Sitting of 8 February 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Palestine Liberation Organisation
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to the Palestine Liberation Organisation asking it to amend those sections of the Palestine covenant which call for Israel's destruction.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif, a senior adviser to Mr. Yasser Arafat, has said in terms that
    "the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organisation …has been superseded by the decisions of the PNC, the author of the Charter".
    We take every opportunity to welcome that sort of moderate statement and to urge the PLO to continue to fulfil the commitments made by Yasser Arafat at Geneva.
    Mr. Archer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the covenant is, by its terms, binding on all PLO spokesmen unless and until it is amended by a two thirds majority of the congress? While I hold no specific brief for the Israeli Government, will they not have a genuine problem in persuading the Israeli people that they should negotiate with people who still have it on record that they will settle for nothing less than the total destruction of Israel?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point—that the covenant has not been formerly repealed or amended, but it was described by Bassam Abu Sharif as having been "superseded" and Yasser Arafat undoubtedly takes the same view. It is important to concentrate attention on present reality. The Palestinians have moved, and the best way of testing their intentions is to negotiate. Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that the Palestinians need to convince the Israelis of their sincerity, and in that sense formal amendment of the covenant would be an additional help. However, I urge the Israelis to concentrate on the actual reality that has emerged.
    Mr. Page: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that four other hon. Members and myself returned from the west bank and the Gaza strip on Monday? During our visit, we did not find one Palestinian who denied Israel's right to live within secure borders. Will my right hon. and
    964
    learned Friend make every effort to persuade Israel to come to the conference table for an international peace conference to bring peace to the region?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of all the messages that my hon. Friend could have brought back from his visit, that which he has chosen to emphasise is certainly the most important. We all wish to see Israel achieve security behind recognised and secure boundaries—just as we want to see the right of the Palestinians to self-determination being upheld. The way to achieve that is to emphasise precisely the point made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Foreign Secretary may be aware that I was a member of the delegation to which the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) referred. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that our viewpoint is similar to that presented by the Americans in a statement this morning which most people will welcome? Will the Foreign Secretary make the point both to the Israelis and to the Americans that the Palestinians have moved, and that now is the time for the Israeli Government to go to the negotiating table so that we may begin to see the process of peace breaking out in that troubled region?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman emphasises the central point. The document published by the United States State Department to which he refers is not yet formally available, but the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that friends of Israel on both sides of the Atlantic, and in all parts of the House, for the sake of the objectives that we all have in mind for Israel, are urging the same message on the Israeli Government. That is the important point.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that so long as article 19 of the PNC exists, describing the establishment of the state of Israel as illegal, no Israeli Government will want to negotiate with the PLO? Does he also accept that so long as the PLO threatens the Arab mayor of Bethlehem with assassination and supports terrorism in the state of Israel there is little likelihood of negotiation ever starting?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would rather add this to the poi nts that my hon. Friend has made. So long as friends of Israel
    of his wisdom continue to urge their views with so little perception of changing conditions, Israel will remain in danger. I do not doubt the sincerity of my hon. Friend's commitment to Israel's peace and security. I note, however, that although the exact words used about the threat against the mayor of Bethlehem are unclear, both Arafat and Mayor Freij himself have denied that there was any thought of intimidation. If that is the reality, that is the important point to get across.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when I saw Mr. Arafat last month he specifically said that he had been quoted inaccurately with regard to Mr. Freij, and that he regarded the mayor as a personal friend? Mr. Arafat also said that he was ready to discuss the Palestine charter with the Israelis around the international conference table, which is the proper place for such discussions.
    Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that instead of making excuses not to talk to the Palestinians

    965
    the Israelis ought to be concerned about the international condemnation of the violation of human rights to which the United States State Department document has drawn attention and which is a stain on the reputation of a nation which has prided itself on being a liberal democracy? Is it not about time that instead of killing and arresting Palestinians, the Israelis tried to protect and maintain their security by talking to the Palestinians and making peace with them?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The tone and style of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, added to other comments made in the House today, underline the extent to which Israel is losing both good will and time. They also underline the extent to which all the friends of Israel would like her to face the facts as described on both sides of the House and to be ready to meet the Palestinians half way.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: What opportunities does my right hon. and learned Friend foresee for further direct dialogue with Mr. Yasser Arafat? Does he regard the opportunity to invite Mr. Arafat to attend the centenary conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, following the precedent of the Rome IPU conference in 1982, as a useful exercise for this country to follow?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The value of further meetings with Mr. Arafat must, I think, be judged on the basis that there is no point in promoting a cycle of meetings for their own sake although we are certainly ready to promote them when they serve a useful purpose.

    Nelson Mandela
    Mr. Caborn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further representations to the South African authorities over the continuing imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and his colleagues sentenced at the Rivonia trial.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): We continue to urge the South African Government to release, immediately and unconditionally, Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners.
    Mr. Caborn: Will the Minister consider making further representations, particularly in the light of discussions that I have had today with Nelson Mandela's lawyers? I gathered from those discussions that the lawyers' access to Mr. Mandela had been further reduced and that he now has even less contact with anyone outside his family than before his move to the outskirts of the prison.
    I believe that that move by the South African authorities, particularly after the British Government's welcoming of it, is now being interpreted as no more than a sop to the international opinion that had been building up in favour of Mandela's immediate release, and that the British Government should make further representations to the effect that the international community is not prepared to be conned in the way that the South African authorities believe that it is.
    Mrs. Chalker: I repeat that we have always called for the full and unconditional release of Nelson Mandela, not to the place where he is currently held. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about his telephone conversation this morning and later this afternoon I will take up the matters
    966
    that he has raised. A great deal would be achieved by the unconditional release of all political detainees. A start would be made towards negotiation and dialogue and the renunciation of violence by all who have perpetrated it both within South Africa and across its borders. Until Nelson Mandela is released unconditionally, together with other prisoners, I do not believe that we shall see the signal for which the whole world is waiting.
    Mr. Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that a great many Conservative Members also hope that Nelson Mandela will be released, if only to break the log jam blocking constructive dialogue with moderate leaders such as Chief Buthelezi? Will she also note that the process would be greatly encouraged if Nelson Mandela's release could be linked with some relaxation of international sanctions?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have always felt that to create a climate in which a dialogue could succeed there would have to be a suspension of violence on all sides and that it would have to be in the context of the unconditional release of all political detainees. There is still a long way to go. I do not believe that we should alter our position unilaterally until we see real progress in South Africa, for which we long and for which we continue to work.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should the South African authorities take any notice of British urging which is merely an empty gesture? Is not the simple truth that the South African Government and the South African authorities persist in waving two fingers at the rest of the world because they do not want to respond in any way? Why will the Government not now act and actually do something?
    Mrs. Chalker: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is adopting a very simple approach to a very complex problem. There is absolutely no doubt that the British Government's recommendations are listened to. I believe firmly that we played a major part in securing the abandonment of plans for new foreign funding legislation and that that has had a quite profound effect, but we await the full results.
    Mr. Cran: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government are actively promoting development among the black community in South Africa, as evidenced by the fact that Her Majesty's Government are committing £25 million to development, including the provision of 650 scholarships? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that Her Majesty's Government are co-operating with other EEC countries on further initiatives? Would she care to speculate as to why the Opposition continually prefer to ignore those facts?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the size of the current scholarship programme. The number of scholarships for black South Africans is to rise by the end of 1991 to about 1,000. We want to give positive assistance. I further note that the help being given to black South Africans is greatly welcomed in South Africa and by many other people. I hope that the new realism that we are beginning to see in southern Africa about the positive measures being taken to help black South Africans will soon be appreciated by Opposition Members.

    Turkey
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet a representative of the Turkish Government to discuss human rights issues.
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend and I both discussed Turkey's human rights record with the new Turkish ambassador last week. We have no immediate plans to meet any other representative of the Turkish Government.
    Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and would be interested to learn the response to her representations. Is it not the case that, although Turkey has now signed both United Nations and European conventions against torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment, there are disturbing reports coming out of Turkey about people being arrested, held incomunicado in detention and tortured? Will not our efforts to bring pressure to bear on the eastern bloc countries on human rights issues be compromised so long as an accusing finger can be pointed at one of our NATO allies?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman very well. There is no doubt that the accusations made in recent reports about the violation of human rights are both serious and disturbing. We have urged the Turkish Government to investigate the alleged abuses. Although there has been some improvement in recent years, the Turkish Government will have to make further efforts to eradicate torture and to adhere to the conventions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We shall continue to press them to do so. The Turkish Government may have taken some steps, but there is still a long way to go.
    Mr. Moss: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Turkey can never be accepted as a member of the European Community until the transition to democracy is complete and its record on human rights is as good as those in the rest of western Europe?
    Mrs. Chalker: As my hon. Friend knows, the Turkish application was referred to the Commission for an opinion in April 1987. We await that opinion and when it comes the Council of Ministers shall take into account all the relevant factors, including Turkey's human rights record. We hope that in the intervening period that record will continue to improve.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: Can the Minister tell us whether Turkey's terrible human rights record makes any difference to that country's standing in NATO or to the British Government's position in relation to Cyprus?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about Cyprus. He will know, of course, that what the Turks want in Cyprus is what others want—a reunified state with a federal structure. It does not matter whether the conditions that we are talking about exist in Cyprus, in Turkey or anywhere else—there should be respect for human rights.
    Mr. Conway: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Turkey has made substantial progress towards solidifying her fledgling democracy and that it ill becomes hon. Members to forget that Turkey is a valuable member of
    968
    NATO? We should support Turkey in making progress towards a more solid democracy and, one hopes, towards membership of the EEC.
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Turkey is a close and most important NATO ally. He is also right when he says that democracy is taking firm root in Turkey. Elections held there about 14 months ago were regarded as free and fair by European Parliament observers. That is a good start, but there is no doubt that there is still great concern about human rights in Turkey. I know that my hon. Friend shares those concerns. We urge Turkey to continue to monitor what is going on and to curb excesses, if there are any, so that torture is eliminated and human rights respected.
    Mr. Robertson: Will the Minister tell her hon. Friends that the NATO Alliance was created to defend freedom and not to crush it? Instead of exhorting the Turkish authorities to make efforts to stop torture, the Government should tell them to stop torture immediately. Why do the Government not make it clear to Turkey that as an absolute precondition before its application to join the European Community will even be considered it must immediately stop all torture in its prisons, release all those imprisoned for non-violent political activities, and repeal those parts of the penal code which deny fair trials and limit trade union and political activity? If the Government do not make those demands we must conclude that the Conservative party has lost interest in human rights as a matter of principle and is interested in them only as a matter of prejudice.
    Mrs. Chalker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party fully supports the convention on human rights and is opposed to torture. As I said, in the past week both my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have made this clear to the new Turkish ambassador. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also made that clear. We will not comment on the application of Turkey to become a member of the European Community until we have studied the Commission's opinion. We attach importance to our relationship with Turkey and we are keen to see progress, but we are likewise keen to see the cessation of torture and the recognition and proper upholding of human rights in Turkey. We shall do everything to encourage the Turkish Government to achieve that. I know that they would wish to do so, but there is still considerable doubt.

    Vietnamese Refugees
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress Her Majesty's Government have made in consultations with other Governments and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to further the initiative to resettle Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 22 December 1988.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have launched a vigorous diplomatic campaign urging other resettlement countries. to respond generously to our initiative. At our request, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has undertaken to do the same. It is too early to say what the outcome of our campaign will be, but initial responses have been encouraging.
    Mr. Sims: In negotiations with other Governments, will my right hon. and learned Friend emphasise that we have not only a humanitarian responsibility towards those original boat people, many of whom have been in camps in Hong Kong for 10 years, but a moral responsibility to the people and Government of the greatly overpopulated territory of Hong Kong who have housed and fed those genuine refugees?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, it is entirely right to emphasise those points. The people and Government of Hong Kong have responded consistently and effectively to the demands and pressures resulting from the inflow of boat people. That is another reason, in addition to the humanitarian reason, for seeking to promote the programme as effectively as we can.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If this tragic problem continues to be addressed at the present slow pace, will it not remain with us up to and beyond 1997, and is that not an appalling prospect?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I know of his long-standing concern about this problem. It is because of our strong wish to see the problem resolved on a time scale which finishes ahead of 1997 that we have been taking the decisions and steps that we have.
    Mr. Wells: Are not the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong principally refugees in the sense that they are economic migrants from an extremely poor standard of living in Vietnam to richer pastures in Hong Kong and through Hong Kong to other metropolitan countries? Would it not, therefore, be sensible to conduct robust negotiations with the Vietnamese Government with a view to the resettlement of these people in Vietnam?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the cause of the problem. It is undoubtedly because of the economic migration factor that it has been right to introduce the pattern of screening now in place, with the advice of the UNHCR, so as to identify the genuine refugees and encourage the re-establishment of the others in Vietnam. We have held a number of rounds of talks with Vietnamese officials and I have twice raised the matter at ministerial level. We have emphasised the need for effective arrangements to be made for the reception of these people back in their homeland.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: How vigorous is vigorous and how encouraging is encouraging if, after 10 years, people are still confined to camps, which is surely no better than palatial house arrest?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact that it has proved so difficult to sustain the prospects for onward movement of the boat people in the face of the sudden upsurge in their number in the past two years has emphasised the need to introduce changes which check the prospect of indefinite growth and serve to reduce the numbers to a manageable proportion while giving us the prospect of being able to persuade other countries to join us in tackling the problem while it is still of a measurable size.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Given that 20,000 Indo-Chinese have been admitted to this country since 1979, including over 13,000 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong, do not the
    970
    facts speak for themselves? Do not the Government have an honourable record in admitting these people, bearing in mind the other immigration pressures that we face?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Given the huge pressures from other directions, our record in respect of this group of people has been important. In view of the diminishing prospects for the reception of more such people around the world, it was necessary and right for us to give a signal to future boat people that they could not keep on flowing into Hong Kong in search of a future that could not and would not exist.

    E1 Salvador
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America concerning international co-operation on the conditions under which the next elections will take place in E1 Salvador.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar): None, Sir.
    Mr. McAllion: That is a very disappointing answer. Can the Minister tell us why the Government have not taken steps to persuade and encourage the Governments of E1 Salvador and the United States to consider seriously the proposal from the FMLN to postpone elections for six months to create conditions for free and fair elections which would allow the FMLN to participate and, more important, would allow all sides to abide by the result of the elections?
    Mr. Eggar: Of course, we welcome any sign that the FMLN is prepared to take part in the electoral process. Any delay in the election date is a matter for the Salvadorians to decide upon. The FMLN announced originally that it was prepared to avoid military action for about five days around the election date. This has recently been extended. The democratic parties within E1 Salvador will doubtless consider the proposals, but the decision is for E1 Salvador, not for the United Kingdom or for the United States.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend consider that perhaps one of the most conducive ways to bring about a good election in E1 Salvador would be for the FMLN to announce an indefinite cease-fire which would allow a democratic election to take place and would also allow the successor Government to tackle the problem of human rights abuse, not least the activities of the death squads?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The FMLN has conducted operations that have harmed and killed innocent civilians. It has sought deliberately to intimidate and murder local mayors. That is not the way to make the atmosphere conducive for democratic elections.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Minister realise that abuses of human rights in E1 Salvador are largely due to the activities of the death squads and that there is now an opportunity, perhaps for the first time for many years, of getting a genuine move towards peace? Does the Minister agree that the FMLN proposal to postpone elections for

    971
    six months would allow peace to return so that there may be a proper, free and democratic election campaign? What we are asking is that the Minister uses his influence on the United States Government and on the Government of E1 Salvador to get them to consider seriously the proposal to allow peace to return so that elections can be held. He cannot take a hands-off approach if he supports the Government.
    Mr. Eggar: We are concerned about and condemn the activities of the death squads. However, we are confident that the E1 Salvador Government do not encourage or condone such activities. President Duarte has recently condemned extremist activity from both the Left and the Right. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would also criticise the FMLN. The fact is that it has made indiscriminate use of land mines, and there have been summary executions, kidnappings, car bombings and the deliberate killing of mayors. The United Nations special representative had noted that those actions were the deliberate policy of the FMLN.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister look to the future rather than the past and give a wholehearted welcome to the FMLN peace offer, all the more so because it was unexpected? Will he consider ways in which the good offices of the United Kingdom, of our European partners and, above all, of the United States—which has a particularly strong role in E1 Salvador—can be used to try to get the elections postponed and the offer considered seriously?
    Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that, whoever is elected the next president of E1 Salvador, it will be better for him to be the president of a country at peace in September than of a country ravaged by civil war in March.
    Mr. Eggar: 1 have already made it clear that the timing of the election is a matter for the people of E1 Salvador and the democratic parties within E1 Salvador. My understanding is that the Government there are considering the latest proposal from the FMLN. I dare say that when the hon. Gentleman goes to San Salvador he will be able to update himself on the position there.

    South Africa
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the Government's policy towards South Africa in response to the representations made to him by the World Council of Churches delegation led by the Reverend Canaan Banana, the first President of Zimbabwe.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I explained to the delegation, our objective remains the replacement of apartheid through peaceful means by a non-racial, representative system of government. We do not believe that punitive sanctions against South Africa would help achieve this.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Foreign Secretary concede that that answer—like the Government's policy on apartheid—is inappropriate and unacceptable in a developing situation which is getting worse by the day? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the World Council of Churches delegation—the most high-powered ever assembled—felt that it had had a poor reception from him? Yesterday, it issued a press release in which it said:
    972
    "With the exception of Great Britain, we found a willingness on the part of the governments we visited to listen to the delegation and to consider some form of economic: pressure."
    When will the Foreign Secretary respond? Who is he prepared to listen to on this issue?
    Hon. Members: Not the hon. Gentleman
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Certainly not the hon. Gentleman.—[Interruption.] I listened to him with attention but I do not respond to him, because believe that his advice is misconceived. I listened to him, as I listened for an hour and a quarter to the delegation. I listened attentively and. with respect to what it said. It did not, however, in any sense diminish my conviction that the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions would create an economic wasteland and contribute nothing to the ending of apartheid. I drew the delegation's attention to the fact: that the Anglican bishops in South Africa have recently called for carefully selected and targeted forms of pressure to be chosen which would
    "avoid, as far as possible, the creation of further unemployment".
    That formulation drives a coach and horses through the
    case for punitive sanctions.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. and learned. Friend accept that many Conservative Members will be delighted that the Foreign Secretary gave a poor reception, to members of the World Council of Churches, because: many of us are worried and suspicious about where the funds of the World Council of Churches are going? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that much of that money is going to terrorist organisations—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members may not all agree with what is being said, but the hon. Gentleman has a right. to say it.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that much of that money is going to terrorist. organisations, both inside and outside South Africa? The people who religiously give money every Sunday to church collections should be told the facts.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I listened to the case being made by the delegation, because it was representative of a wide range of opinion from around the world. I pointed out to it, however, a recent comment by the Reverend Stanley Mogoba, who is a member of the executive committee oil the South African Council of Churches. He said:
    "those who advocate sanctions as a panacea for all the problems of South Africa have had that myth exploded in their faces".
    I hope that the delegation will reflect long and hard on that message.
    Mr. Alton: Having called to his aid the South African Anglican bishops, will the Secretary of State consider taking up the case of Charles Bester? He is an 18-year-old South African who was gaoled for six years for failing to join the South African defence force on the ground that, as he was a Christian, he could not join that force as a matter of conscience. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen early-day motion 176, which has been signed by more than 80 hon. Members from all parts of the House? Is he aware that some 55,000 people in this country have signed a petition calling for Charles Bester's release?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand, as anybody must, why some young South Africans refuse to do military service, and one must respect the strength and sincerity of their views. Decisions on that matter, however, are for the individuals concerned and we have no locus to intervene on their behalf in such circumstances.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what representations he has received from the World Council of Churches or, indeed, from the Reverend Canaan Banana about acts of repression carried out by black African countries?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Not without notice.
    Mr. Anderson: The Foreign Secretary quoted the South African bishops' call for selective and targeted sanctions. Does he agree with that call? Is he happy with the efforts of the Department of Trade and Industry to promote British exports to the Mossel bay development, which is designed to avoid the oil embargo, and its efforts to promote computer sales to the centre of military research in South Africa? Will he have a word with the DTI about that?
    In the light of the British attitude to exports to South Africa is it any wonder that the eminent persons group of the Churches came back with such a negative view of the British Government, alone of all the Governments that it met, and that this Government are perceived throughout the world as the best friend of apartheid South Africa?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's views on this matter remain stuck in a time warp more firmly than anybody else's—
    Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's views remain stuck in 10 Downing street.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My views remain stuck on the firm foundation of common sense. The fact is—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) may not like it—that no voice arguing the case for change in South Africa is heard with more attention than that of the Prime Minister of this country. There are two simple reasons for that—our opposition to apartheid is unqualified, but our opposition to sanctions is equally unqualified. In our judgment the imposition of sanctions would make the matter a great deal worse and not better. I invite the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) to reflect on the words that I quoted from the Anglican bishops of South Africa. To call for carefully selected and targeted forms of pressure, but then to go on to say, that they must take care that they
    "avoid, as far as possible, the creation of further unemployment".
    is to commit oneself to a nonsense. The Anglican bishops are driving a coach and horses through the case for sanctions.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: I warmly welcome the replies that my right hon. and learned Friend has just given. Has he noticed the astonishing similarity between the position of Mr. Gorbachev and the present President and his successor in South Africa? Both inherited political systems that are entirely indefensible by modern, western, democratic criteria, both are endeavouring to mitigate the consequences of those systems and both are staging slow and painful retreats from them. Can he see any logical consistency in the idea that the western democracies
    974
    should give full support to the former, but should give no support to the latter? In view of the astonishing human rights record of Zimbabwe, has President Banana any right to come here and preach to western democracies about how they should handle the South African Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am interested, as always, in my hon. Friend's well-informed views on this matter, but I hesitate to join him in a precise parallel between one president of one state and another. It is clear that we have welcomed the steps that have been initiated by President Botha to promote the reforms that we all agree to be necessary. We hope that Mr. de Klerk, in his capacity as party leader, will lead his party, and so South Africa, on the road to reform. That is our common objective and we want to move towards it as quickly as possible.

    Nicaragua
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will discuss at an early date with the United States Secretary of State the implications for peace in central America of United States policy in respect of Nicaragua.
    Mr. Eggar: We are in regular touch with the United States Administration about a wide range of issues, including central America.
    Mrs Fyfe: Does the Minister share our concern about the proposed appointment of Bernard Aronson as assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for inter-American affairs, considering that this man knows no Spanish, has apparently shown little interest in central American affairs other than Nicaragua and is chiefly known as a fund-raiser for the Contras?
    Mr. Eggar: We have noted press reports of Mr. Aronson's appointment and we look forward to working with whoever is appointed as the new assistant Secretary of State.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend discuss with the United States means of bringing pressure on the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua on behalf of human rights? Could encouragement be given in the interests of free speech to remove the ban which the Sandinistas have placed on the opposition radio and newspapers in Nicaragua?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Nicaraguan Government are complying neither with the letter nor the spirit of the Esquipulas agreement. We look forward to improvements in both those areas.

    Unita
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the United States Administration the need to cease aid to Unita.
    Mrs. Chalker: The United States Administration are well aware that it remains our policy not to provide assistance to Unita.
    Dr. Moonie: Now that the Cubans are well ahead of schedule in pulling out of Angola, will Her Majesty's Government consider making representations to the

    975
    President of the United States to cease American opposition to Angola's membership of the IMF and the World Bank and to recognise the present Administration in Angola?
    Mrs. Chalker: United States policy must be a matter for the new President and his team, who are well aware of our position. We see that Angola is looking for sensible ways of becoming financially more robust. We are sure that in the longer term it will need help to do that. We have provided some aid for a number of years, but it is nothing like what will be needed for the change that it will have to undertake. I do not believe that any country will stand in the way of Angola when the right time comes.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time for the United States to end aid to Unita will be when all 50,000 Cuban troops have been withdrawn from Angola? Is she aware that Unita is prepared to put aside its arms if the MPLA Government will sit down and negotiate a settlement with Unita? Does she agree that the only true way to peace is for democracy to be installed in that country?
    Mrs. Chalker: We are pleased to see that the Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola is proceeding. The task now is to ensure a smooth implementation of that. It is of course being overseen by the United Nations Angola verification mission—Unavem. 1 believe that peace can be returned to Angola and that it is the wish of both sides that that should happen. It may be some time before peace is finally secured, but we hope that a lasting peace will be secured. If there is anything that this country can do towards that end, we shall indeed do it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Given the increasing reports of Unita and South African defence force activity in northern Namibia, are the Government putting at risk the major prize of Namibian independence by agreeing to cut the United Nations transition assistance group—UNTAG—force from seven to three battalions? If as the secretary-general says, the four battalions are being held in reserve, what state of readiness will they be in? Will the Government support the UN Secretary-General who can call them to go into Namibia, and not wait for the cumbersome process of using the Security Council?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is a cardinal principle of United Nations peace-keeping that the Security Council must authorise the deployment of forces. While the secretary-general has agreed with the Security Council to deploy, we hope shortly, three enlarged battalions plus an enhanced number of military and peace observers—who are absolutely crucial for monitoring—he has still retained 7,500 troops as a ceiling for the military contingent.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1978 the then secretary-general said that we must review the situation at the time. Cuban troop withdrawal is now well and truly on the way, Unavem is monitoring it, there is detente between South Africa and Angola and the joint commission has now been established to deal with any alleged breaches. The situation has now changed. We must see how it goes, and the machinery is there to do whatever is necessary to bring about Namibian independence starting, we hope, from 1 April.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend. Is it not a fact that the United Nations peacekeeping force is remarkably small for the likely task that it will face in such an enormous country? Will my right hon. Friend carefully monitor the situation, and will she tell us how many British troops have already been committed to this task?
    Mrs. Chalker: We shall send a signals unit and contribute to the observers who are going. I cannot give the exact numbers now. It is important to realise that the five permanent members of the Security Council are united in their belief that the secretary-general—after visits to the area—was right in his judgment that the numbers to be deployed could be reduced from the 1978 estimate, when conditions were different. It is important that the secretary-general be given adequate resources to fulfil his mandate. As I said, if there turns out to be a genuine problem, we shall reconsider increasing the size of UNTAG's military component beyond the 4,650 that the secretary-general considers adequate to implement the plan to lead Namibia to independence.

    United States Secretary of State
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the new United States Secretary of State.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I expect to meet Mr. Baker on Sunday next.
    Mr. Macdonald: When the Secretary of State meets Mr. Baker, will he discuss the American Administration's decision to double expenditure on defence bases in the United Kingdom over the next two years? Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman consulted by the American Administration before news of the decision was made public, that is, before the defence budget was presented to Congress last month? If he was not, is not that humiliating for him? If he was consulted before the decision became public knowledge, why did he not inform the House? Has not this House as much right to know as the American Congress?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not expect to discuss with the United States new Secretary of State the continued maintenance of American bases in this country, which is warmly welcomed by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Cormack: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets Secretary of State Baker, will he discuss with him a joint approach to be taken to the Israeli Government by both our Governments? The Israeli Government should be told that their genuine friends on both sides of the Atlantic are rapidly running out of patience, and believe that the Israeli Government should respond to the approaches made from both this country and the United States. If they do not, they will find themselves isolated.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of my hon. Friend's clearly expressed view, which has been widely supported today from both sides of the House, and for which there is much support on the other side of the Atlantic. My hon. Friend is right to underline the fact that the engagement of the United States in the peace process is of vital importance. We welcome the opening of a dialogue

    977
    between the United States and the PLO. I look forward to discussing the development of these policies with the new Secretary of State.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a great deal of dismay in many parts of the United Kingdom about the proposal to increase expenditure on United States bases in our country? Does he accept that many people want bases such as the spy base and communications centre at Menwith Hill, near Harrogate, closed, because they put this country at risk? It is the United States nuclear communications centre and we want it to go. Does the Secretary of State also accept that the House has never formally given permission for that base to be established? It is a disgrace to our democracy.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I accept that the hon. Gentleman speaks, as so often, for a tiny minority of the people of this country. The great majority of British people and of hon. Members welcome the continued presence of the United States which, with all its resources, contributes to the strength and security of this country and the Alliance.
    Sir Dennis Walters: When my right hon. and learned Friend discusses the middle east with the American Secretary of State, will he suggest that Mr. Shamir should be pressed to explain how he can possibly reconcile his statement the other day that he will not withdraw from any of the occupied territories with Israeli acceptance of United Nations Resolution 242?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree that there are many questions that can usefully be put to Mr. Shamir, when he visits a number of countries on both sides of the Atlantic, to try to encourage him in responding to the needs that are so widely identified by all hon. Members.

    Middle East
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Palestine Liberation Organisation about the case for amending the Palestine national covenant as a condition precedent to peace negotiations in the middle east.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier this afternoon by my right hon. and learned Friend to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
    Mr. Marshall: I refrain from referring to the question put to my right hon. and learned Friend earlier this afternoon. Can I emphasise to my hon. Friend that as long as the Palestine national covenant exists, as it does, and as long as the Palestine Liberation Organisation makes claims on Jerusalem, the likelihood of talks starting is limited?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I genuinely have little to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said. I re-emphasise to my hon. Friend that it is surely in the interests of peace that there should be a response to the positive moves that the PLO has made.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread agreement with the views that he expressed not long ago about the terrorist past of some members of
    978
    the Israeli Administration and that there is also widespread support for the view he expressed that that terrorist pattern is still being continued in the repression of the Palestinian population of the occupied territories?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support but, with respect, my point was somewhat different—that some of those who used force in the earlier part of the history of Israel laid down those methods and turned to the methods of peace, which is to their credit. It would also be to their credit if they recognised that there are Palestinian leaders willing to do the same.
    Mr. Marlow: Has my hon. Friend yet had any evidence from the Israeli authorities that they accept that there will be no peace and stability in the middle east until they accept the need for Palestinian self-determination and if he has yet to receive any evidence of that, what further means are the Government going to use to persuade the Israelis of the self-evident truth on this matter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Venice declaration made it clear that the British Government and the European Community agree with my hon. Friend that self-determination for the Palestinian people must be part of a permanent solution in the middle-east. Everything that we are doing on the diplomatic front is intended to lead to a peace conference where that can be achieved.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that there can be no peace whatever in the middle east until both sides come to a negotiating table? Does he accept that in order to induce both sides to come to that table, each must feel that there is a possibility of receiving fair treatment and that, at present, the Israeli Government—for whom few of us would have voted, but who have been democratically elected—are deeply concerned that they will be left in a corner with little support and forced into a deal from which their own state will be in danger? That may be fine for us to look at here, but it will not suit the people who live there.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. and learned Member and I have little disagreement about what needs to be done. Face-to-face negotiations between the principal parties is the only way forward and I agree with him that there is nothing to be gained from trying to isolate the state of Israel, which would only further undermine Israel's sense of security. We must conduct an even-handed policy in the region.

    East Germany
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has assessed the extent to which the recent announcement of arms reduction in its forces by the East German Government represents a further lowering of tension in Europe; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We welcome the announcement by the GDR Government on 23 January that they intend to reduce the size of their armed forces. But the effect which these cuts will have on the overall East-West balance of forces will be small, and a number of questions remain about how the cuts will be taken and whether obsolete or modern equipment will be involved.
    Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that proposed or actual reductions in forces by East Germany do not reduce tension in Europe so long as the Berlin wall remains in place? Will he also confirm that it remains the Government's policy to work for a peaceful reunification of West and East Germany?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the way in which the continued presence of the Berlin wall makes a mockery of all our efforts to remove barriers in Europe. We all look forward to the day when it comes down. On the wider question, successive British Governments have taken it as axiomatic that real and permanent stability in Europe will be difficult to achieve so long as the German nation is divided against its will.

    North Atlantic Council
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he expects the main subjects for discussion at the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 8 and 9 June will be and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council in June will address, as have other recent council meetings, the maintenance of Alliance security in an improving East-West atmosphere. Four months ahead of the meeting is too soon to know what specific issues will head the agenda.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend impress on our European allies the importance of a positive attitude towards burden sharing in view of the enormous size of the American contribution to our defence effort?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. The Alliance should recognise the share that the United Kingdom takes. From time to time we have had to draw attention to the fact that others in western Europe have been cutting their defence budgets, which is a bad signal for the maintenance of Alliance coherence.
    Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order., Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order later.

Afghanistan
3.30 pm
Mr. David Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are now being taken by Her Majesty's Government to send essential aid supplies to the people of Afghanistan.
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): We have provided £60 million of aid for the victims of war in Afghanistan since 1980, including £10 million in the current financial year. In addition, I have just agreed a further contribution of £500,000, particularly to meet the needs of mothers and children. Two hundred and fifty thousand pounds of this is being channelled through UNICEF and £250,000 is for the relief programmes of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Mr. Winnick: As someone who opposed the Russian occupation of Afghanistan from the beginning—[Interruption.] I did. I immediately tabled an early-day motion in January 1980—I am pleased that the Russians are finally leaving. I note what the Minister has just said about aid to Afghanistan. Would it not be unforgiveable if the leading powers simply looked on, because of the political situation in that country, while people are starving? Is it not absolutely essential for Britain to co-operate fully with the United Nations to ensure that aid continues to be given? Finally, will the Minister comment on the report in today's Evening Standard that various factions of the resistance movement are threatening to fire on planes bringing aid? If that is so, will they not bear the responsibility for all the distress which will be caused if supplies do not reach that country?
Mr. Patten: I am delighted to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the House, in case there is any doubt about the matter, that we have not used, do not use and will not ever use the denial of food or medicines in order to try to accomplish political objectives. We have made it absolutely clear that we distinguish between humanitarian assistance channelled through international relief agencies and assistance for development purposes to a particular Government or regime. I wish that everybody else took the same view. We were one of the first and most generous contributors of relief in Afghanistan in the camps along the Afghan border. We shall continue to provide assistance as and when we can. I am delighted to report that the executive director of UNICEF has telegraphed us today to thank us for our latest contribution.
Mr. David Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the provision of food and medical aid, one of the greatest threats to the existing Afghan population, as well as returning refugees, is the millions of unexploded mines and shells which threaten to maim children as well as adults? What help does Britain propose to give to train the returning refugees in mine awareness and clearance?
Mr. Patten: We have had a mission in Pakistan talking to the United Nations co-ordinator on that very point; we shall continue to give assistance in so far as we can so that the mines can be cleared. As my hon. Friend said, they represent a substantial danger to the returning population.
982
We must all want to see as many Afghans as possible return in safety and honour to their country over the next few months.
Mr. David Steel: The present aid that the Minister has announced for UNICEF and Red Cross operations in Afghanistan is warmly welcomed. Will he reaffirm his support for Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan's determination that humanitarian aid should be given, regardless of political discrimination? Will he accept that it is unfortunate that any earlier statements from the Foreign Office gave the contrary impression?
Mr. Patten: Yes, I am certainly very happy to give the commitment that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. We will continue to provide assistance from time to time as we are requested to do so. I think I am right in saying that the £10 million to which I referred earlier was provided by us before Prince Sadruddin was given his present job. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding that may have existed.
Sir John Stanley: Will my hon. Friend accept that, in view of the serious suffering and malnutrition of children in Kabul—we have witnessed the scenes on our television screens—we welcome very much what he has said so far about the level of aid that has been provided? But, as the situation may well get worse, can he give the House an assurance that he will keep under review the figure that he has announced?
Mr. Patten: Yes, I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I anticipate being able to tell the House, at intervals over the coming weeks and months, of further contributions that we have made to the relief operations in Kabul and elsewhere in Afghanistan.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that at our meeting last week—I refer to the deputation about the question of overseas aid generally—he said he would be only too willing to search for projects in order to try to reach the figure of 0·7 per cent. of GDP for overseas aid generally? He has a long way to go and has plenty of money to play with, so we could find adequate resources for those in Afghanistan. Will he also confer with his colleagues concerning the fact that there is little point in sending food while at the same time Britain is using agencies to send in arms and weapons of war, which are probably going to Pakistan to keep the fight going? We need to feed the millions of people in Afghanistan, but there is no need for Britain, through its agencies, to continue this war.
Mr. Patten: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the high spots of my year so far has been the meeting that 1 had with him the other day. I was particularly pleased to be able to explain to him—to his satisfaction, I thought—that the United Kingdom's aid programme was now increasing in real terms. One of the ways in which we will continue to use our aid is by providing humanitarian assistance in countries like Afghanistan, and our record in Afghanistan is pretty well as good as anyone's.
Mr. John Bowis: My hon. Friend's announcement of additional support for the people of Afghanistan is very welcome, but will he take note of today's reports that aeroplanes carrying aid into Afghanistan have had to turn back because the crews are

983
nervous about going to that country? If necessary, will he talk to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and others to see whether we could provide the wherewithal to get the supplies in ourselves by way of air support?
Mr. Patten: I do not know exactly why the United Nations air lift has taken rather longer than it would have liked, literally, to get off the ground, but we must hope that it will manage to start soon. I do not believe that the conversation my hon. Friend has suggesed would be either sensible or fruitful.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I do not think that the Minister fully understood the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put to him earlier. Surely my hon. Friend's point was that the flow of arms into Afghanistan must be staunched. Otherwise the war is going to intensify, as will the problems for the civilian population of Afghanistan, and further food and medical aid will be necessary as a result. Will the Minister make whatever representations he can, and will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to make representations, to ensure that the peace accord that brought about the Soviet withdrawal is adhered to by all sides so that genuine peace can return to Afghanistan?
Mr. Patten: The major channel for the introduction of weapons into Afghanistan was, of course, the Soviet army.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Is my hon. Friend aware that his comments this afternoon are broadly welcomed in the House? Will he also confirm that the task of reconstruction in Afghanistan will require substantial amounts of external assistance and that he is in touch with his counterparts in other countries and with multilateral agencies to ensure that such assistance will be forthcoming?
Mr. Patten: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am sure that all hon. Members look forward to the clay when we can work with a broad-based Government in Afghanistan formed as a result of a genuine act of self-determination—in other words, when we can have a normal aid relationship with a broad-based Government in that country.
Miss Joan Lestor: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has cleared up the difficulties and confusion about the press reports. I am not sure whether they were false or whether there has been a change of heart. Bearing in mind the General Assembly resolution last November which stated that aid should go to all Afghans irrespective of political labels, some of us were very confused when we read in the press on Monday that Britain had ordered that its £10 million contribution must not be used for emergency food supplies. Will the Minister confirm that the press got it wrong? I was very glad to hear his correction.
I understand that at 11 o'clock this morning—and there has been no correction about this—the plane had not left the ground because the crew were afraid. If the provision of food and blankets for those people, including many children, who are in dire straits is urgent, is it not possible to consider military escort? If the fear is as great as it appears to be, are there any other ways to ensure that the relief reaches those people?
Mr. Patten: On the second point, the international relief agencies use other channels to ensure that they can maintain their medical and supplementary feeding programmes. However, it would not be particularly wise of me to set out for the House the exact nature of those channels. On the first point, our policy is consistent and it has not changed. I recognise that very often the best way to keep a secret is to make a statement in this House; however, I hope that people will take notice of what I have said today at the Dispatch Box.

Public Libraries
3.42 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about public libraries.
My principal concern is to facilitate the improvement of the public library service for the benefit of its users. I want to give the service access to additional sources of revenue, while preserving the principle of free access to the basic service. It was for this reason that I issued last February a Green Paper, inviting views on how we might improve the present service still further.
The Green Paper evoked a notable response. About 7,000 individuals and organisations replied, 2,000 of them by personal letter. There has been a vigorous and healthy debate and I am grateful to those who took trouble to let me know their concerns. I have arranged for a summary of their responses to be placed in the Library of the House.
The Green Paper addressed two related groups of topics. First, the encouragement of joint ventures with the private sector and the possibility of further moves towards contracting out—measures which do not require legislation. Secondly, the correction of anomalies in library authorities' present powers to charge and the possibility of widening those powers—measures which do require legislation.
There was wide support for joint ventures with both public and private sector bodies. To encourage their wider introduction, I will undertake a programme of case studies, provide pump-priming funds for selected schemes through my public library development incentive scheme, and look for other cost-effective ways of helping possible partners, including voluntary agencies, to get together.
Many who commented adversely on contracting out assumed wrongly that it was equivalent to privatisation of the library service. Library authorities will remain responsible for the nature and quality of any service that they contract out. The only purpose of contracting out is to produce as good a service at less cost, or a better service at the same price. I believe that the practicability and value for money of that approach should be tested. I shall commission some work to examine that approach, involving those authorities that have expressed interest. If it seems satisfactory, I will fund some pilot investigations.
I turn to the question of charging. Although there was general support for a free basic service, there was no consensus on what it should cover or how it should be defined. I concluded that it will be necessary to adopt the alternative approach, mentioned in the Green Paper, of specifying those services for which charges may be made. I propose doing that by regulations to be made, in association with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, under an enabling power contained in the Local Government and Housing Bill presented to the House on 1 February by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I will specify in a moment the particular powers that I intend introducing in that way.
Before doing so, I remind the House of an important safeguard for free access to the library service that we have built into the Local Government and Housing Bill. We have excluded from the scope of the enabling power two main elements that are generally regarded as the core of the free public library service. They are, first, the
986
borrowing—by any person living, working or studying full-time in the area of an English or Welsh library authority—of books, journals and pamphlets availabe within a library or mobile library of that authority; secondly, the use for reference and consultation purposes of all such materials and microform materials, or any catalogue of the authority's own holdings, by any person within a library of that authority. That statutory safeguard demonstrates our commitment to maintaining the essential core of a free public library service.
Subject to that major safeguard, I propose, in due course, using the power in the Bill, to make regulations to preserve the powers to charge currently contained in the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, to correct certain anomalies and to introduce modest new charging powers. The relevant regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution by Parliament.
I intend giving library authorities power to charge for: obtaining and notifying the availability or non-availability of an item reserved, subject to a limit that we shall prescribe; damage to materials and equipment; the borrowing of certain non-print materials for which a charging power would be appropriate; the late return of borrowed materials; articles that become the property of the person to whom they are supplied; the use within the library of certain facilities, such as computers.
I also propose giving library authorities power to charge for assistance given by library staff—for example, in helping a person conduct research among a library's materials, over and above what can reasonably be expected as part of a general service. It seems reasonable to us that the library authorities should have discretion to charge for special services involving their staff in more than half an hour's work.
All the powers will be discretionary. Authorities will be able to decide whether or not to charge for any service. When they do decide to charge, they will be able to decide whom they charge and the concessions that they give. We will also have powers to require that those charges are made known in advance to members of the public.
We will not take powers to proceed with certain other measures, such as book premium subscription services or charges for special book collections.
We will carry out further consultations before the appropriate regulations are introduced. We shall also consider with local authority associations and others how more library authorities can be encouraged to reinvest in their library services a substantial part of the income that the services earn. We know how beneficial an incentive that practice can be to development. I believe that those changes will help to improve still further our splendid public library service.
Mr. Mark Fisher: I welcome the statement, and congratulate the Minister on his courage in coming to give it orally to the House. This must rate as one of the most embarrassing and humiliating climbdowns by any Minister in recent times. Every proposal that the Minister put forward in his Green Paper he has had to abandon in the face of the intelligent criticism that he has received from all around the country.
That, however, in no way compensates for the form in which this new piece of non-legislation will be introduced. It is a sad but accurate reflection of the lack of importance that the Government ascribe to the public library service that the legislation should appear as clause 124 of the

987
Local Government and Housing Bill. It will be seen through its Committee stage by the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose tender concern for the public library service is a byword in the House. We believe that the service is of great cultural importance and deserves the attention of the Minister responsible, in this instance the Minister for the Arts, and we wish that he had sufficient spirit to fight for his own service rather than allowing it to be handled by other Ministers behind his back.
We welcome the Minister's constructive reply to the 7,000 responses that he received, which utterly rejected his absurd and dangerous ideas such as the premium book lending scheme and compulsory tendering for services to old people's homes. In particular, we welcome the news that there will be no new definition of the core service, that services to old people's homes will not be put out to competitive tender, that there will be no new definition of who is and who is not eligible to use public library services and that libraries will continue to serve free of charge companies, corporate bodies and collective bodies as well as individuals.
Will the Minister confirm that charges will not be possible for inter-library loans, that no authority will be able to introduce a premium book lending scheme, and that the proposed legislation applies only to England and Wales? Will he tell us what will happen about libraries in Scotland? Above all, will he confirm that library authorities will be free to decide not to charge for new services, and that there will be no element of compulsion?
In short, will the Minister confirm that all that clause 124 of the Local Government and Housing Bill does is clarify sections 7 and 8 of the 1964 Act, and that he got it completely wrong in his Green Paper? In doing so he wasted a great deal of public money, and alienated any remaining good will that his Government might have in the public library service since so under-funding and reducing support for it. At least the statement makes it clear that the exercise has been unnecessary, and shows the public how little the Government care for the public library services—as for all other services that local authorities provide.
Mr. Luce: That was the most awful lot of fabricated hot air that I have heard from the hon. Gentleman for some time. Whether it meant that he really agrees with what I am doing I am not entirely sure, but that may well be precisely what he means.
As far as I am aware, this is the first time in history that we have had a public debate on such a scale about our library system. A Green Paper has been produced and there has been much constructive discussion, and my concern now is to ensure that we find ways of improving our excellent public libraries still further. The suggestion that all the proposals in the Green Paper have been rejected and that I have decided to implement none of them is absolute nonsense from beginning to end. I have rejected some, such as the premium service, because I do not consider them worth pursuing, but my statement listed a range of effective measures that I propose to introduce. I might add that much of what I propose covers anomalies that existed under Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s. I think, therefore, that underneath it all the hon. Gentleman must agree with everything that I am doing.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned clause 124 of the Local Government and Housing Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I, along with
988
other Government colleagues, have made it clear since July 1987 that the Government as a whole would introduce enabling powers to allow certain local government services to be chargeable, and that among those services would be library provision. It seems logical, following that and having said that the Government would legislate, that we should provide a clause in the Bill to do just that. We are fulfilling an undertaking that the Government gave i.n 1987. Believing as I do in maximum discussion and open government, I believed that there should be discussions after the Green Paper about the future of the library service and the right way to proceed. I believe that we have had sensible discussions.
The hon. Gentleman asks about inter-library lending. In the 1960s and 1970s under Labour Governments there was freedom to charge for inter-library services, and that is what happens today. I have already explained that the measure applies to England and Wales but not to Scotland. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Does not my right hon. Friend's excellent decision to continue to uphold the entirely free lending of library books give the lie to the irresponsible scaremongering of Left-wing local authorities and Opposition Members?
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have provided an additional safeguard for the core library services in clause 124 of the Local Government and Housing Bill, but in a handout to the public Derbyshire county council said that it believed that the Green Paper meant that the Government were planning to charge everybody, even children, for the free service. That was a total and utter distortion of what the Green Paper said.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) appeared to be looking a gift horse in the mouth? The Minister's climbdown is entirely welcome. The proposal that there should continue to be a basic free library service throughout the country would have appealed to a capitalist such as Andrew Carnegie. Even the late Joe Orton would have seen a good deal of sense in the Minister's proposal to charge for damage to library books.
We welcome in particular the Minister's decision to scrap the proposal for a premium book service, which was always nonsense, and his proposal that there should be an annual fee to secure access to more popular books, as well as his decision to scrap the proposal to charge for the lending of books that are brought in from another library. That decision supports the concept that the library service is a national service. We see much cause for rejoicing in the Minister's repentance, and we shall take it in our stride that he has allowed these matters to be delegated to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I made it plain in the Green Paper that the Government intend to maintain a free basic service, and there has been no change. Since the Green Paper was published, however, various people have deliberately misrepresented what I said in it. I gave as an example Derbyshire county council, but there are many others. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. As for the inter-library lending service, I have already made it clear

989
that I intend to introduce a discretionary right to charge for the reservation of books, but there will be an upper prescribed limit of £1·50.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome for his decision that the lending of the printed word will continue to be free? Is he also aware that most people will see the very good sense of introducing new discretionary charges as a means of supporting the amount of revenue that is available to the library service? Will his sensible proposals for some experiments in contracting out be kept within a specific time scale?
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. I have already explained that I shall be introducing regulations concerning discretionary charges, and they will be subject to affirmative resolution. Before that, however, I have undertaken to hold consultations with the revelant authorities and with anybody else who is concerned, so there is plenty of scope for consultation. I shall proceed as rapidly as I can with a study of the practical problems of sub-contracting. I hope to identify particular local authorities that would like to co-operate in pilot investigations.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is it not the case that, when the Department of the Environment comes to determine the rate support grant, or the revenue support grant when we have the poll tax, assumptions will be made about what local authorities should obtain from charges, even though they are discretionary, as a way of fixing the grant level? Is this not a back-door method of pushing local authorities to make these charges? Will the Minister explain how his statement will affect libraries that do not operate in one building as they used to do? In my constituency, one school library in a school with 2,000 pupils is run by the public library service; it is the public library, and the public can walk in and use it. Another library organises book fairs to encourage people to come and look at books. Will they be pushed to charge for organising such activities? If they are, that will be a thundering disgrace.
Mr. Luce: On the hon. Member's first question, I must remind him, as I stress time and again, that the powers being given are discretionary. It will be totally up to local authorities whether to make charges and if they do they can decide in what areas they will make them and what concessions they will grant to particular categories of people. There is no change on that. I am seeking to give local authorities scope to raise resources that will enable them further to improve the service to users. That is the main objective of the statement. The position remains precisely the same for school libraries, hospital libraries and prison service libraries. Since the 1964 Act, it has been possible for local authorities to provide services, often with special financing arrangements, to schools, hospital authorities and others. There is no change from the charging position that existed under Labour Governments.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rather churlish reply of the listening party to the listening Minister will not be echoed throughout the country? Most people will be
990
extremely glad that he has listened to representations and has produced an exceptionally balanced and fair statement and has given the strongest safeguard ever for the free lending of books to people who want to borrow them.
Mr. Luce: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. When I introduced the Green Paper I said that we would continue to have a basic, free service. I thought that would be strengthened by introducing, as I have, the safeguard in the Bill.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I declare an interest? My background owes a great deal to the use of a public library. When one went to school and stayed on while so many did not, it was beneficial to use "research" facilities in the local library. May I ask the Minister about section 10 of his statement which is about charging for "unreasonable research"? How will that be determined? What is reasonable and what is unreasonable? Surely it is not for local authorities of any persuasion to tell a young person trying to study that the information that he is asking for is unreasonable when they would not know.
Mr. Luce: I appreciate exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I also appreciate his support, which is shared by the vast majority of the British public, for our public library system, which is one of the best in the world. We should also understand the scale and nature of the changes that have taken place in our library system in the last 25 years or so. The range of expert specialist information that is now available in public libraries is enormous. Many businesses, scholars and other people wish to draw upon the services of public libraries. If a local authority feels that it wishes to introduce discretionary charges for businesses or people or any specialist group that wishes to use more staff time than the 30 minutes that I have chosen, then it is reasonable to allow discretion to make a charge.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: May I, as a former public library committee chairman, thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, and for keeping Colonel Sibthorpe firmly in his grave? Will he say yet again how monstrous it was for local authorities such as Camden to encourage by scare tactics pensioners to write to their Members of Parliament saying that the Green Paper was intended to bring in a charge for the public library service? Will he try to educate Opposition spokesmen about the difference between a Green Paper and a White Paper?
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Her Majesty's Opposition do not understand what true consultation really means. A Green Paper is for the process of public discussion about the right thing to do. My hon. Friend is right to say that some sections of the community deliberately went out of their way to distort what we were proposing for discussion in the Green Paper, and the Government's intentions. I have given some examples and my hon. Friend has given another. They are now seen to be very foolish for what they did.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the subsequent business and I have to tell the House that no fewer than 35 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to take part in the broadcasting debate. We have a ten-minute rule application as well. I shall allow questions

991
on this to go on for a further 15 minutes, bearing in mind that the matter will be discussed in debates on the Local Government and Housing Bill.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Why does the Minister expect to get credit for withdrawing a statement that should never have been made in the first place? Is it not rather like saying, "We are going to break your fingers," and then when that does not happen we have to say, "Thank you very much"? It is monstrous that the suggestion of a charge for borrowing should ever have been made. We are delighted that the lady was for turning and that our books are not for burning. The Minister must come back with better than this.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman confuse the nature of libraries? In this age, why should the use of computers be charged for any more than a reference book should be charged for? Lastly, we are delighted that he is to keep his hands off Scotland.
Mr. Luce: It is not I who suggested that the Government proposed an end to the free basic service. That was suggested in certain other quarters, including one or two unions and one or two county and district councils that I have already quoted. I made our position quite clear in the Green Paper, and I have not changed one bit on that. There has been no change as far as I am concerned. As the hon. Gentleman has said, none of this applies directly to Scotland. He also knows that since the 1964 Act successive Governments have had certain powers to charge. Labour Governments did not choose to change that in any way or to restrict the powers of the 1964 Act.
As I see it, my job all along has been to overcome some of the grey areas, the anomalies that exist and that have been growing because the nature of libraries has changed. Libraries have expanded and the amount of information at their disposal has changed. We need to adjust to that.
Sir Hector Monro: I declare an interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of his many excellent recommendations may be difficult to implement if we lose the net book agreement? Is he prepared to have discussions with his right hon. Friend about that and will he confirm that the library licence will continue?
Mr. Luce: As my hon. Friend knows, the net book agreement is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who at the moment is undertaking a study on general competition policies. No doubt this matter can be incorporated in that study. As I say, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is right to draw my attention to it because it is a matter of general concern in terms of the levels of readership in this country. I did not quite catch the second part of my hon. Friend's question.
Sir Hector Monro: Library licences.
Mr. Luce: At present there is an arrangement that provides for a 10 per cent. discount on books to libraries, and I know of no proposals to change that policy.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister may feel that he could have presented worse proposals to the House, but does he not understand that some of his proposals will lead to the Government being regarded as meaner in spirit and more attached to dogma than some of the less philanthropic Victorian captains of industry? Does
992
he accept that there are those—perhaps some of them are his advisers—who are eager to see greater uniformity? Will he make it quite clear that uniformity will not be an aspect of Government policy, and certainly not if it is to be applied at the lowest standard?
Mr. Luce: Why the hon. Gentleman should reach the conclusion that these proposals contain an intention to restrict libraries—he referred to a meaner spirit—I do not know. The whole purpose of this exercise is to give library authorities the scope to improve their services still further by making charges in reasonable sectors, which will be the subject of further debate in the House as a result of the regulations. My simple concern is to enable our efficient library service to improve still further, and to give it scope both to do that and to provide an even better service to the user. As to uniformity, I make it plain again that the power is discretionary, and the local authority alone can charge what it decides to charge, or can decide not to charge at all.
Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that the Isle of Wight had the first comprehensive free lending library service, long before the public library service. The announcement that he has made today will be widely welcomed. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable financial liability of local authorities that have to provide a prison book service, particularly to prisons holding international terrorists who require books in other languages, which are extremely expensive? My right hon. Friend has already alluded to the prison service. Will anything in his statement enable a more realistic charge to be made to the Home Office?
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important point. Libraries provide a wide range of special services, including library services to prisons, schools, hospitals and old people's homes. Under my proposals, the position on such services would not change. There has always been discretion to make special financial arrangements with the authorities in charge—as he rightly says, in the case of prisons it is the Home Office, and in the case of schools, it is the school service—about the charges to be made for those services.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will free photocopies of scientific periodicals still be available from Boston Spa? If I were to send the Minister a great deal of evidence that I have had in the course of preparing for the third Dainton lecture for the British Library from the universities of Hull, Leeds, Birmingham, Cambridge and Norwich—this shows that the price of scientific periodicals has gone up faster than the average inflation rate, creating a real problem for university libraries—would he consider that specially expensive form of scientific information through periodicals and books?
Mr. Luce: I will give thought to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and give him a fuller answer by letter. As he knows, Boston Spa is part of the British Library, and what I am proposing here affects only the general public library system.
Mr. John Bowis: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcements on continuing free access to the library book and the modest increase in opportunities to bring extra income to the library service. However, will he reconsider his suggestion that one of the criteria on research aspects be half an hour, because half

993
an hour may have more to do with the ability of the librarian than the complexity of the research? Will he also consider ensuring that whatever criteria are used should be clearly labelled as such and publicised for the people using the service?
Mr. Luce: Of course I will take my hon. Friend's point into account. As I have already stressed, we shall have consultation on the proposals before regulations are introduced. The regulations will not be introduced until after the Local Government and Housing Bill receives Royal Assent.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Do the joint ventures that the Minister is proposing mean that libraries will be splattered with advertisements? The private sector does not show any genuine altruism in these matters. What about this half-hour charge? Does this mean-minded measure mean that people who are, for example, disabled, slow to move or slow to read will face a penalty charge? If it is to apply to the public at large, will it apply to Members of Parliament? Will they be charged, or will there be one rule for Members of Parliament and one for the public outside, who are facing the imposition of charges by this mean-minded group of Tories?
Mr. Luce: Once again, there was rather a lot of hot air in that question, but I shall ignore that and answer the specific questions. There is a great deal of support for joint ventures between the public library service and the private sector, which cover a range of services in which value for money and better services can be achieved—for example, in publishing and information. There is a joint venture experiment on ethnic minorities with Asian publications in Leicestershire, and an experiment on information services in Gateshead. We are trying to harness the private and public sectors to provide better services.
As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, there was considerable support in response to the Green Paper for some kind of charge for what was described as the value-added services, or fee-based research—that is to say, services that provide extra benefits to users through more speedy delivery of the information or a more convenient or special service. I thought it only right that we should consider providing a charge under that umbrella. I am open to persuasion, argument and discussion about the time scale of this.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any extra revenue raised by the charges will not end up in the Exchequer, but will be recycled to the benefit of basic library services? Will he also confirm that there is already great variation between library authorities in the amount raised from charges, partly because there is confusion about the exact legal status of those charges?
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. Although there is no change in the Government's position about hypothecated charges or taxation, it is important for local authority, in assessing whether to make charges, to relate that to the ways in which it can improve services to users. I hope to give local authorities some guidance on the best case histories of this when they are considering charges.
994
My hon. Friend is right: there has been much misunderstanding as to what is and what is not chargeable under the 1964 Act. That was one reason why we introduced the Green Paper. I hope that what I have announced this afternoon will lead to a clearer picture about what can and cannot be charged for.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that he is getting a reputation for being a parsimonious philistine, and that he ought to give an undertaking that any income that library services choose to get from the lending of tapes or whatever else will not be taken away by loss of income support for the local authority from the Exchequer? Would it not be better if all library services of all sorts were declared free, for the benefit of everybody? That would be better than this creeping privatisation and creeping charging in the library service that the Minister seems to be encouraging.
Mr. Luce: If being parsimonious means to obtain an extra £300 million of taxpayers' money to invest in a new British library, and to add 33 per cent. in real terms to overall taxpayer support for the arts in the past eight years, then I am happy to be described as parsimonious.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that record numbers of people, including children, are using libraries and that that number will increase dramatically when the new, brilliantly conceived British library comes on stream? Will he look at the concept of charging for damaged books, presumably including paperbacks, bearing in mind the high cost of books? How will people be charged for damaged books?
Mr. Luce: In all categories of arts, not just libraries, my ambition is to see a growing number of people enjoying the facilities. It is an anomaly that it has not hitherto been possible to charge for damage to materials and equipment. We may need to give some guidance to local authorities about how that is to be achieved, but it is right to introduce discretionary power to charge.
Mr. David Winnick: The Minister said a few moments ago that the British library system is the best in the world. If that is so, what justification is there for messing around with contracting out? Is not the Minister aware of the immense cultural and literary contribution that the library service has made to generations, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, including myself, who received their self-education largely from the library system? Is it not the case as well that private libraries, which I remember, have virtually gone out of existence while the public libraries have retained their strength through the way in which they have provided a service for millions of people?
Mr. Luce: I have already made it clear that the justification for sub-contracting is only on the criterion that it produces better value for money or an improved service to the consumer. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not think it is a good thing if it achieves just that? My concern in all the proposals is to find ways of strengthening still further a very good and professional library system. That is the intention of the measures.
Mr. Derek Conway: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House on the future of

995
services in rural areas, such as Shropshire? Can he say under what circumstances it can be justified for taxpayers and ratepayers to subsidise the lending of compact discs free of charge? If someone can afford a player for such an expensive hobby, surely he should not expect the taxpayer and the ratepayer to subsidise it. So the crying of wolf and stinking fish from the Opposition Benches is a farce in the 20th century.
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. Since 1964 there has been a general power to make charges in the non-print area. As I have toured many libraries, I have found that many library authorities make charges for non-print facilities such as videos and cassettes. All I need to do is clarify the law, which is vague and anomalous. It is for that reason that I have introduced a specific proposal.
As to rural areas, as my hon. Friend knows, there are a large number of mobile libraries which provide an excellent service. He might like to know that in the period from 1977–78 to 1986–87 there was a 37 per cent. increase in the number of service points for public libraries.
Mr. Fisher: Of course we welcome a repentant sinner like the Minister. In view of his kind remarks about consultation, will he join me in congratulating the 7,000-plus people who wrote to him about his proposals, all of whom criticised vehemently what he proposed in the Green Paper? Without their criticism, he would not be backing off in the way that he is today. Will he explain to the House how he arrived at the period of half an hour that he considers to he adequate time for reference work? Will he reconsider that, and admit that it was plucked out of the air and bears no relation to the sense of what was put to him by my hon. Friends or by his Back Benchers?
At the risk of rubbing his nose in it, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the six powers he itemised are all available under the 1964 Act, with perhaps some ambiguity about damage to books? Not a single one of those six powers is new. I repeat that this is a welcome climbdown. It is deeply humiliating for the Minister that he has had to accept that all so-called radical proposals in the Green Paper are not worth a row of beans.
Mr. Luce: I have seldom heard such absolute nonsense from the hon. Gentleman. He must be desperate about something; I cannot make out what it is. I am very pleased that the broad proposals that I put forward in the Green Paper have been generally accepted. Only two proposals—the premium book service and one other—have been dropped. I have produced one or two variations. The whole point of the Green Paper was discussion. The bulk of the Green Paper in one form or another has been implemented. There are areas under the 1964 Act where it was not possible to charge, for example, for the reservation of books or for damage. The hon. Gentleman is either deliberately distorting the position or else he has not done his homework.
Mr. Speaker: Application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Later.

Hospital Closures (Leicestershire)
4.23 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by Leicestershire health authority of the closure of seven hospitals in the area."
This morning, I and hundreds of others, including small children born in these hospitals, attended the offices of Leicestershire health authority. At its meeting, the authority recommended the closure of seven hospitals in Leicestershire, the partial closure of another and the removal of general practitioner maternity beds from three others.
The decision of the health authority was taken in complete disregard of the wishes of the local people, thousands of whom signed petitions and wrote letters of support for the excellent work of these hospitals. The health authority has acted in an arrogant, irresponsible and undemocratic way. It has shown itself to be utterly inflexible when confronted with legitimate arguments. It has cast aside the anxieties and concern of the consumers of the Health Service, the very people it purports to serve.
I have written to the Secretary of State for Health and asked him to intervene. I urge him to do so. Closing down is not opting out. Closing down does not give people more choice; it does not give people a better or a more responsive service. It means no service at all. Ending the maternity and geriatric services will put an enormous strain on community services and on ambulances. It will reduce choice and will result in job losses. It will put pressure on mothers who will be literally in labour.
The National Health Service is of great concern to me as a member of the National Union of Public Employees and it is also the concern of my constituents. We cannot reassure people that the NHS is to flourish and survive by destroying it bit by bit. Even at this late stage, the health authority must demand extra cash from the Government, especially as one hospital recommended for closure is Blaby hospital, which is in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
After the recent air disaster at Kegworth in Leicestershire, Ministers were quick to congratulate the hospitals and emergency services in the county. The congratulations were richly deserved. Now the Government have a chance to match their good words with good deeds. The people of Leicestershire deserve a first-class health service which is open to all, giving better services and not taking them away.
I ask that leave be given to adjourn the House so that we can discuss fully the future of the Health Service in Leicestershire following this appalling decision.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by Leicestershiire health authority of the closure of seven hospitals in the area."
As the House knows, I have to take into account the requirements of the Standing Order and to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I listened

997
with care to what the hon. Member said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering his application is to decide whether it should be given priority over business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that the matter he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Now I will take the points of order. I already had notice of one. Mr. Holt.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your indulgence. Perhaps you can guide me. If you look at Question No. 99 on the Order Paper for today, you will see that it stands in my name and begins:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department".
The question which I tabled was to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Foreign Office decided to transfer the question to the Home Office. I cannot understand how the Home Secretary, with all the wisdom he has, can answer a question about the activities of the Foreign Secretary. Surely that is the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary. There must be a mechanism which enables Back Benchers to ask a question about the activities of the Foreign Secretary without having it transferred.
I raise the matter with you, Mr. Speaker, because I intend to table the same question for the next cycle. I ask you to note Question No. 12, which relates to Israel, Question No. 88, which relates to Zambia and, more particularly, Question No. 56, which relates to Gibraltar. The Isle of Man, for which the Home Secretary answers in the House of Commons, is a Crown colony. I cannot see how the Home Secretary can answer when I asked when the Foreign Secretary last met members of the Manx Government.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's perplexity. I cannot give him an answer. Perhaps he should wait for the answer to the question, when all may be revealed. I cannot go further than that.
Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to Foreign Office questions. I am sure you will have observed, Mr. Speaker, that a total of no fewer than eight questions were not asked or were withdrawn today. Not only is this infuriating to those who are unsuccessful in the ballot for questions and who hope to catch your eye to ask a supplementary, but it is a discourtesy to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker.
Is there not a case for the House to look at this and perhaps debarring an offending Member from tabling any further questions for a period? If you tell me, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the matter for you, will you in any event express your displeasure at this growing practice?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to hon. Members who have not alerted the Chair to the fact that they cannot be present at Question Time. Some right hon. and hon. Members do, of course, have perfectly good reasons for not being present and three hon. Members told me of their inability to be present this afternoon. However, it is distressing for hon. Members who are not called on one question, but who hope to be called on another which is broadly similar, to miss their opportunity because another hon. Member is not present. I say again to the House that, if hon. Members cannot be present, they should always let the Chair know.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED

    CERVICAL CANCER (TESTING AND TREATMENT)
    Mr. Jimmy Wray, supported by Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Harriet Harman, Ms. Clare Short,

    999
    Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Don Dixon, Dr. Lewis Moonie and Mr. Alan Meale, presented a Bill to establish a body known as the National Cervical Cancer Service, which will be responsible within the National Health Service for managing a national system for making cervical cancer tests available once every three years to all women aged between 20 and 65 years, and for supervising the provision of treatment for cervical cancer; to provide for the making of tests by doctors acceptable to the women concerned; to provide through the National Cervical Cancer Service for action to make women aware of the need for such tests; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 ( Standing Committees on Instruments, &c.).

Land Registry (Reform)
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move.
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to enable Her Majesty's Land Registry to gain agency status; to thereby improve the flexibility with which is uses externally generated funds for fees; to improve its accountability to consumers; to make its fees more responsive to customers' demands; to provide guarantees of service; and to reduce the present case backlog.
This is an important subject which had the attention of the Public Accounts Committee in July of last year, a report from the Auditor-General in 1987 and an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) in 1987; and it was, of course, dealt with at some length by the Farrand committee on conveyancing in 1985.
The purpose of my Bill is first to give greater flexibility and freedom of management to the Land Registry by giving it agency status, so that it can better deal with the huge number of applications that it receives, which on present evidence appears likely to be sustained. Secondly, it is to make the fee-charging system more responsive to the changes in the property market, eliminating the £103 million Treasury surplus which has been generated over the past 10 years, and giving customers better value for money.
Thirdly, the Bill will increase the registry's delegating ability to recruit staff according to local needs and to retain them to increase the calibre of staff and thereby to improve the turnaround of work, much of which is complex. Fourthly, given the fact that even on an agency basis it will constitute a statutory monopoly, the Bill will set down a framework for outside standards for speed and quality of customer service and a rate of return on the registry's financial assets.
In the past 125 years, the Land Registry has made it its business to register land and thus to give certainty to the title of real estate and changes in it. In a qualitative sense, it does that well. It has at present on the register 11·8 million of 20 million estimated titles. Last year, there were only 231 indemnity claims, totalling £226,000. It carries out those functions from about 16 full offices, with 9,300 staff, which is an increase of 2,000 in the past three years.
The registry's registration work is divided basically into two areas. First are the pre-contract and pre-completion inquiries from solicitors, which check on the validity of title. There were 5·2 million of those last year, which was an 85 per cent. increase over the past three years. At present, 90 per cent. of those inquiries are dealt with within four days, and they represent about 30 per cent of the Land Registry's work. The other 70 per cent. of its work, which causes serious concern to the house building industry and to home owners generally, is the treatment of substantive applications to register for the first time or to change registration when properties are sold. Since 1982, the boom in house building, the sale of council houses, inner-city regeneration and the securitisation of mortgages have meant that these applications have more than doubled on an annual basis from 1·2 million to 2·8 million last year—and the number is still rising.
Surpluses averaging £10 million a year have been made from this increasing business. Inevitable manpower constraints have seen staff increased in that period by 50 per cent.—from 6,000 to 9,000—against the doubling of the business.

1001
There have been three results of that. First, the backlog of work has increased to the extent that it damages the productivity improvements needed to make inroads into past backlogs. The Public Accounts Committee heard from the Land Registry last year that there were 900,000—itself a record—outstanding substantive applications. I am told that there are now 1·147 million outstanding applications. As a result, although productivity is improving by 2 per cent. a year, it has not yet reached the levels achieved in 1982–83.
Secondly, that will result in delays in getting registration through, which holds up the completion of land sales. On Land Registry figures, the time taken for first registration is 35 weeks, against a 14-week target, and for other registrations it is 33 weeks. That causes delays and increased costs to builders and vendors—many of whom have to take out bridging loans. It has a detrimental effect on house prices, restricts the mobility of labour and, in many cases, causes considerable personal anguish.
The upshot is that the public are still providing the Land Registry with a substantial surplus every year, but are receiving a service which is unsatisfactory, at least in its speed of response, and one which does not look as though it is getting any better.
It is only fair to say that the Land Registry, assisted by the Government, has been making efforts to counteract these problems. It has introduced a £25 million computerisation programme; it has opened new offices—two more were opened last year—it has reduced and rationalised its fee structure—there was a fee change only last year—and it has tried to assist house builders by introducing development title certificates, which speed up new registrations where there are multiple applications from house builders. So far, however, those have only produced the prospect of improvement.
I believe, as do many people in the Land Registry, that it is constrained by a number of factors. First, it is unable to put its surpluses to effective use. Although, in April last year, it was freed from gross running cost control by the Treasury, it is still subject to annuality. It is not, therefore, able to carry over its surpluses or effectively its spending plans between years rather than within years. Secondly, it feels constrained by Civil Service rules on pay and recruitment, especially for senior staff. Professional entrants, and especially people on professional and executive grades, cannot be recruited locally, but must be recruited through the Civil Service Commission, which leads to delay. As a result there is a 40 per cent. under-establishment in executive and professional grades. I am told, too, that there are only 100 qualified solicitors among the 9,000 people working in the service.
Thirdly, because its incentives to improve productivity are cash-limited, the registry sometimes runs out of funds, which can be infinitely demoralising for staff. Fourthly, it is constrained by what the land registrar called the cumbersome nature of fee-making machinery. That means that the Treasury must be consulted, and the matter must then go through a rules committee on which is represented such bodies as the Law Society. That makes the progress extremely slow and non-responsive to the changes in a fast-changing market. The average time taken is about six months.
1002
Fifthly, the registry is constrained by a perception of an adequate level of service which is based upon the problems and backlog of the past five years, rather than the prompt service for which the public are paying. The chief land registrar admitted to the Public Accounts Committee that the 14-week target for first registration—which has more than doubled in practice—was worse than the previous targets set by the Land Registry.
I believe that those problems can only be tackled by deep-seated changes, which my Bill is intended to introduce. The first change would be the introduction of agency status, which would improve managerial accountability, the freedom to manage, the ability to recruit staff of the right calibre and the ability to respond to local labour markets. I believe that that change would also improve staff morale, because staff turnover would fall.
The Bill would also improve the Land Registry's financial flexibility in two ways. First, it would allow the registry to invest its surpluses more quickly in the recruitment and retraining of staff. That would mean that there would be greater continuity in the staff between one year and the next. Secondly, the fees should more accurately reflect the state of the market. Therefore, the customer would get a better deal.
Although the Land Registry is a statutory monopoly, such changes must be buttressed by externally set performance indicators to measure response time, quality of service and even the repayment of fees in extreme circumstances. An externally set rate of return, either based on the registry's assets or its income, must be established to maintain its financial discipline.
Among the Government, the Law Society, the legal profession and home owners there is demand, and approval, for the pragmatic changes included in my Bill. Those changes will make registration and, therefore, house conveyancing much quicker. I hope that those changes will command the support of everyone in the House.
4.40 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) has set out the Land Registry's record of considerable success, even on his own terms. Any delays arising at the Land Registry derive from the huge increase in the work that it now undertakes. The hon. Gentleman has already said that the number of cases for registration of title have increased from 1·1 million to 2·8 million and that that figure is still rising.
From experience, everyone knows that any reorganisation will not reduce delays but almost certainly increase them until that reorganisation is complete. The hon. Gentleman has complained that surpluses cannot be carried forward, but the answer does not lie in agency status, in a change in the Treasury rules or through some statutory instrument introduced rapidly by the Government. If the Government had a mind to deal with the problem, it could be eliminated within a matter of hours.
The hon. Gentleman has accepted that the Land Registry has reduced its fees, but I am concerned that he believes that those fees should be more sensitive to the changes in property values. In recent years, however, property values have only gone up; they have not come down. It is likely that the fees would also go up if one had an agency that was directed to make money.

1003
The second important feature about agency status is that it is the first step towards privatisation. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about accountability, but the Land Registry is accountable to the House. Privatisation would remove such accountability. Parliamentary questions may be asked about the Land Registry, but a study of the number of such questions asked shows that concern about it has diminished. Between June 1987 and June 1988, 52 parliamentary questions were asked, but from November 1988 only four questions have been asked. The hon. Gentleman has troubled to table only two questions. It is clear that his worries about the Land Registry have not produced, as one might suppose, a great swathe of parliamentary questions.
The Land Registry is essentially a service. I am aware that agency status has been granted to Her Majesty's Stationery Office and to Companies house, but to award such status to the Land Registry could lead to a worsening of terms and conditions of service, especially as there has been an influx of temporary employees to HMSO and Companies house. Such people could not, because of the lack of training, provide the efficient service and rapid response which the hon. Gentleman desires.
When agency status is established as a step towards privatisation, there is much fear, based on experience, that it will lead to an increase in charges. The Financial Times today states that statutory water companies plan to impose price rises of between 30 and 50 per cent. That has been announced as the privatisation legislation is being discussed in the House. It points out:
"The Government's difficulty is that ministers have no legal powers to control their price increases".
Once the gas supply industry was privatised, its charges increased. We already know that electricity charges have been increased by 15 per cent. as a prelude to privatisation.
House buyers who will use the services of the Land Registry perhaps once or twice in their lives need certainty and need to know that service is the priority rather than increased profits demanded by an agency as a step towards privatisation. Given the current situation, house owners and potential house owners need certainty and low charges above all else. In May 1988 the interest rate was 9·5 per cent. Since then those who have a £30,000 mortgage for 25 years have had to face a 32 per cent. rise in their mortgage repayments. In January, the interest rate was 13·75 per cent., which means that those with a £30,000 mortgage have seen their payments increase by £66·59. The repayments for those with an £80,000 mortgage held for 25 years have increased by 34 per cent., which is equivalent to £221.82. In those circumstances, we should make every endeavour to keep any additional charges that must be met on house sales to the absolute minimum. The hon. Gentleman has already demonstrated that the Land Registry has done that.
We do not want the reorganisation of the Land Registry, but we want its service expanded and developed. That should be done under the accountability that the House can provide. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will be opposed.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 127.

Division No. 85]

[4.45pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Kellett-Bowman,Dame Elaine

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Kilfedder, James

Alton, David

Knapman, Roger

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Latham, Michael

Atkinson, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Beggs, Roy

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Beith, A. J.

Livsey, Richard

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Bevan, David Gilroy

McCrindle, Robert

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Maclennan, Robert

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

Monro, Sir Hector

Browne, John (Winchester)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Page, Richard

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Burns, Simon

Pawsey, James

Butler, Chris

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Rhodes James, Robert

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Riddick, Graham

Carrington, Matthew

Shaw, David (Dover)

Churchill, Mr

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Shersby, Michael

Critchley, Julian

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Dickens, Geoffrey

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Dicks, Terry

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Emery, Sir Peter

Stanbrook, Ivor

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Fearn, Ronald

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Summerson, Hugo

Fox, Sir Marcus

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Franks, Cecil

Thorne, Neil

Fry, Peter

Thornton, Malcolm

Gale, Roger

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Gill, Christopher

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Glyn, Dr Alan

Walden, George

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Gorst, John

Wallace, James

Gow, Ian

Waller, Gary

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Walters, Sir Dennis

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Watts, John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Wheeler, John

Holt, Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Hordern, Sir Peter

Wilshire, David

Howells, Geraint

Woodcock, Mike

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Irvine, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Janman, Tim

Mr. John Bowls and

Jones, Robert B (Harts W)

Mr. David Nicholson.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Anderson, Donald

Clay, Bob

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Clelland, David

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ashton, Joe

Cohen, Harry

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Barron, Kevin

Corbett, Robin

Battle, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Beckett, Margaret

Cummings, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

Dalyell, Tam

Bermingham, Gerald

Darling, Alistair

Blair, Tony

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

Boyes, Roland

Dewar, Donald

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dixon, Don

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Dobson, Frank

Buchan, Norman

Doran, Frank

Caborn,Richard

Duffy, A. E. P

Callaghan, Jim

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Canavan, Dennis

Fatchett, Derek

Fisher, Mark

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Flannery, Martin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Nellist, Dave

Foster, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Fyfe, Maria

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Galbraith, Sam

Parry, Robert

Golding, Mrs Llin

Patchett, Terry

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Pendry, Tom

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Radice, Giles

Grocott, Bruce

Redmond, Martin

Hardy, Peter

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Reid, Dr John

Haynes, Frank

Richardson, Jo

Heffer, Eric S.

Robertson, George

Hinchliffe, David

Rooker, Jeff

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Ruddock, Joan

Home Robertson, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Hoyle, Doug

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Short, Clare

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Skinner, Dennis

Illsley, Eric

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Janner, Greville

Smith, C. (Isllon & F'bury)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Steinberg, Gerry

Lambie, David

Stott, Roger

Lamond, James

Strang, Gavin

Leighton, Ron

Straw, Jack

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Loyden, Eddie

Turner, Dennis

McAllion, John

Wall, Pat

McAvoy, Thomas

Walley, Joan

McKelvey, William

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McNamara, Kevin

Wareing, Robert N.

