect the South-East. According to my brief, the burden of the Government's imposition upon retailers is likely to be not only onerous —retailers will have to pay their fair share like everyone else —but punitive. For instance, let us look at the costs that have been borne in the past by businesses and at the new rateable value. The new rateable values have been assessed at 7·7 per cent. of what they are now. I am told that because of property values in some instances the rateable value will increase 20 times. When my informant gave me that information I said, "Stop! Are you telling me that someone who might now be liable for a rateable value of £100,000 will be faced with a rateable value of £2 million?" He said, "That is right".
Those words came from someone who deals in property and retailing. He knows the market. That increase will not only affect large businesses, it will have an impact on small businesses. The Minister and his colleagues have hit upon the figures of £10,000 and £15,000. In terms of property size, that represents rabbit hutches. They are tiny. The alleged benefit to come through this order is minuscule. The bulk of retailers will be very badly hit.
The Inland Revenue figures at the end of July 1989 showed that of 1·7 million businesses, 275,000

85
face increases of over 100 per cent., 249,000 face increases of between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. and 443,000 face increases of up to 50 per cent. Confronted with those figures, what are the consequences? The Forum of Private Business, which is a reputable trade association, observed that as a consequence of the combination of both the unified business rate and the revaluation, 110,000 jobs could be lost as a result of the changes. Would the Minister and his colleagues care to comment on that calculation and accept that as a consequence of these changes there will be an enormous burden placed on the retailer?
The Minister could very well argue that in effect he is shifting the load from manufacturing and hard-pressed areas such as the Midlands and the North to those who are better able to bear it. The Minister reads the press and observes the markets; he knows that retailing is going through a very difficult period. Two or three years ago such changes could have been looked upon if not with equanimity then with some knowledge of ability to absorb. But the whole retailing scene is changing rapidly. There has been a complete change in the mix of retailing. Those with whom I consult and whose views I respect have advised me that retailing is not in the best condition to absorb these increases.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to an article by Peter Wilsher which appeared yesterday in the Sunday Times and which gives two illustrations of this situation. The Minister talks in terms of formulae and poundages and puts forward abstract arguments. But what does that mean to individuals? For example, Marks & Spencer, whose mere presence in a new development can easily double a prospective rental, already face a bill of £35 million a year for rates. It can expect that amount to increase by about £9 million next year. Of course, it will have enormous after-tax profits and that increase can be absorbed. However, the picture is very different for the closely comparable Storehouse, which is another large, reputable and successful retailer. Marks & Spencer pays £35 million in rates; Storehouse pays £30 million in rates but its forecast for next year's gross profits is such that to add £8 million as the likely rates damage could make a very nasty dent. In other words, it will find that the additional on-cost will be difficult to bear. Those two companies are two giants, very highly organised, efficient and successful businesses.
As John Banham said, there are 500,000 —half a million, my Lords—little businesses. The party which the Minister represents says that it looks after small businesses better than any other party. However, he has added to the impost on small businesses to a degree which is disgraceful. He is simply putting forward a piece of legislation in the form of an order and we are limited in what we can do about it. As I understand it, each year the Minister will come forward and tell Parliament that he wants to add to the 36p a figure that he estimates he will need increased in line with the RPI. It is a debatable amount.
When the Minister was faced with the same kind of transitional costs for the domestic ratepayer, he worked out a formula which in effect meant that
86
while the gainers were left as such, the tab for those who lost was picked up over a transitional period by the Exchequer. Why does the Minister choose to favour the domestic ratepayer over the business ratepayer in this respect? Could it have anything to do with the revolution on the Back Benches of the Minister's party in another place which threatened all sorts of action and warned that if a cushion of some kind were not provided, then his party would be in very real trouble next year. I believe that there is a lot in that.
I ask the Minister to take this measure back to his right honourable friend and tell him that unless he is able to revise his intentions in the future, he will not only have a political storm —which I shall welcome —but also a much more difficult job to defend his actions at this Dispatch Box.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I am also grateful to him for earlier today having brought to my attention the fact that he would refer in particular to the retail business.
When considering these orders, I believe that it is absolutely critical to see the UBR in its entirety. It is not an abstract device at all but a very real one. Perhaps I may go back to the noble Lord's first remarks which were very relevant. He referred to the fact that there had not been a revaluation since 1973 and then very cogently deployed his argument. He finished by saying, when he was displaying his reasons for not being happy with the proposals (which are not before us tonight but as he sees it are part and parcel of what he was describing), that such were the consequences of the scheme. In all truth, it must be fair and right to say that they are in part the consequences of not having a revaluation since 1973, and are not consequences only of the scheme.
