Sitting of 9 July 1990

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

    Midland Line
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet representatives of local authorities and others regarding midland line electrification; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am meeting representatives of Northamptonshire county council shortly to discuss the report which the local authorities have commissioned on electrification of the midland main line. It is for British Rail to consider whether there is a commercial case for electrification, and I hope that the local authorities will discuss their plans with British Rail.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that nearly every local authority in the east midlands—Labour and Tory—agrees with the midland line electrification programme? They have been demanding it for years—for the whole time that the Government have been in power. They cannot understand why, when more passengers are using the line, it has occasionally been under threat and why the Government cannot provide the local authorities with a morale boost by giving money to British Rail to get the job
    2
    done. Why are the Government so concerned about roads? Is it because the road lobby companies line the pockets of the Tory party?
    Mr. Freeman: I am well aware that there is considerable support among the local authorities affected by the midland line electrification. The Government welcome sensible electrification proposals on both this line and others.
    Mr. Skinner: Give them the money then.
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be sensible for the Government to spend taxpayers' money unless there were a sound commercial case for electrification. There are two facts that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the local authorities will bear in mind. First, the rolling stock on the line has another 10 years of useful life. I am sure that, when the rolling stock has to be replaced, British Rail will look carefully at the future of the line. Secondly, straightening the line to increase the average speed of trains could be more productive than electrification.
    Mr. Lester: When my hon. Friend meets his local authority colleagues in Northamptonshire, will he also consider the freight operations on the midland line? Many of us are anxious that the channel tunnel should help all areas in the midlands and the north. Therefore, it is essential to have freight depots in the right place. I know that that is very much a matter for the Minister. I hope that he will consider it in the near future.
    Mr. Freeman: British Rail will shortly be deciding where to locate the terminals for collecting freight for onward shipment through the channel tunnel. It is to announce the location of the terminals during the next six months. Before the end of the year its plans will be fully unfurled. Electrification of the line is not relevant to freight services through the channel tunnel. Freight can and will be collected at various terminals and, if necessary, assembled for forwarding on through-trains in London. However, I understand the significance of freight to the railway industry so that it can capitalise on the channel tunnel.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that York is 50 miles north of Sheffield and that trains get there faster from London and that Leeds is 35 miles north of Sheffield and that trains from London get there in the same journey time? How on earth does he expect business men to invest in coalfields and steelworks areas and in places of high unemployment in the north midlands when it takes an hour to travel 35 miles to Manchester because there is no InterCity service? Railway connections throughout the area are backward and should have been updated many years ago.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the electrification of the east coast main line, and that is an excellent service. British Rail has plans, yet to be submitted to the Government, for improving speeds on the west coast main line. We welcome those forward-looking plans. As for the midland main line, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Electrification will not significantly increase running speeds. Widening bridges and straightening the curves on the midland main line would do more than electrification for average speeds.

    Dartford-Thurrock Crossing
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the new Dartford-Thurrock crossing will be opened.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Construction of the new Dartford to Thurrock bridge is progressing well. The main pier pylons were erected at the end of last month. The project is on target for completion by summer 1991.
    Mr. Arnold: My constituents and those in north-west Kent will warmly welcome the prospects of the speeding up of the crossing by the M25 of the River Thames and of getting rid of the immense traffic congestion that we suffer in that part of the world. But can my right hon. Friend assure us that the infrastructure of roads feeding up to the bridge will be up to the job?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes. Part of the plan is to turn the approach roads to the tunnel and the bridge into dualled four-lane roads, so there will be four lanes going north and four travelling south.
    Mr. Squire: For the benefit of hon. Members who represent constituences on each side of the bridge, and given the critical importance of the crossing not just for personal use but for international freight, can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the contractors would be subject to financial penalties were they to finish late?
    Mr. Parkinson: The big incentive that the contractors have is that their concession runs for only 20 years, and if they are late in completing the project, they will be late in starting to collect the revenue. That means that they have a real financial incentive to complete the bridge on time.