McWilliam, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Madden, Max

Wilson, Brian

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Winnick, David

Marek, Dr John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Worthington, Tony

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Meale, Alan

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Mr. Ian McCartney.

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Questions accrodingly negatived.

Broadcasting
4.57 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper, Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality (Cm. 517), and endorses the Government's proposals for the future of broadcasting contained therein.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have to announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker has also asked me to say that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. He therefore intends to impose the 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock, but hopes that those who are called before then will bear that in mind.
Mr. Hurd: Today the House of Commons takes its part—a leading part, of course—in the debate on the future of British broadcasting which was launched by the publication of our White Paper. The Government have asked for comments from the rest of the world by the end of this month and after that we shall begin to take decisions on the contents of a Broadcasting Bill, which we hope to submit to Parliament in the reasonably near future. In shaping our proposals we shall of course take fully into account the comments made in this debate and, a few weeks ago, in another place.
The White Paper is the Government's child, but its godparents are Professor Peacock and his fellow members, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) and the members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I know that my hon. Friend is hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the godfathers commented in The Times today—[Interruption.]—on the whole favourably, on the progress of the infant, and possibly my hon. Friend will comment as we proceed. I pay tribute to their work as godparents, at least of this debate.
Everyone agrees that change is inevitable because of the wider choice that is now possible. That is the common ground from which all the representations that we have so far received start. The question is what the framework for such change should be. The proposals in the White Paper enable, but do not prescribe. We are not in the business of guessing in advance which of the possible new developments will come fast and which slowly—let alone of placing bets with taxpayers' money on such guesses.
Rather than describe in full the contents of a White Paper which has already been much discussed, I shall take this opportunity to talk about the philosophy that underlies it. I shall also comment on radio, because I believe that the changes now possible in radio are among the most exciting contained in the White Paper. However, for the time being I shall concentrate on television.
We are at a staging post in the history of British television. The first stage was one television service provided by the BBC. At that time, the BBC had to ensure that, as far as possible, its monopoly programme satisfied the tastes and interests of a widely varied public. Two channels followed, then three, then four.
Theoretically, we could ultimately imagine a television screen that had become more or less like a book shop. The

1007
customer in a book shop is protected against dishonesty, fraud and obscenity, but he is not tapped on the shoulder from time to time and told that he has spent long enough in the thriller department and should now go to the science department instead. Similarly, he is not greeted at the shop entrance by a gentleman telling him that he is welcome to visit all departments of the shop, but before doing so he must pay a fee that will go to benefit only part of the book shop.
We are a long way from the television screen as a book shop, but we are approaching an intermediate stage. In the next decade there will be scope not merely for four but for dozens of television channels, most of which will be delivered, not by limited UHF spectrum but by satellite, cable or microwave. The core of this debate is how much specific prescription and regulation is required as we move to this next staging post.
Most of the discussion in answering that question has been about the quality of programmes—that is at the heart of the debate. Quality must not be equated with the preservation of existing interests, and neither should we exaggerate as perfect the quality of what we already have; a certain hyperbole creeps in from time to time.
Our constituents who press the button for ITV on a Saturday evening would be surprised to learn that they were tiptoeing into a temple of our national culture—that is not how they see it. There is much that is ordinary, as well as much that is good, in British broadcasting today. It is true that both the BBC and the independent commercial sector have many jewels in their crowns. I have been re-reading Lord Reith's speeches, and the pessimists who predicted in the 1950s that independent broadcasting would ring the death knell of quality—he used some striking phrases—have been confounded. Perhaps there is a lesson here for today's pessimists.
Mr. Derek Conway: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that some of the comments made about his proposals, notably in television discussions by the media intelligentsia, reject the very reasonable point that he is making, which is that there is not much to be defended, particularly on the BBC, at the moment? Programmes such as "That's Life" and "Panorama" would not recognise "unbiasedness" if it smacked them on the head. There is not a great deal to brag about in the present system, and there is much scope for improvement.
Mr. Hurd: There is quite a lot to boast about. Personally, I do not share my hon. Friend's distaste for the two programmes that he mentioned, which I sometimes see. Sometimes we are all irritated or even angered by what we see on the television, but I hope that what I have said strikes a reasonable balance. Some interested parties speak in hyperbole about the glories of British broadcasting, but it is true that both the BBC and the commercial sector have many jewels in their crown.
The main argument advanced against the White Paper—I think that I shall carry my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) with me here—is that we are proposing to hand over broadcasting to market forces that will inevitably wreck the tradition of quality. Certainly, we believe that the viewer should take an increasing hand. As choice multiplies, less regulation and detailed prescription are needed. A little fresh air does no harm in broadcasting—indeed, I welcome the good,
1008
refreshing wind that has been blowing through broadcasting in recent years, through the restrictive practices and occasional complacencies in both the BBC and the independent sector.
The White Paper clearly sets out six main safeguards for the quality of British broadcasting and—acknowledging your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall describe each of them briefly. When those six safeguards are added together, they provide a convincing refutation of the criticism that we propose to be rashly destructive of quality.
First, the BBC will—as the White Paper states—remaiin the cornerstone of public sector broadcasting. I do not doubt that that will still be true when in about five years' time we start the next big clearly foreseeable debate on our broadcasting system and consider the renewal of the BBC charter.
The licence fee is not immortal and we want the BBC to experiment with subscription, which provides a more direct and legitimate link between viewer and broadcaster. We have deliberately not fixed a date for the replacement of the licence fee. We believe that it will be sensible, after 1991, to take into account, when setting the licence fee, the BBC's ability to raise income from subscription and other sources. By the time that the debate about renewing the charter is under way, we shall all have more experience of the working of subscription programmes. We shall also have had time to consider other problems, such as how BBC radio might be funded if the licence fee were replaced. None of those questions has been prejudged.
I am glad of the way in which the BBC, in contrast to some of its friends, has reacted to the White Paper. It knows that it is nonsense to suggest that we are subjecting the corporation to death by a thousand cuts. In practice, the BBC now enjoys greater certainty about its income for the next few years than it has traditionally enjoyed a t many times in the past.
The second safeguard lies with Channel 4 and the Welsh S4C. The White Paper makes it clear that the remit which is the essence of Channel 4—to innovate and complement the broadcasting of others—must remain. S4C will continue with its present purpose. Under its remit, Channel 4 will provide guaranteed outlets for minority interests and high-quality programmes. For example, it will be required to devote a suitable proportion of its air time to educational programmes.
The question is not whether the Channel 4 remit should continue as it is—everyone to whom I have listened believes that it should, and that is certainly the Government's view. The question is whether the remit needs buttressing by some special financial arrangement in a world in which Channel 4 sells its own air time. We set out the options and arguments in the White Paper and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will give the Government some guidance on this important point, which we have deliberately left open.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Home Secretary seen the anxieties expressed about the White Paper by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and by other organisations of and for disabled people? The RN IB fears that many important specialist programmes that are now available, not least those of the BBC, may be at risk and that the development of new services will be

1009
impossible. They would benefit disabled people, but they will cost money. How does the Home Secretary respond to their anxieties?
Mr. Hurd: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but it is misplaced. I have already mentioned that the BBC will be continuing and I outlined the remit of Channel 4 to do things that other channels do not do, so the right hon. Gentleman's concerns will not be affected as all that remains unchanged. In addition, there will be far more space and opportunity and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with that general subject in his winding-up speech. Far from being reduced, the opportunity for the programmes that the right hon. Gentleman and the Royal National Institute for the Blind have in mind should be enchanced.
The third safeguard is the quality tests that the White Paper proposes for Channel 3 and Channel 5 franchises. Both will be required to provide a diverse programme, so they are calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes. Tired and limited formats are not only boring for viewers and advertisers, but will not be acceptable to the Independent Television Commission—the successor body to the Independent Broadcasting Authority—because of the requirement for diversity. The Channel 3 regions, in addition, will have an express statutory requirement to show programmes produced within their regions. Prominence must be given to high-quality news and current affairs on Channels 3, 4 and 5 taken separately and there must be at least one body effectively equipped and financed to provide news for Channel 3. Schools programmes will have a guaranteed place on commercial television.
Those are the component parts of the quality hurdle and the height and importance of the hurdle thus constructed have been somewhat neglected in the arguments about competitive tender. Competitive tendering only comes after those concerned have got over the quality hurdle. That proposal arises from the present arrangements for awarding ITV contracts. I have always believed, since long before the debate in the country started, that they are deeply unsatisfactory. I have never blamed the IBA for the system, because it did not invent it. It seemed the best system at the time when Parliament was last reviewing those matters. But life moves on and the present system has turned out to be opaque, subjective and secretive. I have not been able to check the quotation, but I think that it was Gibbon who said that the Merovingian dynasty in France was a system of despotism, tempered by assassination. That is not an unfair description of the present system for letting ITV franchises. One moment all the franchise holders are there, the next moment one of them has disappeared down an oubliette with no particular reason given and no redress available. The White Paper proposes a straightforward approach, which could be a substantial improvement on that.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
Competitive tender, as the Peacock committee said, is an inherently fairer and more objective procedure, which would also secure a proper return for the taxpayer in the
1010
use of a scarce resource. It is wrong to describe it simply as an auctioning of licences because that ignores the quality hurdle, which I have described. I know that the new chairman of the IBA, Mr. George Russell, is looking carefully at the interaction of the two concepts of the quality hurdle and the competitive tender. We believe that both are essential—this is an important point—but the exact way in which we ask the ITC to operate them is a matter on which we shall listen carefully to the advice that he and many others may give.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: The Home Secretary began his remarks by being critical of the quality of some of the programmes on ITV. He is now making great play of the fact that there will be a quality hurdle. But the quality hurdle will be lower than any that exists at present and its touch will be lighter, so how can he square his view that programmes are not as good as they might be now with recommending a system with a lower quality hurdle?
Mr. Hurd: The accusation made against us is that we are throwing away all concern for quality, but that is not so and the quality hurdle that we prescribe, which will be an enforceable condition for the letting of franchises, is substantial compared with the way in which it is often described. I have taken the House through the different elements that make up the hurdle and if the hon. Gentleman studies what I have said, he will agree, as he is fair-minded, that it is considerably more substantial than has been supposed by the more shallow critics of the White Paper.
Sir Giles Shaw: In dealing with that point, will my right hon. Friend recognise that the issue of tendering came through the original Peacock report? As I understand it, the Peacock committee, although not in session, has broadly altered its view and in its recent submission to my right hon. Friend it has made it clear that it considers that the ITC should have an override in relation to the concept of the highest bidder. Bearing in mind that, despite the Gibbonesque system that he has described, ITV has produced some substantially effective programming over the past 15 years, will my right hon. Friend look at the new representations from the Peacock committee?
Mr. Hurd: I had my hon. Friend's point in mind when I said that we believe, for the reasons that the Peacock committee gave and continues to give—which the Select Committee also gave when it reported on the matter—that both the elements of the quality hurdle and the competitive tender are good and necessary, but that the interaction between them and how the House asks the ITC to operate the new system are matters on which it is reasonable that we should listen carefully to any suggestions that George Russell or hon. Members may want to give.
I shall now turn to the fourth safeguard.
Mr. John Greenway: Before my right hon. Friend passes on to another point, I want to make a point about quality. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House about the Government's commitment to regional programming and production? Can he say how that is to be achieved in the regions where there is little independent regional production, unless the regional ITV companies are to have a commitment to produce some of the programmes that they show.?
Mr. Hurd: That will be part of the hurdle. We are also encouraging—and, as my hon. Friend knows, this is already happening—a cluster of smaller independent producers, not only in London, but in the regions. That has been one of the hopeful developments in television in recent years.
Mr. Buchan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: I should like to make some progress now.
The fourth matter, which I know is on the hon. Gentleman's mind, is the necessary measures against the concentration of ownership. The White Paper makes it clear that rigorous enforcement is necessary. We should regard it as quite unacceptable if British broadcasting were allowed to be dominated by a handful of tycoons of international conglomerates. Effective rules that will safeguard diverse broadcasting ownership, editorial diversity, opportunities for new broadcasters and fair competition are key parts of our aim. We have set out a range of principles and invite suggestions on the scope and formulation of the rules that will flow from those principles. We are interested in views on the best mechanisms for enforcing the rules. Anybody who believes that he has found loopholes has failed to take into account that the White Paper deliberately did not attempt to set out at that early stage a complete set of detailed rules.
Mr. David Clelland: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, because I want to continue this part of the argument. People should not he too quick to assume that there will be no limit on newspaper interests in the regional Channel 3 licences. The regional Channel 3 licences will, taken together, provide a major television channel which will be expected to maintain universal national coverage and which may operate national networking arrangements.
If a major national newspaper controlled a regional Channel 3 licensee, it could result in an excessive influence over communications and the flow of information. UHF television services will still be influential users of a scarce resource. Their ownership must remain diverse. We shall consider suggestions to tighten the present proposal in the White Paper that one person could control two, but not more than two, regional Channel 3 franchises. For example, there may be a case for a rule that would prevent anyone from controlling two large such franchises.
Satellite television is much in the news this week—at least in some newspapers. The White Paper is clear that the ownership of satellite television, including the use of satellite channels outside the jurisdiction of this country, will need to be taken into account, and that rules will have to be included on this in our proposals. The House may know that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has written to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the media interests of Mr. Murdoch's organisation. My noble Friend has replied to him today, explaining that it is the Director General of Fair Trading who has the responsibility of keeping commercial activities under review and can refer them to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if he thinks fit. My noble Friend adds that the director general is aware of public comment about the widespread media interests of some groups and is already keeping an eye on that.
1012
The fifth point concerns the safeguarding of standards. We propose no relaxation of the present requirements to protect the consumer on such matters as taste, decency and offensiveness. The White Paper proposes that that part of the legislation should be reinforced. Consumer protection requirements will be extended to all United Kingdom broadcasting services and the exemption that broadcasters have from the existing obscenity legislation will be removed. Sanctions will be provided against those who sustain unacceptable foreign satellite services.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary recall that only last week, during our debate on the Official Secrets Bill, he stated that the Obscene Publications Act 1964 was widely disproved of? Why, therefore, is he today seeking to extend it in this fashion?
Mr. Hurd: Because one of the difficulties is precisely that broadcasters are exempted from it. By plugging that loophole we are not dealing with all the defects of the legislation, but with one. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) or he will explode.
Mr. Buchan: Virtually the only regulation that is taken care of in the White Paper is the category of decency and taste, which the Home Secretary is mentioning. Does he agree that there is nothing either in what he has said or in the White Paper that satisfies Professor Peacock who says:
"This aspect of programme standards"—
that is to say quality, decency and taste—
"distracts attention from the much more important one of ensuring that programmes of high quality which challenge the viewer and foster our national cultures continue to Ibe produced."
Regulation in the Home Secretary's eyes means the suppression of dirt. Regulation in our eyes means ensuring good quality programmes.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's criticism would be just if the White Paper were proposing the abolition of the BBC and the Channel 4 remit, and the auctioning of franchises with no assurance of quality. As everything I have said so far is designed to show that that is not so, his criticism is wholly mistaken.
I am moving on to the hon. Gentleman's favourite subject which is the Broadcasting Standards Council. I am glad that he recognises its importance. It will be made statutory under the legislation. It is already fulfilling a needed role as a focus for public concern and as a watchdog across the range of services for which the individual regulatory bodies are responsible.
The BSC was established last year under the chairmanship of Lord Rees-Mogg to consider the portayal of violence and sex, and matters of taste and decency in broadcasting, cable and video works. I understand that he thinks that the council has made good progress on what he set as its priority task of drawing up with broadcasters a code of practice on these matters. It is about to undertake an extensive process of consultation on a draft code with the broadcasting organisations, the public and representatives of other interests.
The council believes that research in this area, which has certainly been fragmentary and conflicting in the past, is particularly important. It is taking steps to help that forward. In that, it is following the advice of the Home

1013
Affairs Select Committee. The council has also begun, wisely, to establish useful links with broadcasting, regulatory and other organisations in Europe.
Mr. George Walden: Most hon. Members will welcome the functions of the BSC as described, but sex and violence are not the main problems. They can be quantified to some degree and a line can be drawn, although, thank God, I shall not have to draw it. But one cannot draw a line through vacuity. The proposals in the White Paper will lead to vacuity in our television service.
Mr. Hurd: The proposals will lead to diversity because clearly that will be a requirement. My hon. Friend is over-pessimistic in assuming that, provided that the standards I have mentioned remain in place, which is our clear intention, the result will be vacuity. There will certainly be a much larger range of choice, but it will have to be genuine choice. It will not be possible simply to provide a range of choice between vacuities. That is incompatible with our proposals. Much of our work was designed precisely to avoid that result. When my hon. Friend studies what I have said, I hope that he will see that that result not only can but will be avoided if Parliament eventually establishes this new framework.
Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
Mr. Hurd: I should like to proceed because many wish to speak.
The sixth safeguard is the search for European agreement on standards. I have already touched on that with the BSC. We have been arguing for international agreement which, without smothering enterprise, can help transfrontier transmission to provide checks against unacceptable programme standards, particularly regarding taste and decency. My hon. Friend the Minister of State can say a bit more later about the draft Council of Europe convention which he has helped to negotiate. We are not yet home and dry, but after many hiccups I hope that we are in sight of concluding a convention which promotes these objectives without handicapping our broadcasters on something about which they are all concerned—advertising breaks.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that specific point?
Mr. Hurd: I should rather proceed. I sense that I should conclude.
I am aware that in a speech which I hope has been decently concise I cannot cover all the ground of the White Paper. I apologise to hon. Members whose main interests lie in DBS, cable, MVDS or transmission. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will pick up any points made on those subjects. I shall simply mention one principle that we tried to include in the White Paper and which runs through several of these proposals. We believe that it should be possible to separate activities that are lumped together. Channel 4 has already shown how a broadcasting organisation can be a publishing house rather than a producer of programmes. In the process it gave the first important boost to independent producers, which our policies have reinforced. The same principle applies in the development of television and radio transmission
1014
networks, cable and MVDS. Where enterprising individuals or companies believe that they can perform a service better than the present provider, they should not be excluded simply because they cannot, at the same time, provide another service which happens to be harnessed to the first.
Mr. John Browne: With regard to the European convention, my right hon. Friend mentioned that he wished to keep enterprise alive, yet, as drafted, article 16 of the convention will allow a receiving country to shut out the signals from a direct broadcast satellite if they do not conform to the rules in that particular receiving country. If that country does not have commercial television, it can cut out all incoming advertising in its own language. Is that really something that the British Government are prepared to sign and still say that it is going to fortify enterprise?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right in saying that that will be the effect, but as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been directly and personally involved in that perhaps he will be able to pick up the point when he replies.
I promised to say a word about radio; it would be wrong not to do so. Radio is achieving a strong revival. The days when it was treated as a poor, and perhaps even moribund, relation of television have long since gone. Under our proposal, the BBC will continue broadcasting Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4, and it is planning two other national networks. It is also completing its chain of local stations.
We propose to provide, for the first time, for national commercial radio. At the local level there could be scope in due course for several hundred new independent stations. Independent radio is booming. Its revenue rose 24 per cent. last year, making it the fastest-growing single medium. The IBA, while waiting for the new legislation, is giving community radio a very welcome early start—a fairly early start—with its scheme for some 20 incremental radio contracts under existing legislation.
Community radio—that is to say, radio stations catering for communities of interest or for small neighbourhoods—can do much, I believe, to help social cohesion and active citizenship. I believe that that section of the White Paper, which is less controversial than the others, is going to be a very important part of the whole picture.
I hope that what I have said shows that the White Paper proposals offer a reasonable and sensible means of arriving at the next staging post of broadcasting, of which I spoke. No one who actually studies the White Paper can really believe that we are proposing to allow British broadcasting to shrivel into empty trivialities. The fact is that in a free society quality is not best preserved by restricting choice. Our proposals enlarge choice, where enlarged choice is possible, but at the same time ensure that it is a real choice and not just a choice between different brands of pap.
Although it is not a matter, thank God, for the Government, I am not personally enthusiastic about the idea of the British public actually watching more television, in terms of quantity, than it does at the moment. I think that we have just about reached the healthy limit in that regard. But, even with the relative success of broadcasting in this country, we all know that television viewing is too often a passive activity: the television set is

1015
on, and its products wash through the room without anybody necessarily deriving a great deal of interest or a great deal of sustenance from what is going on.
With greater choice, if we get it right, could come greater focus, greater sustenance, as people actually choose, and concentrate on, the programmes that fit their particular interests. It is an arid and a pessimistic doctrine that says simply that more must mean worse. It could mean worse, but if we get it right, as I believe we are proposing to do, more need not mean worse but could mean better. As every hon. Member knows, we live in a society which is richly varied in its sports and hobbies and in its cultural and intellectual interests, and we must aim for a television system—this is our aim, and I believe that the White Paper is the right way of achieving it—that will more fully reflect that richness and that variety.
5.35 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"declines to support a Broadcasting White Paper which, if implemented, would encourage the concentration of cross-ownership by auctioning franchises to the highest bidder, diminish the role of public service broadcasting, threaten the future funding of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and thereby discourage a wide variety of programme choice and generally reduce the high standards and consistent quality of broadcasting in this country.".
I am not sure that the Home Secretary, for all his talents, is at his best when he philosophises to the House. He began today with an analogy comparing broadcasting with a bookshop. Analogy is always a difficult way to proceed, and I was going to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was comparing broadcasting with an industry that produces millions of books a year to choose from—let him look at the back pages of any edition of The Bookseller—has thousands of retail outlets, and has both a private and public system of borrowing. I would have mentioned all those things to the Home Secretary had he not finished his analogy by saying that, of course, it was not appropriate in the case of broadcasting.
He then went on in more typical fashion. First of all, in his mandarin way, he told us to listen to what he said and to take note of his assurances. We keep making the mistake of reading the White Paper, which is often at variance with the assurances that the Home Secretary gives us. The right hon. Gentleman then pursued his other debating technique—choosing a very limited item to criticise and then building on that limited item as though it were the whole picture. He always tells us that he is not particularly proud of what appears on television on a Saturday evening. Television on a Saturday evening is often pretty tawdry—it is usually made up of people who appear at the Prime Minister's pre-election rallies. But I suspect that if the Home Secretary could pursue broadcasting activities to Sunday evening he would share with me the view that what often starts with a classic serial and goes on to "Bread", "Wish Me Luck" and "The South Bank Show" is something to make most viewers proud of what British television produces. It is against that sort of background that we should be debating the White Paper.
I accept, of course, that changes in our broadcasting system are absolutely necessary. But those changes are not a response to failure. They are essential and inevitable not because broadcasting is bad but because, thanks to technological advance, what we broadcast in the future
1016
can be better. Listeners and viewers can be offered a wider range of channels and programmes than ever before. An increasingly discerning and sophisticated public demand that broadcasting should provide all the choices that are technologically possible. A White Paper outlining changes in broadcasting organisation is therefore very much to be welcomed, and we welcome the existence of the document, but we have to ask whether it proposes the right changes—changes which guarantee that British broadcasting will in the future, as in the past, provide the best possible programmes that the most up-to-date technology allows.
We believe that the White Paper must be measured against a number of criteria, most of them distinct but all of them related. I begin by describing what I believe to be the four major criteria. First, will the new form of organisation that the White Paper proposes provide the largest possible real choice to listeners and viewers? By "real choice" I mean more than television sets with more buttons to press than at present. Real choice requires that when different buttons are pressed programmes of quite different character appear on the screen and not, as could so easily be the case, programmes which are indistinguishable from one another.
Secondly, will the new form of organisation that the White Paper proposes ensure that the British viewer and listener are offered a variety of high-quality programmes from which to choose? Will the British industry continue to enhance our national reputation and reduce our balance of payments deficit by exporting television programmes that are bought throughout the world? As "high quality" is a subjective description, I make it clear that I include in it "Bread" as well as "Brideshead Revisited," and "Coronation Street" no less than "Jewel in the Crown".
Thirdly, will the new form of organisation that the White Paper proposes prevent concentration of television ownership and thus ensure the competition of which the White Paper speaks in general terms? The argument against concentration has important democratic implications. In a free society, no individual or organisation should have massive or major control over a medium that is so influential in the formation of opinion. The problem of concentration is often described in language which suggest that the threat is from some multinational organisation. The concentration of ownership of British television in the hands of foreign conglomerates would, in our view, be intolerable. I should make it clear, however, that in our view the concentration of ownership in the hands of two or three British companies, particularly if they also had newspaper interests, would be almost as unacceptable.
My fourth question concerns one of the real criteria of public service broadcasting. Will the new form of organisation that the White Paper proposes ensure that the high quality broadcasts and diversity of choice that are its stated aim are generally available throughout the United Kingdom? One essential feature of public service broadcasting is that it is universally available to all men and women who want to take advantage of it.
Ensuring a wider choice and maintaining the highest possible standards of broadcasting are issues which cannot be separated. The method by which independent companies obtain their franchises will crucially influence the choice and quality of programmes which they offer. Independent television companies exist as profit-making

1017
organisations. Therefore, it is right and reasonable for those who run the programme companies to try to make a profit.
At present substantial profits are made without generally imperilling the production of high quality programmes. The programme makers are explicit as to why that is so. The present system of regulation requires them at the time of franchise negotiations to demonstrate the standards that they will maintain during the period of their franchise. We all know of programmes that are made to demonstrate a company's good intentions and commitment to quality. We all know jokes about programmes which have such a small viewing audience that they would not get on the air were they not regarded as underwriting the programme company's good intentions and prepared explicitly to show the company's concern for high standards.
The best companies want a continuous regime which has, since independent television began, obliged all their rivals to produce a proportion of high quality programmes. Granada has no doubt about that. I was told explicitly that without a system of franchise negotiation which requires detailed accounts to be given of the rival companies' programme proposals there would be a general reduction in standards. I have no doubt that Granada is right. The White Paper, however, proposes to abandon the present system in which companies must prove their intentions to maintain high standards. In its place there will be what the Home Secretary describes as a greater reliance on the viewer rather than on the regulator. That new system will not, as the Home Secretary suggests, inevitably, necessarily and unavoidably widen choice. The viewer, like any consumer of any other product, can only choose the goods on offer. If a wide varietyof high quality programmes is not available, the consumer—the viewer—will have no real choice.
The White Paper gives absolutely no assurance that real choice—a choice between genuinely different types of programme—will be more available under the new scheme than at present. Standards fall without choice, in any real sense, being increased. Companies bidding for franchises will be required to meet the minimum standards laid down by paragraphs 6.10 and 6.11 of the White Paper. Those standards used to be described by the Home Secretary as the threshold. Today I see that they have increased in height and become a hurdle. No doubt by the time we see the legislation they will be a fence, but whatever word the Home Secretary proposes or uses, no one would argue that they are a very substantial barrier. There is no obligation to broadcast drama, documentaries or religious programmes. Those are all examples of what took place during specific franchise negotiations between the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the programme companies under the present regime. If the system is introduced in the proposed form, I have no doubt that some companies will abandon high-cost drama and high-cost documentaries.
We believe that the documentary, and particularly the investigative documentary, has been one of the features of British television which has enhanced its international reputation. Investigative documentary is also a form of broadcasting which displeases authority, particularly authority that is intolerant of criticism. Perhaps the documentary makers are being punished in the White
1018
Paper for their willingness to say things of which the Government disapprove. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) demonstrated in his intervention the bone-headed resentment of all opinions except his own which of is too much a feature of modern Conservatism.
Mr. Conway: The right hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to the fact that I quoted "Panorama", which is noted for its bias, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In the recent programme in which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) took part, about the official secrets legislation, the right hon. Gentleman was interviewed three times, but at no stage did those so-called probing documentary makers put to him the points that I put to him in the debate on the Floor of the House, namely, that under the prevention of terrorism legislation a Labour Government had imprisoned four times as many people without trial as the Tory Government. The right hon. Gentleman likes documentaries only when they are biased towards Left-wing Socialism.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman provides in terms, and quite literally, the confirmation of what I said. Unless the programmes are programmes that he would make and ask the questions that he would ask, they cannot be the right programmes.
I am sure that all my colleagues must have found things to complain about in television broadcasts. If the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham ever meets broadcasters from the BBC or from the independent channels, they will confirm that there are few people around with whom they have more private rows in green rooms or on the telephone than me. However, the fact that broadcasters do things of which we disapprove is no argument for limiting their freedom or suppressing their rights. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that—I fear that this may sound slightly pretentious—he does not understand democracy.
I have speculated about one reason why investigative documentaries may be less a feature of the White Paper proposals than some of us might like. Whatever the reasons, if the obligation to provide such programmes were altered in such a way as to result in their reduction, that would be a tragedy, not just because the standards in television would be reduced. For the sake of democracy, we need a high output of current affairs material which acts as an antidote to the often biased and even more trivial newspapers. No one doubts that if the proposals go forward in their present form the expensive, probing documentary will be less a feature of television in the future. We know that to be true because of the cost of high quality programmes compared with the cost of broadcasting quiz shows, cartoons and imported soap operas, which are being produced in America and Australia in ever-increasing numbers and to ever-decreasing standards and are so much cheaper to show than having original programmes made by a contract company.
London Weekend Television has told me that old movies are bought for prices ranging between £500 and £5,000. For the median price of £2,500 it is possible to fill 90 minutes of television time. "Coronation Street" costs £120,000 per hour, and "Bread" costs almost £225,000 per hour. Unless companies are obliged by some form of

1019
regulation to include a proportion of original high-cost material within their schedules, there will be more cheap imports. That will produce an overall reduction—not an increase—in real choice. The extra buttons will be there to press, but they will produce an unvarying diet of cheap rubbish.
The Government intend to award each franchise to the company which, having skipped over the minimum threshold, hurdle or fence—or whatever the Home Secretary cares to call it—makes the highest bid in each prescribed area. In short, thanks to the insistence of the Department of Trade and Industry, television is to be used as a method of raising Government revenue. Nobody should be surprised if quality and choice are reduced as a consequence. London Weekend Television tells me that its judgment of the best way to win a contract is to plan to broadcast as little original material as possible and, in anticipation of years of low-cost broadcasting, make a bid that companies committed to transmitting high-cost original material cannot match.
Much of the inspiration for the White Paper, as the Home Secretary keeps telling us, was the Peacock report—prepared by a committee hand-picked to provide a private enterprise answer to all broadcasting questions. The White Paper states that the Peacock committee first proposed competitive tendering, but Peacock has now recanted and publicly urges the Government to recognise the danger of the tender or auction and to accept that there may be times when the highest bidder should not win the franchise. Only doctrinaire philistinism could induce the Government to reject that advice.
Thames Television, which knows something about the industry, has no doubts about the likely results of the Government's tendering proposals, which it describes as follows:
"If the franchises were auctioned to the bidder offering most money, the new owner would be bound to spend the franchise years recouping his investment with cheaper mass appeal programmes of the kind that are likely to he transmitted by the satellite broadcasters and Channel Five. There would he little room if any for expensive drama, or innovative, experimental programmes."
Mr. Conway: The right hon. Gentleman takes no account of advertising standards and how such a company would attract advertising. If the programmes were so appalling that nobody wanted to watch them, which is the black hole picture that the right hon. Gentleman paints, they would not attract advertising revenue.
Mr. Hattersley: I will try to explain the matter to the hon. Gentleman in simple terms. I urge him to concentrate his mind on the figures that I give and to see whether he can understand them. If a company broadcasts 90 minutes of programming for £2,500, it does not need to raise so much advertising revenue as it would if it broadcast programmes costing £500,000 per hour. Cost, as well as advertising income, is a crucial factor in the equation. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to cogitate on that point while I move on to another that he will not understand.
Thames Television made, albeit in passing, the following interesting observation about satellite television:
"If things go on like this, Channel 3 will be broadcasting
the sort of material we see on satellite—cheaper material."
By referring to satellite television in those terms, Thames means cheaper in quality as well as cheaper in cost. The Government claim to give quality and diversity the highest
1020
priority, but their claim is undermined by the White Paper's proposals for Channel 4. The way in which it is proposed to finance Channel 4 can only have the effect of making it more like Channel 3. Paragraph 6.23 of the White Paper asserts the importance of Channel 4 catering
"for tastes and interests not served … by other parts of the independent television sector."
But by forcing Channel 4 into direct competition for advertising with Channel 3, the Government will reduce the prospect of preserving Channel 4's distinctive character. When television is directly financed by advertising, its programmes and programme schedules, inevitably, are in part advertising-led. At present, because Channel 4 obtains its revenue from other independent companies, it does not need to concern itself with the type of programmes particularly favoured by dog food manufacturers and by junk food producers, but once Channel 4 is out on its own in the advertising market it will be forced to listen to their views—as Channel 3 openly admits that it is forced to do now. The result will be a Channel 4 which is more like Channel 3. Once again, there will be less choice, not more.
On 18 January, the Home Secretary made a speech which dealt directly with my third criterion-the concentration of ownership. His press office entitled that address,
"Tight limits on TV and radio stations are crucial."
I suppose that they meant "essential", but we can all agree with the sentiment if not with the syntax. Few outside observers see much evidence that tight rules are to be imposed as a result of the White Paper. Paragraph 6.48 comments:
"But clear rules will also be needed which impose limits on concentration of ownership and on excessive cross-media ownership."
Paragraph 6·53 adds that
"no licence holder for a particular area should control other broadcast media for that area."
I assume that "cross-media ownership" is White Paper patois for simultaneous ownership of television companies and newspapers. The sentiments expressed in both paragraphs are impeccable, but paragraph 6.48, while stressing the undesirability of concentration, concludes with a pathetic anti-climax:
"The Government would welcome comments on the scope and formulation of such rules."
The suspicion that the sub-text is the Government's unwillingness or inability to formulate effective safeguards is confirmed by events—particularly the comments of the Minister of State, Home Office, in a Channel 4 broadcast on 13 November last year. I understand that this afternoon the Home Secretary expressly repudiated his hon. Friend's comments, but as it is important to make the situation clear I will take the Home Secretary through them. Fortunately, I have a transcript of the programme which the Home Secretary may care to examine as the evening wears on.
When the Minister of State appeared on Channel 4 on 13 November to discuss the White Paper, he was asked whether Mr. Robert Maxwell would be eligible under the proposals to buy Central Television—an aim that Mr. Maxwell had stated earlier that evening. At first, the Minister said that paragraph 6·48 would prevent that, but then he changed his mind and said:
"National newspaper ownership is incompatible with a national television channel but not with the ownership of a local television channel."

1021
He designated Central Television as a local television company, saying that Mr. Maxwell would only be prevented from owning it if he also owned a local newspaper in the midlands. The absurdity of that judgment is self-evident. If Central Television, with guaranteed network access, is not a national channel then what, according to the White Paper, is a national channel? If Mr. Maxwell—who owns two national daily newspapers and one national Sunday newspaper—can buy Central Television, who cannot buy it? According to the Minister, the owner of the "Solihull Weekly Gazette". I hope that the hon. Gentleman was simply talking gibberish, because if what he said is true there can be no limit at all on "cross-media ownership". I ask the Home Secretary in terms whether page 90 of the transcript of the Channel 4 broadcast of 13 November represents Government policy. Perhaps he will instruct his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office how to reply at the end of the debate.
I want to ask the Home Secretary three further questions. First, what rules govern the extent of television ownership—that is, the number of companies under the control of one individual or organisation? Secondly, what rules govern the ownership by foreign companies, to which paragraph 6·50 so loosely refers? Thirdly, what rules cover overlapping ownership of television companies and newspapers? I make our position clear. No Channel 3 company should be registered by a company outside the European Community. No one individual or organisation should own or control more than one Channel 3 company. The powers of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to prevent the concentration of newspaper ownership should be extended to embrace television. If it is against the national interest for one individual to own six newspapers, it must be against the national interest for an individual to own five newspapers and one television company.
I noted the hon. Secretary's comments concerning the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the right hon. Gentleman's usual defence that it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to refer specific cases and complaints to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. While that is true, the Home Secretary surely knows that the Government have the power to make general references to the commission, to consider whole sectors of particular concern. The time has come for the Government to make such a general reference, asking the commission to examine the implications of overlapping ownership of newspapers and television broadcasting companies.
Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend will note in paragraph 10.5 that certain questions of possible restrictive labour practices had already been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Such justice is hardly even-handed.
Mr. Hattersley: That confirms my judgment that the Government can, if they wish, make a general reference. Clearly, if there was ever a case of industrial patterns changing in a way that made a general monopoly reference necessary, the circumstances brought about by new technology in television and the problems of overlapping ownership are such a case.
Mr. Robert Adley: I think that that point would command some support on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. Hattersley: I am most grateful. Perhaps we shall hear that support articulated throughout the Conservative ranks as the debate continues.
The fourth general criterion by which the White Paper should be judged is the extent to which its proposals make a choice of high-quality television available to the whole country. That leads inevitably to the question of future financing for the BBC. The Home Secretary told the House on 7 November:
"The Government look forward to the gradual introduction of subscription on the BBC's television services and to the eventual replacement of the licence fee".—[Official Report, 7 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 30.]
We consider that prospect incompatible with what the White Paper describes as the BBC's central role—the provision of
"high quality programming across the full range of public tastes and interests, including both programmes of popular appeal and programmes of minority interest"
combined with
"education, information and cultural material as well as entertainment".
Producing those "demanding programmes" is what the Peacock report says that the BBC should do, and what the Peacock report says is not available even in a perfectly constructed broadcasting market.
The BBC has already announced the introduction of a subscription service, which it predicts will,
"in the long run, make a significant contribution to the funding of the BBC".
The BBC, however, has made it clear—I hope that the Government will be equally positive—that a subscription service cannot be an alternative to a comprehensive BBC I and BBC 2, and that subscription cannot fund the BBC in the absence of a licence fee.
The licence fee is a second proposal on which members of the Peacock committee have recanted. The Home Secretary, describing the committee's report as "admirable", told the House when he introduced the White Paper two months ago how much the Government had been influenced by its thinking. Now that the members of that committee favour retaining the value of the licence fee after 1991 I hope that the Government will continue to respect their logic and judgment. The Government's present intention is to index the licence fee until—but only until—1991. The Peacock committee members now judge that a reduction in the real value of the licence fee would have
"damaging effects both on BBC Television and BBC Radio".
The Home Secretary is in part responsible for the confusion over the licence fee and its proper role in financing broadcasting. There was a great deal of speculation about its future before the White Paper was published, and the Home Secretary encouraged the nation with the delphic, indeed mystical, comment that the licence fee was "not immortal". As things now stand, the fee is not to have its throat cut suddenly but is to be slowly strangled. We have no doubt that the end of the fee would mark the end of public broadcasting.
Mr. John Maples: I share much of the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the future of the BBC without a licence fee and about how it would maintain its public service commitment, but there is one point with which I have a good deal of difficulty. In five or

1023
six years' time we may be able to watch 14 television stations. We might get 10 of them free and be able to choose whether to pay for two of them, but what can we say to people when they are told by the Government that they must pay for the remaining two whether they want them or not?
Mr. Hattersley: We say what Peacock said—that even in a perfect broadcasting market, which none of us thinks can be achieved, although there will be more of a broadcasting market in the future than there is now, there will be some exacting programmes that only the BBC will be able to provide. I believe that it is in the interests of the country as a whole that those programmes should be provided. I may be watching cricket on the cricket channel all day, or Hollywood musicals 1925–40 on some other channel all evening, but I believe that it would be in the interests of the community, including me, if I made a small contribution towards something better for other people to watch.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: My right hon. Friend said that the Home Secretary was not the only person to blame for the undermining of the concept of the licence fee. It is a two-way process and I share part of the guilt, for one of the things that have led to the undermining of that concept is the sometimes hysterical outburst from both sides of the House every time the fee changes. At the margin there will always be problems, but that undermining of the concept of the licence fee has in turn undermined the concept of the BBC and of public service broadcasting.
Mr. Hattersley: I entirely agree, and I go a step further. I do not believe that the BBC will ever have the licence fee that it needs and deserves until we devise some method of absolving those least able to pay from paying the full fee. I have always argued that the case for helping the pensioner is based not simply on compassion but on ensuring that the fee is high enough to meet the BBC's needs, which it never would be while particular deserving groups excited the feelings to which my hon. Friend has properly drawn attention.
As I understand it, the White Paper proposed to put in place of the licence fee what the Home Secretary describes as
"a direct relationship between the viewer and the provider".
That is a euphemism for the market mechanism operating in television. The viewer gets what the viewer pays for, and the viewer pays for what the viewer can afford. If that happens there will be a two-tier television system, with a superior service supplied to those who can take constant advantage of the subscripton channels and an inferior service for the rest. That is a negation of public service broadcasting.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I think that I must follow the Home Secretary's example and get on with my speech because many other hon. Members wish to speak. Like the Home Secretary, I gave way a good deal at the beginning.
All that being said, we believe that opportunities still exist for the Government to adjust their proposals in such a way as to ensure that the inevitable revolution in television ownership and organisation produces the high-quality programmes and greater choice that the
1024
British viewer is entitled to expect. There are already some elements in the White Paper that can be built on. The proposed powers for the new Independent Television Commission are—for all the Home Secretary's derision of regulation—in some ways far more extensive than those enjoyed by the IBA. Certainly the ability to give a formal warning to defaulting companies and the right to revoke a franchise are powers much to be welcomed, but for those powers to have any real effect the ITC must measure the performance of companies against real criteria of quality.
Similarly, I very much welcome the obligation of Channel 3 companies to provide regional programmes—including programmes produced in the regions—but on the basis of the present tendering arrangements those programmes might well be of the minimum stipulated number and the minimum specified quality. If the Home Secretary doubts that, he may care to know of a letter received recently by midlands Members of Parliament from Central Television's current affairs programme "Central Lobby". It told us that the company had discovered that it was making more local programmes than were required by its franchise, and that the number of current affairs programmes was consequently to be reduced. That phenomenon will be multiplied and duplicated when the threshold is lower than it is today.
The obsession with regulation and the determination to deregulate even undermines the White Paper's otherwise generally sensible proposals on radio broadcasting. The growing popularity of radio presented the Government with an excellent opportunity to broaden the scope of the entertainment and information that radio can provide. As with television, however, the nature of the expansion will be adversely affected by the accompanying deregulation. The introduction of the three new commercial channels is to be welcomed, but in paragraph 8·4 of the White Paper the Home Secretary insists that those stations must all provide a general service. Indeed, they are specifically and specially absolved from the requirement to make public service provision. That single-minded pursuit of deregulation can only have an adverse effect on the overall quality of radio broadcasting.
There is one area in which the Government propose to extend regulation. I refer, of course, to the Broadcasting Standards Council. In this morning's press Professor Alan Peacock—who I hope remains the figure of veneration sanctified in the White Paper—is explicit on the subject. He says:
"The Broadcasting Standards Council has no function in a free society".
All we know about the Broadcasting Standards Council is the people or the person who will run it. Its full role has yet to be vouchsafed to us. We know that Lord Rees-Mogg wants to acquire the power to vet and veto individual programmes, but we do not know how his censorship will operate. The Home Secretary told us in November that he was working out an agreement on standards with the new chairman and that the new chairman would soon tell the Home Secretary how he would operate. Lord Rees-Mogg becomes one of the few public servants ever to be offered a job and then told that he can decide what it is after he has been appointed. I am fundamentally opposed to Lord Rees-Mogg telling me or anyone else what we can or cannot see. Such matters should be decided not by the subjective judgment of an individual but by general standards enshrined in legislation.

1025
While I am worried about Lord Rees-Mogg's potential role, I am horrified by the thought of what Lord Chalfont will do—given the chance—to the IBA. I accept, with due deference to the other place, that Lord Chalfont is a bit of a joke. He is the only man in history to become a peer, a Privy Councillor, one of Her Majesty's Ministers and a member of the Labour party all on the same afternoon. Although he is a joke, he is a dangerous joke. [Interruption.] Throughout the whole debate on broadcasting there have been Conservative Back Benchers—we have heard from them today and they are shouting out now—who have argued that a body should be established with a power to make judgments about the national interest and the impartiality of programme makers. By "national interest" they mean the Government's interest and by "impartiality" they mean bias in favour of their own ideological prejudices. I have no doubt that Lord Chalfont shares their view. It might be worth asking whether, had he been at the IBA last year, he would have banned "Death on the Rock" and whether he would have sympathised with the previous Home Secretary's authoritarian insistence that the BBC should abandon the broadcasting of "Real Lives". The best that can be said about Lord Chalfont's appointment is that the Prime Minister was issuing an official warning to independent-minded broadcasters. The worst that can be said about his appointment is that he will behave in the repressive way that the Prime Minister hopes he will behave.
We shall vote for a number of principles that we have set out in the amendment. We believe that they must be the basis of broadcasting reform. The White Paper proclaims its own principles. They are different from the principles with which the Home Secretary entertained us today, and the Government are specific about a principle that the Home Secretary passed over lightly. The White Paper says:
"Wherever possible the Government's approach to broadcasting should be consistent with its overall deregulation policy."
I suspect that secretly the Home Secretary has very little sympathy with the notion that broadcasting should be governed by the rules that Lord Young thinks are appropriate to rural bus services and private employment agencies. The dogma, we suspect, is not the Home Secretary's. The dogma is Lord Young's. He regards broadcasting as a commodity, to be bought and sold like any other commodity or, more appropriately perhaps, like property from which there might be a quick profit by means of quick, cheap development.
To use a cliche, we believe that British broadcasting is among the best in the world. The White Paper was a chance to provide a framework that would ensure that it maintained that status. The Government have missed the opportunity. I hope that they will improve between now and the introduction of the legislation.
6.13 pm
Mr. John Wheeler: I am pleased to be called and to give a general welcome on behalf of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to the Government's White Paper on broadcasting. The House will have seen on the Order Paper the reference to the reports of the Committee. Our major report was published some four months before the White Paper, and the Committee must
1026
be gratified by the extent to which its recommendations and conclusions have been adopted by the Government, even if the emphasis of the White Paper is not always the same as our own. Our second special report includes a table setting out the detailed response of the Government to our proposals.
Some of the criticisms of the White Paper reflect a wish to retain a broadcasting system which has been admired throughout the world, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has just said. For good or ill, the status quo is not an option in the 1990s. Under existing legislation, three British Satellite Broadcasting channels are to start broadcasting later this year. No one can have missed the publicity concerning the launch of Sky television on the Astra satellite, even if they have no means of seeing the programmes. The changes in broadcasting are borne out of technological advance. In this situation, the Government's priority must be to maintain standards in the face of the new competition.
The White Paper quotes our report in agreeing that the BBC is still and will remain for the foreseeable future
"the cornerstone of public service broadcasting."
The Committee is concerned—as, I note from the press, are the members of the Peacock committee—that the income and structure of the BBC should be preserved in the medium term while the world of broadcasting is changing. The Committee's report stressed that in the new broadcasting environment there should be competition for quality as well as quantity in television programming. There will be real choice for viewers only if there is a sufficient amount of quality programming from which to choose. The White Paper looks to the BBC to provide such quality across the whole range of television programmes.
It is in the context of diverse and quality programmes that we welcome the affirmation of the remit of Channel 4, which we unanimously supported in our report. The ability of Channel 4 to fulfil its remit may be vitally affected by the eventual decision on its organisation and funding. This part of the White Paper is "green edged" and my Committee is undertaking a short inquiry to establish which, if any, of the options given in the White Paper would best secure the twin aims of preserving the remit of Channel 4 and enhancing competition between channels.
At present, the bulk of our memoranda support the second option: that Channel 4 should be a subsidiary of the new Independent Television Commission, selling its own advertising, but with a guaranteed level of income. The main problem with that approach is how to maintain some necessary linkage with Channel 3 while the two services compete for advertising revenue. As our inquiry began only on Monday of this week, I am not yet able to offer any guidance to the House.
It is right, as we recommended, that one authority should oversee all commercial television, however transmitted, but with a lighter touch than the IBA. It will be important that the ITC should have sufficient powers to enforce separation of ownership of television services from ownership of other media enterprises. I welcome the recent Home Office statements on that aspect, but they must be given force in the Bill. It will be essential, too, that the qualifying standards to enter the competitive tender for Channel 3 franchises should be a proper test of quality and commitment, and if its promised standards are not kept the ITC should have the power and the resolve, after appropriate warning, to end the contract.

1027
My Committee welcomes the research role of the Broadcasting Standards Council. Too many of the criticisms of broadcasting and broadcasters are based on reporting of television rather than on actual viewing. Pressure groups can play on exaggerated fears of declining standards. The council will be able to set such fears in the context of actual trends and genuine public reaction. In this context I am concerned that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission should retain its role so that arbitration of particular complaints does not become complicated or confused in the mind of the public with the important role that the Broadcasting Standards Council will play.
There are some matters to which the Government should perhaps give further thought before finalising their plans. In our report we supported the Eureka project for high definition television as the way to secure the benefits of HDTV as soon as possible for the viewing public and to support the future of the European electronics industry. The BBC, BSB and the IBA are keen to develop this system which is compatible with, but markedly improves upon, the present technology. I hope that the Government will press ahead with the draft European directive on HDTV and that the Department of Trade and Industry will make clear what action it will take to support the development of HDTV.
A particular matter in the White Paper which the Committee did not envisage was the proposed allocation to a commercial contractor of night time hours on one of the BBC channels. In our report we went as far as to say that this was "totally unrealistic". When we took concluding evidence in May from the Minister of State, no hint of this possibility was given to us. I am afraid that in this proposal the White Paper faces both ways at once. It exhorts the BBC to raise money through subscription and then proposes that one possible outlet for such services—the night hours on one channel—is to be removed. If we are serious about wishing the BBC to use subscription finance in support of its income and to become financially more efficient, we should allow the BBC to retain its night hours to develop subscription services such as British medical television and a "BBC Nature Club". Three other terrestrial and countless satellite channels will be available to advertisers.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman go further and ask the Minister to say categorically that the evidence that he gave to the Committee in May that the BBC will be allowed to keep its night-hour channels and to develop them as it sees fit still stands?
Mr. Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is a fine ornament in the Committee. I am confident that when the Minister replies to the debate he will note the force of the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman and by the Committee as a whole and will, perhaps, respond accordingly.
On the proposals relating to transmission, I remind the House of the excellent and reliable service that the BBC and IBA have provided for many years to a higher technical standard than that in many countries. In framing the new arrangements it will be important for the Government to establish a workable structure for competition in that area. The BBC and ITC should be able to compete for the contracts to run transmission systems. The White Paper does not envisage immediate steps in
1028
transmission, as the BBC's responsibilities are rooted in its charter which lasts until the end of 1996. I hope that the Government will allow the ITC and the new commercial services to develop before final decisions are taken.
Finally, I wish to refer to the future of the new Independent Television Commission. In the remaining period of the IBA's life many decisions affecting the role and work of the ITC will have to be taken. These decisions must not be taken in a vacuum. The Home Secretary has already appointed Mr. George Russell as chairman of the IBA and chairman-designate of the ITC. I applaud that appointment, because Mr. Russell combines business experience and acumen with a working knowledge of the world of television, having been involved in Channel 4 and ITN.
It is important that the change from the IBA to the ITC should be a watershed marking the change from detailed regulation to a looser licensing arrangement. The change is now clear. For the interim I note what the Home Secretary has said about the transition from the IBA to the ITC after the enactment of the Broadcasting Bill. A successful transition is vital if those involved are to plan properly for the future control of the independent sector. I hope that in his reply the Minister of State will take on board the issues that I have raised. They are essential to the future of broadcasting in this country.
6.25 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Although the ten-minute rule does not come into force until 7 o'clock, I shall try to abide by it now. I shall speak about two matters—public service broadcasting and the development of the IBA companies and the new commission.
I was glad to hear the Select Committee speaking out in favour of the principles of public service broadcasting and recommending that such principles should be an integral part of the new broadcasting environment. I am worried about the future of the BBC. Although that has been said before, it is worth impressing on the Government, because they said that they would listen—breaking the habit of a lifetime—so perhaps they will listen to all hon. Members who are worried about the BBC.
The BBC often makes me angry because it never reports well on Ireland. The other night it was caught out about the Duisberg conference on developments in Ireland, and since then people in Ireland have not stopped laughing. When newspapers do such things they do not cause much worry, but the BBC screen is in many homes. Its management is not very good. Its television and radio drama, its orchestral concerts and the way that it subsidises orchestras in the interests of the public service are excellent. Whatever my views about the BBC, I have always seen it as a lantern to the world and the world's best broadcasting service. That view stems from my feelings during the war, but that was a long time ago. The BBC has maintained its standards, but it will not be able to continue to do so unless it has sufficient money.
I hope that the Government will not allow the Treasury to decide the future or size of the licence fee. I used to think that the University Grants Committee approach would be the best way to deal with the licence fee. One could compute the total amount of money likely to come in by way of licence fees, a UGC approach could be used to give a view to the Government and the money could he raised

1029
by taxation. However, I have gone off that idea because I know from being on the court of London university how the University Grants Committee works. I still feel that there is a better way to raise money, but in the meantime the licence fee must be maintained.
By itself subscription television can mean only that the BBC will have to cut its wider services. A weaker BBC will have an effect on the IBA and ITC sectors of broadcasting. Inevitably, if the BBC does not have enough money and if the Government of the day—I am looking to the foreseeable future and 1991—do not give the BBC sufficient money, we shall end up talking about having advertising on the BBC, which would change the nature of the BBC.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the instruction given to those producing programme links on the BBC is to make them look as much like advertising as possible? What would be the difference if the BBC had advertisements?
Mr. Buchan: That is not advertising.
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments of 25 years ago, but the nature of the BBC, which has an assured income and a charter that guides it, would be irrevocably altered if it had to depend on money from advertising.
I do not wish to develop my worry about the nature of appointments to the IBA and the BBC. I understand the balance that has been maintained, but what is important is that the men and women appointed to the IBA should be people of substance with an influential place in society resulting from their experience. It is not the job of a Government to appoint people because of their political sympathies or because their general views accord with those of the Government. I had to consider the appointment of a chairman of the BBC in 1979 and in the end I decided not to make a change because an election was imminent, so we asked Lord Swann to stay on. However, I did ask Edward Boyle, of Leeds university in my city, to take the job—not because of his political views but because I thought that he would be an admirable man to have in the BBC. He declined my invitation because of his health and because he valued being in university life.
Regional televison companies matter. I can see the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who is my neighbour in Leeds, agreeing to that. Yorkshire Television, Granada and the Welsh television companies matter in the regions. I want to be sure that we do nothing that will weaken such companies. I am a bit worried when I read the White Paper. Although there is talk about regional programmes, I should like to see more mention of regional companies because they ought to make the programmes in the regions in which they are based.
A number of companies have told me of their anxieties about cross-subsidy. Now the IBA has sent most Members of Parliament a paper on the subject. A particular point is summed up by the IBA document. It says:
"The twin principles of regional service and universality have hitherto been preserved by the significant cross-subsidies which underpin the ITV system. Currently at least £20 million is transferred annually from the major companies to the small regional companies in order to support and enhance the service to the viewers. These cross-subsidies operate via the transmission system"—
1030
there has also been great concern about the problems of the transmission system and the worry that the small companies would not be able to afford the cost of it—
"subscription to Channel 4 and the networking arrangements, and all will disappear under Government's plans."
What is the point of the Government talking about regional television if the cross-subsidisation is not available?
I sit on the Select Committee that is considering the televising of Parliament, and we have not yet come to any conclusions. I speak for myself to make a point. What will happen with televising the Chamber and the Committees is that we shall provide not a programme but a feed. Once the feed—an electronic Hansard— is out, the companies outside will decide how to make a programme out of it. What goes on in the House will be transmitted in regionally based programmes, as well as nationally based programmes afterwards, so the Select Committee has to take into account the new mode that the Government have recommended in the White Paper. There is a desire and a need for regional political programmes, and the IBA document that I have quoted points out that it will be more difficult to deal with such programmes. That is a serious problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and other hon. Members have raised a number of issues. The Government will have to apply their mind to the purpose of competitive tendering. What did the Peacock committee believe that competitive tendering would achieve? I know that, in the Marks and Spencer analogy, competition means that one can get clothes and shoes that are better than they would be if they were publicly provided. But what would competitive tendering in broadcasting achieve? I have studied the White Paper carefully. It sets out two procedures for the licensing body, the ITC. What is "quality threshold"? Paragraph 6.17 guides the reader back a page or two to where it says:
"news should be impartial and accurate".
That is probably taken from the legislation setting up the IBA and from the BBC charter. I say to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland that that reminds me of that wonderful newspaper in Tyrone, the Impartial Reporter. That made me realise that "impartial" has different definitions in different dictionaries.
What will the words "impartial and accurate" mean in practice? The White Paper links them to the "quality threshold", which is the first stage of the licence application. Will the companies write on a bit of paper what they will do, or put a price alongside each of the qualities that they have picked up from the earlier part of the White Paper? I do not understand, but I am given hope by the White Paper's reference to public scrutiny. We live in an age of open government. Once the sealed bids, from both existing and new companies are in, why should they not be published? Why should they not be of general knowledge to the community as a whole? They can be analysed in the newspapers with that objectivity for which the British press is famous. They can be analysed, too, in the television programmes which do that so well late at night, especially for Members of Parliament who get home at half-past 10.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I am listening with care to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. In para 6·17 of the White Paper he will read that it is intended that
"Both stages of the procedure will be open to public scrutiny."
Mr. Rees: That is excellent. That has not been apparent in the discussions that I have had. Will it be clear that when Mr. X, with his associates, puts in his quality programme he will refer to the number of programmes that he will make in his studio and how much he will import films with stars such as the Three Stooges from the 1920s? Such films are not of great intellectual value, but I watch them avidly because they take me back to my youth. They are a great antidote to some debates in the House.
If it is all to be spelt out, that is an aspect of open government which cheers me. We will know what the companies propose and whether they are falling down on the job in the months and years ahead. When the proposals are published, the Select Committee on broadcasting can question Mr. X and Mr. Y. It is right that the Select Committee should be able to question them quickly before they are given contracts. That opens a vista that I had not thought of before.
I promised not to speak for too long. I wanted to mention the BBC and its licence fee, which I regard as important, and competitive tendering, which must be set out much more clearly than it is in the White Paper. The Government have said that they will listen. I hope that they listen sympathetically to the concern of both sides of the House on those two issues.
6.41 pm
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I think all of us realise the importance of the need for change in broadcasting. We realise also that the real thrust for that change comes because of the technological advances that we have seen in recent years. I did not agree with a great deal of the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) but one thing which struck me most was that at least he said that change is not a response to failure. It is important to start from that position. It is not that what we have is bad; indeed, there is a great deal of good in it. My anxiety relates to the need to be careful so that we do not lose many of the good things in the present system.
I want specifically to follow what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said. I should like to go into it much more widely, but time does not allow. I intend to stick to the importance of the regional character of our television and particularly of Channel 3. This importance is emphasised by Peacock, by the Select Committee report and by the White Paper. When everyone pays lip service to something, I am worried that it may be overlooked in the outcome. We all pay lip service to the importance of the regional character of television. If I make no other point, I want to emphasise that we do not just pay lip service to it but that we carry it through into whatever legislation and new arrangements we make. Let us remember also that in the legislation which follows the White Paper we will set the pattern of broadcasting for many years. That is why it is so important that we get it right.
On regional broadcasting, I make no apology for speaking particularly from the Scottish viewpoint. I urge
1032
my hon. Friend the Minister of State to consider Scotland not as a whole but as a number of different parts which are not homogeneous, and which have different characteristics, different backgrounds and different histories. In Scotland we have Grampian television in the north, Border television in the south and Scottish television in the central belt. I would be bitterly disappointed to see that regional structure within Scotland destroyed or hurt in any way.
This point has been very much emphasised in Scotland. In my part of Scotland, a survey was commissioned by Grampian television, following other surveys in recent years. The survey showed that the independent channel, with its regional content, has the broadest support. Investigations showed that that was because of the regional content of its programmes, particularly the news programmes. That we must maintain. The result of the investigation is borne out by my own experience and that of others in the area. Therefore, my first point is that we must retain the regional franchise map not only in the United Kingdom as a whole but within Scotland.
My second point also follows what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South said. If we are to have regional Channel 3 companies, and particularly if we are to maintain, as I believe we should, the small companies in the big geographic areas, transmission costs will be critical if they are to survive. One transmitter at Crystal palace serves many millions of people in London. The Grampian area in the north of Scotland has 1·13 million inhabitants and is as large as Switzerland. Eight main transmitters and 68 relay transmitters are required to reach the population.
In his opening remarks my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary paid respect to the need for the universality of our television and broadcasting. Indeed, the White Paper acknowledges the need for continuing universal coverage. Because of cross-subsidy in our national transmission, coverage is available to everyone at the same cost. That must not be undermined. If ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to elaborate in his reply to the debate on the proposals for a privatised, regionally based transmission system. What precisely is meant by that? What will the effect be? Can he please give the House and me in particular the assurance that there will be the same cost for transmission to every person throughout the country?
My third point relates to the granting of the franchise, which is part of the amendment before us. I understand the Government's desire to use a price mechanism. I understand why they wish to avoid statutory authorities making final decisions on awards. I appreciate also the quality test proposal of which my right hon. Friend made so much in his speech. However, a pricing test is recommended by Peacock; but let us also remind ourselves that it was only by a majority of four to three. As has already been said in the debate, there has been subsequent qualification of exactly what it should be. It was questioned in the House of Lords debate. It has been strongly questioned by Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for whose experience I have great respect.
I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that we have to watch the danger of putting profit before quality, particularly in regard to some of the smaller franchises. For example, when the cable service in Aberdeen faced financial difficulties, the first thing it axed was the local channel. That worries many of us who have had good

1033
services from small local television companies. Care has to be given to that point. If we make price the main priority, we may create financial pressures which endanger programme quality, attract outside predators and reduce the service to regional viewers and advertisers.
The White Paper acknowledges the success of the present system. Therefore, we have to be careful in case we throw out many of the good things that we have in it. If the present proposals are proceeded with and they prove to be wrong—if my fears are justified—given the fixed term of 10 years and a review in another 10 years, we could land ourselves in considerable difficulties.
I was encouraged by what my right hon. Friend said about the dual franchise, and I hope that he will take a fresh look at it. Considering the proposal from a regional viewpoint, many of us are anxious about it. It could concentrate the control of Channel 3 among seven or eight operators. When one considers the small franchise operators, one can see that that could lead to the closing down of regional stations and the loss of local identity.
If a large central and a small regional franchise were held in the same hands, I believe that there would be the greatest risk of that small regional franchise being subordinated. That would affect the quality and the regional nature of the programmes initiated from that region, and would affect, too, the staff employed, and the quality of the staff which a small regional company can attract to its area. I certainly hope that that proposal will be dropped.
I would like finally to make three important points. I am anxious about the separation of Channel 4 from Channel 3. I am again speaking about regional considerations. I believe that that would create the danger of a loss of advertising revenue and the loss of some of the access which local advertisers currently have. At the same time, it would create dangers by inhibiting the commissioning of programmes from the small regional companies. Those are points that my right hon. Friend must take into account.
I believe that there are also broader issues. Channels 3 and 4 being linked and working together provide a balance, because of a similar link between Chanels 1 and 2 of the BBC. I believe that to have Channels 3 and 4 in the commercial sector and Channels 1 and 2 of the BBC linked not only provides a better balance but, if they are not linked, we shall lose the advantages of the complementary programming in the commercial sector which I believe helps viewers' choice.
Secondly, I should like to pay tribute to the success of S4C in Wales in relation to the Welsh language. I do not want to belittle what has been done elsewhere, but a company such as Grampian must provide Gaelic programmes and also contribute financially and directly to S4C in Wales. Why can we not have the same funding for Gaelic programmes as does S4C, which the White paper has acknowledged has been a proven success? The suggestion of cable or MVDS for Gaelic programmes is highly dubious, given the scattered nature of the Gaelic communities and the topography of the west coast and the islands of Scotland.
Thirdly, I am anxious that, in the White Paper, Channel 3 is not given specifically public service responsibility, as it has at present. Public service responsibility means that
1034
there must be a proper place for, for example, religious and children's programmes, programmes for minority groups and for the disabled. Therefore, my last plea—once more I make no apology for casting all these matters in a regional context—is that the importance of public service responsibility is written into, and not just implied in, the final proposal for Channel 3.
6.53 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), especially because I agreed with every word he said and not having to repeat and re-emphasise those points will make my task easier. All hon. Members who, like the right hon. Gentleman, represent constituents who live in some of the more peripheral parts of our country and in the less-densely populated areas will agree with what he said about the importance of regional broadcasting.
The Home Secretary brought his proposals for the future of broadcasting before Parliament under pressure from two external quarters. The first impulse—which is very welcome—is the global revolution in communications technology, which will offer further possibilities of greater consumer diversity of programme choice. The second question, which has unfortunately dominated the Home Secretary's responses to the first, is ideological and entirely unwelcome. It is the simple belief that the commercialism of the market place should determine broadcasting output—terrestrial as well as by satellite. It should not be necessary to emphasise that broadcasting is for the benefit of the viewer. However, the White Paper rarely refers to the viewer and appears transfixed by two financial objectives of marginal benefit to the viewer. The first is to raise the maximum revenue for the Treasury by the sale of franchises and a levy based on income. The second is how to reduce costs to advertisers through extended competition.
In the past, there have been indefensible industrial practices in television. Substantial profits cushioned the companies from the need to change. But change was coming, and some of it was in response to the Government's pressure and nudging. For example, there was the proposal that independent producers should produce 25 per cent. of original programming. The new pressures of scarcely regulated competition and increased Government financial exaction appear unrelated to the viewers' interests. They are calculated to reduce funds for programme making and are designed to produce the result, "You simply get what you pay for".
At the heart of this debate is the question of how far both the BBC and independent television could continue under the Government's proposals to promote, through the 1990s, quality broadcasting as we have known it. Undoubtedly, most viewers have their gripe about some aspect of television. However, in comparison with other countries, a high proportion of the population watches television for many hours each week. The figures suggest a fair amount of audience satisfaction. It is hard to envisage much scope for further viewing—which I believe the Home Secretary admitted—and it is more likely that the increase in the number of channels will in time reduce the numbers watching the existing channels.

1035
What is special about British broadcasting and what is now at risk is the universal accessibility of the rich and balanced mixture of programmes to everyone who—over 12 months—pays a still modest licence fee of £1·20 a week.
That mix will not be provided by satellite television or by the other channels. I shall use advertisements for two television channels to make my point about quality. One was an advertisement for a cable television channel called BRA, which said:
"Round-the-clock classic film channel showing movies from the 30s to the 70s. Titles are scheduled several times during the year, so you can't possibly miss your favourites."
Another interesting example is provided by the description of a channel called LAN, which said:
"A totally new concept in television. Music from the world's greatest composers fused with visual images showing the beauty of the natural world."
That sounds rather like the old BBC intermissions which some of us remember seeing as children.
The mix of entertainment, information and education, of popular and minority programmes, has been the hallmark of the BBC. ITV eventually followed its lead. That it did so was due less to competition than to the threat by the IBA—sometimes made good—that, if it only chased ratings, it would lose its licence.
That quality is threatened principally by the Government's attitude to the financing of the BBC. The current linkage of the licence to the retail prices index is already squeezing out more than inefficiency. The Home Secretary's statement that the licence fee is not immortal indicates that he looks to subscription not—as he should—as a useful additional source of income to invest in programme making for the viewers, but as an alternative. The guarantee that the fee will last in its present form only until 1991 is a threat, the full consequence of which the right hon. Gentleman is plainly unwilling to reveal to the viewers.
It is hard to accept that the Home Secretary is speaking in good faith when he says that the BBC is the "cornerstone" of broadcasting, because, by his actions, he clearly intends to demolish it. He must know the limits of subscription as a means of revenue raising. Only two subscription services in the world make money—Home Box in the United States and Canal Plus in France, and both depend on feature films. British Satellite Broadcasting and Rupert Murdoch have announced their intention to go into that market. Even in respect of subscription the good faith of the Home Secretary is in doubt, because his proposal to hive off from the BBC one of its night channels will deprive it of an effective opportunity to develop what it has pioneered with its downloading night programme for doctors.
If the BBC is to rely on subscription—all the evidence suggests that it has a limited capacity as a source of revenue raising—it will have no choice but to chase ratings. In that case there is a slim prospect for the survival of documentaries, investigative current affairs, classic serials, single plays, music and visual arts programmes and children's series, not to mention religious programmes. What would happen to the great orchestras of London, Cardiff, Glasgow and Manchester which the BBC support? Under a subscription system the BBC would disappear as the country's greatest patron of the arts.
The scope for revenue earning by BBC Enterprises is real and growing, but the Home Secretary should
1036
acknowledge that sales and subscription can never be more than a useful top-up of revenues if the BBC's role as the "cornerstone" of broadcasting is to be secured.
If the range and quality of the BBC are reduced, that will, of course, diminish the competition faced currently by ITV. Viewers do not want to watch trivial programmes all the time. Current viewing patterns show people's desire to have a mixture of what is relaxing and what is more demanding. That mix is not offered by multiplying channels. Nor do the promised schedules and expected costs of satellite channels such as Sky suggest that it will be possible cheaply to purchase a combination of programmes to match the spread of our present terrestrial channels. The White Paper does not offer real choice.
On competition, too, the White Paper is gravely defective. The Government appear to be bull-headed in their determination to stick to a tendering system of franchise allocation. I think that at best that is daft and at worst it is sinister. The Government have allowed a dangerous concentration of newspaper ownership in this country, but at least in that case there is always some possibility of a new entrant spotting a new market. As television franchises will be granted for many years the dangers of cross-ownership are far more serious. Television is also a much more pervasive medium than newspapers.
The White Paper that the Government ask us to endorse contains no adequate safeguards to prevent the domination of the networks by those with deep pockets and shallow concerns for freedom of expression and the virtues of diversity. The prospect that those who pay the piper in the press will also pay the piper across the airwaves induces revulsion and fear. The impact of the tendering arrangements and the role of the proposed licensing authority on the quality of programming will not be benign, even if the Home Secretary prevents the ownership of television channels by the press moguls. I believe that such ownership should be prevented.
We are asked not to underrate the significance of the quality hurdles in the way of franchise bidders. If consideration of quality has any meaning in the process, the Home Secretary must realise the force of the plea from the reconvened Peacock committee that the new licensing authority should have the right to reject the highest bid if another company offers more value for money in terms of the public interest.
It is a sad reflection of the Government's philistine intentions that almost the only deliberate obeisance which the Home Secretary makes to programme quality in Iris proposals is the enthronement of Lord Rees-Mogg as a censor and to extend, probably impracticably, the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to broadcasting.
The Home Secretary tells us that the one section of the White Paper that has green edges relates to Channel 4. The Government reject the current arrangements for that channel, offer three suggestions of their own and ask for others. The endorsement of the White Paper by a vole tonight will leave Channel 4 in limbo. I am glad that the Government are at least open to suggestion and that we will have the benefit of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs before decisions are taken.
Channel 4 is a success story—in part the Government's success story. With clever scheduling and as a national channel, unlike the proposed Channel 5, which will reach only 70 per cent. of the population, it could have

1037
considerable power to draw in advertising revenue from other companies. Without some entrenched arrangements on complementary programming and without the promotion from the other channels enjoyed at present, it will be difficult for Channel 4 to draw in advertising revenue and to fulfil its remit. That remit to provide innovative programmes and cater for interests not served on other channels has not turned Channel 4 into a ghetto channel. It offers news, 15 hours of education, religious and multiracial programmes, American football, "The Business Programme" and the "Right to Reply". If Channel 4 has to compete for revenue without a concordat on scheduling with the other channels, it will have difficulty in surviving as we know it.
Most of the new channels will be national, even international, in their coverage. Regional television is largely the creation of ITV and the regional strength of the new Channel 3 must, therefore, be underpinned. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside drew attention to the fact that the White Paper's proposals on regional television are singularly deficient. Regional television must serve regional interests and it is not just news and current affairs programmes that are required.
Regional television is seen at its best with fine programmes of broad interest that have been networked around the country but which have been made by talented production teams that enrich the lives of the many communities where they work. The White Paper pays some lip service to the importance of regionalism, but does not offer safeguards on the quantity and quality of regional programming. It offers no definition of what a "regional" programme is likely to entail and no protection from the media bandits. Such companies could easily become the shadows of their satellite owners. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside that cross-financing is vital for the small companies.
The present transmitter arrangements have sustained regional broadcasting in the less populous and geographically remoter areas by cross-subsidy. I hope that the Minister will fill in a blank in the White Paper concerning transmission costs. If there is no recognition in the legislation of companies' ability to pay to sustain the regional system, those remote places will not receive cable, Channel 5 or MVDS, and they will suffer the loss of access to regional broadcasting.
The prospects for broadcasting, which are again being widened by technology, could be immensely enriching for our national life, but the White Paper is singularly deficient in pointing up those possibilities. That is demonstrated by, for example, its suggestions about fibre-optics and cable. The White Paper is inadequate because it fails to recognise that cable regulation is in a mess. I think that, however, politicians should be as wary of over-reacting as of under-reacting to the opportunities.
There are many interests and enthusiasms that pay television can satisfy, but most of us have wide-ranging and general interests that are not simply the sum of particular pre-identified tastes. It is those broad requirements for which our system has provided so well, step by step, as talent has been harnessed to technology. That is in the Home Secretary's trust, but he has given
1038
almost no evidence of his awareness of that fact either today or in the White Paper. For that reason we shall not vote to endorse his proposals.
7.8 pm
Mr. John Gorst: I have followed debates on this subject in this House since the 1950s. What is most remarkable about today's debate so far is that, although there is plenty of room for argument and disagreement, there is an enormous amount of common ground, which is evident on both sides of the House. That is a reflection on, and a compliment to, the fact that not only is our system well regarded abroad, but it is one in which we take considerable pride at home. Just as Parliament has never been keen on the divine right of kings, however, it should equally look askance at a divine right of commercial broadcasters.
While I accept a hereditary monarchy, I do not necessarily extend that to a hereditary ownership of the media. If there is to be any divinity around, it should belong not to the suppliers of programmes but to the consumers of them. Suppliers, after all, should retain their franchises on merit, and so as long as there is a quality threshold—which I welcome in the Home Secretary's proposals—I do not share the alarmist views of those who have spoken like Jeremiahs over the years since commercial television began.
This White Paper—indeed, any White Paper on broadcasting—must be judged against certain abiding criteria, and they have been forcefully spelt out by the Home Secretary as independence, choice, viability and, above all, quality. In this context, I mean by quality whatever is judged to be the best of its kind, be it sport, chat shows, drama, comedy or anything else.
But there are other considerations, and the range of programming, diversity and balance are among them. Account must also be taken of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. And somewhere in the system there must be a place for what I would call the culturally literate aspect—something that is both edifying and enhancing, not only from the past but from the contemporary scene. Without those elements, broadcasting could quickly become mediocre and ultimately sterile, and Britain's achievements, by our own or by world standards, have been prodigious.
I wish to concentrate on what a true Conservative approach should consider to be of paramount importance; and in saying that I do not claim any exclusive monopoly on these Benches. It is just that on this side of the House we place a great deal of emphasis on preserving what has been learnt from the past and not destroying the good that has been created.
Thus, when we are thinking about innovations, we must do more than pay lip service to such notions, and in this context I shall concentrate my remarks on the position of the BBC. In many ways it is the repository of much that is best in British broadcasting. When I listen to spokesmen of the BBC speaking about the White Paper I have a strong sense of deja vu.
I am reminded of what the American Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, said in the aftermath of the Suez crisis, about Britain having lost an empire and not yet found a role. The BBC may not be said to have lost an empire, but it has lost its exclusivity over the years. Its funding is in jeopardy, and the basis of its funding must cause concern.

1039
Just as, in the 1960s, Britain's role was not clear in the new order of things, so in the present new order the BBC's role is not clear. For example, the BBC's role rests at the end of the day not only on what Parliament wills but on what resources it has available. In this context, I find the White Paper disingenous. According to paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 on page 7, great things are expected of the BBC. We read that it has
"a special role. It will continue to be expected to provide high quality programming across the full range of public tastes and interests"
and so on. How is that to be achieved? Even if the BBC holds its ground, it is naive to think that it could hold it beyond 1996 on the basis of what it is trying to do now.
Equally disingenous is the BBC's response to the White Paper's disingenuousness. The BBC tells us—I am guided by a note which other hon. Members will also have received from the BBC—that its main function will be to improve efficiency, to broaden its revenue base, to make subscription television work and to generate interest in sponsorship.
Unfortunately, that begs the real question. What can the BBC achieve with the resources it has and will have? The BBC admits that subscription and sponsorship will do little more than cover the cost of those innovations. There still remains the cost of running the BBC, of paying for worldwide news networks and of other important activities that it has. Meanwhile, as each year passes and 1996 gets nearer, the licence fee will buy less and less and I question whether it will go up and up. However, it is certain that competition will get more and more expensive.
Something will have to give. Will it be the range of the BBC's services, its standards or both? On its dwindling income, it will have to redefine its scope of activities and therefore its role. Parliament should have a say in this, and we should be facing up to that now. The role of the bastion of public service broadcasting is not an issue to be left to market forces. If we leave it in that way, we may have left matters too late. What we should have preserved may have been dissipated and what remains may not be what we would value most. In short, we may have to face in 1996 a fait accompli.
If these questions must be faced now, I hope the Government will think again about what is said in the White Paper on page 10, where at the end of the section on the BBC we are told baldly:
"It will be necessary to review the role of the BBC when the present Charter expires at the end of 1996 … Experience needs to be gained first of the progress and impact of the reforms".
I fear that that could be addressing the matter too late.
I have a suggestion about what the role of the BBC should be. I do not share the view of Professor Peacock as expressed in The Times today:
"the major purpose we saw behind the move to subscription was to prepare the BBC for the day when it would compete on equal terms with the present independent sector."
He goes on:
"When the BBC's charter expires in 1996 … the case for a special relationship between the BBC and the Government would disappear. It could become an independent company like any other".
I do not accept that. A free market can only result in the uncommercial being bypassed and buried. But that burial does not prove what it may seem to prove; it does not follow that what the free market has killed off was worthless. Something which is unprofitable is not
1040
necessarily unrewarding or without merit and we should not be so undiscerning as to think it is. The premise on which I started is that there are and always will be—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss. Betty Boothroyd): Order. Will the hon. Member please bring his remarks to a close?
Mr. Gorst: There are and always will be programmes that commercial enterprises cannot or will not undertake. The BBC should become a forum for excellence—not a broadcasting ghetto but a jewel in the crown of the British media.
7.20 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that the funding of the BBC is a matter for concern. It is one of the two issues that I want to raise today. I think that we all accept the need for change because of technological, international and other developments. However, the changes proposed in the White Paper would damage the BBC. Rather than opening doors, some of them will close doors and I am strongly opposed to them.
I was a television producer with the BBC for eight years and I have some experience of the problems that it faces. I have great admiration for the values, quality and output of the BBC. However, those qualities will be jeopardised by the proposals in the White Paper to end the licence fee and replace it with subscription television—that is the essence of the proposals.
The BBC has made an outstanding contribution to Britain and to the world with its quality, expertise, experience and public service standards, but those would all be slowly suffocated if the proposals in the White Paper became law. The danger signals are flying high and clear, and despite the euphemisms in the White Paper the menace is glaringly obvious. All the fine words in the White Paper about the BBC's special role and its high quality programmes cannot disguise the harsh fact that the BBC will be deprived of the cash that it needs to continue. The licence fee will be squeezed until 1991, and after that the Government clearly want to replace it with subscription television. That is like trying to run a Chieftain tank on lighter fuel—it simply will not work.
The House should be in no doubt that if the BBC is compelled to exist on money from subscriptions, sponsorship and other entrepreneurial activities, the BBC as we know it will not survive. Not only is the quality of the BBC jeopardised—its very existence is threatened by the White Paper. We should be under no illusion about that. Subscription television would devastate the BBC's finances. Anyone who doubts that should calculate how many old age pensioners could afford it, especially as 80 per cent. of old age pensioners live on or around the poverty line. How many of our millions of unemployed people or one-parent families would be able to afford subscription television? A glance at the financial problems of the many millions of poor people in Britain reveals that it is absurd to suppose that subscription television will permit the BBC to survive. It would reduce the BBC to a ghetto—a refuge for minorities—and would mean the destruction of the BBC as we know it. I urge the Government to continue to provide the BBC with an adequate licence fee so that it can continue its admirable service.