The noble Lord went on to suggest that the introduction of the new system would be inflationary; but in my earlier remarks, I made the Government's position clear. It is that there is fiscal neutrality in these arrangements. It can hardly lead to inflation if the total sum of money to be raised will remain the same.
The noble Lord drew your Lordships' attention also to the possibility of profitability or otherwise of 'certain retailers and gave comparisons between two leading companies on the High Street. But the basis of raising taxation through the uniform business rate is a basis of valuation on property. In this case it is not the Government's responsibility to make an assessment on profitability within the context of what they are achieving by raising revenue through a basis of evaluation and a tax on property.
The noble Lord also drew attention to the fact that he felt that small businesses which he said that the Conservative Party claimed to support, were not being helped by the interim arrangements of £ 10,000 and £15,000 to protect and help smaller businesses with the transitional arrangements. However, the fact of the matter is that 75 per cent of non-domestic businesses rated at over £500 will be protected by those two levels of protection. That is a very substantial amount indeed.

87
Finally, I should make absolutely clear that one can look at these arrangements only in the overall context. Yes, some retailers will be paying more. However, I suggest that one considers what the opportunities will be for further employment in the North and in the Midlands where companies will be able to take on more men because they will be paying less. There is a totality in these arrangements that we hope and believe will be for the future good and benefit of all those involved. I fully understand and accept the position of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I hope he understands that I also have a position which represents the other side. It has to be seen as the mirror image.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to the Government having consulted local authorities and a number of other bodies. Can he tell us to what extent consultations were taking place with representatives of retailers? I do not refer to individual retailers, though I could name one or two. However, reference has been made to Mr. Banham, speaking on behalf of the CBI. That represents many businesses. I refer also to advice to me from the Retail Cosortium, which represents many businesses including the large high street retailer; from the Chamber of Trade including the smaller retailers; and from the Co-operative sector. I do not press the point aggressively. However, if those people who will have to pay have made their views as clear to him as they have to me why are they so angry and concerned at the impact of the legislation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I speak as a farmer. Farmers always tend to complain when they feel that they are at the wrong end. The Government have consulted the Group of Ten, the Retail Consortium and the Chambers of Commerce. We discussed the figures with the forum. We understand the position that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has explained. However, as a responsible Government we have to accept the totality of the situation. We cannot look at the uniform business rate with only the retailer in mind. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prisons: Visitors' Centres
8.12 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their criteria for financial support to visitors' centres in prisons.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Unstarred Question is raised now as a matter of urgency with regard to some services that are provided on a voluntary basis in this country. Members of your Lordships' House will know that on 7th November the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester asked a Question about the visitors' centre at Strangeways prison in Manchester and referred to the fears for its future through lack of funding. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, replied to the Question. I ask this Unstarred Question to correct some matters stated by the noble Earl.
I was a little surprised at the lack of sympathy by the Minister on that day with regard to the plea made. Some of the noble Earl's briefing was not as factual and accurate as it might have been. In reply to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester the noble Earl stated:
"I am bound to tell the right reverend Prelate—I am not inviting them; I am simply telling him —that we have not yet received any requests for funding". —[Official Report, 7/11/89; col. 537.]
Funds were available, but he implied in that answer that Selcare had not applied. Whoever supplied him with the brief, that information was quite wrong. The department had continually been made aware of the needs of Selcare last year and for many years to come. In addition, letters of request had been sent. It is obvious that the Minister was not advised of the up-to-date position.
I raised a question about Selcare's future. I received this answer from the Minister:
"I realise that the Selcare Trust takes an interest in the visitors' centre, as do the Save the Children Fund and the local Probation Service. One of the difficulties is that the cost of running Strangeways visitors' centre is a good deal higher than for most visitors' centres".—[Official Report, 7/11/89; col. 538.]
That is another erroneous answer because it was not comparing like with like. The Selcare Trust takes the overall responsibility and legal liability for the Selcare Centre. Other agencies share a great commitment, but not the legal liability. The Save the Children Fund has been tremendous but because of other commitments it will not be able to help to fund any part of the work after August 1990. That source will dry up.
On the cost of running the centre, we are advised by all professional advisers and the many agencies, statutory and voluntary, that have visited the centre that Manchester prison visitors' centre has the basic standard that all centres need. We should not be encouraged by anyone, least of all government, to lower our standards below the basic level. Nor should we expect the voluntary sector to pay more than its fair share of the costs for some service that is part of a statutory service. The voluntary sector is willing and able to organise and manage the centre at cost price, but a substantial amount of the cost must surely come from statutory or government funding.