1041
As president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, my second point is that deaf viewers' needs are often overlooked. Television is crucial to our way of living and thinking, and to social intercourse. It does not merely provide entertainment—it plays a crucial role in society. Deaf people can easily become isolated because of their handicap. Television provides them with a means of integration by virtue of its coverage of virtually every aspect of our lives, but many deaf people cannot follow television without the help of subtitling or signing. Subtitling can be provided on a teletext service which can be watched by deaf people so it does not interfere with the picture seen by the general public. In the long term, so-called "open" subtitling or signing could be considered but I favour subtitling on teletext for deaf people so that it does not interfere with the viewing of the general public.
The technical facilities for full participation by deaf people in television are available, but the television authorities fail to provide the necessary coverage. There are 70 hours of television per day and 490 hours per week for hearing people, but deaf viewers have only 30 hours of subtitling on BBC and 25 hours on ITV. Those figures are shocking. Deaf people are being let down by both the BBC and ITV. That must change. Ministers must appreciate that deaf people will receive properly subtitled programmes only if the Government will it. There is no substitute for the will of the Government. No one can doubt that deaf people will be ignored if television is seen merely as a marketable product. It is essential for deaf people that legislation should specify that franchises be given only—I repeat only—to companies which provide an adequate number of hours of subtitled and signed programmes. The number of such programmes should be increased and a higher standard set. The cost of subtitling is now about £300 to £400 per hour—a tiny cost to television and one that could be reduced by improved methods and greater use of live subtitling.
Those who insist on perfect subtitling before it is permitted on the screen are damaging the interests of deaf people. Whatever the spelling errors, or the minor delays in subtitling, the service constitutues a phenomenal advantage for deaf people. ITN deserves the warmest congratulations from the House for pioneering live subtitling on the 6·45 pm and 7 pm news, which provides a godsend to deaf people and is warmly appreciated. The BBC's attitude of seeking perfection before providing live subtitles is lamentable and it must catch up with ITV, which has left it standing. The Government, the BBC and ITV must change their attitude towards subtitling, which is a lifeline for deaf people. The rewards for deaf people are enormous. I make a special plea for Ministers, the BBC and ITV to expand subtitling and to open television to millions of deaf people all over Britain.
7.30 pm
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) will forgive me if I do not follow him into that area of debate. No one is more qualified than he to speak on those matters and I am sure that every hon. Member has admired his courage and fortitude for many
1042
years and has noted with regret and sadness his announcement that he will retire at the next general election.
I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Collett, Dickenson, Pearce advertising agency. When I read the White Paper for the first time, I was amused to see that it proposed a levy because, apparently, no self-respecting White Paper is worth its salt unless it contains a levy. One must, of course, recall that the levy was introduced originally because the use of air time was deemed to be
"a monopoly exploitation of a scarce public resource".
Now we have an infinitely wider availability of that previously scarce public resource and there will no longer be a monopoly because competition is the name of the game and we shall have lots of it. One cannot help noticing that this time the levy will be exacted on the income rather than the profits of the independent companies, which will put great pressure on them.
I believe that there is one central proposal in the White Paper that is dangerous and one major omission. Much of the criticism of the White Paper centres on the method of allocating the franchises by auction, especially when it is stated that the ITC will be required to accept the highest bid. The Government recognise that they cannot simply invite bids from all and sundry without regard to the companies' suitability and, therefore, certain preconditions are imposed, so already, at the first stage, we are moving away from the purest market force form. Pure market forces would require no screening or filtering process before the auction. There is to be a quality threshold. The question is how high the qualifying bar will be set. Will it be set at a height of 1 ft 9 in, thus enabling most to qualify, or will it be a stiffer test but one that, none the less, depends on the companies honouring their promises in later years to provide, for example, a diverse range of programmes and also to take national news networks, as they have to at present?
Once the quality threshold has been crossed, companies will proceed to the auction. The White Paper says that the ITC will be required to accept the highest bid. That cannot be sensible. If the ITC is required to accept the highest bid it can, by definition, take no notice of the fact that, for example, one company triumphantly met the quality threshold criteria and a rival company just scraped through.
I was for some considerable time the Minister in charge of procurement in the Ministry of Defence, operating a policy of competition. We were after the best price that we could obtain, but we never circumscribed ourselves by insisting that we took the lowest price—which is the same principle that we are addressing here—regardless of any other consideration that might apply. The same applies here when we are talking about the highest bid regardless of other considerations. The widespread concern is that the higher the bid, the greater the pressure on the winner to cut costs and corners and the supreme short-cut is the route being demonstrated now by Sky, with American and Australian game shows and tabloid style news services.
There is much that is good on our television. Some of the more imaginative and expensive series such as the various wildlife programmes would be under pressure if costs had to be held down. Could the wildlife programmes themselves become endangered species? There is a danger that, in the desire for choice, the Government are confusing qualitative choice with a mere proliferation in

1043
the number of channels. A large number of channels putting out American and Australian chat shows, which are largely indistinguishable from each other, do not meet my criteria for genuine choice. The provision—or at least the possibility of provision—of quality on our televisions is essential and that is much more likely to come from the selection of franchisees who meet the criteria and put in a good bid, but not necessarily the highest bid. We must remind ourselves that we and the Government act as trustees as much of our culture as of our physical environment.
There are other difficulties attached to the question of the highest bid. It is conceivable that in the first round of the auction some of the bigger players might hold back from the bidding process and wait to see whether one of the successful companies had overreached itself and had therefore made itself commercially vulnerable to a takeover. I suspect that the Home Office may already be considering some kind of moratorium on takeovers, which would be a good move and another restriction on market forces in their purest form. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies he will tell us whether it is possible that if a would-be franchisee put in a bid that happened to be more than 25 per cent. of the net asset value of that company that would constitute a class I transaction which would require all the shareholders to be notified, thereby making a company's bid public at that stage—which might produce many problems.
The one major omission of the White Paper concerns training. It is one of the critically important subjects about which one does not need to say a great deal because all hon. Members apparently recognise it when we see it. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in November 1988:
"effective investment in training is crucial to business success."
It is impossible to overemphasise the importance of training. Training must be provided by the employers, but to be absolutely blunt about it, it will be provided only if the employers are required to provide it. Such a requirement should be inserted in the process at the quality threshold stage when would-be franchisees are running about making all the appropriate noises. At that stage, some mechanism must be inserted to ensure that adequate training is made available. It will not be satisfactory to rely on the BBC to provide all the technicians and producers for the whole industry and it would be extremely unfair and unrealistic to expect that to happen.
In the White Paper, the Government correctly recognise the challenge and opportunity of new technology and they also, rightly, emphasise the importance of choice. I do not believe that the real implications of choice for the independent television companies and for the BBC licence fee have been fully thought through. There is certainly no reason to have a levy and a mandatory highest bidder auction. That is illogical. It is also somewhat disingenuous to suggest that regulation, including the Broadcasting Standards Council, will be a light touch. I give the Government five out of 10 for effort on this White Paper, adding the rider "more thought needed."
7.39 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Ornament I may be, according to the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), but in an excellent speech the right
1044
hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) gave the Government a score of five out of 10. I am not so generous. The history of this Government and broadcasting can best be described as one of missed opportunities. They have failed to realise that there is a broadening base in the entertainment world and a difference in taste which is not based on socio-economic groupings.
In his recent surveys, Professor Arenburg found that a certain percentage of the best paid watched a certain percentage of serious programmes and another percentage of what might be called comedy programmes. The only trouble is that throughout the socio-economic scale the percentage watching serious programmes remained exactly the same and the percentage watching game shows and other amusing programmes was exactly the same. So it appears that human beings watch a variety of television.
Some years ago the start of new technology, new ideas and the new broadening of the entertainment media gave the Government a wonderful opportunity. We had the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. The Minister of State was not the Minister in those days. I cannot remember which Department he was in. That Bill was run by the Department of Trade and Industry. As it quietly proceeded, the then hon. Member for Gravesham, Mr. Tim Brinton—a man for whom I have infinite respect—tabled an amendment in Committee which I supported. It deregulated cable. The Department of Trade and Industry took five years to wake up to what we had done. In those five years the Department made certain that the British cable industry was strangled and did not expand.
We then had the Films Bill to get rid of the old National Film Finance Corporation. We fought against it in Committee because, in effect, it was to begin to throttle the film industry.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Oh.
Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh". If we had had some of the tax and investment incentives that exist in other countries, the actors, technicians and talent that we have in this land of ours could have mass produced films which could have been made available on television and in cinemas throughout the world. We have a mass of talent and expertise which we have singularly failed to develop and use.
We should look at the television world of tomorrow and say, "This is an opportunity. It is not something to run from like scared rats leaving a sinking ship." We should face the real world and realise that there is a subtle difference between terrestrial and Sky channels. We should not seek to apply to terrestrial broadcasting what we seek to apply to Sky broadcasting. To put it bluntly, there is no way that we can stop Sky coming down. If we think that it is going to be rubbish, we must ensure that terrestrial programmes are so much better and easily available that people will choose them.
Choice is interesting. It has taken nearly eight years for Channel 4 to penetrate to 9 or 14 per cent of the market. There is a terrific market loyalty. Let us not be scared of this thing called Sky—this thing that is to come from the heavens. There are only about 1,000 dishes and the Government have ensured that we have not even started to cable anywhere yet. Therefore, Sky cannot link with cable, so most people cannot watch it for many years. Market penetration will take time.

1045
Let us put to one side this notion about Sky and take out of broadcasting the cold claw that seems to grip the Home Office from time to time as the DTI stretches its dirty little arm into the heart of the broadcasting industry. The DTI does not understand a fig about broadcasting, and the sooner we accept that and the sooner Home Office Ministers say to their DTI colleagues, "Off boys, broadcasting is our patch and we are keeping it that way", the better. The minute the Home Office starts to do that, we may begin to get some sense.
I am all in favour of the fifth and sixth channels. I accept that the fifth channel must be commercial. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Westminster, North, I hope that the Government will keep their hands off BBCI and BBC2 night hours. I wait with great expectancy for the Minister's confirmation of that later. If those two channels are to develop a 24-hour system, they must be left their night-time hours. Those channels must be left to the BBC to develop in its own way.
The Government intend to re-franchise the ITV stations. My constituency is in Granada's territory and we have an excellent television service. If the Government are to set up a franchising system that goes to the lowest common denominator and sacrifices standards in the interests of an extra buck or two in the fee, I have to say, "For goodness' sake—don't." In effect, they will destroy local programming, local interest and local programme making. Existing ITV franchise holders have served the industry well. Let us not be frightened of saying that. Expertise and talent have been built up and should be protected.
I would not be unhappy to see existing franchise holders offered further contracts. The Government may wish to increase the amount that they pay on the contracts, but at least the companies—the nuclei, the talent teams, the production teams, the technicians and other staff—would be kept together. I do not mind if the new regulatory channels have a yellow card and red card system. If a company falls down on its quality standards, let it be shown the yellow card and make the regulatory authority strong enough to give it the red card if it continually falls down—the red card that would send it out of the business and let someone else in. There will be other franchise areas to develop in the fifth channel, for which new companies can tender, but let us not, merely for the sake of change and new ideas, throw away nearly 20 years of talent and development. That is the risk that we run.
I do not propose to take long today because what I have to say I have said many times in the past. Once upon a time we thought and it was argued that the development of the entertainment industry via the cables of the land would be the way in which this land was to be cabled. I said then, I say now, and I say to the Minister once again, that cable—the development of fibre optics and the various junction systems that come with it—is not just a march down the path to further choice in entertainment, but the basic structure for the future of an industry which is yet to be born and developed. It is an industry by which information transfer can be made readily available throughout this land. It is a way in which we can pass ideas and products. It is the industry of tomorrow.
By restricting cable, because it was tied to the concept of its being entertainment-led, the Government may well
1046
have cost us our place in that market. But it is not too late. I appeal to the Minister to look again at cable, give it a chance, give it the incentives, get the lines in and the system set up. They will find that it is not people who want to use it to watch television, but business men who want to use it to transmit information and technology. Let us not miss that boat.
7.48 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I agree with the last comments of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). As a non-executive director of London Weekend Television and a superannuated, somewhat faded television interviewer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Never."]. I am most grateful for that disagreement with my immodest statement. It was long ago and I must face reality, as others will in due course. I am sometimes asked for my views on television. On this subject I am often asked, "Why on earth are you mucking about with it?"
On the whole, people are reasonably content with the limited choice that we have. It is more limited than we sometimes realise. Nevertheless, people are content with such choice and quality as they have. Although I believe that we are capable of doing greater things, I have some sympathy for them. Why dig it all up again? One of the reasons why I welcome the White Paper is that it recognises the reality that television is technology-driven and it makes clear, most excellently I think, that changes in technology—satellite broadcasting in particular—change the environment, which means that the existing framework must change, too.
So we have got to make a good job of this, and I believe that it is perfectly possible to give a reasonably warm welcome to the White Paper for making a good fist of it. I am not going to say whether it deserves five, six or seven out of 10, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Home Secretary have done as good a job as any lot I can think of around the Palace of Westminster.
Unhappily—and here comes the rub for my hon. Friend—the White Paper does not fully recognise the financial impact of its proposals on the existing ITV channels. It makes much of the need for programmes of high quality and for choice. However, in three ways, the Government, by the introduction of the new levy in 1990 and by at least two of the proposals in the White Paper, could frustrate those worthwhile objectives. It could do so, first, through the tendering system, which has some of the characteristics of an auction; secondly, through the introduction of the new levy, which comes into force in 1990 and will penalise the ITV programme-making companies; and thirdly—and this has already been referred to—by completely separating Channel 4 from the ITV companies, and thus breaking an association that has done much to ensure the success of Channel 4. Breaking up that association will further fragment the television audience.
I should like to deal with that last point first. Fragmentation will arise anyway through the creation of new advertising-financed channels such as Channel 5, as well as the numerous satellite channels, and these alone will shrink the revenue of the present terrestrial TV companies—a point that is considerably underestimated in the White Paper. So, Channel 4, which we must prize, will be on its own and will have to compete with the other channels for advertising revenue, the acquisition of

1047
programmes, artists and writers, without any further support from ITV. Its costs will go up, and separation will also end complementary scheduling of programmes, which provides the quality and the choice that are such central features of the White Paper.
I hope that the Government will, as they suggest in the White Paper that they might, look again at the future financial status of Channel 4, as well as its relationship with other companies.
On tendering, it is only right that a private company should expect to pay a price for a 10-year franchise. I do not think anyone should quarrel with that, and I do not think that anyone in the ITV world quarrels with it. However, the method proposed in the White Paper will, I have little doubt, encourage unrealistic bids, and I hope that the new ITC will be given the power to exercise its discretion to award the franchise not to the highest bidder but to the bidder offering the best value for money. I will not develop the point any further because it was most ably made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie).
The levy, which will be introduced in 1990—three years before the new franchises—will, in fact, impose an additional financial burden on the ITV companies, a burden much heavier than that imposed by the present levy. It will be imposed at a progressive rate on turnover instead of profits as it is now. Certainly it will hit the larger companies which make most of the programmes that are networked on ITV. Furthermore, it will hit them disproportionately—and at a time when they should be making more, not fewer, programmes to face the new competition from the other channels.
Of course, a levy was originally introduced—and quite rightly so—to siphon off the excess profits made by ITV companies operating in monopoly conditions. But after 1993 the situation will change radically, and the levy should be abandoned if the Government want the ITV companies to compete with programmes that provide genuine choice and genuine quality. The ITV companies themselves do, however, have a choice to make if the Government do not heed the warnings that they have had from outside the Chamber as well as from many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. If they do not modify the levy or the proposals in the White Paper to which I have alluded, the alternative is a simple one: the ITV companies could simply fly away, and they could take out a licence to transmit their programmes from one of the international satellites' transponders.
At a stroke, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State knows, those ITV companies—well-known companies—will not have to pay any levy, there will be no tendering costs, there will be no need to subsidise the Welsh television channel, there will be no residual public service obligation, no transmitter subsidies which would be necessary if they stayed on the ground, and no control over the time spent on advertising. Of course, with the companies would go their talent and ability to make programmes that are still of quality and are widely accepted and viewed by the British public—programmes which, as one sees from the top ten any week, beat American production hollow.
The commercial attractiveness of that option, although obviously dependent on satellite dish technology and the costs over the next four years, should not be underestimated by the Government. I hope, therefore, that when the Minister replies he will take into account the
1048
points that I have made, which I am glad to say put me in good company because they have been made from both sides of the House.
7.57 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I was deeply depressed by the White Paper, but I am very encouraged by some of the things that I have heard from both sides of the House in this debate.
I urge the Government, if they are in any doubt, to appreciate the tremendous significance of the course on which they are now embarking. I probably speak for most people when I say that I am almost in awe—perhaps "fear" is a better word—of the potential power of television in our lives. Let us look at the penetration of television—"penetration", I think, is an advertiser's word. Virtually every household in this country has access to television. Indeed, more than half of them now have at least two sets. The viewing figures show that the average individual watches television for between 25 and 30 hours a week, which is longer than we spend doing anything other than sleeping—or working, in the case of those lucky enough to have a job. That is an indication.
It is not just the viewing time that is significant. It is also the time that we spend discussing, in pubs and clubs and amongst ourselves, what we have seen the night before. The potential impact of television cuts across social classes and age groups. It is absolutely enormous, and the audience sizes are staggering. At peak times the audience can be 20 million. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand when I say that, like most politicians, I am well used to addressing mass audiences of 20 in village halls. The idea of speaking to 20 million people is quite mind-bending.
I look in vain when I try to see what kind of philosophy lies behind the Home Secretary's proposals. It was a great indication of how mistaken his present view is, and of how distorted is his picture of the future, when he described his philosophy in a speech on 18 January this year in these words:
"Increasingly, the viewer and listener should feel like someone browsing in a good bookshop rather than someone kicking their heels in a ration queue."
All I can say is that if his image of the 20 million who watch at peak times is an image of people kicking their heels in a ration queue he has a profoundly distorted picture of the present situation. If the Home Secretary's view of what he has in store for us is browsing in a good. bookshop, he must go into very different book shops from those that I visit. Hon. Members should not take my speculative word for this. As the great saying goes, we should look not in the crystal ball, but in the history books.
Let us consider what the deregulated system is providing at the moment. In The Independent on 1 February, Michael Grade referred to Sky's entertainment channel as follows:
"Sky's Entertainment channel looks like yet more re-runs and failed American and Australian series … It looks like endless cheap buy-ins from abroad … I don't see where the new choice is. So much of their schedules are junk, fast-food takeaway telly which programmers put on in the hope that viewers will not notice … This is less a broadcasting revolution than all our yesterdays."
Mr. Grade was talking about the system that operates now.

1049
We know what is in store for us. We are in store for deregulated television on the American model. The Home Secretary is becoming sensitive about that. I have not heard anyone from the United States say, "My word, I wish our television was like your television." Our television is incomparably better than American television and I will explain why.
We have regulation in our system and we should not fall for the idea that regulation means restriction. Anyone who has worked in commercial television will confirm that the regulatory powers of the Independent Broadcasting Authority extend programme choice. The IBA constantly tells programme makers to do this or that. There is no dead hand of bureaucracy present. Lord Ferrers may refer in the other place to the bureaucratic control of the IBA, but that is not the experience of people working in the system. A degree of regulation extends programme quality.
The same is true of news coverage. Can we really say that the IBA's programme guidelines restrict the quality of news coverage in broadcasting? My goodness, I wish that there were some programme guidelines for newspapers in their news rooms which would put sense into the way in which they cover the news. Regulations of various kinds can extend quality and choice.
Our system is programme-maker-led. It is not led by advertisers. The depressing philosophy of the White Paper is that somehow the advertisers must lead the way. By and large, people work in television because they like making programmes. The Government should ask themselves why people working in the industry object to the White Paper. We would think that everyone would be in favour of it because it extends job opportunities, provides more channels and there will be no shortage of work, but people in the industry oppose it because they know that it will mean a lower standard of programme.
An extremely important factor about our television system is its universality. At a very simple level for people who, like me, are interested in sport the great national sporting events such as test matches, cup finals, snooker finals and the Grand National are available to all nation wide. They are not on subscription or available only to the few. We should be taking a terrible step in the wrong direction if we made those sporting events available only on subscription channels so that they were not available universally.
I strongly welcome more channels, but they should be subject to regulation to guarantee more choice than we risk having under this proposal. It is ironic that the title of the White Paper is:
"Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality.'
If the Government are honest with themsleves, they will accept that the competition is phoney, the choice will increasingly be choice for a few—it will be restricted—and quality will deteriorate.
The Home Secretary believes that the new system will be like browsing through a good book shop. We shall refer to that phrase again and again as the new system evolves, but I fear that it will be far less like browsing through a good book shop and more like browsing through a tatty newsagent's.
8.4 pm
Sir Peter Blaker: Anyone reading this debate in five years' time is likely to be struck by the small amount of attention that has been devoted to cable. I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) did something to put that right, and I am sorry to see that he is not in the Chamber at the moment.
I declare an interest as I am the chairman of a cable television company which has a franchise. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies he will refer to cable; in particular I hope that he will say that those parts of the White Paper which deal with cable are particularly green.
I believe that there should be two changes in the White Paper. First, it is odd that there should be a proposal for a levy for cable and microwave, or MVDS as it is called. Cable does not use a scarce resource and it is not making a profit. It is not a monopoly. The more sensible approach for the Government would be to wait and see whether it makes the super profits which might justify a levy.
I surmise that the reason for the proposal is that the Government are suffering from a misconception about what the operators of those technology-neutral franchises will do. Cable operators want to construct cable. They regard microwave as an adjunct which can be useful in less populated areas. The same misconception may account for the reference in the White Paper to the separation of the functions of delivery and retailing.
If separation is put into force, it will damage the success of the cable television industry. I favour cable because it can do anything that any other system can do, do more and do it as well, if not better. It can provide a virtually unlimited number of entertainment channels and the interactive services to which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South referred, and competitive telecommunications, which are very important for Britain's technological and industrial future. It can also provide local programming to which the Government used, a few years ago at any rate, to attach a great deal of importance.
Cable can do all those things at an economic cost that is competitive with other systems. It also does away with aerials, "squarials", dishes and any other impedimenta that we may otherwise see on our roofs in great abundance. The White Paper states that delivery and retailing must be separated and that the same company may not conduct both functions. What is more, the White Paper appears to contemplate that there will be several retailers.
That proposal appears to have been put forward for fear of a monopoly. I believe that the cable television industry is not a monopoly. It is competing with BBC and ITV. It will be competing with the fifth channel and the video recorder. Anyone can hire a tape for a night for £1 or less, and that is certainly competition for cable. There is also competition from satellite television.
So it is entirely unrealistic to refer to cable as a monopoly. I wonder whether hon. Members have any idea of the cost of constructing a cable system. We know the estimated cost of constructing the cable system in Birmingham for which a franchise was awarded recently. For 450,000 homes, the cost is estimated to be £160 million. Companies will not apply for cable franchises or the new technology-neutral franchises unless they are

1051
fairly confident of getting a fair return on their investment. They will not be confident unless they have a sufficient degree of control over the marketing and retailing process.
Suppose that, when our railways were being built 150 years ago, the Government had said, "Gentlemen, you may lay the tracks and build railway stations, but you cannot run any trains or sell any tickets." Would that have been an attractive or sensible proposition to put before people who wanted to build railways and thus carry Britain forward into the new industrial age? There is an analogy to be drawn between that and the White Paper's proposals. The Government are asking potential applicants for technology-neutral franchises to buy a pig in a poke, and they thus risk losing the technological and industrial advantages that they sought a few years ago.
Separation between the service providers and retailers of the kind contemplated was tried by the cable industry in recent years in respect of three franchises obtained by British Telecom. In the two cases in which British Telecom was able to move away from separation and merge the delivery and retailing functions, it did so very quickly, because it was found that separation did not work. In France, those systems that have separation achieve a penetration of 6 per cent. of homes passed, whereas those that merge the two functions have a penetration of about 15 per cent.—more than double. That confirms the argument I make. The White Paper has gone astray because it assumes that operators will go heavily for microwave transmission and not cable. Microwave is much less expensive to build, so the disincentive effect of compulsory separation is less onerous.
We must also consider matters from the customer's point of view, as well as from that of the potential operator. The viewer will he offered about 32 channels, with several retailers going to knock on potential customers' doors. As I read the proposal, it is possible that a customer will have a retailer knocking on his door on Monday, offering a sports channel; on Tuesday, offering an arts channel; on Wednesday, offering a pop music channel—and so on. That cannot be good for customers, and certainly not for the marketing and retailing of the product.
I hope that my hon. Friend will say something about the management of the marketing and retailing function. How will it be seen from the customer's point of view? How many bills will the viewer receive every month—particularly if he subscribes to a series of channels or channel packages? How will the customer make complaints about the service he receives? Will he address the retailer, who provides the programming, when the person who must put right any faults is the deliverer—yet there is no contractual link between the deliverer and the customer that I can see. Who will provide local channels? Where they are provided by cable, it is done by cross-subsidy, because the operator realises that local channels do not make a profit.
I hope that the Government will re-examine the problems I have explained, and especially the question of separation. It is essential that the system gives confidence to those who will be expected to invest large sums of money. The consumer, for whose benefit the White Paper was presumably prepared, requires a coherent, convenient and simple system of retailing. I hope that the Government will make the changes necessary to give cable an opportunity to achieve success.
8.13 pm
Mr. David Clelland: Television in Britain has developed much more slowly than in many other countries. We know from experience that the result is acknowledged superiority in transmission quality and production standards. Can that record be maintained and improved in the coming era of television? It is acknowledged by the Government, albeit reluctantly, that, left entirely to the mercy of the free market, quality and standards will suffer.
Television's basic public service obligation should remain a prominent and integral part of the new television environment. That was the view of the Select Committee on Home Affairs of which I was a member, together with my hon. and ornamental Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). The White Paper seeks to remove or dilute public service obligations in respect of all but the BBC, drastically reducing quality and standards in order to open the door to profiteers and mind-manipulators. That is the wrong way, and the White Paper is flawed on that ground alone.
As to the introduction of new services and technology, if the public want satellite television, I have no objection. I might even avail myself of it eventually, when its quality and standards are better. However, that option should not be at the expense of viewers who prefer a broader choice of programmes than will be available if the White Paper is translated as an Act of Parliament. It makes much of the increased choice envisaged in the new environment, but we know from experience of other countries, where the choice of the number of buttons to press often greatly exceeds our own, that the variation of programmes across 20 channels is seldom as wide ranging as that available from our four channels. Choice is not about the number of channels but about the variety of programmes available. Without sensible regulation, the free market will be compelled to go for viewing numbers to accommodate advertisers. It is a sad fact of life that the viewing figures for "Panorama" of about 3·7 million will never compete with the 10·5 million for "The Price is Right".
If there are to be new services—to which I have no objection—while preserving the best of what we already have, we must find a way of ensuring that the new does not damage the old. That can be achieved, but the White Paper does not offer the solution. It is neither necessary nor desirable that all services should carry full public service obligations. There is scope for some specialist channels covering interests such as movies, sport and perhaps even full coverage of the House in session—which might remove the objections that some right hon. and hon. Members have to the current proposals. Such specialist channels could be financed by subscription, advertising, or by other means.
I agree that the BBC's principal source of finance should be, at least in the medium term, the licence fee. agree with Professor Peacock that the White Paper envisages too early a move away from that fee, but I pant company with him, and with the White Paper, over the suggested alternative. If the BBC had to rely entirely or mostly on subscriptions, that would be disastrous, and would inevitably lead to reduced standards in competing for audiences. And if the BBC had to continue carrying full public service obligations. as I believe it should, it would be placed in an impossible situation.

1053
Despite the fact that the licence fee is low, it is unpopular. Certainly it is a burden on many pensioners and on the low paid. Nevertheless, subscription would be worse, as it could certainly amount to much more than the present annual licence fee of £62. A better method must be found in the long term. Meanwhile, perhaps a levy can be imposed on all the new television companies established under the new system, and instead of that money being paid to the Exchequer, it could be given to companies carrying statutory public service obligations. That would provide some additional finance for BBC1 and BBC2 and some subsidy for ITV. If the 20 or more commercial channels are as successful as they expect to be, such an arrangement could facilitate a reduction in the licence fee or even its eventual abolition. That would also offset the cost of the new systems to the consumer, so everyone could benefit. That might mean, ironically perhaps, that the new 20-plus channel environment would help to protect our public service broadcasting and the high standards associated with it.
While the White Paper acknowledges the importance of continuing the regional basis of ITV 1 or Channel 3, there is no stipulation that the contractors should be regionally based. That leaves the door open for carpetbaggers whose only interest is profit—with no obligation to regional programming and no real connection with or commitment to the regions concerned—and I hope that the Minister will address that glaring anomaly when he replies. There is also no definition in the White Paper of what a region actually is.
I am concerned about the content and quality of programming on ITV. The White Paper lays much emphasis on market forces and on the consumer influencing diversity and quality, but how will that be measured? If it is to be measured purely by viewer numbers or by product sales as a result of advertising, what will be the effect on religious, drama and children's programming under a lighter-touch regime?
I am also anxious about the control of television and the way in which standards and impartiality can be protected. The Home Secretary said that the Government would legislate to prevent the concentration of ownership—although it was difficult to determine from what he said whether Mr. Rupert Murdoch is in conflict with the principles set out in paragraph 6.48 of the White Paper. I believe that the Broadcasting Standards Council should be abolished and Lord Rees-Mogg sent off to do missionary work in the offices of News International, where his particular talents would no doubt be appreciated. It should be the duty and responsibility of the BBC board and the Independent Television Commission to monitor and regulate standards, and to ensure quality and political impartiality on television. Given the present constitution of the BBC and IBA, however, it is, to say the least, unlikely that they could match up to the task.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested a system of election for the boards. While I applaud the principle of his suggestion, I remain unconvinced of the practicalities. I am also unconvinced that a satisfactory outcome would be guaranteed, given the power of the press to influence voting and to blacken character.
1054
What we must do, however, is take the power of patronage currently with, and abused by, the Government off the scene altogether. I am not of the school that says that when we have the power we should do as the Tories now do and, having sacked all their appointments, replace them with ours. To do that would be to show ourselves as corrupt as they are. If the broadcasting media are to be as impartial as possible, the first thing to do is to remove from the Government the power to pick and choose board members.
I propose, perhaps as a stepping stone to what my right hon. Friend wants in the long term, that the board should be made up of people nominated by identifiable groups within society—business, trade unions, consumers, political parties and so forth. If the resulting BBC and ITC boards were then to elect their own chairpersons, it would be a great improvement on the current system, providing boards representative—to some degree at least—of society as a whole, as well as ensuring at least a degree more impartiality than the existing system can guarantee or, indeed, deliver.
8.23 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: My sparring partner, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), said recently in The House Magazine:
"British TV ain't broke—so why fix it?"
In saying that, he managed, as many have, to miss the entire point of the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said earlier, to do nothing is not an option. The Astra satellite is flying, Sky Television is with us, British Satellite Broadcasting is coming and transfrontier broadcasting is with us now. The four-channel cartel is over, and we need a new framework for new circumstances.
It saddens me that so many see those new circumstances as a threat. I see them as a tremendous opportunity for programme makers—as a programme maker myself—and for specialist channels showing education, religion, children's programmes, sport and films. The faint-hearted say that there is not the revenue to support all that—that we have an audience of only 50 million people—but we are looking at a potential audience for tomorrow's television companies of more than 500 million people throughout Europe. That is the audience that we should pitch at.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has done a great deal of work in seeking to secure a European transfrontier broadcasting convention. He will, I hope, have noticed that at last week's parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe—of which I happen to be a member—a unanimous desire was expressed and a unanimous decision made, across parties and nationalities, that such a convention should be put in place. We need that convention now: we must not let the Italians, the French or the Luxembourgeois delay it any longer by reopening old arguments. The Minister should tell his deputies to get on with it.
I welcome the White Paper as a formidable piece of work. I believe, and am delighted, that it reflects much of the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and much of the sterling work done by Professor Sir Alan Peacock. I particularly welcome the commitment to public service broadcasting which I believe the White Paper contains.
In the short time available, I should like to raise a few relatively minor matters that have not yet been touched

1055
on. First, there is the subject of programme listings. The Government have said that they must pay attention to domestic copyright law and to international copyright obligations, and behind that smokescreen hides the BBC-ITV duopoly of programme listing. We have imposed on cable a "must carry" clause. Cable must carry ITV 1, ITV 2, BBC 1 and BBC 2, but it is not allowed in its own programme magazine to tell its potential viewers what they can watch. In December, the European Commission described that as an abuse of article 88 of the treaty of Rome. It is time that we opened the doors and let some fresh air into the dusty world of Radio Times and TV Times.
I hope that the BBC will be allowed to collect its own licence fee, and that the Government will address very seriously the possibility of failure to pay the fee becoming a civil debt and not a criminal offence. I do not believe that a magistrates court in the country will not heave a sigh of relief if that happens.
I believe that the franchise auction has been widely misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented. It is clear that, before any company is allowed into the auction rooms, it will have to make a commitment to regional programmes, high-quality news and current affairs programmes, and news coverage in the main viewing periods. There is an omission: local news is not mentioned specifically in the White Paper, and I hope that that will be rectified.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that in Yorkshire, as in all the regions, very few independent companies were making programmes. The reason is the historic agreements between the union to which I belong, the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, and management. Those in-house agreements have kept the independent companies out, but happily the position is now changing, and I believe that those companies can thrive.
I should like a strong franchise charter and a free market in shares, but if we are wedded to the franchise auction I hope that we shall give the authority the right to refuse the highest bidder if—as Sir Alan Peacock suggested today—it is prepared to show public cause why it is doing so. I hope that my right hon. Friend will write that into the Bill. If he does so, he may save us much late-at-night grief next year.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) referred to the separation between carrier and retailer in cable television. It looks as though we are about to impose on cable television the cumbersome machinery of licence per service. It is like saying that Sainsbury's can build shops but that it cannot sell own-brand groceries in them. That does not make sense, and I gravely fear that it will deter investment.
The Government say that they will consider the ownership of local delivery operators and they are considering allowing non-EEC companies to invest. That finance is needed now. United States investors are queuing up. Please let them in. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider what appears in the White Paper to be a decision not to allow MVDS to be used by cable companies to pull through cable.
The most important aspect of the White Paper—in a sense, it is an aspect by omission—concerns what the Select Committee saw as possibilities for cable systems to carry voice telephony, and for British Telecom and
1056
Mercury to carry programmes. It also called for the introduction of closed user groups to allow for data services in broadcast television. The White Paper said:
"The Government will examine telecommunications matters, including the use of optical fibre as a means of transmission of entertainment as well as telephony and data … at the time of the review of the telecommunications duopoly policy."
That, as we all know, is in November 1990. The White Paper continued:
"The Government proposes to put in place a contingent provision which would permit services to be offered without prejudice to decisions of the review."
That reflects the difficulty of having two cooks—the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry—in the same kitchen. The Select Committee said:
"It is vital that industry in the United Kingdom is well placed to take advantage of the development of digital television as it occurs."
The development of digital television transmission will be the most important factor in the development of communications in the 21st century. To prevent British Telecom from carrying entertainment, to prevent cable from carrying voice or to prevent the BBC from carrying closed user data is absolutely ridiculous. We are moving into a no-turnstile world. From the moment that we have digital television transmission, television entertainment and telephony and data will speak the same language. When that happens, the potential for home education, home medicine, home shopping, home entertainment and other inter-active services will be tremendous.
The White Paper has created a framework that is all right for terrestrial broadcasting. It meets some of the needs for transfrontier satellite entertainment and news. However, the White Paper falls short of creating a framework for total communications systems in the 21st century. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision to introduce a television authority and instead to introduce a total telecommunications authority that would embrace every sector. If we had that, I believe that we could beat the world.
8.32 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I reassure the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) that those who have expressed reservations about the contents of the White Paper have not done so because they are afraid of the changes in broadcasting but because they are concerned about the framework within which those changes will take place. Many views have been expressed in this House and in the other place and by many organisations who are about to submit a response to the White Paper, or who have already done so, about that framework.
Centralisation, control and the recognition of the needs of minority groups are key aspects that we must address if we are to ensure that broadcasting takes account of the needs of society. A number of hon. Members have already referred to centralisation. There is genuine concern about the definition of a region. Many Scottish Members are offended when Scotland is referred to as a region. Scotland is a nation. However, it contains regional variations, stretching from the Shetlands in the far north to the Borders in the south. It would be wrong to assume that the interests of all communities in Scotland are exactly the same.

1057
Scotland is served by three ITV companies—Grampian, Scottish and Border. They reflect regional interests. There is deep concern that we may lose the opportunity to have a genuinely home-based industry in Scotland that would not just serve specialist needs and industries but would ensure that Scotland is outward looking. We want to be able to produce our own material that can be sold abroad and that can therefore become a dollar earner. It is interesting to note that Scottish Television's briefing refers to the fact that it has moved from almost total dependence on advertising revenue to obtaining income from the sale of programmes—£15 million in 1989 compared with £2 million in 1986. The money earned by our television companies can help to generate the income that is necessary to ensure that we meet regional needs. Scotland wants to speak to the rest of Britain, Europe and the world and not to be inward looking. We want to maintain our home-based industry.
I was disappointed when the Home Secretary referred only vaguely to the requirement to produce programmes within the regions. Channel 4 has 10 per cent. of Scottish viewers, but it gives us only 2 per cent. of the production. We are worried that that trend may continue because of the White Paper's proposals. There are many television production jobs in Scotland, but they are under threat. That applies, too, to production centres in Birmingham, Norwich, Manchester and elsewhere. If production centres are abolished, job opportunities will be lost. The talented men and women who work in production may find other opportunities in London or elsewhere. However, many of the people who are involved in network production at regional centres are committed to living and working there. They wish to stay in the regions. We do not want local skills to be lost. The ability to produce programmes locally means that Scottish actors are employed. That is important for repertory theatres. Local productions also employ musicians, which is important. It would be very sad if, at best, Scotland retained only one independent company and if, at worst, all control were to be removed from Scotland. I hope that the Home Office will respond positively to what I have said.
That leads me to one of the defined minority interests—the Gaelic language. I do not speak Gaelic but I regard it as part of my Scottish heritage. I do not want the language to die. The White Paper makes scant reference to the Gaelic language. In paragraph 6.37 the Government claim to recognise the importance of broadcasts in the Gaelic language and the importance of the Gaelic culture and its future development. However, all that the White Paper does is to offer the prospect of a new local franchise through cable or MVDS. It admits in paragraph 5.9 that within each area covered a substantial majority of households will be unable to receive the signal. In those areas where the Gaelic language is thriving—the Highlands and Islands—we need desperately to ensure that people do not have to rely on cable or MVDS. The equipment required to receive the services would cost much more than the terrestrial channels that are referred to in paragraph 5.13. There is a great deal of contradiction in the Government's commitment to the Gaelic population. The Scottish National party looks with envy on S4C in Wales and at what that has achieved for the
1058
Welsh language. If we had even a fraction of the money that is allocated to that channel, we could lay a sound foundation for our language and culture in Scotland.
Perhaps I could point the Minister to an article in Scotland on Sunday on 22 January. It deals with the problems of satellite television which has been suggested as a possible franchise area for the Gaelic language. The Sky television dishes of 60 cm in diameter are offered for sale at about £199 and will be suitable in Scotland as far north as Glasgow. Beyond that range a 75 cm dish would be needed and would cost £260. In Orkney and Shetland the dish required would probably cost about £350. I hope that we will have some discussion about how the Government see the Gaelic language being served in areas where it is live and vibrant.
At a recent meeting, the Scottish Association for the Deaf passed a unanimous resolution calling on the Government to introduce a clause to a broadcasting Bill
"to make it mandatory and enforceable to provide services for Scottish viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing, providing them with equal opportunity of access to television on all Channels, whether cable, satellite or terrestrial."
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) dealt with the issue of the deaf. I hope that we will get a commitment from the Government, because if the highest bidder and the profit motive are to define our broadcasting services, minority interests, such as those of the deaf, may well be left out because it is costly to provide subtitles and sign language. Like many people, I should be upset if cost denied the deaf access to broadcasts.
What is meant by night hours? The White Paper seems to suggest the separation of night hours and a separate franchise. That means that we would lose the control or availability of minority programmes that can be recorded and used for education purposes, especially in our schools. Scottish Television is forward-looking and has included programmes on Scottish books, poetry, paintings, traditional music, Gaelic, minority sports and other subjects. Those programmes are used effectively by our schools. I hope that we will see keen recognition by the Government before the production of a Bill of the issue of universality of access and assurances that production will not be centralised and that full account will be taken of all minority interests in the United Kingdom. Those are vital matters.
8.42 pm
Mr. George Walden: Listening to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I had a nasty turn because I found myself nodding at some of the things that he said. I am a little unhappy to see him in his place now as he may give me another nasty turn by nodding at some of the things that I say.
I am a relatively new Member, having been here just six years. During that time I have voted for most if not all of the Government's major legislation—for some with enthusiasm and for some with a twinge of doubt. But I feel neither doubt nor enthusiasm in relation to the White Paper. I cannot support it. It is usually thought that anyone who is critical of the Government's views on the BBC must be some sort of stooge of the comfortable duopoly. I do not suffer from that problem. If one judges the BBC by the volume of its own self-congratulation there is obviously something wrong with the organisation.

1059
Clearly, much mediocrity masquerading as quality is put out by the BBC, so I do not start from the premise that everything is fine as it is.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talked about the amount of viewing in Britain and I shall put that in perspective. We are talking about average viewing of 22 hours per week. In the case of children, the average may be higher—perhaps five hours per day. That means that children spend about as much time watching television as they spend in the classroom. We are not dealing with purely mechanistic factors, such as the raising or lowering of the tax rate or the management of water resources, but with something far more important—the minds of the population. What we do in this debate will have a significant impact in one way or another on the way in which people think, and especially on education.
I begin from the premise that there will be a decline in the standards of broadcasting almost—and this is important—irrespective of what the Government do. That is an important assumption on my part and it will not be shared by many hon. Members. Nevertheless, it is realistic and stems from a combination of "technological progress" and commercial imperatives. If we put those two together with all the bland and rather tinny assumptions in the White Paper we shall get an accelerated decline of television.
Important implications flow from that. The White Paper shows a total lack of social imagination, of what it means to be faced in one of our inner cities with a combination of low education provision and expectations and bad to mediocre teachers. On top of that, we propose to give people low expectations in broadcasting. Children who spend five hours a day in school with low expectations from teachers will go home to another five hours of low expectations from television. I hope that those expectations will not be lowered, but evidence from the Government suggests otherwise.
What sort of incentive is that for people trapped in cultural poverty to climb out of it? I see some Opposition Members nodding. People used to climb out of cultural poverty by way of local libraries but, sadly, those facilities no longer exist or are unused. The White Paper runs the risk of hastening the inevitable. Because of a whole series of circumstances too complicated to discuss in 10 minutes, decline is inevitable. I say that for technological and commercial reasons. That is sad. It will be a domino effect. Satellite broadcasting will put pressure on ITV and, through the rating system, that will put pressure on the BBC. The decline may be slow but it will come. There will he a downward spiral in standards. The pace may be sedate or almost imperceptible, but standards will go down.
If we start from that realistic premise, certain conclusions follow. If we have such a decline in standards—I am willing to bet that we shall—we must think radically. The White Paper pretends to be radical, but in fact it is conventional. It thinks conventionally about market forces, it is simple-minded and goes with the air of the time. It is not really thinking at all. One cannot compare market forces in the car industry and in shipbuilding, which we all favour—God knows we make so many speeches about it that I bore myself silly with them—with market forces in broadcasting. We cannot make a simple-minded transfer from industrial considerations to broadcasting. We cannot have an indiscriminate application of the idea.
1060
There is a great danger in this country that when we get an idea we go on and on with it. We did that with egalitarianism and caused the damage that we now all know about. Now we have a new idea called market forces, and like children with a pot of paint we daub it all over the damned place. If we do that in broadcasting or in education, we shall cause infinite damage to the people least well placed to support it.
If anyone feels tempted, as I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may be, to think that this is an elitist or patronising approach, he should bear in mind that real elitism is a good thing. The worst sort of elitism and the most patronising attitude is taken by those who are well educated and well placed in society, but who feel that they can swill cultural bilgewater through the homes of those less educated than they are, which will prevent those people from making their way up the social ladder. I have no time for that form of elitism, which seems to dominate the thinking, or non-thinking, behind this White Paper.
It is not good enough to stand here and say that things will get worse and that there is nothing that we can do about it. We need radical thinking, so in the few minutes that I have left I will set out what I would so. The Government should think about this. Unfortunately, they will not, but I wish that they would.
We should think about the future role of the BBC. The answer to this difficult problem is to say to the BBC, "Times are changing, the whole thing is going to wind down and you will have to wind down with it almost irrespective of what we do, so we must do everything possible not just to preserve but to improve your public service broadcasting." In the real world, that means stopping competition for audiences. The BBC should give up its pop function. There is no reason why old ladies and gentlemen should pay through the licence fee for pop on television. That pop will be provided adequately by the commercial sector—Sky and the rest—where there will be oodles of it. The BBC should not retreat, but retrench and concentrate on public service broadcasting, raising its standards and going for the biggest market that it can get, but not through the ratings game.
Such a policy would give people real choice because they would be able to choose between old-fashioned British quality at its best—although much improved by these means—or the satellite stuff, which we cannot stop unless we import some of the old disused Soviet jammers, which I do not recommend. We cannot stop it coming down from the sky. The heavens will open, and the drivel will pour forth. Mr. Murdoch has told us that his news programmes will be pitched at the level of a 10-year-old Martian. That is where we shall start. If people want to watch that, they will be able to do so. There will also be choice through the commercial terrestrial sector.
I am suggesting that quality be included in this choice, quality for ordinary people—the sort of people who, 30 or 50 years ago, had the chance to go a to grammar school, but who now do not have that chance.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Yes, they do.
Mr. Walden: There are only 130 or so grammar schools left. Fifty years ago, people had the chance to climb out of the Welsh valleys because there were libraries there, many of which have now been sold off. Children in such areas now spend five hours a day watching television.

1061
I could say a great deal more, but I will finish on one important point. After all the struggles to improve our economic and material welfare, in 10 years' time people may look back and say that while the standard of living has improved the cultural level is lower. I do not care if that sounds pompous. I see hon. Members nodding. They know what I mean. There may be a sort of "Clockwork Orange" society, which will have been brought about unnecessarily by the Government. It would be a dismal comment on a liberal Home Secretary to be seen in 10 years' time as the man who introduced this tawdry debasement of our broadcasting system, with all the impact that it may have on social values of every kind.
8.53 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I have waited all day, and perhaps for the past three years, to hear a speech like that given by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). It should be both applauded and burned in gold letters on the Government Front Bench. We are faced with a tawdry White Paper reflecting a seriously dangerous situation, and the hon. Member has said what many of us have been feeling for a long time but have often had to couch in a partisan fashion. He has managed to broaden it out by removing himself from a politically partisan attitude.
I prepared the Labour party evidence given to the Peacock committee, so I have lived with the Peacock report, and all the controversy and discussions after its publication, for the past three years. Sometimes, as we ventured on to these arguments, we were seen as attacking the policy, merely because it was "capitalist", but the truth is that the problem is a great deal more universal. Major human problems are involved and this tawdry White Paper shows that we have failed to understand, to take on board and to learn from one of the most important advances in the expanding of the human experience.
It is rather as if somebody had invented writing and then said, "How can we sell off the letter A?", or somebody had invented the alphabet and said, "How can we make money out of it?" The purpose of the White Paper concerns the messenger rather than the message. What techniques shall we use? Is it to be cable or satellite? What is the profit direction? It is almost as if we sat down and asked ourselves how we can produce a form of television in which Murdoch and Murdochism can succeed. Partly, it is because the Tory party detests and even fears public service broadcasting as it detests, distrusts and fears the public sector generally. That is the basis of its attitude.
These issues are too important for narrow market concepts. The Government had a glorious chance with the White Paper, and they have blown it. They have failed to understand what we are dealing with. They have ushered in the crippling exigencies of the market economy as if this is the solution to the techniques that we have been handed for expanding human experiences, for communicating with one another and for teaching. We never thought when we started schools that they would be narrowed and crippled or that facilities would always have to be paid for.
The problem with subscription is not merely the payment aspect. The Government have got the payment aspect wrong. Ironically, subscription arose because Government supporters wanted free television and so
1062
suggested getting rid of the licence. I agree that we should get rid of the licence. Television, like the alphabet and writing, should be free. It should be paid for out of national resources. Every time I say this I am accused of seeking to put television under the control of Government by allowing the money for it to come out of taxation, but that is not so. Education is free in that sense, but it is paid for from national resources.
Ironically, those who have said that we should have free television, by which they have meant advertising revenue supporting television, are now pushing subscription. I was looking at some of the figures for subscription. We are told that specialist services such as children's programmes, sports, film coverage and minority languages, could be privatised for no more than between £10 and £20 a month. But that is between double and four times the present licence fee. So the irony is that subscription will mean that television will be even dearer. The hon. Member for Buckingham understands better than most hon. Members that that is not the problem. Thank heavens he spoke, because he salved the soul of the Conservative party.
The problem with subscription television is that we cannot through that expand people's understanding and experience. If a television company had proposed 10 years ago subscription broadcasting for a programme showing beetles on the water, insects in British grasses or bats in caves, no one would have subscribed to see such a programme. But now David Attenborough and David Bellamy have created mass audiences for nature programmes. The point is that as soon as we remove the possibility of people viewing something accidentally or merely on a whim, we compress people; we shove kids into a narrow cell and say, "You will stay there." It is only when there is straightforward universality of access that viewing such programmes can be triggered.
For none of us knows how young people's ideas are triggered. It is the same as charging an entrance fee to museums and art galleries. I remember Lord Eccles—Lord Shekels as Lord Crawford used to call him—complaining that I would be happy for people simply to go into art galleries to get out of the rain. "Too bloody true," I said, "I cannot think of any better place for people to shelter." As soon as there are charges, only those who are already educated towards it and who understand art go into galleries, and the people who have not been introduced to art are not touched by it accidentally. Therefore, we are compressing human experience with the very tool that could enlarge and expand that experience.
Peacock understood that. I love Alan Peacock dearly, but I have to say that although he recognised that his proposals would have that effect he still went ahead with his report. He thought that because we could not control satellites we had to lie back, close our eyes and think of England. He made clear what he expected to be missing from the generality of television programmes under his committee's proposals. He expected that certain things would not happen unless there were special precautions. The committee suggested that the omissions would be covered by four key words—knowledge, culture, criticism and experiment. Therefore, the committee had to create a public patronage sector. One reason why Peacock objects to the Government White Paper is that this minority ghetto patronage is missing. The Peacock committee said:

"(i) There should be news, current affairs, documentaries, programmes about science, nature and other parts of the world, as well as avowedly educational

1063
programmes, all of which require active and not passive attention and which may also contribute to responsible citizenship.

(ii) There should be high quality programmes on the Arts (music, drama, literature etc.) covering not only performance but also presentation of and comment on the process of artistic creation.

(iii) There should be critical and controversial programmes, covering everything from the appraisal of commercial products to politics ideology, philosophy and religion."

But all those are now missing from this White Paper. Hon. Members may wonder what is left of good broadcasting when all that goes. It is only the generality of television that the White Paper will produce.
Who produced the White Paper? It has been produced by civil servants and Ministers, all of whom have had the opportunity of the highest education. The hon. Member for Buckingham was right when he said that this was another kind of patronising. They have got their little niche. They will create a minority ghetto for themselves but the universality of the rest of mankind will not be touched by it. By definition, subscription broadcasting will compress the possibility of expanding human consciousness and experience. That is why the White Paper is nasty, reactionary and tawdry; that is why it should be withdrawn.
The hon. Member for Buckingham used the word "culture". It is a hell of a long time since I have heard that word from the Conservative Benches. Every time Goering heard the word "culture" he reached for his revolver. The same is true of the Government Front Bench. We know what the hon. Gentleman meant by culture; it is not only high culture but general civilisation. That is what we should be trying to achieve, but we are not. We are discussing profit, competition, money making and methods of delivery. There is not a word about what is actually to be shown on television.
It is not true that it is only a small group who want so-called culture. All the figures show the opposite. If we examine the viewing figures for light entertainment, light drama, films, sport, dramatic art, information, news, children's and miscellaneous programmes, we find that all classes, high and low alike, look at serious programmes and at light programmes. Viewing is not based on class concepts, but it will be if we introduce subscription television. We do not need to read a crystal ball therefore; we can read the book.
Let us consider what has happened in other countries. I shall cite as an example what has happened to Italian television—which I know well—since deregulation. If one compares the RAI, the public service station, with the new fifth channel, Canale 5, one sees that 84 per cent. of the fifth channel's programming is light entertainment, serials and advertisements. Indeed, advertising accounts for 27 per cent. of its broadcasts. The fifth channel is missing in art, religion, education, news, current affairs and documentary programmes, which presents a terrible picture.
We already know what happened in America. Sixty six per cent. of the programmes on ABC consist of advertisements and serials. Again, art, religion, education, plays, films, current affairs and documentaries are missing.
We know what will happen. We have a tawdry document in front of us. I hope that it will get its come-uppance from some other bored souls in the Opposition. It is a prescription not for progress, but for narrow vicious reaction.
9.5 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: What we have just heard from the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) is the frustration of the elitist, who simply cannot bear to think that people will have a choice and that they will be able to make that choice for themselves. Elitists believe that they are so clever that they can make everybody's choices for them. They cannot cope in a modern world. It is not the Government who are deregulating broadcasting or the White Paper that is deregulating television; it is the technology and the choices that will be freely made by the people. Surely the purpose of taking part in this debate—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen had the courtesy to listen, they would understand the argument.
Surely the purpose of taking part in this debate is to understand the fundamentals that we want to preserve in television and to bring forward into the new era. I feel genuine disappointment with the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), because he talked about the problems—I did not disagree with some of what he said—but he did not say a word about what he and his party would do and what he believed were the important matters to bring forward.
There are two stages in the auctioning of franchises. It is important that we go through the quality threshold, but is it seriously suggested—as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did—that the current system of franchise allocation works well? I do not believe it does.
We should look at the successful application which was originally made by Harlech Television and what happened in the outturn. One could hardly say that that was a success for the current system, because Harlech Television's application never transpired. It made promises that it knew it could not fulfill. The same happened with the original London Weekend Television. I believe that London Weekend Television was baled out by Rupert Murdoch. I am not saying that that is a good thing, but the fact is that London Weekend Television could not keep its promises. Then, of course, there was TV-am Limited run by the "famous five". Anybody working in television, as I was at that time, knew that putting presenters in charge of a television station was like putting lunatics in charge of an asylum. They knew that would not work, and it did not work. The old system must stand condemned for some of the situations it has created. A new system is needed, and I welcome the auctioning of franchises.
The BBC circulated a briefing on the White Paper which is extremely good. One line, which is important, says:
"The BBC will need to adapt within this more competitive environment. But we are also the fixed point in an expanding market."
I agree with that. The solid attacks that were made on the BBC by Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, notably The Times, represented a deliberate pre-emptive strike against it. Rupert Murdoch recognised that without the BBC and its standards of quality, Sky would not have to offer anything like the same quality or spend similar sums as the BBC on its programmes.
The BBC is important and we must ensure that it continues to be a high-quality source of programming and, as has been said, the cornerstone of broadcasting. It must, of course, adapt, but it must remain the benchmark of quality. It must widen its source of funding, however,

1065
because there will be a genuine difficulty as the licence fee becomes less and less acceptable to people. If there is a broad range of satellite channels, cable and MVDS, people will not want to pay a licence fee for channels that they may not watch often.
Mr. Robin Corbett: The set, not the BBC.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman may agree with my next argument so he should be cautious of heckling. We need a new lease of life for the licence fee, because I believe that it is important to continue it. I urge the Minister to consider what we should do to ensure that quality and diversity are offered by the new multi-market and to ensure that the BBC continues to offer quality programmes.
We should consider a proposal that was originally made by Alan Peacock in his report—we should have an arts council of the air. When the proceeds of the licence fee start to be phased away from the BBC, a substantial proportion of it should be paid to a new body that would act in the same way as the Arts Council. We cannot second guess how good or bad television programmes will be, but that new council would be able to consider the available programmes across the broad range of broadcasting. That council could have a productive role by highlighting the shortage of experimental comedy, certain drama or the type of social programming that we want at peak times. Such programmes could be paid for out of the substantial sums available from the licence fee. That would give us an absolute guarantee of the choice and diversity that is genuinely desired by all hon. Members.
It is easy to lampoon the Broadcasting Standards Council as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did when he discussed the chairman, but I suspect that he would be rather uncomfortable if he sought to lampoon the deputy chairman of that council. Anyone who knows Jocelyn Barrow knows that she is fiercely independent, hardly a poodle of the Government—she is a black educationist who is respected by both sides of the House—and that she is doing a magnificent job to ensure that the BSC is able to make a contribution.
I believe that Jocelyn Barrow recognises, as we all should, that parents think that there is something wrong with some television programmes. Parents know what is needed. When one goes to the cinema the certificate of the film gives a guarantee of the broad content of it. If the film carries a U certificate one knows that it is reasonable and safe for children to see. Why not have a certification system for television? I accept that it should not involve previewing, as that would give far too much power to the BSC and it would be too cumbersome to operate. I believe that the television companies should operate a self-certification system. Therefore, parents and others, need only look at the newspaper to know what sort of programmes will be on and whether they want to watch them. I believe that the system, in common with the system in Canada, should also include a guide to the sort of language used in the programmes. I urge the Minister to consider such a system.
The system could be enforced and policed by the Broadcasting Standards Council, which in addition could consider the watersheds of when programmes should be
1066
shown. The BBC 9 o'clock watershed—although it is breached on many occasions—is important and is taken seriously by the BBC. We need watersheds to ensure that programmes with an entirely family content are shown until 7, 8 or perhaps 9 o'clock in the evening so that parents may know that what is on television at certain times is suitable for their children to watch.
The chairman of the BBC said on 24 February last year:
"I have given the Home Secretary an undertaking that the BBC will take firm steps to eradicate unnecessary and gratuitous violence, sex and bad language."
It is unfortunate that he celebrated almost the anniversary of making that statement with last night's edition of EastEnders, which was peppered with unnecessary and gratuitous bad language. One of the main characters carried a knife and threatened violence—gratuitous violence, one might say—against people, and I am not sure whether I use an unparliamentary expression when I say that the programme ended with an unnecessary and gratuitous gang bang that, in my view, added hardly at all to the story.
It is important to protect people who want family viewing but who at present do not have any idea of what will appear on television. That is not to say that adult programming and various types of wide-ranging programmes should not be shown late at night. But at family viewing times people have a right to be protected and to be given some information about what will appear on their screens.
The White Paper makes sense of the changes that will take place. It will make the future work in a way that Labour Members have not even comprehended, because they have not looked seriously at the problems involved. One cannot pick winners with certainty in this business. It is not clear who the winners will be.
The paranoid fantasies that we have heard have a long tradition. People said that Edison's light would not work and would never be popular and that Stevenson's Rocket would have people suffocating at over 20 mph. Labour Members are saying much the same today about television. Indeed, one need only recall the speeches that they made when ITV and local radio were introduced to realise that they are as wrong now as they were then. I congratulate the Government on the White Paper.
9.17 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett: It is a privilege for me to wind up the debate on behalf of the Opposition. We have had an exceptionally intelligent debate and I hope that as well as listening the Government will learn from what has been said by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
There has been a great measure of cross-party agreement on subjects such as the future quality of programmes and the need to ensure the preservation of regional programmes, and doubts have been expressed about the system of tendering. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to the need for better levels of sub-titling throughout television programming. The level of cross-party support is such that it is almost guaranteed that when the Bill comes before the House in the next Session the Government will impose the guillotine on our discussions.
When the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was advancing the proposition that in the next few years the licence fee would become less acceptable as,

1067
by his thesis, the popularity of satellite viewing grew, I wanted to remind him that the set, not the BBC, was licensed. The BBC gets the licence money, and it would be most surprising if the Government did anything which resulted in their forgoing that money in their coffers.
I repeat our welcome for the chance of a greater real choice of diverse and quality television and radio programmes which advancing technology makes possible, nationally, within the regions and in Scotland and Wales. Used sensibly, change can widen access for citizens, including those in our ethnic communities who now have only a small voice. It can also open eyes and ears to worlds as yet unknown. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) took us in an exceptionally able way into that important matter. The White Paper, however, will not achieve this.
This issue is simple—will more broadcasting mean better broadcasting which expands the standards set by the BBC and ITV companies, or will it, as many inside and beyond broadcasting fear, lead to financial pressures which will push down quality, limit diversity and lead to the sameness that typifies most of our tabloid press?
There has, at least, been a frankness about the free market future that the Government aim to establish. Mr. Leslie Hill, managing director of Central Television, told me in reply to a complaint about a cut of one third in the number of "Central Lobby" current affairs programmes:
"Programme-making decisions will increasingly be commercially led. I believe this to be the inevitable result of the enormous financial and, ultimately, competitive pressures to be applied to ITV."
There was another dreadful warning from Mr. Andrew Neil, executive chairman of Mr. Murdoch's Sky television and sometime editor of his Sunday Times. On 15 January Mr. Neil told The Observer:
"The entertainment channel will be like ITV without the public service broadcasting hits."
The bits of which Mr. Neil was so scornful are those that form the foundations of our present broadcasting system. They lay down an obligation to broadcast "information, education and entertainment" and to
"maintain a high general standard"
together with
"a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter."
No wonder that Mr. Murdoch wants nothing to do with them.
Those clear obligations are replaced in the White Paper with a mealy-mouthed
"requirement to show regional programming"
and to show
"high quality news and current affairs"
and, as an afterthought,
"possibly also current affairs in the main viewing periods."
In the White Paper, any specific obligation of public service goes out of the window. That is because the Government simply want to hand over ITV to the men with the deepest pockets who will meet a so-called quality threshold no higher than a pile of £50 notes.
Why do the Government not learn? Do they not remember that a previous Conservative Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw, recognised when Channel 4 began that, while financial resources without talent cannot provide quality television, neither can talent without financial resources? Lord Whitelaw built upon what was already in place. The present Home Secretary wants to do a demolition job.
It is not just the broadcasters who are apprehensive. What about the viewers and listeners whom the
1068
Government claim are at the centre of their broadcasting policy? What has happened to their views and voices in this debate? As Mrs. Jocelyn Hay. chairman of the Voice of the Listener, said in the winter edition of Airwaves, the IBA's magazine:
"When the Government wants to involve Sid in its privatisation plans it begins years in advance and embarks upon advertising campaigns costing tens of millions of pounds. It offers financial lures and free telephone calls so that Sid can learn how a shareholding democracy works. But what has it done when planning to change the nature and structure of our broadcasting services?"
She goes on to recall that the Government's contribution has been a Green Paper on radio at £5 a time, the White Paper that we are discussing today at £7·20 and—wait for it—a free 12-page summary of the main proposals of the White Paper, stocks of which, incidentally, were exhausted in less than three weeks. That is how much viewers arid listeners have been involved.
Mrs. Hay goes on to make the following points, upon which I hope the Minister of State will comment. She says:
"the Green and White Papers are full of references to the Government's desire to serve the consumer, but neither contains any sign of any actual intent to strengthen the position of listeners and viewers. There is no mention, for example, of the new 'light touch' authorities having advisory councils, the one means by which listeners and viewers can currently make a positive input to broadcasting policy. Nor is there any sign that the Government intends to rectify the situation in which broadcasting is the only national service without a statutory consumer body positively charged with supporting the public interest."
The White Paper also threatens the Home Secretary's personal drive to encourage active citizens. As Community Service Volunteers say:
"Every year approximately 10,000 hours of air time are devoted to community programming. 30,000 voluntary or charitable organisations are involved. As many as five million people phone the helplines for information and advice. Three million volunteers are recruited annually. Vital information on issues like health, education and employment opportunities is conveyed to the public."
But the Government plan to destroy that essential public service. On behalf of nine charities, Miss Viv Taylor Gee, the producer of the Thames Television "Help" programme, warns:
"The many educational and community programmes to which large and small charities have access now will have little chance of survival. ITV companies are to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and the massive explosion of new channels will make it very unlikely that educational and community broadcasting can compete in companies that have to go fiat out for high ratings and advertising revenue."
When talking of the rights of viewers and listeners, the White Paper floats the idea of merging the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which deals with complaints about unfair treatment and the invasion of privacy, with the preposterous Broadcasting Standards Council. The House will remember that Professor Alan Peacock said in The Times today that the council
"has no function in a free society."
If that merger takes place, it is important that matters of unfair treatment and privacy should be dealt with separately from complaints about sex, violence and standards of taste and decency. It is important, in the. upheaval, that viewers and listeners who feel wronged and whose privacy has been invaded can know that there is an independent body which can handle their complaints properly. The Government might see virtue in encouraging and enabling the present commission to make its work more widely known as these are important rights for viewers and listeners.

1069
The community programmes are some of the "bits" that Mr. Neil may be glad to see the back of, but their absence demonstrates that for all the Government's fine words it will be the men with money who decide what we shall see or not see. It reminds me of an ITV programme some years ago called "Never mind the quality, feel the width". With the so-called "positive programme requirements," how is the proposed ITC to apply the Government's threshold? If the intention was serious, bidders would first have to put money on the table conditionally until they had demonstrated exactly in terms of the proposed budget how the quality of programmes and variety would be ensured. If the Government were prudent in selling off this powerful national asset, they would insist that those making bids should have to specify the number of hours that they planned to make and show for the arts, education, religion, drama, documentaries, children's programmess and current affairs and they would be required to identify in the budget how much they proposed to spend on each of those categories. I hope that the Minister and the Government will think about that. Otherwise, the so-called "quality threshold" will be meaningless. Bidders must have money for the assurances given at the time of bidding to be brought into reality. As the Campaign for Quality Television argues, that is the only way in which the ITC can properly assess how franchise promises are to be carried out.
With regard to Channel 4, I hope that the Government have been impressed by the evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. Michael Grade, who called for an income safety net to guarantee the future and independence of Channel 4. He said:
"The greatest threat would be shareholder pressure, an economic downturn in advertising revenues and an all-out full frontal attack from ITV on our audiences and revenue."
Even this Government agree that Channel 4 has been a big success. Yet in the White Paper they toy with the idea of threatening that very success.
Under direct threat are some of our smaller regional stations, as the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned. S4C, which provides a Welsh language service, has a doubtful financial base after 1992 although, again, the White Paper says that it is a striking success. As the Campaign for Quality Television warns, that has implications both for independent producers and for the ITV company in Wales. S4C is now funded through a subscription on all 15 ITV companies and its future must be in jeopardy.
It is exactly that sort of cross-subsidy which has expanded the base of our television network. Its ending would threaten small regional stations. When I told the Minister of State that this would put some stations at real risk, he replied in a letter of 1 February:
"It will, of course, be for the Independent Television Commission to draw the regional map and there might, as a result, be fewer or different regions than at present."
The Minister knows that to step aside from an insistence on proper regional television coverage is bound to mean fewer regional companies and fewer separate regions. The Home Secretary looks puzzled. I will explain the reason for that.
Who will bid for a regional television company which, because of its location and population, can make ends meet only through the present subsidy system? Who will
1070
buy a franchise which is guaranteed to lose money? Under the White Paper proposals, its only hope to continue in some form—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] I am not naming stations—is to be swallowed up into larger areas covering larger regions, thus losing much of the regional variety that we now have. That is what the market place will mean to millions of viewers in the regions. There is no way that the BBC can make that up.
Mr. Wilson: I fully appreciate why my hon. Friend is not mentioning names. Will he acknowledge the real fear that we shall be left with one commercial station for the whole of Scotland? Will he further acknowledge that if market forces are left to determine the interests of minorities, such as linguistic groups, there will be no place for Gaelic speakers on television?
Mr. Corbett: I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend has said. I do not want to mention names because it would be unfair to the companies concerned.
The Government's approach throughout the White Paper is careless. Not for them any attempt to build on the basis of success, as would have been sensible for terrestrial broadcasting faced with massive competition from satellites. Not for them a planned advance adding to our present mix. No—they prefer the bulldozer to the bricklayer. What they plan will turn broadcasting inside out for no better reason than that it is a way to make a few quid for the Treasury.
It is not the so-called market value of a franchise which should guide the Government if they have the genuine interests of viewers and listeners at heart. It should be the quality and diversity of the content, and the need to ensure that what happened in the United States of America, and lately in France and Italy, will not be allowed to happen here.
Do the Government want to run an even risk of millions of people having to rely for information on sewer sheets such as The Sun? Do they want what Murdoch has done to much of journalism to happen to television? That is the prospect of their proposals. This White Paper is all about the Prime Minister's vendetta against certain broadcasters. From the smash-and-grab raid on BBC Scotland to the clumsy attempt to stop the showing of "Death on the Rock", she is a Prime Minister who brooks no dissent. She has a client press, with one daily exception. There is a huge deaf majority in this place. Now it is the turn of the broadcasters to be brought to heel, though not directly. The idea is to get the men with the money—those who get the knighthoods and the accolades from the Prime Minister—to sort them out. A Government who can dismiss as whitewash the report of the inquiry into "Death on the Rock", written by a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, and who can do so within 40 minutes of its publication and without having read it, are a Government who cannot be trusted to look after the real interests of viewers and listeners.
Perhaps the best comment on what the Government propose comes from the much-lauded Professor Alan Peacock who in The Times today said that the main aim of change should be
"ensuring that programmes of high quality which challenge the viewer and foster our national cultures continue to be produced."
He added:
"This hope is expressed in the White Paper but it offers precious little guidance on how this is to be achieved."

1071
That says it all, and it encourages us to ask the House to decline to take note of this destructive White Paper.
9.36 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): What a lot of rubbish the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) talked in his last few sentences, and what a pity it was, because, that apart, I agree with him that this has been a fascinating debate, ranging from culture, through distribution systems, to Gaelic broadcasts. Points have been made by Members on both sides—by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden)—with which I profoundly disagree, but there have also been contributions from both sides that I found fascinating and interesting and with which I had a lot of agreement. I could gladly take two hours to answer this debate, but as I have only 24 minutes I will save the polemics and get straight down to answering some of the many points that have been raised.
First, I can assure the hon. Member for Erdington that the stocks of our leaflet—the small-size version of the White Paper on broadcasting—are not exhausted. They have never been exhausted. We are still sending them out. Indeed, we have sent out several thousand, including those sent to the Voice of the Listener organisation, to which he referred.
I think that we should all like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) and all the other members of the Home Affairs Select Committee for the excellent report they produced on the future of broadcasting.
In his concise and excellent speech my hon. Friend raised a number of points, two or three of which I should like to deal with straightaway. I join him in applauding and endorsing the appointment of George Russell as the new chairman of the IBA. We hope that George Russell will continue as the chairman of the ITC. I agree that it is very important that he presides over the transition between the IBA and the ITC. Indeed, the White Paper stresses the importance of a smooth transition to the new regulative structure, and I should like to tell the House that, after discussion with the IBA and the Cable Authority, we envisage—
Mr. Dennis Turner: What about Chalfont?
Mr. Renton: I should be delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman about Lord Chalfont. In fact, his name was not raised in this debate, but it was an excellent appointment and the deputy chairman of the IBA has very wide knowledge of broadcasting, apart, of course, from his recommendation of being an ex-Labour Minister.
We envisage, subject to parliamentary approval, that the responsibilities of the IBA and the Cable Authority during the transition period should be merged within the proposed new Independent Television Commission at the earliest opportunity, and that the proposed Radio Authority should take over the responsibilities of the IBA radio division on broadly the same time scale. Such an approach, as the House will appreciate, will give the staff greater certainty about what future options will be open to them and will ensure continued effective regulation of the ITV system, independent radio and cable in the period before the new regulatory regimes come into force.
1072
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North that it is our intention, and I am sure it will be the intention of the ITC, that if the quality standards are not observed by the independent television companies, the winners of either the Channel 3 or the Channel 5 franchise, the franchise can, and indeed must, be ended after the issue of appropriate warnings.
I hope that I can have the attention of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North that it is essential for our policies against the concentration of ownership to be in the broadcasting Bill that we will bring before the House. 1 remind the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that we said clearly in the White Paper that we were laying down principles on which the full set of rules would be based. We invited consultation and comment on how more flesh should be put on those principles as we formulate the clear rules.
Mr. Hattersley: Can we have the clear answer that we were promised to a very simple question? Was the Minister right when he said on television that Mr. Robert Maxwell, the owner of three national papers, would be free to buy Central Television, because the Minister did not regard it as a national set-up?
Mr. Renton: I have the text before me. That is precisely not what I said.
Mr. Hattersley: Yes, it is.
Mr. Renton: No, it is not. I have the text here. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it absolutely plain earlier and I will repeat this point for the right hon. Gentleman who seems to have difficulty getting it into his head, I am not quite certain why. People should not be too quick to assume that there will be no limit on newspaper interests in regional Channel 3 licences. That is the position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said—[Interruption.] It is a great pity that Opposition Members are having such problems about this issue. We have said clearly, and this is in the White Paper, that we welcome comments on the forming of the full set of rules.
Mr. Wilson: That is not what the Minister said.
Mr. Renton: That is precisely what I said. I was very pleased that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave me a copy of the transcript because it endorses what I said.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside raised particular points about the regional basis of privatised transmission. He will be aware that we recently appointed Price Waterhouse to carry out a study of transmission once it has been privatised. It is clear that the different costs of transmission in different areas of the United Kingdom will be taken into account in the tender price. I shall be visiting Grampian, Border and Scottish Television in the next few weeks and I will listen very carefully to what they have to say about the differential costs for transmission once privatisation has taken place.
Mr. Rees: The independent companies as a group met us and have given us information. They say that unless something is done, transmission will have an effect on the smaller companies. Surely it is not a matter for Price Waterhouse. If the figures are shown to be right, something should be done.
Mr. Renton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not misunderstood what I said. We all accept that Grampian is heavily subsidised in its transmission costs at the moment. That is a well-known fact. Price Waterhouse's terms of reference include looking at the means of effecting privatisation most effectively and the likely effect of that on transmission costs.
I make the point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside that if transmission costs increase in a non-subsidised situation for one particular regional company, that will be taken into account by the bidders for that franchise. They will know that future transmission costs will be considerably more.
Mr. Buchan: There may be no possibility of any profit in the Highlands of Scotland, and, therefore, the whole of the transmission costs will have to be subsidised by the Government.
Mr. Renton: I do not need the hon. Gentleman to tell me that. I read the submissions, and I know about the position of Grampian Television. That is why I decided to spend time talking personally to Grampian, Scottish Television, and Border Television. I wanted to learn first hand of their concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was one of the relatively few hon. Members who mentioned the BBC's situation. He made the interesting comment that the BBC will have to redefine its role because of dwindling resources. There is a lot of confidence in the BBC at the moment, and that is emphasised in its submissions to the Government in the response to the White Paper. No doubt the BBC is re-examining its role for the 1990s, when there will be a possibility that, as subscriptions grow, the licence fee after 1991 will increase by less than the rate of inflation. In four or five years' time, the Government of the day will have to consider what must happen to the licence fee, once the BBC's charter comes up for renewal at the end of 1996.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), that ever-young television star, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) asked about a final objective element for the Independent Television Commission in the competitive tendering process. I realise that there is much feeling on that subject, but I cannot do better than remind the House of the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that the new ITC chairman is looking carefully at the interaction between the two concepts of the quality hurdle and the competitive tender.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) apologised for not being present to hear the winding-up speeches. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) raised the question of cable and its relationship with microwave distribution systems, and of the separation of the delivery and retailing functions. We said in the White Paper that we welcome specific comments, and that we will present our proposals by the end of April.
The objective behind the separation of delivery and retailing is to provide scope for competition in local services. We regard that as being an important objective and one from which we shall not be deflected. We are receptive to advice and comments by the end of February on the best way of ensuring competition. That is a particularly green part of the White Paper. We aim to
1074
announce our proposals in firmer form by the end of April so that companies interested in bidding for further cable franchises—and there is much interest in them—may have a clearer picture of the ecology into which they will be bidding.
My hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and for Thanet, North spoke of the Council of Europe's draft convention. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North for his kind remarks about the part that I played in that draft convention, and I also thank Home Office officials for the great deal of work that they did in that context. Successful completion of the convention is almost in sight. We hope that it will be concluded at the meeting of Ministers' deputies in Strasbourg at the end of February, and we shall do everything that we can to bring about that outcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is particularly anxious about article 16 of the draft convention which, as he well knows, is expressly intended to avoid a situation where a broadcaster sets up outside the borders of a particular country specifically to circumvent that country's normal domestic rules. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that that provision is protectionist and is incompatible with our aim of promoting transfrontier services. As my hon. Friend knows, we argued at length against it, but we recognise that a number of countries attach great importance to it and would not have signed a convention that lacked that safeguard.
We believe that, on balance, the potential damage to British interests posed by that provision is not so serious as to outweigh the clear advantages that we see in securing the convention, which will provide minimal rules of regulation for the world of transfrontier broadcasting that is just about to burst upon us in this country.
Mr. Bermingham rose—
Mr. Renton: I shall give way, but this is the last time.
Mr. Bermingham: The Minister will recall that the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) and I both raised with him the night hours on BBC2. Will he confirm that BBC1 and BBC2 night hours will remain with the BBC and will not be taken away into private franchise?
Mr. Renton: Of course I will not, and the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to. I have read the BBC submission. Obviously the BBC would like to be certain that it will have both night hours channels, but we have made it clear in the White Paper that we think it appropriate to consider giving others an opportunity to bid for that time.
Every hon. Member who has spoken has talked, rightly, about the need to maintain quality in British broadcasting. I assure the House that few, if any, issues have so exercised all the Ministers considering the White Paper over the past 18 months. That is why we decided to maintain the remit of Channel 4, and why we left the BBC precisely in place as the cornerstone of public service broadcasting. Quality, however, is subjective; it means different things to different people. To one it will mean more "EastEnders" or "Neighbours", to another more snooker, to a third more American football and to a fourth more opera or ballet. Arguably, a reasonable definition would be programmes that are better of their kind—good soap rather than bad soap; "Hamlet" rather than "Titus Andronicus."
Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have said that I will not give way again. I have quite a bit more to say and very little time in which to say it.
We started from the basic premise that the thesis of some Opposition Members as we have heard today—and certainly that of John Mortimer—that quality can be sustained only through a restriction in choice is essentially wrong—[Interruption.] I remember what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said when the White Paper was announced.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already gone through the many detailed quality hurdles in the White Paper. It was said earlier that thresholds had already turned into hurdles and that soon it would be fences. There is no harm in that. In the White Paper we see a reinforcement of quality in carefully chosen areas, not a running away from it.
We could add almost indefinitely to the requirements of the White Paper—specific broadcasting for charities and social action, children's programmes, religious programmes and so on. Let me say to the right hon. Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), that that does not mean that we do not recognise the needs of particular groups in society and share the concerns expressed by them about provision for those with disabilities such as impairment of hearing. We shall consider carefully the comments of the Royal National Institute for the Blind and other societies representing such groups. We recognise, for example, the importance of teletext to those with hearing impairments, and we shall take full account of it as we work up paragraph 6.45 of the White Paper, which says:
"It will provide a regulatory structure designed to facilitate the development of new services."
Our proposals are essentially for an enabling framework that gives viewers and listeners a greater choice and a greater say, and gives broadcasters more freedom to respond to their wishes. New stations, be they radio or television, will add to listener choice. In community radio or local television they will be a dynamic and beneficial force, strengthening community ties and community values.
Jeremiahs such as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) say that more must mean worse. My answer is that television will continue to change, be it towards high definition television on wide screens in the home or towards local microwave television. We cannot predict the ways in which it will change, but the public will certainly continue to demand a wide range of programmes—varied, different and good. If a channel does not produce such programmes, it will lose its audience, go out of business and somebody else will come along to fill the gap.
The gloomy messages that we have heard today were heard in 1953 and 1954 during the debate on the Bill that introduced commercial television for the first time, but the last 35 years have shown the gloomy prophecies of 1953 to be wrong. I suspect that the coming years will show that the prophecies of the Jeremiahs of today are wrong, too. The British public have shown an increasing appetite to enlarge their sphere of interest by watching wildlife, travel and American football in addition to "EastEnders", "Bread" and "Neighbours". That may be because they switched on the set to watch one programme and stayed to
1076
watch another. The halo of a very popular programme benefits succeeding offerings, but it is worth remembering the words of the Peacock committee:
"Do not think of consumers as having only known and static wants. The competitive market is a discovery mechanism for finding out what the consumer might be enticed to accept and for trying out new and challenging ideas."
That is surely the right approach to the birth of the new channels and of the new opportunities in broadcasting that lie ahead of us.
We shall listen very carefully to the observations that are made to us during the consultation period. We believe that we have got the mix about right in our White Paper. I remind the House of the words at a conference at London Weekend Television on 18 January of John Ranelagh, a member of the founding team that established Channel 4 and who worked with Channel 4 from 1981 to 1987. He said:
"The quality programme makers of the United Kingdom inside and outside the institutions are better placed than anyone else to succeed. The only obstacles to the British broadcasting industry's success are the negative attitude and assumptions of too many of its senior people about the future. They undervalue the viewers they claim to serve, they undervalue themselves and they undervalue their companies."
The Government do not make that undervaluation. The Labour party apparently does.
I found that there were moments at the beginning of the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when I was positively agreeing with him, but then it turned into the speech of what I can only call that most difficult of animals, an ambivalent dinosaur. He is unclear about whether more regulation is needed. In the early days he was all against change. There should be more soap, more quiz shows, more game shows. Now he is in a muddle. He does not want to have anything to do with the Broadcasting Standards Council, he does not want anyone to tell him what he is to see, yet he talked of the need for more regulation. He specifically called for high-cost, original drama. He is a dinosaur who has been fed on the briefs of the ITV companies and watered at their table. He harks back to the cosy monopoly of past entrenched interests when he, and not the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), was regularly interviewed. Those days are gone. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has gone to Sky television. Doubtless he will be followed by many others who sit on the Opposition Front Bench.
Of course we shall listen carefully to what is said. More variety of channels means more variety of good programmes. Ownership should he spread over many companies and many people. At the heart of our philosophy is the clear message that people should be able to choose, for that is their right.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 275.