During that exchange, the Minister spent a considerable time referring to the future prison programme. He referred to £230 million for new prisons. The voluntary sector, and in particular Selcare, is saying that the £16,000 allocated to Selcare last year —the total available nationally was, I believe, £60,000 —is totally inadequate. What surprised me and other Members in your Lordships' House was that the whole accent was placed on the new prison programme and new visitors' centres. The debate tonight is to discuss existing visitors' centres which are doing their best to survive.
Only today I received on my desk some correspondence from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, relating to a Written Question by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. The Answer is not yet printed in Hansard, but the noble Earl graciously sent me a copy of the reply. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government what is their policy

89
on the provision of prison visitors' centres. I shall not refer to the first paragraph. However, the second paragraph states:
"We already make a regular contribution towards the running costs of five visitors' centres, and emergency grants have also been made to a further four centres in this financial year. From April next year additional funds will be available to offer similar support to new centres".
That reply does not refer to the existing centres being able to look forward to more funding. I believe I am right in saying that the visitors' centre at Strangeways, Manchester, received some £16,000 last year. I hope for an increase in the amount.
It will take only a few minutes to indicate to your Lordships' House what takes place at the centre. Manchester prison visitors' centre was opened in December 1986 by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and was visited in 1988 by Princess Anne. Its aim is to alleviate stress imposed on the friends and families of remand prisoners visiting Strangeways prison. Prior to December 1986, a visit to Strangeways meant a long wait in a queue on the pavement outside the prison. More often than not, this would be in cold and wet conditions. A not unfamiliar sight was groups of young children, some being fed by their mothers, some being changed, some sheltering under their parents' coats from the snow, hail, sleet, rain and so on.
It was clear that this treatment of visitors added to any sense of alienation from society and authority already felt by them. It encouraged illness and increased the stress being experienced often by women and children dependent on their menfolk who were then unable to support them in any way. As we know, this amounts to a sentence on dependants at a time when the prisoner probably as yet had not been found guilty of any crime, and may well be found innocent.
Since it was established, the centre in Manchester has become the official entry point to visitors going into the prison. Each year some 125,000 visitors go through the centre. The majority come from Greater Manchester, but 5 per cent. come from all parts of the country.
Manchester prison houses some 500 remand prisoners of whom over 25 per cent. are usually held for periods exceeding three months. All remand prisoners can receive a visit from relatives and/or friends on the six visiting days each week. Managing the centre is a group of voluntary and statutory bodies led by Selcare Trust. Staffing of the centre over the 6-day week opening is done by five full-time persons and a great number of volunteers.
The centre also provides crèche and changing facilities; an advice service (CAB); a health advice service provided by the local health authority; and a snack and coffee bar. In addition, visitors can be quite distressed after such visits and brief counselling help is available.
The projected cost of running this project in 1990–91 will be £79,846 excluding all management time and monies. We may raise between £6,000 and £7,000 locally and this year we received £15,000 towards our costs from the Home Office prison department. Therefore, we could expect, say £22,000 in total being possible towards next year's costs.
90
This of course leaves a £57,000 shortfall. Unless we receive £57,000 more from somewhere our prison visitors centre operation will have to be severely curtailed or closed. Nationally moneys available for the maintenance and setting up of prison visitors' centres throughout the country in 1989–90 amounted to just £60,000.
Are the Government now saying that their major concern is to spend more than £200 million on building new prisons with visitors' centres while turning their back on the centres at Strangeways prison and others? Those centres are carrying a heavy load performing that function and the Government should shoulder more. I believe that at least a case can be made of knock for knock or pound for pound.
I should like the Minister to take back the Question for a serious review. Unless the Government are prepared to do so and give more financial assistance there is no doubt that there will be a winding down of facilities at such prison visitors' centres. That can certainly be said of Strangeways and also of the other centres which I have not mentioned but which were included in the figures that I have quoted.
If the facilities are wound down or disappear they will not return. Do we have a government today who wish to see children standing out in the rain, wind, ice and snow with their mothers? Do they wish to see babies being fed and changed in such conditions? Do the Government wish to return to that? I do not believe so but I must warn them that if they do not alter their outlook and find more money on an increasing scale that will happen. The centres are carrying out the work outlined in the advisory notes recently issued by the Home Office and placed in your Lordships' Library.
This evening Selcare is holding a Christmas carol service in Manchester Cathedral. Its main purpose is to appeal for funds to enable it to carry on its excellent work. Christmas is a happy time when society is known to stretch out its hand in friendship and help those more unfortunate and under-privileged people in society who cannot help themselves. I hope that the carol service and its aim will be received with sympathy by the Government not only in respect of Strangeways but also other visitors' centres. The appeal is made on the red cloak and white beard of Father Christmas. I hope that the Government will find the sorely needed funds which Strangeways and other such establishments require immediately as a matter of urgency.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the attendance in the House tonight relieves noble Lords of the need for eloquence. I shall be concerned only with the facts. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, introduced the subject so well, movingly and correctly. He spoke about running costs but I wish to speak also about capital costs. They must be considered as one item.
I do not have a great deal to add to the noble Lords's clear exposition of the necessity for visitors' centres and how many are seriously lacking in resources. He asked what were the Government's criteria for financial support for such necessities? I

91
looked up "criterion" in the Oxford Dictionary to be sure that we were talking about the same thing. The definition is: a canon or standard by which anything is judged or estimated. Therefore, the question amounts to this: how do the Government judge the adequacy of their present financial expenditure on visitors' centres in prisons? Surely, the answer must be, "Very inadequate".
In spending money on prisons it must always be a motive to maintain and strengthen family ties if possible. I suppose that the Government will say that they have made a start and agree that more money should be spent. It is all a question of priorities. Therefore, I assume that we are together as regards the basic moral principle; that is, the Minister, the Home Secretary and all ranks in the Home Office. It cannot be otherwise. I find it impossible to believe that anyone who has seen a wife and two or three children arriving at a distant prison can quarrel with the noble Lord's demand that every prison should have a visitors' centre. Sometimes there are no family ties to speak of. But that is a separate question. However, there are often close family ties and the experience of prison does much to weaken them. The Government claim to set great store by the family as a factor in modern society and I entirely agree with them. I give them full credit for not wanting to punish the innocent wife and children for the offender's crime, but that is what is now happening.
The question is: how can we help the Minister to persuade his colleagues—and above all, as usual, the Treasury —that a great deal more must be done and that such facilities should be given high priority? Does the Minister know of the position prison by prison? I doubt that he does. The first thing to do is to find out. I suggest that every governor be instructed to report on the condition of his prison's visiting arrangements and ask to get an estimate for bringing them up to the standard of some of the best. For example, I did not realise, as the noble Lord said, that the Strangeways centre is in danger of ceasing to function. I suppose the chief inspector's reports go some way in effecting improvements —certainly that apples to the last two prisons I have looked at, Durham and Wandsworth —but without financial estimates. As regards Wandsworth the chief inspector said that the prison badly needs a visitors' centre.
If I put down a Written Question on these lines will the noble Viscount find it helpful to him to move towards changing priorities a little? Someone has to help somebody if we are to have these changes made. It would be with the idea of being helpful if I asked a Question. I do not believe that the final figure for putting the matter right would be very great, certainly not in terms of the cost of new prison building, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has so eloquently explained. Given some determination, I believe that two or three years could bring 0about this fundamental improvement.
Of one point I am pretty sure: the £100,000 proposed as a start implies no solution before the millenium. The problem is so much less expensive in essence than sanitation that we must ask not to
92
have to wait, like sanitation, until the millenium for visitors' centres.
I have one more point to make. My view is that if a man is forcibly deprived of his liberty it is the duty of the power which deprives him of it —in this case the Government —to make sure that his family ties are spoiled as little as possible. So I believe that the Government have a moral duty to deal with this question themselves as a priority. However, public compassion, as the noble Lord has told us, has already made a good start in helping along such facilities as family centres, crèches, changing rooms and snack bars in various prisons.
Therefore, I think it should be a strict government duty to see to these matters. Yet I know that this Government would always prefer anything in the world rather than government help and presumably would welcome charitable intervention. I suggest the following programme, but under protest because I do not believe that it is a job for charity but for the people who shut up the men. First, we should know the facts so that we can see how much money is involved. Secondly, there should be a promise by the Government to put up half the cost, prison by prison, of putting matters right and maintaining the new provisions. Thirdly, there should be an appeal to the public for the other half of the money, strengthened by a pound-for-pound promise to double anything raised.
That is an absolutely specific proposal which it would be quite easy to carry out. There may be difficulties in raising the money, but I do not believe that there will be. This proposal is serious enough for it to be taken seriously. I am sure that all the visitors would be keen to help with local support. If a workable programme of this kind were available, a number of the larger charitable trusts would, I am sure, lend a hand. It has to be a programme, and that is the trouble. With the Home Office's valiant efforts for so long to put matters right, it has never given the public a programme. Exactly the same situation applies to sanitation and that is a much more difficult problem. This problem is not difficult and neither is it fearfully expensive.
We all agree that something needs to be done, but it will not be done without a vigorous government initiative. I beg the noble Viscount to persuade his friends that this programme is worth while and feasible and deserves the necessary priority.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for bringing this very important question before us. It is a very great pity that there are not more noble Lords here either to listen or to take part in a debate on a subject which is fundamental in terms of humanity and in practical good sense.