Division No. 36]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott. Ms Olane

Beckett, Margaret

Adams. Allan (Paisley N)

Beggs. Roy

Allon, David

Beith. A. J.

Anderson. Donald

Bell. Stuart

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Armstrong. Hilary

Bennett. A. f. (D'nf'n & R'dish)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bermingham, Gerald

Ashton, JOB

Blair, Tony

Barnes. Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Blunkett. David

Barren, Kevin

Boatsng, Paul

Battle. John

Boyes, Roland

Bradley. Keith

Illsley, Eric

Bray. Dr Jeremy

Janner, Greville

Brown, Gordon (D'miine E)

Jones, leuan (Ynys MCn)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Jones. Msrtyn (Clwyd S W)

Brown. Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Buchan. Norman

Kinnock. Rt Hon Neil

Buckley, George J.

Lambie, Oavid

Caborn. Richard

Lamond, James

Callaghan, Jim

Lead bitter. Ted

Campbell. Meniies (File NE)

Leigtiton, Ron

Cam obeli. Ron (Blyth Valley)

Lestor. Joan (Eccles)

Campbell-Savours, D. N

Lewis, Terry

Canavan. Dennis

Litherland. Robert

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Livingstone, Ken

Clark. Dr David (S Shields)

Livsey, Richard

Clarke. Tom (Monklands W)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Clay. Sob

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Clelland. David

Loyden, Eddie

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Me All ion. John

Cohen, Harry

McAvoy, Thomas

Cook. Robin (Livingston)

McCartney. Ian

Corbett. Robin

Macdonald. Calum A.

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mcraii. John

Cousins, Jim

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Cox. Tom

McKelvey. William

Cryer, Bob

McLeish. Henry

Cummings. John

Maclennan, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McNamara, Kevin

Dalyell. Tarn

McTaggart, Bob

Darling. Alistflir

McWilliam, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Madden, Mai

Davls. Terry (Bham Hodge H't)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dewar, Donald

Marek, Dr John

Dixon, Don

Marshall. David (Shettleston)

Dobson. Frank

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Doran, Frank

Marl lew. Eric

Douglas. Dick

Maiton. John

Dufly. A. E. P.

Meacher. Michael

Dunnachie. Jimmy

Meals, Alan

Ewing. Harry (Falkirk E)

Michael, Alun

Ewing. Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Michie. Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fatehett. Derek

Mlchie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Faults. Andrew

Mitchell. Austin (G't Grlmsby)

Field, Frank(Birkenhead)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Fisher. Mark

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Flannery, Martin

Morgan, Rhodri

Flynn. Paul

Marie y. Elliott

Foot. Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Mullin, Chris

Foster, Derek

Murphy. Paul

Fraser. John

Nellist, Dave

Fyfe, Maria

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Galbraith. Sam

O'Brien. William

Galloway, George

O'Neill. Martin

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Orme. fit Hon Stanley

George. Bruce

Parry, Robert

Gilbert, Rl Hon Dr John

Pen dry, Tom

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Pike, Peter L.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gordon, Mildred

Prescott, John

Graham, Thomas

Ouin, Ms Joyce

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Radice, Giles

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Randall, Stuart

Grocott, Bruce

Redmond, Martin

Hardy, Peter

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Harman, Ms Harriet

Fleid, Dr John

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Richardson, Jo

Heffer. Eric S.

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Henderson. Doug

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hinchlitfe. David

Rooker. Jeff

Hogg, N. (C'neuld & Kilsyth)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Holland, Siuart

Ruddock, Joan

Home Robertson, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Howells, Geraint

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hoyle. Doug

Shore. Rt Hon Peter

Hughes. John (Coventry NE)

Short, Clare

Hughes. Robert (Aberdeen N)

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

Hughes. Simon (Southward)

Smith. RtHon J. (Monk'ds E)

Snape. Peter

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Soley, Clive

Williams, RlHon Alan

Spearing. Nigel

Wilson. Brian

Steel, Rt Kon David

Winnick, David

Sirang, Gavin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Straw, Jack

Worthington, Tony

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wray, Jimmy

Turner. Dennis

Young. David (Bolton SE)

Wall. Pat

Wallace. James

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walley, Joan

Mr. Frank Hayncs and

Warden. Gareth (Gowar)

Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

Wareing. Robert N.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Day, Stephen

Alexander, Richard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Dicks, Terry

Amess, David

Dorrell. Stephen

Amos. Alan

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arbuthnot, James

Dover, Den

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dunn, Bob

Arnold. Tom (Hazel Grovs)

Durant, Tony

Ash by, David

Dykes, Hugh

Aspinwall. Jack

Emery. Sir Peter

Atkins, Robert

Evans. David (Walwyn Hatf'd)

Atkinson, David

Evennelt, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset H)

Fairbairn. Sir Nicholas

Baldry. Tony

Favell, Tony

Banks. Robert (Harroyate)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Batiste, Spencer

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bellingham, Henry

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bendall, Vivian

Fishburn. John Dudley

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Benyon. W.

Forman, Nigel

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Biffen. Rt Hon John

Forth. Eric

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fowler. Rt Hon Norman

Blaker, Rl Hon Sir Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus

Body, Sir Richard

Franks, Cecil

Bonsor. Sir Nicholas

Freeman, Roger

Boscawen, Hon Robert

French, Douglas

Boswell, Tim

Fry, Peter

Bottomley, Peter

Gale. Roger

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gardiner, George

Bowis. John

Garel-Jones. Tristan

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gill, Christopher

Braine, Rl Hon Sir Bernard

Glyn. Dr Alan

Brazier, Julian

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Brown. Michael (Brlgg & Cl't's)

Good lad, Alastair

Browne. John (Winchester)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bruce. Ian (Dorset South)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Gow, Ian

Buck, Sir Antony

Grant. Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway. John (Ryedale)

Butcher, John

Gregory, Conal

Butler. Chris

Griffiths. Peter (Portsmouth N)

Buttertill, John

Ground, Patrick

Carlisle, John. (Luton N)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton. Hon Archie (Epsom)

Carltiss, Michael

Hamilton. Neil (Tatton)

Cash. William

Han ley. Jeremy

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hannam. John

Channon. Rt Hon Paul

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

Chapman, Sydney

Hargraaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Chope, Christopher

Harris, David

Churchill, Mr

Haselhurst. Alan

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

Hayes, Jerry

Clark. Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hayhoe. Rl Hon Sir Barney

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushciffe)

Hay ward, Robert

Conway, Derek

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs. Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Heddle. John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hicks. Robert (Cornwall SE)

Couch man, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Cran, James

Hill, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hind. Kenneth

Davies. Q. (Stemt'd & Speld'g)

Hogg. Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Davis. David (Boolhferry)

Holt, Richard

Hordern, Sir Peler

McCrindle, Robert

Howard, Michael

Macferlane, Sir Neil

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

Maclean, David

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

MeNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Hughes. Robert G. (Harrow W)

MeNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Madel. David

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Malins. Humlrey

Hunter, Andrew

Mans. Keith

Hurd. Fit Han Douglas

Maples. John

Irvine, Michael

Marland, Paul

Irving. Charles

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Jack. Michael

Marshall. Michael (Arundel)

Jackson, Robert

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Janmai. Tim

Males, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Maude, Hon Francis

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Maxweli-Hyslop, Robin

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Pal rick

Kelletl-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Mel lor. David

Key, Robert

Meyer, Sir Anthony

KMtedder, James

Miller. Sir Hal

Kino. Roger (B'ham N'th'field)

Miscampbeil. Norman

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Kirk hope, Timothy

Monro, Sir Hector

Knaprman, Rooer

Morris. M (N'hampton S)

Knight. Greg (Derby North)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Knowles, Michael

Neale. Gerrard

Knox, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholls, Patrick

Lang, Ian

Page, Richard

Latham, Michael

Paice. James

Lawrence. Ivan

Parkinson, HI Hon Cecil

Lee, John (Pandle)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Powell, William (Corby)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Rertton, Tim

Lightbown. Lavd

Rid dick. Graham

Lilley, Peter

Ridsdale. Sir Julian

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Rlfklnd. Rt Hon Malcolm

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lord, Michael

Roe. Mrs Marion

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lyell. Sir Nicholas

Rost, Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Th urn ham. Peter

Rumbold. Mrs Angela

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Ryder, Richard

Tracey, Richard

Sackville. Hon Tom

Trippier, David

Sayeed, Jonatnan

Twlnn, Or Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Viggers, Peter

Shaw. Sir Michael (Scerb')

WaatJinglon. Rt Hon David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Shersby, Michael

Waller, Gary

Skeet. Sir Trevor

Ward, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Warren, Kenneth

Soames. Hon Nicholas

Watts, John

Speed. Keith

Wells, Bow en

Speller, Tony

Wheeler. John

Squire. Robin

Whitney, Ray

Stan brook, Ivor

Widdecombe, Ann

Stanley. Rt Hon Sir John

Wilshire. David

Stern, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stevens, Lewis

Winterton, Nicholas

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wolf son. Mark

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wood, Timothy

Sumberg. David

Woodcock. Mike

Summerson, Hugo

Yso. Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson. Patrick (Norwich N)

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

Thome. Neil Thornlon. Malcnlm

Mr. Michael Fallon.

Thornlon. Malcnlm

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper, Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality (Cm. 517), and endorses the Government's proposals for the future of broadcasting contained therein.

Inner London Education Authority
10.14 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
Today's debate concerns the financing of ILEA in 1989–90. [Interruption.]
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important debate for London. I do not mean any disrespect to the Minister, but she certainly cannot be heard. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask for quiet before she starts.
Mr. Speaker: Once again I say, order. Will hon. Members who do not wish to stay for this debate kindly leave quietly, especially those who are beyond the Gangway?
Mrs. Rumbold: Today's debate concerns the financing of the Inner London education authority in 1989–90. This order limits the precept which may be made by ILEA for 1989–90 to 78·42p in the pound, which on the latest information would raise £960 million.
The precept maximum set out in the draft order has been arrived at after careful consideration. It is the product of a process which has taken six months. During that process, we have taken full account of the representations put to us by ILEA, both in writing and in person. In a moment I shall outline briefly the process which has led to this draft order. Before I do so, it may be helpful to the House if I say a few words about the wider context.
In April 1990, ILEA's functions will transfer to the inner London boroughs; 1989–90 will therefore be the year in which a new structure for London's education service takes shape. The Government have been determined to play their part to ensure a smooth transfer of responsibilities in the interests of pupils, students, parents and teachers. To this end, we are providing a substantial sum by way of specific grant to the boroughs for preparation work in 1989–90. We have increased the £10 million originally announced to £25 million.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made a separate proposal in relation to the distribution of the capital money order next year in order to assist the inner London boroughs with their education department accommodation costs. As I shall explain, my right hon. Friend has had regard to ILEA's representations about the particular circumstances of 1989–90 in coming to his decisions on the financing of the authority in that year.
Over the past months, I have been struck by the enthusiasm with which the inner London boroughs have tackled the job of preparing for their education responsibilities. All have now made senior appointments to their education departments and carried out programmes of local consultation. Almost all have now published detailed draft development plans. All appear to be on target for publication of the final version of those plans at the end of February. So the foundations have been laid. Of course there is still much to be done. No one is guilty, I hope, of complacency. Some of the boroughs are
1082
making faster progress than others, and I believe that that pace of progress will have to accelerate over the coming months. However, so far the work done is encouraging.
The Government believe that the transfer of education to the boroughs is right both for the quality of delivery and value for money in education in inner London. As an example, I shall draw some comparisons of ILEA's unit costs with those of other metropolitan authorities in 1988–89 to illustrate the authority's continued excessive spending. According to figures fom the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the metropolitan authorities are spending on average £1,036 per primary pupil, excluding support service costs. The outer London boroughs are spending £1,141. ILEA is spending £1,510 on the same basis—32 per cent. more than the outer London boroughs and 46 per cent. more than the metropolitan districts. The metropolitan districts are spending £1,664 per secondary pupil, again excluding support service costs. The outer London boroughs are spending £1,787.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the Minister leaves this rather tedious list of statistics, will she add one to it? Will she add a statistic for the costs of building, running buildings and salaries and wages in inner London compared to those in outer London and the rest of the country? Will she give us a reasonable normal statistical base for her assertion, rather than this condemnation of the ILEA?
Mrs. Rumbold: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like the truth revealed by the figures. If he listens carefully to what I am saying he will note that the comparisons I am making are perfectly right and relevant to my argument. I do not think that I need accept any judgment from him about how I present my figures to the House.
Mr. Stuart Holland: Surely the Minister is aware that inner-city costs are always higher for any kind of service—that is the case on the continent, in the United States and in Britain. Does she also agree that, because of housing costs for teachers and the prevailing salaries, we are faced with a crisis in primary education in ILEA? In the Walnut Tree Walk school in my constituency, classes are being sent home on alternate days because, despite advertisements, no teachers have come forward to take the posts. The Minister is simply not addressing this crisis. Will she do something about it?
Mrs. Rumbold: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I intend to quote figures that show that we are making comparisons with metropolitan authorities of similar character. All the development plans that we have seen from individual boroughs address the hon. Gentleman's concern about the recruitment and retention of teachers. I hope that those plans will make a difference to the recruitment of staff when the security and attraction of work in smaller authorities appeals to some teachers.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mrs. Rumbold: No, I must get on.
Mr. David Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Rumbold: Very well.
Mr. Ashby: I find the statistics most interesting. Does my hon. Friend intend to tell us whether the examination results are in keeping with the high cost of education in inner London?
Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the examination results from ILEA are, sadly, in no way related to the cost of running that authority. Those results are considerably worse than any other authority in the country.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mrs. Rumbold: No, I will not give way.
The outer London boroughs are spending £1,141; ILEA is spending £1,510 on the same basis—32 per cent. more than the outer boroughs and 46 per cent. more than the metropolitan districts.[Interruption.] The metropolitan authorities are spending £1,664 per secondary pupil, again excluding the support service costs. The outer London boroughs are spending—
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is getting extremely excited and shouting abusive remarks at my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who has been behaving himself impeccably. Will you kindly call to order those Members who do not represent inner London constituencies and who are merely being abusive about a matter that many of us take seriously?
Mr. Ashby rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. There is some noise from both sides of the House and I think that it would be better if we had less noise and listened to the Minister.
Mr. Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was challenged by Opposition Members and it was suggested that I know nothing about inner London education. I should point out that I was a member of ILEA for a number of years, as were a number of my hon. Friends. No one on the Opposition Benches has ever been a member of ILEA. [Interruption.]
Mr. Frank Dobson: That is another lie.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us call it 15-all and get on with the debate.
Mrs. Rumbold: The outer London boroughs are spending £1,787 on their secondary pupil costs, ILEA spends £2,279, which is 28 per cent. more than the outer London boroughs and 37 per cent. more than the metropolitan districts. Some of them, such as Leeds and Birmingham, have the same features of urban deprivation and high concentrations of ethnic population as ILEA.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has not yet answered the two separate points made to demonstrate the invalidity of her figures. In London, the costs for the police, health and social services are substantially higher than in other areas, even though the police and the health services are run by Government Departments and the health authorities are appointed by the Government. We have the 10 most deprived authorities in Britain. There is no
1084
comparison, and the Minister should not waste the time and intelligence of the House going over an argument that has been proved time and again to be invalid.
Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is not obliged to listen to my arguments.
Looking within those figures, the ILEA is spending twice as much per primary pupil on support staff as are other metropolitan authorities, and more than twice as much per secondary pupil. That is a staggering difference. Even transport costs are two and a half times as much. Almost two thirds of the budgets of metropolitan districts' secondary schools goes on teachers, compared with just over a half for ILEA. Other authorities apparently make their top priority having teaching staff in front of children. That does not seem to be the same case with ILEA.
Looking at other areas in the same set of statistics, ILEA spends three times as much on adult education per head of adult population as Leeds, four times as much as Birmingham and five times as much as Liverpool. However splendid this provision is, it need not be so expensive.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As another former member of the ILEA—like my hon. Friends the Members for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) and for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden)—may I ask the Minister if she has seen the figures which were published in Hansard last year showing that ILEA came top on spending and 86th on examination results, yet in a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) it was made clear that Wigan, which has the same sort of problems as ILEA, came 27th in terms of spending and ninth in terms of exam results?
Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing that information.
ILEA's spending per head of population on administration and inspection is 1·9 times that of the outer London boroughs, 2·4 times that of the metropolitan districts and 2·9 times that of the counties. So much for economies of scale.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Can the Minister give me any reason why I should vote for 32 per cent. more spending on education in inner London compared with my constituency, when my area has just the same problems as inner London, and in some cases has problems which are even more difficult?
Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend makes the point well. There is no earthly reason why he should vote for additional expenditure when the problems in his constituency are similar to, if not the same as, those facing the inner London authorities.
I come to the events leading to the draft order. In July 1988, my right hon. Friend selected ILEA for precept limitation under the Rates Act 1984. He did so because of the authority's continued excessive spending. ILEA's budget for 1988–89 is £1,028 million. That is more than 60 per cent. above its assessed need to spend. It is £43 million more than the £985 million which the precept that my right hon. Friend set for it in that year was intended to raise. I acknowledge that ILEA has instituted a programme of some genuine savings in 1988–89, but that is only a start on what needs to be done.
At the same time as selecting ILEA for precept limitation, my right hon. Friend set an expenditure level

1085
for the authority in 1989–90 of £940 million. This was, in effect, a cash freeze on the £985 million level implied by the 1988–89 precept, once allowance of £45 million is made for spending on polytechnics and colleges transferring to the PCFC sector.
That £985 million was £30 million more than the spending level he originally set for ILEA in 1988–89. My right hon. Friend believed that the £940 million for 1989–90 represented a fair and reasonable level, given all the circumstances, including the prospective need to provide for smooth transfer of education functions to the inner London boroughs, and ILEA's budgeted spending in 1988–89. He made it clear, however, that he would consider further representations from ILEA as the process continued.
Since October, ILEA has sought redetermination of the expenditure level. It requested an addition of up to £100 million. My right hon. Friend took careful account of all the material put to him by ILEA. He met representatives of the authority to hear what they had to say. The authority's estimate of its spending needs assumed that the benefits of the cost controls introduced in 1988–89 would continue, but it did not envisage that any further action would be taken in 1989–90.
My right hon. Friend's view is that there remains real scope for new savings. He did, however, decide to add £10 million to the original expenditure level, in the light of ILEA's representations, including its representations about the particular circumstances of the authority's last year of operation, to which I referred earlier. He announced the redetermined level of £950 million on 19 December.
At the same time, my right hon. Friend proposed a precept maximum for ILEA in 1989–90 of 77·61p in the pound, which on the latest information available would enable it to raise £950 million. In January, the authority rejected the proposed precept maximum, and sought to raise an additional £56 million, £44 million less than the original increase it had sought, but nevertheless requiring a precept about 4·5p higher than the Secretary of State's proposal. The ILEA officers had drawn up a package of measures which would save £35 million in 1989–90, but the elected members had rejected that. The authority's revised estimate assumed only £20 million of new savings. The authority had also revised its estimate of its reserves position upwards to £20 million.
My right hon. Friend again considered carefully all the authority's arguments and again met representatives of the authority so that they could put those arguments to him in person. He remains convinced that the authority's estimates do not take account of the scope for greater efficiency and economy in the delivery of the service. He decided, however, to allow a small increase in the precept maximum, from 77·61p to 78·42p, in the light of ILEA's representations, including those relating to advice from the district auditor that ILEA should have regard to the meeting of liabilities under £15,000 when balancing its budget for 1989–90. The revised precept maximum would raise £960 million, £10 million more than the level set in December. The revised precept maximum is 3·38p, or 4 per cent., lower than this year's precept.
My right hon. Friend then laid before the House a draft order which would, if approved, enable him to prescribe a
1086
precept maximum of 78·42p. He did so because he is concerned to have the final outcome fixed by 15 February, the date set out in the Rates Act, to avoid the uncertainty associated with the use of interim procedures, and so that there is no cause for ILEA to delay implementing whatever measures are necessary to live within the precept income which the maximum would raise. He made it clear that he was prepared to withdraw the order if agreement on the precept could be reached. The authority has, however, rejected the revised figure.
Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister seems to be describing savings that she believes might be possible in ILEA's budget in a way that is wholly unrelated to the needs of children in inner London. What guarantees can she offer that the sums that she and her right hon. Friend propose can meet the urgent needs in my constituency? For example, the roof of Hungerford infants school is in urgent need of repair, and the school cannot be brought back into operation until that is done. ILEA wants to carry out the work. Will it be able to do so with the money the Minister has mentioned?
Mrs. Rumbold: I have said nothing that would prevent ILEA from using its capital allocations to meet the expenses that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. It is a matter on which the Inner London education authority should make decisions and is not a matter on which a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box should arbitrate.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am interested in what is being said, because one hears about ILEA gaining extra money from the Government by making representations. Is it possible for other authorities to do the same, and if extra money is given to ILEA, do other authorities lose?
Mrs. Rumbold: No. My right hon. Friend has taken seriously the representations made to him by the Inner London education authority at two points. As a result of that careful consideration, he has given £20 million extra.
Mr. Dobson: No, he has not.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Minister clarify this point? The Secretary of State has given no money to the Inner London education authority. The order will increase the amount that the Inner London education authority can raise in rates. It is time that the Minister stopped misleading the House, understood the brief and made ILEA's position clear.
Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman clearly seeks to make a point. It is true that the limitation rates have been raised so that the Inner London education authority may raise £960 million. As a result of the moves my right hon. Friend has made, the precept maximum in the draft order will allow the authority to raise that sum. [Interruption.] I realise that it is difficult for Opposition Members to grasp these difficult figures. That is £20 million more than the original expenditure level.
The authority has said that that precept maximum will jeopardise the smooth transfer of education functions to the boroughs. I do not accept that. My right hon. Friend has responded positively to the authority's representations at each stage in the process. He has taken full account of the circumstances of the authority in its final year. We are satisfied that the precept maximum is reasonable and achievable, given responsible action by the authority.

1087
We have also given thought to the effect of the precept maximum on ratepayers in inner London. The maximum is 4 per cent. lower than this year's precept. It will ease London rate bills. The authority's estimate of its needs implied an increase on the current year's precept, despite the fact that it will make automatic savings from the transfer of the polytechnics.
To allow such an increase would put additional pressure on rates bills. I do not believe that it would be right to do so, given the existing high level of rates in London, which can, in part, be laid at the door of ILEA's past overspending. That is why this draft order has been laid before the House. I ask the House to approve it.
10.38 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: The order is bad news for the children of London and for education in inner London. Yet the Minister's speech did not relate to the seriousness of the problems and the reduction in opportunities facing inner London children. All that we had from the Minister, in a lengthy speech, was a repeat of last year's arguments and last year's statistics. One of the sad points about the Minister's speech is that she has clearly learnt nothing from last year's debates about the Inner London education authority. Had she done so, she would have realised that expenditure in London on the police, social services and all other services will be more expensive than in the metropolitan boroughs and district councils. She had not learnt that and all that she did tonight was to repeat the statistics that we dealt with so effectively last year.
Mr. Dobson: Some Conservative Members do not understand why that is. Will my hon. Friend explain to them?
Mr. Fatchett: There are several who fit that description on the Conservative Benches. The simple point is that it is more expensive to run services in London. That comes through in the figures, but the Minister and some of her hon. Friends have failed to understand that point.
It may be useful for the Minister to take her history lesson back not just one year to the debates about the abolition of ILEA but about 80 years to the debate about the London school boards. Given the nature of the Minister's speech, it has probably been recycled a few times in those 80 years. Had she been participating in those debates, she would have said exactly the same—that the London school boards' education was more expensive than in other parts of the country. She would have been right then because the London school boards were costing 50 per cent. more per child 80 years ago than their equivalents in other parts of the country. The argument related precisely to the cost of providing services in London, and it was as right then as it is now.
The Minister's argument is not about statistics, but about her dislike of ILEA and her opposition to spending money on inner London children, investing in their education and extending their opportunities. Her enthusiasm for making cuts is matched by her desire to spend taxpayers' money on assisting the private sector with fees and at levels of expenditure per child far greater than in ILEA. The Minister looks askance, but that is the real world. She approves of higher spending levels for the private sector and the assisted places scheme than for the youngsters in ILEA.
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fatchett: This is a short debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not give way."]
Mr. Bennett: It is on this point.
Mr. Fatchett: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later. He can attend a Welsh debate and make his points then.
This order will undoubtedly hurt education provision and education standards in inner London. The fact that the Minister has the audacity to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the Government are investing in inner London education shows how little she understands the brief and how little she knows about inner London education. The simple fact is that the Government are not helping with revenue expenditure on those children.
Mr. Bennett: It is correct that inner London costs must be higher than in any other education authority because of inner London weighting, but outer London boroughs also have weighting—it is slightly less than in inner London, but not dramatically different. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the outer London borough of Bexley charges £900 per child less than ILEA? Or if he prefers to take a Labour-controlled borough as an example, why is Barking £800 per child cheaper than ILEA?
Mr. Fatchett: It was a mistake to give way to the hon.Gentleman. I should have learnt that. My hon. Friends were absolutely right. Perhaps I can throw some figures back at the hon. Gentleman. Can he explain why in Tory-controlled Westminster social services are more expensive than in outer London boroughs? Again, the argument comes down to the nature of provision in inner London. I am delighted that in his opening comments the hon. Gentleman ceded the argument and agreed with us on that point.
These cuts will undoubtedly hurt education, children and education standards. It is no good the Government saying that this happened last year and there was no proof of a reduction in education opportunities. There was indeed a reduction and in the coming year there will be an even greater reduction because ILEA will not have the opportunity to use reserves as it did last year. In this year's budget the cut of £60 million, or more than 6 per cent., will be a real cut which will be felt in the classroom, in the provision of teachers and in the number of books.
Mrs. Rumbold indicated dissent.
Mr. Fatchett: It is no good the Minister shaking her head. That is the real world of education in inner London and it is time that she understood those points.
No private-sector organisation would take nearly 7 per cent. out of its budget in one financial year without recognising that that would harm its product. The Government are expecting the Inner London education authority to do that, either without recognition of the harm or—nearer the truth, I suspect—without even bothering about the harm to education standards in London. There are real problems, not just in the cuts this year but in the fact that this is the final year of the Inner London education authority. There were Conservative Members who had just one purpose in seeking to abolish

1089
the Inner London education authority, and it was not based on argument or logic but on spite and a desire to create chaos in inner London services.
The Minister in her contribution today recognised that Labour and the Labour-controlled Inner London education authority are doing their very best to provide an education service for the future. It is thanks not to the Government or their investment but to Labour London boroughs and Labour ILEA that children have something to look forward to in education. The House does not have to take my word for that. Hon. Members can consider the district auditor's words to the members of ILEA:
"I am very encouraged by the efforts being made by your officers to assist the successors of the London education authority."
Labour is working for London's children. It also recognises, as the district auditor recognises and the Government should recognise, that in the process of handover to the boroughs there will be additional charges and demands on resources. The Minister talks about providing £25 million to help the boroughs to take over the education responsibilities of inner London, but anyone with any knowledge of education in London can tell her that that is simply not sufficient to cover the transfer of responsibilities.
I am not arguing that because of the peculiar problem this year there will be a slippage in expenditure or poor management. We are asking the Government to recognise the scale of the problems that will be created and to help the boroughs and ILEA to ease the process of succession. The present Minister clearly has no interest in that process.
1090
The targets—the maximum rate and level of expenditure—have clear implications for the successor authorities. The safety nets of the future must be related to the redetermined expenditure level set out in the order. This year's squeeze will clearly have a knock-on effect. We spent hours in Committee debating the future financing of ILEA but we have still not had any commitment from the Minister that the redistributive impact and mechanism of ILEA polices will work through in terms of future financing.
In view of the Minister's speech today, what hope is there for youngsters in Tower Hamlets, in Hackney, in the poorer inner London boroughs? What reason is there to believe that the Government will not further squeeze education expenditure in those boroughs? Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate she can answer one question. I understand that these levels of expenditure do not satisfy the Tory boroughs of Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster. Will the Minister tell us what representations she has received from those authorities and what the Tories are saying to her privately? I suspect that they are saying that the money is not enough and that they want more to provide education in their own boroughs.
For the next few years education in inner London will face acute difficulties. The order deals neither with the immediate problems nor with those that will be forced on the boroughs, and faced at borough level, by the abolition of the Inner London education authority. That is why, for the sake of the children of inner London and their education, we shall vote against this order.
10.49 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Oh for the Bob Mellishes and Ron Browns of this world, the members of the London Labour party who cared for Londoners, and understood what London was about. The Opposition Members who now speak for London have no representation so far as the electors are concerned. Those Labour Members do not find themselves in the company of those who ran the London county council education committee.
We must remember that the Inner London education authority is a creation of very few years standing. The old LCC education committee had a good reputation. The trouble is that the people in ILEA were told six, seven and even eight years ago that they should rein in their expenditure, but they failed to do so. That is why these major reductions must be made, because they went on blindly in pursuit of their political objectives.
I compliment the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), the new Londoner who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, on producing some new quotations to enliven the same old dull theories. The Labour party cannot accept the independent figures from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy which show that ILEA is the most spendthrift education authority in the country, with some of the poorest results. It is no good Labour Members blaming the wicked Tories. In 12 months' time ILEA will have gone like a puff of smoke and will be as unlamented as the Greater London council. The public want education to be run by the boroughs. As my hon. Friend the Minister said—
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Did the hon. Gentleman see the polls?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes, I saw the polls.
Mr. Sedgemore: Stop pointing.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Pointing is better than sitting and shouting from a sedentary position. That is all that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) seems capable of doing.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the position is clear. Ten days ago in Camden there was a by-election in Hampstead Town. We held that ward, although we have lost it in the past. The Conservative candidate increased her majority and the Labour candidate was pushed ignominiously into third place. The Labour candidate was the ILEA member for Camden. After all the nonsense that we have heard about polls and the public attitude, when it came to the vote, the Labour candidate was pushed into third place because the public know that what is being peddled about ILEA is utter rubbish. So long as the Labour party wants to rely on public opinion polls, I am content to rely on the view that electors record at the ballot box.
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No. I do not have much time. I could go on for a long time if I am nettled.
Perhaps I should refer to education in general as it applies to ILEA. We could consider the way in which ILEA has dealt with school meals. Similarly we could consider how, suddenly in the past 12 months, ILEA has
1092
discovered that there are bad teachers and has decided to move a bunch of them. Was it electorally difficult for the ILEA leadership to take action over those teachers before'?
Perhaps we should consider the actions of ILEA nominees at the polytechnic of north London, which interestingly enough is in the news today. I spent 25 years as a governor of that polytechnic. Five years were spent under pretty grotty management, although before then the management was good. That polytechnic had been well run because the old LCC did not believe in peddling its philosophies ahead of education.
I ask the House to consider the situation in respect of repairs to inner London schools. To listen to the Labour party, one might imagine that all the repairs now needed have suddenly arisen. However, one recalls that ILEA and its predecessor, the London county council, were under Socialist control almost from the time of creation. It is they who must bear the main responsibility both for inadequate educational standards and for inadequate repairs. They were not prepared to do a proper job.
My hon. Friend the Minister told the House of the reductions proposed by ILEA officers to the members of that body. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central quoted the district auditor's report. I hope that it was not written by Mr. Skinner, because I should not believe much of anything that he writes. He said that he welcomed what the authority's officers are doing—yet they are the self-same officers who were repudiated by the ILEA leadership when, in attempting to meet a sensible target, they presented a package of savings.
Labour Members cannot have it both ways. If they acknowledge—as they have—that ILEA's officers are good and reliable, they must accept also that the officers' proposals are unlikely to be detrimental to the children affected. Basically, they present the most helpful proposals that they can devise. Occasionally, the officers do not choose to cut into their own empires—but other than that, they are helpful. Nevertheless, ILEA's leadership rejected many of their proposals. If they do that, there is little they can grumble about if my hon. Friend the Minister, having twice considered the ILEA figures, arrives at the increases that she has in the permissible amount that the authority can raise.
It is of course true that parents in London are net getting the best possible deal—but it is evident from the results of London local government by-elections that they realise where the blame lies. It does not lie at the door of this Government, but with those—[Interruption.] If the Opposition do not believe that, I am happy for them to continue deluding themselves. The fact remains that the average Londoner knows full well that it is the Government who are making possible a good education system at a realistic cost.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under the order, ILEA expenditure per pupil will be substantially higher than in outer London boroughs—such as Brent—that are not renowned for their financial rectitude?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend is right. It is interesting how suddenly the Labour party changes its tune. Fifteen months ago, its members flooded my constituency with allegations that the community charge. which will eventually be part of an education charge, will be more than £700. The Young Socialists have suddenly

1093
revised that figure to more than £600, whereas the rest of the Labour party have changed their minds and altered it to about £500.
The Labour party attempts to scare people. We saw that tactic again this afternoon, when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts made his statement about library services. Labour put about the lie that there is to be a charge for those basic services, whereas my hon. Friend made it clear from the beginning that that is not true. Letters were sent out at the behest of local authorities such as Camden, trying to kid the public that charges would be made for the basic library service.
I believe that my hon. Friend is right and that the House should pass the order. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) is also right about why more money is being made available to ILEA. My hon. Friend the Minister has looked at its proposals on two occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North asks whether the same would apply if his local authority also wanted more money. He should be grateful that his county is sensible and sane, and is not rate-capped. That is the difference between the two. I envy my hon. Friend, as, I believe, do many hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Minister made a fair and clear case based on unimpeachable statistics and on London's education needs. Her comparisons were drawn from a source—the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—that I do not believe to be Right-wing, and I think that her case is right.
11 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: This is a precept limitation order debate. It is also a debate about a cut of some £66 million in ILEA's budget this year, coming on top of a cut of some £90 million the year before. The effect of the cut must be seen against a background that I think all who are in touch with inner London will recognise—that of a growing and serious increase in the shortage of teachers available to ILEA and, indeed, to its successor authorities.
The reasons for that shortage are, I think, generally understood, although it may be worth pointing out that the ILEA area must compete not only with outer London boroughs but with other, perhaps more attractive, parts of the country for the same supply of teachers coming out of teacher training colleges. The shortage is, in my view, the most serious problem that the House should consider today, and I want to illustrate the difficulties in my own borough of Tower Hamlets.
We do not suffer simply from a shortage of teachers in the general sense. We do not merely have the shortage of maths, physics and chemistry teachers that is so familiar to most hon. Members. My local division 5 education officer told me in a letter only a few weeks ago that he could not recall a problem as acute as today's occurring at any time during the eleven and a half years in which he has occupied his present position. He mentioned a shortage of 102 teachers in the borough's secondary schools, 92 in the primary schools and more than four in the nursery schools. He goes on to say—and the House should think seriously about the implications:
"As far as the position of children out of school is concerned the number currently registered is about 470".
1094
In other words, 470 counted kids are roaming the streets—or perhaps many are kept indoors with their parents—who should, under the law, be receiving education but who cannot find a place at school in the borough of Tower Hamlets.
There are two reasons for that. First, in the past there has not been an adequate supply of building for extended classes and new schools, although the present position has now been overtaken by the chronic teacher shortage. The letter to which I have referred itemises ILEA's plans to deal with the perceived and growing shortage of primary school places.
The Wessex street school was to be opened in January and was to provide initially for up to 60 children. The Halley street school was also to be opened early in January. That school was to take up to 150 children. A third school, at Hermitage wall, Wapping, was supposed to take up to 110 children.
The headmaster, his deputy and two supply teachers have been recruited for the Wessex street school. Only the headmaster has been appointed to the Halley street school, and only the headmaster and his deputy will arrive at the Hermitage wall school by Easter. The most recent information that I have from the borough is that the headmasters of those schools say that they will have to close classes and send children home because the teacher shortage is growing worse month by month. The primary schools in the borough depend almost entirely on Australian and New Zealand teachers who come to Europe for a few years.
Mr. Holland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that both in his borough and in the borough of Lambeth, which covers my constituency, we cannot get even supply teachers for primary schools and that has caused a crisis? Children are being sent home from schools that are only a few hundred yards from here.
Mr. Shore: That is the nature of the crisis. It is not a question of the authority making and mending with supply teachers. They are not there. If anything goes wrong the class has to be sent home. Nobody is available to provide cover, either on a temporary or on a slightly longer-term basis. I have illustrated that point by referring to three new schools that cannot be opened to take pupils who should be in full-time education because teachers are not available to man them. In her astonishingly complacent and arithmetical speech the Minister of State showed no concern, but she does not have to cope with the problems that face children and their parents in inner London boroughs.
The crisis in my borough is likely to become even more serious. Population growth is rapid, almost explosive. It is expected to grow year by year and the demand for teachers will grow rather than diminish. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is taking evidence on the matter. All the evidence points to the fact that the teacher supply problem, both nationally and in London in particular, will grow worse in the years ahead.
A few days ago ILEA passed a resolution that was addressed to the Secretary of State. It was an extraordinary statement for any authority to make. It says:
"The authority acknowledges that, despite its best endeavours, the crisis in education in Tower Hamlets continues to worsen. After consultation with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets an All-Party delegation should

1095
make representations to the Secretary of State to seek to ensure that special attention be given to the educational needs of an area which are now beyond the resources available to either Authority or its successor Borough."
That is one of the gravest statements that any education authority can ever have made in the long history of public education. To be presented with an order that reduces by £66 million ILEA's spending ability—above all, its ability to recruit teachers—makes me absolutely sick.
11.8 pm
Mr. Gerald Bowden: Conservative Members have an advantage in the debate. Among our number are those who have served on ILEA. I served for seven years. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) also served during that time. He and I have an added advantage. We were both pupils at what were then London county council—the predecessor of ILEA—schools.
Mr. Corbyn: Until what age?
Mr. Bowden: Until the age of 18. If the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatiencse he will hear the full story.
My hon. Friend and I both taught in ILEA schools and were both governors of ILEA schools. Having served on ILEA, we feel that we have been through this budget debate before. When we hear the tired old arguments trotted out by the Opposition we both have a yawning sense of deja vu because we know that, although the problems of London may be greater than those in any other part of Britain, the financial problems are of ILEA's own making. Ten years ago we showed how savings could be made if there was a will to make them. They were not made and the harvest is now being reaped.
I shall deal briefly with one or two matters that are illustrative of the whole malaise. We recognise the education needs of London and know that they will require more than the expenditure in more prosperous parts of the country. However, extravagant expenditure is quite out of hand. ILEA spends a disproportionate amount on administration and on political initiatives and too little on the needs of education.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bowden: In a moment. The hon. Lady is rather impatient. I shall now deal with ways in which money could be saved.
Many years ago we said that the number of buildings was far in excess of what was required for the schooling of London. We suggested that some of the capital invested in those buildings could be realised and devoted to current expenditure. More important, the revenue consequences of retaining and maintaining those buildings meant that money was being spent on non-education needs. There was a need about 20 years ago, or at the latest 10 years ago, to look into how a cost-effective education service could be provided in London. That need was dismissed as being quite inappropriate in looking at future education provision in London.
ILEA has an expensive and inefficient method of providing the necessary transport for children in London to move from school to playing field and from home to school. Perhaps the greatest extravagance, the greatest profligacy, is to be seen in the direct labour force that maintains education buildings. Hardly a school that I visit does not have some complaint about delays in carrying out
1096
some fairly minor piece of work. Somebody comes to inspect the work and then somebody comes and measures it. Someone is then supposed to deliver the materials to do the work, but they are not there when the workmen arrive and the process has to be gone through again. A swift and efficient maintenance service cannot be provided using such methods. We need greater priority to education rather than to administration.
Ms. Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real measure of Conservative concern for the education of children in inner London is that most inner London Conservative Members have chosen to boycott the debate?
Mr. Bowden: I wonder whether that comment is wholly justified. Perhaps those more numerate than I could calculate the number of Opposition Members who are present. I think that Conservative Members are in the majority, but we shall find out in the Division Lobbies whether there is support for the measure.
ILEA has been profligate and wanton in its extravagant expenditure. The money has been spent not on the education needs of London but on administrative overheads and services that are union-dominated and which the political leadership at county hall is frightened to disband.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Inner London schools have great difficulty in getting repairs done. I have some examples to illustrate the point that my hon. Friend made. Many schools have flat roofs, designed by the absurdly inefficient architects' department. If flat roofs were not built, there would not be so many leaking roofs—a major problem in many schools. To repair the roofs, it is first necessary to call in the architects' department, which in turn calls in consultants. They have to look at the job, and then see the contractors and put out a contract for tender. It took five years for one school to get its badly leaking roof repairecli. This is a serious matter.
Mr. Bowden: In this sector, economies could be made and a more efficient service provided.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about the shortage of teachers. This is a manifestation of the failure to give education needs proper priority. I speak to a number of teachers and ask why they do not apply for the vacant headship posts. I hear that when headships are advertised, the calibre of applicants is disappointing to those who are responsible for drawing up the short lists. The reasons given by the majority of those who could and should be appointed is that they find oppresive the political interference from county hall in education matters. They are not prepared to take this on. [Interruption.] That reaction from Labour Members makes it obvious why such people do not feel comfortable about making their thoughts known. In many cases, they are frightened to explain their fears, but these are made manifest in the fact that they do not apply for vacant posts.
11.17 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The fallacy of Tory arguments and the complacency shown by the Minister can easily be demonstrated. Throughout its history, voters have not voted for a Conservative ILEA administration. At the last general election, the majority of seats within inner London were not won by Conservatives.

1097
The last ILEA by-election, on 1 December, was in my constituency. The Labour party did not do very well, winning only 5 per cent. of the constituency vote, and the Tory party got only 1 per cent. of the electors of Southwark and Bermondsey to support it. That was out of a turnout of 17 per cent.
When ILEA was abolished last year, it produced more correspondence than any other matter in my six years in the House, and I have never had one letter asking for the rates in my constituency to be reduced so that the precept could be less. Substantial numbers pay, and the debate tonight is about whether the people of inner London should pay for ILEA. We are dealing not with taxpayers' money, or Government-distributed money, but ratepayers' money. It is about whether they should pay what they would wish to pay or have it reduced by 22p per head. The Minister did not give one example showing that the ratepayers of inner London want 22p a head deducted from their contribution for the future of their children's education.
As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said when speaking about Tower Hamlets, a cut of £150 million in two years, which is the implication of tonight's order, cannot be sustained by any authority, let alone with the demise of ILEA next year.
I am not defending ILEA's record on thrift. There are certainly areas which have been badly managed and areas where the service delivery has been poor. The results in many areas have not been good educationally. That is not a factor of its administration; it is caused by the amazing diversity and difficulty of the cumulative problems in inner London over many years.
In the last year, ILEA has made mammoth efforts to assimilate cuts of £90 million. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) referred to the report of the district auditor, which was written by Mr. Skinner. The hon. Gentleman should have read the report. The district auditor is not critical of the way in which ILEA set about remedying the problem. The slack that has already been taken up has resulted in the pupil—teacher ratio being the same as the Department of Education and Science average. Maintenance costs have been substantially cut, and repairs are not being done.
ILEA did not say that it was unwilling to have restraint. It suggested a not unreasonable cut to 80·99p, more than the Government are allowing, but less than last year. The Government did not accept that. The precept will still be less than 2 per cent. higher than five years ago, even though general price inflation in the same period, irrespective of the increases which affect education provision, such as housing, was 27 per cent.
The Minister's argument that inner London has higher costs is completely invalidated. She should have done the House a greater courtesy than to try that on again. The Government recognised that just the other day. For the first time they have taken Z scores into account in assessing the needs of the National Health Service. With Z scores being taken into account in the country, the suggestion is that RAWP should be abolished. Under the Government's plans for the Health Service inner London will get more, because the Government recognise that it
1098
needs more. Yet when it comes to applying the same budgetary and accounting lessons to ILEA, the Government do not come to the same conclusion.
Exactly the same criteria affect educational provision in inner London. The poverty, the deprivation and the ethnicity—the factors which enable the Government to give more money to the Health Service in inner London—apply also to education. We need more language tuition and more special needs provision. The people who are most deprived and most in need will not get the resources that they need next year. The consequences will be larger class sizes, fewer support teachers, less time to spend on the educationally disadvantaged and less ability to cover the curricula.
Hon. Member after hon. Member has said that there is a desperate position because of teacher shortages. I have experience of classes being sent home. At Grange primary school in my constituency there is neither a regular teacher nor a supply teacher. There is not a word from the Minister about that. She is not bothered about whether the kids have a teacher or are getting education. All she is worried about are statistics. Government dogma is applied again and again. We have heard nothing about a broad and varied curriculum or about making sure that standards rise: we just get statistics rolled out to support the dogmatic argument.
The reality is that the cuts have already bitten too hard. Maintenance is not being done. The voluntary sector is being priced out. Scouts, guides and youth groups cannot use schools for the community activities which the Government say they applaud. Discretionary grants to students are being reduced. ILEA cannot fund services which the Government have always said they want to support. The Government argue for increased access to higher education, but they are reducing the number of students who can go on to higher education. Such is the contradiction in their policy.
Now the Government are asking ILEA to cut further in the very year when the boroughs have to take on the responsibility, when officers are leaving, when the finance department of ILEA is under most stress, and when the cost of transfer adds to the costs of ILEA.
The reality is that, when services are cut, they are unlikely to be restored. It is all very well to say that the boroughs can start again, but the reality is that they will not. It is clear that ILEA will be forced to leave a legacy of disadvantage in the years to come. Abolition is causing ILEA problems enough. Abolition, plus the Government's arbitrary imposition of a lower precept limit, at no penalty or advantage to themselves, is a sign of vindictiveness. In substantial measure, the Government do not represent inner London. They do not understand it and they do not care about it. They are clobbering it for the sake of 22p per ratepayer. It is disgraceful. The Minister and her colleagues should realise that they are doing education and their own credibility no service by the ridiculous and unjustified argument that they have advanced this evening.
11.26 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I represent inner London and I care about inner London. I have proved that by being elected to represent what was a Labour seat in inner London. That being so, I shall refute the absurd arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

1099
Opposition Members have made much of what they have been told by their constituents. I was out last night in my constituency on the borders of Lambeth, in what is known as a divided street. I bumped into someone who I thought was one of my constituents but who happened to be a constituent of the neighbouring borough of Lambeth. The young gentleman said, "I'm sorry that I'm not one of your constituents." I replied, "That's your bad luck, isn't it?" He said, "That's right—I pay twice the rates that I would if I lived over the road in Wandsworth." I responded by saying, "You know why that is, don't you? There is the Lambeth element and the ILEA element." He agreed and said, "The worst is that, come the changeover, I shall still be in a Labour borough when across the road there will be good education run by Wandsworth. I wish I lived there." That is the truth. That is what is happening in inner London.
Mr. Holland: We have just heard an example of Tory party political propaganda based on the two-sides-of-thestreet argument. We have heard such examples on many occasions. In the 10 years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have not heard one constituent in the borough of Lambeth make the complaint that the hon. Gentleman has described. I have travelled around the borough on many occasions—[interruption]—but I have heard the complaint only from Tory Members this evening, and then from a sedentary position.
Mr. Bowis: Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman's constituents keep coming to my surgery.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: Should there be any vacancies in Wandsworth schools when Wandsworth children have been accommodated, will my hon. Friend reassure me that the borough would be prepared to accept Lambeth children who might wish to go to them?
Mr. Bowis: If it were in my gift, I should be happy to accede to my hon. Friend's request. I know that my colleagues who are members of Wandsworth council, and who will shortly be running education in the borough, will be opening the doors to the parents of children in Lambeth and elsewhere, and I have no doubt that they will be flooding through them.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), a public school boy, has not been receiving any representations from his constituents about ILEA is that he went on 18 foreign trips last year?
Mr. Bowis: I have no answer to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Holland: Apart from the fact that my Opposition Front Bench responsibilities happen to involve international economic affairs—I am glad to be informed on such matters, unlike Conservative Members—I provide a surgery four Mondays a month in my constituency with few exceptions. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how often he provides a surgery of his own?
Mr. Bowis: Perhaps I should not allow this debate to develop. It is plain that the hon. Gentleman's attendance at so many interesting international conferences throughout the world, including Florence, means that he is not present to hear the complaints of his constituents about the rates paid by Lambeth residents compared with those paid by Wandsworth residents. Now that the hon.
1100
Gentleman is back in London I am sure that he will find time to wander around the streets occasionally to pick up the message that I received yesterday.
We have had our standard debate on ILEA. Sadly, such debates are a diminishing pleasure because we shall shortly be considering the way in which education is organised in the boroughs. Apart from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who made some interesting comments about teachers, this has been a waffly debate. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about teacher shortages and I have some sympathy with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) spoke about the cost management of ILEA, which has helped to cause the problem. The right hon. Gentleman opened up the debate on whether we should have national teacher pay negotiations and I believe that he also hinted at the possibility of attracting subject teachers according to the needs of the market. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convince some of his hon. Friends of the good sense of that.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I, too, am concerned about teacher shortage and supply. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to that shortage, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bogus point? When teacher posts are advertised, the money has already been put aside. There are other ways to address the teacher shortage which have nothing to do with the order.
Mr. Bowis: I entirely agree.
Another important factor behind the teacher shortage in inner London is the teaching environment. Over the years, teaching in ILEA schools has become increasingly unpopular. That problem was illustrated by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who sadly is no longer present. I believe that he described ILTA—the Inner London Teachers Association—as a bunch of warring Trots. That is why teachers do not want to teach in inner London. The blame must therefore lie with the Labour party and the Left in London rather than with the Government.
Synthetic rage has been expressed by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that he had not received any letters calling for a reduction in the rates. I have had no letters from my constituents asking that the rates should be allowed to rise to cater for the increased expenditure and generosity of ILEA. The ratepayers of inner London are grateful to the Government for ensuring that costs are kept under control.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), accompanied by his sidekick the poet—the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who sadly is no longer present—once again graced our debates on ILEA. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central referred to the complaints received from Wandsworth, Kensington and other boroughs about the level of spending. I must inform him that no such complaints have been received from Wandsworth—I cannot speak for the other boroughs. If the hon. Gentleman can give chapter and verse about complaints received from Wandsworth, I will give way.
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that representations have been made to the Minister by his borough and other Conservative inner London boroughs to ask for a higher spending level for inner

1101
London because of the future knock-on effect. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman got in touch with what is going on in his borough.
Mr. Bowis: That is complete nonsense. No complaint has been received from Wandsworth or, so far as I know, from any other borough. His comments are irrelevant to the debate.
The ILEA debate is over. The decision has been taken and the administration of education is to be transferred to the boroughs. That is good news. The problems, however, remain. Many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the fact that ILEA costs twice as much as any other authority but produces half the results. We accept that it should cost more in inner London, but we cannot accept that it should cost more and not give adequate results in the schools. Yet that is what we have been suffering in inner London in general and in Wandsworth, in division No. 10, in particular.
Perhaps there is some apprehension in Labour inner London boroughs about the takeover of education. I appreciate that, but the ballot box will be available between now and the takeover. That will be the opportunity for people to express their views on the issue. In the borough of Wandsworth there is excitement and anticipation in the air. A great deal of planning is going on and people are getting together to discuss these issues. When one talks to the teachers, the head teachers and all concerned in the schools, one finds that they are looking forward to the education opportunities that will be coming their way. They have not had such opportunities for many years.
A degree of certainty is required as we move towards the changeover date, and this instrument will help to achieve that. As that date approaches, we do not want an inheritance of excessive and wrongful spending, so we must get the costs under control. It would be churlish to suggest that ILEA had not made some progress. It has made some effort to get its spending and priorities under control, but there is still a long way to go. Even in these dying ember days of ILEA, I beg those involved to examine their priorities to see whether some of their decisions are not harming education, students, teachers, schools and colleges prior to their being handed over to the boroughs. Many areas could be examined in terms of rationalisation. I will cite just a few areas where ILEA has got it wrong. One is the whole question of discretionary grants for students, which it seems to have more or less written off. The second is the absurd decision on Wolverstone hall, the boarding school which took children from disadvantaged areas and got far better than average results from them.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the silliest decisions taken by ILEA has been to put up the charges to voluntary organisations for the use of school halls? The charges have increased so much as to be self-defeating because voluntary organisations cannot afford to hire them, thus cutting school income rather than increasing it as ILEA presumably intended.
Mr. Bowis: That is an example of ILEA getting its priorities wrong. Another example is the Merchant Navy college. ILEA decided to close the college within a year
1102
and made three recommendations when taking that decision. They were that education provision should be preserved, that students should be guaranteed a means of completing their studies and that the interests of the staff should be safeguarded. Sixteen weeks remain before the demise of that college, and the college reports that none of those recommendations has been fulfilled. Attempts to transfer the education provision have failed, students do not know what will happen to them and the staff are uncertain about their future. Timetables for closure have been brought forward, changed, abandoned and brought forward again. Proposals introduced one day are dismissed as unsuitable the next, only to become authority policy the day after. No wonder those at the Merchant Navy college talk about an uncaring ILEA. That is the truth, and that is why we have these provisions before us. We contrast the uncaring ILEA—uncaring in its attitude towards the education of the children and students of London—with the caring attitude of the Government.
11.38 pm
Mrs. Rumbold: With the leave of the House, and within the time available, I will do my best to respond to the points that have been raised by hon. Members.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister sought the leave of the House to speak again. I was not aware that you had put that question to the House. Many of us feel—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman objecting to the Minister having the leave of the House?
Mr. Corbyn: Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister does not need the leave of the House to speak again. Mrs. Rumbold.
Mrs. Rumbold: I am particularly grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to reply to some of the points made by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friends.
I was surprised, although I should not have been, by the lacklustre speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who said that anyone on the ground would know that the £25 million allocated to the inner London boroughs for transfer costs next year was inadequate. Does he ever talk to his colleagues in the boroughs? I assure him that not one of them has complained about the level of the grant. Some have gone so far as to say that it has been generous. It is high time he started talking—
Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Rumbold: I want to move on—
Mr. Fatchett: I thank the Minister for giving way with such reluctance. Which London boroughs have said that the grant is sufficient? I suspect that none has.
Mrs. Rumbold: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman questions what I said. It was perfectly true. Wandsworth has been one of the authorities—[Interruption.] I am not prepared to go into detail at this stage.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and his colleagues on a splendid result in the recent local election. He has realised that, although elected ILEA members behave on the surface as though they are trying to help as

1103
best they can, they have left it rather late to start tackling the problem of poor teaching in schools—hardly persuasive evidence of a death-bed repentance.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about teacher shortages, and I do not deny that the difficulties in this area are a cause for concern. I have been discussing them with the council and its newly appointed chief education officer. The problem is one that ILEA has allowed to develop over time. I stress that division 5 is not typical in ILEA. HMI reports show schools in other parts of London with high levels of staffing. ILEA has been quite unable to deploy teachers effectively. Fortunately, the boroughs are determined to remedy that when they take over—
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a short debate. Five speeches have been made by Conservative Members, two by Labour Members and one by a Social and Liberal Democrat Member—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that a number of hon. Members have not been able to get into the debate, but there is nothing I can do about that.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that Conservative Members have had roughly twice as much speaking time as Labour Members, despite the fact that the latter overwhelmingly represent inner London—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have no power to control the length of speeches in the debate.
Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) made an important point about the slow and expensive direct labour organisation making an enormous difference to the authority's expenditure on repairs and maintenance of schools. That has certainly caused a great deal of delay and stress. Fortunately, again, when the boroughs take over education for themselves that will be remedied—
Mr. Fatchett: What representations has the Minister received from the Conservative boroughs about the level of expenditure on ILEA and its implications for the future?
Mrs. Rumbold: Wandsworth, for example, has said that the authority should not seek a redetermination of its expenditure limit—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).
The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 98.

Division No. 87]

[11.44 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Bendall, Vivian

Alexander, Richard

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Amess, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Amos, Alan

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Bottomley, Peter

Ashby, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Atkinson, David

Bowis, John

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Batiste, Spencer

Brazier, Julian

1104

Buck, Sir Antony

Kirkhope, Timothy

Burns, Simon

Knapman, Roger

Burt, Alistair

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Butterfill, John

Knowles, Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Latham, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lawrence, Ivan

Carrington, Matthew

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Carttiss, Michael

Lightbown, David

Cash, William

Lilley, Peter

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Chapman, Sydney

Lord, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

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

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Maclean, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Malins, Humfrey

Couchman, James

Mans, Keith

Cran, James

Maples, John

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

Marland, Paul

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Day, Stephen

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Maude, Hon Francis

Dorrell, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mellor, David

Dover, Den

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Dunn, Bob

Miller, Sir Hal

Durant, Tony

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Dykes, Hugh

Mitchell, Sir David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Monro, Sir Hector

Evennett, David

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Morrison, Sir Charles

Favell, Tony

Needham, Richard

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Nicholls, Patrick

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Page, Richard

Fishburn, John Dudley

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Forman, Nigel

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Forth, Eric

Rowe, Andrew

Franks, Cecil

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Freeman, Roger

Ryder, Richard

French, Douglas

Sackville, Hon Tom

Gale, Roger

Sayeed, Jonathan

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gill, Christopher

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Gow, Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Gregory, Conal

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Speller, Tony

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Squire, Robin

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hanley, Jeremy

Stern, Michael

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

Stevens, Lewis

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Harris, David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Hayes, Jerry

Summerson, Hugo

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hayward, Robert

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Heddle, John

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Hind, Kenneth

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Howard, Michael

Thome, Neil

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Thornton, Malcolm

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Thurnham, Peter

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Townend, John (Bridiington)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Trippier, David

Hunter, Andrew

Twinn, Dr Ian

Irvine, Michael

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Jack, Michael

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Jackson, Robert

Waldegrave, Hon William

Janman, Tim

Walden, George

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Waller, Gary

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Ward, John

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Key, Robert

Warren, Kenneth

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Watts, John

1105

Wells, Bowen

Yeo, Tim

Wheeler, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Whitney, Ray

Widdecombe, Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wood, Timothy

Mr. Alan Howarth and

Woodcock, Mike

Mr. Michael Fallon.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Alton, David

Lamond, James

Armstrong, Hilary

Lewis, Terry

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Battle, John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Beckett, Margaret

McAllion, John

Beith, A. J.

McAvoy, Thomas

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Macdonald, Calum A.

Bermingham, Gerald

McFall, John

Blair, Tony

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Boyes, Roland

McLeish, Henry

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

McWilliam, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Buckley, George J.

Marek, Dr John

Caborn, Richard

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Callaghan, Jim

Meale, Alan

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Michael, Alun

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Morgan, Rhodri

Clay, Bob

Murphy, Paul

Clelland, David

Nellist, Dave

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

O'Brien, William

Cohen, Harry

Parry, Robert

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pike, Peter L.

Cryer, Bob

Quin, Ms Joyce

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Redmond, Martin

Dalyell, Tam

Reid, Dr John

Darling, Alistair

Ruddock, Joan

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Sedgemore, Brian

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

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dewar, Donald

Skinner, Dennis

Dixon, Don

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Dobson, Frank

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

Doran, Frank

Snape, Peter

Fatchett, Derek

Soley, Clive

Fisher, Mark

Spearing, Nigel

Foster, Derek

Steel, Rt Hon David

Fraser, John

Stott, Roger

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Strang, Gavin

Gordon, Mildred

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Graham, Thomas

Wall, Pat

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Walley, Joan

Hardy, Peter

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Wareing, Robert N.

Holland, Stuart

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Home Robertson, John

Worthington, Tony

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Illsley, Eric

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.

Mr. Alan Rees
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
11.56 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): This Adjournment debate is about Mr. Alan Rees, who is a British citizen and whose elderly mother is a constituent of mine.
Mr. Rees is in prison in Frankfurt, in the Federal Republic of Germany. He has been there since November 1986. Before then he was imprisoned in Britain for about two years. Indeed, Mr. Rees has now been in prison for a total of about four out of the last five years—two years in Britain, and almost two and a half years in the Federal Republic. Despite this four-year term of imprisonment, Mr. Rees has not been found guilty of any offence by any court, either here or in the Federal Republic. Not only has he not been found guilty of any offence; he has not even been tried in open court for any offence.
It was in the south American country of Bolivia that the events, the somewhat bizarre events, that led to Mr. Rees's predicament occurred. In 1974 he went there and married a Bolivian national. He lived in Bolivia and had a business there. On 14 November 1983, in La Paz, the capital, a German national, who was the local manager of the German airline Lufthansa, was kidnapped near his home. The kidnappers demanded a ransom of $1½ million. The ransom money was subsequently paid, and the German national was released unharmed.
On 13 March 1984 Mr. Rees arrived at Gatwick—on a business trip, I believe—on a flight from the United States of America. He was immediately arrested. Almost a month after his arrest, the Government of the Federal Republic sought his extradition to West Germany, accusing him, I believe, of the crime of detaining, with others, a hostage—the German national, the manager of the Lufthansa office in La Paz, who had been kidnapped.
Four alleged accomplices of Mr. Rees had already been arrested in La Paz by the Bolivian authorities for the same offence. While they were in prison they made a statement to the effect that Mr. Rees had been involved in the kidnapping. The Federal Republic's case for extradition was based almost entirely—not entirely, but almost entirely—upon these statements. Of course, these were affidavit statements read out in the extradition proceedings in London. There was no cross-examination of the individuals concerned, because they were in prison in Bolivia.
Mr. Rees, through his lawyer, Mr. Michael Caplan of Kingsley Napley, challenged the extradition request in the British courts. There were a number of hearings, and the case actually went to the House of Lords on a technicality. I believe that during these proceedings it was learnt that the four alleged accomplices in La Paz had retracted their previous statement and now denied that Mr. Rees was involved in the kidnapping. Eventually, however, Mr. Rees, on the basis of the prima facie evidence presented by the West German authorities, was extradited to the Federal Republic in 1986 and, as I have said, has been imprisoned there ever since.
The House will recall that recently the Home Secretary, in a slightly different situation, got into trouble with the European Court of Human Rights for detaining suspects for seven days. Mr. Rees has not been tried in the Federal Republic of Germany for the offence for which he has been

1107
charged. Time and again the West German authorities have adjourned the proceedings. If we count the extradition proceedings, they have had almost five years to build their case against Mr. Rees. That includes the two years in Britain before the extradition and now nearly two and a half years in the Federal Republic of Germany. However, he still has not been tried in open court.
That is a scandalous and shocking abuse of the rule of law and the basic principles of justice—and that in a western democratic country which is one of our NATO allies and a partner in the EEC.
My latest information—perhaps the Minister of State has better information—is that the Germans will apparently again review Mr. Rees' case next April. He has no idea when he will be brought to trial. He may never be brought to trial, and may have to languish in prison for all time.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has a duty to look after and protect the rights of British citizens abroad. He should raise this matter at the highest level with the German authorities. I am not asking the Secretary of State to bring pressure to bear to subvert the course of justice; I am asking him to bring pressure to bear to ensure that justice is done.
In a strange case of this kind, one inevitably recalls the tribulations of Joseph K in Franz Kafka's great novel "The Trial". No doubt the Minister of State is familiar with that novel. It is gloomy and depressing, but in parts at least there are glimmers of hope for poor Joseph K. An extract from that novel might appeal to the right hon. Lady:
"'What is the next step you propose to take in the matter?' asked the priest. 'I'm going to get more help', said K …'There are several possibilities I haven't explored yet.' 'You cast about too much for outside help,' said the priest … 'especially from women. Don't you see that it isn't the right kind of help?' … said K … 'Women have great influence. If I could move some women I know to join forces in working for me, I couldn't help winning through … Let the Examining Magistrate see a woman in the distance and he almost knocks down his desk … in his eagerness'".
All I ask of Mr. Rees' examining magistrate in Frankfurt—they still have such magistrates there—is that he should without any further delay bring Mr. Rees to trial and present his evidence in open court. If he cannot do that, he should release Alan Rees. I ask the Minister of State and the Government to do their duty and see that that happens.
12.2 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) for raising this case of the son of a constituent of his. It is in the finest traditions of this place, empty though it may be at this late hour, that we discuss the circumstances of an individual British citizen who is detained overseas.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I know about the case of Mr. Alan Rees, and, as the House would expect, I will consider later tonight very carefully exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I shall also ensure that a record of this debate and our contributions to it is made available to the authorities in Bolivia and in the Federal Republic of Germany as soon as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman knows me and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office well enough to know that we
1108
are concerned that any individual should be held without trial for long periods in any country. However, we must be aware of the law of the countries concerned.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office first became involved with Mr. Rees's case in April 1984, when a formal request for Mr. Rees's extradition for an offence of kidnapping was received from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in London. In accordance with normal practice, that request was passed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for consideration.
The background to the extradition request was that, while in Bolivia, Mr. Rees was alleged to have organised, together with his father-in-la w, a Bolivian national, the kidnapping on 14 November 1983 of a Mr. Michael Wurche, the Lufthansa manager in La Paz. A ransom of 1·5 million United States dollars was paid by Mr. Wurche's employers, and he was released in November 1983. Mr. Rees was initially discharged by the United Kingdom courts in respect of the extradition offence because the request was not, at that stage, backed by sufficient evidence. However, the extradition proceedings were recommenced following the receipt of further evidence, resulting in the extradition order being issued.
After making an unsuccessful appeal to the House of Lords for judicial review of his case, Mr. Rees was committed for extradition on 24 October 1986. He was surrrendered to the German authorities on 27 November 1986. Since then, he has been held in custody awaiting trial.
Mr. Denzil Davies: I am sure that the Minister did not mean to imply otherwise, but the House of Lords appeal was not about whether Mr. Rees was guilty of kidnapping. It concerned a difficult legal point regarding extradition law. I believe that the case was lost in the House of Lords by three to two.
Mrs. Chalker: I do not have the figures, but I believe it was as the right hon. Gentleman says. It was a judicial review, which I hope are the words that I used earlier.
Mr. Rees is charged in the current proceedings, in Wiesbaden, with having kidnapped, in company with others in La Paz, Bolivia, on 14 November 1983, Mr. Michael Wurche, with extortion, with carrying arms, with using threats and force against Mr. Wurche, and with having caused others to commit such illegal acts against Mr. Wurche.
Mr. Rees, together with his father-in-law, Jose Antonio Anze Jimenez, allegedly planned together to kidnap Michael Wurche, the sales representative and station manager of Lufthansa of La Paz, and to demand a ransom of 1·5 million US dollars, as the hon. Gentleman said They allegedly acquired the necessary weapons, rented a house to which they planned to bring Mr. Wurche, and persuaded four other Bolivians—Abdon Aguilera Cortez, Carmelo Mario Aguilera Uyeno, Amando Sichori Ticona and Rimundo Richi Herrera—to act as accomplices in their plan.
On 14 November 1983, Mr. Rees and his accomplices allegedly abducted Mr. Wurche under threat from machine pistols and hand guns. On 16 November 1983, Mr. Rees is alleged to have sent a ransom note to the Lufthansa office in La Paz. In that note, Lufthansa was called upon to pay a ransom of 1·5 million United States dollars. It is alleged that, on 24 November 1983, Mr. Rees

1109
conducted several telephone conversations with Mr. Wurche's employers, in which he gave the details for handing over the money.
The ransom money, a sum of $1·5 million, was delivered as allegedly instructed by Mr. Rees, following which Mr. Wurche was set free in the neighbourhood of La Paz airport on 25 November 1983. On 17 March last year a trial was held in the La Paz superior district court, at which Mr. Rees was sentenced in absentia to 25 years' imprisonment. The charges, which were made on 17 April 1984, were of kidnapping, theft, threatening with a weapon and contempt of court, the latter because of non-appearance. Four Bolivians were accused with Mr. Rees, were convicted and are currently serving terms of imprisonment. The information was, however, confirmed to the Federal German authorities only last month. Mr. Rees and his German lawyer are aware of that development.
The action that we have taken in the Federal Republic is as follows. Our vice-consul in Frankfurt has visited Mr. Rees four times since his arrival in the Federal Republic. On all occasions Mr. Rees has been found to be well, and has volunteered that he understands the reasons for his continued detention. Our vice-consul has also been in regular contact with the public prosecutor in Wiesbaden to register Her Majesty's Government's interest in the case. The right hon. Gentleman was informed, in a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on 12 April last year, that our vice-consul would also contact Mr. Rees's legal representative, whose duty it is to do all that he can within the local judicial process to expedite the trial.
Sadly, a date for the trial cannot be set until the evidence has been provided by the Bolivian witnesses. I understand that there are difficulties owing to their detention and subsequent imprisonment. The public prosecutor in Wiesbaden is still waiting for confirmation of when he and others can attend the hearing of witnesses in Bolivia. The public prosecutor wrote to the embassy of the Federal Republic in La Paz in early January this year asking it to accelerate matters with the Bolivian authorities. He believes that, once he has attended the hearing in Bolivia, a trial in the Federal Republic should follow without delay, and I hope that that is the case.
I said earlier that we must be aware of the various countries concerned in the case. There is no limit on the time for which a person may be held on remand in the Federal Republic, provided that his detention is reviewed at least every three months by a higher court. That has been done in Mr. Rees's case. The last review was by the higher regional court—the Oberlandesgericht—on 9 January, when it was decided that Mr. Rees should remain in custody pending trial. That would bring the next date of hearing—as the right hon. Gentleman said—to around 9 April this year. We understand that Mr. Rees's German legal adviser believes that, bearing in mind the serious nature of the alleged offence, his client's continued detention is not abnormal.
I well understand the right hon. Gentleman's deep concern about the case, but it is internationally accepted practice that the officials or representatives of one state cannot intervene in the judicial proceedings of another
1110
sovereign state. We in the United Kingdom would not tolerate attempted foreign intervention in our judicial system, and I suspect that no other country would welcome it either.
The role of our consular officials is to ensure that a British citizen who has been arrested knows his rights under the local law and knows how to obtain legal representation if he so desires. The consul will try to ensure that a British national is charged and brought to trial without undue delay, that the trial is conducted within the recognised canons of justice, that his alien status is not detrimental, either at a trial or during imprisonment, and that he is subject to the same standards that apply to the nationals of the country in which he was arrested.
It is always our policy that consular visits to prisoners should be made in the light of local conditions and the detainee's circumstances. Our consular officials also try to ensure that a detainee's next of kin is informed of the detention, but only if so requested by the detainee. They also arrange the transfer of funds from friends or family in the United Kingdom for prison comforts and raise any complaints with the proper authorities. We have inquired about this. I am satisfied that Mr. Rees has been receiving proper consular attention, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this will continue.
The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that United Nations approved minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners were agreed in 1957. I accept that the rules have no binding force, but our consular officials, as a matter of policy, would bring them to the attention of the local authorities if it were seen that the rules were not being observed in respect of a British detainee. I have no hesitation in saying that there is no question of any such failure in the case of Mr. Rees.
There are, of course, limitations on what British consular officials can do. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, they cannot get a national out of gaol, provide a lawyer at the British taxpayers' expense, put up bail, carry out investigations into an alleged crime, or themselves offer legal advice. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been leading a campaign to educate the public in this regard, so that nobody shall go abroad without having some knowledge of the consequences of wrongdoing overseas. That campaign will continue, but it is important that people should understand the limitations on what consular officials can do.
This is a very special and, thank goodness, very unusual case. I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman's great concern. As in all such cases, the legal process of the country concerned must take its course. Her Majesty's Government cannot intervene in that legal process. However, I am concerned about the case. Through our consular officials, we shall continue closely to monitor the case and will offer all the assistance to Mr. Rees that we properly can. I sincerely hope that this case will very soon be brought to trial and heard and that the problems that have been encountered in providing evidence will be ironed out. Anything that we can do, although we cannot intervene, will be done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Isle of Man
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Manx Government; and what matters relating to the representation abroad of the interests of the Manx Government were discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend met members of the Executive Council of the Isle of Man in September1987. No matters relating to the representation abroad of the interests of the Manx Government were discussed on that occasion, but Home Office Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the Isle of Man Government on matters concerning the island.

  Services for Deaf People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many interpreters for the deaf are employed by police authorities; if he is satisfied with the availability of interpreters for deaf people in contact with the police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is an operational matter for the police to obtain the services of a suitably qualified interpreter for the deaf in appropriate cases. The Home Office has no record of the numbers of such interpreters whose services are used by the police. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Guidance to the police on interviewing suspects who are deaf is contained in the codes of practice issued in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and in Home Office circular 88/85, copies of which are in the Library. Code C, for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers, advises the police that most local authority social services departments can supply a list of suitably qualified interpreters.

  The Home Office is currently reviewing the first four codes of practice issued. The views of a wide range of organisations (including those representing the deaf) have been sought and will be taken fully into account.

  Economic League
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Economic League is registered under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Renton
  The Economic League has a single entry in the data protection register, a copy of which is in the Library, covering its processing of personal data for the administration of the organisation.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to enact legislation to ensure 676
  that people blacklisted by the Economic League can obtain access to the files that have caused their blacklisting to check that information.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, 20 January,Official Report, column 350, what action is being taken to reduce the time taken to deal with claims for compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have provided extra resources which have enabled the board to open a new office in Glasgow, to increase its staff in post from 220 in 1987 to 320 now, and to finance the resulting increase in the number of awards made. We are also reviewing administrative procedures with the board with the aim of reducing the time taken to resolve claims.

  Custody Time Limits
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the further extension of custody time limits.

  Mr. Hurd
  I intend to lay regulations which will, wil h effect from 1 June, extend custody time limits to Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Cleveland, Derbyshire, Durham, Hereford and Worcester, Humberside, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Northumbria, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, South Yorkshire, Suffolk, Warwickshire, and West Yorkshire. In the west midlands, the time limit to committal will be reduced from 84 to 70 days in all petty sessions areas except Birmingham where it will remain 84 days. The regulations will also apply with custody limits to serious fraud cases transferred to the Crown court under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish in the Official Report in tabular form the information he has, using age bands, for each five-year period from 1965 to the most recent year for which figures are available, on the ages of individuals appointed to be senior probation officers;
  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report the information he has, in age bands and in tabular form, on the ages of individuals appointed to be probation officers since 1965 who were (i) under 28 years of age and (:ii) between 28 years of age and 65 years of age.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, if it is available at all.

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list Rugby League football clubs together with the following information for each of them during the 1987–88 season:(a) the number of

  677
  matches played at their grounds, (b) the total season's attendance, (c) the total arrests in association with such matches, (d) the average attendance per match, (e) the average number of arrests per match and (f) the arrests as a proportion of the attendance.

  Division 1

  Number of matches at ground

  Total attendance

  Average attendance per match

  Bradford Northern

  14

  68,674

  4,905

  Castleford

  13

  58,770

  4,520

  Halifax

  15

  96,440

  6,429

  Hull

  17

  84,073

  4,945

  Hull Kingston Rovers

  17

  73,229

  4,308

  Hunslet

  14

  36,704

  2,622

  Leeds

  16

  177,631

  11,102

  Leigh

  15

  69,606

  4,640

  St. Helens

  18

  146,856

  8,159

  Salford

  18

  72,573

  4,032

  Swinton

  14

  42,292

  3,021

  Warrington

  18

  93,544

  5,197

  Widnes

  15

  99,427

  6,628

  Wigan

  21

  278,917

  13,282

  Division 2

  Barrow

  14

  22,740

  1,624

  Barley

  16

  15,956

  997

  Bramley

  15

  13,061

  871

  Carlisle

  16

  13,607

  850

  Dewsbury

  16

  12,274

  767

  Doncaster

  16

  23,658

  1,479

  Featherstone Rovers

  19

  38,669

  2,035

  Fulham

  15

  9,322

  621

  Huddersfield

  14

  8,417

  601

  Keighley

  16

  17,988

  1,124

  Mansfield Marksman

  14

  5,146

  368

  Oldham

  18

  69,449

  3,858

  Rochdale Hornets

  15

  16,444

  1,096

  Runcorn Highfield

  16

  8,658

  541

  Sheffield Eagles

  14

  11,862

  847

  Springfield Borough

  18

  19,231

  1,068

  Wakefield Trinity

  17

  40,049

  2,356

  Whitehaven

  16

  31,087

  1,943

  Workington Town

  14

  10,322

  737

  York

  16

  22,324

  1,395

  Police Surgeons
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will review present arrangements for the work of general practitioners who act as part-time police surgeons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 27 January 1989 at column 769.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Borrowing
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown from the latest available data of the major types of borrowers in the public and private sectors of the economy.

  Mr. Major
  Information on borrowing is given in the CSO's monthly publication "Financial Statistics", which is available in the Library of the House. Section 1 provides a unified set of financial data for all the main sectors of the economy. Subsequent sections give various breakdowns
  678
  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 26 January 1989]: I have ben asked to reply.

  No information is collected centrally about the numbers of arest at Rugby League matches. Atendence figures and matches played at the grounds of Rugby League clubs in the 1987–88 season were:

  by financial instrument and source appropriate to individual sectors. Also given is an industry analysis of borrowing from the monetary sector.

  EC (Indirect Taxation)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will report on his discussions with the European Commissioner for taxation and customs union on 19 January; and how far these discussions advanced the planned approximation of indirect taxes within the Community.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a useful discussion with Madame Scrivener which I hope will pave the way for further constructive exchanges in the future. The Government remain of the view that indirect tax approximation is unnecessary for the completion of the single market.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he intends to put to the Council of Ministers on 13 February to advance the planned approximation of indirect taxes within the European Community.
  679
  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already suggested an alternative, market-based approach to indirect taxation in the single market, which remains on the table for future discussions.

  VAT
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on proposed changes to value added tax zero rating of supplies to non-domestic consumers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the changes in VAT zero rating resulting from last June's judgment of the European Court of Justice which were announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on 6 February. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received, and taken fully into account, a large number of representations about the implementation of this judgment.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what additional revenue would accrue from proposed changes to implement value added tax standard rating of supplies to university halls of residence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  None. No changes are proposed to the VAT zero rating of supplies of new construction services and fuel and power to university halls of residence.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Public Appeals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will specify each donation which the Overseas Development Administration has made in response to public appeals for financial aid during each financial year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The ODA has made three responses to public appeals since 1979, in each case to appeals launched by the disasters emergency committee of major voluntary agencies following disasters overseas. These are:

  £

  December 1987, for famine victims in Ethiopia

  2,000,000

  August 1988, for flood victims in Sudan

  1,000,000

  August 1988, for flood victims in Bangladesh

  1,000,000

  These figures exclude the ODA's responses to the many appeals to donor Governments from the United Nations and other international agencies.

  Amazonia
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of Her Majesty's Government's contribution to development projects in the Amazonian area of Brazil; and what measures are taken to ensure that these projects do not result in the destruction of tropical rain forests.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have jointly funded with non-governmental agencies nine projects assisting the 680
  people of the Amazonian region at a cost of about £77,000 and we are providing £80,000 to the Maraca rain forest project which conducts research into forest regeneration. International organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member have supported projects in the region, but we do not have information detailing disbursements under individual loans provided through these channels. Environmental conditions have normally been attached to such loans.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to provide aid to meet current humanitarian needs in Kabul.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have provided £60 million of aid for the victims of war in Afghanistan since 1980, including £10 million in the current financial year. In addition, I have just agreed a further contribution of £500,000, particularly to meet current mother and child relief needs; £250,000 of this is being channelled through UNICEF and £250,000 is for the International Committee of the Red Cross relief programmes.

SCOTLAND

  Lennox Castle Hospital
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what dates in the period 1979 to 1988 the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland has visited Lennox Castle hospital; and when the commission first indicated to Greater Glasgow health board its anxieties about conditions there.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the discharge of its functions under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, the Mental Welfare Commission has visited Lennox Castle hospital on the following occasions:

  Programmed visits

  28 November 1984

  23 October 1985

  26 November 1986

  13 April 1988

  Special visits

  2 August 1985

  7 January 1988

  9 December 1988

  Prior to 1984, visits were confined to those by individual medical commissioners for the purposes of interviewing patients and such visits continue on an annual basis.

  The commission first commented adversely about some aspects of the facilities at Lennox Castle following the visit on 28 November 1984. The Greater Glasgow health boa rd has embarked on a major rebuilding and upgrading programme; two new, purpose-designed intensive care units have been built, and four wards substantially upgraded at a cost of £3·8 million. A recurring increase of £2 million, or 18 per cent. of the mental handicap budget, has been approved by the board in the current year for the recruitment of additional staff and support in the community.

  The board has committed itself to making Lennox Castle a centre of excellence and is making the necessary provision to achieve that objective.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many workers in Scotland are presently employed in Government-sponsored training schemes; what this represents as a proportion of the work force; and what are the figures for each o the last 10 years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information on numbers participating in Government training programmes is available only for YTS and the community programme and from 1984 onwards. Participants in these programmes as a proportion of the civilian work force since 1984 are set out in the table:

  Year

  (a)1Numbers in YTS and community programme

  (b)1Civilian workforce

  (a) as a percentage of (b)

  1984

  44,958

  2,083

  2·2

  1985

  50,304

  2,109

  2·4

  1986

  59,307

  2,100

  2·8

  1987

  68,464

  2,089

  3·3

  1988

  77,117

  2,108

  3·6

  1 At 31 March.

  At present some 49,000 young people are participating in YTS and almost 20,000 people in employment training (which from September 1988 replaced the community programme and all other adult training measures).

  Housing
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the net spending on housing, in real terms, in 1978–79, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At 1987–88 prices Scottish net public housing expenditure in 1978–79 was £1,191 million, almost half on general subsidies to the housing stock; estimated expenditure in 1988–89 is £607 million, and planned expenditure in 1989–90 and 1990–91 £537 million and £557 million respectively. Gross capital expenditure on housing at 1987–88 prices was £691 million in 1978–79 and £833 million in 1988–89, and is planned to be £818 million and £766 million in 1989–90 and 1990–91. None of these figures includes housing benefit expenditure.

  Scottish Trades Union Congress (Health Matters)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the date of all communications received by him from the Scottish Trades Union Congress on health matters since September 1988 and the date of his reply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date of communication

  Date of reply

  7 September 1988

  8 February 1989

  6 January 1989

  26 January 1989

  20 January 1989

  31 January 1989

  A further letter from the Scottish Trades Union Congress dated 3 February was also received by me on 6 February.

  Cervical/Cytology
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board for each of the last three years the number of cervical smears carried out.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not currently available in the form requested, but arrangements are under way to collect it on a health board basis.

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he has any information from Greater Glasgow health board on the starting date for the improvement work to the accident and emergency department of Glasgow royal infirmary.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The main part of the programme to upgrade accident and emergency services at Glasgow royal infirmary started on site in October 1988 with an expected date of completion of April 1990. However, to allow that work to start, other linked schemes were put in hand in November 1987 so that part of the accident and emergency workload could be dealt with elsewhere.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the establishment level of hospital pharmacists for each health board in Scotland, and the actual number of pharmacists employed in each board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following table gives the information as at 31 December 1987:

  Health board

  Establishment level (Whole time equivalents)

  Staff in post (Whole time equivalents)

  Argyll and Clyde

  26

  25

  Ayrshire and Arran

  25

  24·3

  Borders

  6

  7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8·3

  7·3

  Fife

  20

  19

  Forth Valley

  17·3

  17·3

  Grampian1

  35

  32

  Greater Glasgow

  133·9

  122·9

  Highland

  14·8

  14·8

  Lanarkshire

  30·7

  28·7

  Lothian

  83·7

  79·7

  Tayside

  47·3

  46·7

  Western Isles

  2

  2

  1 Grampian health board provides also hospital pharmaceutical services for Orkney and Shetland health boards.

  Blood Products
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many units of blood products were supplied to(a) commercial medical establishments and (b) other private hospitals by the Scottish blood transfusion service in each year since 1982, what was the cost of these supplies in each year, and what was the revenue income in each year from such sales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information is as follows:
  683

  Year ending 31 March

  Supplied to the private sector

  Revenue received

  Units of whole blood and platelet depleted blood

  Units of red cell concentrates

  (£)

  1983

  650

  830

  Nil

  1984

  560

  1,600

  1,915

  1985

  730

  2,300

  27,287

  1986

  494

  2,509

  34,032

  1987

  385

  2,755

  45,380

  1988

  286

  3,384

  54,557

  Notes:

  1. Other blood products are occasionally supplied, in small quantities, to the private sector.

  2. Receipts relate to all blood and blood products supplied.

  3. Receipts will not necessarily be brought to account in the year of supply.

  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce the review of handling charges for blood, blood products and plasma units to private medical establishments by the blood transfusion service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Home and Health Department received the preliminary results of the review on 31 January 1989. I shall write to the hon. Member once a decision has been taken.

  Water Orders
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average length of time taken by his Department to deal with an application for approval of a water order; when the initial draft of the water order for Allt Bail un Tuim, Bhuidhe in Glenmoriston was submitted to the Scottish Office by Highland regional council; when he expects to be able to give approval; and if he will make a statement on the length of time taken to process this water order.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average time from submission of a preliminary draft to making a water order is about 20 months. The initial draft of the Allt Bail'un Tuim Bhuidhe water order was submitted on 22 July 1987. Engineering appraisal and consultation within the Scottish Office was followed by several rounds of correspondence with the council. Statutory procedures, including an advertising stage which allows for objections to the Secretary of State, have still to be completed and I cannot say when the order will be made. The time taken to deal with this order reflects the degree of consultation and consideration required, and is not unusual. The procedures are designed to safeguard the rights of all parties who may be affected.

  Deaf People (Services)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many qualified social workers with specialist training for work with people who are deaf are currently employed in Scotland by(a) social work departments, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) other bodies; how many have completed training in each of the last five years; what action he is taking to increase their number; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not held centrally. Qualifying training"is designed to import the basic knowledge and skills required for social work generally".
  684
  There is at present no formal specialist training course for those wishing to work exclusively or primarily with deaf people. However the Open university, with financial support from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, is developing a course which will be available to social work staff throughout the United Kingdom who wish to specialise in this area.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many interpreters for the deaf are employed by public bodies in Scotland; how many have been trained in each of the last five years; what action he is taking to increase their number; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Comprehensive information of the kind requested is not held centrally. I understand that there are 15 interpreters on a register maintained by the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters, which also undertakes their training. The latest information on trainees is as follows:

  Number

  1983

  2

  1984

  1

  1985

  3

  1986

  —

  1987

  1

  In 1988–89 grant of £18,580 will be paid to the association towards training and running costs generally.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of sessions contributed by the 127 honorary consultants in Greater Glasgow health board hospitals and clinics; on what basis remuneration is calculated; and what the total remuneration is expected to be in the current financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 726 sessions. Honorary consultants remain employees of their parent authority and their honorary contracts with the health board are unpaid appointments. The cost of any distinction awards for which they are eligible is however reimbursed to the parent authority by the National Health Service. Greater Glasgow health board spent £1·5 million on reimbursement between 1 February 1988 and 1 February 1989.

  NHS (Market Research)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many market research studies of the National Health Service have been commissioned since 1979; which companies undertook them; what the remit was in each case; and what the budget was in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The only market research study undertaken nationally has been the survey recently carried out by Research Surveys of Great Britain Ltd. at a cost of £105,000 plus VAT. The study was designed to investigate consumers' experience of and attitudes to the National Health Service, and to discover whether, and if so how, the public wish the service to change.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which company or body is conducting the present market research study of the National Health Service in Scotland; and whether the sample size is drawn from the general public or from within the National Health Service itself.
  685
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The company which conducted the study is Research Surveys of Great Britain Ltd. The sample was designed to include in-patients, out-patients, GP patients and the general public.

  Southern General Hospital
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints have been received from patients or other members of the public about the accident and emergency unit at the Southern general hospital in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of complaints received by the board is as follows:

  Year

  Number of complaints

  1984

  4

  1985

  5

  1986

  8

  1987

  5

  1988

  5

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the number of jobs attributable to forestry in each of the regions of the United Kingdom.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in that form.

HEALTH

  Irradiated Rodent Corpses
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methods have been used for the disposal of irradiated rodent carcases used in radiation experimental work by the Medical Research Council and hospitals involved in medical radiation research.

  Mr. Freeman
  The disposal of irradiated rodent carcases used in radiation experimental work are subject to authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. The disposal routes for such carcases would be

  (1) incineration and landfill; or

  (2) landfill disposal; or

  (3) maceration and sweage disposal.

  The route chosen would depend on the level of radioactivity and whether full pathological control is necessary.

  National Health Service Costs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what 3 per cent. of the Thames regions' budgets represents in cash terms for the current year.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is as follows:

  3 per cent. of 1988–89 revenue allocations

  £ million

  North West Thames

  28·0

  North East Thames

  34·6

  South East Thames

  30·3

  South West Thames

  24·5

  686
  The figures include cash limit adjustments made up to 6 February 1989. They exclude transfers between revenue and capital.

  Leighton Hospital, Crewe
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his undertaking in the Official Report, 17 January, column 316, when he intends to provide a detailed reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich in her Adjournment debate.

  Mr. Freeman
  I wrote to the hon. Lady on 8 February.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations he has given to the implications for the ambulance service of the establishment of National Health Service hospital trusts and the creation of a national internal market for health services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The review proposals including the establishment of NHS hospital trusts will not affect the ambulance service's responsibility for transporting free of charge patients whom a clinician has determined are medically unfit to travel by other means.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds he proposes to make available to the successor bodies to family practitioner committees to provide for adequate monitoring of the effect on general practitioners working in sole practices of his proposals to relate a higher proportion of general practitioners' income to list sizes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As stated in paragraph 13·3 of "Working for Patients" (Cm 555), the costs of implementing reforms will be considered as part of the annual public expenditure surveys. However, changes to the general practitioners' contract to place more emphasis on capitation will not discriminate between single practices, group practices and partnerships and I see no need for the monitoring proposed.

  Services for Deaf People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified workers with specialist training for work with people who are deaf are currently employed in England by(a) social services departments, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) other bodies; how many have completed training in each of the last five years; what action he is taking to increase their number; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold information centrally on the nature of the work carried out by particular social workers. The two post-qualifying training courses for social workers with deaf people in London and Edinburgh closed in 1984 and there is at present no formal training course. However, the Department is currently providing substantial financial support towards the development of a distance learning course to be run by the Open university from 1991.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many interpreters for the deaf are employed
  687
  by public bodies in England; how many have been trained in each of the last five years; what action he is taking to increase their number; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold information centrally on the numbers of interpreters for the deaf employed by public bodies or the number trained. However, we continue to give financial support to the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People. The council arranges training courses in communication with deaf people and maintains a register of interpreters. We are also in touch with the panel of four main voluntary organisations in the deafness field about future interpreting needs.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, for the latest year for which figures are available, the total number of tranquillisers of all varieties which were prescribed to National Health Service patients and the percentage that these drugs represented of all drugs prescribed to National Health Service patients, together with the total value of these tranquillisers and as a percentage of the total cost of National Health Service drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  In England in 1987 the number of prescriptions for tranquillisers, sedatives and hypnotics dispensed by community pharmacists was 24·3 million or 7·4 per cent. of all prescriptions for drugs dispensed by them. The net ingredient cost of tranquillisers, sedatives and hypnotics was £32·5 million or 2·2 per cent. of the net ingredient cost for all drugs dispensed by community pharmacists.

  Hospitals (Management)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline his proposals for how the procedures by which individual hospitals will become independent management units will be initiated, and by whom.

  Number of deaths registered in England and Wales with aplastic anaemia as underlying cause (ICD 2841), by regional health authority of usual residence 1981–1987

  Area of usual residency

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  21986

  231987

  Northern

  29

  20

  13

  21

  32

  21

  18

  Yorkshire

  21

  16

  15

  31

  19

  17

  20

  Trent

  28

  16

  17

  29

  20

  19

  21

  East Anglia

  9

  15

  8

  9

  15

  9

  12

  North West Thames

  12

  14

  12

  13

  14

  14

  10

  North East Thames

  29

  25

  28

  33

  14

  17

  19

  South East Thames

  20

  18

  16

  11

  22

  16

  16

  South West Thames

  7

  11

  13

  18

  12

  12

  13

  Wessex

  18

  16

  11

  13

  12

  17

  16

  Oxford

  10

  8

  10

  9

  14

  13

  14

  South Western

  22

  21

  26

  21

  19

  26

  7

  West Midlands

  29

  29

  19

  23

  27

  33

  21

  Mersey

  16

  18

  8

  7

  17

  12

  12

  North Western

  22

  19

  22

  16

  20

  18

  12

  Wales

  32

  19

  9

  11

  18

  12

  20

  Outside England and Wales

  5

  3

  1

  8

  4

  6

  6

  Total

  309

  268

  228

  273

  279

  262

  237

  1 International Classification of Diseases: 9th revision.

  2 At age 28 days and over.

  3 1987 figures at the latest available.

  In cases where aplastic anaemia was assigned originally as the underlying cause of death, but where further information is received about drug treatment (including adverse reactions), or about the conditions for which that treatment was given, the final underlying cause will be assigned to those other causes.

  688
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The White Paper "Working for Patients" (Cm. 555) explains that it will be open to a variety of interests either to initiate an application to establish an NHS hospital trust or to respond to an initiative taken by the Secretary of State. I will shortly issue a working paper giving further information about the plans for NHS hospital trusts.

  Regrading
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and what proportions of, nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff from each of the old grades have been assimilated in new grades as at the latest date for which figures are available in the Worthing health authority and the Chichester health authority; and what comparable figures he has in regional health authorities in England.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The only information available relates to the initial regrading on the basis of duties and responsibilities on 1 April 1988. Tables showing the numbers of nursing and midwifery staff assimilated from each of the old grades to each of the new grades, by district and by region, are in the Library. The information requested on the proportions of staff is now ready and has been placed in the Library also.

  Aplastic Anaemia
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people were recorded as suffering from aplastic anaemia in 1988 and in each of the last five years;

  (2) if he will list by year for the last five years, by district health authority the number of cases of aplastic anaemia that have been reported; how many of these cases were fatal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The available information is given in the tables. Figures by district health authority are not available centrally.
  689

  Estimated Number of In-Patients with Main Diagnosis of Aplastic Anaemia Discharged from NHS Non-Psychiatric Hospitals, By Region of Treatment, England 1981–1985

  1985

  1984

  1983

  1982

  1981

  ECD Digit-84

  Diagnosis-Aplastic Anaemia

  Northern

  300

  260

  (170)

  (190)

  240

  Yorkshire

  260

  280

  (140)

  250

  210

  Trent

  260

  350

  230

  (190)

  (160)

  East Anglia

  (110)

  (150)

  (110)

  (120)

  (130)

  North West Thames

  (170)

  210

  210

  (120)

  210

  North East Thames

  250

  320

  260

  230

  (190)

  South East Thames

  330

  240

  220

  390

  280

  South West Thames

  (110)

  230

  (90)

  (80)

  (80)

  Wessex

  (170)

  (140)

  (120)

  (140)

  (150)

  Oxford

  (90)

  (150)

  (160)

  (50)

  (80)

  South Western

  (140)

  (110)

  200

  210

  250

  West Midlands

  310

  360

  260

  270

  250

  Mersey

  (80)

  (180)

  (120)

  (110)

  (150)

  North Western

  210

  310

  (170)

  260

  (150)

  SHA's

  (30)

  0

  (30)

  (60)

  (10)

  England

  2,820

  3,290

  2,490

  2,670

  2,540

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  ICD—International Classification of Diseases—9th Revision

  Figures in Brackets should be treated with caution as they are based on small sample numbers.

  Cook-Chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the production of cook-chill food to be carried out in Wakefield health authority's central production unit will be subject to the requirements of regulation 27 of the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations;

  (2) if the various elements of the production of cook-chill food which are to be carried out away from Wakefield health authority's central production unit are subject to regulation 27 of the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: Regulation 27 is a legal requirement only where food is for immediate consumption. However, my Department's guidelines for all cook-chill catering in the NHS require temperatures that fall well within those specified under regulation 27 and we expect NHS health authority management to meet these requirements.

DEFENCE

  Soviet Union (Defence Cuts)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he proposes to make to the recent defence cutbacks made by the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart), for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on 7 February.

  NATO
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the modernisation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's short-range nuclear weapons.
  690
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 29 November 1988 at column 567.

  Nevada Test Site
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the financial cost attributed to the annual defence budget and paid to the United States Government to implement environmental clean-up at the Nevada test site following the testing of United Kingdom nuclear warheads at the site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the continuing absence of escapes of radioactivity from these underground tests, no such costs arise.

  Potton Island, Essex
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of the clean-up of Potton island in Essex following the nuclear materials testing programme in the 1950s; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No firings have been carried out on Potton island at any time which involved radioactive materials. There is an ongoing decontamination exercise on Potton island to ensure that the area is clear of conventional munitions and explosives, and, although the final sum will not be known until the end of the exercise, the cost of the initial decontamination was some £40,000.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many undergraduates from universities and other institutions of higher education are employed during the summer vacation at atomic weapons establishment sites.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  About 50 such students are employed at AWE, mostly at Aldermaston, during their summer vacation.

  COMECON (Travel)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions since 1979 permission for
  691
  emigration to, or travel within, the Soviet Union or other COMECON countries has been denied to applicants formerly employed at the atomic weapons research establishments;

  (2) on how many occasions since 1979 permission for emigration to, or travel within, the Soviet Union or other COMECON eastern bloc countries has been denied to applicants formerly employed at the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26 January 1989 at column 704.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration he has given to the implications for the defence of the United Kingdom arising out of the construction of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he proposes to take any measures to protect the Channel tunnel against enemy action in time of war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The implications for the defence of the United Kingdom arising from the construction of the Channel fixed link, and the defence of the Channel fixed link itself, are under consideration as part of normal defence planning.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the implication for the discharge of the United Kingdom's obligation to NATO arising out of the construction of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) on 12 January 1989 at columns 724–25.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Deaf People (Court Interpreters)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General how many interpreters for the deaf are employed by the court services; if he is satisfied with the availability of interpreters for deaf people in contact with the courts; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  In the Crown court and in civil proceedings it is the responsibility of the party to the proceedings requiring the services of an interpreter, either for himself or for a witness, to make the necessary arrangements to secure their attendance at any conference with legal advisers or at court. Some Crown court centres maintain a register of interpreters although they are under no obligation to do so. Such registers are compiled from lists supplied by the police and a court will make the list available if requested to do so. I know of no difficulties arising in the courts for which the Lord Chancellor is administratively responsible as a result of the present arrangements.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to give the parents of handicapped children the same rights as those of able-bodied children to choose to which schools they wish to send their children.

  Mr. Butcher
  Parents of handicapped children without statements of special educational needs under the Education Act 1981 already have the same choice of school rights as other parents. For those children with statements, local education authorities are required to seek medical, educational and psychological advice, and any other advice considered necessary, including parental views. My right hon. Friend believes that the most suitable school placements for children with statements should continue to be based on that advice.

  Universities (Funding)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is his policy in relation to making adjustments to the volume of block grants to universities to reflect any significant changes to the taxation liabilities of universities;

  (2) whether the present vote provision for 1989–90 in respect of grants to universities was calculated to take account of changes in value added tax regulations now proposed to take effect in that year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The provision for universities for 1989–90 announced in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 612) includes a compensating adjustment in respect of the impact on universities of the introduction of VAT on new construction from 1 April 1989. Changes lin taxation arrangements do not automatically lead to changes in public funding; they will be taken into account as appropriate in reaching decisions on the level of provision for universities, which are not deficit funded.

  VAT
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from individuals or bodies concerned with education on the subject of proposed changes to value added tax zero rating of supplies to non-domestic consumers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A small number of representations have been received about the changes which are to be introduced from 1 July 1990. School and student boarding accommodation will be regarded as domestic use and will continue to be zero rated for supplies of fuel and power.

  Southwark Director of Education
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on which dates since 1 January 1988 he has met the director of education of the Southwark diocese; at which of these meetings city technology colleges in the Southwark diocese have been discussed; at which of these meetings the future of the sites reserved for education by the London Docklands
  693
  development corporation in Surrey docks, London SE16, has been discussed; and on which of these dates the future of Bacon's school, London SE1 and London SE16, has been discussed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has had three meetings with the director of education of the Southwark diocese since 1 January 1988. At meetings on 29 September, 6 December and 12 January 1989, there was some discussion of options for the future of Bacon's school, whether on its present site or on a relocated site in the Surrey docks. Should the diocesan board of Education and the governors of the school wish to see the existing school closed to make way for a city technology college, the governors would need the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 14 of the 1944 Education Act.

  International Organisations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those international organisations on which his Department is represented and the total cost of these commitments.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to her reply, 3 February 1989, c. 409]: I regret that part of the information given to the hon. Member was incorrect.

  This Department's specific contribution to the European University Institute in 1987–88 was £1,232,000.

PRIME MINISTER

  Non-ministerial Appointments
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list, and give details of remuneration for, all those non-ministerial appointments which are in her gift as Prime Minister and to which a salary per annum is attached of more than(a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £30,000, (d) £40,000, (e) £50,000, (f) £60,000, (g) £70,000, (h) £80,000,(i) £90,000, (j) £100,000, (k) £110,000 and (l) £120,000.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the replies that I gave to the right hon. Member on 31 January 1988 at column 149 and 2 February 1989 at column 425.

ENERGY

  Research Projects
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the scope and the level of funding for research projects commissioned by his Department from groups led by Messrs. Lawrence Draper and Malcolm Tucker; and what work Messrs. Draper and Tucker are currently doing for his Department.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In the period from 1977 to date my Department has commissioned research at the Institute of Oceanographic Sciencies (IOS) involving Messrs. Lawrence Draper and Malcolm Tucker on the measurement and analysis of wave climate in United Kingdom waters and the kinetics of waves. The level of funding for this work is in excess of £2 million.

  Mr. Malcolm Tucker, who retired from IOS in 1986, is currently retained as a consultant by my Department to
  694
  provide expert advice on environmental data. Mr. Lawrence Draper is currently associated with three IOS projects funded by my Department covering wave climate measurements around the United Kingdom, guidance on oceanographic design parameters and provision of expert advice on oceanography.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is his assessment of the importance of the data on wave climate collected by Messrs. Lawrence Draper and Malcolm Tucker of the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences to the development of oil and gas reserves in the North Sea;

  (2) if he will give an estimate of the value, in terms of lives saved, oil and gas production and economic benefit, of the availability of wave data prior to the exploitation of Britain's offshore oil and gas reserves.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department—advised on safety research and development by technology boards with members from the oil industry, the certifying authorities and the academic world—has identified specific projects relating to wave data which have contributed to the safe and economic design of offshore structures.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many contracts British Nuclear Fuels plc has signed with foreign customers for the storage and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel since 1973; and if he will seek the permission of the British Nuclear Fuels plc chairman to publish the value of each of these respective contracts in pounds sterling at 1989 values.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that British Nuclear Fuels plc has signed 34 contracts with foreign customers for the storage and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel since the beginning of 1973. The financial terms of these contracts are commercially confidential.

  Wind Energy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the maximum contribution to be made by wind energy as a percentage of United Kingdom electricity producition in the year 2000.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There is great uncertainty about projections for developing technologies such as renewable sources of energy. By the year 2025, wind energy might provide up to 30 TWh per year of electricity, which represents about 10 per cent. of current electricity requirements.

  We have not made any estimates for the year 2000, but would expect commercial exploitation of wind energy to commence in the mid-1990s if the present assessment phase of our renewable energy programme is successful.

  Sizewell
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when he plans to announce the opening date and name of the inspector for the Sizewell C public inquiry into the Central Electricity Generating Board planning application for a new pressurised water reactor at its Sizewell nuclear site;
  695
  (2) if it will be the responsibility of National Power to cover the costs of the Sizewell C planning inquiry, including the fee for the inspector and the publication cost of daily transcripts and support documentation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB announced on 31 January its intention to submit an application to my right hon. Friend for his consent to construct a pressurised water reactor nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. Before the application has been made and advertised and the response to it is known, it is too early to speculate about a public inquiry.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on British Nuclear Fuel's proposals to build new nuclear power stations at Chapelcross, Sellafield and Calder Hall.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Nuclear Fuels plc has announced that it is to mount a feasibility study to look at several options for the construction of new nuclear power stations which might eventually replace the Magnox stations which it operates at Calder Hall and Chapelcross. BNFL has made no other commitment at present. I understand that the company's study will take about 18 months to complete.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what emergency planning arrangements are in force for the evacuation of members of the public in the event of an accident involving the spent nuclear fuel cooling ponds at Berkeley, Oldbury, and Hinkley nuclear plants.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Contingency plans, including evacuation plans for members of the public, exist at the Berkeley, Oldbury and Hinkley nuclear plants, in common with all licensed nuclear sites to deal with any accident involving an off-site release of radioactivity.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy, when considering the issue of transport licences for the export of plutonium, on examining the end-use requirements of the country or countries for which the plutonium is intended, to ascertain if there are genuine commercial needs for the material.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to export licences. These are not issued unless the Government are satisfied that among other things the end use will be as stated in the application.

  All exports of nuclear materials are made within the guidelines set out in the statement by the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Callaghan, on 31 March 1976 at columns 514–16.

  Contracts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all his Department's contracts with(a) Zeus and (b) Securipol Limited since 1979; and if he will give the purpose of each contract.

  Mr. Parkinson
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industry Act 1975
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether section 13 of the Industry Act 1975 will require repeal or amendment when the Single European Act takes effect in 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Key Guns
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will ban he importation of key guns that can unlock doors and cars and are being used for criminal purposes.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It would be very difficult to prohibit the import of key guns without similar restrictions on the domestic manufacture and sale of such devices. Following expressions of concern the Home Office is consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers about the effectiveness and availability of such devices in the United Kingdom and to establish what problems they present. We will consider this issue further in the light of the findings of this report.

  Telephone Monitoring
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will call for a report from the Director General of Oftel on how many occasions British Telecom engineers have monitored telephone conversations on domestic telephone lines within the Wakefield district in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Director of Oftel on how many occasions British Telecom engineers have monitored private conversations on domestic telephone lines, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  No, but I shall draw the hon. Member's concern to the attention of the Director General of Telecommunications. He already has powers to look into such matters.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what non-statutory safeguards are available for British Telecom customers, in the event that their private and personal conversations are monitored by employees of British Telecom.

  Mr. Atkins
  Safeguards in addition to the existing statutory safeguards are a matter for the operator in the first instance. The Director General of Telecommunications already keeps the sufficiency of the safeguards under review.

  Supermarkets (Charging Practices)
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of recent court cases, he will seek to amend the law relating to the charging practices of supermarkets and to increase the maximum levels of fines available to the courts.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The effectiveness of part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in controlling misleading price indications will need to he assessed as experience of its operation develops after 1 March before consideration can be given to further measures.

  North East Shipbuilders
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what expenditure is expected in 1988–89 on the remedial measures announced on 7 December 1988 following the closure of North East Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Mr. Newton
  It is estimated that £358,000 will be spent by the end of March this year, primarily on counselling and training; £106,000 will be spent by the Department of Employment on counselling, and a further £251,000 will be spent by British Shipbuilders. Parliamentary approval for the £251,000 will be sought through the introduction of a new subhead on class V vote 4 in a Supplementary Supply Estimate to cover the new service. Pending that approval urgent expenditure estimated at the full £251,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Ford Motor Company
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the estimated cost to the balance of payments of the trading methods of the Ford Motor Company whereby most of its vehicles are assembled outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]To estimate the impact on the balance of payments of the Ford Motor Company's overall investment and sales policies would be highly complex.

  As a long-established multinational, the company imports and exports components as well as assembled vehicles and has major investments in this country. The value of such an estimate would be subject to so many variables as to rob it of any tangible significance.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from the EEC Commission about the limit to foreign shareholdings in Rolls-Royce plc; and what parts of the treaty of Rome have been quoted by the Commission in relation to such representations.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]Discussions with the Commission are continuing. The Government consider that the limit on foreign shareholdings is justified by article 223 of the European Community treaty which allows a member state to take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security.

WALES

  Higher Education
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many 18-year-old students have progressed into higher education in each of the last three academic years giving figures in numerical and percentage terms and for each standard planning region.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:
  698

  18-year-old students1 from Welsh schools intending to proceed into higher education2

  Number ('000)

  Percentage of all 118-year-old leavers

  1984–85

  3·5

  45·0

  1985–86

  3·7

  48·9

  1986–87

  3·4

  45·5

  1 Aged 17 at 31 August i.e. the beginning of the academic year.

  2 Degree courses, teacher training courses and HNC/HND courses.

  Consultants
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many consultants at present hold a contract with the National Health Service in Wales; and in what disciplines the six new appointments during the next three years will be made.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of consultants who held a contract with the National Health Service in Wales on 30 September 1987 was 864, compared with 696 in 1978.

  No decision has yet been taken on where and in which specialties the posts will be created, but they will be targeted to achieve maximum benefit, including the need to reduce waiting lists.

  General Practices
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the location of the 30 practices in Wales with more than 11,000 patients.

  Mr. Grist
  At February 1988 there were 36 practices in Wales with more than 11,000 patients. The location of the main surgery of these practices was as follows:

  Location

  Number of practices

  Rhyl, Clwyd

  1

  Wrexham, Clwyd

  3

  Old Colwyn, Clwyd

  1

  Prestatyn, Clwyd

  1

  Mold, Clwyd

  1

  Gresford, Clwyd

  1

  Carmarthen, Dyfed

  1

  Haverfordwest, Dyfed

  1

  Pontllanfraith, Gwent

  1

  Caldicot, Gwent

  1

  Monmouth, Gwent

  1

  Newport, Gwent

  3

  Amlwch, Gwynedd

  1

  Llandudno, Gwynedd

  1

  Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  2

  Church Village, Mid Glamorgan

  1

  Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan

  2

  Dowlais, Mid Glamorgan

  1

  Merthyr Tydfil, Mid Glamorgan

  1

  Porthcawl, Mid Glamorgan

  1

  Caerphilly, Mid Glamorgan

  1

  Ystrad Mynach, Mid Glamorgan

  1

  Brecon, Powys

  1

  Newtown, Powys

  1

  Cardiff, South Glamorgan

  2

  Barry, South Glamorgan

  1

  Gowerton, West Glamorgan

  1

  Swansea, West Glamorgan

  1

  Mumbles, West Glamorgan

  1

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evidence he has of leaks of polychlorinated biphenyls from Rechem International (Pontypool) into the sewage system operated by Welsh Water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  None. The Welsh water authority has the responsibility, under the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 for consenting to discharges of trade effluent to public sewers. Furthermore, the authority monitors such discharges and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the quality conditions in each consent.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the Welsh water authority the number of pollution incidents and the number of sewage works which breached their discharge consents in 1987–88.

  Mr. Grist
  Welsh water authority area figures are available for calendar years. In 1987 (the latest year for which figures are available) recorded pollution incidents totalled 2,489 and 108 sewage treatment works breached their consent conditions.

  Services for Deaf People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified social workers with specialist training for work with people who are deaf are currently employed in Wales by(a) social service departments, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) other bodies; how many have completed training in each of the last five years; what action he is taking to increase their number; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many interpreters for the deaf are employed by public bodies in Wales; how many have been trained in each of the last five years; what action he is taking to increase their numbers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally. The Department is, however, currently funding a Wales Council for the Deaf project to increase the number of people with advanced qualifications in sign language. The training involved conforms to nationally accepted Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People standards.

  Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the estimated national domestic rate for Wales had the system to be introduced in 1990 been in operation in the current financial year, together with the current business in each Welsh district.

  Mr. Grist
  In 1990, domestic rates will be replaced by the community charge and there will be no national domestic rate. 1988–89, non-domestic rate poundages in each Welsh district are listed in the following table:

  Non-domestic rate poundage 1988–89 Pence

  Alyn and Deeside

  245·4

  Colwyn

  258·1

  Delyn

  245·4

  700

  Non-domestic rate poundage 1988–89 Pence

  Glyndwr

  250·7

  Rhuddlan

  245·9

  Wrexham Maelor

  252·2

  Carmarthen

  255·2

  Ceredigion

  248·3

  Dinefwr

  248·4

  Llanelli

  270·9

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  245·3

  South Pembrokeshire

  251·6

  Blaenau Gwent

  258·4

  Islwyn

  251·5

  Monmouth

  254·4

  Newport

  250·5

  Torfaen

  260·1

  Aberconwy

  256·8

  Arfon

  249·9

  Dwyfor

  253·3

  Meirionnydd

  247·3

  Ynys Mon

  246·3

  Cynon Valley

  265·2

  Merthyr Tydfil

  273·3

  Ogwr

  279·1

  Rhondda

  277·0

  Rhymney Valley

  277·4

  Taff Ely

  273·9

  Brecknock

  244·0

  Montgomeryshire

  224·2

  Radnor

  231·9

  Cardiff

  225·6

  Vale of Glamorgan

  232·0

  Port Talbot

  302·3

  Lliw Valley

  304·3

  Neath

  306·4

  Swansea

  313·9

  Wales average

  257·6

  Winvest
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inquiries Winvest has received regarding Clwyd for each of the last six months.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Winvest receives many inquiries from companies interested in investing in Wales, only some of which are related to particular areas of Wales.

  All of these inquiries are acted upon and many of them have been appropriate to Clwyd. There is therefore no need to keep a statistical record on a county basis.

TRANSPORT

  Motorists (Eyesight)
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultations he has had with, or what representations he has received from, organisations concerned with the eyesight standards of motorists; and if he will institute discussions with professional bodies and with the British Insurance Association to encourage drivers to have regular eyesight tests and to remind drivers of their legal obligations;

  (2)what information he has about semi-official surveys, including surveys undertaken by police authorities, into the question of eyesight standards of motorists;

  (3)what investigations have been undertaken by his Department into the question of eyesight tests for motorists and with particular reference to injury or

  701
  damage accidents to which poor eyesight might have contributed; and what is his estimate of the cost of undertaking such a survey.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received strong support for the present eyesight test and standard from the College of Ophthalmologists (formerly the Faculty of Ophthalmologists at the Royal College of Surgeons).

  Research by the transport and road research laboratory, reported in 1986 as "A Re-analysis of California Driver Vision Data", found that once age and other variables had been taken into account, there was no detectable relationship between the propensity to have accidents and any of the large number of visual tests employed. This confirmed earlier work at TRRL and other work carried out overseas over a period of some decades which has in no case found any important relationship between accidents and any measure of visual acuity.

  The cost of repeating the work would be in excess of £200,000. We are considering whether other work is now required to provide additional information about drivers over the age of 70.

  I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House. I have also placed there a copy of a paper entitled "Vision and Driving" prepared by the Department's medical adviser, together with another piece of work—"A Survey of Visual Acuity of Drivers"—carried out by the Motor Industry Research Association for the TRRL.

  There have been calls from various organisations, including the police, calling for higher standards of eyesight for drivers and for compulsory regular testing.

  We have periodic discussions with the Association of British Insurers about medical factors affecting fitness to drive, including eyesight standards and the need to encourage regular checks.

  We are aware of one or two police forces carrying out eyesight surveys using binocular screening devices.

  Barnstaple Downstream Bridge
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any representations asking him to approve the financial implications of the Devon county council plans for the construction of the Barnstaple down-stream bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations urging reconsideration of the county council's capital allocation for roads in 1989–90. Most of these representations express concern over the future of the Barnstaple down-stream bridge. This bridge is included in Devon's transport policies and programme for a start of construction in 1995.

  Central London Rail Study
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the response of the business community to the options advanced in the central London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have not yet had a reaction from business interests: the report was published less than a fortnight ago.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he plans to have with user groups and local transport groups about the options put forward in the central London rail study.
  702
  Mr. Portillo
  I intend to consider the written representations received before arranging discussions with interested parties.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the main components required by the major upgrading programme of Network SouthEast and London Underground Ltd., proposed by the central London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is for the operators to appraise the individual components of the proposed major upgrading programme and bring forward proposals accordingly.

  International Organisations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those international organisations on which his Department is represented and the total cost of these commitments.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The expected cost of subscriptions for international organisations on which the Department is represented for the financial year 1988–89 is as follows:

  £ thousands

  International Civil Aviation Organisation

  1,075

  International Maritime Organisation

  420

  Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development European Conference of Ministers of Transport

  224

  Road Research

  36

  Central Rhine Commission

  102

  International Railway Convention

  80

  International Railway Congress Association

  1

  Permanent International Association of Navigational Congress

  3

  International Drivers' Behaviour Research Association

  3

  Permanent International Association of Road Congress

  3

  International Union of Public Transport

  1

  European Concrete Committee

  3

  1,951

  Ministers' and officials' travelling and subsistence expenses cost a further £43,000.

  The organisation Eurocontrol has not been included as it is self-financing. During 1988–89 the subscription was £7·1 million and the receipts received £10 million. There is an income equalisation provision designed to ensure that any shortfall or excess in receipts is recovered or refunded over a period of two years.

  King's Cross (Fire)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many members of the public have written to him on the subject of the fire at King's Cross; and how many letters he has replied to directly.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has received just over 200 letters from members of the public about the King's Cross fire and related matters which have received replies on his behalf from officials as is customary.

  Roads (Construction and Maintenance)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reasons for the difference in the anticipated expenditure on new road construction and structural maintenance in 1988–89, as set out in table 8:14
  703
  of chapter 8 of Cm. 608, and the figures set out in table 1 of national roads expenditure of the Department of Transport's evidence to the Select Committee on Transport on 7 December 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figures set out in table 1, national roads expenditure, of the Department of Transport's evidence to the Select Committee on Transport show the expenditure originally planned for 1988–89 after allowing for receipts from the EC, £20 million made available from the Reserve and announced in the Autumn Statement and a reduction of £1·6 million in respect of the overspend on the national roads vote in 1987–88. The expenditure shown in table 8:14 of chapter 8 of Cm. 608 is the estimate of the outturn for the year made at end September 1988. The final outturn may differ somewhat.

  Bridge Heights
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norwood given on 25 January,Official Report, column 571, why bridge heights are not shown in imperial and metric measures when the facility to do so is available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department of Transport provides metric height signs on trunk roads which are used extensively by foreign lorries and where the bridge height is less than 4 m. Local highway authorities are advised to do the same on their roads.

  We shall be encouraging the general use of metric signs in addition to imperial units as part of a series of measures we are introducing to reduce the incidence of bridge bashing.

  M2 and A2 (Traffic Counts)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last detailed counts of traffic were taken on the M2 and A2 roads between London and Dover; what were the results of such counts; and whether he will undertake new counts in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Detailed counts were taken in 1988 at one location on the M2 and at four on the A2. The results are being assembled and I will send a summary to my hon. Friend.

  Further counts are planned for 1989.

  London to Dover Journey Times
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department is currently considering to improve journey times to the port of Dover from central London; and how much money he will make available to improve the road and rail routes to the port of Dover over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The national trunk road programme includes the following schemes, valued at about £150 million (November 1985 prices):

  M2 Widening between Junctions 1 to 3

  M20 Widening between Junctions 5 to 8 (Maidstone bypass)

  M20 Maidstone to Ashford (under construction)

  A20 Folkestone to Court Wood

  A20 Court Wood to Dover

  The programme is currently under review.
  704
  It is for British Rail to bring forward proposals for rail investment.

  Dial-a-Ride
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards providing each member of dial-a-ride with at least one trip a week.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have just announced a £1 million increase in grant to London dial-a-rides for 1989–90. That is the fourth successive annual increase, amounting to over 70 per cent. since responsibility for funding was taken over from the Greater London council. The additional funds will enable the provision of more vehicles, more drivers and other improvements aimed at providing more trips and a better service for users. Precisely how many trips are generated depends on how efficiently the dial-a-ride local management committees use the resources which have been made available.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new dial-a-ride buses, excluding replacements, have been provided during the last year; and how many extra trips they have completed.

  Mr. Portillo
  London dial-a-ride services are run by local voluntary management committees, funded by grant which is allocated by London Regional Transport. Details of vehicles provided, and the use to which they are put, are matters for them and London Regional Transport.

  London Regional Transport (Assaults)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many physical assaults have taken place on bus drivers and bus conductors working for London Regional Transport in the last 12 months, and what were the figures for 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  There were 823 reported assaults on drivers and conductors of London Buses Ltd. in 1988 compared with 1,358 in 1985, 1,109 in 1986 and 880 in 1987.

  Pelican Crossings
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the manufacturers of bleeping pelican crossings to ensure that any malfunction is eliminated; and if he will now consider approving the speaking pelican crossing as a suitable replacement for defective existing equipment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department has discussed the safety requirements for audible signals at pelican crossings with the appropriate manufacturers. These requirements include that the failure of all safety interlocks should not cause the audible signal to sound except when a red signal is displayed to traffic.

  The method of actuating both a "speaking" pelican crossing and the audible devices on existing pelican crossings is the same. In this respect neither is safer than the other. We have decided against approving "speaking" pelican crossings for other reasons.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what tests were carried out prior to his
  705
  Department approving bleeping pelican crossings; and what was the rate of malfunctions detected during such tests.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Comprehensive functional tests were carried out on the equipment prior both to its approval and to its initial introduction in 1977. No malfunctions were observed.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to alert the public to the risks of malfunction of bleeping pelican crossings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Local authorities have been advised to switch off the audible facility at those crossings with suspect equipment. This action will eliminate any risk from a malfunction.

  A press notice has been issued describing the action taken and the reason for it.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of(a) deaths, (b) serious injuries and (c) injuries which have resulted from the malfunctioning of bleeping pelican crossings in each of the past 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The total of 37 casualties should be compared with total pedestrian casualties in 1987 of 57,453. Of these 2,170 occurred on pelican crossings, and a further 2,470 occurred within 50 m of such a crossing. More than 7,000 pelican crossings were in operation during 1987.

  There are very few recorded cases of pedestrian casualties at malfunctioning pelican crossings. In these cases, we do not know if any of the accidents were caused by the defective crossing, as we do not collect the causes of road accidents.

  The following table shows number of pedestrian casualties, by severity and by month, at pelican crossings that were out of order or defective, in 1987, the latest year for which complete figures are available.

  Pedestrian casualties on pelican crossings that are out of order/defective: Great Britain: 1987

  Month

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  January

  0

  0

  1

  1

  February

  0

  1

  1

  2

  March

  0

  1

  0

  1

  April

  0

  0

  1

  1

  May

  0

  0

  4

  4

  June

  0

  0

  1

  1

  July

  0

  3

  6

  9

  August

  0

  2

  2

  4

  September

  0

  2

  3

  5

  October

  0

  3

  2

  5

  November

  0

  0

  2

  2

  December

  0

  0

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  0

  12

  25

  37

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of bleeping pelican crossings which have been disconnected in each of the past 12 months as a result of a serious malfunction; and if he will express this as a proportion of the total in service.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information is not recorded centrally in the form requested. The Department has been notified of one such case in Great Britain in the last 12 months. This represents less than 0·013 per cent. of all pelican crossings currently in service in Great Britain.
  706
  About 1,000 (approximately 10 per cent.) of the pelican crossings fitted with similar audible signals have been switched off as a precautionary measure while checks are made and a modification incorporated.

  Road Traffic Law
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the review of road traffic law conducted by the North committee.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The North report was published in April 1988.

  My right hon. Friend yesterday announced publication of a White Paper "The Road User and the Law" (Cm. 576), which sets out the Government's proposals to reform road traffic law in the light of the North committee's recommendations.

  Channel Tunnel
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will define what is encompassed in the phrase "Channel tunnel rail services" in his answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) 25 January,Official Report, column 571.

  Mr. Portillo
  My answer referred to section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which encompasses all services for the carriage of passengers or goods by way of the Channel tunnel system.

  Bus Fares (Merseyside)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has on the level of bus fares on Merseyside since deregulation.

  Mr. Portillo
  The PTE estimated that the average increase in commercial bus fares occurring after deregulation and following from the introduction of precept control was 55 per cent., as the previous massive subsidies were removed. At the end of 1987 there was a further average increase of 10 per cent.

  Traffic Speed in Cities
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he expects to bring forward proposals to increase the average speed of road traffic in major cities.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Traffic management and road construction in major cities are largely the responsibility of local highway authorities. They have duties to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic, including pedestrians.

  Available measures to increase the average speed of vehicular traffic must be considered within this framework and the scope for additional road capacity.

  The effectiveness of the measures depends on good enforcement of traffic and parking regulations by the police and traffic wardens.

  Settle-Carlisle line
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in light of the recent Settle-Carlisle railway business development plan, he will now lift the closure order on the line.
  707
  Mr. Portillo
  We are still considering all the evidence on British Rail's closure proposal including the business development plan.

  British Rail (North West)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the north-west regional managers of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend holds regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail on a wide range of matters. He does not hold separate meetings with British Rail's regional managers.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many automatic exit barriers are currently in operation at London Underground stations; and how many are proposed to be installed during the period of London Regional Transport's consultants' study into the safety aspects of these barriers.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand from London Underground that as at 2 February 1989, there were 533 gates in use at 49 stations. By the end of April, when the consultants' study is due to be complete, London Underground estimates that a further 118 gates will have been commissioned at a further 12 stations.

  Motor Taxation
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total revenue from motor taxation in 1987–88; and what is the estimated revenue in 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 February 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Yield (£ billion)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Vehicle Excise Duty

  2·6

  2·8

  Fuel Duty

  7·8

  8·6

  Safety Plans
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to encourage and help local authorities to implement low-cost safety engineering schemes and to develop areawide safety plans.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are working closely with the local authority associations to identify problems over implementing low-cost safety engineering schemes and ways of stepping up this important safety work.

  We are already developing jointly with the Institution of Highways and Transportation practical guidelines for implementing areawide urban safety projects. Last autumn we increased the economic valuation for fatal road casualties and this will improve the economic rate of return on accident investigation and prevention schemes. The transport and road research laboratory has now completed a full survey of local authorities' arrangements, procedures, and levels of activity on road safety engineering, and a report will be published shortly.

  AIP and urban safety schemes are among the most important methods of reducing road casualties. Much
  708
  expertise already exists at local level and much can be achieved at low cost. It is for local authorities, within their statutory responsibility for road safety, to determine priorities and tackle this work. The Department will continue to give full support and guidance.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Whales
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations have been made by him to the Japanese Government about the killing of whales by Japanese fishermen.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Recently we have expressed our serious concerns to the Japanese Government about their current feasibility programme of whaling for scientific purposes both directly and through the relevant forum of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In December the United Kingdom commissioner to the IWC expressed our views to the chairman of the IWC in a letter circulated to all member Governments including Japan. This made clear our firm view that Japan should not implement her plans until the major concerns about these identified by the scientific committee to the IWC had been addressed and resolved. The letter was passed personally by the United Kingdom commissioner to the Japanese embassy in London with a clear explanation of the United Kingdom Government's concern.

  Further, once the period for consideration of the scientific committee's views by commissioners was complete and learning that the programme was to go ahead, I authorised our commissioner to propose a resolution for consideration by the IWC. This was seconded by Australia and New Zealand. If adopted it will put on a formal and international basis the call to Japan to cease its current programme. Our embassy in Tokyo is also in close touch with the Japanese Government. Also, similar concerns expressed by the Falkland Islands Executive Council have been passed to the Japanese embassy.

  International Organisations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will list those international organisations on which his Department is represented and the total cost of these commitments.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Those international organisations on which Ministers or officials of my Department are represented are as follows:

  The total estimated cost of my Department's commitment to international organisations in 1988 was £283,000.

  United Nations (UN)

  Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)

  World Health Organisation (WHO)

  Commission of the European Communities

  Council of the European Communities

  Office Internationale des Epizooties (OIE)

  European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO)

  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)

  Office Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV)

  Council of Europe (COE)

  709

  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

  Intergovernmental Commission for the Channel Tunnel

  International Coffee Organisation

  International Cocoa Organisation

  International Society for Horticultural Service

  International Dairy Federation

  International Whaling Commission (IWC)

  North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)

  North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO)

  European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC)

  North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO)

  International Maritime Organisation (IMO)

  London Dumping Convention

  Oslo Commission (OSCOM)

  Paris Commission (PARCOM)

  Coordinated Research and Environmental Surveillance Panel (CRESP)

  International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Ocean (IAPSO)

  Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR)

  International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

  International Seed Testing Association

  International Union of Radioecologists (IUR)

  North Sea Task Force (NSTF)

  Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP)

  International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

  Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)

  Bird Strike Committee Europe

  International Committee for Irrigation and Drainage

  International Organisation for Biological Control

  International Plant Variety Rights Organisation (UPOV)

  International Society for Plant Pathology

  International Soil Tillage Research Organisation

  International Standards Organisation

  Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)

  The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee

  The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property

  European Society for Nuclear Methods in Agriculture (ESNA)

  International Commission on Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis (ICOMSA)

  International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation

  International Standards Organisation

  Association of Analytical Chemists

  International Wheat Council

  International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

  Goats Milk
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward proposals for the regulation of the production of goats milk and goats milk products.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]The wording of the Food Act 1984 means that the regulations which apply to cows milk cannot be extended to cover goats milk. However, goats milk and goats milk products are subject to the general provisions of the Act whereby all food (including drink) must be of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser and must be fit for human consumption. It is also an offence to label goats milk (or goats milk products) in a false or misleading way.

  The Ministry issued a code of practice on the hygienic production of goats milk in March 1988.

  Beef and Veal
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the original saving of the measures set out in European Economic Community document 8903/88 on beef and veal; with what the saving 710
  was compared; and what alterations were made to this proposed saving in consequence of the changes agreed at the Council meeting on 23 January.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]: The European Commission's estimate of the savings over the 1989 preliminary draft budget which would have been brought about by the adoption of its proposals for the reform of the beef regime (set out in document 8903/88 (COM(88)529), as amended) were 51 mecu (£33 million) in 1989 and 55 mecu (£35·5 million) in a full year. The 1989 budget as adopted was consistent with these proposals. The Commission has revised its forecasts to take account of the decisions of the 23–24 January Council of Ministers and the present prospects for the market and predicts a further saving of 11 mecu (£7 million) in 1989. The Commission estimates that the full year effect of the measures as adopted will be a cost of 23 mecu (£15 million).

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the exceptional circumstance clause was included in the final text of the measures on beef and veal agreed by the European Economic Community Council on 23 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]: The Council of Ministers decided that in various circumstances buying into intervention could take place outside the limit of 220,000 tonnes a year. These would include the exceptional circumstances envisaged in the Commission's original proposals and also if there were market weakness defined in either of two ways. The first is if the average market price in at least three member states or regions which together account for at least 55 per cent. of the Community production of the category concerned falls below 80 per cent. of the institutional intervention price; and the second, if the Community price falls below 78 per cent. of the institutional intervention price. Legal texts have yet to be adopted implementing these provisions.

  These concessions on beef intervention were one of the reasons why we voted against the package.

  Milk
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional milk production can be permitted in consequence of the additional quotas agreed at the Council meeting on 23 January; and what estimate he has made of the additional cost to the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]: The Council has agreed to allocate up to 600,000 tonnes of additional milk quota. I understand that the Commission now estimates the resultant cost to the Community budget in a full year to be 99 mecu (£64 million). Other elements in the package agreed by the Council should result in savings of 64 mecu (£41 million) giving a net cost in the milk sector of 35 mecu (£23 million).

  Variable Premium
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in the retail price of beef he anticipates in terms of pence per pound in the United
  711
  Kingdom in consequence of the abolition of the variable premium; and if there will be any consequent increase in consumer prices in the rest of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]The abolition of the variable premium in the United Kingdom was decided by the Council in the context of other decisions to limit intervention and to reduce buying-in prices; to apply in the United Kingdom the Community special premium for beef; and to improve the terms of the suckler cow subsidy. Taken together these measures are unlikely to have any significant effect on retail prices in the United Kingdom and they place the United Kingdom beef market on the same footing as the rest of the Community.

  Beef
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of beef exported by the European Economic Community in 1988; and what were the comparable totals for each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]During the period January-August 1988 (the latest for which figures are available) 357,503 tonnes of beef were exported from the European Community. This excludes exports from Greece for which 1988 figures are not yet available. The calendar year figures for the previous five years are as follows:

  tonnes

  1983

  1427, 786

  1984

  1566,151

  1985

  1591,907

  1986

  2935,887

  1987

  2691,912

  1 EC 10.

  2 EC 12.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether research is currently being undertaken or is planned, to examine the possibility of links between bovine leukaemia virus and the incidence of leukaemia in children whose fathers are engaged in the meat trade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 February 1989] Various studies have been carried out into this subject but I am not aware of any research currently being undertaken or planned.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many man-years of his Department's staff time were engaged in the supervision of abattoirs in 1979–80, 1980–81, 1981–82 and 1982–83.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In my reply to the hon. Member on 18 January 1 provided information for all years for which figures are available. Staff engaged on this work have other responsibilities and time allocated to specific duties is not recorded for the years prior to 1983–84. However, resources allocated in earlier years were similar to those employed in 1983–84.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money has been lost in each year since 1979 because of social security fraud; and how many prosecutions have resulted(a) nationally and (b) in the social security area covering Nottingham.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 31 January at column 192.

  Insulation Grants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the total value in current and standard prices of grants for(a) draughtproofing and (b)Member loft insulation to claimants of supplementary benefit and income support for the last five years;

  (2)what is the maximum grant for (a) draughtproofing and (b) loft insulation payable to claimants of supplementary benefit and income support in each of the last five years; and what is the value of this maximum in standard prices;

  (3)what is the number of grants made for (a) draughtproofing and (b) loft insulation to claimants of supplementary benefit and income support since 1983.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Help with the cost of simple draughtproofing (but not loft insulation) was available to recipients of supplementary benefit under the old single payments scheme. Details of the number of single payments for draughtproofing since 1983 and their cost are recorded in table 19.2 of the "Annual Statistical Enquiry", copies of which are in the Library.

  There was no maximum amount for a single payment for draughtproofing. The regulations provided for a payment of an amount equal to the cost of necessary materials.

  The discretionary social fund replaced single payments on 11 April 1988. Community care grants and budgeting loans are available from the fund for people receiving income support. Crisis loans are available to anyone, whether receiving income support or not, in an emergency Payments for draughtproofing and loft insulation are not excluded from the social fund, but a social fund officer.. who determines applications to the fund, would not normally make an award for these items if help with the materials and work is available from another source, such as a community insulation project or the homes insulation scheme.

  Information about the number and type of awards form the social fund for draughtproofing and loft insulation is not collected.

  Loans and Grants
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out for each office in Wales and the cumulative total, the percentage of the allocations not spent at the latest available date on(a) the loans budget and (b) the grants budget.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Such information is available from the details held in the Library.

  Disabled Claimants
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who will be responsible for meeting the case costs after April of those disabled people in supported lodgings who are new claimants, as distinct from existing claimants.

  Mr. Scott
  As under present social security arrangements, the care costs of supported lodgers will be met in a variety of ways after April 1989. Some will be able to meet these costs from their own resources, including social security benefits. Others will have these costs met in whole or in part by bodies such as local authorities. Those supported lodgers entitled to income support will receive housing benefit to help with their accommodation costs and normal income support (including any appropriate premiums) for other expenses. This change will mean that many disabled people in supported lodgings will be better off, after meeting charges for accommodation and the provision of care, than they would have been under existing benefit arrangements. The overall effect of the change will be to provide an estimated £1 million extra for supported lodgers as a whole.

  Income Support
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent estimates for take-up of income support; and what are the comparable figures for supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraphs 21 to 25 and table 15.17 on pages 272 and 273 of Cm. 288 (the 1988 public expenditure White Paper) for details of the latest available take-up estimates for the main income-related benefits. Take-up estimates for 1985 should be available shortly. In 1991, analyses from the 1989 family expenditure survey will provide comprehensive information on the reformed benefits introduced in April 1988.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if there are any circumstances in which a family with children where the father works irregularly may find themselves ineligible for either income support or family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes. To obtain family credit one parent must be normally engaged in work for at least 24 hours a week. If the employed parent works on average for less than 24 hours a week there would be no entitlement to family credit, but there might be entitlement to income support.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the time scale of his Department's proposed consideration of the future of disability benefits following the results of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' disability surveys; when he hopes to report progress in extending the eligibility for attendance allowance to the under-twos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 19 December at columns 114–15.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether he is able to break down the extra number of people who will become dependent on means-tested benefits due to the freeze in child benefit into(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit;

  (2) how many extra people will become dependent on means-tested benefits as a result of the increase in children's personal allowances by an extra 50p broken down into income support, family credit and housing benefits.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing how many more(a) families and (b) children will be dependent on income-related benefits as a result of the extra increase in personal allowances of 50p per child, and broken down into income support, family credit and housing benefit, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]Estimates are available only on the caseload assumptions used in the "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits". They are based on the 1985 family expenditure survey data uprated to reflect the position in 1989–90. Estimates of this kind are particularly uncertain because of small sample size and large sampling error. Bearing these factors in mind, the estimated increases arising from the non-uprating of child benefit are:

  Income Support—1,000–2,000 families (around 5,000 people)

  Housing Benefit—2,000–3,000 families (around 10,000 people)

  Family Credit—20,000–25,000 families (just under 80,000 people)

  The estimated increases arising from the extra 50p on children's allowances are:

  Income Support—2,000 families (including about 5,000 children)

  Housing Benefit—3,000 families (including around 5,000 children)

  Family Credit—25,000 families (including about 50,000 children)

  Single Payments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the total of all single payments paid by local offices in London, (b) the equivalent figure for only those single payments encompassing items now covered by the social fund, for 1986–87 and 1987–88, (c) the total number of budgeting loans, crisis loans, community care grants paid out in the same catchment area so far for the year 1988–89 and (d) the expenditure represented by (a) to (c)

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 January 1989, c. 709]I regret that part of the information given was incorrect. The reply should be as follows. .

  Details of the total number of all single payments paid by local offices in the London postal area for the periods 1986–87 and 1987–88 by office are in the Library.

  There are two expenses for which single payments could be made but which are specifically excluded from the social fund: returnable deposits on accommodation and work-related expenses. The £30 limit for budgeting loans and most community care grants will also operate in some

  715
  cases to prevent payment for items that would otherwise have been available as single payments. Figures are not available for items covered by the social fund that were available previously as single payments.
  716
  Information on the numbers of applications for social fund loans and grants processed and awarded, listed by local office, including information on budget allocations and expenditure, is also in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mr. Fred Holroyd
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answer, 11 January,Official Report, column 698, on what date in August 1988 the Royal Ulster Constabulary communicated with Mr. Fred Holroyd.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 1 February 1989]: The communication referred to in the answer of 11 January took place on 27 August 1985.

  Schools
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available, from and including 1985, to indicate the primary and secondary schools which have had tenders for major capital works approved and the amount involved in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Scheme

  Date tenders approved

  Total amount of approved tenders (£)

  Primary Schools

  1985

  Magheraberry, Moira, Craigavon

  January 1985

  280,000·00

  St· Mary's, Portaferry

  January 1985

  645,000·00

  Bunscoil Ghaelach, Belfast

  January 1985

  170,000·00

  St· Luke's/St· Mark's, Twinbrook Dunmurry

  March 1985

  94,000·00

  Hamiltonsbawn

  March 1985

  290,000·00

  Botanic, Belfast

  September 1985

  55,000·00

  Ballymagroarty, Londonderry

  November 1985

  886,000·00

  St· Malachy's, Belfast

  November 1985

  714,000·00

  Ardstraw

  December 1985

  199,000·00

  1986

  Glebe, Sion Mills

  January 1986

  278,000·00

  Sacred Heart, Belfast

  January 1986

  763,000·00

  Markethill

  January 1986

  588,000·00

  Ballarena, Limavady

  January 1986

  172,000·00

  Glenwood, Belfast

  January 1986

  163,000·00

  St. Mary's, Killesher, Enniskillen

  February 1986

  59,000·00

  1987

  St. Columbas, Longtower, Londonderry

  May 1987

  998,000·00

  Edenberry, Banbridge

  June 1987

  659,000·00

  Broughshane

  June 1987

  194,000·00

  Kells and Connor, Ballymena

  July 1987

  301,000·00

  St. Therese of Lisieux, Belfast

  July 1987

  700,000·00

  St. Peter's, Panton Street, Belfast

  September 1987

  931,000·00

  Ballyhenry, Newtownabbey

  September 1987

  848,000·00

  Andrews Memorial, Comber

  September 1987

  195,000·00

  Grange Park, Bangor

  November 1987

  149,000·00

  St· Brigid's, Glassdrummond, Newry

  December 1987

  386,000·00

  1988

  Jones Memorial, Enniskillen

  February 1988

  100,000·00

  Victoria, Ballyhalbert

  March 1988

  291,000·00

  Currie, Belfast

  April 1988

  89,000·00

  Laghey, Dungannon

  September 1988

  267,000·00

  St. Joseph's, Garvagh

  October 1988

  190,000·00

  Waringstown

  October 1988

  716,000·00

  Holy Cross Boys', Belfast

  December 1988

  95,000·00

  1989

  St· Anne's, Strabane

  January 1989

  700,000·00

  Brookeborough, Enniskillen

  January 1989

  156,000·00

  718

  Scheme

  Date tenders approved

  Total amount of approved tenders(£)

  Secondary Schools1

  1985

  Assumption Grammar, Ballynahinch

  January 1985

  571,000·00

  Portadown College

  March 1985

  1,167,000·00

  Orangefield Secondary, Belfast

  March 1985

  85,000·00

  St. Colm's Secondary, Twinbrook Dunmurry

  April 1985

  103,000·00

  Royal School, Armagh

  August 1985

  195,000·00

  Rainey Endowed, Magherafelt

  August 1985

  189,000·00

  Kilkeel High

  September 1985

  1,371,000·00

  Laurelhill Secondary, Lisburn

  December 1985

  3,121,000·00

  1986

  St· Patrick's High, Maghera

  August 1986

  3,573,000·00

  1987

  Lagan College, Belfast

  March 1987

  608,000·00

  Model Girls Secondary, Belfast

  July 1987

  789,000·00

  Hunterhouse College, Belfast (Phase I)

  August 1987

  270,000·00

  Larne Gramar

  August 1987

  1,484,000·00

  Dalriada, Ballymoney

  September 1987

  255,000·00

  Royal School, Armagh

  September 1987

  3,102,000·00

  St. Colman's High, Ballynahinch

  October 1987

  1,411,000·00

  Antrim Secondary

  December 1987

  172,000·00

  1988

  Hunterhouse College, Belfast (Phase II)

  January 1988

  353,000·00

  Donwnshire Secondary, Carrickfergus

  January 1988

  137,000·00

  Monkstown Secondary, Newtownabbey

  January 1988

  137,000·00

  St· Catherine's College, Armagh

  February 1988

  988,000·00

  St· Mary's Junior High, Lurgan

  March 1988

  184,000·00

  Bangor Grammar

  June 1988

  445,000·00

  Movilla High, Newtownards

  July 1988

  280,000·00

  Banbridge Academy

  November 1988

  470,000·00

  Royal School, Dungannon

  November 1988

  261,000·00

  Larne High

  December 1988

  1,355,000·00

  1 Including Grammar schools.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to ensure that voluntary grammar schools are in future funded on an equitable per capita basis; what criteria he has used in the past for such funding; and if he will take steps to provide additional funds to those schools which have received less than the per capita norm in past years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]: In the past, voluntary grammar schools funding has been mainly based on historic patterns of expenditure but in recent years resources have been skewed in favour of the relatively low-spending schools. This reallocation of funds will continue until the introduction, as part of the education reform measures, of a formula-based funding arrangement for all secondary schools (including voluntary grammar schools). While being related to pupil numbers, formula-based funding will also have regard to other factors.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Creation
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the 12 months to September 1988 in the north-west region.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses.

  In the year to September 1988, the civilian work force in employment increased by 5,000 in the north-west region. This includes net increases of 4,000 in female full-time employees in employment, 7,000 in female part-time employees in employment and 1,000 in participants in work-related Government training programmes (who are counted as part time). These increases were offset by a decrease in male employment; however comparable estimates of full and part-time employment are not available for male employees in employment or the self-employed.

  American Tourists
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many American tourists visited the United Kingdom in the last 12 months; what contribution to the balance of payments was made by them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates show that the number of visits to the United Kingdom by North American residents in the 11 months to November 1988 was 3·2 million. Estimates of expenditure for that period are not yet available as they are produced on a quarterly basis.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the unadjusted number and percentage of male, female and total employees in employment in part-time work in September 1988 in the south-east.

  Mr. Lee
  Employment estimates for regions are not seasonally adjusted. Regional estimates of part-time male employees are not available. In September 1988 there were 1,416,000 female part-time employees in employment in the south-east region, this figure represents 40 per cent. of female employees and 19 per cent. of all employees in employment in the region.

  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee last met; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Lee
  The committee last met on 17 January, to discuss the effect of the abolition of domestic rates on the construction of the retail prices index. A report is expected on this shortly.

  Discrimination in Employment
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the reasons for his decision not to introduce legislation to ratify International Labour Organisation convention No. 111 on "Discrimination in Employment and Occupation (1958)".
  720
  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government believe that their commitment to the elimination of unfair discrimination between one worker and another in employment is already clearly demonstrated by existing legislation, mainly the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and consider that the amendments to this legislation that would be required to give further effect to the provisions of convention 111 are unnecessary and undesirable.

  Child-minding Allowance
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the level of take-up of child-minding allowance for people attending Government training schemes; and if he will make a statement on the continuation of the scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Child care payments are made only on employment training. Comprehensive information on take-up is not yet available. Information on the number of employment training participants for whom child care payments are made will be regularly collected from March and the first results will be available at the end of April 1989. Early indications suggest that over 2,000 lone parents have joined employment training and many of these people will have received help with child care costs.

  Inflation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the average annual inflation rate in 1978 and 1988 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Lee
  The annual average rate of increases in the retail prices index for the United Kingdom was 8·3 per cent. in 1978 and 4·9 per cent. in 1988. The corresponding figures for the 12 countries of the Community were 8·3 per cent. for 1978 and 3·3 per cent. for 1988.

  Regional Tourist Boards
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that regional enterprise units do not compete with or shadow the functions of regional tourist boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The terms of reference of the Department's regional enterprise units include developing links with tourist bodies, identifying obstacles to the growth of tourism, and supporting any co-ordinating machinery established for discussing tourism at the regional level. There are no plans for them to duplicate or shadow the functions of the regional tourist boards.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will ensure that the tripartite structure in funding and control of regional tourist boards is maintained; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will ensure that the levels of subsidies to the regional tourist boards keep pace with inflation; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will provide additional funds to the regional tourist boards to undertake research into (a) domestic and international tourist trends, (b) occupancy work and (c) visitor surveys.
  721
  Mr. Lee
  The organisational structure of the English regional tourist boards (RTBs) is not a matter for Government to decide. The role and level of funding of RTBs is currently being considered as part of the review of tourism policy announced last July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Radiation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) staff and (b) patients were affected by radiation overdose incidents reported to the Health and Safety Executive within the National Health Service in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No staff were affected.

  Information on how many patients were affected is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what circumstances, as specified in the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985, radiation over exposures of(a) staff and (b) patients within the National Health Service are required to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 require that patient exposures suspected to be greater than intended which arise from faulty equipment and suspected overexposures of staff from any cause are immediately investigated by the employer. Unless it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that no excessive exposure occurred, the employer is required to notify the Health and Safety Executive forthwith.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are employed by the Health and Safety Executive to carry out its responsibilities within the National Health Service under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Inspectors in Her Majesty's factories inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive have a range of inspection responsibilities. Inspectors are not employed solely on work in connection with the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive to staff and patients of the National Health Service under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive enforces the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 in the National Health Service as in all other places where work with ionising radiations is carried out. The regulations control the exposure of employees or other people affected by work with ionising radiations principally by requiring all doses to be kept as low as reasonably practicable and in any case below dose limits. The regulations also cover the equipment used for medical exposures and exposures of patients that were much greater than intended because of faulty equipment.

  Economic League
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations about people blacklisted by the Economic League.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on Tuesday 7 February 1989.

  Chief Inspector of Mines
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chief inspector of mines; and what subjects were discussed;

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 6 February 1989]: My right hon. Friend has not met the chief inspector of mines. The chief inspector, as a senior official of the Health and Safety Executive, has frequent contact with the director general, and opportunity for contact with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what services will be provided to small firms by the Government business shop opened in Manchester; and what plans there are to open further such shops in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Manchester Government business shop, which is based in the small firms centre, will help business people carry out some of the basic transactions required by Government and obtain information and assistance in a single place. It will deal with:

  VAT registration and information

  information on business tax

  PAYE and national insurance

  information on employment protection and health and safety requirements

  Government business shops are part of a pilot exercise and Manchester is one of six locations. The others are in Glasgow, Newcastle, Doncaster, Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare and Reading. The pilot schemes will run for six months and from the experience of these shops we shall decide whether and how we should proceed to a more extensive network, in the light of the reaction of business clients, costs and benefits and effects on existing services.

ENVIRONMENT

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land in the United Kingdom is currently being used for the opencast extraction of coal, clay or other minerals; how much has been used and is currently unrestored to its former condition; and whether he will make a statement on Government policy in respect of unrestored land.

  Mr. Chope
  Surveys of mineral workings carried out by local authorities on behalf of the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office in 1982 indicated that 115,000 hectares of land in England and Wales had permissions for surface mineral workings. Within this, 61,500 hectares were or had been in use as mineral working
  723
  sites. Fifty-six per cent. of these workings had satisfactory reclamation conditions and 44 per cent. had either no conditions or unsatisfactory conditions. There are no comparable figures available for Scotland. Local authorities carried out further surveys in England and Wales during 1988, and the Department will be publishing the results of these for England later this year.

  The Government policy in respect of unrestored land associated with minerals being worked under planning control is to ensure that land taken for mineral operations is restored after working has come to an end. The 1981 Minerals Act imposes a duty on mineral planning authorities to undertake a periodic review of mineral sites and empowers them to make orders to restore and improve the environment of sites which do not have adequate conditions. Derelict workings can also be eligible for derelict land grant to achieve reclamation.

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the housing investment programme allocations proposed to each local authority for 1989 indicating the respective bid and showing the allocation as a percentage of the hid, together with the appropriate figures for 1978–79 on a constant value basis.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information for 1989–90 and 1978–79 has been placed in the Library. Since 1981–82 local authorities have been able to supplement their allocations by expenditure financed from capital receipts. Nationally, two thirds of local authorities' spending power on housing in 1989–90 is expected to come from capital receipts.

  Water Meter Trial Schemes
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the water meter trial schemes are taking place; when each one started; and what criteria were used to determine the places selected.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has approved 11 water metering trials under section 4 of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988:

  Isle of Wight (Southern Water)

  Chandlers Ford (Southern Water)

  Bristol (Bristol Waterworks Company)

  Haling Park (Thames Water)

  Chorleywood (Rickmansworth Water Company)

  Bromsgrove (East Worcestershire Waterworks Company)

  Brookmans Park (Lee Valley Water Company)

  Turlin Moor (Wessex Water)

  Broadstone (Wessex Water)

  Camberley (Mid Southern Water Company)

  Hutton Rudby (Northumbrian Water)

  Charging by measure in the Bromsgrove trial started on 9 January. All of the other trials are due to start from 1 April 1989, except for the Haling park trial where charging by measure is to begin from 1 October 1989. My right hon. Friend has yet to consider a proposal by Yorkshire Water about a proposed metering trial in south Normanton, Yorkshire.

  The trial sites were selected by the water industry so as to include a wide range of different property types and climatic conditions.

  Water Authorities (Footpaths and Bridleways)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of(a) statutory public footpaths, (b) statutory public bridleways and (c) permissive footpaths lie within British water authorities' land holdings; and if he will list the mileage for each water authority in each category.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not held centrally by my Department or by individual water authorities.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been expended, where and on what, through derelict land grant in the north-west for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Trippier
  Derelict land grant expenditure by local authorities in the north west totalled £24·28 million in 1987–88; a further £5·2 million grant was paid to non-local authority applicants. Details are given in the following table.