My noble friend described the situation concerning Strangeways visitors' centre. He explained clearly the dangerous position in which this extremely good centre finds itself. I have visited it myself and I very much admired the work that it has been doing. My noble friend explained the problems facing it. He has also put some penetrating

93
questions to the Minister and I look forward very much to hearing his answers. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has also put some very hard facts before us about the finances of these all-important services. He has described how vital is their existence. He has been good enough to suggest a programme that I hope the noble Viscount who is to reply will find attractive.
Perhaps I may very briefly touch on three different aspects of the Question before us. I wish to say a further word about the vital need for visitors' centres from a humane point of view for the families. I sometimes feel that the general public has no idea of the difficulties that face mothers —they are practically always young mothers because so often the prisoners are young —who come with their young children on very long journeys. They often find it very difficult to co-ordinate their arrival with the time of the visit. These young mothers with their extremely small children have to wait outside the prison. Many of us who have seen that sight find it very hard to forget.
Those of us who have seen these lines of young mothers realise what they need. They need a cup of tea and to change the baby's nappy; they need some kind of support before they face what for them is a stressful moment —a visit to their husband or their partner. The centre at Strangeways takes these factors into account. There is someone there to talk to the mother before the visit, or afterwards if it has been a difficult one and things have gone wrong. Even if the visit has been very successful the mother needs to talk about it before she returns to the solitary life at home, trying to bring up the children and to cope with all the problems alone.
I remember visiting Grendon once and I asked a group of young prisoners about their backgrounds. I believe about three-quarters of them had had their fathers in prison. What a terrible inheritance that is.
Visiting time is an opportunity for them to be given some help. For example, they can be given toys to play with. There are also childcare workers who can help them with the great problems at home. They have a feeling of guilt that a parent has disappeared and obviously they are very much affected by the economies that have been imposed on the home while the father is away. They miss a parent and feel stigmatised at school and in the community if it is known that the father is away. The children need every kind of support, and the visitors' centres are places where they can be given that support so that they do not follow in the tragic paths of the fathers.
I wondered why the Save the Children Fund had taken such an interest in visitors' centres. I discovered that the interest began in Northern Ireland where I am happy to say that every prison has a visitors' centre. The Maze Prison applied many years ago for one officer from Save the Children Fund to help with its visitors' centre. Later the Save the Children Fund opened a model centre at the Crumlin Road Prison in Belfast, which is the best equipped centre.
To give noble Lords some idea of the staff involved, there is one manager-co-ordinator, four
94
childcare workers, a full-time canteen organiser, a part-time canteen worker and an advice and information worker. That is a model visitors' centre, which is in Northern Ireland where there is enormous voluntary support for work that goes on in the community, and it has achieved very great success. That is how the Save the Children Fund became involved in an area which one may not have thought it would go towards.
My second point is the importance of centres for the rehabilitation of prisoners. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has touched on that enormously important aspect. The volunteers from New Bridge, with which I am associated, realise how vital is contact with the family. It is extremely important for the final, successful rehabilitation of prisoners. They know that without the support of families in visiting, successful rehabilitation is often jeopardised. We talk gloomily about the high rate of reconvictions, but I believe that we are fortunate that it is not even higher when one considers how little is put into the rehabilitation and after-care of prisoners. However, New Bridge realises that contact with the family is a major factor in resettlement, which will happen only if the marriage has stayed firm, and that is where a visitors' centre is of such importance.
I should like to say how best in my view a visitors' centre should be structured, because we all agree there should be one for every prison in this country. It would seem very primitive of us if we were not looking towards that. First —and this is the major subject of this debate —are the resources. Here we wonder whether the prison department has its priorities right. For 1990–91 the prison department is allocating from its expenditure only £103,000 for the whole of the country. That is the amount of money which will go into visitors' centres. What an amazing idea of priorities that is; 103,000 is in no way high enough.
One wonders how best to build such a service; how best to structure it. One can perhaps look at how victim support groups have grown out of local voluntary groups. The Government have supported them, quite rightly, with central funding. I am happy to say that victims are now thought of with much greater consideration and with much more constructive thinking. I take that as an example of how we can help prisoners' families in building up these visitors' centres. There is no doubt that the families look at voluntary agencies as something they can understand, whereas the criminal justice system is something they do not understand —the prison is something concerning their husband or partner. I am sure it would be right for the voluntary agencies to have a partnership and work out a way of dealing with different prisons because the needs might be quite different.
The Save the Children Fund is worried about the plans being made by the Government for building visitors' centres in all new prisons. It is right that they should be built, but there is concern about their design. They are to be called reception centres, which has a rather institutional tone about it. There will be benches which will be nailed to the ground for the visitors to sit down on. It does not sound as

95
though they are of absolutely the right design; but this again is something which could be discussed with an organisation like the Save the Children Fund, which has had so much experience in running these centres.
I hope that the Government will accept that these centres should be seen as part of the rehabilitation process. For example, the Home Office give grants to after-care hostels, accepting that these are part of the rehabilitation process. Why should they not see visitors' centres in the same light, as being of assistance to prisoners in not returning to crime after release? They could fund them out of resources allocated for rehabilitation, but obviously the amount needs to be very much greater. It is extraordinary that we are putting all our concentration and the vast majority of our resources into custody. But look at the result! It is not working. Why do we not try to redistribute those resources and put more into the process of rehabilitation? A very important part of that is visitors' centres.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for raising this important subject today. We have heard a great deal tonight about the value of visitors' reception centres. The Government share those views. None of us can possibly take any comfort from seeing the conditions in which the relatives and friends of prisoners must wait for visits at those prisons which do not yet have a visitors' centre. I am glad to say however that around 20 establishments do now have visitors' centres. The range of facilities that they are able to provide varies greatly; but all at least offer shelter and refreshment; the opportunity to rest after the journey, and prepare for the visit in a friendly and supportive atmosphere.
This can only be beneficial to all concerned. It is good for the inmates, because the visit is more likely to go well if his wife or partner has been able to relax beforehand and perhaps talk things through with a sympathetic volunteer. We know that a good visit can make a real difference to an inmate's morale, whether by easing frustration which might otherwise have boiled over, or by lifting a cloud of depression which could have led to suicidal behaviour. The benefits of this will be felt by the establishment itself. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has rightly drawn our attention to this.
Above all, visitors' centres are for families. I believe that for far too long the hardships and anxieties faced by wives and children of prisoners, and sometimes by other relatives and friends, have received too little attention. They have been aptly described as forgotten victims. In some ways their position is like that of the victim of the crime because they must carry on living with the emotional and material consequences of somebody else's actions. Many wives of inmates speak of serving their own sentence.
The House will know that the Government have sought in recent years to recognise afresh the needs of victims of crime. We must also look seriously at
96
what more can and should be done to support the relatives of prisoners. The improvements of the conditions in which relatives prepare for visits, and in which visits actually take place, is only one aspect of this but it is the area in which the Prison Service is best placed to help.
I want to look first at capital spending on visitors' centres and other facilities for those visiting prisons. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that prisons are being asked to give full details of facilities currently provided in visitors' centres and plans to develop new centres. Our policy is that all new establishments for the prison building programme should have a purpose-built visitors' centre. At present 14 prisons are being built or will start construction shortly, and we plan to provide visitors' centres at all of these. This is no small commitment. Purpose-built visitors' centres at new establishments can cost between £400,000 and £500,000 each. We estimate that the total cost of providing visitors' centres at the new establishments now being built is likely to be between £4 million and £5 million. This is impressive evidence of our commitment to help those who are visiting prisoners. We hope to offer wherever possible a full range of facilities. A standard design has been developed which provides for a refreshment area, baby-changing facilities, toilets, lockers, an interview room, an advice centre and a payphone. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that all of those facilities are required.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of the sum of £4 million. Is that sum for equipping the 125 prisons which exist, quite apart from the 14 new prisons? That is the point that we are mainly concerned about.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figure that I quoted of between £4 million and £5 million is for the provision of new visitors' centres at the new prisons.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, does that mean that there is no immediate plan to do anything about the 80 or 90 prisons? That is the point that I am chasing.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have not yet come to that point.
At existing establishments the Government are making a considerable investment in improving conditions generally. Major capital expenditure on existing establishments has increased sharply in recent years, from approximately £30 million in 1987/88 to £55 million in 1988/89 to over £70 million in the current financial year. Next year we aim to spend £120 million on major capital work at existing prisons and a further £20 million on major maintenance. Over the next three years a total of £400 million will be spent on refurbishing existing prisons.