  A wide variety of reclamation schemes meeting the Department's criteria for grant were supported in 1987–88. A total of 142 schemes were completed in the course of the year producing 563 hectares of reclaimed land. One hundred and six hectares were reclaimed for industrial arid commercial development, 24 hectares for housing and 109 hectares for mixed development. The remaining 324 hectares were reclaimed for public open space or other soft end uses.

  Derelict Land Grant: Expenditure in the North West, 1987–88

  £

  1. Local authorities

  Cheshire County Council

  638,323

  Congleton

  381,604

  Crewe and Nantwich

  127,045

  Macclesfield

  127,285

  Vale Royal

  4,999

  Warrington

  1,148,926

  Lancashire County Council

  1,495,163

  Blackburn

  355,120

  Blackpool

  17,100

  Burnley

  30,846

  Chorley

  52,992

  Hyndburn

  191,555

  Lancaster

  154,505

  Pendle

  349,719

  Preston

  820,088

  Ribble Valley

  17,938

  Rossendale

  377,899

  South Ribble

  16,556

  West Lancashire

  45,931

  Cumbria County Council

  3,123,386

  Allerdale

  1,083,134

  Barrow

  72,090

  Carlisle

  58,773

  Eden

  16,571

  Bolton

  364,131

  Bury

  433,063

  Manchester

  422,715

  Oldham

  249,480

  Rochdale

  26,751

  Salford

  5,255,292

  Stockport

  20,298

  Tameside

  507,334

  Trafford

  45,438

  Wigan

  1,303,223

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  1,007,115

  Halton

  1,264,307

  Knowsley

  455,929

  725

  £

  Liverpool

  248,830

  Sefton

  341,000

  St. Helens

  497,587

  Wirral

  187,922

  Merseyside Residuary Body

  940,991

  Total local authority expenditure

  24,278,954

  2. Non local authorities

  Total expenditure

  5,200,892

  Total Derelict Land Grant expenditure

  29,479,846

  Public Appeals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify each donation made by his Department in response to appeals for financial aid during each financial year since 1979–80

  Mr. Ridley
  In the financial year 1985–86 my Department made a contribution of £250,000 to the Lord Mayor of Bradford's appeal fund set up to help victims of the stadium fire disaster. There have been no other donations since 1979–80. In general my Department responds to particular emergencies or similar situations through established public expenditure programmes rather then by contributing to private appeal funds.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider increasing the penalties for offences of pollution of water courses and the discharge of effluents containing illegal levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and pollutants.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Under part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the maximum penalties which can be imposed by magistrates for water pollution offences, including any illegal discharges of polychlorinated biphenyls or other pollutants, are fines not exceeding £2,000 and terms of imprisonment of up to three months. However, on indictment there is no limit on the fine that may be imposed and the term of imprisonment can be up to two years. Penalties for pollution offences are kept under regular review, but I understand that there are no immediate plans for increasing them.

  Pollution
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each water authority the number of pollution incidents and the number of sewage works which breached their discharge consents in 1987–88.

  Mr. Ridley
  The number of water pollution incidents reported by English water authorities in 1987 were:

  Number

  Anglian

  1,605

  Northumbrian

  671

  North West

  2,961

  Severn Trent

  4,435

  Southern

  1,795

  South West

  2,251

  Thames

  2,969

  Wessex

  1,339

  Yorkshire

  2,738

  Document Clearing Group
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the membership and terms of reference of the document clearing group supervised by his Department's advisers Schroder Wragg in respect of information made available to the general public by water authorities.

  Mr. Ridley
  The document clearance group comprises members from Clifford Chance and Herbert Smith, legal advisers to the Government and to the Water Authorities' Association on the privatisation of the water industry, J. Henry Schroder Wragg, the Government's merchant bank advisers and Dewe Rogerson, financial public relations advisers to the association and the Government. The group's role is to review information relating to the businesses of the 10 water authorities in England and Wales which is to be made publicly available by Government, the WAA or the water authorities, to ensure that such information complies with the legal requirements relating to offers for sale.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the standards to be set for discharges of radioactive waste from pressurised water reactors and those set for comparable reactors abroad.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The technology of the new generation of PWRs will make it possible to operate them so that the levels of radioactivity in the discharges are very low. In granting authorisation for such discharges the authorising Departments will continue to require the operators to meet specified discharge limits and in addition to use best practicable means to limit discharges of radioactivity so as to ensure that exposures are kept as low as reasonably achievable. These controls will ensure that radiation doses to the critical group of people most affected by the discharges will remain well within the limits recommended by the International Commission for Radiation Protection and endorsed by the National Radiological Protection Board. Due regard will be had to the balance between costs of pollution abatement, including the exposure of on-site personnel, and the effects of the discharges on the environment. Each case will be considered on its merits, but in general the effect is likely to be that levels of radioactivity in discharges from PWRs in the United Kingdom will not differ significantly from those from reactors of a compatible size and environmental situations such as those in France.

  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further provision is being made for low-cost housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have announced new targets for low-cost housing in rural areas and proposals for enabling shared ownership dwellings in villages to be retained to meet low-cost housing needs.

  Last July the Government announced the rural housing initiative which set specific targets for low-cost housing in smaller villages. The Housing Corporation established a special rural programme aimed at expanding the role of

  727
  housing associations in villages with a population of under 1,000. The corporation agreed to earmark sufficient funds to permit some 300 approvals for rented housing in 1989–90 and 600 in 1990–91. In December 1988 the Housing Corporation announced that the target of 600 approvals had been brought forward to 1989–90. We are pleased to announce today that the new targets for 1990–91 will be 900 approvals and for 1991–92 1,100 approvals. These targets effectively mean that the number of approvals given under the special rural programme will have nearly quadrupled over a four-year period.

  There is concern that subsidised shared ownership o houses in villages should be kept as low-cost homes and not lost through people becoming full owners and selling in the open market. In those rural areas where replacement of a shared ownership dwelling may be difficult, or where a private landowner has contributed a site on condition that it be retained for low-cost housing, we have in mind giving housing associations a pre-emptive right to buy back the dwelling at full market value when an occupier moves on. We will of course need to establish a funding arrangement which ensures that the association has the funds to exercise its right to repurchase. The arrangement proposed will maintain the right of the tenant to become the full owner of his home, but will provide a means of retaining the dwelling for low-cost housing when the occupier moves. It will provide a means therefore of sustaining the supply of low-cost housing in the villages and will reassure those landowners who contribute sites for that purpose. The details of the scheme are being discussed with the Housing Corporation.

  Taken together with the proposals announced last Friday by the Secretary of State to improve the supply of sites for low-cost housing in rural areas, these measures will make a further significant contribution to augmenting the supply of low-cost housing in villages.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list in the Official Report, and according to the latest information available, the number of authorised permanent gipsy sites within each district of the counties of Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset and Devon.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: Authorised permanent gipsy sites can be either private or local authority operated. The Department does not hold information on the numbers of authorised private sites. Information on the location of private sites is held by local authorities. Information provided by the district councils for the Department's biannual count exercise reveals that at July 1988 there were 49 caravans on private sites in Somerset; 52 in Wiltshire; three in Dorset and 17 in Devon.

  Information on authorised local authority sites is held by the Department and updated each January. In respect of the counties requested the latest information is as follows:

  Somerset

  Mendip (Berkeley)

  Sedgemoor (Westonzoyland)

  South Somerset (Chubbards Cross, Ilton) (Marsh Lane, Tintinhull)

  Taunton Deane (Otterford)

  West Somerset (Farringdon Hill Lane, Stogursey)

  728
  Wiltshire

  North Wiltshire (Thingley Junction, Chippenham)

  Salisbury (Dairyhouse Bridge, Salisbury) (Oak Tree Field, Odstock, Salisbury) (Lode Hill, Downton)

  Thamesdown (Chiseldon Camp, Swindon) (Hay Lane, Wroughton)

  West Wiltshire (Fairwood, Dilton Marsh)

  Dorset

  East Dorset (Mannington Park, Wimborne)

  North Dorset (Thornicombe, Blandford)

  Poole (Mannings Heath)

  Purbeck (Coldharbour, Wareham)

  West Dorset (Piddlehinton, Dorchester)

  Devon

  East Devon (Broadclyst near Exeter) (Sowton near Exeter)

  Football League Grounds (Women)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many women have been(a) arrested and (b) found guilty of offences committed at Football League grounds during each of the last three seasons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is not recorded centrally.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zambia
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the matters that were discussed in recent meetings with President Kaunda of Zambia.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed during the recent ministerial visit to Zambia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I discussed bilateral and regional matters with President Kaunda of Zambia when I met him during my visit to Zambia on 24 to 25 January.

  Conventional Stability Talks
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the conventional stability talks to begin.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  ; These talks, now known as the negotiation on conventional armed forces in Europe, and the negotiations on confidence and security building measures, will be opened in Vienna by Foreign Ministers of the CSCE countries on 6 to 8 March.

  Central America
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the next central American presidential summit; and if he has discussed this subject with the new Government of the United States of America.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our latest information is that the next central American summit will take place in San Salvador on 13 to 14 February. We are in regular touch with the United States Administration about a wide range of issues, including central America.
  729
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any discussions with the United States Administration with regard to their policies on central America.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide range of topics, including central America.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the next central American presidential summit; and if he has discussed this subject with the new Government in the United States of America.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our latest information is that the next central American summit will take place in San Salvador on 13 and 14 February. We are in regular touch with the United States Administration about a wide range of issues, including central America.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit central America.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to visit central America. I shall be visiting Costa Rica, Honduras and Guatemala later this month, when I attend the San Jose V Conference being held at San Pedro Sula, Honduras.

  Israel
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Israeli ambassador; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I last met the Israeli ambassador on 26 January.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last raised with the Israeli Government Israel's responsibilities under the Geneva convention.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to the Israeli ambassador concerning Israel's treatment of Palestinians suspected of participating in the Intifada.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We continue to take all appropriate opportunities to remind the Israeli authorities of their obligation to administer the occupied territories in accordance with international law and human rights standards.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning west bank and Gaza detainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We continue to take appropriate opportunities to remind the Israeli authorities of our opposition to the practice of administrative detention.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Mr. Elias Freij's730
  suggestion to end the Palestinian uprising on the west bank and Gaza, for the purpose of encouraging talks with the Israelis; and whether he will make a statement on the implications for the peace process.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We understand that Mr. Freij withdrew his suggestion after the Israeli decision to deport 13 Palestinians from the occupied territories.

  Cuba
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about United Kingdom relations with Cuba.

  Mr. Eggar
  We maintain diplomatic relations with Cuba. Our new ambassador took up his appointment in January.

  United States Secretary of State
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United States Secretary of State; and what was discussed.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I last met the United States Secretary of State at the CSCE meeting in Vienna on 17 January. We discussed a wide range of issues.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will use the opportunity of his next meeting with the United States Secretary of State to reiterate the United Kingdom's commitment to international free trade.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes. We share with the United States Administration a commitment to free trade. With our Community partners we must work with the United States to resist protectionism, and to sustain and extend the open multilateral trading system, in particular through the current GATT round.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he proposes to discuss when he next meets the United States Secretary of State.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend proposes to discuss a wide range of issues when he next meets Mr. Baker on Sunday next.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet the United States Secretary of State; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to meet Mr. Baker on Sunday next and will wish to exchange views with him on a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he proposes to discuss when he next meets the United States Secretary of State.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he proposes to discuss when he next meets the United States Secretary of State.
  731
  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend looks forward to exchanging views on a wide range of issues when he meets Mr. Baker on Sunday next.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Secretary of State of the United States of America; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend will see Mr. Baker on Sunday next and looks forward to exchanging views with him on a wide range of issues.

  Middle East
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the prospects for a peace settlement in the middle east have improved since the visit of the Minister of State the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in Tunis.

  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a middle east peace settlement.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the search for peace in the Arab-Israeli dispute.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Recent developments, including the PLO's recognition of the right of Israel to exist, and its renunciation of terrorism, have substantially improved the prospects for progress towards a negotiated settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent moves he has made to further the calling of an international peace conference on the middle east.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our policy and that of the Twelve remains to support the calling of an international conference.

  We are continuing our efforts to identify the necessary common ground for such a conference to be convened.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to visit the west bank and Gaza strip.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend has at present no plans to visit the occupied territories, but I aim to do so in early March.

  Chile
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have been making to the Government of Chile concerning human rights in that country.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have been making to the Government of Chile concerning human rights in that country.
  732
  Mr. Eggar
  We have in the past few weeks made representations at a high level about a wide range of human rights issues in Chile. In addition, the Twelve have publicly affirmed their support for the work of the Catholic Church's human rights organisation, the Vicaria de la Solidaridad, and their appreciation for the important role played by the Vicaria since its creation.

  Iraq
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about Iraq's ability to develop biological warfare agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to him on 18 January at column 194.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of China concerning the drafting of the Basic Law for Hong Kong.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of China concerning the drafting of the Basic Law for Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  The second draft of the Basic Law will be published in the spring after consideration by the standing committee of the National People's Congress. We welcome the assurances of senior Chinese officials that the draft will be subject to further consultation in Hong Kong. We have had a fruitful dialogue with the Chinese authorities responsible for the drafting of the Basic Law and expect this to continue. We shall wish to satisfy ourselves that the provisions of the final text accurately reflect the terms of the joint declaration.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Czechoslovakia about human rights.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend raised these matters in his speech last month at the conclusion of the CSCE follow-up meeting in Vienna. In addition I raised human rights issues with the Czechoslovak ambassador on 31 January.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made about recent human rights violations in Czechoslovakia.
  733
  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend raised Czechoslovakia's handling of human rights in my speech last month at the conclusion of the CSCE follow-up meeting in Vienna. I also expressed our concern to the Czechoslovak ambassador on 31 January.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of international agreements on human rights in Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are many shortcomings in Czechoslovakia's implementation of its human rights commitments, especially in the field of freedom of speech and assembly.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to have discussions with the Czech ambassador concerning human rights.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans for discussion with the Czechoslovak ambassador. I saw him on 31 January, and expressed our concern over their handling of human rights.

  Mr. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Czech ambassador; and what matters he will raise.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to meet the Czechoslovak ambassador. I saw him on 31 January to thank him for his authorities' co-operation over Semtex. I also expressed our concern over their current handling of human rights.

  United States of America
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit the United States of America.

  Mr. Eggar
  The American Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, will be visiting the United Kingdom on Sunday next. My right hon. and learned Friend plans to visit the United States shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the future of the special relationship with the United States of America.

  Mr. Eggar
  We look forward to a continuation of the excellent and close relations that have long existed between our two countries.

  President Gorbachev
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects President Gorbachev to visit Britain.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any information on whether President Gorbachev intends to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a new date has been arranged for the visit to Britain of President Gorbachev.
  734
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. Gorbachev will visit the United Kingdom from 5 to 7 April.

  South Africa
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will protest to the South African authorities against the new legislation to restrict foreign funding of anti-apartheid organisations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on 1 February at column 246.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the South African Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We maintain regular contact with the South African authorities on a wide range of issues, both here and via Her Majesty's ambassador.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to announce a new package of British measures against South Africa during the Prime Minister's visit to Zimbabwe in March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress in measures he is taking to encourage reform in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We take every opportunity to encourage peaceful change in South Africa towards the replacement of apartheid by a non-racial, representative system of government.

  Emperor Hirohito
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider his decision to attend Emperor Hirohito's funeral.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. I set out the reasons for my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to attend the late Emperor of Japan's funeral in my written answer to the hon. Member on 16 January at column 12.

  EC Foreign Ministers
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his fellow European Community Foreign Ministers within the framework of European political co-operation.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met EC colleagues in the framework of European political co-operation in Brussels on 21 November 1988. He will meet them again in Madrid on 14 February.

  Political co-operation matters were also discussed at the European Council in Rhodes on 2 and 3 December 1988

  735
  which the Secretary of State attended with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and at meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 19 December 1988, which he and I attended, and on 23 January 1989, which I attended.

  Francisco Mendes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Brazilian Government concerning the murder of Francisco Mendes.

  Mr. Eggar
  I was able to discuss with the Brazillian Government our concern at killings of rural organisers when I visited that country in November last year. The death of Francisco Mendes is being investigated by the Brazilian police and arrests have been made.

  Libya
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to discuss the construction of the Libyan chemical factory at Rablin with the other members of the Western European Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The issue was discussed at official level in the WEU permanent council on 11 January. The agenda has not yet been set for the next WEU ministerial council meeting, which will take place in April.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding relations with Libya.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There can be no question of returning to normal relations with the Libyan Government as long as they maintain their support for international terrorism including the IRA.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further evidence Her Majesty's Government have of an intention by Libya to develop a chemical weapons capability.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 13 January at column 773 to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington. South (Mr. Butler). We have no doubt that the Rabta plant is intended to produce CW in large quantities and that it could become operational in the near future.

  Security Firms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy as to the use of private security firms by his Department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Where appropriate, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our posts overseas employ private security firms to protect buildings and personnel.

  Human Rights Conference (Moscow)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the United Kingdom's participation in the proposed human rights conference in Moscow in 1991.
  736
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received a number of representations from members of the public and hon. Members, both for and against our participation in the proposed Moscow conference in 1991. We have made clear that we are prepared to attend the Moscow conference only if our conditions about further progress in Soviet implementation of human rights commitments are met.

  West German Foreign Minister
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his West German counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met Herr Genscher on 27 January in Bonn and discussed a range of issues including East-West relations, Eastern Europe, arms control and the middle east.

  Angola
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the timetable for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We welcome the recent agreement between Angola and Cuba which provides for total Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola within 27 months from 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that all foreign troops are withdrawn from Angola; and what action he is prepared to take to seek to bring the Angolan MPLA Government and Unita to the negotiating table.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are giving our full support to the implementation of the agreement signed in New York on 22 December 1988 which provides for total Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola.

  We would welcome any move to establish internal peace in Angola which had the support of both sides. We continue to be in touch with African leaders in the region who are best placed to mediate.

  Namibia
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Namibia.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We look forward to implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, which is due to begin on 1 April. The plan provides for free and fair elections in which Namibians will decide their own future.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of the quatrapartite agreement on South African withdrawal from Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia is due to begin on 1 April.
  737
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to send observers to oversee the elections in Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence is a matter for the United Nations Secretary General. We have agreed to provide the signals unit for UNTAG and would consider sympathetically any requests for us to send observers.

  France
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend an Anglo-French summit meeting.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Plans for the next Anglo-French summit are under consideration and an announcement will be made soon.

  Nelson Mandela
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further representations to the South African authorities over the continuing imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and his colleagues sentenced at the Rivonia trial.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to urge the South African Government to release, immediately and unconditionally, Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will report on the outcome of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Vienna.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Vienna meeting ended on 19 January with the adoption of substantial new measures in the field of human rights as well as co-operation in other fields. It also opened the way for new negotiations on arms control and confidence and security building measures.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Gibraltar.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend visited Gibraltar on 30 and 31 January 1989. He has no plans to do so again in the immediate future.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Soviet relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Anglo-Soviet relations are much improved. Mr. Gorbachev will be visiting Britain from 5 to 7 April. Fundamental differences between us remain. But we now have an increasingly wide-ranging dialogue and an expanding programme of co-operation and exchanges with the Russians.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest information he has received concerning the state of human rights in the Soviet Union.
  738
  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been progress on human rights in the Soviet Union over the past few months. But much remains to be done. We pressed the Russians for more progress most recently at the UK/USSR bilateral talks on human rights on 26 January.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the bilateral human rights talks held in London recently with the Soviets.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These talks were useful and wide ranging. The Soviet delegation explained their plans for fundamental legislative reform: we underlined the importance of providing full guarantees that basic human freedoms will be respected. We also pressed the Russians on a number of individual cases of particular concern. They agreed to re-examine our lists of refuseniks and prisoners of conscience.

  NATO (Burden Sharing)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to their European partners on the need for greater burden sharing within the Atlantic Alliance.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We play an active part in discussion of burden-sharing within the Alliance. For example, we contributed fully to the work on the report on enhancing collective security agreed by Defence Ministers last December.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit El Salvador before March to discuss the conduct of its elections.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit El Salvador before March to discuss the conduct of its elections.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no present plans for a ministerial visit to El Salvador.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Mozambique Government; and what matters he discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met President Chissano and members of his Government during his visit to Mozambique from 17 to 19 September last year. They discussed a range of bilateral and international issues.

  Romania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new representations he plans to make to the Government of Romania about systemisation and other infringements of human rights.
  739
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We will continue to protest strongly about Romanian policies which run counter to their CSCE commitments in the field of human rights at every suitable opportunity. I summoned the ambassador of Romania on 30 January to protest about the treatment both of Her Majesty's ambassador in Romania and of the Romanian citizen, Mrs. Doina Cornea.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet other Foreign Ministers to discuss Third world debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As the hon. Member is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend has regular discussion with Foreign Ministers from other countries on a wide range of subjects. Debt is an extremely important issue, and is frequently raised in contacts with debtor and creditor countries alike.

  Venezuela
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Venezuela.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so at present but I have just returned from a visit to Venezuela where I represented Her Majesty's Government at the inauguration of President Carlos Andres Perez. Whilst there I held useful discussions with a number of Venezuelan Ministers and senior officials, as well as senior members of other delegations.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on peace developments affecting the front-line states.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We welcome the signature on 22 December 1988 of agreements providing for total Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola and implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, as contributing to peace and stability in the region. We also welcome the recent resumption of co-operation between South Africa and Mozambique.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are undertaking to prevent the return of the Khmer Rouge to power in Cambodia.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are supporting efforts to promote a political settlement in which the Cambodian people are free to choose their own Government. We make clear our view that world opinion would not tolerate the return to power of those responsible for the atrocities of the period of Khmer Rouge rule.

  Spain
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends 740
  to meet his Spanish counterpart to discuss matters of mutual interest in connection with the Spanish presidency of the EEC Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the Spanish Foreign Minister bilaterally on 6 and 7 February. They will be meeting again on 14 February at the European political co-operation ministerial meeting and on 20 and 21 February at the Foreign Affairs Council.

  Kurdish People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Governments of Iraq, Iran and Turkey concerning the plight of Kurdish people.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are aware of the widely felt concern at the treatment of Kurdish minorities. On representations to Iraq, I refer the hon. Member to the written reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 11 January at column 712. We have regularly co-sponsored resolutions on human rights in Iran at both the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Commission for Human Rights. We urge that all in Turkey should enjoy the significant improvements in human rights in recent years and that Turkey abide by its international human rights obligations.

  Israeli Foreign Minister
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet his Israeli counterpart.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. Arens has accepted our invitation to visit London on 14 and 15 February.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of the discussions concerning the future of Cyprus.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers that I gave to earlier questions on this subject on 11 and 19 January at columns 721 and 255. The talks between President Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash are continuing. They are due to review progress with the United Nations Secretary-General again in March.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when is the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, and what issues are due to be discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 31 January at column 113.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), during his recent meeting with the Palestine
  741
  Liberation Organisation leader, sought clarification of the status of the Palestine Liberation Organisation covenant in the light of the Algiers Palestine National Council statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif, a senior adviser to Mr. Yasser Arafat, has said in terms that"the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organisation … has been superseded by the decisions of the PNC, the author of the Charter".
  We take every opportunity to welcome this sort of moderate statement and to urge the PLO to continue to fulfil the commitments made by Yasser Arafat in Geneva.

  Leonid Lubman
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made following representations to the Soviet authorities on behalf of Leonid Lubman.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. We last pressed the Soviet authorities about Leonid Lubman at the United Kingdom/USSR bilateral talks on human rights on 26 January and they promised to give us a response. We will be following this up with the Soviet embassy.

  Philippines (Political Prisoners)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the recent report from Amnesty International highlighting the increase in torture of political prisoners, he will make representations thereon to the Philippines Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no plans at present to do so. President Aquino is committed to democracy and the protection of human rights. Our policy is to support her efforts to fulfil these commitments.

  Spain (British Residents)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has as to the number of British nationals currently residing in Spain.

  Mr. Eggar
  The most recent estimate provided by Her Majesty's embassy in Madrid in January, 1989 was 160,000 British citizens permanently resident in Spain. There are many more who live in Spain for only part of the year. I am asking our embassy in Madrid for more precise figures and I will write to my hon. Friend when these are received.

  Soviet Unions (Exit Visas)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will impress on the Soviet 742
  authorities the urgency of the case of George Samoilovich of Moscow who is seeking an exit visa for medical treatment in the West.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We press the Soviet authorities about George Samoilovich at every possible opportunity. Her Majesty's embassy in Moscow has made repeated representations to the Soviet authorities highlighting the urgency of this case. During the recent United Kingdom/USSR bilateral talks on human rights, we underlined to Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Adamishin the need for Mr. Samoilovich to be given immediate permission to leave. He promised to re-examine the case and give us a quick response. We will continue to press hard until there is a satisfactory outcome.

  Baby Seal Products
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had discussions with the European Commission on breaches of the ban on importation into the European Community of baby seal products.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) on 31 January at column 112.

  Iran
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United Nations Secretary-General about the situation in Iran.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. However, we co-sponsored and worked to secure the adoption of resolution 43/1.37 on human rights in Iran which was passed by the UN General Assembly on 8 December 1988.

  East Timor
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia about the human rights of those living in East Timor.

  Mr. Eggar
  With our European partners, we have regularly conveyed to the Indonesian Government our views on the importance of respecting human rights and expressed our concern, on humanitarian grounds, in individual cases. There is evidence that respect for human rights in East Timor has improved in recent years.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
align="center"Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Lord Lewis of Newnham
Sir Jack Lewis, Knight, having been created Baron Lewis of Newnham, of Newnham in the County of Cambridgeshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Todd and the Baroness Nicol.

"Roads and the Utilities"
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider legislation to review the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 following the recommendations of the 1985 Horne Report, Roads and the Utilities.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes. Legislation will be brought forward as soon as there is a suitable opportunity. Proposals for legislation are being drawn up with the benefit of advice from the Street Works Advisory Committee.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that most pleasing reply. However, can he tell his noble friend that there is a grave urgency to deal with the serious problem of what has become a standard joke—the holes in the road? Further, is he aware that excavations in the highway are not only a source of damage to vehicles but are also a constant problem for the elderly, the disabled and mothers with prams and pushchairs? Will he also draw those points to the Minister's attention?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are quite aware of the urgency of the problem. A sub-committee of the Street Works Advisory Committee was set up specifically to advise on public interest in the Public Utilities and Street Works Act 1950. It includes not only road users but people with special interests such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness. There will also be further consultation on detailed proposals.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is there not agreement between the Public Utilities Group and the local authorities, and therefore there is nothing which should delay legislation? Have we not been told time and again that the Government sympathise with the recommendations and will introduce them as soon as possible? When is "as soon as possible"? Further, is not the problem of holes in the road referred to by my noble friend Lady Fisher one reason for the criticism of the maintenance of local roads?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I said, we are apprised of the urgency of the matter and "as soon as possible" will be as soon as possible. However, in the meantime we accept that a variety of local agreements are no substitute for uniform statutory requirements. Nevertheless, we hope that local authorities and utilities will not be inhibited from making practical improvements where possible before new legislation is brought in.

Household Savings: Social Trends Survey
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they regard it as a cause for concern that, according to the recently published social trends survey, household savings as a percentage of disposable income was negative in 1986 and 1987.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the reference in social trends is to household savings, which excludes contributions to life assurance and pension schemes. These are a very important component of personal saving. The usual definition of the savings ratio is for the personal sector and includes pension contributions. Personal savings averaged 6 per cent. of personal disposable income in 1986 and 1987. Saving by the private sector as a whole, including companies, is about one-fifth of national income, and that proportion has remained almost constant throughout the 1980s.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his elucidation of the savings problem in the private sector, but does he nevertheless agree that we are lagging far behind other developed countries in that respect and that we are now standing at a level far lower than we have in the past? Further, will he indicate whether the Government have in mind any measures for further stimulating private saving as a way of limiting the amount of excess expenditure on consumer goods?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps we should examine the figures. The figure quoted in the social trends survey is one which has not been used before. If we look at the normal figure, which is for personal savings, we find that, while it has tended to decline as this decade has gone on, so almost equally the figure for company savings has increased. Indeed, today the total of private savings stands at 19·9 per cent.; in 1980 it stood at 19·2 per cent.; and throughout the whole of this decade it has varied between 18·6 per cent. and 20·4 per cent.
As regards credit controls, if that was the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred, it is quite difficult to see how they can be operated. They are easily circumvented by financial markets and they would create inefficiencies and distortions. Indeed, they would bear on only a very narrow section of domestic demand, because what is often overlooked is that expenditure on durables is only about 10 per cent. of total consumer spending.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, in the light of the figures that my noble friend has given, what is the problem with the savings ratio in the private sector to which the noble Lord referred? In any case, is not the purpose of high interest rates to encourage saving and to discourage spending? Is that not the appropriate answer?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. Of course, my job is to answer the questions and not to ask them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is not the noble Lord a little concerned about the matter? The Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was about personal savings as distinct from the accumulation of corporate funds? Does not the considerable expansion of personal credit, in its accepted sense, accompanied by a decline in the public sector borrowing requirement, mean that all we are doing is encouraging consumption, especially of subsidised imports, and discouraging much needed public expenditure on the infrastructure?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is of course well aware that government expenditure rises from year to year, although as a percentage of GDP it is now happily falling. He does not take into account the fact that the vast bulk of personal borrowing, which is where the credit rise is, is in the form of mortgages. Mortgages represented over 80 per cent. of the household sector debt at the end of the second quarter of 1988. Mortgage lending represents about one half of all bank and building society lending. Consumer credit represents only some 15 per cent. and credit cards less than 5 per cent. I shall repeat the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Expenditure on imported durables is about one-tenth of consumer spending.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while one would not wish to disagree with his answers, they do not seem to face up to the fact that people are spending instead of saving when the balance of trade figures show that they should be saving? is there no tangible way, in addition to interest rates, by which we can encourage people to become savers again rather than damaging spenders, as the figures seem to show?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for offering me help in answering the Question; but I fear that I cannot agree with him. The imbalance in the balance of payment figures shows that there is enormous expenditure on capital equipment, semi-manufactured goods and raw materials. Expenditure on capital equipment by industry has increased by some 18 per cent. If we analyse the spending, we find that although consumer spending has increased it forms only a small part of the increased indebtedness funded and fuelled by mortgages.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only 17 per cent. of
1554
manufactured imports during 1987 were in respect of capital goods? His reply does not give that impression.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that point is some way from the question. I shall write to the noble Lord to show how those figures are analysed and place a copy of the answer in the Library.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that when he was a boy at school the government, of whatever political flavour they happened to be, actively encouraged saving schemes in every school in the country? Should not the savings habit start in schools? Are we right to assume that the Government seem to have lost interest in such campaigns and activities?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hate to date myself so precisely, but the time to which the noble Lord referred when I was at school was during the war. The circumstances were perhaps slightly different.
Lord Mellish: Which war?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that it was the Second World War. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to this matter. It is a good idea and I shall discuss it with him.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord say anything about the large sums which are being spent on the purchase of private homes? Has he noted that the money thus invested tends in the end to be the seedcorn which provides the capital for the thousands of small businesses which are this country's ultimate future?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes. But, as I said, mortgages form 80 per cent. of personal indebtedness. It may well be that some of the proceeds of those mortgages could be used in new small firms and all manner of other things. In fact, it is mortgage borrowing which has gone up and fuelled the increase.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, the Minister clearly said that it is much more expensive now for ordinary people to buy a home because of the rise in interest rates. When will he give people some encouragement that their endeavours in buying a home of their own will not be hampered or interfered with by the Government as they have been interfered with in recent months?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take an opportunity to look at Hansard tomorrow. I cannot recollect ever using those words or talking about that matter. The only reference I should perhaps have made is that the increase in interest rates is a positive encouragement we have given to savers. Many people often forget that an equal amount of money is saved in building

1555
societies as is loaned out in mortgages. Those who have deposits in building societies as savers are benefiting considerably from the high interest rates. No doubt that is a matter which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking into account.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stated that the ratio which the Minister gave is lower than that of all our major competitors on the Continent and elsewhere. Will the Minister confirm or deny that? In all his answers he has talked about this decade. How does the ratio of savings in this decade compare with the ratio of the 1970s?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Question referred to 1986 and 1987, therefore I have not armed myself with the figures for the 1970s, the 1960s, the 1950s, the 1940s or prior to then. However, since the noble Lord inquires, I shall look into the matter and write to him.

Trade Fairs: Payments by Exhibitors
3 p.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the practice whereby companies participating in joint venture schemes at exhibitions are often required by the Department of Trade and Industry to make payment in full for stands up to 20 months in advance.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I quite understand and have sympathy with the concern that has prompted this Question. The problem of exceptionally long lead times concerns only a small minority of joint ventures at overseas trade fairs supported by my department. Nevertheless, I have decided that for the future companies wishing to take part in joint ventures affected in this way will be required to pay only 50 per cent. of their participation fees in advance unless a larger sum is required to meet their share of any immediate payments in connection with the event.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend the Minister very much for that constructive reply. Can I press him a little further? In some cases the British Overseas Trade Board does not have to pay the 50 per cent. with the booking of the stand. Will the Minister go further and say that whatever the BOTB has to pay to the exhibition organisers, those conditions will be passed on to the exhibitors?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fear that I cannot help my noble friend. Unfortunately—not unfortunately, it is a fact—my department or the BOTB takes on the full liability when asking for payments. What we are now doing is merely asking those companies who are coming into the scheme to pay one half of their future contribution. That probably represents anything between one-fifth and one-third of the full cost. The liability remains with my department and I think that this is a considerable advance. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will agree.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that this very welcome concession will apply to those taking part in AIDEX '89 which is the first international defence exhibition in Australia at the end of November? The cut-off date is 19th May this year. It may well be that certain people have already applied and paid their money.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I cannot pretend that I have all the information about all the fairs and promotions we support. I shall certainly look into that and write to my noble friend.

Transport: Co-ordination
3.2 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the policies pursued by the arrangements of the different forms of transport are co-ordinated in the national interest, and if so how.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government believe that demand for transport is best met by maximising consumer choice, by ensuring that transport operators act as far as possible in accordance with commercial objectives, by targeting subsidy on specific social needs and by encouraging co-operation between transport authorities where appropriate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does the Minister share my view that congestion on the roads should be diminished wherever possible? If he does share my view, would he care to comment on the recent cancellation by British Rail of the concessionary fares that it operated for conference delegates? In the light of that, does not the Minister agree that there is a likelihood that displaced rail travellers will add to the congestion on the roads? What does he intend to do about it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand that special conference rate facilities are to be withdrawn at the end of April. But such promotional fares are a matter for British Rail's judgment. British Rail's research showed that less than 5 per cent. of people going to conferences by rail use this promotional fare. Its withdrawal is unlikely to have any significant effect on road traffic.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, as the Question was about co-ordinated transport, has the Minister taken into account the fact that running alongside the House of Commons or the Palace of Westminster there is the greatest river in the world, the River Thames. It is not used at all except by the odd sightseer. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have for making the river come to life?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, says. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the present difficulty as regards the development of rail connections with Prestwick Airport is typical of the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is referring? Much of the development there is held up by a lack of liaison between rail and air.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's interest in that railway. Again I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my noble friend.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that his original Answer to my noble friend means that the Government have no policy at all on endeavouring themselves to get co-ordination between all methods of transport? As the Question said, that would he in the national interest. Are the Government prepared to look into the matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we believe that the national interest is best served by creating the right economic environment and providing for freedom of choice. It is for public transport operators to decide how they can best meet passengers' requirements.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, while supporting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, perhaps I may ask my noble friend at least to seek to ensure that tug operators and refuse barges do not collide with London bridges. Will the noble Viscount urge that most urgent priority be given to the repair of Battersea Bridge, which is closed, totally dislocating an important part of London's traffic system? The very sensible proposals by the local Member of Parliament, Mr. Bowis, that the lighting systems and traffic flows on neighbouring bridges should be reviewed should also be looked at as a matter of great urgency.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on getting that question into this Question! The Department of Transport is capable of many things, but it would be a miracle if we were able to cure that problem in a very short time. However, I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend will do everything he can.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that there is increasing public concern about congestion and delays in transport? Is it not therefore the task of any government, whatever their party political view, to take that concern seriously into account and to make suggestions as to how this big national problem can be resolved?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that everyone agrees that there is congestion on motorways, railways and airways and that reflects economic growth right through the whole of Europe and the whole of the western world. It might be of interest to the House if I said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport published on 26th January the report of the central London rail study. That makes proposals for a £1·5 billion major upgrading programme on
1558
London's railways. It also contains proposals for new railway lines and tunnels under central London. On the same day, my right honourable friend published a booklet on transport in London which described the Government's strategic framework for London's transport. Copies of both these documents are available in the Library of the House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if congestion in this country continues as at present, and specifically if it continues in London, does not the noble Viscount agree that economic growth will be seriously slowed up? Can he say, first, what the Government are proposing to do about solving London's traffic problem? The papers to which the noble Viscount has referred are no solution at all. Why do the Government not take some specific action to deal with the matter?
Further, do the Government believe in a coordinated transport policy? If so, why do they not produce a White Paper which the country and Parliament can debate so that we may know exactly where we are going? At the moment the country does not know where it is going on the issue.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at least the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said that the country is going. Schemes worth over £5 billion are under construction or in preparation. The comprehensive review of road programmes is currently in hand and we expect to announce the outcome in the spring. Where public transport can help to reduce road congestion, the Government will consider subsidies in public transport.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, why has the Minister not said something about the most effective form of transport; namely, cycling? Does he not agree that it is healthy, non-polluting and does not add to traffic congestion? When will the Government do something about that, not least in making additional cycling lanes available to cyclists? Finally, as the person in charge of the House bicycles, may I invite any of your Lordships who have a machine to see me afterwards?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I said nothing about cycling because I was not asked. However, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that cycling is healthy and very good for one. I wish him every success in his future cycling.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister fairly said that the peg upon which I hung this Question—that is, the abolition of concessionary fares—only affects 5 per cent. of people who attend conferences. But is the Minister aware that that 5 per cent. can involve many thousands of people who will add to the congestion on the roads? Will the Minister take on board the mood of the House which is that while we want our various forms of transport to develop and grow more successful, we also want to ensure that there is co-ordination and not competition in the national interest?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly take that on board.

Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Nottingham Park Estate Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Sunday Trading
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter rose to call attention to the problems of Sunday trading and of the legal restrictions thereon and their enforcement; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not a problem which will just go away. It is a problem which your Lordships' House, the Government, and most people in positions of responsibility have to face. I shall begin with a comment which I hope will be fairly generally acceptable. It is pretty generally agreed that the present law on Sunday trading is so riddled with ludicrous aspects and so riddled with uncertainties that it is unenforceable and very largely not enforced. I doubt whether any of your Lordships will dispute that proposition.
It is against that background that I suggest your Lordships should consider this matter. If the law is blatantly not enforced because it is ridiculous, that undermines general respect for the law. I am perhaps particularly sensitive to this because 1 began my adult life as a barrister and also because I had the interesting experience of going to the United States as a member of the Oxford Union debating team while prohibition was still the law in that country. In parenthesis, I may say that I drank more at that time than I ever have since. But I was shocked, in the way one is perhaps more easily shocked at a young age than one is when one gets older, by the way in which in one or two large houses on Long Island, where I was most kindly invited, I saw judges, senators, state governors and people in responsible positions drinking cocktails and full series of wines in complete defiance of what was the law of their land. They did not apparently even feel there was anything particularly odd about so doing.
It is a matter of history that that contempt for the prohibition law, which because of its unreasonable character was very widely felt in the United States, did much to undermine general respect for law in that country and contributed quite largely to the very considerable degree of lawlessness and disorder which followed in the years that came after. I suggest to your Lordships that we are concerned on this matter not only with the strict merits of Sunday trading, but also with something which may be even more important: that is, respect for our system of law, its enforcement and our law courts in this country. As
1560
I shall seek to suggest to your Lordships, the present state of the law on Sunday trading is such that it is not reasonable to expect efforts to be made to enforce it.
I give your Lordships, in support of that proposition, one or two examples of the absurdity of the present law. The classic one, of which your Lordships are, I believe, aware, is that on a Sunday it is lawful to sell a pornographic magazine but a criminal offence to sell a Bible. I see that two right reverend Prelates have put down their names to speak in this debate. I shall be interested to hear whether either of them seeks to defend that state of affairs or whether they are prepared to suggest that amendment of the law must therefore be necessary.
There are so many other examples, but I shall not weary your Lordships with them. There was the case, of which I think your Lordships are aware, of the monks of Buckfast who were informed that, although they were free to sell their excellent wine on a Sunday and might just escape the criminal law if they sold their honey, they would undoubtedly come into conflict with the law and its enforcement agencies if they sold a crucifix or a holy picture.
Case after case demonstrates this ludicrous state of the law. I shall reinforce that by quoting some part of the fifth schedule to the Shops Act 1950. That law still governs the position. The fifth schedule states what sales are lawful on a Sunday. Some of them are worth listening to. The schedule states that it is lawful to sell tobacco and:
"intoxicating liquors; meals or refreshments … but not including the sale of fried fish and chips at a fried fish and chip shop; newly cooked provisions and cooked or partly cooked tripe … flowers, fruit and vegetables (including mushrooms) other than tinned or bottled fruit or vegetables; milk and cream, not including tinned or dried milk or cream, but including clotted cream whether sold in tins or otherwise".
The schedule continues. It refers also incidentally to:
"aircraft, motor, or cycle supplies".
A very important aspect of the legislation is that one can sell books, but they may only be sold from:
"the bookstalls of such terminal and main line railway or omnibus stations, or at such aerodromes as may be approved by the Secretary of State".
That is the present law. Your Lordships must look at this problem against the background that approximately 5·5 million people in this country regularly work on Sundays. They work in the continuous process industries such as steel and cement. They also work in hotels, catering, transport, communications, the press, radio and television. The accepted figure is slightly more than 5·5 million people who work on a Sunday. If the only means of keeping Sunday special is to stop people working, it is quite plain from those figures that that battle is lost already.
Another aspect of the matter is that social conditions have changed very greatly since the 1950 Act. One obvious change is the number of wives who themselves work during the week. The consequence, of course, is that Sunday offers one of the major opportunities for husband and wife to go out shopping together—perhaps for household necessities—when the husband is very conveniently there to carry the purchases home. Or they may be indulging in some of the more entertaining aspects of

1561
shopping such as going to do-it-yourself stores, garden centres and other such places. That is a feature of our social life and it has changed since 1950.
Why is it suggested that to keep Sunday special one has to shut some of the shops, selected in the arbitrary way which I have ventured to describe to your Lordships? After all no one is compelled to go shopping who does not want to. I speak as one who will go to great lengths to avoid going shopping. However, I have the advantage of a highly efficient wife which frees me from that necessity.
If one is going by law to stop shopping in the interests of keeping Sunday special, why stop there? Why let five and a half million people work? Why allow television programmes, and why allow the railways to run? There is no logic in picking out shops, or some shops, for a restriction which is not applied by law in any other direction.
That point has been made by the National Consumer Council, a very responsible body which represents probably better than anyone the interests of consumers. As recently as the beginning of January it reported that Sunday shopping in general should be legalised and that the great majority of consumers whom they had consulted by way of a poll favoured doing so.
Now one comes to the point which I know will be taken in this debate—and rightly so. Although it may be in the interests of consumers to have the right and freedom to go shopping, is it fair to those who have to work in shops? Is it fair to shopworkers? The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has circulated a highly coloured document, I think to all of your Lordships. I want to refer to it because it contains two mis-statements which should be nailed at once. The first is headed:
"Shopworkers. What 'open all hours' supporters want · No legal constraints on shop staff working excessive hours".
There is not the slightest justification for that statement. It is entirely invention. The document continues with a similar inaccuracy:
"No double-time or extra payments for shopworkers who work on Sundays".
Again, there is not the slightest justification for that statement. One wonders why a responsible major trade union thinks it expedient to put out false statements of that kind.
Your Lordships will recall that the 1986 Bill, which your Lordships' House accepted although another place took a different view, specifically provided that all present shopworkers who refused to work on Sundays should be protected from any sanctions. It left open for the future the position of those who went into that trade or occupation afresh knowing the situation and knowing that they would be treated like everybody else. But those who had been working in an occupation in which Sunday trading was previously forbidden would be protected. That was indeed very proper.
It is quite obvious from experience of Sunday working in the other areas to which I have referred that higher rates of pay are regularly paid for Sunday working. It so happens that at one time I was chairman of a cement-making company. Cement,
1562
being a continuous process industry, is an industry which has to work on Sundays. Those working on Sundays received in some cases one and a half times and in others double rates of pay. As a consequence the only trouble I encountered as chairman took the form of complaints from workers who had not been rostered for Sunday work and who suggested that their not being rostered for that more profitable employment was due to some prejudice against them on the part of the foreman or assistant manager. The complaint concerned not being rostered. They were rostered for one Sunday in three or one Sunday in four and thereby received a very agreeable supplement to their earnings. It is perfectly obvious that in a very large number of trades—it would be the case with shopping if, against past custom, Sunday working were adopted—additional payments would be made to compensate.
Then there is the argument, which one must respect, about difficulty in going to church. However, if one considers the hours at which churches now conduct their services, from 7 o'clock Holy Communion to 6 o'clock or 6.30 Evensong, it is inconceivable that those working on Sunday who wish also to go to church would find much difficulty in doing so. If that is a problem, it is a problem for the five and a half million people—a far larger number than the shopworkers involved—who already work on Sundays.
I regard the suggestion that if people can go shopping they will not go to church as grossly offensive to the churches and to the great many of us who are regular churchgoers. I dismiss that argument as being almost beneath contempt.
If we want encouragement we can study the example of Scotland. Older Members of your Lordships' House may remember that the Scottish Sabbath—or "Sawbath" as it was often pronounced—was a formidable thing when we were young. Today, Scotland has free Sunday opening. Scotland had the advantage that it had no statutory restrictions such as the 1950 and previous Acts in England and Wales. Therefore, Sunday shopping did not depend on legislative change but simply on changing social conditions and demand.
I am told that some 22 per cent. of shops in Scotland now open on Sundays. Those are the ones which think it profitable and in their interests to do so. There is no ill-feeling or trouble about it. The Scottish example is a very good illustration of the way in which this matter can sort itself out if legislation is not imposed on the subject. I ask your Lordships to take a good look at Scotland. I am only sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not on the Woolsack to hear the tribute I am paying to the Scottish legal system.
Another aspect of the question is the tourist industry. Many tourists visit this country just for the weekend. If they cannot shop, their weekend is made duller and less attractive and our sales of foreign currency earning goods are by that amount diminished. I do not place undue weight on that aspect, but it is certainly a factor which your Lordships will wish to take into account.
In the light of what happened to the 1986 Bill it is obvious that most people who are considering this

1563
matter are looking to see whether compromises are possible by which an advance can be made without the measure conducting that advance suffering the same fate as the 1986 Bill in another place. There are various suggestions; they are not on the whole very attractive. The most popular is, I think, for limited Sunday opening hours, say six hours.
The problem is: which six hours? Newspaper shops want to open at 8 o'clock in the morning to sell their papers. Garden centres, on the other hand, particularly in the summer, expect most of their customers in late afternoon. Any particular six hours, if applied rigidly across the board, would be in some degree oppressive. It might be possible to allow any six hours to be chosen by the shop concerned, although again, I understand, there are thought to be difficulties about enforcement. However, it is an idea that some people find attractive.
Then there is the proposal that small shops—this is determined by square footage—should be allowed to open while large ones should not. I believe that to be a thoroughly irrational suggestion which opens itself up to every sort of fiddle. It would be perfectly possible for someone with a large shop to cut off a little and claim that it was a small shop.
If a compromise is necessary, the most sensible approach would be to do what your Lordships may recall was done in respect of the Bill to abolish capital punishment. We should carry deregulation into law in a Bill whose life was only five years and which would lapse at the end of that time unless renewed. That would enable those people with genuine apprehensions as to what Sunday opening might do to our Sundays to know that, if they were proved right, the Bill would not be renewed. If a compromise is required, that is a possibility.
I come finally to the opposition that appears to have been demonstrated from the episcopal Bench. I hope that such opposition will not be demonstrated this afternoon; but hope is sometimes frustrated. I wonder whether those right reverend Prelates, who on previous occasions have spoken against Sunday trading, are representative of their Church and of church people. I am particularly disposed to raise that question as a result of some interesting information that I have recently obtained about cathedral shops.
As your Lordships know, many of our cathedrals sensibly maintain a large shop which raises valuable funds for the support of those wonderful edifices. Last Sunday, 5th February, 15 Anglican cathedrals and one Roman Catholic cathedral were not only open but were selling specified articles of which I have particulars and the sale of which represented a breach of the criminal law. I shall not give the names of those 15 cathedrals or specify the articles unless pressed in case it might stimulate some busybody to prosecute.
Whatever right reverend Prelates may say, that example is indicative of the fact that the slightly lower level of the established Church—in one case it is, with proper ecumenism, a Roman Catholic cathedral that has done so—seems to adopt a much more practical approach. In all seriousness, if those cathedrals regarded it as wicked and as breaking the sabbath
1564
and spoiling Sunday, they would not do it. The fact that they do and that they have done so successfully for quite a time is indicative that, whatever might be said by right reverend Prelates, it is at least possible to doubt whether they are expressing the unanimous view of our own established Church.
I have taken too long, but I had a good deal of material. I shall conclude by quoting the last paragraph of a letter sent as recently as 4th January to the Government on behalf of the Consumers' Association, as it sums up the line that I suggest your Lordships should favour. It states:
"The law on shop hours cannot be left to limp on into the 1990s. This issue should be addressed, and resolved in the very near future, and we urge the Government to take appropriate action."
I beg to move for Papers.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has brought before us today a subject which is always controversial and of great concern not only to us in this House but to many people outside. It is appropriate that we should be considering this question again after the intervening years since 1986. There is no doubt that the subject attracts conflicting and passionate views, not least from my noble friends who sit behind me on these Benches. There are many divisions in thinking for or against changes in our Sunday trading law. The old and the young have different views and members of political parties have conflicting views, so we all have something to say on the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, addressed his remarks directly to the Motion before us, commented on the current dilemmas and made much of all the anomalies regarding our Sunday trading law at present. He prefaced some of his remarks with the word "ludicrous". I did not agree totally with everything that he said and I hope that during my remarks I shall respond to what he said. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments which will perhaps give us some idea of the Government's intentions on this subject. For my part, I should like to make some general remarks on the issue of Sunday trading and to comment on the different options for reform that appear to lie before us at present.
A great deal has been said about it being impossible to enforce the present law. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, gave some striking examples of that, but there have been conflicting accounts about the true extent of illegal trading on Sundays and some reports appear to have been exaggerated. The latest survey carried out by the Jubilee Centre—which in my experience produces accurate reports—for the period from November 1987 to June 1988 shows that large breaches of the law where shops are open and the sale of three-quarters or more of their goods is illegal took place in a mere 2·2 per cent. of the whole sample. Those occurred mainly in do-it-yourself chains which have increased enormously in number as a result of the increase in home ownership.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested that contraventions were being carried out on a large scale, but I do not think that 2·2 per cent. could be described as a very large

1565
percentage. We should like to see no contraventions of any law, but given our motoring restrictions, which are contravened a great deal, perhaps 2·2 per cent. is not too bad.
Much play is also made of the anomalies which exist and date back to legislation which was introduced as early as the beginning of the century and was brought together under the 1950 Act. There is little doubt that some of the goods exempted seem quite incongruous in 1989, but they do not pose a very real problem. To use one example, nothing could be easier than to extend the power of trading to cover fish and chip shops which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and which, most absurdly, find themselves on the exempt list at present but could easily be removed if the law were reformed.
It is possible to bring the Shops Act 1950 up-to-date and in line with modern living without scrapping the whole thing and substituting total liberalisation. The proof that the general public believe that to be the case was only too apparent in 1986 when the Government's attempt to sweep away the 1950 Act was reversed in another place. However I am sure we would all agree that certainly much has changed on Sundays since then. Sunday has become a much more active day particularly in regard to sporting activities. Any reforms in the Sunday trading hours should take account of that change.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, there is little doubt that retailers are very anxious that trading hours should be extended both on Sunday and weekday evenings. Yet they have never quite answered to my satisfaction the question of whether or not that measure would be inflationary. It is understandable that a small shop makes up for extra running costs by increased sales on a Sunday, but I should have thought that larger shops would find it difficult to make a profit on top of the additional costs that they would incur for wages, heating, etc., without increasing their prices. I am sure that other speakers will answer that question later in the debate.
Whether or not it is inflationary, those extra profits have to come from somewhere. One is constantly told that people do not spend more on their weekly shopping. Surely that means that weekday shopping will be much diminished and that would perhaps seem to be a bad reason to increase shopping on Sunday.
Another proof of the desperate wish of some retail concerns to trade on Sundays is shown by their attempt to interpret Article 30 of the EC treaty as ruling that the 1950 Shops Act contravenes the Treaty of Rome. Even at the moment there are some disputes outstanding before the European Court of Justice. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that aspect of the matter.
While speaking of the European Community, I should like to stress that our vision of a Continental Sunday where everything hums and everyone is out in the streets is something of a myth. It is true that on the Continent there are many more sporting fixtures on a Sunday than there are in this country but in fact every single EC country restricts Sunday trading. The arguments on what to do about changing Sunday
1566
trading laws are just as passionate there as they are here.
That should really put paid to the idea that they have no restrictions. For example, Denmark has a list of exempt goods as in this country; France and Belgium rely on labour legislation; and West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Greece have a list of exempt shops, as indeed is now proposed by the new REST proposals which they have issued in an attempt to reform the Shops Act 1950. In Spain and Portugal Sunday trading is controlled by local authorities. That was an idea which was put forward in our debate on this topic in 1986. In fact a consideration to bear in mind is that we should he moving out of line with the EC countries if we allow deregulation for all or part of the day.
As we have said, the retailers certainly want this measure. But what about the public? What about the consumer? Evidence from a spate of open polls—notably one carried out by the National Consumer Council on 27th January—shows that two-thirds of those questioned support more liberal Sunday trading laws. One should take notice of that finding. I am sure that it indicates a positive change from preceding years. It must also be noted that the phrasing of the question tended to exclude the adverse effect of Sunday trading. By way of illustration, if I were to be asked what I thought about liberalising the Sunday trading laws, I should certainly agree in principle. The fact that I live 100 yards from the King's Road would heavily influence my answer since the thought of having repeated on a Sunday the present activity that takes place on the King's Road on a Saturday would make for very disruptive living in that area at the weekend.
The many people to whom I spoke before this debate have all emphasised that it would seem right in principle because our present law is full of anomalies. But what about the stress, tension and noise with which we are surrounded in London at present and what about the additional services that will have to be brought in should a large number of shops respond to a liberalising of the law?
That leads to my last point about the two groups which are most vulnerable to a change in the law; namely, the local residents (and I have already spoken about them a little) and the shopworkers. My noble friend Lord Graham will speak particularly on the subject of shopworkers but I, too, should like to make a couple of points on this matter. USDAW is desperately against deregulation, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, but I do not think that he gave as one of the reasons the fact that the union has every right to be anxious about deregulation. It fears that if Part II of the Shops Act 1950 goes, then protection from exploitation for shopworkers will also go and Sunday will become a routine working day. There will be no safeguards for people who do not wish to work; there will be nothing to replace that protection. That is USDAW's concern.
It is difficult to see how low income vulnerable shopworkers would be adequately protected from being compelled to work on Sundays. I know it has been suggested that a voluntary code of practice should be incorporated into a contract of employment for shopworkers; but I did not think

1567
that many shopworkers had contracts. It would also mean that there would have to be agreement of the employers to the inclusion of that voluntary code, which again would not be entirely sure. It is quite impossible to protect a worker against preferment. I must remind your Lordships that three-quarters of the retail shopworkers are women and half of them—1.2 million—are married women. Many of them will find themselves unable to accept the job and the preferment of someone who can accept it will not in any way be prevented.
I should also like to remind noble Lords of some very relevant words spoken by the late Earl of Stockton during the Committee stage of the Shops Bill 1986 when he said:
"The Bill is meant to make it possible for people to trade freely on Sundays … It is not meant to make life more difficult for shop assistants. It is not meant to make the conditions of their labour worse. I am not talking now about the kind of shops that probably will not open on a Sunday anyway … But there are many small shops that will take advantage of this legislation. They will be just the kind of people who will try to exploit the weak and often transient population who are the kind of people likely to become shop assistants". [Official Report, 21/1/86; col. 159.]
What he said then is still true today. As I said, many options and ideas have come before us about reform. There have been newspaper reports that the Government are considering a Home Office report which recommends that reforms should take the shape of allowing shops to open in the afternoon on Sundays and corner shops to stay open all day. The Shopping Hours Reform Council which was formed last year presented some ideas under the heading of "A consensus for reform", which suggested that shops should be free to open on Sundays but for limited hours. That seemed to provide the basis for the Government's reported preference. The hours suggested are from 12 to 6 p.m. which means that there will be disruption of the family midday meal on Sunday. I should think that the hours of 12 to 6 p.m. are so near deregulation as to make very little difference.
The Keep Sunday Special campaign has also produced proposals similar to the systems in West Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, which are based on exempt shops rather than, as at present, exempt goods. Those proposals are entitled the REST proposals. They show that this campaign has moved from the position it held in 1987. The consumer groups—notably the National Consumer Council, and the Consumers' Association—favour complete liberalisation. They put some powerful arguments to support their case.
There is certainly no shortage of ideas. However, the major problem that the Government face is that in making their decision they cannot please everybody. Many feel that Sunday's special character must be preserved and that in this era of stress it is becoming even more important that that should be so. But others would rather have some activity and find Sunday a lonely day. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that it seems right for the Government to consult with these different groups, who have all made some concessions, to try to bring them closer together in their ideas for a reform of the present trading system.
1568
We must always remember that the two very vulnerable groups who would be most affected are the residents and the shopworkers. Although I agree—because we each speak for ourselves—that the time has come to justify a reform and adjustment of the 1950 Act, we are convinced that before there is any major change in the law we must be satisfied that the interests of local residents and the rights of this very vulnerable group among our workforce; namely, our shopworkers, should be properly considered and safeguarded.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, on Monday, 23rd January, the Evening Standard published these words under the heading "The Right to shop":
"The outdated and bizarre law which prevents Sunday trading remains on the statute book, because a Government attempt at reform was defeated in the Commons last year by an unholy and canting alliance of puritans, Sabbatarians, trade unionists, busybodies and cranks".
As one who opposed the Bill in your Lordships' House I think that I fit best into the categories of busybodies and cranks. I am quite unrepentant. The Government had no mandate for the procedure then and with the overconfidence—to use a euphemism—of a party with a large majority in the Commons they attempted to force the measure through with three-line Whips.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for this chance to air our views in a debate on a somewhat higher level than that editorial and to discuss the important issues involved. I was very interested in his suggestion of the possibility of a Bill limited to a five-year duration. I have also listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, with great interest and a great deal of agreement. I speak here for myself and not for my party. We consider this a matter of conscience and treat it as such.
What is the problem? In the words of the Queen's Speech, the problem is how to bring sense and consistency to our Sunday trading laws. It is no secret that the Government still favour total deregulation of Sunday trading or, failing that, half day deregulation if they can achieve it. Almost everyone accepts that the Shops Act is now outdated. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made much of some of the more ridiculous parts of it. However, the difficulty is that the search for sense and consistency may suggest different solutions. To tear up the law on Sunday trading would make the situation totally consistent—no one would break the law—but for many of us this would not make sense because it would do much to wreck the special character of Sunday that is loved by so many.
I believe that a much better way to proceed would be along the lines of the REST proposals, a consultative document worked out by the Keep Sunday Special campaign (KSS) in an attempt to satisfy the Government's aim, and something that could properly be enforced. I am glad that its chairman, the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, is to speak. He will be able to explain the position much better than I can. REST stands for four categories of Sunday trading that would be allowed. They are concerned with recreation, emergencies, social

1569
gatherings and the travelling public. It would be the type of shop that would be regulated rather than the goods sold.
Such a line of approach is worth considering because these reforms draw heavily on the experience of Britain's EC partners. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, touched on this. West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and France strictly regulate Sunday trading. Most of these countries frame exceptions from the prohibition of shop opening by type of shop. With 1992 getting ever nearer, surely it would be good to have some harmony with our European colleagues.
We hear much about the position in deregulated Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also mentioned this. I cannot pretend to have first-hand experience of the provisions there but perhaps I may quote from the REST proposals published last year. At page 20 they state:
"There is little doubt that the scene is rapidly evolving with many retailers in centres of high commercial activity being forced to open by competitors that are stealing a march on them. In a climate of cut and thrust competition cultural self-regulation quickly becomes impotent".
It was significant to read in the Daily Telegraph of Thursday, 2nd February, that Marks & Spencer—which is against opening any of its branches on a Sunday—had done so in some cases in Scotland in the weeks leading up to Christmas. I think the conclusion is clear. I believe that Europe is a more important example than Scotland.
Briefly, the social implications of deregulation or even half-day deregulation are these. First, I believe that family gatherings on a Sunday would be more difficult. It cannot be disputed that if more people were working there would be fewer people at home. Secondly, shopworkers might well have to work on a Sunday against their will. This has also been touched on. Small shops would be likely to suffer against the powerful supermarkets. I know how hard it can be even at present for the small trader to compete against a supermarket. Thirdly, local shops might well go out of business to the inconvenience of those without cars. Fourthly, residents near shopping centres would lose their one day of peace and quiet. The noble Baroness mentioned this. They would be subjected to all the traffic and maintenance problems that apply on any other day of the week. Fifthly, alcohol, a major contributory factor in violent crimes and fatal accidents, could be more easily obtained.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that under the present law alcohol can be freely sold on Sundays? That is clear from Schedule 5 to the 1950 Act.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I was slightly doubtful when I raised the point. However, I read it in print and followed what I read.
It is said that the law is widely broken already, but, as the noble Baroness said, figures suggest that that is so in only a small percentage of cases. It would be much better to enforce the law with deterrent sentences and adapt the law sensibly rather than just change it to suit the law breakers.
1570
What kind of society do we want? In the summer I organised a petition in my home town in south Worcestershire on the terms laid down by the Keep Sunday Special campaign. The petition reads:
"The undersigned are concerned that any future legislation on Sunday trading and commercial activity should uphold the character of Sunday as a shared and special day for the enjoyment of family life, rest, community and worship".
I was quite surprised how very few people, even High Tories, were not willing to sign. I should add that when I asked people whether they would like to shop freely on Sunday some said yes but very few were keen to work on Sunday, or thought Sunday should not be a different and special day.
In its booklet Making Sense of Sunday, the Shopping Hours Reform Council, which some people have dubbed SHARC, says this:
"We believe that each family should be free to spend Sunday as they choose and not as somebody else dictates",
and,
"In a free society each family should have the right to decide how to make Sunday special for themselves".
There are clearly conflicting interests. USDAW, the shopworkers' union, strongly opposes total deregulation, as we have heard. I know of a riding stable where the staff are worried about what may come out of the Sunday Sports Bill. Only this morning I had a note from the British Hardware Federation, with this conclusion, which bears out what I have said:
"Wider consumer choice is not dependent on greater Sunday trading facilities. For many groups of people, such as shop employees and family shops, and those working in service industries, the result could be the loss of the one day in seven when the family can now he together. In the longer term consumer choice in the hardware sector could be reduced through higher prices, fewer shops and less choice of goods".
Lastly I come to the religious argument, which I believe is truly important. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has told me that he believes Church leaders should concentrate on getting people to church and cease campaigning against shops Bills. I still feel that that is their right, and it may be their duty, and we shall see what right reverend Prelates have to say. My diocesan Synod of Worcester put it well when almost unanimously on a large vote in 1985 it agreed that:
"this Synod believes that every society needs a publicly expressed day of rest and recreation, such as the Christian Sunday has provided, and that society also needs symbols which point beyond market forces as a determing aspect of our life in community".
It then expressed concern about the proposed deregulation of shopping:
"whilst recognising that there are anomalies in the present Act that require reform, [we] would strongly deprecate any move to increase the commercialisation of Sunday by legislation".
I forget who the wit was who said, with more than an element of truth, that this Government seem more concerned with "profits" than "prophets".
Writing this month in our diocesan newsletter the Bishop of Dudley said:
"The Government's view is that this matter should be thrown open to the forces of the market. What is profitable should be free to trade. Sunday then would become the same as any other day But something important to the quality of life in this country would be lost".
I conclude by saying that I believe with all my heart that total deregulation of Sunday trading, or even

1571
half-day deregulation, would not be the answer. The special and vital nature of Sunday would best be protected, and sense and consistency balanced, with legislaton perhaps on the lines of the KSS proposals. If this debate helps to achieve a consensus as a way forward, we shall owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In the meantime those of us who believe that Sundays should truly be a special day must fight on.
4.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, I first express my sincere apologies to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because I shall not be able to stay for the conclusion of the debate. I mean no discourtesy but, as noble Lords may have noticed, today is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, and Bishops normally have full diaries and diocesan duties on a day such as this. I am no exception. Indeed I am astonished that the Bishops' Bench is so well served today and I wonder what neglect of diocesan duties this represents.
The subject is one of immense importance and I am grateful that the House is prepared to hear the Church's voice on it. I do not dare to take up the challenge issued by the noble Lord in his well-known anomaly of pornography and Bibles. But I wonder whether he has much evidence as to how many people seeking to buy pornographic magazines on Sunday have found themselves thwarted in not being able to purchase a Bible to accompany those magazines; or indeed how many who are frustrated in not being able to buy a Bible seek alternative comfort in buying a pornographic magazine. If any noble Lord wishing to purchase a Bible on a Sunday were to keep his desire for 24 hours, he would not only satisfy the criminal law but earn merit in Heaven.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the right reverend Prelate tell me on what authority he states that one achieves merit in Heaven by not buying a Bible on Sunday? Which saint, which early Christian father, which Pope or which Council of Churches produces that load of rubbish?
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Lord for my inaccuracy. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London may be in a better position to answer that question.
I do not wish to deal with the debate on purely pragmatic grounds, which is the way in which it has been presented to us and the way in which we frequently face it. Instead I should like to give to your Lordships a small theological excursus on the basic issue behind it all, which is: what is Sunday all about? Where did it come from? What is it for?
It has been around for 3,000 years at least: a day of rest, one day in seven, a special day kept for God. A sociologist may be entitled to see it as a subdivision of the lunar calendar, marking the moon's four quarters and reflecting a society's absorption with the phases and rhythms of a moon-dominated life. But the Hebrew people who adopted the Sabbath principle saw in it much more than a social
1572
institution. To them it was a gift from God for all mankind. So in the earliest historical reference to the Sabbath day, which must date back to Moses in the 13th century before Christ, the Ten Commandments are insistent in saying that keeping the seventh day holy to God is as important as honouring parents and not committing murder or adultery. They are regulations given by God to a people who had been freed from slavery so that they could live well in the land to which they were going.
It was the genius of the Hebrew scriptures that they asserted that a people's well-being was achieved by the twin routes of upholding religious values, represented by respect for God and his institutions and his day, and abiding by ethical standards, symbolised by respect for life, for marriage, for property and for truth. The two were inseparable in the Ten Commandments and they should always remain so. The importance of this was reinforced in a number of ways.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the right reverend Prelate then saying, as I think he is, that not only should we not authorise Sunday shopping but we should withdraw authority from the 5·5 million people who work every Sunday in this country now?
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, if the noble Lord will hear me to the end of my speech he may find the answer to his question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I doubt it, my Lords.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, the importance of this was reinforced in a number of ways. First, when a Hebrew theologian wanted to write about the nature and origins of the universe around him, he described it in what we know as Genesis Chapters I and II in the framework of a six-day week with the seventh day representing God's cessation from the work of creation and His taking a rest. This gave further divine sanction to the Sabbath day as a day to be universally observed.
Secondly, although the day of rest was God's gift to His people, it nonetheless needed to be protected and enforced. Human nature being what it is, people would always be tempted to reject the gift and so deprive themselves and others of its benefits. So the individual's freedom had to be curbed in order that the whole community might benefit.
That theme was taken up by the prophets, who fulminated against those who wanted to trade on the Sabbath. Listen to Amos:
"Woe to those who say, 'When will the new moon be over that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale?".
What he was saying, in effect, seven centuries before Christ was that when the profit motive or commercial values encroached upon this protected area the gift was destroyed, the benefits lost and the soul of the nation was in jeopardy. It was that serious.
Or, less negatively, in the prophecy of Isaiah there is this:
"If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from pursuing your business on my Holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the Holy day of the Lord honourable…then you shall take delight in the Lord and I shall make you ride upon the heights of the earth".

1573
But although there was always the danger of encroachment by secular forces, there was an equal danger from over-strict legalism—a legalism which, to judge from the Gospels, occasionally would not allow even works of healing to be done on the Sabbath. It was that danger which met with the sharp criticisms of Our Lord with which we are familiar and the often-quoted saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. For by over-concentration on the institution, the gift element was lost to sight.
There is no point in denying the fact that nowhere in the New Testament is working on a Sunday or a day of rest condemned. That is partly because the Sabbath still remained a protected day in places where Jews were numerically strong and partly because the transition from the seventh day to the first day of the week was only just beginning and was strictly reserved for worship and to celebrate the resurrection. Moreover, the New Testament Church was trying to free itself from another form of slavery, a slavery to what it considered to be outworn rituals and institutions.
But while there is a real discontinuity between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday, the New Testament remains strong on the benefits of that day of rest. It was a day of contrast from the working week. It was a day which brought refreshment and enrichment of spirit for the religious and irreligious alike. It was a day that bore silent witness to the values in society, declaring that commerce or profit did not reign supreme but that contentment, worship and acts of mercy and care for one's neighbour were highly valued. All those aspects have been carried over from the past and they still apply in a Christian or post-Christian culture such as ours.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I appear to be preaching. I do not mean to do so. Nor am I unaware that the Judaeo-Christian tradition that I have tried to outline is not considered relevant to the debate by a number of Members of your Lordships' House. But I have said these things in order that noble Lords of all traditions and viewpoints may perhaps appreciate why it is that I and my fellow Bishops, and those who feel bound by Christian doctrines out of loyalty to Christ, cannot under any circumstances willingly go along with any proposal which will damage the health of the nation by rejecting what we believe to be God's gift—albeit already somewhat impaired to the tune of 5½ million people—of the Lord's Day, a day of rest.
I hope too that your Lordships will understand that nothing could be more abhorrent to the Christian conscience than to be faced with a campaign to remove restrictions on the character of Sunday which is prompted by the desire for commercial gain and financial exploitation, as so much of the literature and argumentation appears to imply. Of all motives, that must go down as the unworthiest of them all. No one who values the Hebrew prophets and the message of the Bible could countenance that form of latter-day prostitution.
I could accept the loss of Sunday and I should make the necessary adjustments if I found myself living in a totally secular or materialistic state where the only values acknowledged were those of self-
1574
interest or totalitarianism. But I cannot and could never accept an erosion of this special quality of the Sunday which I have tried to describe from the hands of any government who claimed to espouse spiritual values and are for ever calling upon the Church to reinforce Christian standards by its teaching and example. That is a contradiction which I should find totally unacceptable and incomprehensible.
Therefore, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who I believe shares these ideals, as he has just said, to urge his friends in Her Majesty's Government not again to put the Churches (for they all share these convictions) into the invidious position of resisting their proposals to the very last ditch. Sunday is too precious to be lost, for once lost it can never be recovered.
4.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it may be helpful to intervene at this point in order to try to set out the Government's present views on Sunday trading. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has introduced an important debate. He said that the law as it now stands was unenforceable and unenforced. He said that if it was not enforceable it made everyone lose their respect for the law. I believe that most people will agree with that view.
I had expected that we should have a fascinating debate. However, it never occurred to me that we should find the death penalty used in an argument in a debate on Sunday trading. That shows how ingenious is my noble friend. It is always said that that particular prospect concentrates the mind fairly effectively and if it does so for your Lordships it does no bad thing.
I felt slightly sorry for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans because when he tried to make a helpful remark to Bible seekers in order to keep them on the straight and narrow—both ecclesiastically and criminally—he received the somewhat ungracious intervention of my noble friend Lord Onslow. However, that indicates how interests and passions on the subject can flare.
We are all agreed that the law is in need of reform. It is anachronistic, anomalous and almost impossible to enforce. It is widely disregarded by the public. Local authorities which are charged with powers to enforce the law find it increasingly difficult to do so. There is not much to be said for the law as it stands at present. The only wry and somewhat unhelpful comment that I should like to make is that Sunday trading appears to be rather like your Lordships' House: everyone says that it ought to be reformed but when we come to consider how to do so there is a holocaust of disagreement.
The law was in dispute and not in accord with the reasonable needs of the public long before we introduced the unsuccessful Shops Bill in 1986. The restrictions on Sunday trading were originally designed to protect the Sabbath, as the right reverend Prelate told us. That was way back in the 15th century. They subsequently then feel into disrepute. There was a revivial of Sabattaranism at the end of the last century. At that time the Victorians became

1575
increasingly conscious of the need to protect employees. So the Sunday trading laws were adapted in order to achieve such protection.
In those days there were no refrigerators and deep freezers so it was necessary, as we were told, to exempt from the Sunday trading laws perishable goods such as fruit and vegetables in order to allow people to buy fresh food. Fresh food was exempt but not, of course, tinned or bottled food. As a result, there is the anomaly by which one is permitted to buy fresh fruit and vegetables but not bottled fruit and vegetables. There is then the even more absurd anomaly, which I explained to your Lordships the other day, where one is permitted to buy tinned or untinned clotted cream and untinned unclotted cream but not tinned unclotted cream. We all know of those absurdities, which were restrictions consolidated into the Shops Act 1950.
Since then, not only has retailing changed, giving much more choice and variety in any one shop, but public attitudes have changed. It was for these reasons that the Government accepted the recommendations of the Auld Committee, which were approved in another place by a large majority. Unfortunately, the Shops Bill, which embodied the Auld recommendations, was defeated there in April 1986.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, the Government still favour complete deregulation. It is, after all, the system which operates perfectly successfully in Scotland, where, according to the best estimates, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, only about one shop in five actually opens, and the character of Sunday is preserved. We recognise though, that there is no certainty that a new Bill for complete deregulation would command the necessary support in another place. It did not do so in 1986 and there is really little point in the Government producing a Bill of this nature unless it is likely to have a reasonable chance of survival.
My honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Renton, has therefore been considering a variety of proposals for partial deregulation; that is, deregulation which is based on legitimising opening for part of the day, for particular sorts of shops or for particular sorts of goods. He has consulted a very large number of interested parties. Several have put forward proposals for reform. However, I am bound to tell your Lordships that, not very surprisingly, there is no one proposal which is attractive to all interest groups and there is no proposal which is not without its disadvantages. Therefore, the same uneasy condition continues.
I should make it clear that, contrary to some reports in the newspapers, the Government have not come to a settled view of how to reform the law. There are certainly attractions to many in the idea of complete deregulation for Sunday afternoon, but the difficulty then is how does one provide for the necessary exemptions for Sunday morning?
I thought that it might be helpful if I were to mention some of the more important proposals for change and to comment briefly upon each, but I am bound to stress that the Government have not, as yet,
1576
reached a decision, and we very much look forward to hearing your Lordships' views. If your Lordships were able to speak with one mind on this issue, I am bound to say that that at least would be helpful, but I fear that it is unlikely.
The Keep Sunday Special group has put forward the REST proposals. For those unfamiliar with this territory, I should explain, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that REST is an acronym for recreation, emergencies, social gathering and the travelling public. It proposes that certain goods which serve for recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and the travelling public should be exempt.
I think that there are two main difficulties with those proposals. The first is that it would mean having a system of registering some shops as ones which could open to sell all goods in stock, depending on whether 80 per cent. of their sales in the previous year were listed goods. This would be extremely complicated, very bureaucratic and very difficult to enforce. Secondly, the list of exempt goods seems merely to replace one set of anomalies with another. Why, for instance, should gardening be considered to be a leisure activity while do-it-yourself is not?—not, I am bound to say, that I have ever found it possible to describe do-it-yourself as a leisure activity.
The Shopping Hours Reform Council proposed complete afternoon deregulation with, in the morning, exemptions for small shops. This had the benefit of simplicity but, when one tries to decide on a limit for a small shop, problems arise. The council is, I understand, reconsidering this aspect of its proposal.
The organisation somewhat dramatically and impatiently called Sort Out Sunday, of which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is the distinguished president, as well as Open Shop and some other groups, has proposed flexible opening under which shops could open for, say, six hours on Sunday but those hours would be on their own choosing.
The main advantage of this is that it does away with the need for a schedule of exemptions because newspaper shops, for example, could elect to open on Sunday mornings, while other shops might elect to open on Sunday afternoons. Under that arrangement Sunday opening would be, as it were, all over the place. A difficulty with this option is, again, that of enforcement. And it may be seen as failing to preserve Sunday as a day apart.
There are, of course, many variations on these themes, but none is, I think, without flaws. That is no criticism of the authors of the proposals. The Auld Committee predicted that there was indeed no satisfactory halfway house to total deregulation.
I should just mention that any deregulatory proposals would have to have some protection for existing employees who did not wish to work on Sundays, and the Government will not lose sight of that point.
That is all I propose to say at this stage. I thought that it would be right, and I hope helpful, to explain early in the debate that the Government have not, as yet, taken a position on Sunday trading and to

1577
explain why. I shall therefore listen to your Lordships' deliberations with rapt attention.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for introducing the debate this afternoon. Perhaps I may say that he spoke with his usual vigour, clarity and wit and he introduced a subject which was very fully debated in your Lordships' House some two years ago. However, as everyone has made clear, the problem will not go away and, indeed, the interest in this matter is shown by the number of speakers tabled to speak this afternoon.
I believe that we all agree with what my noble friend said at the beginning, which has been repeated by all who have spoken: that the present law on Sunday trading is an ass. There is no need for me to add to the examples of its absurdities because everyone has cited them. Indeed, I believe that the situation has been made more difficult by the recent decision of the High Court that, while local authorities can prosecute retailers who open on Sundays and fine them, they cannot prevent them opening pending the outcome of a case in the European Court brought by B & Q and others which claims that the existing Shops Act breaches the Treaty of Rome by inhibiting international trade.
Indeed, listening to the Minister, I could not help but feel great sympathy for him, for the Government and in particular for my honourable friend Mr. Renton, because it is his ministerial responsibility to try to sort out this knotty problem. I am not absolutely sure how far the debate this afternoon will help him to reach a conclusion.
However, today I wish to speak in my capacity as a director of Marks & Spencer. It is one of the most interesting jobs that I could have been offered and, may I say in parenthesis, there can be no joy greater than walking round Marks & Spencer and telling everyone that I am working. Nevertheless, I seriously believe that it is important that the company's view should be made plain. I think I can describe Marks & Spencer as a British institution. However, I should make clear that I am not speaking only on behalf of Marks & Spencer. All those who support the Shopping Hours Reform Council do not in fact speak for all retailers. The views of Marks & Spencer are supported by Sears, which comprises 4,000 shops, including Selfridges, Saxone, Dolcis, Freeman, Hardy & Willis, Wallis, Mappin and Webb and many others. It is also supported by the John Lewis Partnership, which of course includes Waitrose.
All agree with Marks & Spencer that there is a need to reform the law on Sunday trading but they are not in fact in support of Sunday trading. Their grounds for saying that are not quite the same as those set out by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, or indeed the right reverend Prelate, to whose speech I listened with great interest; but perhaps I may put forward a more wordly point of view and make the argument quite plain. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, touched on some aspects, though I do not follow her on all her arguments.
It is consideration of commercial reasons that leads Marks & Spencer to be against Sunday trading.
1578
These reasons are based on the commercial judgment that Sunday trading would mean six days' trading spread over seven days. That view is supported by observation of practice in the United States, where Marks & Spencer has had a fact-finding team, that Sunday trading does not bring additional business. On the other hand, current experience shows that retail costs are rising and that Sunday trading would add further cost pressures to an already labour intensive industry.
Although my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter explained, if I understood him correctly, that in his experience workers in the cement company of which he was chairman vied with one another to work on a Sunday, I do not think that that situation pertains for shops. Already it is very difficult to obtain staff in London and the South-East generally. Indeed, I was surprised to hear it said that Sunday staffing would present no problems even for management staff. That is certainly not the view or experience of Marks & Spencer. Indeed, Sunday trading, coupled with the longer working day—shops are now open from 9 or 9.30 a.m. until 8 or 9 p.m.—would make it more difficult both to recruit and to retain staff.
The fact is that, in looking for good recruits in retailing, competition comes from the financial services sector. That point has often been made to me at a number of meetings I have attended. The financial services offer, on the whole, a nine-to-five working day. That is frequently a much more attractive proposition to women employees who, after all, make up the overwhelming majority of employees in retailing. Even if, as it is sometimes said, part-timers can be found to work on a Sunday the problem of securing full-time management staff on a Sunday would remain. The fact is that Sunday trading would further damage the image of retailing as a career that it is worth while to enter, to stay in and in which to progress.
A further consequence, of course is that the consumer would be faced with higher prices because clearly costs would rise. Almost certainly standards of service would fall. To a business like Marks & Spencer, which properly prides itself or standards of service, that would be an extremely unsatisfactory development and not one which in any way it wishes to see. Apart from total deregulation, even for some of the other proposals for limited opening—for example, noon until 6 p.m., or whatever the hours may be—the same arguments would apply. Indeed, it could be argued that the shorter hours of noon to 6 p.m. would involve the worst of all worlds for some stores.
I make one further point of my own, but I believe that it is important. The Government have stated on many occasions—in my view, quite rightly—the importance they attach to the improvement of the quality of life in the inner cities. To that end there has been a great deal of legislation and many policies introduced to encourage people to work in the cities and to provide more jobs. In this debate about Sunday trading it is important to look further than the immediate issues that confront us, important though they are, and ask what some of the long-term consequences of total deregulation might be. It is perhaps dangerous to speculate, but one

1579
consequence, I believe, would be the increasing development of out-of-town shopping centres. In much of the material which I have been sent by various organisations prior to this debate that point emerges as one factor about which people are concerned.
There are many arguments in favour of out-of-town shopping centres and this is not the place to develop them today. However, we should be concerned to ensure that city centres retain their attraction. Part of that attraction must be the shopping centre. Therefore, we must think carefully before we adopt policies which could have the effect in some cases of further driving shops out of the city centres into the out-of-town shopping centres. There are a great many ramifications to that argument which need to be considered to make absolutely sure that what the Government are doing, quite properly, to improve the quality of life in city centres is not inadvertently damaged by another policy adopted for quite different reasons.
To sum up, therefore, it is right on this occasion that all of those who have a direct interest in this matter should have the opportunity to put their point of view. I have been very glad to speak on behalf of a number of important retailers who are concerned. They recognise the importance of, and would like to see, some reform of the law; but they are not themselves in favour of Sunday trading.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, discussions on longer opening hours—despite the wording of the Motion, there may be something to be said for discussing longer opening hours generally rather than concentrating narrowly upon Sunday—tend to centre around such questions as the number of new jobs that might be created in consequence of liberalisation and whether commercial forecasts or public opinion polls show that there will be enough customers to go round in the event of extended opening hours. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, concentrated on that aspect.
With respect, I suggest that that is approaching the problem from the wrong direction. Of course the creation of new jobs is important, and polls and forecasts are useful in indicating preferences, but ultimately it will be the market which decides the degree to which longer opening hours are welcomed by the public collectively, and that is how it should be.
The acquisition of goods from another party, whether by purchase or by barter, is one of the oldest pleasures known to civilised man. An English housewife waiting in a long queue in Sainsbury's with her trolley stacked full of weekend purchases might not consider shopping to be a pleasurable activity, but to a housewife in Moscow, Upper Volta or Outer Mongolia it would be paradise. In ancient times, trade (for that is what we are talking about) enabled people to obtain their tools and utensils much more economically than if they had manufactured them themselves, as well as enabling them to vary what might otherwise have been a most monotonous diet. That is what economists term division of labour,
1580
which does so much to raise the general standard of living above subsistence level and thereby enrich people's lives.
One can think of so many forms of pleasurable activity—smoking a cigarette or a cigar, drinking wine, beer or whisky, driving a fast sports car, potholing, mountaineering, sailing out in a small boat in a Force 7 gale—which nevertheless can have adverse consequences, both direct and indirect, for other people. But where the activity of shopping is concerned the possible adverse side-effects are minimal and can be effectively dealt with. There is no possibility of actual harm whatsoever.
In a genuinely free society it follows therefore that the ability to buy and sell should not be treated as a dangerous activity to be strictly rationed by the government of the day, with extra hours graciously doled out now and again when the government judge that there might be some extra demand. On the contrary, there should be an automatic predisposition in favour of total freedom of choice, except in cases where such freedom of choice impinges upon the well-being of others.
One ought therefore to start from the proposition that people should be able if they so choose—and that is another story—to buy and sell 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and then circumscribe this to eliminate all elements of genuine nuisance, as opposed to merely trivial nuisance. This would meet the worries advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. In practice of course more than 95 per cent. of shops are sited within earshot of residential areas and so could not be allowed to open 24 hours a day. But that is no reason why the remaining 4 to 5 per cent. should not be allowed to open, provided that no other nuisances present themselves. However, this is all in the realms of theory, since in practice very few of the 4 to 5 per cent., apart from the shops in airports perhaps, would find it economically practical to avail themselves of such a freedom.
Let us deal now with a few delusions. The notion that the average British family sits down, all three or four generations of it, to a leisurely Sunday lunch of roast beef, Yorkshire pudding and all the trimmings is a romantic delusion. The idea that at the moment practically nobody works on Sunday is a romantic delusion. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, almost 24 per cent. do so. The idea that in the absence of Sunday opening the average English family spends most of its Sunday in church is a romantic delusion. I believe that only 13 per cent. of the English population are regular churchgoers and I would guess that less than 2 per cent. regularly attend Evensong. So much for the pubs not being allowed to open until 7 p.m. on Sunday in case they lure millions of English men and women away from church.
The notion that Sunday opening would lead to exploitation of women and young people is a nonromantic delusion. Anybody who has studied the alarming demographic projections published recently reflecting the sharp decline in the birth-rate during the 1960s and 1970s will know that within a very few years young people, single parents and so on will be virtually able to dictate their own terms to employers, such will be the labour shortage.