We are focusing mainly on the upgrading of visiting rooms within prisons. In the past two years, new facilities for visits have opened, for example, at Parkhurst, Cardiff, Bristol and Gloucester. New

97
facilities are now being completed at Stafford. In the past year work has begun on new facilities at Leicester and Lincoln. In the next few months work is due to start on a much-needed new visitor complex at Bedford, and in the next two years, we hope that a start will be made on new facilities at Nottingham and Long Lartin. In addition, there are a large number of smaller schemes to improve conditions for visitors. These will include in the next few years improvements at Manchester, Wandsworth, Shrewsbury and Full Sutton.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The main thrust of my debate concerned Manchester; but the Question I asked was directed solely to the survival of Strangeways with which I am concerned; the carrying out, almost, of a statutory duty on a voluntary basis. I note what the Minister stated about heavy spending but I and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, are asking whether the Government should be looking at greater funding for the voluntary bodies that are at present in existence. They are doing a job on behalf of the community which is threatened by lack of finance.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am trying to answer the Question on the Order Paper and explain the funding of visitors' centres whether at Manchester of elsewhere. I hope to develop my argument a little further and then discuss Manchester.
We recognise that despite all this work, there will still be room for improvement. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, there are very many demands on the extra resources which have been provided to improve conditions in existing prisons. I need only mention integral sanitation to make the point.
It is against this background that we consider capital for visitor's centres at existing establishments. Visitors' centres will be provided in the redevelopments which are underway at Risley and Leeds. A visitors' centre was completed last year at Stafford and we are at present considering what assistance can be given to projects at Liverpool and Hindley. But there are many other competing demands and we believe that it is right at present to give a higher priority to improving conditions for inmates generally, including arrangements for visits within establishments, than to providing purpose-built premises for visitors' centres.
It is nevertheless possible that establishments will be able to obtain some limited funds from regional budgets so that, for example, portakabin accommodation can be provided. That is not an ideal situation; but it would give establishments a breathing space in which to explore whether more suitable accommodation might be found in the long term. We hope that local firms or trusts might be able to help in some cases.
While I am unable to promise a major programme of building new visitors' centres, I can point to a major increase in the level of our assistance with their running costs. The Home Office contribution in the past has been limited to grants totalling £12,000 which have been split between five centres with
98
probation service involvement. This year however the prison department has for the first time taken on some financial responsibility for the running costs of visitors' centres. It proved possible to agree one-off emergency grants to four centres which were experiencing difficulties, including that at Manchester. Those grants totalled £37,000.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers announced last week that from next year further substantial sums will be available. In 1990–91, the prison department will be able to make grants totalling around £103,000, which is the figure that the noble Baroness mentioned. That figure will be increased by £75,000 in real terms in each of the following two years.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers told the House on 7th November that the total sum earmarked over the next three years was £464,000. That figure should have been £564,000.
My noble friend also announced that a set of guidelines were being issued by the department to prison governors. They will also be circulated to other organisations working to promote visitors' centres. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The guidelines have been drawn up in consultation with bodies such as the Save the Children Fund and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO). They contain what might be called a statement of good practice. The aim is both to stimulate interest in the possibility of setting up new centres at prisons which need them and to give practical advice, though without laying down a rigid pattern of operation. In particular, we have stressed the importance of the centre being located outside the main gate so that it is not felt by visitors to be simply an extension of the prison's own arrangements for supervising visits. At the same time it is essential that the centre is linked by 'phone with the visits area in the prison so that visitors can be allowed into their visits in the order in which they arrive. Otherwise they will effectively have lost their place in the queue. The guidelines go on to give practical suggestions on facilities which centres can offer, drawing on the experience of some of the excellent initiatives already underway.
I wish to turn now to questions of management and funding. Visitors' centres are normally managed on a day-to-day basis by a co-ordinator, who in some cases may need to be a paid employee. Many centres make splendid use of volunteers to help supervise children's play areas, serve refreshments and generally to be on hand when visitors need to talk. The volunteers come from a variety of sources. Some are probation volunteers. Others belong to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. Churches and student groups are frequently involved. The evidence is that there is a great deal of enthusiasm within the local community which can be tapped. My Lords, the Government very much welcome this broad base of support. We believe that the development of visitors' centres can and should be seen in terms of a partnership, involving not just the Prison Service but also a range of other statutory and non-statutory bodies which take an interest in the welfare of prisoners' families. This idea of partnership is central to our approach to the

99
allocation of grants because it is important that the resources of the Prison Service, which are inevitably limited, are spread as widely as possible. Our aim must be to see an essential level of service being provided for as many visitors as possible.
In drawing up our criteria we have worked on the basis that centres need above all to have an assured income to meet essential expenditure such as heating and lighting and where this is necessary to pay a co-ordinator. We are therefore prepared to make grants up to a maximum of £15,000. Many centres are able to operate successfully on this basis.
A number of requests for funding, all within the limit of £15,000, have already been received and are being carefully examined. Our priorities will be to help put new and recently established centres on a solid footing. Our support will be channelled primarily towards those centres which can demonstrate substantial community involvement. We believe public money is most effectively used where it unlocks other sources of support. By means of partnership with other interests we hope that at least five new centres can be established each year over the next three years. The increases in our budget over that period will allow us to maintain our funding of centres set up in earlier years where necessary, while also leaving additional money available for new projects. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is an ambitious and far-reaching programme.