1581
Having said all that, I think there is a strong case for leaning over backwards to meet the fears, whether genuine or not—I think largely not—of those who are worried about the consequences of Sunday opening, and for possibly meeting them beyond the degree strictly necessary to eliminate genuine nuisances. I was originally in favour of total deregulation and in theory still am; but at some point between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill that came before us at the end of 1985 I happened to get 'flu, which was accompanied by a slight temperature. Sometimes with a slight fever one tends to see things with rather greater clarity than one can when one's temperature is normal, and it suddenly became clear to me that we were having much too easy a ride; we were behaving much too triumphantly; we were making virtually no concessions whatsoever of substance to the opposition. That is always a dangerous and undesirable thing, as the late Lord Stockton once pointed out. In general, we were behaving as if victory was in the bag.
So at Report stage, much to the annoyance of some of my noble colleagues, I ventured a compromise which, for the record, involved compulsory lunchtime closing for larger stores on Sundays, thus making it uneconomical for them to open for the entire day. Of course neither this nor any other of the compromise suggestions got anywhere. Then, lo and behold, the Bill was defeated on Second Reading in another place. I believe that, had we made some modest compromise at an early stage in our deliberations at the end of 1985, we should have an Act on the Statute Book today which would be a great deal more liberal than anything we are likely to end up with now that the opposition has the bit so much between its teeth. So let us try to compromise on slightly less than the libertarian ideal for an experimental five-year period, as has been suggested. When the English public sees the benefits and notes the absence of adverse consequences in the same way as the Scottish public has, we can perhaps go further.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, proposals for the reform of the Sunday trading laws have enjoyed massive support for the past 10 years and I believe it is truly time that this matter was redressed in law and time that our legislators recognised the consistent demand of the general public. In fact, until 1969 the policeman, the nurse, the power station worker and even the football referee broke the law when they turned out to work on Sunday. Those restrictions remained on the statute book until repealed as being obsolete and of "chiefly historical interest".
The present restrictions are unworkable and wholly discredited, and I think it is time to move on. Demands and tastes change. Surely it is wrong that the law of the land should be so easily ridiculed. Only last Sunday evening Miss Esther Rantzen on her consumers' television programme, "That's Life", highlighted the anomalies and stupidities of the Shops Act. Do-it-yourself stores, video shops, out-of-town shopping precincts and garden centres have all established themselves as part of our lifestyle since the 1950 Act. What the next 30 years may hold we can but speculate.
1582
Here I must declare an interest. I was a full-time working director of a garden centre for 19 years. My experience in this trade and the related leisure retailing industry confirms that it is the customer who has created and led the demand for the freedom to shop on Sunday. This is well illustrated by a recent case in the High Court. One borough authority did no more than the bare minimum by way of enforcing the Shops Act, enabling a number of stores to remain open and their trade to be well supported. The neighbouring borough was more enthusiastic and closed all its large stores and many of its smaller ones. An enterprising local coach operator saw his chance and ran a very profitable service taking the inhabitants of the zealous borough to its more relaxed neighbour. Understandably, the shopkeepers who had been forced to close complained to their council, which, after an unsuccessful court application—at considerable expense to the ratepayers of both districts, I may add—felt obliged to alter its policy.
This story shows the strength of demand for Sunday shopping and perhaps tells us why some sectors of retailing, particularly those in the leisure industry, are so keen on reform. The consumer, not the retailer, has created and maintained this momentum, and I think that Parliament would be unwise to ignore these calls. Successful retailers who now meet their customers' demands on a Sunday may find themselves cast as criminals. Indeed, for past transgression I myself appear in the dock; but I take comfort from the fact that I keep only the best company. I stand shoulder to shoulder with local authorities whose town halls host antiques fairs, whose sports centres sell T-shirts and whose car parks are used by Sunday markets. I stand with those noble Lords whose ancient homes support shops selling goods outside the narrowly defined exemptions. I keep good company with those right reverend Prelates whose cathedral shops retail on Sundays in contravention of the Shops Act and whose steeples are repaired from funds so raised.
I well remember an occasion when I was able to assist the local clergy in shedding light on problems spiritual. The rector had exhausted his supply of candles and was unable to replenish them on the Sunday from his usual suppliers. My garden centre was soundly blessed when he discovered that we were open and could provide the candles, and that they were less expensive than his usual source. While we may laugh and make fun of an absurd position, Sunday is crucial to most garden centres, corner shops and DIY stores. It is no laughing matter to those, whose business success requires Sunday opening.
With total deregulation said to be politically unobtainable, much thought has gone into alternatives. A number of qualities are clearly essential—fairness, simplicity and ease of enforcement. I propose a system that gives retailers control over the choice of hours that best suit their business. It also affords protection to employees against exploitation and simplifies enforcement. However, we must recognise the overwhelming consumer demand; if we do not, any new restriction

1583
will start with public disapproval, even resentment, and that may be fatal.
I believe that a limit on hours with exemptions may be a suitable way forward. Different trades need different hours on a Sunday. The failure of Schedule 5 of the Shops Act clearly demonstrates the difficulty of formulating exemptions by types of goods. While that may not be insuperable, it would surely be preferable to allowing traders the right to choose—say six consecutive trading hours on a Sunday, an idea already proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I suggest that they notify their choice to the local authority, and that the chosen hours be prominently displayed.
As has been said, that would allow the village shop, the corner shop and the newsagent to serve their customers from early on a Sunday morning as they do now, the garden centre and DIY shop to serve their customers from late morning to mid afternoon and the video libraries to open in the evenings. Other businesses would choose when to open if they wish to do so. I envisage, for example, that shops on the way to the coast might open in the morning and those on the route home in the afternoon. Having chosen their hours, traders could expect no mercy for breach of the law. I would support an enforcement system similar to that current for driving offences. Whether the business be large or small, repeat offenders against the law would risk disqualification from Sunday opening.
As I said earlier, who knows what changes may occur within society over the next 30 years. Therefore, should these proposals become the basis for a thorough rewrite of the Shops Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, I believe that it would be prudent to incorporate in any new legislation provision for a review to take place within a period of five years.
Ordinary folk now enjoy their Sunday shopping whether it be at a Sunday market, pottering around the garden centre, visiting a stately home or indeed at any type of shop. They do not regard this activity as unlawful. Until people are free to purchase their can of creosote on a Sunday, the Government are delaying its application by sitting on the fence.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, when my noble friend the Minister spoke earlier he expressed the hope, which I think he knew would not be realised, that your Lordships would come to some kind of consensus on this matter. So far the only consensus that has been shown to exist is the anomalous situation on Sunday trading that cannot continue for very much longer. Whether that is on the grounds that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter so expressly put in his remarks on the law and order front or for any other reason is what the debate is all about although I must say that I subscribe to the view that he then expressed.
I wish to comment further on the unhappy position by suggesting that the present situation is unfair to consumers—I shall return to them in a moment—and it is certainly unfair to employees. Under the current
1584
regime, lawful or unlawful, practical or otherwise, some employees just do not know where they are; whether they will be in employment from one Sunday to the next. More importantly perhaps, I believe that it is unfair in that it stifles enterprise in the form of those activities of REST—recreation, emergency, sport and travel—that the non-working public want on Sundays. Whether it is to watch football, to go swimming, to go for a picnic or to go shopping I know not. Unless we can free the market place for those people who quite properly want to engage in such pursuits on a Sunday, I believe that those pursuits would be wrong.
All the surveys over the past weeks and months to which many noble Lords have referred I believe express one view. The Consumers' Association survey is pretty illustrative of all of them, except perhaps the Jubilee survey. The surveys show that most people do not realise quite what the law is save that it seems to be an ass. They read in a local newspaper that a store to which they have been in the habit of using has an injunction against it or a fine of £1,000, say, for opening on Sunday. The Consumers' Association survey showed that over 63 per cent. of respondents—the response was about 62 per cent. of those polled—wanted the freedom to go shopping on Sunday. Table 4 of the survey lists a wide variety of goods from garden centres to museums, china shops and food shops, 89 per cent. being at the top and 1·5 per cent. being at the bottom. People therefore want to do this. Should they be denied? I believe that they should not be denied unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the activity impinges upon the reasonable freedom of other people.
One danger that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, instanced when referring to Schedule 5—other noble Lords have done so also—is that one cannot list things because the tendency is to leave some off. Although Schedule 6 by regulation gives the local authority pretty wide discretionary powers to authorise the sale of other goods, lists always tend to add something that is not necessary or omit something that is necessary.
I quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who believed that the REST proposal was the answer. Some noble Lords may recall that many years ago I operated retail petrol stations. At that time we could sell goods for the use of a bona fide traveller. Was a Thermos flask necessary for a bona fide traveller? Some courts said yes and some courts said no. The kind of proposals embodied in REST are equally as unworkable as Schedule 5 has proved to be. I do not believe that we can send this matter back to the local authorities to determine, in the light of views expressed in their areas, how and when and what kind of shops should open. Indeed it is my understanding that the Association of District Councils does not want that responsibility. It puts the ADC in a most invidious position and merely exacerbates the position whereby a shop on one side of the town can open while another on the other side cannot. A universal solution is needed across the country.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter described the position of the community shop. There are some 60,000 such shops up and down the country. I should declare an interest in that I advise on a number of

1585
issues a group called the Community Shop Group. The group comprises some 10,000 shops employing some 50,000 people. My noble friend said that it is irrational to identify such community shops by size. Three thousand square feet is the size the Community Shop Group believes is right for this kind of operation. Size is the simplest criterion. Modern building of this kind of store is such that 3,000 square feet, which is after all 50 ft. x 60 ft., is an economic unit to build in one. Therefore, the problem foreseen by my noble friend of closing off part—that happened many years ago—does not arise.
I accept that there may be special pleading by the Community Shop Group but at least these stores have the advantage of invariably employing within the community they serve and broadly speaking attracting no business from outside that community. Essentially, they satisfy the need for food items, emergency items and so on. Wherever we go there has to be an arrangement to ensure that these shops, many operated by families one-fifth of whose business is usually done on a Sunday between about 9 a.m. and 7 or 8 p.m., are allowed to remain open.
Perhaps I may say a few words about labour on Sundays. I do not agree with my noble friend Lady Young. I am advised by one of the larger DIY chains. We have no difficulty in filling Sunday job vacancies. They tend to be filled by people who do not work during the week. There is a need to satisfy young people, old people and single people by providing them with an opportunity to work and to maintain their self-respect; an opportunity to earn; and a further opportunity, which otherwise they would be denied, to take part in the community by talking to shoppers and to work colleagues. Whether we in the business, whether large or small, can find a consensus to satisfy my noble friend, my honourable friend Mr. Renton and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary remains to be seen. I believe, however, that it is fast becoming a responsibility which the Government cannot shrug off. They must grasp the various nettles which the different groups offer and find a solution that will be to the satisfaction of the majority of those whose working lives, trading lives and social lives will be affected by any change.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, the House will be grateful for this public airing of a most difficult and complicated topic. I am the more grateful, paradoxically, to the noble Lord who initiated the debate in that he demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt how stupid in many respects the present position is and how demanding it is of some renovation if it is to be a reasonable attitude of mind and to be incorporated into some kind of legal and administrative process.
I shall follow his fun and games, so to speak, with the anomalies by reminding myself, and I hope the House, that the sabbatical approach to this problem will not do. I was brought up in the non-conformity of the Methodist Church and I was sabbatically trained. I remember how early I found the proposition that there should be a day of rest. It was almost a masculine priority and had practically nothing to do with those who were working in the
1586
kitchen on a Sunday. I found that the idea of work being prohibited on a Sunday was difficult to reconcile with the fact that my father refused to purchase a Sunday newspaper on the assumption that its production had involved work on a Sunday. Of course it was the Monday newspaper that he should not have purchased. During the First World War we walked the long way round to church on Sunday morning. I later discovered why. He was able to read the placards, although he was not prepared to study the newspapers.
In principle it is impossible to stitch the Sunday on to the Sabbath. If one tries to do that one moves increasingly into a world not of reality but in some cases of compromise and in other cases a world completely inadequate to the problems with which we are confronted. I refer to the attitude that has sooner or later to be taken as to our corporate responsibility for the behaviour of people on Sunday and how legally it can be instructively pursued.
I want to profess two of the important issues which to me form a necessary part of any solution. They are only inferentially Christian, but in the general proposition I entirely agree with my ecclesiastical friend that speaking and wearing the collar I do I am primarily or fundamentally concerned with the prosecution of the best things that can happen on Sunday for the cultivation of the good life. However, I think I am right in saying that soon after 1789 the French revolutionaries abolished Sunday. They removed it by using a number of Latin words to describe other days which they thought would be suitable. How quickly it came back. In their early days our friends the Communists were rather loath to learn the lesson. They abolished Sunday as well. I receive a document from the Russian Orthodox Church every month. Now it is in English, so I can read it as well as look at the pictures. It is a record of the way in which Sunday has recaptured not only the interest of the authorities but a very great deal of enthusiasm on the part of ordinary people.
However, what is that inferential quality that belongs to Sunday? It is not the day of the week; it is not the seventh day—upon which the Good Lord, very properly, rested because he had been very busy on the previous six—and it is not, incidentally, anything to do with the Sabbatical confirmation of behaviour patterns: it is to celebrate the resurrection of our blessed Lord. That was how it began. But it began as the way in which you can incorporate in a Christian setting ideas which are first nurtured in a pagan environment. What the Christian Sunday really tried to do, and in some measure has been successful in doing, is to provide a rhythm in the continuity of daily life.
Perhaps the principal reason for my objection to the increasing taking away of the rhythm that Sunday provides, is that without that rhythm the continuity becomes dangerous and the ideas which prevail, probably on the other five or six days of the week, are assumed to be relevant to the completion of one's education on the seventh day, or the first day. I do not believe that for a moment. I believe that there is a great danger at present in the universality of behaviour patterns. Indeed, if this were another occasion, 1 should remind myself of how dangerous

1587
is the availability of almost innumerable channels which will attract people to the television sets. They will probably find themselves twiddling the knobs during the whole occasion, because they cannot find the opportunity to listen for any length of time to one particular programme. But, as I said, it is part of a continuity of behaviour patterns which I believe is initially and fundamentally hostile to that which can only be ours when we stop and stare.
I am not saying that many people do stop and stare on a Sunday. But I want the opportunity for them to be able to do so. I want the opportunity for them to see that life begins in various ways and is interpreted in various contexts. To assume that what is normal to the behaviour patterns of, shall we say, six days is necessarily an augury of what ought to be concerned with the seventh day is, I think, a grave mistake.
I believe that the essence of Sunday, though it is grievously mishandled, is to provide the opportunity for people to take a more reserved and a more constructive view of what life is all about. If they do not, there is no reason why they should not increasingly be given the opportunity.
That brings me to the second of these consequential effects. As I remember it, Sunday was very largely the day on which we were together as children. I must put into parenthesis the fact that I, as a working parson over the past 70 years, have not enjoyed that opportunity of family life because I have been at work on Sunday—or at what I assumed to be work. However the fact of the matter is—and it cannot be denied—that when you lose the sense of family life, you lose the most suitable vocabulary in which to express its meaning. It is the vocabulary of father, and of course of mother, of brother and sister congregating at the same table. I believe that that gives a point and significance to whatever we seek to do and however we seek to interpret it.
If you told me, as I am sure you would be able so to do, that family life has broken down—and I am sure that it has—I would deplore that fact. The cynical expression used by the American who said, "Home is where you hang around when somebody else has got the car", is not just a piece of cynicism; it is a piece of common sense. A great many people have lost the value of the family table for various reasons—not least of which, of course, is the whole sexual revolution. That which once belonged to a regular pattern of reverberating experience has now, in very large measure, become dispersed and, in some cases, almost lost.
That seems to me to be an argument not for saying, as one might say, "If there is a lot of truancy, close the school"; I believe that here there is a paramount need for the recovery of the one way in which in this extraordinary age we shall be able to recover the sense of balance and come to some idea of what life is all about. It is that which I cherish; it is that which I believe will be impaired by the non-application of any kind of discipline which will enable people—even if they are not disposed to do it now—to occupy their minds with things which ultimately belong to their peace.
In that context I really hope that the consequence of today's debate will be that the Government will
1588
refuse to go further along the road which will be, in my judgment, a perilous adventure in an increasingly unknown field. Indeed, those who make that journey will have very inadequate boots with which to tread its path.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, it is pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and, if I remember right, I also followed him three years ago on the Second Reading debate. When I learnt that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was to initiate the debate—for which I thank him very much—on this vexed subject, I was immediately reminded of the film so aptly titled "Sunday, Bloody Sunday". It is tempting to think plus ça change. I am only sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will not be speaking today because we shall miss her vast knowledge on the various aspects.
The existing law on shopping hours in England and Wales remains as out of date as ever. After seemingly interminable debate on the issue, we are all acutely aware of the more bizarre examples of what can and cannot be bought on Sundays. Other noble Lords have given examples. Indeed, I was amused to learn recently that on Sundays shops can sell fodder for mules. It strikes me that one of the most common charges laid against this Government is that they are mulish and stubborn. Therefore it would be quite uncharacteristic of them to allow the defeat they suffered on the Shops Bill during their last term in office to continue to prevent them from tackling a situation so clearly crying out for reform.
We could go on for ever debating the various options for reform. Surely we have reached the point where the desire and demonstrable need for reform are far greater than the desire to accomplish it in any particular way.
The Shopping Hours Reform Council, in response to a request from the Government, has come forward with what I hope your Lordships will agree are realistic and workable proposals to reform the outdated laws on shopping hours, while at the same time respecting the traditional Sunday. The proposals are that all shops should be free to open on Sundays but for limited hours; that small shops, family shops and community shops should be allowed to trade without restriction on Sunday; that legal safeguards should be provided for shop staff who do not wish to work on Sunday and that shops should be free to trade up to 10 p.m. between Monday and Saturday.
It seems to me that those proposals represent a considerable compromise by advocates of reform in order to meet the concerns of those who have opposed Sunday trading in the past. The fact that the proposals go against the recommendations of the Auld Report that all controls should be removed and that there should be complete deregulation of shopping hours seems to me to be clear proof, if proof were needed, that the supporters of reform have responded thoughtfully, sympathetically and practically to their critics. The proposal that all shops should be free to open on Sundays but for limited hours only has all the advantages of simplicity, clarity and enforceability.

1589
I therefore urge your Lordships to agree that these modest proposals provide the basis of real consensus for dealing with what otherwise threatens to become an even more Ruritanian political issue. The Minister responsible for this tangled subject is on record as saying that there must be reform; the status quo is not an option. Surely we now have a framework for reform that will enable the Government at last to honour their manifesto pledge and introduce legislation in the 1989 Queen's Speech.
Finally, I should like to pose a question to the Bishops and perhaps the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester can give me a reply. It seems to me and to others that the Church has moved the goalposts. What I mean is that in rural areas—I go away at weekends and I go to church—one no longer has one's village vicar with a Sunday service at 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. and matins at 6.00; now a vicar looks after two, three or four parishes so the 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. service is sometimes 8.30, 9.30, 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. It could be held anywhere within a radius of 20 miles. So if we the churchgoers have to conform to reform, surely the Church should conform to a reform that the churchgoers wish to have and allow us freedom of choice.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for having raised this topical matter. Before I express my views on it I should perhaps make my position clear. I am a member of the Anglican Church of Ireland, of a variety that feels that there is something wrong if one does not go to church on Sunday. It is rather like going to bed without brushing one's teeth. It feels uncomfortable. To avoid such discomfort I have attended Roman Catholic masses when in France or Italy and I have not yet been disciplined by my church for that misdemeanour—the noble and learned Lord is not on the Woolsack. I have subjected myself to services of the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches, of which of course I did not understand a word. They were great theatre. In the case of the Russian Orthodox Church I should say that it was marvellous opera with its 10 feet basses. Having stated my position, it is my belief that people should be able to do what they like on Sundays provided that it does not interfere with what other people want to do on Sundays.
I like to regard Sunday as a day of rest, a quiet day when I can be at home with my family. People who want to do that should have the privilege of so doing without being interrupted by other activities. For that reason, I am inclined to oppose activities such as motor racing on Sundays although I must admit that I have driven in races on Sunday. It went rather against the grain, but it was the only opportunity to get onto that circuit. It is something that can cause offence because of the noise and crowds that are generated, in the same way as professional football generates crowds and noise.
A village cricket match, on the other hand, is entirely different. The vicar probably changes quickly into his cricket gear after morning service, and goes out onto the village green to participate in the game. That is very different to professional sport. On that
1590
premise, the question is whether facilitating people to do what they want to do on Sunday will interfere with others who want to spend the day differently. Two other questions relevant to this topic arise from that. First, will Sunday trading cause such interference; and, secondly, will Sunday trading be objectionable on religious grounds?
There is already a considerable amount of Sunday trading. Some 4·5 to 5 million people now work on Sundays. That is a fact that must be accepted. I am not aware that at present the public is caused any inconvenience or nuisance by the trading that takes place. As the noble Lord pointed out, there are inconsistencies and illogical anomalies which would be far better removed.
There is obviously a demand from the public for better Sunday trading facilities. I have grave reservations about supermarkets opening on Sundays because of the traffic that would be generated and the general disruption. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, is not in her place at the moment, but she referred to the conditions as they would obtain in the Kings Road if it were the same on a Sunday as it is on a Saturday. I entirely understand that point of view.
Against that, I was once lobbied by a taxi driver. He said that he picked up foreign tourists who expressed astonishment that London seemed to be closed on Sundays. Those tourists were possibly only there for the weekend. They probably arrived on the Saturday evening and were going elsewhere on the Monday. They wanted to do some shopping in London on Sunday but they could find nowhere but cigarette shops and newsagents open. New revenue would be generated if shops, especially in tourist areas, were open on Sundays.
The point has been validly made that residents would do the same amount of shopping if shops were open on Sunday. It would merely mean that the same amount of money would be spent over seven days as would otherwise be spent over six days. That is probably different with tourists. I doubt whether Sunday trading would cause interference to the public, but that is a matter which Her Majesty's Government will obviously take into account when considering the matter as a whole.
Licensed premises also come under the heading of trading. When Her Majesty's Government were considering the revision of the licensing laws which enabled public houses to be open throughout the afternoon on weekdays, I am tempted to wonder why they did not think fit to allow public houses to be open during the afternoons on Sundays, a main leisure and recreation day. I am not aware of any argument that that would cause disruption to the public. Her Majesty's Government may have had in mind the fact that landlords and their staffs would have seven days a week of full-time working. They may have felt that they should be given a break during the afternoon on at least one day a week.
That point leads me to my main reservation, which has already been voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and other noble Lords. Even if the public are facilitated by more shopping opportunities on Sundays, what about the staff and the management? What safeguards are there for them?

1591
When I was working full time, I greatly valued Sunday as being a day off when I could relax. I should feel very much in sympathy with shop staff, bar staff and management if they were denied that day off. It can be said that they can take another day off during the week, but will other members of their family have the same day off and be able to join their family, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said, at a family meal on Sundays? I doubt it. I think that there is much to be said for one day in the week when the entire family knows that they will be able to be at home and enjoy each other's company in peace and quiet.
As regards the religious point of view, quite honestly I think that the Sabbatarian argument can be dismissed. If one reads the Pentateuch one realises that many of the Commandments were addressed to a society which was quite different from that in which we live today. If we were going to take the Fourth Commandment to its logical conclusion, we would have no public transport on Sundays, the police would be off duty and there would be no fire service and no ambulance service. The hospitals might be able to keep going because our Lord Jesus Christ made a strong argument for healing on the Sabbath day, but all the other facilities would be withdrawn. Therefore I think it is illogical to use that argument.
I should be inclined to support Sunday trading, provided that no disruption is caused to those who genuinely want a day of rest and provided that employees are not unduly exploited or not exploited at all. Therefore I feel that complete deregulation is probably undesirable but rationalisation is most certainly needed.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I think we can be immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for reopening today the parliamentary debate on Sunday trading and for giving us the first opportunity to see whether there have been any shifts of opinion since the Shops Bill was thrown out in another place in April 1986. As the debate recommences, I wish to say to the Government that I hope that they will not prematurely close any of their options. In particular I hope that they will not totally exclude the possibility of complete deregulation for all of Sunday unless and until they decide they finally have to.
I have considerable sympathy for the point of view of those who do not wish to see Sunday become like Saturday. I should be loth to see the end of the quiet or relatively quiet city centre on a Sunday. I also appreciate the argument which has been heard that there is and there needs to be a rhythm to weekly life and that we need Sunday to punctuate the constant bustle of the rest of the week.
However, despite the efforts of some to argue that the experience of Scotland is of less relevance than that of some other countries, I do not see why the outcome of deregulation in England should be any different from what it has been in Scotland. There, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter told us, less than 25 per cent. of the shops open on Sundays. Sunday opening is not at all contentious or divisive as an issue. The Scottish outcome would for me be an acceptable price to pay to be rid of the anomalies and
1592
the rampant and provocative illegalities of current practice, and especially if it spelt the end of the need for political time and energy to be periodically and hitherto quite fruitlessly devoted to the consideration of what improvements can be made to a discredited law.
I doubt whether partial deregulation would get rid of the problem. Partial deregulation, as tentatively proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, would mean deregulation from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock. But to make everyone wait until 12 o'clock to buy what they can now buy in the corner shop, at the railway station and at the airport well before that time would be to exasperate the public. It would forfeit their support and pass their comprehension. A Bill trumpeted as a liberalising measure would for many simply mean added restriction.
In that case, how do we restrict opening hours before 12 o'clock? Would it be to shops below a certain size? As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, that would be illogical. It would probably be practicable but it would also legalise the opening of shops which could not legally open today—many clothes shops, for example. So on its own for many I think that might not be very acceptable.
On the other hand, to bring up to date the list of items which may be sold legally before 12 o'clock on a Sunday—to replace tripe with pet food and aircraft spares with videos—would be to leave the same problems of enforcement as we have today. Shops would sell unpermitted items along with permitted items. That problem would only get worse with time, as social patterns changed. It hardly needs saying that today in this country we are living in a period of immense and rapid social transformations. The list of unpermitted items sold would rapidly lengthen.
Perhaps that is why if I understand it right, the Shopping Hours Reform Council appears to be considering, in place of an itemised list of specific products which may legally be sold, a more general description covering a range of goods such as that used in Schedule 6 of the Shops Act 1950, which refers to:
"groceries and other provisions commonly sold in grocers' shops".
I doubt whether any such attempted general description would enable one to escape the problems we have today any better. Indeed, it might make matters worse. Any attempt to give the list a general rather than a specific character would carry an additional risk of uncertainty. There would over time be argument as to what specific items fell under the general heading. The fault with the law today is not uncertainty; it is unenforceability. With such an approach—an attempt to give exempted products a general and not a specific description—the law could become both uncertain and unenforceable.
The proportion of goods sold illegally on a Sunday inevitably rises as shops adapt to demand, and stock and sell what their customers want. The law cannot possibly be expected to anticipate what the public is going to want tomorrow. The only way to keep the law up to date is to let the public buy what it wants. Therefore I prefer complete deregulation and normal shopping hours for Sunday. That is what the public, in a succession of opinion polls, has recently been

1593
shown to want by a majority of two to one. That is what pertains in Scotland; it is what increasingly pertains illegally in England.
Failing that, what sort of compromise should we have? I think probably full deregulation for a trial period would be the second best. Also interesting is the proposal for flexible hours, although that would be difficult to enforce and likely to be evaded. Ultimately perhaps I might support deregulation from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock, as proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, together with a restriction based on shop size alone. Shop sizes are known to local authorities for rating purposes. The restriction would apply to shops opening before 12 o'clock.
However, opponents of full deregulation would have to appreciate that this would result in what they would probably regard as non-essential items being sold also before 12 o'clock, although from smaller premises only. As for the Keep Sunday Special REST proposals, they would plainly be very bureaucratic. Unless they are expected to result in more trading on Sunday than at present I do not see how they can be called a genuine compromise.
I should he in favour of the Government seeking to allay the fears of opponents of liberalisation on questions of employment. The right to refuse work on Sunday without being penalised for it should apply more widely than it did in the Shops Bill 1986. The Government are hound at least to make an attempt to bring some sense to the law on Sunday trading. If the Opposition felt disposed to assist the Government in this matter, they could take the Whips off. I cannot believe that opinion on the Benches opposite is monolithic, particularly if all reasonable safeguards as regards employment are provided.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that taking the Whips off applies to the Government side too?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords. I was talking at this moment about the Opposition.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I should tell the noble Lord that when the Shops Bill was going through both Houses of Parliament no Whip was applied in either place by the Opposition.
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is not my current recollection. If they were not applied, it is rather remarkable that the vote—
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that I have given him false information? If that is not his recollection, then his recollection is faulty. He might be kind enough to admit that.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the vote in another place was a remarkably strong vote against the Shops Bill. It is particularly remarkable that the vote of the Scottish Members of Parliament, who after all were voting to deny to England what they freely enjoyed in Scotland, should have been unanimously against the Government's proposals.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord was fair enough to refer to the vote against the legislation in another place on Second Reading. But he must recall that Members in another place voted against their party Whip. There was a party Whip in another place on Second Reading. One of the problems for the Government was that more than 70 of their supporters defied a three-line Whip and many others abstained. That is simply a matter of record and it should not be used to confuse the issue.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. That will be a matter for the Government and the House of Commons. We in this House cannot assist the Government in making a judgment as to what kind of a compromise they will have to produce this time. That is a judgment which the Government will have to make on an assessment of what is likely to happen in another place. Here we can only make plain our individual preferences. I hope that the Government will bear firmly in mind that the indications are that the majority of the public want greater freedom to trade on Sunday. I hope that they will not let the wishes of the majority, for no good reason, be frustrated by the dictate of a minority.
5.43 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too want to thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for introducing the debate. This is an excellent opportunity for your Lordships to think afresh about this important subject on which there are of course strong feelings held by many people in many corners of the House. I speak as chairman of Keep Sunday Special which has produced the REST proposals as a flexible consultative document which is by no means hidebound but is open to change if improvements can be seen in it. I shall mention some of those later on.
The Keep Sunday Special campaign like other organisations which have been mentioned today, represents a very large number of retailers, trade organisations, Church bodies, trade unions and others who are concerned about the issue. Many people have fed into our campaign their feelings, reactions, and attitudes regarding what trading on Sunday should constitute.
I want to emphasise a number of reasons, some of which have already been mentioned, as to why a six-hour opening on Sunday is not sensible, or why a 12 noon to 6 p.m. opening would not be sensible. That would be not the thin edge of the wedge, but the thick end of the wedge. It would lead in a very short time to total deregulation, to which I am totally opposed for the many reasons that have already been expressed this afternoon.
A 12 noon to 6 p.m. opening would tear the heart out of Sunday for employees who have to work in shops on that day. That will not only be the case for shop employees, but also for the many other people who would have to work, probably without any choice in the matter, such as the police, those who would have to provide extra public transport, probably extra traffic wardens, and other such people. Many services would have to provide employees for Sunday working to contribute to Sunday trading.

1595
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who declared it was a myth to say that many people sit down as a family to lunch on Sundays. A recent survey has shown that 80 per cent. of families sit down to a Sunday lunch together. That figure is greatly increased when the family comprises minor children. When that is the case, over 90 per cent. of people are found to sit down to Sunday lunch as a family.
Another factor that affects families is that currently about 20 per cent. of families regularly visit elderly relatives and others on Sundays. That, too, would be hit if the mother of a family had to go out on a Sunday to work in a retail shop. I suggest therefore that the 12 noon to 6 p.m. opening would tear the heart out of Sunday and make a gret deal of difference to family life in this country.
This leaves the anomalies argument—unchanged till noon—totally unaltered. My noble friend Lord Reay very clearly pointed out the nonsense that that would make. What size of shop would be allowed to open? What kind of product could be sold? How does one divide the lines? The present anomalies argument, which is quite rightly used to criticise the present law, would remain strong.
My next point concerns costs and prices. That point was aptly made by my noble friend Lady Young, with whose line of argument I strongly agree. If shops are open seven days instead of six, there will be a measure of increased overheads to be borne. There is no getting away from that fact. There is no suggestion that an extra one-sixth of income will be spent in shops on Sundays to reinstate those increased overheads. Therefore, increased prices would follow.
People have suggested that the increased sales from tourism would compensate for that. But we need to remember that sales from tourism are only 3 per cent. of total sales. That is a very small proportion of money spent in retail shops. Therefore, I do not think that will help. Undoubtedly there will be increased overheads and therefore increased prices.
I am not aware that any surveys to ask people whether they would like shops to be open totally freely on Sundays have ever made that point. If it were pointed out that free opening would mean some measure of increased prices, a very different answer would result. The questions in surveys guide the kind of answers that are given.
I wish to make another point from the point of view of consumers. I foresee a smaller choice for consumers in the event of total deregulation. Total deregulation will certainly help large supermarkets and discount warehouses. But those shops tend to stock popular brands and go for high turnover on low margins. Many of the smaller shops would go to the wall, and therefore the smaller specialist goods which the consumer wishes to buy at present may cease to be available. The choice of shops and the range of equipment available to the consumer will be reduced. I believe that that is a point which the National Consumer Council is not taking sufficiently into account in its arguments.
1596
I should like to make another point which has been touched on several times; namely, protection for the shop worker. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Auld committee saw very strong difficulties in protection for the shop worker if total deregulation were to come about.
I shall now leave the question of limited hours of opening and refer to the REST proposals which many noble Lords have discussed in this debate. They would permit Sunday trading by type of shop instead of by type of goods. That is the system which is used in West Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. We must remember that all our EC partners have some regulation of Sunday trading. That is the normal facet of life in Europe. There are different ways of approaching the issue and the REST proposals embody the system which applies in West Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. That seems to our way of thinking to be the best way forward.
Certain classes of shop would be open and have already been referred to. Those covered are restaurants, take-aways, off-licences, small general food shops, confectioners, tobacconists and newsagents, chemists for medical items, petrol stations, motor spares, historic houses, sports centres, garden centres and florists—to include the business of my noble friend Lord Norrie—and travel centre kiosks.
I turn now to the two points in our proposals in connection with which my noble friend on the Front Bench Lord Ferrers sees difficulties. We have suggested a system of regulation which would make enforcement extremely simple. I accept that there would be a measure of bureaucracy. However, we should bear in mind that the number of shops that would need to apply to the local authority for permission to open is very small indeed. Therefore the proposals would not lead to a major system of bureaucracy. I suggest tentatively that it would be a great deal less complicated than the bureaucracy engendered by the football ground licensing system which the Government are promoting. I do not wish to comment on that issue, but merely to point out that the system of regulation which we are putting forward in the REST proposals is much simpler.
Alternatively, it would be open to have no system of regulation at all and to leave the environmental officers who presently enforce the law to continue to do so. That would be much simpler, with a reformed legal system.
My noble friend on the Front Bench also asked why garden centres should be open and not DIY stores. The answer is that DIY centres today are enormous conurbations of stores. They do not sell only do-it-yourself goods, they are also furniture warehouses and supply a great deal of other goods. Garden centres supply garden equipment and plants. I agree with my noble friend that gardening is a relaxation, while in my view DIY work is not. That is the reason we have drawn the line between the two—because DIY stores are not limited to do-it-yourself goods.
I commend the REST proposals. We shall certainly take note of comments that have been made in this debate about those proposals and we are very

1597
happy to revise them. They are offered as a compromise. They would permit far more retail outlets to be open than is permitted by the law at present. I very much hope that my noble friend will bring forward some system along those lines for consideration at a later date.
5.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as a good churchman, undoubtedly looked at his ecclesiastical calendar and decided that Ash Wednesday would be a suitable day for penance and for us all to gather together and hear the arguments all over again. However, I think that there have already been many benefits in the debate. It has cut across the parties, which is always refreshing. That is one reason why I believe that if the matter should come to the vote again it should be on the basis of a free vote in the other place. We have also had some fascinating insights into how various noble Lords spend their Sundays.
I have the deepest sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he says that the Government's problem is that there seems to be no satisfactory halfway house to total deregulation. The trouble is that they draw the wrong conclusion from that. They conclude that inevitably one must go down that road because there will be inconsistencies or anomalies. I should like to begin by saying that it is to pursue a chimera or a fantasy to suppose that one can achieve complete consistency.
I shall make two points in that connection. First, any system of law and regulation of any kind in society is bound to produce some inconsistencies. I agree that we need to reduce those to the minimum. But as soon as, for example, one imposes a speed limit on traffic somebody who drives at 69 miles per hour is driving legally while someone who drives at 71 miles per hour is driving illegally. To define a limit inevitably produces that kind of problem. One could take the opening of public houses and the sale of alcoholic liquor. As soon as one regulates in that field without a doubt one creates inconsistencies and anomalies. I think that part of the problem that the Government face is of their own making. They have assumed that one can pursue the fantasy of devising something which has no inconsistencies at all.
The second point I should like to make about anomalies and inconsistencies is that the biggest anomaly of all is to claim that one stands for preserving Sunday as a special kind of day and then opt for complete deregulation. It is not possible for those two to go together. That is why the opposition of the Churches has been so strong and so consistent on this issue.
I do not say that all members of the Churches take that view. That would be quite wrong. Deeply committed churchmen from different sides of the House have taken different views on the subject. I shall refer further to the strength of opposition from the Churches in a moment.
I should like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—I knew that I should provoke him into standing up in a minute or two, so he must have his say.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged to the right reverend Prelate for his habitual courtesy. When he says that the Churches are consistent in this matter, has he in mind the 15 cathedral shops which as recently as last Sunday all broke the law by selling goods prohibited by law? Is that consistency on the part of the deans and chapters of those cathedrals?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me, but I think that that is irrelevant to the main argument.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I was talking about the strength of opposition generally in this country to complete deregulation. The fact that at the moment some cathedrals are going down that path does not in any sense counter the argument completely. One may have different views as to the way in which they manage those shops.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord—and perhaps he will rise to his feet again—that it amazes me that a party which calls itself conservative is prepared to go down this particular road on this issue. Far be it from me, speaking from the Episcopal Cross Benches, to speak for either the Conservative or the Labour Party, but I always thought that the philosophy of conservatism meant conserving the best of the traditions in British society in face of change.
Am I wrong in this matter? We all know that we face enormous changes in society, but as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans said so movingly, the tradition of a special day in society—a day of rest—is deeply rooted in the British tradition and has spread to many parts of the world. For example, I was very moved when I was on sabbatical study leave in India to walk around cities on a Sunday and discover that the tradition of the day of rest and of the main shops not opening had been maintained in that very different culture.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, was that practice enforced by law or by voluntary methods?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, it was a bit of both, but it was without doubt enforced by law. New Delhi is a good example of this, as are other Indian cities where the practice is also taken into account in local regulations.
I said a moment ago that the opposition of the Churches on this point remains very stong. We must remember that when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, inferred that the bishops were out of step with their flocks on this issue and trotted out the example of the cathedrals, he was forgetting the vote in General Synod on the main issue of deregulation. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships of those voting figures: 367 votes against total deregulation, one vote in favour and three abstentions. There is no indication that that feeling in the Churches has changed at all.
Perhaps I may quote from a letter that was sent a few weeks ago from Lambeth Palace, from

1599
Archbishop's House in Westminster on behalf of Cardinal Hume, from the Free Church Federal Council and from the Office of the Chief Rabbi, signed by the archbishops, the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council and the Chief Rabbi. They believe that:
"every nation needs to have a nationally observed day in the week substantially set apart for activities which are other than commercial in nature.
Such a nationally observed day helps to preserve and enhance many of our society's values".
They point to the danger of going down any road of complete deregulation.
The reason that the Churches take this view is not because many of us wish to be Canute-like, opposing the waves of change that are coming in on our society, but because we believe that there is a halfway house between complete deregulation and the present chaotic Sunday law that we now have. I felt it was a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter spent so much of his precious time tilting at windmills with regard to the present law which we all agree needs changing.
Perhaps I may turn to the situation in Scotland. It was disappointing that other noble Lords again spent precious time trotting out the old arguments about what is or is not happening in Scotland. Things are changing in Scotland too. I have here a letter from the Convener of the Sunday Working Party of the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland which gives some interesting comments about the present state of thinking among the churches in Scotland. It states:
"with regard to the matter of de-regulation of Sunday trading it certainly is our conviction that were this to happen on a major scale in England and Wales, it could not but have a significant effect in the Scottish context. There would appear to be little doubt that Sunday trading is increasing steadily · It would, I think be fair to assume that shops which presently close on Sundays including larger department stores would open if Sunday trading became significantly de-regulated in England and Wales".
The letter also says a few words about the official position of the Church of Scotland:
"The position of the Church of Scotland is that legal safeguards would indeed be desirable and should some degree of consensus emerge which exercises some measure of restraint on Sunday trading it would be our hope that this would apply throughout the United Kingdom".
When noble Lords refer to Scotland, I hope that they will not treat it in this way which I think is insulting to our friends on the other side of the border and suggests that things simply remain static there and that the situation is not subject to change.
As regards the opposition of the Churches, we are not narrowly Sabbatarian. If noble Lords see the Lord's Day Observance Society weighing in behind the opposition of the Church to deregulation, I hope that noble Lords will not assume that this means that we go along with a very narrow view of the use of Sunday. The proposals of REST which have been so well outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, show clearly that the Churches are prepared to move in the face of the changes. However, we do not believe that the compromises at present on offer are genuine compromises. I refer in particular to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said at the start about a
1600
five-year trial. It would be absurd to go down that path. Does the noble Lord seriously consider that there could be any going back once deregulation were tried?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate invites me to intervene, of course I accept. I merely suggest to him that even if half of what he is saying is true, at the end of the five-year period there would be such a revulsion that people would want to withdraw the practice. However, if what he is saying is not particularly convincing, he would be right and it would not be reversed.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I do not think that that is possible. There is no doubt that, even if there were a great deal of revulsion after five years, it would be impossible to go back.
The case for the limited hours offer has been well answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. It is not a real option because it would not preserve the special character of Sunday. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham wanted me to answer one question: if the Churches were imposing change on their flocks with a reduced number of clergy and having to change the times of services, why were they not prepared to move with the times? The answer is that many of us in the Churches—and there is a lively debate going on within the Churches—are prepared to move with the times, but to genuine compromise and not to something which is no compromise at all and involves virtual deregulation and the abolition of Sunday as a special day of rest. I believe that the right way in which we should move is to reform the present shops law along the lines of types of shops, as has been outlined.
Our Board for Social Responsibility in the Church of England has not yet considered this matter again, but it is,
"unanimous in its view that any proposed legislation should seek to preserve the unique character of Sunday, as a day of worship, rest and recreation, by recognising the essential primacy of 'freedom from work' over 'freedom to work' ".
We are in favour of looking at a compromise along the lines of certain categories of shops being allowed to open on a specific hours basis.
I hope that the Government will look carefully at what has been said in this debate and that they will not go down the road of complete deregulation. Many people in this country would feel that that was to abandon something precious in our national life which comes from deep in the roots of our Christian traditions.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I feel strongly on this issue, but am unable to speak as passionately as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I wish that I could, but perhaps the passion is better coming from a man than from a woman. I was most impressed by and absolutely terrified of having to follow the right reverend Prelate.
I should like to agree with my noble friend and other Members of your Lordships' House in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter,

1601
sincerely, for bringing this issue before us once again. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for about 18 years. The subject seems to crop up roughly every alternate year or every three years. With the changing scene in this country, it is now about time that something was done. The noble Lord has drawn our attention to this matter by the particularly apt words:
"To call attention to the · legal restrictions · and their enforcement".
I submit that there is much disquiet in the country about the anomalies that exist and the failure to implement what I think most people regard as the law.
I shall not speak for long. I have only three points to make. The law is violated in London in particular where, as we all know, borough boundaries often go down the middle of a street with shops on both sides of it. One borough will allow or take no notice of shops being open; on the other side of the street the shops are not permitted to open. This is grossly unfair to the shopkeepers. Families go out together having eaten their Sunday roast, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said. Indeed, I wish there were more such family groups to do that and fewer one-parent families. They go out together to shop together when the shops are open. It seems to me to be very unfair to the shopkeeper when on one side of the street they are allowed to spend their money on Sundays but are forbidden to do so on the other side. Shopping on Sunday means that there is very little left to spend at the beginning of the following week at shops next door, which are just over the boundary.
I am sure that many noble Lords who, like me, receive the views of the great British public know very well that those who write, telephone or even march in order to contact Members of this House do so when they do not agree with some measure. They never approach us if they agree with it. In fact only very recently the media came out with the view that the majority of the British public definitely want shops to be open on Sundays. Last week a young couple from Yorkshire came to stay with me for two or three days. It so happened that they were able to spend two days together. They will be married in the summer. They bemoaned the fact that it was almost impossible for them to go out together and choose something for their future home. They both work on shifts and the only time that they have to shop together is on a Sunday. I may say rather quickly that they would like to shop at normal times on Sundays because regularly at 6.30 p.m. they attend their Catholic church. They would like to do both.
Some noble Lords have hinted that Sundays should be so special that one should not or certainly could not shop on that day. Except for a few anomalies, it is now a criminal offence for a shopkeeper to sell goods outside the hours laid down by law nearly 30 years ago. I am sure that that law needs to be reformed in line with the changing patterns of our lives.
I should like to see a fixed number of hours for trading, preferably six or eight hours, but, as one noble Lord said, those times should be left entirely to the shopkeeper. It must be remembered that it is not compulsory for a shopkeeper to open his shop.
1602
Indeed, as we have heard, in Scotland very few shops which are able to open do so.
I believe that in the foreseeable future we should be given the opportunity by law to he able to shop on Sunday. I hope that in the light of this debate the Government will take it upon themselves to ask the country and its representatives once more how they feel on this issue.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I too should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for originating today's debate and thereby giving us an opportunity to discuss this important issue. The debate is both relevant and timely. I trust that the Government will find themselves in a better position to make up their mind as a result of your Lordships' wise deliberations today.
First, I should like to consider the European scene. Sunday trading is the exception and not the rule in Europe. Deregulation of Sunday shop opening hours in Britain would put us out of step with EC practice—on the brink of the unification of its markets in 1992. Each country has laws whose basic premise is the unique character of Sunday as a shared day of rest. That has resulted in a series of general prohibitions against Sunday trading across Europe. Legitimate retail activity is governed largely by the needs of the sick and the travelling public a well as by the likelihood of immediate consumption.
Nowhere is unfettered consumer choice the primary principle controlling the law. Almost everywhere large retail chains are restrained from opening. Enforcement on an exempt product and exempt shop basis has not proved difficult.
The European experience should be an important consideration now that the Shops Act is up for review. It shows that Sunday trading restrictions are important, achievable and enforceable. Careful scrutiny of the European experience lends great support to the need to keep Sunday different, and indeed at present almost every country in the EC restricts Sunday trading. In Denmark they have a list of exempt goods, as we do. In France and Belgium they rely on labour legislation. West Germany, Italy and the Netherlands have a list of exempt shops. We shall be moving out of line with Europe if we allow deregulation for all or part of the day.
Secondly, there is the impact on family life. The Government should be concerned about the breakdown of the family in Britain. In economic terms strong families are crucial for a motivated and competent workforce and our ability to compete in international markets. Sunday is still an important family day for many. If shops open, there will be a need for more police, transport, traffic wardens and so on. Moreover, if shops open, why not banks, building societies, accountants, travel agents etc.? Sunday is a day when children are home from school and families can have time together. Surely we do not want to increase pressure unnecessarily in our already hectic lives.
The 12 noon to 6 p.m. option also attacks family life at its heart and would fragment families on the

1603
one day that most of them can be together. Shop staff would have to come in to work to prepare for opening an hour before noon and would be required to stay beyond 6 p.m. to close down. That could interfere with church life as well as family togetherness. There are 2·3 million people working in the retail sector, and many others in ancillary services for whom these activities would be a thing of the past under the 12 noon to 6 p.m. option.
Finally, some noble Lords will recall that we tried seven-day working during the war but soon found to our surprise that productivity and morale went down and not up. That of course was because we thought we knew better than our Maker. If we persist in ignoring the Maker's instructions are we not likely to get our fingers burnt? The Maker's instructions are of course contained in the Bible, as was argued so effectively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans. I have tried to show that neither total deregulation nor partial deregulation—the 12 noon to 6 p.m. option—is acceptable to clear-sighted men of good will.
The Government would be well advised to consider very carefully whether total or partial deregulation of Sunday trading would not further aggravate the law and order malaise in this country. By this I mean that enabling people to shop freely on Sunday will further erode family life and many believe that family harmony is one of the keys to law and order. Indeed, total deregulation still apparently favoured, at least in some regards, by the Government would appear to be the classic case of taking a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. No, we would be much better advised to follow our European partners, in particular West Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, by preserving the essential characteristics of the traditional Sunday by exempting types of shops rather than types of goods. This works both simply and effectively.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned, in December of last year a letter was written to the Home Secretary by four leading churchmen. Referring to Sunday trading, they state this—I apologise for the length of the quotation but it is absolutely central to what we are discussing:
"The fundamental principle to be observed is that every nation needs to have a nationally observed day in the week substantially set apart for activities which are other than commercial in nature.
Such a nationally observed day helps to preserve and enhance many of our society's values. It affirms that commerce and business are not the only things in our lives which really count. It provides, furthermore, an opportunity within society for people to engage in forms of community life and activity not the least of which is divine worship. To undermine the institution of a day shared together is to take a further step towards eroding the cherished spiritual traditions of British society".
I can do no more than say how much I support this letter both for its balance and for the main thrust of its argument. I trust that the Government will give due weight to it when they are considering what action is to be taken.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, my starting point in considering both total deregulation of Sunday trading and the near total deregulation
1604
proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council is quite simple. I would not wish to be in a job where I would have to work regularly on Sundays even for six hours each Sunday. I therefore do not think it fair to inflict regular Sunday working on other people more than is necessary. In this connection we must remember that deregulation would affect not only those shops which willingly opt for Sunday trading but also those which feel obliged to open on Sundays in order not to lose trade to their competitors. Furthermore, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and others have said, widespread Sunday shopping would also mean Sunday working for the police, transport staff, traffic wardens and possibly bank employees. It would affect those who live in the neighbourhood of shopping centres.
What is wrong with unnecessary Sunday working? As the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said, it would endanger the one rest day per week that is needed to maintain the natural rhythm of life and to allow us to recharge our batteries physically, intellectually and spiritually. That rest day needs to be Sunday not only so that we can go to church and take part in corporate worship, but also because it is often the only day on which the family can be together. For example, it is no use offering parents a weekday off instead of Sunday when they have children who are at school. A survey last year showed that 80 per cent. of people have lunch with their families on Sunday. To lose the family Sunday would harm the million or so women who work in retailing.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, dismissed the religious argument that was expressed so brilliantly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans. We ignore the Bible and what it says at our peril. Its constant theme is that to keep one day special is for man's benefit and brings him happiness. The REST proposals recognise these objections to unnecessary Sunday trading. The SHRC proposals would bear much more harshly on family life. Accordingly, the REST proposals would be a much better basis for future legislation than those of the SHRC, or total deregulation.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was anxious that some of the remarks by noble Lords might insult the people of Scotland. I am a Scot. I live in Scotland. Nothing that has been said has been remotely insulting either to me or to anyone else in Scotland. However, I wish to take issue with the impression that some speakers in this debate have as to the likely effect south of the Border were shops and stores in England to have the freedom to open on Sundays that shops in Scotland have.
In Scotland this freedom is simply taken for granted. Shops are allowed to open and sell most items, although not absolutely everything. People know which shops are open. They use them if they want to. The effect is that shops take account of local opinion, the extent to which local people wish to go shopping for their particular wares, the extent to which people resent the extra traffic in certain areas of the city or town, and the ability to recruit staff to come in on Sundays. As has been said by a number

1605
of speakers, the result is that some 20 per cent. of shops currently choose to open on Sundays. The figure is higher in some areas and lower in others; it is higher at some times of the year, and lower at others. At the moment the average is 20 per cent. The figure may rise; it may be rising. However, that is the figure at the present time.
My noble friend Lady Young spoke about the big stores. There is nothing to force them to open if they do not wish to. They may not like the competition but they are not forced to open. Yes, the trading may spread over seven days instead of six. That may well be so but nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that when one says there is no pressure on the big stores to open in Scotland, the fact that some do automatically puts pressure on others? Is this not one factor in the truth that the number of stores opening, in particular in Edinburgh, is now rising?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate to the extent that this may be the reason why there is a rise in shopping. But if one has a free market, that is what happens. If you do not believe in it, you dislike it. I do not think that the right reverend Prelate likes a free market very much.
With regard to the dastardly effect on England should England go the way of Scotland on Sunday opening, I do not think that people in Scotland slavishly follow what England does in shopping on Sundays any more than they do with regard to football hooliganism.
The effect of the present system in my part of Scotland is that family shopping outings are organised from time to time on a Sunday to the local garden centre to choose plants or seeds, or perhaps new tools, to the do-it-yourself store to choose one's new wallpaper or paint, and at Christmas time to buy presents. The Sunday meal is now taken at a different time to fit in.
A considerable and increasing number of people, especially those living alone and single parents whose work at times makes it difficult to shop for food, take advantage of the opening of our local supermarket on Sunday afternoons. All this is simply an accepted part of Scottish life. As far as I know, people who are in the habit of going to church or taking part in a broadcast service do not think of going shopping on a Sunday morning. Those who like to stay quiet on Sunday, or wash the car, or go for a walk, do so just as they do in the South. What makes Sundays special varies from family to family in Scotland as it does in England.
Some people prefer not to work on Sunday. Others are very glad indeed to have the chance to earn a bit extra in a shop. A number of married women are glad to have a job on Sunday when they cannot work during the rest of the week.
I have not been able to find any statistics on Sunday emplopyment in Scotland, but 186,000 people work in the retail trade in Scotland overall—nearly 10 per cent. of Scotland's workforce. Some 60 per cent. of these are women and 30 per cent. are part time. If the figures sent to me by the
1606
Community Shops Group are any indication, its 10,000 small local shops employing 60,000 staff make 20 per cent. of their turnover on Sundays. That may be significant.
I do not think that anyone should be forced to work in a shop on Sundays, but equally I do not see why people should be refused freedom to earn if they so desire. Some 5 million others can do work elsewhere, why not people who want to work in shops?
I believe that I understand the problem of the bishops and the Synod. Considerable numbers of people in English church pews see Sunday shopping as the thin end of the wedge for church attendance. Indeed, some feel that the pressure to change the present law is somehow the work of the devil. But surely the Churches, those in Scotland as well as in England, have to remember too that for very many churchgoing Christians today the freedom to open one's shop if one wishes, the freedom to shop and the freedom to earn if one wants to on a Sunday seems a more, not a less, Christian way. This is perhaps the developing effect of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans called the discontinuity between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday.
Our Sundays in Scotland seem to be no less special than Sundays in England. Scottish Sundays simply have an extra possibility for those who want to take it. I believe that many of your Lordships' fears about what will happen if England follows in Scotland's footsteps (whether it be to a greater or lesser extent) are largely unfounded. I ask the Government not to rule out full deregulation, albeit with protection for those who do not want to work on Sundays.
6.34 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we are all indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for introducing this important debate. He did so with his usual amiable eloquence, but I thought that his logic contained some things which I believe in his profession are called non sequiturs. He seemed to be arguing that because 5 million people have to work on Sundays it was of no consequence that more should have to work on Sundays following deregulation. Again my noble friend argued forcefully for deregulation on the grounds that the present law was unenforceable, which it is. No doubt my noble friend would agree that the speed limit of 70 mph on motorways is widely disregarded and is unenforceable. Perhaps even he himself occasionally exceeds 70 mph. Would he therefore argue that we should abandon all speed limits for that reason on motorways?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend asking me a question?
Viscount Caldecote: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I would say to him at once that I think that the speed limit on motorways should be enforced and that it is the fault—and I say this in the presence of the Minister—of the Home Office that there are insufficient motorway police.
Viscount Caldecote: The fact is, my Lords, that it cannot be enforced and therefore he argues on a false premise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not know that it cannot be enforced. If my noble friend has ever travelled on United States' highways, where incidentally the speed limit is 55 mph, he will see that it is very rigidly and effectively enforced. If the Americans can enforce 55 mph I do not see why we, if we put in sufficient manpower, cannot enforce 70 mph.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we agree to differ on the subject, but all in all my noble friend reminded me of the apocryphal civil servant who finished his speech to his Minister, after making a case, by saying "and those, Minister, are the opinions on which I base my facts".
I fully concur with my noble friend's view that the existing law should be changed. There is no disagreement that the present law is unenforceable and needs to be brought up to date to make it more effective and enforceable. But I do not believe that this issue is only or even primarily a religious issue. Important though that is to many of us as Christians, we believe that it is important to avoid impediments to worship on that one day a week and to provide time for spiritual refreshment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans reminded us of Christ's statement that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. I interpret that as meaning that we should be sensible about Sunday observance and above all that we should avoid hypocrisy. The fact is that many must work on Sunday to provide essential services, but that is no argument for making more people work on Sunday by deregulation and so having to forgo the advantages of rest, refreshment and recreation which we advocate for others.
There seem to me to be three basic issues: freedom of choice, convenience, and health and happiness. They are all facets of the quality of life. It is a very knotty question as to where the balance of advantage lies. As regards freedom of choice, the Shopping Hours Reform Council makes much of this. I understand that the organisation was formed and is financed by big retailers, but was by no means unanimously supported, as my noble firend Lady Young has made clear. The Shopping Hours Reform Council was apparently formed in response to a challenge from the Minister of State in the Home Office to "get your act together and agree among yourselves". There has been no success yet in achieving that consensus, but there is consensus on the need for reform; the question is how.
The SHRC booklet, Making Sense of Sunday, makes interesting reading. It pays lip service to the special nature of Sunday. It says in that booklet that:
"there are considerable economic benefits to be gained from reform. It has been estimated that reform of shopping hours on Sunday would create approximately 125,000 new jobs and allow more effective use of substantial capital investment".
I believe that is a revealing comment.
The job issue is a red herring. More jobs could be created in many other more desirable ways and in
1608
undesirable ways as well by, for instance, lower standards in advertising, by freedom to peddle drugs, or even perhaps a futures market in kidneys for transplant. They are all against the public interest and would never be countenanced. Again more jobs would cost money, especially, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has indicated to us, if they are jobs paid on a premium basis. The extra cost could be recouped by retailers only by greater consumption or higher prices. Both are inflationary which is against government policy and the public interest.
A paragraph in SHRC's booklet The Special Nature of Sunday states:
"In a free society each family should have the right to decide how to make Sunday special for themselves".
What high-sounding nonsense? Are they to be free to destroy the environment; to light fires in dry woods; to spread litter; to drive at excessive speed among holidaymakers; to cause disturbances in places of worship; to cause nuisance by noisy behaviour at pleasure resorts and so forth?
Our much cherished individual freedom must be curtailed in many ways for the benefit of the community. Planning controls limit where and how we may build our houses. Airports are regulated as to the hours in which aircraft can land and take off for the convenience and health of those living nearby. Wildlife species are protected and much more. They are all features of a civilised society. With freedom goes responsibility and concern for our neighbour, otherwise freedom degenerates into licence and selfishness.
Just as one person's pay rise is another person's price rise, so convenience and enjoyment for some is disturbance and unhappiness for others. Noisy motorcycles, though they may provide exciting enjoyment for the riders, are hell for the families seeking rest and relaxation after a hard week's work. The same comment applies to transistor radios which are frequently barred on many beaches and in public gardens. It would be economically convenient for owners of factories to dismantle the health and safety regulations because they could work faster and cheaper. We could convert our factories into the sweat shops which exist in less-developed countries and of which I have seen many. No one would be in favour of that. No, the pursuit of convenience is also a red herring. The convenience for some must be tempered by the concern for others. It is not a convincing argument for deregulation.
Thirdly, there is the health of the community. Recently the pace of life has greatly increased. The pressures are unbearable for many. Apart from pressures at work there are pressures at home, not least those brought about by pressurised selling from the avalanche of junk mail which arrives through our letter boxes. In the USA there has recently been identified a new mental disorder; "information anxiety". It is caused by the widening gap between what people understand and what they believe they should understand. One expert studying the problem commented:
"Americans will come to realise that happiness lies in working only on a few things and knowing how to relax and rest the rest of the time"
How true and relevant that is to the debate.

1609
I suggest that the prime objective of any government must be to create conditions where everyone living in this country can live happy and satisfying lives. The mental and spiritual health of people is probably the single most important contribution. It is also truly said that "variety is the spice of life". There is a strong prima facie practical and moral case for keeping one day a week different and special, set apart for as many as possible as a day for the enjoyment of rest, relaxation, recreation and refreshment.
Partly through the influence of television we have come to accept the fact that such enjoyment is fully achievable only if others work to provide the wherewithal for it. It is much more satisfying and considerate towards others to create our own amusement and activities, in sport, entertainment, crafts, hospitality, exercise, travel and a myriad of other things with the minimum of involvement of others on an employed basis who are thereby prevented from enjoying similar physical and mental refreshment.
With such considerations in mind—and which are so significant for life today—what is the optimum way to reform the present unsatisfactory laws as we agree them to be? Clearly, the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council for complete deregulation of shop opening for half a day on Sunday are a thinly-veiled scheme paving the way towards total deregulation for the benefit of large companies through increased sales and profit under the guise of providing a public service.
I have worked in large organisations and in big business all my life. I am in no way averse to those businesses growing—infact I am in favour—provided that it is done without detriment to the community at large. There is no question that the half-day opening would soon be followed by arguments for whole-day opening. No doubt that would be provoked by the progressive, illegal, unchallenged early opening in response to customer convenience. Other activities in our life would soon follow the same pattern after the deregulation of shops. For instance, the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, (amended in 1971) lays down for financial institutions "non-business" days including Saturdays, which were added in 1971, and Sundays. The demand for deregulation here would follow the deregulation of shops leading to seven-day trading, as in Japan. Already there are terrible signs of the over-pressure on people working in financial institutions. Surely that is not the way we want to go.
There are alternatives which are practical, constructive, realistic and not damaging to the life of the community. The REST proposals—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brentford and other noble Lords but not even referred to by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—meet every essential need to enable people to enjoy Sunday for rest, recreation and the refreshment of mind and body, but employing the minimum number of other people. The REST proposals have been criticised for being too complex. Maybe they are a little bureaucratic and certainly they need further work to improve and refine them.
1610
The debate has been most valuable in clarifying important issues which affect the whole life of the community. I submit that we are fair from the consensus for which the Minister asks. It is too early to legislate. It is more important to get new laws right than to get them soon. We need to examine more carefully the details of all the proposals, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. We need to seek the best solution because there is no ideal solution acceptable to all. We need to beware of the arguments of big business, camouflaged by lip service to public interest, remembering that major deregulation, if found to be excessive, can never be reversed in practice. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made that point clear.
I urge the Government to progress slowly in the sincere hope that finally we shall achieve greater concensus and the right and best answer.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for initiating the debate. My objection is to the slow erosion of Sunday and its relegation to being just another day of the week. That is the worst change of all.
Although we like to say that we are a multi-ethnic society, we are basically a Christian society and have been so for centuries. We greatly respect: our many Jewish friends for keeping to the Sabbath. It has been said that we shall be out of step with Europe. Yet there is proof that that is not true because every country in the EC restricts shops from opening on Sunday. Why therefore should we be different?
I must declare my interest in that the Sue Ryder Foundation has over 300 shops. They are all closed on Sunday with the exception of the coffee shops which are open only after staff volunteers have had time to attend whichever place of worship they wish, and have had an opportunity for rest, relaxation and a day off. I work voluntarily as founder of a foundation for several thousands caring for the sick and handicapped in Britain and overseas. I also live and work in the headquarters of the foundation and frequently live and nurse in our homes and hospitals where Catholic nurses of different orders are in charge. Naturally, we must cover all needs for full nursing care for 24 hours of the day. However, we try to follow a more relaxed rule on Sundays which, incidently, gives us dispensation for rising at six o'clock in the morning and not at 4.30 a.m.
What appals me particularly is that it is not we as mere mortals who have the right to decide on whether or not to keep the Sabbath holy, but our maker. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, helped to explain in the most clear and understanding way the feeling of many large firms who at present are not in favour of Sunday trading. However, to be frank, I Fear that if anyone fools himself into thinking that the big stores sooner or probably later will not follow the example of the other traders, then they are either misguided or, alas, living in cloud cuckoo land.
The nightmare of universal Sunday shopping, however, lies elsewhere; namely, in the destruction of keeping Sundays sacred. In February 1986 I stated that having worked in Marxist states where attempts

1611
are still made to obliterate the traditional Sunday and force people, including women and children, to attend political rallies, I realised more and more that we in Britain throw away, either by accident, legislation or otherwise, our tradition of worshipping God and keeping the Sabbath holy. That can have a devastating and demoralising effect on our people. What example do we give to the young, some of whom are perhaps searching for God, or are already disillusioned, undisciplined and unemployed, if they see materialism growing stronger and Sunday no different from any other day?
The vast majority of people in Poland and Ethiopia refuse to be bullied. They continue to worship God on a Sunday and their churches are overflowing. Thousands have died for their faith. In Poland they continue to build another 2,000 churches despite building constraints and shortage of materials. Moreover, they would be horrified to see shops doing business on a Sunday; but, as everyone knows, those countries are still so short of food that that does not apply to them.
Why do we think about keeping Sunday holy? First, it is a day of rest, relaxation and of children being with their parents. There is the opportunity to visit friends or relatives in hospital, to walk to places of beauty and to get away from the roar of traffic and general noise created by the public. Secondly, we wake up knowing that we are not being rushed and can consider that this is a calm and wholly different day.Thirdly, and most important, we remember God who declared that Sunday should be a day of worship and rest. The purpose and effect of all that is to make us better equipped for the coming week's work.
Alexander Tomsky, a Czech from Central Europe, comparing his experience, like mine, between Eastern and Western Europe, wrote the following in the Tablet on 21st February:
"Never, since I left Czechoslovakia in 1968, did I think I would see the day when shops in Britain opened on a Sunday. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that it would be a 'conservative' government that would attempt to do away with the fine traditions of our civilisation, to side instead with the Bolsheviks Lenin and Trostky, those who were the first to impose yet more work on the impoverished masses. For someone who has seen it, it is hard to forget the gloomy, tired faces in the overcrowded buses, trams and trains, the strange noise of the Sunday morning rush hour, the din of unnatural activity that seemed to shatter the natural rhythm of the weeks.
Old traditions die hard. People felt guilty and oppressed as they went about their Sunday work. They saw it as a punishment that they should have to endure day after day of unremitting toil, seeming to stretch out to infinity. Once Sunday was lost, overtime had no meaning—undoubtedly this contributed to the general trend, in the Communist countries, of ever-declining productivity. For people will not produce more in seven days than in six. Eventually, for purely economic reasons, Sunday returned.
The real problem goes much deeper, as many Czech poets point out: a society which leaves no room for mystery, no room for the sacred, is doomed. The Communists set themselves up as the engineers of human souls', and of man's happiness; but by imposing their order, they created chaos.
In the West, things are just the other way round. It is not the imposition of abstract schemes that is destroying us, but the gradual withdrawal of the law which guides and guards our traditions. The Government has become morally neutral on almost every subject. So what sort of chance does poor Sunday have here?
The nightmare of universal Sunday shopping, however, lies elsewhere: and I repeat in the destruction of our quality of life. As the supermarket opens to the shopper, so will every other shop in the high street, including the travel agent, the insurance broker, the estate
1612
agent and the rest—such is the logic of greed. Not that in seven days people will buy more than in six—but what trader could afford to shut, and leave the field clear for his rival? As salesmen and delivery vans enter the fray, the repair men are on hand: and soon the warehouses and suppliers follow. Before long, even the factories may open. Instead of holidays where a few sacrifice their leisure for the benefit of the majority, we are all at work.
In his search for social order, the Home Secretary last year asked the Churches to teach religion and morality as/hey should be taught".
To do that is to teach that God takes first place in our lives and that Sunday should be set apart as a special day. I suggest that the Home Secretary should see the contradiction in what he is preparing to do.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of this quotation from Sir Winston Churchill:
"Sunday is a Divine and priceless institution · the necessary pause in the national life and activity; it is the birthright of every British subject · and, above all, our great heritage, and one which is our responsibility, privilege and duty to hand on to posterity".
7 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I start with pleasure by thanking my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for introducing a constructive and interesting debate. I also apologise for missing the first 11½ minutes of his opening speech, which was a great sorrow to me, though I have a copious and, I hope, unbiased report of it in the hand of my noble friend Lord Brentford. I therefore feel that I am equipped to join this exchange on equal terms.
We are, I believe, all agreed that the law at present is often disregarded and has come into disrepute. This debate is therefore, in general terms, on how respect for the law should be restored and, in particular terms, between those who wish to see the restrictions in the present law as far as possible removed and those who would prefer to see the restrictions that do not work replaced by restrictions that do.
Before I join in that particular debate I should like to look for a moment at the two assumptions behind it from which flows the conclusion that the law must be brought swiftly up to date. The first assumption, that the law is ill-drafted and laughable, is well-founded and has given us a great deal of fun in the past; and I think I missed a little at the beginning of the debate this afternoon. I believe we all agree that the anomalies should be removed in any reform of the law that we undertake.
However, the fact that the law is laughable does not on its own mean that it ought to be changed. The late honourable Member for Oxford University, A. P. Herbert, made tremendous fun of the whole statute book and it was not repealed just because of that. The test one must apply to a statute before sentencing it to revision or repeal is not whether it is funny but whether it works. If it does not work, one needs to find out the extent to which it does not work. In making judgements on that one needs to be very much aware of the effects of the focusing of interest on the subject. The effect is very much like that of shining a pocket torch in the dusk—it throws everything in its beam into sharp prominence and plunges everything else into darkness.
That is important in this case because your Lordships' and the public's attention has been skilfully drawn to instances where the law is not

1613
working, to the extent that one might suppose that most of the commercial world is in breach of the law and that most of the public are in illegal receipt of goods. It is therefore worth mentioning that the actual proportion of shops breaking and keeping the law in this respect has been carefully reviewed twice in recent years. The work, some of which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, was done for the Jubilee Centre in Cambridge and has been published.
The report shows that 12,360 shops in 44 locations were checked in 1985 and 17,906 were checked in 68 locations in 1987–88. In both surveys almost 90 per cent. of all shops were shut on Sunday and of the remaining 10 per cent. more than half in each survey were open perfectly properly and legally to sell goods that the present law permits to be sold on Sundays. Those goods are of course exempt goods and the others are non-exempt goods.
If one takes the shops that were open in conformity with the law away from the 10 per cent. that were trading one is left with a relatively small number of shops. Even of those most were not open simply to sell non-exempt goods; they were selling both exempt and non-exempt goods. The proportions of exempt and non-exempt—or legally and illegally traded—goods in the mix give one a slightly clearer picture of what was going on. In neither survey did the proportion of non-exempt goods amount to as much as even one-quarter of the sales of half the shops open.
That brief digression into statistics was simply to emphasise that, while nobody doubts that the law needs revision, the extent to which it is being breached—the extent to which it is not working—is not, therefore on anything like the grand scale. It certainly does not constitute a crisis and my right honourable friend the Minister does not need to rush into a settled view of the situation, which would not begin to justify any change in the law that was not substantially for the better and which did not have very general and genuine support from the general public.
I return to the main debate and the general issue before us, which we can therefore afford to address in a temperate and thorough manner since we are not faced by anything approaching a crisis. It involves considerations of two kinds—secular and spiritual. As my noble friend—as has already been pointed out on a higher authority—has chosen Ash Wednesday to hold this debate, I shall take the spiritual first. The considerations are easily summarised. It is a stated and fundamental rule in the doctrines of both the Christian and the Jewish faiths that one day in seven should be set aside for rest and worship. I realise that these two faiths differ as to which day it should be. The Jewish Sabbath is on the last day of the week and, with the exception of the Seventh Day Advertists, Christians all celebrate the resurrection of our Lord by having moved their day of rest to the first day of the week. However, the principle is the same and it is very clear to me and to many other noble Lords.
I accept the scriptural authority quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans and followed by his colleague, but experience alone would
1614
in my view be enough to establish the principle laid before us so eloquently from the scriptures. It is very difficult for most of us to have any clear or stable idea of what our lives are for and where in the end they are taking us, of what our relationships with other people are and what we should be doing with them, if we spend the whole of every week pursuing our ordinary worldly tasks, consumed by ordinary worldly anxieties and in pursuit of ordinary worldly gains.
Human nature is such that if one does not set a stated proportion of time aside for the proper exercise of mind and spirit in religious activity as well as recreation one will in fact end up by setting none aside. If that time is not the same time, regularly recurring, it will at length be eroded or forgotten. That at least is my experience and I believe it is a common one.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Surely no one is proposing that people should work seven days a week. Everybody will have at least two days off, though neither of them may be a Sunday.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the huntsman always encourages the hounds to follow the scent but it is unwise to get ahead of the rest of the pack. I was following a very careful line and if the noble Lord will bear with me he will see the quarry come into view.
Religion is not just a two-way traffic. For all but hermits it is not just about the relationship between each of us and God: it is also about the powerful impact which that relationship ought to have on the relationships between each of us and everybody else as well. Religion is not practised in isolation and worship is a collective activity. The day that is set aside as special for religious purposes therefore needs to be the same day for all the people practising the same religion. Hence the current law.
I recognise of course, and it was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the extent to which the increasing complexity of the economic and physical services which sustain our society has led to breaches of this ideal; but it is as wrong in religion as it is in politics to say that, because some people cannot have something desirable, everybody else should do without it. The fact that the principle has been breached does not mean that it should be abandoned. If the matter ended there it could be argued, though I would resist it, that each man's conscience was his own concern and that the concern of the state and, therefore, of the Government was simply the mechanics of society and of the market economy. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary suggested something very like this in his letter of 4th January to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I believe that my noble friend followed him a little down that path.
However, it does not end there for a number of reasons. Chief among them, I believe, is the predicament of the family. The family is the foundation of society and the guardian of its standards of conduct. Fragmentation of the family does more to weaken society, and cohesion of the family can do more to secure it, than almost any other factor taken on its own. I do not doubt that this

1615
is as well recognised by the Government now as it was when the Conservative Party came to power in 1979 with that as a cornerstone of policy.
Family life is just as dependent on collective activity as religious life is dependent on collective worship. A family that cannot do things together can hardly be said to exist; and a family that cannot do things together regularly will not have half the strength of one that can. Any change in the law that results in more people working on Sundays will reduce the number of families that regularly meet together once a week. Inevitably that will reduce, first, the intimacy and then the strength of those families' ties. That must be damaging to the life of the family and I firmly believe it is damaging also to the life of the country, because where the family is damaged society suffers.
I say that with great conviction born of three-and-half years, during the first part of which I was the Minister responsible for the welfare of children, particularly very young offenders, at the DHSS. Secondly, I was Minister responsible for young offenders and the whole of the rest of the prison service at the Home Office. Incidentally, at the DHSS I was also responsible while I was there for mental health and mental illness. The whole of that experience endorses every syllable I have uttered about the need for a secure, stable and affectionate environment for people to grow up in, and indeed for adults to be supported by.
Those who in adult life can find comfort and support in their family and have had it in their youth will turn neither to society for succour nor on society for vengeance, as too many socially deprived people do, even today. So in this matter pounds, shillings and pence, morality, sentiment and common sense all point in the same direction. It ought to be a prime. social objective of any government to protect and strengthen the family; and the way we use Sunday nationally is at the centre of that.
Proposals for change in the present law come from many quarters but they come most loudly and most often, I believe, from those who want most or all shops to open for most or all of Sunday. They regard themselves as moderate, I think, if they restrict their demands to less than the whole day. For healthy survival the family needs one day a week which its members spend together. If they all lived in one house, if every family had one house for itself, I suppose it would be possible to argue (though again I would resist it) that three-quarters or even half of a day would reasonably do for that purpose. But very often they do not all live in the same house, and the need is not just for time to spend with fellow members of one household: time is also needed to get to meet them and for the various generations to travel to be together.
Therefore I do not accept that conversion of only six hours on Sunday into a sort of honorary weekday, as advocated by my noble friend Lord Reay in an excellent speech, with which I did not agree but on which I compliment him, somehow meets the difficulty of finding an acceptable reform. Even if I did accept it, which I do not, I cannot see which six
1616
hours within anything like civilised opening hours could be chosen which did not strike at the very heart of this Government's proper commitment to the family for the reasons I have given. I hope that my right honourable friend will have this very much in mind before he comes to his settled view.
As my noble friend Lord Brentford and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, have said, research by the Jubilee Trust has confirmed what many of us had already supposed: Sunday is the focal point of family life and lunch is the focal point of Sunday. Sunday dinner or Sunday lunch is not something that can be disposed of in a few minutes, and when I say that I do not mean just that it takes time to prepare and cook the meal and then to clear it away and wash up. I mean that for many families Sunday, with a main meal at its centre, is the principal or only chance for all its members to get together and carry out all those private businesses—some of them open and acknowledged, others implicit and almost unnoticed—that are essential to the identity, character and endurance of a family, on which our society is so heavily dependent for its own strength and character.
There is the exchange of experiences, the sharing of anxieties, the agreement of differences and indeed the agreements to differ, the establishment of standards and the confirmation of loyalties. No change in the law which reduces the time available for the those essential processes to a matter of a few hours a week ought therefore to be accepted by your Lordships in any future proposed legislation. You cannot compress an English, still less a Welsh, Sunday into a dinner break or even half a day. If you try to, you will damage the nation as well as the families of which it is composed.
I am not one of those who want to do away with all regulation; nor am I one of those who wish to compress what regulation we have into only part of a day. I am one of those who would like to swap regulations that do not work for those that do. I would commend to Her Majesty's Government therefore for a start the REST proposals, published and frequently referred to before as a basis of coming to a settled view. I hope that my right honourable friend will not not suffer from what I am delighted and fascinated to have at last diagnosed—a condition that I have suffered from for years, with no knowledge of what it was—information anxiety. I am most grateful for the definition. I think that most of us certainly suffer from it and Ministers must; so I hope that my noble friend will not become too acute a fellow sufferer.
As one who came late to your Lordships' debate, I have no right to expect you to listen longer. I hope that in the time I have spoken I have made it clear that this is an issue of greater importance even than the large economic interests involved. I for one would feel bound to judge any proposals for changes according to how they will affect the spiritual life and the family life of this country and to act on that judgment and not on any lesser loyalty.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I follow an excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and

1617
begin by declaring a lifelong interest in the cooperative movement and in the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I intend to make reference to their views, although I shall not necessarily be speaking to their brief, while I am making my points.
First, may I say to your Lordships that we are deeply in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for providing us with this opportunity of a debate which we do not have to conclude tonight. This is an ongoing part of a saga which has been running for a long time and which will run and run and run. But it provides all of us, partisans of one kind or another, with an opportunity to listen to other points of view.
I want to begin by talking about the way in which the debate was balanced three years ago. It was quite crudely and simply put that it was all or nothing at all. Any argument that was devised—and I was the mover of some amendments which sought some compromise from many quarters, covering variations in the number of hours, the size of shops and the numbers of employees—was met by the response, certainly from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and from many of his friends who spoke eloquently and passionately, that there was no way in which you could have less than complete deregulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, fairly referred to the passage of the Bill through this House and also to the protection for employees that he hoped would be enshrined in a future Bill. He referred to what in fact we had done on the last occasion. I would remind the noble Lord that that was a concession forced from the Government. When the Bill came before us there were three clauses and a schedule: there was no reference to protection for shopworkers. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who was always in his place, was certainly impressed by the speeches made on one occasion by the late Lord Stockton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. They carried the House with them in their arguments to the extent that the Government conceded—the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was the Minister—that a powerful case had been made out that at least existing shopworkers should be protected.
That formed part of the Bill when it left here for another place. When we seek to assess the views of the shopworkers' union—not shopworkers, because I recognise that there are 2 million people who are employed in some form of retailing and distribution and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers certainly does not claim to represent all of them because there are many more unorganised shopworkers than there are organised ones—we have to view with suspicion as they do, the protestations that all will be well and that the rights and protection of employees will be enshrined in a Bill.
I listened to a very knowledgeable gentleman last night in a committee room upstairs who spoke eloquently about what we would call the SHRC proposals. They rest part of their argument on the premise that a code of practice may possibly, although not enshrined in the law, be part of the law-making process. I recall many noble Lords in this
1618
Chamber viewing with some scepticism the standing and the right of a code of practice. The gentleman confirmed that all the major retailers would be party to signing a code of practice. This has to be sold to shopworkers so that they have protection enshrined in a code of practice as strong as legislation. They may well accept it then. Nothing will succeed in this matter unless we carry forward those who articulate on behalf of a number of groups.
I believe that there is a considerable job to be done by the Government in discovering from the representatives of the people working in retail and distribution what changes they are prepared to accept. I look the Minister in the eye when I say that he has a most unenviable task in seeking this consensus. I listened carefully when he said the Government's stance was that they were not prepared to move until they were satisfied there was something of broad agreement on the table. Up to now the protagonists in the argument have put their views before the Minister. He now has a job of work to do. Why not get the parties round the table? There is nothing like confronting the different parties with what has been put forward to find out what they are prepared to give on.
What about a referendum? The noble Lord, Lord Reay—I respect what he said and admired his speech—said that we should take off the party shackles and thought that a free vote on the issue might be the answer. I understand the Government's reluctance to do that because this is government business. However, if we believe, as some noble Lords have said, that the people are behind complete or substantial change, what about letting the people decide, if not in a referendum, in their local authorities and county councils? What is wrong with giving the decision to people who know better than we do nationally the local feelings about such changes?
I wish to refer to the point made by several noble Lords about the plight of the poor tourist coming to this country and being aghast at our Sunday trading laws. I wonder how this manifests itself in places like Vienna, Innsbruck or Salzburg, three places that I visited on a Saturday and Sunday last year. There was a great rush in Vienna between 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock because the shops closed at midday. I heard no agitation anywhere there for the tourists in Austria to be given some extra facility. I fail to see why the proponents of the argument—I do not agree with them but I respect them—maintain that tourists coming to Britain will expect to find our shops open when they cheerfully go to other capital cities and accept the local custom that the shops shall be closed. Other noble Lords have mentioned the practices in a range of countries, and I think that we should take these on board.
The point has been made that on Sunday there is already work for firemen, ambulancemen, police and transport workers in this country. It is indeed a fact of life. We are not arguing that they should not run their ambulances and fire brigades, but we do not want to see an extension of that. The total is already, 2, 3, 4 million—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Five million.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Five million, thank you. My Lords, why make it possible to add to that number another 2 million? They would be—I shall not say forced, because I do not accept that they will have to work—put under pressure to work. Why do it?
My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs put forward in my view one of the most powerful arguments in the debate. I can speak for Edmonton where I live. In parts of Edmonton people are sick of the conditions in which we live on a Saturday—on a Friday, all right, but it is worse on a Saturday when the car parks are full and there is noise, dirt and filth. If the proposed change in the law comes about, there will be even more people—because the name of the game is to increase the market share and to make more profit—and more competition.
If giving people choice leads to Sunday being the same as any other day, then I am against it. I am unrepentant in wanting to retain as much of what we now have as possible. I think that there are merits in the case argued for 12 to 6, but one must acknowledge that there may be other ways of going about it.
I say this to the Minister for nothing. To get it right, one needs more time than the manifesto allows. I for one say that more time is needed. In this first genuine round of trying to find a compromise, nothing of substance emerged. As the Minister knows, if a Bill were presented for Second Reading in another place now or at any other time the opponents of the compromise would be very busy in the constituencies among various groups, and the result would be a mess. I look forward to the Government proposing changes in the law of a nature that is acceptable to the majority of interests. I wish the Minister and his colleagues well in their attempt to find a solution to the problem.
7.27 p.m
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and today is no exception. On this occasion he made some important and useful suggestions, although I do not always agree with him. Nearly four hours ago my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter introduced the debate with his usual clarity and vigour. I am glad to speak in the debate and to say how much I agree with what he said.
Shortly after my noble friend Lord Ferrers posed a question and said that he hoped to have a clear message from your Lordships. In saying that he lost none of his cunning, for which I have known him for many years. He must have known—I certainly could have told him before the debate started—that there was no possibility of that happening in this kind of debate. Indeed, we have had wide-ranging views on all aspects of this fascinating and important subject.
Many different proposals have been made, as has been said. I am inclined to those produced by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Although they are in themselves a compromise, and compromises are usually rather unsatisfactory, I liked them because I thought that half a loaf was better than no bread. I should declare that I am an unashamed and
1620
unrepentant deregulator. I happen also to like Sunday but I dislike shopping. With those two viewpoints, I hope that I can be considered objective in this matter, though I doubt that that will be agreed by others.
I always enjoy the speeches of my noble friend Lady Young. On this occasion she spoke on her own account and on behalf of a very powerful and successful group of retailers. What she said was interesting, although I did not entirely agree with her. I was especially interested when she said that Sunday trading might be a deterrent to a career in retailing. That is a significant aspect of the matter. I have been extensively involved in catering and have spoken in the House on the subject. Sunday trading has not proved to be a deterrent in the industry—quite the contrary. In the catering industry Sunday is a day of action. But people have plenty of time off and are able to have recreation as appropriate. It is not a deterrent and indeed has been one of the stimuli.
In fact the deregulation of the licensing trade, which was vigorously debated in the House, has not been taken up by everybody. Many public houses and restaurants do not take advantage of the new found freedom because it does not suit them. Retailing, like licensing and catering, is about choice.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is not in his place. I missed the speech of his colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans as I had to chair a meeting upstairs. I listened with great interest to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I find it surprising that he and other spokesmen for the Church are unable to reconcile Sunday with retailing. The two subjects are not irreconcilable. I do not suppose that because shops are open I shall desist from going to church, and the same will apply to many others. By the same token, the unit of the family, about which many noble Lords have spoken with feeling, is something we all respect and wish to support. The fact that shopping is now an important leisure activity does not detract from that feeling of getting together both on Sundays and on other days.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to the Conservative Party. I am sorry that he is not in his place but I should like to take up one point. He said that the Conservative Party should conserve that which is good. He is quite right; that is what it must do. But the Conservative Party—I speak as an extremely junior member of it—is also a party of radical thinking. Its thinking has never been more radical than under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. The Government were elected on a programme of freedom to choose. This refreshing philosophy has begun to affect every walk of life. Indeed, who knows, it might even affect the Churches in due course. Somehow or other shopping hours have remained behind the barricades. Surely it is time to let some fresh air in and to let traders and consumers alike decide when they should shop, how they should shop and where they should shop.
Obviously it is necessary to have protection for employees. Even the 1986 Bill, which went through this House with such vigour, provided for that. Nobody wishes people to work unsocial hours if they do not wish to do so. All shops, wherever they may

1621
be, should have clearly established notices which say when they are open and when they are not.
I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will not be beguiled by the eloquence of his noble friend Lord Elton, who was in great form this afternoon, and will get off the fence and get on with it.
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, first, I must apologise for being late in putting down my name to speak; in fact, so late that it was never printed upon the list. Secondly, I must thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter; and thirdly, I must declare an interest. I am the owner of a garden centre in which it is illegal to sell a spade upon a Sunday. I am also a farmer. It is perfectly legal for me to buy a ploughshare on a Sunday. Christian France shoots on a Sunday. I would not shoot on a Sunday. Catholic Ireland hunts on a Sunday. I would not choose —say I, hypocritically—to hunt on a Sunday except in Ireland. Calvinist Scotland does not allow fishing on a Sunday. I am quite happy to fish on a Sunday.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that my intervention in the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans was either unhelpful or ill-mannered—anyway, he was disparaging about it. He is totally capable of being disparaging and I do not take offence. It is possible that he was disparaging because the right reverend Prelate was totally incapable of giving an answer. The Churches, it appears, are happy to accept that garden centres and DIY shops should be open because that is is for the recreation of the population. But for some extraordinary reason the Churches are not happy that a bookshop should be open. No authority in the scriptures and no doctrine from the early councils and from the early Christian fathers says that it is perfectly all right to buy a chain-saw in a suburban garden centre in England but not to buy Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in Hatchard's in Piccadilly. In effect, that is what the Churches are saying.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the narrow point on which my noble friend interrupted the right reverend Prelate, I understood the right reverend Prelate to be saying that one could get merit in buying a Bible without breaking the criminal law by doing it on Monday. I did not understand him to say anything about the merits or otherwise of buying a Bible on a Sunday. I shall not go on because I am not the right reverend Prelate, but that is what I understood him to say.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is my point. It is odd that one should get merit for buying a Bible on Monday but not for buying a Bible on Sunday. There is no authority for that statement in scriptures or in the writings of the early Church or of the early councils.
Lord Elton: My Lords, obviously, I have not made clear what the right reverend Prelate said. I understood him to say that one can obtain spiritual
1622
merit from buying a Bible at any time or at any place—that is, if one uses it and one follows what it says—but if one wishes to avoid committing a criminal offence under the present law one does not do it on a Sunday. I do not think the right reverend Prelate was addressing the merits of buying a Bible on Sunday other than in the criminal sense.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have a terrible feeling that this discussion could go on for a long time. I do not want to detain your Lordships for too long except to point out how interesting it is to note that the Church of England is divided on the homosexuality of priests, on the Virgin Birth, on the Nicene creed and on the bodily assumption of Christ, but for some quite extraordinary reason it is absolutely rock solid on not changing the Sunday trading laws. I am sorry but I find that a method of moral teaching which lacks any form of substance.
Those of us who believe in deregulation are saying that it is not for the nanny state to boss us about and that it is not for the Church of England, by law established, to say that we need the law to do this and we need the law to do that. It is for us to be true to our own consciences in our own hearts. In the same way as I would not shoot a pheasant on a Sunday, it is absolutely right for those people who do not want to go shopping or who do not want to work in shops so to choose.
The Muslim sabbath is a Friday. The Jewish sabbath is a Saturday. If we protect all three days in this modern, multi-racial and multi-cultural society, we shall degenerate into a four-day week. That may be of great pleasure to the idler members of society; but it cannot be of any use to or anything other than an intolerable burden on the consciences of those who want to proceed with their normal lives.
Those of us who support deregulation are asking for the privilege and freedom to be able to do what we want. But—and this is a very important "but"—those whose consciences do not allow them to work on Sunday, or whose consciences say, "I will not do this, or that, on the Sabbath", must be respected and protected by law. The freedom to do what you want is a privilege and the freedom of respect of conscience is also a privilege. Indeed, those are the privileges of a great society in which I think we live and it is that which I am urging upon Her Majesty's Government at present.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he say whether he would wish to apply the principle that everyone must have complete freedom of choice against the nanny state to planning controls, for instance, so that everyone would be free to choose where and how they built their house?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is a non sequitur which should not be applied by a chairman of very great companies. Indeed, it is so obviously a non sequitur that it does not deserve an answer.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in expressing my thanks to the

1623
noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important question at what I regard to be a decent interval after the defeat of the Shops Bill. Let me also say that I acted as an assessor to the committee of inquiry into proposals to amend the Shops Acts in respect of multiple shops and large stores.
When the Bill was going through your Lordships' House, I said, and I repeat it now, that I felt that the Government had acted perfectly honourably in the matter because they had followed to the letter the findings of the inquiry committee. It was a three-person committee and in my view, having read the evidence and summarised it, it reached the wrong verdict. I think that members of the committee were obsessed with the idea that if there were any restrictions at all on shopping in this country, they would be incapable of enforcement. That decision led them into the trap of recommending "open all hours". I think it was that provision which doomed the Shops Bill to the fate which it finally met in another place.
It is only fair to say that the evidence which the committee took—I still have a stack of it, about 3 feet high in my living room—was in favour of Sunday trading; but it was not in favour of unlimited Sunday trading, and the committee did not test the witnesses whom they saw on the vital question as to what their attitude would be to unrestricted Sunday trading as regards working hours.
Therefore, we are back where we started on the issue. The review which the Government are conducting at present is an appropriate one. Moreover, although the divergence of opinion expressed in your Lordships' House this evening may be somewhat disconcerting, I have found that there has been a movement from fixed positions by comparison with that which existed in 1985–86. In particular the two main protagonists, if one may so describe them—the Keep Sunday Special organisation, which has made its REST proposals, and the Shopping Hours Reform Council, which has made counter-proposals—have moved from the situation which they were in when the Auld Committee was sitting and taking evidence on the subject.
Many points are perhaps worthy of mention because they have not emerged sharply enough in the debate this evening. We cannot discuss in any detail shopping hours on the other six days of the week because that is not included in the Motion before us. However, it is legal for shops under present law to remain open from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m., and up to 9 p.m. on one week night.
A significant development in the past few years has been the extension of hours by many traders. That in part is to do with franchising in order to keep smaller shops open. But we now have a large number of shops open, as they call it, from eight till eight so that the working day for many shopworkers is now of 12 hours' duration and the old 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. closing has gone by the board.
In addition to that change there is a development which I think is not statistically capable of
1624
calculation. It concerns Saturdays and arises from the fact—this is a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, touched upon—that the management problems over a six-day week are considerable. If you go through the supermarket check-out on a Saturday it is possible to observe that a large proportion of the workers employed there are young persons. Moreover, if you talk to them, as I sometimes do, you-will find that they are still attending school. I am all in favour of the Saturday job. Indeed, I had one myself when I was that age. However we must ask ourselves this. If we had Sunday trading as well, would young people be encouraged to work by reason of the cash incentives held out to them on both Saturdays and Sundays? If that proved to be the case, what would happen to their homework? Further, if the homework went by the board, what would happen to school performance?
I mention that situation because sometimes even consumers are inclined to take the narrow view of what they want. They see in Schedule 5 a rare old opportunity for fun and games and they do not take into account what I call the social considerations. The family question which has featured largely in the debate this evening is very much one of those. There are many imponderable factors in this game and it is important that in any balanced view the whole subject should be looked at in the round, so to speak.
I turn now to Scotland, because I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, had to say by reason of the fact that, unlike me, she is a resident Scot. I shall start from the proposition that the Shops Act 1950 was a consolidation measure. Its purpose was to consolidate the Shops Acts from 1912 to 1938 and certain other enactments relating to shops.
Scotland was not excluded from shopping law. The reason why Scotland was able to open its shops on Sunday was that the draftsmen in bygone years assumed that Scotland, being a Presbyterian country, did not need the restrictions which they thought appropriate for England. That situation held good until about 10 years ago when certain major firms—I had better be specific here—most of which I regret to say were English based, decided that it was worthwhile to take advantage of the loophole in the law in Scotland. That was partly because of the intrinsic value of being able to open shops on Sunday, especially in the run-up to Christmas, but more particularly because they thought that the thin edge of the wedge of what they might subsequently achieve in England.
Consequently I do not believe that one can assume that, if comparable freedom were available in England, the shopping experience would be in any way similar to that which applies in Scotland. For example, if Oxford Street and the great shopping areas of London were legally open on a Sunday, perhaps even closing at, say, 6 p.m., is it not likely that the theatre movement in London would be saying, "It would be far better to play to full houses on a Sunday evening at an early performance than to empty houses on a Monday"?
Therefore we are talking again not in terms of something which is quantifiable but about a range of possibilities. I am not saying that the opportunity of

1625
going to a theatre on a Sunday is not highly desirable but, nevertheless, it is something to be considered. I advert again to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young: if management has a problem with supervision over six days, which it has, in my opinion it has an infinitely greater problem if it is to maintain effective control of its shops with a growing part-time labour force over seven days. That again leads one to say to oneself: "Well, in retailing terms it has been largely agreed that seven-day trading will not increase turnover all that much; but it will certainly increase expenses".
I should not be surprised if leading firms which had a great regard for their retailing standards decided that if they had to open on Sundays to protect their trade, Monday might be the day upon which they could properly close. At the end of the day, instead of having seven-day trading the consumer would still be stuck with six-day trading. There would still be shops open on Monday. I can recall that when Monday trading was tried by a large number of food retailers, some small food retailers opened and they lived together quite happily. Nevertheless, those wider possibilities must be taken account of. It is a factor which, as I say, consumer organisations should address when they are making up their minds.
The protection of workers has featured largely in our discussion, I believe quite properly. Had the previous Bill been enacted with the amendments to which my noble friend Lord Graham spoke, the protection for workers at that time would have been stronger than it currently is. Since 1985–86 the wages councils have been virtually neutered. Even what remains of the wages councils stands in real danger of being swept away if as a result of the inquiry which the Government are now conducting they decide to abolish wages councils.
Wages councils are vital for the retail trades. Food and non-food wages councils cover about 2 million workers. Consequently, protection for the workers is, as I say, much less. In addition, in legislation currently before another place the protection which young workers enjoy under the Shops Act 1950 is likely to be swept away. In addressing the question we must be certain that any replacement legislation looks at that issue. I do not regard codes of conduct as a satisfactory basis upon which to protect workers, having regard to the fragmentation and the general nature of employment in the retail trades.
Finally, a point which I believe has not been mentioned is the nature of the schedules. During the passage of the 1985–86 Bill we tried to persuade the Government that if schedules to the shops legislation were necessary, it was far better to avoid the rigidity of putting them into an Act of Parliament and to deal with them by supplementary legislation. That is especially true of Schedule 5. Irrespective of the outcome of the review which the Home Office currently has in hand, it would be as well for the Minister to have a look at the prospect of following the advice we gave him then; that is, if there have to be restrictions as to what may or may not be sold on Sundays as a result of the implementation of either of the two main proposals currently before us, it would be as well to make the Minister responsible for schedules and to allow him to proceed by way of
1626
statutory instrument after discussion with the national bodies which have a direct interest in these matters.
As I said at the outset, the position while not hopeful is not unhopeful. I agree with the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs that there is some merit in bringing the parties together around the table, so to speak, under the skilful guidance of the Minister of State to see whether, having moved slightly in the matter, it is not possible for both sides to go that little bit further so that at some future time—in my opinion later rather than sooner—we can have before us a proposal for the revision of shopping hours in this country which the Government can truly say meets with the approval of the major interests concerned.
7.54 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always helpful if one has the understanding and comfort of some of your Lordships when one comes to make a speech. When the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that he felt sorry for me, I appreciated that very much indeed. I notice that my name is put down as speaking again by leave of the House. If your Lordships were to wish to deny me that leave I should be quite content.
As we all expected, a variety of opinions have been expressed. I shot my bolt in giving the Government's point of view when I spoke on the first occasion. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Caldecote—he has vanished; that happens sometimes at this time of night—who said that there was an American disease called information anxiety. It is the difference between what you understand and what you think you ought to understand. Like my noble friend Lord Elton, who was a distinguished Minister of State in the position which I hold, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Caldecote for letting me know from what I suffer. As one who is, in this position, bombarded by paper, problems and views, I am conscious of what I understand and of what I ought to understand. I rather fancy that the latter wins by a length.
We have heard this evening a complete variety of opinions—from those who are in favour of deregulation; from those who want partial regulation; and from those who seek to have no change. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said that he thought that the Conservative Party was there to conserve and that we should conserve what now happens. When he said that, I thought how much change we have seen, especially on Sundays, over the past 20, 30 and 40 years. I remember my late mother telling me that when she was a child—she was born before the turn of the century—she was not allowed to look into the window of a toy shop on Sunday because it was supposed to be bad for her. When one thinks of the contrast between then and now I wondered whether, had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester been alive at the turn of the century, he might not have said the same thing: we must conserve the status quo.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have got the right reverend Prelate on his feet.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to make the point that I thought it was absolutely clear that I said I had no desire to leave things exactly as they now are and nor did the Churches. The point was that conserving what is best means moving into a new situation and managing change instead of merely being driven by it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an intellectual point with which I find myself in considerable agreement. I was apprehensive about crossing swords with the right reverend Prelate because he made such a robust and fiery speech. He went like a boxer taking on all corners. I made a note not to provoke him too much. I provoked him on that occasion. I shall do my best to see that I do not go any further. I enjoyed the right reverend Prelate's speech. Perhaps I may say with humility that he put his case forcefully, strongly and clearly. It is a view which many people hold. It was good that your Lordships heard that view put forward in the way that it was.
We have had a number of bits of advice. My noble friend Lord Caldecote advised the Government to hasten slowly. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, on the same tack said that the Government should take time. My noble friend Lord Elton said, "Do not rush into a decision". No one could accuse us of having done anything other than hasten slowly, taken time and not rushed into a decision, because we have not yet come to a decision. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Montgomery told the Government to get off the fence.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may tell my noble friend that my motto is festina lente—hasten slowly and perhaps he will not use it so frequently.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall have to have time to work out not the translation from Latin into English but what my noble friend was saying.
The Earl of Onslow: Festina lente—hasten slowly.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when my noble friend speaks from a sedentary position he is even less audible than when he is standing up.
I was merely trying to make the contrast between the advice I was given from behind, including that of my noble friend Lord Onslow, which I now understand is of a similar nature to that given by my noble friends Lord Caldecote and Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and that of my noble friend Lord Montgomery, who said, "Get off the fence", and my noble friend Lord Lucas, who said, "The Government should grasp this nettle". The Government grasped the nettle once before and got stung by it. The Government are very anxious not to grasp a similar nettle without making fairly certain that it commands a reasonable consensus of opinion.
The debate today has illustrated that there is a desire for reform in some respects. Even the right
1628
reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—and I say this with hesitation for fear that I provoke him—is in favour of some reform provided that it is at least reform as he wants it. There is considerable uncertainty about the best way in which to do this. Some of your Lordships do not want to see Sunday trading deregulated at all; others have proposed complete deregulation or deregulation of part of Sunday, or new lists of exemptions.
In my earlier intervention I suggested that no proposal, however carefully thought out, is without its flaws. I am bound to say that I think your Lordships have confirmed this—fortissimo, if I may say so. I said that if your Lordships spoke with one voice it would at least be helpful. I am surprised that my noble friend Lord Montgomery described that as being cunning. I am rather flattered by that. I should have thought it was fairly obvious that I did not expect that that would happen, and it has not happened. Your Lordships have run true to form. Your Lordships have had a debate which has been convulsed with courteous controversy.
If there is a change in the law, the change ought to be one that makes the law both practical and enforceable. The present law is neither, although we must avoid at all times merely replacing one unsatisfactory law with another which is equally unsatisfactory. A complete deregulation would be practicable. It would not raise a problem of enforcement, but of course, as we have all heard, it does not carry total support. The question is whether it carries enough support. Certainly it did not in 1986, and one wonders whether public opinion and parliamentary opinion has changed that much since then. If so, has it changed sufficiently?
We have heard eloquent pleas for deregulation of part of Sunday and although this has great advantages it does not solve the problem of what to do about the rest of Sunday. We have heard of the value to the community of small shops, garden centres and other stores but there does not seem to be agreement on these factors, let alone others.
My noble friend Lord Brentford said that do-it-yourself centres were usually vast. Maybe they are, but not all do-it-yourself centres are large and one wonders whether they should be incorporated or not. We must remember that if anomalies occur those shops which would not enjoy exemption under a reform of the law would be forced to close with the threat of a criminal sanction. I am not saying that we cannot live with flaws and anomalies. On occasion we pride ourselves as masters of compromise. But before we adopt a compromise we must ensure that it is practicable and enforceable.
My noble friend Lord Elton, in what I thought, if I may say so, was a highly intellectual and diagnostic speech, referred to family life as being important. He dwelt on that and I think that he was absolutely right to do so. However, relaxation does not necessarily act to the detriment of family life. Many people see Sundays as opportunities to go out together, to visit markets, to make purchases calling for family decisions. Many lonely single people would like to work on Sundays; some people already have to work on Sundays and their wives might like to work on Sundays too so as to enjoy time off together. Because

1629
I say that does not mean that I do not disparage my noble friend's observations about which he feels very strongly and for which he made a very strong case. If he is right—and I am sure he is—that family life is the essence and the basis of society and that anything that benefits family life benefits society, then we should be careful before we do anything which would spoil family life. I just say that I do not think that need necessarily be the case.
My noble friend Lady Young said—and I think it must have been a slip of the tongue—that she spoke on behalf of Marks and Spencers. As one who had the great privilege of occupying the position of Leader of your Lordships' House, I think that she meant that she had been advised by Marks and Spencers although the views she was giving were of course entirely her own. She spoke as if Sunday trading did not occur at all at the moment, whereas of course it does. I think she said that it would be difficult to find staff, but we discovered that there are reasons to think that there is competition to work. Shc said that prices would rise. I understand the arguments she put forward; I think that there is no evidence that in general this will happen, though in individual shops it may do so.
She said, I think, that standards would fall. I do not think that there is any evidence for that. She suggested that opening on Sunday was not commercially viable. That is perfectly true, it may not be commercially viable for Marks and Spencers but it may well he viable for other people. What she was really saying, in the nicest possible way, was that Sunday trading is not something with which Marks and Spencers themselves would be involved because it is not commercially acceptable to them. If that is so, it is perfectly understandable. But that does not mean that the same philosophy applies to everyone. That is why it is very likely that, should total deregulation come about, not all shops would open. Only those which found it worth while would do so.
The noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Gallacher, asked why we did not get the parties round the table. I should like to consider this. Your Lordships will be aware that all the different parties who are involved in this, have only recently got their views together. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do is to see whether there can be a concordance of view. I hope that will be possible in the end, not because the Government seek to take on something that is controversial, but simply because the law as it is at the moment is not working. It is not right and it ought to be altered. The difficulty is to find the consensus as to how to alter it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked whether the Shops Act contravened European law. I do not think it is for us to attempt to prejudge the decision of the European Court in Luxembourg. However, we do not believe that the Shops Act is contrary to the Treaty of Rome and there is no European requirement to standardise Sunday trading laws in the Community.
In conclusion, I support the concept of Sunday as a day apart. I personally am of the view that the majority of people wish Sunday to be a different day, whether for religious or other reasons. People may wish to garden rather than to go to the office and I see
1630
no reason why retailers should not sell them plants if they wish to do so. However that does riot mean that all shops will open. That has not happened in Scotland, where, without such shopping restrictions, Sunday remains a day that is different. I believe the same could happen in England.
I wish to thank your Lordships for the contributions which noble Lords have made to the debate. It is valuable for the Government to know what your Lordships feel. I can assure the House that the consultation process is continuing. I shall not take the advice of my noble friend Lord Montgomery to get off the fence until we are quite certain which side of the fence to get off.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, happily for me and your Lordships, it is the convention that in the last speech of this kind of debate the mover is not expected to make a serious or substantial attempt to reply to the points raised. If that were the convention then your Lordships would be in for a very late Sitting indeed. As it is, our main duty is to thank noble Lords of all points of view for taking part in the debate and for contributing to what I hope, from the point of view of your Lordships' House and of the Minister, has been a very useful exchange of views.
It remains a fact that sooner or later many of us think sooner rather than later—the Government of the day will have to take action on a situation which, as it was generally accepted throughout the debate, is very far from satisfactory. On that I should like to take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that on this difficult and controversial issue the Government should consider getting the various parties round the table for discussion in order to discover whether a solution can be put forward reasonably quickly which at least would obtain majority support. That is a useful suggestion, and I hope that my noble friend and his right honourable friends will consider that.
The debate generally has covered a wide expression of view. I must admit that as a member of the Church of England I was a little depressed by the speeches of the two right reverend Prelates who took part. With very great respect and deference to them, they did not seem to be fully appreciative of the situation in this country today. They seemed to be hankering—understandably, no doubt—for an era, an approach and a philosophy which has been dead for a considerable number of years. However, I was encouraged—I shall say this to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester who remains in his place, (the other right reverend Prelate has fled to St. Albans no doubt)—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, to be fair to my noble friend, the right reverend Prelate said that he was going back to take a service.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that it is a service in St. Albans. I was, however, a little reassured by the fact that I had the pleasure of bringing out the following to your Lordships. Whatever line the right reverend Prelates may take on this matter, the Deans and Chapters of at any rate a

1631
large number of their cathedrals seem to take a much more practical and contemporary view. Indeed, they not only have and operate large and effective shops which open on a Sunday, but as I ventured to inform your Lordships, they have carried—in 15 cases in the Church of England and in one in the Church of Rome—on that practice until as recently as last Sunday, to the point of transgressing the criminal law.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I have a very quick intervention to make. The REST proposals would make what the Deans and Chapters are doing entirely legal. That is a point of view with which I am sure the noble Lord should agree.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, whatever the REST proposals or those of any other body may achieve, we exist at the moment under the present law. I was gathering reassurance from the fact that the present law is so manifestly silly that whatever approach the right reverend Prelates may make, the Deans and Chapters of a large number of cathedrals are far more practical. They are far more into the contemporary scene and the contemporary approach and are even prepared to carry their trading practices to the point of transgressing the criminal law. That is still the point. Whether one accepts the REST proposals—personally I do not, although I shall not waste time on that now—or those of any other organisation is irrelevant to that point.
This has been a most interesting debate. It showed the flow of opinion. It also showed how opinion does not appear to divide very much on party lines on this matter. It divides more according to personal approaches and philosophies and perhaps to some extent on religious beliefs. That may be a very important factor in the Government's calculations. We have taken up a considerable amount of your Lordships' time in discussing this matter. I hope the House will think the debate has been worthwhile. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Bradford: Cuts in Local Services
8. 14 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the implications of the cuts in local services being imposed by the controlling Conservative group in the city of Bradford, and whether they propose to take any action.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall first explain why I placed this particular Question on the Order Paper to be considered in your Lordships' House. I can assure your Lordships that I did not do so as an act of political spleen. I put down the Question because of the deep concern that has been expressed in the city of Bradford. That concern has been expressed right across the spectrum of public life there. People are concerned about what is happening in that city today.
1632
People may ask me why I became involved in that. I did so because for nearly 10 years I represented in another place a constituency that had a common boundary with the city of Bradford. I knew a lot of people from Bradford. For six years I lived within about half a mile to a mile of the border of Bradford itself. Therefore, I think I am as knowledgeable as most people as regards the kind of place that Bradford is.
Bradford is one of the major cities of the North that perhaps suffered to the greatest degree from the adverse effects of all that the Industrial Revolution imposed on the cities of the North. It gradually inherited thousands of bad houses, decaying schools and a decaying infrastructure because wealth was leaving the city. The city lost perhaps hundreds of thousands of its basic jobs over a period. Bradford existed because of those basic jobs in the woollen and clothing trade. That serves as an indication of the kind of deprivation that the city was suffering.
Nevertheless, over the past few years there have been great efforts in Bradford to try and correct those particular shortfalls and to do something about them. Bradford was gaining the reputation of a city on the way up. That was widely recognised by most people who knew anything about Bradford. It is perhaps the only major city which has an increasing population at present. The population is increasing at a substantial rate. Now there are nearly half a million people resident in that city. Outside of London Bradford probably comes among the top four or five cities in the country in terms of population. The case has been proved therefore for the need for substantial resources in order to help Bradford get on with the job of trying to correct some of the deprivation in the area.
Bradford has had to do that despite huge cuts in real terms that have taken place in the rate support grant over the past 10 years due to the present Government's policies. Bradford has lost multiples of millions of pounds over 10 years because of the reduction in the rate support grant. That has certainly had its effect on that city. But, as I said, Bradford was nevertheless doing its best to deal with that situation.
However, last summer certain events occurred. I do not challenge the legality of the fact that a Lord Mayor elected can use a casting vote. It has always been said that if one wants to push one's policies through, a majority of one is sufficient. I am not aware that the local government elections in Bradford over the past few years have been fought by anyone on the basis of the devastating cuts that have been inflicted on that city. A by-election occurred and it was won by a particular party that changed the control of the city council. It changed that control overnight.
On the list of speakers who will follow me I notice the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, from the Government Back-Benches. The noble Baroness has tremendous experience of local government. However, I hope that she will not make the mistake of comparing the lush pastures of Cambridge with the deprivation of a city like Bradford. If one compares the two, one finds the perfect example of

1633
the North-South divide. We keep talking about that factor and nothing could exemplify it more than a local authority having to try and run a city like Bradford as compared with running a shire county like Cambridgeshire and a city like Cambridge. I do not say for one moment that those areas do not have problems. My contention is that their problems are minuscule in comparison with the problems of Bradford.
Let us look at what is taking place. Bradford is an area of low wages and high unemployment. The party that has taken control in the city of Bradford has already imposed a £3 a week increase in council rents with another to follow. While it may be said that the people who have to carry that increase will receive some increased funding towards it, it is nevertheless a devastating blow to be faced with that kind of increase if one is in a poorly-paid job and is a borderline case. Many of the population of Bradford will find it hard to find the money.
Like every other city, Bradford has a large ageing population. Why would a local authority which has the care of its people at heart decide overnight to sell 13 old people's homes? What a prospect it is for the ageing people of Bradford to know that 13 of their old people's homes are to be sold off so that there will be nowhere for a number of them to go in their old age.
We are all aware, and I do not claim a conscience only for my party, of the urgent need in our society to take greater care of our children and to be more watchful in view of some of the appalling incidents that have occurred over the years which we as a society ought to be ashamed of. In Bradford they are cutting the number of social workers dealing with child abuse. If anyone can justify that in view of what has taken place and in the light of the very Bill that is before your Lordships' House at present, then it makes complete nonsense of the humanities.
A £1 charge is being imposed for home help. Once again that affects those at the lower end of the scale whom we ought to take more pride in looking after the old people and young people. It has often been said that a society that cannot care for its elderly people and its children is a very poor society indeed. Here again the action will hit viciously the people in the community least able to bear it.
The charges for meals on wheels have been increased by 22 per cent. from 49p to 60p. That may not seem much to us, but it means more than a 50p a week increase to an old age pensioner who may be living alone and for whom it is the main meal of the day. That is an arbitrary charge and I hope that the city council will look at that facet again with a view to considering whether the amount of money it collects is worth the misery that will be caused and, I suspect, the pittance it will raise.
I referred briefly to the question of employment in Bradford. At the end of July 1988 nearly 22,000 people in the district were registered as unemployed, a rate of 10·4 per cent. Some may consider that that is just above the national average. However, within the city, in the area known as University, the unemployment rate was 28·2 per cent. In Bradford Moor it was 22·6 per cent., in Little Horton, 19·4 per
1634
cent., Toiler, 17·8 per cent., Bowling, 16·9 per cent. and Undercliffe, 16·5 per cent. Youth unemployment is of particular concern. The rates for those aged 16 to 19 are: University, 53·7 per cent.—one youth in every two is out of work in that area. In Bradford. Moor the figure is 40.9 per cent., again nearly one in every two is out of work. In Toiler it is 31·4 per cent., one in every three; Little Horton, 23.6 per cent.; Undercliffe, 21·9 per cent., and Bowling, 20·4 per cent. 1 submit to your Lordships' House that by any standards those figures are horrendous. There is no possibility in the foreseeable future of the figures falling significantly.
Bradford is a city of hardworking people. It has a good, peaceful industrial history of people wanting to work. They have never earned very high wages, as anyone who knows the textile industry and the woollen mills and clothing manufacture will know. They have worked long hours; they have worked diligently. All they ask is to be given a chance to carry on with refurbishing their society and their city as they knew it.
By all accounts, even in the extreme situation I have mentioned and in the face of massive cuts in rate support grant, the charges that were levied on the population were not giveaways. They were higher than the national average. That can be proved by the cost of school dinners and so on. However, I shall not go into detail because my noble friend and colleague Lady Lockwood, who is closer to the area than I am, will deal with that point.
I do not know what the motive of the leader of the council is in pursuing those measures. I should have hoped that in May there might have been an opportunity to reverse the policy. However, no local authority elections are to be held within the major cities. The electorate will have to wait until next year. In my opinion the majority of the actions have been carried out without the widest approval of the people of Bradford. The policies hinge on the results of one by-election alone.
The sad thing is that by the time the-electorate of Bradford are called upon once again either to renew the mandate for the people who are running the city or to replace' them with somebody else irreparable damage will have been caused to the city. The process that was under way to deal with the deprivation and to improve the situation in the city of Bradford will be reversed.
Bradford probably has the largest ethnic groups of any city, representing all colours and races. A process of harmonisation was taking place which was a credit to Bradford. Full intergration was taking place at every level. I am almost certain that it was the first major city outside London to appoint a mayor who came originally from the Indian sub-continent. What is now taking place is a savage blow that will cut into all that was progressive.
I put down this Question on the basis that I believe that your Lordships ought to know about the situation. I do not know why the new leader of Bradford City Council is pursuing those activities. It may well be that he thinks that it offers a short cut to another place along the corridor. Sometimes people undertake such activities with that objective.

1635
I am glad that your Lordships' House provides a forum where we can air this kind of problem. I hope that what I have said this evening will give some concern to the Government so that they may consider whether they can bring any influence to bear on the matter.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I enter this debate as a ratepayer in the metropolitan district of Bradford. I am not a native of Bradford, but I think that I can claim to know the area reasonably well, having divided my leisure and shopping activities for most of my life between the rival cities of Bradford and Leeds.
I also enter the debate because I am concerned about the long-term effects on Bradford as well as about the immediate problems. I should like to start by saying a little more about Bradford metropolitan district and by dispelling some of the myths that exist. The image of Bradford does not always exactly fit the reality. Bradford metropolitan district spans two river valleys—the more industrialised Aire valley and the more rural Wharfe valley. It has a combination of inner-city areas—in effect, two inner-city areas: that of the former city of Bradford and that of the former borough of Keighley—and prosperous suburban and rural commuter areas.
In recent years, the district has successfully projected itself as a tourist centre. Its attractions are based first, strange though it may seem, on the city centre itself, which now houses the National Film and Photographic Library. Soon it will have part of the Victoria and Albert Indian collection which will be accommodated in a large disused mill of both historic and architectural interest. It has a newly-renovated and widely praised Alhambra Theatre as well as its Playhouse theatre club. It has a long musical tradition being the birthplace of Delius—an early and consistent supporter of the Halle subscription concerts—and has a longstanding choral society of some excellence.
Recently, in a national press article, the district was projected as having one of the best ranges of restaurant facilities in the country, many of which were of ethnic origin. In addition to this, it has within a stone's throw of the city centre Bradford University and its campus and Bradford University's science park which is a considerable asset to the city. Next door to the university is Bradford College, one of the largest colleges of further education in the country, which has a reputation for gearing its training to industrial needs.
On the moors to one side of the city is Haworth village, home of the Brontes, which attracts a constant stream of literary pilgrims. Over the tops, on the other side, is the spa town of Ilkley with its famous moor and a few miles upstream is Bolton Abbey and the Yorkshire Dales national park whose boundary touches that of Bradford.
I have gone on at some length about this because I think you will see that Bradford metropolitan council has in many ways much going for it. This has been summed up in its slogan, "Bradford bounces
1636
back". It is important that this be put on the record because it is significant that a number of people who move into Bradford for employment are quite surprised at the quality of life that they can find there.
However, in that context I should say that Bradford needed the recent adverse publicity that has arisen from these cuts like it needed a hole in the head. It is beyond question that it has severe economic problems. As my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick said, it has suffered the contraction of the wool textile industry, although what remains of that industry is highly competitive. Its engineering industry has almost disappeared so it badly needs industrial regeneration. However, it was bouncing back. It was capitalising on the boom in tourism, and through the local authority it was actively seeking to encourage new industry and obtaining considerable assistance from the European Economic Community both for employment and social projects.
As my noble friend said, unemployment is a problem. The average unemployment rate of 10·4 per cent. hides very different percentages in the various wards. For instance, in my ward of Craven, there is an unemployment rate of only 3·4 per cent., but that contrasts with the high percentages in other inner-city wards that have already been mentioned.
Of course, many of those inner-city wards contain a high proportion of the ethnic community. Bradford has a large ethnic community which is growing fast. It is estimated that by the year 2006 the ethnic community will have risen from 65,300 in 1985 to over 111,000. Between 1985 and 1996, the number of ethnic children of compulsory school age will rise by 26 per cent. from over 17,000 to over 20,000. The high rate of unemployment among ethnic school-leavers has been a cause of considerable concern to the careers service in the city. Many youngsters have completely disappeared from the records when they have left school.
When I was a member of the area board of the Manpower Services Commission, as it then was, there was also considerable concern on the board's part at the apparent discrimination against ethnic youngsters both in employment and YTS schemes. Those factors all add to the social problems of Bradford and mean that policies have to be geared to take account of those dimensions.
In the past, Bradford metropolitan council has had policies that have attempted to alleviate those problems. I should point out that it has done so without rate-capping and despite the enormousness of its problems and the loss of rate support grant to which my noble friend referred. It has done so without serious racial conflict; so that is credit to what has been done in the past.
What is happening to those policies now, and what has happened to them in the past few months? I want to say a few words about education because education has been the cornerstone of both social policy and economic revival. The education system in Bradford has not conflicted with government advice. On the contrary, it had one of the first pilot TVEI schemes which was highly praised. Its further education college network has been geared to meet industrial and commercial needs and has received

1637
co-operation from local industry. I have sat in on a number of meetings of the Bradford Education Forum where both industrialists and educationists have attempted to work out policies to meet the needs of both.
Last year a feasibility study was undertaken on whether or not Bradford should have a city technology college. It concluded that it was not in the best interests of education in the city to have such a college. Apparently there has now been some change of mind. But I must say that one city technology college will not make up for the damage that is being done to the education system at the present time.
Let us look at what happened to education. In the current year it has been cut by £3·9 million. The cuts have ranged from pre-school to further education facilities. First of all there was a reorganisation of the capitation fee for schools. Regrettably, some priority is now being given to schools in the outer areas whereas previously the formula on which the capitation fee for schools was based was the number of free school meals received by them; in other words the needs of those schools.
School meals have suffered drastically under the cuts. There has been an overall increase of 25 per cent. in the cost of school meals; with an increase of 78 per cent. in first schools, where meals have risen from 45 to 80p. It is little wonder therefore that there has been a fall-off in the numbers of those taking school meals by something in the order of 8,500 per day.
Secondly, some of the Asian language assistant posts in the schools have been scrapped. That is a very serious cut. Over 80 jobs have gone in that sphere. It is rather strange to have to record that some 64 of those posts would have been in receipt of Section 11 grants under urban programmes. The Home Office itself had sent representatives to Bradford and looked at the scheme for bilingual language teaching and decided that Bradford was a good model for the rest of the country. However, that service is now disappearing. Also the remedial teaching centre has been abolished. Some remedial teaching is still being done but the special centre has now been abolished. Those are all services that affect most badly those areas which are in need of help and assistance in those ways.
There has been a cut in in-service training in the schools and it has happened at a time when the GCSE examination is still new and schools are preparing for the national curriculum. There can be no doubt that cuts in in-service training are a great disservice to our children.
Many other cuts are taking place: in school caretaking, cleaning, and so on. Only the other day I was talking to a school governor who told me that her school was now relying upon the PTA to fund its normal redecoration. These are very serious cuts indeed. Bradford College, which offers a very fine example of FE, has also been badly affected by the cuts—again at a time when the skills that it provided are badly needed by the district.
Going rather beyond education, there has been the closure of what were called benefit shops. In effect they were advisory shops where those in need could
1638
go for help and advice. During 1988 over 50,000 people were helped by those benefit shops. That help was instrumental in obtaining £125 million in benefits which the Bradford residents would probably not otherwise have been able to obtain from the social security services. The closure of those shops is adding to the responsibility of the voluntary sector in Bradford, which has a thriving voluntary sector that has been receiving some —4 million in funding from the city council and a further —1·1 million from other public sources. There is great concern in the voluntary sector about the security and continuation of its funding in the future.
In the past there have been political differences between the parties. Different policies have been pursued at different times when each of the two major parties has been in control but this is a sudden and complete reversal of many of the policies on which previously there had appeared to be consensus—policies which directly promoted Bradford's needs and efforts and helped to reduce its social problems.
What is happening now is the introduction of policies which will not minimise the social problems and not help to maximise the industrial and economic regeneration of Bradford, which needs an increase in the number of educated and skilled workers so that a workforce will be available when new industry is attracted to the city. It needs policies that encourage and do not deter the impetus that has been given toward what the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Industry seems to regard as his favourite growth industry; namely, the tourist industry.
I ask the Government to think seriously about what is now happening in the metropolitan district of Bradford. If the policies of the present governing administration continue, I fear that Bradford will be set back for decades.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, the presence of my name on the list of speakers is not due to arty particular information about Bradford that I can offer to the House, except in Methodist terms. It is very largely the result of a cascade of letters that I have received over the past fortnight. They are letters which vary in ferocity, indignation and expressions of sorrow at what many of them described as the appalling prospect of what will happen in Bradford in terms of the current intentions to cut so many of the social services.
I begin from a theoretical and political position which may not necessarily be acceptable to other Members of your Lordships' House. I am a Socialist and I am quite sure that at the moment we are enduring the actions of a predatory government who are keen on privatisation, a measure for which there is no evidence in the New Testament wherever else it may be discovered. Under this Government the difference between those who have and those who have not tends to widen and we have a society in which the public responsibility for the care of those in need is increasingly shifted away from the public administration itself to other directions which, however singularly emotionally directed toward charity, in my judgment are no substitute for a collective application of justice in many a place where

1639
there is great poverty and an increasing divergence between those who have and those who have not. I immediately came to the conclusion that the letters that I received indicated a glaring example of something which I politically abominate. However, I hope that I was wise enough to make sure that it was not just my spleen that was being engaged in this matter but that I could find some information about it. I therefore wrote to the chairperson of the Methodist district of Bradford. She happens to be the only woman chairman of a Methodist district yet. I received from her a document which has the authority of the churches of Bradford. Not only has it that authority, but it justifies a great deal of what I have tried to say about the basic iniquity of the political system from which we now suffer. I shall not read all the letter. It gives evidence over and again of those denials of opportunities of welfare which hitherto have been regarded as a constituent element in any civilised society.
The letter has not been sent to me from a body of politically engineered representatives. It is signed by the Bishop of Bradford, the Bishop of Leeds, the Methodist Chairman, the Reverend John Nicholson, Superintendent of the Baptist Union, the Reverend Donald Hilton, Moderator of the United Reformed Church and Major Douglas Rayner of the Salvation Army. It is unanimous. It would have been more suitable if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford had been able to present what I am now saying. Unfortunately he has yet to make his maiden speech and therefore could not take part in this debate.
In my judgment this letter gives an unanswerable catalogue of the impiety of the kind of programme that is now envisaged by the current council in Bradford. I shall recite, if I may, one or two of those elements in the programme that seem to me to be particularly venomous. I cite the example of meals on wheels, which will be increased in cost and the numbers distributed limited to fixed quotas. Charges for home helps will be reintroduced. Charges for day care facilities will be increased. Selling of assets will include old people's homes and sports and recreation facilities. Voluntary groups will now be dependent on what is called a community trust. I do not have time to develop that in detail. It does not commend itself to the signatories of the document presenting the Christian point of view. In fact they think that it is wanting in almost every degree.
I would make especial mention of Methodist links that will be affected by this change. They include the Blenheim Project, Girlington Centre, Tetley Street Multi-Racial Playgroup and Women's Centre, Grange Interlink and Green Hill Community Centre. Other groups include the Citizens' Advice Bureau. It is a terrifying total, and in my judgment is totally unjustified.
I shall not say very much because the evidence is overwhelming. I put it in this way. This is not original to Bradford. It is not some brilliant new deal for all Bradfordians. It is part—and I think the evidence is incontrovertible—of a wider Tory strategy. It is a strategy to distance public spending from both local
1640
and national exchequers. Bradford is being used as a loss leader with no regard to the consequence of injury inflicted on the poor and the powerless.
That is a very large indictment. I have not spoken off the cuff because it is easy enough to become indignant about small matters. However, I have spoken in this way because it seems to me a glaring example of the inhumanity of the present administration. I very much hope that as a consequence of what has been said in your Lordships' House this evening there will be a recognition that this is so. It is a matter that can be dealt with in ways that do not necessarily appear on the surface now. But such inhumanity is a menace and a shame in a so-called civilised society.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it may come as a relief to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that I shall not compare Bradford with Cambridgeshire. I shall talk about democracy.
It is an interesting Unstarred Question because it asks whether the Government are aware of the implication of cuts imposed by Conservatives in Bradford and whether they intend to take any action. I am a relatively new Member of this House. However, I have been here long enough to have heard noble Lords on the Benches opposite hectoring and lecturing these Benches about interference in local authority affairs. When I knew that this issue was to be debated today, I immediately posed a number of questions. Did the Conservatives win two by-elections in 1988 and were the councillors democratically elected? The answer is yes. Is there any reason given in the circumstances that the mayor should not have used his casting vote? The answer is no. Had Bradford Conservatives acted illegally? The answer is no. Did the electorate know in advance of the second by-election that several million pounds would be cut from the expenditure? The answer is yes. Were Bradford Conservatives in breach of any local government rules or regulations? The answer is no.
There are two issues here. First, is it right for the Government to interfere in the affairs of Bradford Council? In view of the answers to my self-imposed questions I would argue that the Government should not interfere. Secondly, what has happened in Bradford?
In July 1988 the director of finance warned the council that it was overspending at such a rate that unless urgent action was taken it could be rate-capped. At this time Bradford was a hung council: Conservatives 44 members; Labour 44 members; and the SLD two. Conservatives could not have acted alone and such was the warning from the director of finance that the SLD councillors supported the Bradford Conservatives to reduce expenditure by £5 million and to introduce a freeze on capital spending. The sum of £6 million, which is the subject of today's Question, included the £5 million agreed by SLD and Conservative councillors plus a further £1 million which was determined following the September by-election when Conservatives took the view that the financial situation was getting worse. Expenditure

1641
reductions this year totalled £5.8 million, rising to £8 million in subsequent years.
Bradford is not unique. Labour-controlled authorities up and down the land are cutting services and increasing charges. For example, Labour-controlled Wakefield must reduce by approximately £20 million to avoid rate capping. Sheffield Labour councillors have resolved to reduce by approximately £20 million also. Brent council has cut £17·5 million from its budget. As the community charge system looms we are beginning to see the relationship between those who spend and those who must pay brought very much into focus.
New figures produced recently by CIPFA show that London boroughs, anxious to reduce the community charges for next year, are modifying their expenditure downwards. Much of Bradford's savings have come from increased charges for services. It depends on one's priorities as to whether increased charges are preferable to the options adopted by some local authorities. For example, in Brent, 230 teachers were sacked, salaries were cut and discretionary awards to students were cut. Brent authority tried without success to abolish school meals and some nursery education provision. Bradford Conservatives on the other hand increased the price of school meals from 60p to 80p. Labour councillors had not increased the price of school meals in Bradford since 1984 and even reduced them for some children in 1988. Under Labour Bradford recouped only 21 per cent. of the cost of school meals, which was the lowest recoupment in West Yorkshire. It is also worth noting that 37 per cent. of school children who receive free school meals will not have to pay the increased charges.
Bradford also increased house rents. Under Labour rents were kept artificially low, which resulted in a backlog of repairs and a housing stock in appalling condition. There is mounting deficit in the housing revenue account causing a crisis in public sector housing in Bradford. Conservatives increased rents by £3 in November and they have promised regular reviews. This has been necessary to restore a housing repairs programme to a more acceptable level. Bradford's rent increase pales into insignificance compared with the rent increase in Brent of £7 per household.
Another area of controversy is homes for the elderly and the transfer of those homes to a housing association or to the private sector. Bradford Conservatives commissioned a feasibility study into transferring 13 non-purpose-built homes for the elderly, consulting trade unions, residents and their relatives. The results of the study show that it is possible and desirable to transfer the homes, largely because a change in ownership would allow for an injection of capital to bring those homes up to standard. The social services department has admitted the shocking statistic that nine out of the 13 council homes would fail to be registered if they were in the private sector. The council must ensure the proper care of the elderly people in the district, but it is abundantly clear that it does not have the resources to provide suitable facilities on its own.
1642
By this method the council will save £2·3 million in revenue plus the capital required to bring the homes up to standard. Transfer will take place only if an obligation to bring the homes within a reasonable time up to the registration standards which are set by the council is accepted. From the savings a team of eight inspectors will be funded to deal with registration and quality of provision throughout the district. Surely what is important is the quality of provision for the elderly at an affordable cost and not whether the homes are council run. Let us remember that statistic: nine council homes would fail to be registered if they were in the private sector.
Bradford Conservatives are committed to providing dignified care of the highest quality, and the transfer of homes will not only save money but will give a guarantee of proper levels of capital investment while day-to-day care for the elderly will be as good as or even better than it has been in the past. Bradford has also planned, as has already been mentioned, to close high street benefit shops. There was consideable duplication of the work of the Department of Social Security, which already employs staff to assist complainants and in addition runs a mobile service throughout the district. Bradford Conservatives are cutting bureaucracy and giving managers more freedom to work effectively without political interference.
It is worth noting the reasons why Mr. Johnson, the Labour councillor who caused the second by-election in 1988, resigned. He resigned because of Labour's emphasis on fringe party issues which are of little concern to 99 per cent. of Bradford people. He claimed that anti-apartheid zones receive more attention than vital services such as refuse collection. He also said that he resigned because of Labour's mismanagement of the council and because there was a lack of vision and of democracy in practice by the Labour councillors.
Councillor Eric Pickles and his Conservative colleagues in my opinion should be left to get on with the job. Bradford Conservatives won a by-election in June 1988 and another in September. Some £5 million of the £6 million reduction in expenditure was debated in July in good time for the people of Bradford to make an informed choice in September when Conservatives won the second by-election.
My appeal to my noble friend tonight is to recognise the democratic rights of Bradford Conservatives to accept and confirm that they have not breached local government legislation in the pursuit of policy changes; to endorse their commitment to develop policies and provide services of quality to the people of Bradford consistent with what can be afforded; and to invite our Labour colleagues to allow the people of Bradford to pass judgment on Bradford City Council through the ballot box.
9.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, my only qualifications for making a brief contribution to the debate are, first, that I come from a diocese in which we have cities and towns that have similar circumstances to those in Bradford in such matters as unemployment, urban deprivation and so on.

1643
Secondly, I am in close touch with the Bishop of Bradford and have often spoken to him about these problems. Only today I was having a word with him about how the churches in Bradford view what is going on there.
It has already been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that the Bishop of Bradford cannot be present in this House today, but if he were he could not yet speak because he is still seeking a subject on your Lordships' menu which is sufficiently uncontroversial for him to make a maiden speech. That happy time I am sure will be approaching very soon. However, what he says about the situation in Bradford is that the churches are deeply concerned about the effect on the lives of many people there, including those who are most deprived in the community. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, has already outlined some of' that concern with the document from which he quoted.
The churches are in touch with the local politicians and are meeting them with fair regularity. They regard it as their role primarily to ask questions about the effect of policies on the people with whom they are most concerned. The areas of concern have already been outlined in what has been said earlier in the debate. There are five main concerns: the cuts in education, and especially in school meals and allied subjects of that kind, go right through from preschool education to further education. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, made that point. There are pressures on the voluntary sector, not only where they get their funding from but also the increased pressures caused by council cut-backs on those who turn to voluntary bodies expecting there to find their salvation. That problem is not unknown in other parts of the country where there are these pressures on local government services.
In spite of what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about rent rises, the evidence is that many of those who fail to pay rents are among the poorest in the community and poverty is a very real implication there. Sometimes the impression is given that if councils do not manage to collect rents adequately, that is just gross inefficiency and letting people get away with it. I am afraid that is not the whole story, although it may be an element.
The closure of the so-called benefit shops has already been mentioned. Although the point was made that this was duplicating work that the social services are doing, when there is already enormous pressure on the social services the point about where people get their information is important. I know that there are priorities in local government expenditure and that some would argue that the benefit shops are not of the highest priority compared with some other things; but now that they have been established in Bradford they have proved their value. Questions are being asked by the Churches about the effect of closure. We must remember what has been said about the presence of ethnic minorities in Bradford and the difficulties about getting out adequate information to people whose first language is not English. That is a crucial point.
1644
The fifth area of concern is the future of the council's old people's homes. Many people are worried about the assumption that if one privatises an organisation one is necessarily producing a more efficient service for the elderly. I do not believe that that assumption is proved. The question about obtaining injections of capital for the improvement of housing stock could be answered in another way: that if there were not such great pressures on local government the capital could be forthcoming to upgrade council homes.
Those are matters of deep concern to the Churches. I should like to emphasise that, according to what the right reverend Prelate has said, the Churches are asking questions through their leaders. They are not going out 100 per cent. to condemn the council. They are merely asking: what is the effect on people in the community, including some of the poorest and most deprived?
I should like to make a general point about local government. Councils are often accused of waste, inefficiency and extravagance. It would be a bold man or woman who would say that there is no truth in such allegations. Of course there is often waste, in efficiency and extravagance in the public sector of both central and local government. It also exists in the private sector. It is a complete fallacy to suppose that the private sector is free of the issues about which we are always engaged in fighting in our society.
When appeals are made for the need to cut bureaucracy it is often forgotten that we are talking about the effect on people's lives and about the efforts of local government to help them in welfare and in the provision of services. I should like to believe that a feeling is shared on all sides of the House that we must persuade people at every level of society that it is worth paying for good public services at both local and national levels. It is a tragedy when there is a spirit in the country which seems to regard the provision of public services through taxation as being "a bad thing". In recent years there have been considerable pressures from central government on local government. Many people have therefore gained the impression that there is a vendetta against local government in this country. That may be wrong and I should like the Minister to tell me that it is wrong.
Local government is of particular importance in the older industrial areas such as those represented in my diocese and the City of Bradford. Recently central government have put great emphasis on regenerating the older industrial areas. It has been said:
"We must do something about our inner cities".
I leave noble Lords to supply the origin of that quotation. Indeed we must. Tackling the enormous problems in those areas means a full and adequate partnership between central and local government and commerce and industry.
It is a fallacy to suppose that public expenditure can be cut without hurting the people at the receiving end. Some waste, inefficiency and extravagance may be cut out because they are often present. However, one must be careful to ensure that the cuts do not go so deep as to hurt people in that way.

1645
I hope that my concluding remark is not seen in any sense as political because it is not meant to be. It concerns the point made by the noble Baroness about democracy in elected councils. Is it not true that from time to time we hear voices saying that where there are democratically elected Left-wing councils going to extremes one expects the central political party to act to moderate that and deal with such extremism? Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and ought to apply at all levels.
9.12 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to tell the House a relevant story about why I am not a Communist. As a schoolboy during the latter part of the war I was evacuated to Bradford. I stayed in a household where the husband used to walk five miles to the centre of Bradford with his knapsack on his back, in proper style. You entered the house past terraced gardens where the lawns were cut with nail scissors. You took your shoes off at the door. You could hardly breathe on the furniture. When you sat up at table you had to sit up tight and keep your elbows in. The householders were members of the Communist party and you did all those things because you were a good Communist. You sat up straight at table like a good Communist. You kept the furniture clean like a good Communist. You did not run or walk fast in the street like a good Communist.
Since then I have regarded Communism as an extreme version of Calvinism to which I have had a great aversion. I have been saved politically by my experience in Bradford. Ever since that time I have had a quizzical affection for the city enhanced by the praise of Priestley and the abuse of T. S. Eliot. However, Bradford is not what it was and it is an example of something to which other noble Lords have drawn attention which I believe to be profoundly important in our society: Bradford is perhaps the most extreme example of which one can think of the gap between the have's and the have-nots and the way in which the have's, having gained a slight control, are ruthlessly proceeding to feather their own financial nests at the expense of the have-nots.
My noble friends Lord Dean, Lady Lockwood and Lord Soper have spoken far more eloquently than I could of the details of the cuts imposed on the people of Bradford by their elected city council. Let us dispose immediately with the argument about democracy which I thought was a spectacular own goal from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Of course we do not say that the people of Bradford did not have the right to select a Conservative council and we do not say that the Government should take action in Bradford to frustrate the actions of the Bradford council. We are saying that this is the peak of the implementation of a policy pursued by the Government for nearly 10 years of seeking to impoverish communities and to cut public services, not only through central government action but by impositions and restrictions on the actions of local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is quite right in saying that Labour councils throughout the
1646
country—and she quoted Wakefield but my own council in Haringey is a more vivid example—are cutting services in exactly the same way as Bradford. They are cutting services because they are forced to do so by a Government who do not believe in public services delivered by local authorities at local level at the wish of the local people who are prepared to pay for them. The financial crisis in the summer of this year, to which the noble Baroness quite rightly referred, made it possible to claim that the Bradford council had been extravagant, and enabled the by-elections to take place and for the result of that election to be what it is.
We are not asking the Government to move commissioners into Bradford. That is the last thing we want. However, we are asking the Government to take action to recognise that local authorities and central government together, as my noble friend Lord Soper so eloquently said, have an essential social role in our society. Together they have the responsibility for seeing to it that the unfortunately natural tendency of the gap between rich and poor to extend does not extend even further than it needs to and to ensure that there are civilised minimum standards in our social services, education, care for the young and care for old people. 'They should ensure that there is concern for those in need whether they are working or unemployed and concern for the successful adaptation of ethnic minui hies to our communities and that they make a contribution not only to our economy but also to our culture. Local authorities can deliver those services if they are given encouragement by people in their areas and are allowed to do so by the Government. That is what we ask and that is the purpose of this debate. I am glad it has taken place.
9.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on securing this debate. We have heard various suggestions that the Government should take action following the decisions made by an elected local council. As a relative newcomer to these matters, I must say that that strikes me as something of a sea change for noble Lords opposite for they have often claimed that they are the only true supporters of the independence of democratically elected local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will tell us which noble Lord said that we should intervene in the affairs of Bradford. I did not suggest that and I did not hear any of my noble friends do so.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper asks whether the Government have any plans. I am hoping and endeavouring to answer that Question. We have acted with a new system of community charges, with the local accountability which that will bring, which will greatly strengthen elected local government.
Therefore, returning to Bradford, I find it rather strange that noble Lords should nevertheless think it

1647
right for the Government to intervene in matters which are entirely the responsibility of the elected council of Bradford.
The fact is that locally elected members answer to their local people and not to this House or any other place. There is no question of central government becoming embroiled in decisions which are properly for local government. What about the decisions taken by the council? We know that it has voted for a package of measures designed primarily, I understand, to reduce its expenditure, to provide value for money and lighten the burden on its ratepayers. But why should that be necessary?
For the benefit of noble Lords on both sides, I should explain that Bradford's rates have increased by over 24 per cent. in two years. Such an increase is significantly above the national average and clearly well above the rate of inflation. The local rate is now the sixth highest of any of the 36 metropolitan areas. And why? Well, the real answer is that ratepayers in Bradford have had, and are having, to pay for the previous administration's excesses. If noble Lords feel that I am being intemperate, let me remind them of the facts.
Noble Lords will, I am sure, be aware of the term grant related expenditure (GRE) assessment. I hope tonight that I shall not need to explain the complex formula of GREs. All I would say is that the GRE is the measure for grant purposes of an authority's need to spend to provide a standard level of service without inefficiency. Bradford's GRE in 1988–89 is some £565 per head, the fifth highest of all 36 metropolitan authorities, in recognition of the real needs of its people.
However, in a very short period from 1985–86 to 1988–89 the council, under Labour control, had increased its spending from 6 per cent. below its GRE, to almost 7 per cent. above. This excess—for that is what it is is equivalent to some £17·5 million or an extra 17 per cent. on ratepayers' bills this year. To put it another way, before the measures adopted by the new council, Bradford was planning to spend some £600 for every man, woman and child in the area. This was higher than virtually any other metropolitan district. It was higher than Birmingham and higher than Salford—both of which have similar levels of needs.
It was also some £130 per head more than is being spent by neighbouring Leeds, which has budgeted to spend broadly in line with its needs assessment. Is it any wonder that Labour's partners at the time, the SLD, became concerned about the direction in which the policies were taking them and were, I understand, seeking to get agreement to cuts? Is the noble Lord really suggesting that the people of Bradford were getting a service which was so much better than in Leeds, an authority which I understand has long been held up as well run and efficient and which surely provides a proper level of service?
I simply cannot believe that Bradford's people were enjoying a service so superior to that of their neighbours. I cannot therefore believe that once they know all the facts noble Lords will still say that the council is wrong to take action to reduce the high
1648
costs of providing services and to lighten the burden on ratepayers; and, of course, on community chargepayers in the future.
Turning to the measures proposed, let me first say, as I have said before, that these are a matter for Bradford, but I understand that they are designed to save some £6 million on the revenue budget this year and around £8 million for succeeding years. They involve both increasing income and cutting back on expenditure. Notable among these measures are the proposals for slimming down the workforce.
It may assist the noble Lord if I briefly explain to the House my understanding of the background to these manpower measures. In common with a number of other, largely Labour controlled authorities, Bradford significantly increased the number of its employees in recent years. By June 1988 it employed 2,500 more staff than at the same time the previous year. This was an increase of some 6 per cent. for full time, and 15 per cent. for part time staff. In the same period the figures nationally, though greater than we thought were necessary, were only 0.1 per cent. for full time and 2.6 for part time staff. I recognise that these increases brought the staffing levels in Bradford broadly into line with the average (per 1,000 population) for metropolitan authorities generally; but the fact is, as we all surely recognise, that many authorities can manage perfectly well with less, and many do, as Bradford itself has in the recent past.
My understanding is that the new council therefore plans to return in an ordered way to a slimmer workforce and at the same time overhaul the administration and the management so that the services are provided no less effectively, but much more efficiently than currently. Nothing the noble Lord has said tonight should persuade anyone that these measures will in any way jeopardise the provision of the necessary services and it is clearly not true to say that what was previously done with fewer staff cannot now be done.
As I have suggested, there are many ways for local authorities to carry out their functions with efficiency and care. Bradford has recognised this and is grasping the opportunities provided, for example, by competition and contracting out of services. These offer a particularly good way of achieving value for money, with up to 20 to 30 per cent. savings in most cases. Surely we should all applaud such action. It means that the ratepayers and all the people of Bradford benefit, and I know of no evidence whatsoever to suggest that, with adequate controls to ensure that local authorities fulfil their statutory responsibilities, the level of service provided in this way is any different from that produced by direct provision.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would give way for just a moment. If the situation is such as he describes and these economies are being achieved without reduction of services, how does he account for the fact that so many of the Church people in Bradford are deeply concerned about them? For example, the Bishop of Bradford has 33 parishes which are in urban priority areas and is fully

1649
informed about the effect on the people in those areas. Can he explain that?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the right reverend Prelate's question, of course I am replying on behalf of the department and these are questions which, as he himself rightly pointed out, are questions that Church leaders in Bradford are addressing to the elected councillors in Bradford.
Much has been made of what was described by the right reverend Prelate as "drastic actions" which are being taken in Bradford. But what are we really talking about? If the council are taking significant and imaginative steps to give their people a better deal we will welcome that, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will do likewise. As I have said, the council are planning some measures, particularly in the field of administration, competition and contracting out. There has been much comment about such things as charges for school meals, and I fully recognise the great importance of these matters. The increases mean that Bradford's charges will be more in line with the average and likewise the proposed increase in the charges for elderly day centres and meals on wheels will, I understand, bring these very much into line with many others.
We are not talking about massive, or even significant, increases; and for those unable to pay the Government have provided for support to be available. I think I should make clear at this point that the reductions in expenditure we are talking about represent 2 per cent. of expenditure. I hope I have made it clear to noble Lords that we are not looking at massive and intrusive changes in Bradford. The proposed savings this year and next will in fact do no more than bring the council's spending in line with its needs assessment and in line with the spending of its neighbours.
I have heard nothing which persuades me that the implications for the people of Bradford are disastrous. Clearly the new mood which has been created in this city has found expression in many ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, did not feel too kindly towards the City Technology College which is scheduled to open late next year, but she spoke with pride of the new gallery which will house a collection of national importance.
1650
Finally, let me remind the House that this Government have always recognised the real needs of areas such as Bradford. That is why they have attracted a block grant of some £167 million next year—over £23 million more than in the current year. That is why Bradford has an urban programme allocation of some £3 million, and why it has consistently received the highest education capital allocation of any metropolitan district. That is also why approval has recently been given to European funds totalling some £50 million to enable the city's integrated development operation to proceed.
I have listened carefully to everything which has been said tonight. I have to say, however, that there is no justification for the Government to intervene and no reason for them to take any action beyond that already being taken. Indeed, to act as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, suggests and to interfere in the affairs of a properly run local authority would be quite wrong and in fact entirely contrary to the beliefs which I am sure noble Lords opposite hold about the vital role that local government plays.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at such a late stage. If the Minister bases his answer mainly on the fact that the Government will not interfere in local government, I shall remind him of it in the very near future when we come to debate what some of the residuary bodies do when they wind up.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate asked whether the Government have a vendetta against local government. They most certainly do not, but they have a different view from that expressed by opposition Members on how to achieve a better form of local government and a better delivery of services to the community, and we most sincerely believe that we are on the right way to do so.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.

  BATTERSEA BRIDGE: DAMAGE
  BATTERSEA BRIDGE: DAMAGE
  US NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE UK
  US NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE UK
  PRESSURISED WATER REACTORS
  PRESSURISED WATER REACTORS
  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: DEBT MANAGEMENT
  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: DEBT MANAGEMENT
  SS "MEDITERRAN FRIGO"
  SS "MEDITERRAN FRIGO"
  TAXATION: INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
  TAXATION: INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
  CO-OPERATIVE BODIES: PUBLIC FUNDING
  CO-OPERATIVE BODIES: PUBLIC FUNDING