I should also like to respond to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, about the Manchester visitors' centre, which I recognise provides an outstanding welfare service. As I have said, the bulk of the money will be directed to new initiatives. But we do not intend to neglect the needs of existing centres which run into financial difficulties. A sum of £16,000 has been specifically set aside in each year to help centres which might otherwise be threatened with closure. It is also possible that some of the money earmarked for new centres will be left over for allocation elsewhere.
I am aware of the position at Manchester and I know that considerable efforts are being made by the Selcare Trust to find new sources of funding. I very much hope that sponsorship can be found from within the local private and voluntary sectors, or indeed from other statutory agencies which have a particular interest in the specialised type of care which the centre provides. I know that officials from the Prison Department will be meeting with the secretary of the trust to review the options available, such as the scope for making greater use of volunteers. The department will also consider very carefully whether it is possible to give some direct assistance. But I have to say to the noble Lord that any help which we are able to give —and I cannot promise anything at this stage —is bound to be limited. We must consider the needs of other centres as well and it is too early to judge what the overall demand on our budget is likely to be.
In a supplementary question to a Question asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on 7th November, the noble Lord asked about the provision of funds. At that stage, we had received only a general request for support for
100
Selcare but no firm or precise bid. That is what my noble friend Lord Ferrers had as his brief. We have still not been sent a budget for 1991 and have no precise idea what other funds may be available or what sum is needed from us, although I agree that the noble Lord has given us some figures tonight which we shall study. Until this is available it is difficult for us to weigh Manchester's needs against those of other centres.
I should like to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who suggested that family ties are important to inmates of prisons. A number of measures to improve inmates' contacts with their families were announced on 17th March of this year in a Written Answer in another place. These are set out at col. 363 of the Official Report. They included, for example, the installation of payphones and increased opportunities for home leave as well as increased support for visitors' centres.
This has been a most encouraging debate. The Government recognise that at many prisons much remains to be done to improve facilities for visitors. But we have heard good news about what is already going on in many corners of the prison estate. Our clear aim is to see visitors' centres securely established at all establishments which need them. We are committed actively to assisting that process. At the same time we shall be looking to others with an interest in the general welfare of prisoners' families to make their contribution too. I believe that through partnership we can look forward to significant developments in the years ahead.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may say that we have had a most encouraging reply for which I am very grateful. I am not clear about one point. He told us, if I remember correctly, that 20 prisons have visitors' centres. He also told us that there are plans to add five a year for three years. If my figures are right, it means that 90 out of the 125 prisons will still have nothing after three years. Is that too gloomy a view?
Viscount Ullswater. My Lords, the programme being undertaken at the moment for the provision of five new centres a year for three years is a start. It is the start of a new programme which has not been undertaken before. In that case I think it should be welcomed.
Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Nottinghamshire Park Estate Bill [H.L.]
Presented, read a first time, passed through all their remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.

Isle of Wight Bill
Read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
Read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and returned to the Commons with amendments.
New Southgate Cemetry and Crematorium Limited Bill
Read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill
Read a first time, read a second time and reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes past nine o'clock.

  POLICE STATIONS: DUTY SOLICITORS
  POLICE STATIONS: DUTY SOLICITORS
  MAGISTRATES: SENTENCING GUIDANCE
  MAGISTRATES: SENTENCING GUIDANCE
  BREATH TESTING
  BREATH TESTING
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT SCHEMES
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT SCHEMES
  PILKINGTON INSULATION LTD.
  PILKINGTON INSULATION LTD.
  ECGD: FUTURE
  ECGD: FUTURE
  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING REVIEW
  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING REVIEW
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: IT SYSTEMS
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: IT SYSTEMS
  JUBILEE HALL, WEYMOUTH
  JUBILEE HALL, WEYMOUTH
  DRINKING WATER QUALITY: IMPROVEMENT COSTS
  DRINKING WATER QUALITY: IMPROVEMENT COSTS
  PETO INSTITUTE: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  PETO INSTITUTE: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  RAILWAY VANDALISM
  RAILWAY VANDALISM
  TRAIN DRIVERS AND GUARDS: COMMUNICATION LINKS
  TRAIN DRIVERS AND GUARDS: COMMUNICATION LINKS
  LONDON EAST-WEST CROSSRAIL PROPOSAL
  LONDON EAST-WEST CROSSRAIL PROPOSAL
  ROADS EXPENDITURE
  ROADS EXPENDITURE