    A69, Northumberland
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to dual the A69 west of Hexham; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parkinson: There are no plans to dual the A69 west of Hexham. The Brampton bypass, now under construction in Cumbria, is to be a single carriageway. This will also be the case for the improvement at Haltwhistle in Northumberland.
    Traffic flows west of Hexham are relatively light and even with the new traffic forecasts, which look well ahead, any significant dualling is unlikely to be justified.
    Mr. Amos: Will my right hon. Friend note that everybody in the north-east is extremely grateful for his decision to upgrade the A1 to a motorway as far as Newcastle, but that that means that in future years the A69 will fall between two major motorways—the new A1 and the M6—which will increase flows on that road? In the light of the excellent news that my right hon. Friend announced last week, may I ask him to give us some more good news as soon as possible?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes. We will monitor developments on the A69 after the A1 to Newcastle has been turned into a motorway, but, as my hon. Friend knows, traffic flows west of Hexham are very light indeed by comparison with those east of Hexham. That is why the road is dualled as far as Hexham but not beyond. Nevertheless, we shall look at the matter very carefully.

    Motorways (Spray)
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take fresh initiatives to reduce the lateral spray caused by heavy goods vehicles on motorways in adverse weather conditions.
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Since 1985, all United Kingdom heavy goods vehicles have been required to have anti-spray devices fitted. These are the most stringent requirements in Europe and we are keen to see the rest of Europe come up to our standard.
    Mr. Michael: I thank the Minister for that reply and I share his wish that the requirements should be stringent. But has he had the experience that I have had when driving up the M4? Has he found that there is a massive variation in the amount of spray produced by different heavy goods vehicles, some of which produce little lateral spray while others produce an enormous and dangerous amount? Does not that suggest that we need greater controls—either through regulations or through their enforcement—to minimise the considerable danger to motorists that is caused when their vision is obscured in this way?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether he was referring to different amounts of spray being produced on the same sort of day, as the amount of spray can depend on the wind. I often drive up the M1 and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I suffer from exactly the same experience. That is why the Government are keen to see our requirements matched by the rest of Europe and why we are pursuing the matter with urgency.
    Mr. Cormack: Is not most of the lateral spray caused by buses, and is not it time that we prevented buses from travelling in the fast lane of motorways?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I do not know the exact answer to that, although my experience is that given the right conditions, lorries and buses both cause tremendous

    5
    amounts of spray. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that we are keen to ensure that all vehicles are fitted with anti-spray devices as quickly as possible.

    Road Safety
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve road safety for children.
    Mr. McLoughlin: A wide range of measures to improve road safety have been taken under the umbrella of our "Safety on the Move" campaign. Britain has a good record on road safety. An area of great concern is that of child safety, especially child pedestrians, where there is particular scope for improvement. A sustained programme of measures on child safety was launched in May, including proposals to enable local authorities to make residential streets safer. We will be launching a further phase of that campaign concentrating on child pedestrian safety shortly.
    Mr. Mitchell: Are not my hon. Friend and his Department to be congratulated on the recent initiative, particularly in view of its co-ordinating measures? In pursuing that, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance of using parent-teacher associations in schools to promote road safety? They marry the interests of parents in looking after children and the interests of schools. Those are the two principal ways of promoting road safety for children and those avenues have been well explored and used in my constituency. Parent-teacher associations can make a most important contribution. Will my hon. Friend ensure that they are included as the programme evolves?
    Mr. McLoughlin: In any campaign of this kind, we must do as much as we can to draw to the attention of PTAs, parents and everyone involved in supervising children the importance of ensuring that children are fully aware of the dangers that they can face on our roads. Those accidents can be prevented and I know that all hon. Members would want to see as much as possible done on that subject.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that although "Children crossing" signs are much in evidence, in many such areas local authorities still allow 40 mph speed limits? Will he recommend to local authorities that that limit should be reduced to 30 mph?
    Mr. McLoughlin: A number of initiatives that were outlined earlier will do much to meet the hon. Gentleman's requirement. However, perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the reduction of speed to wipe out those accidents. A number of factors lead to those accidents and we must ensure that people are more aware of the dangers on our roads. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that children have been among the victims of drunken driving? Is he aware also that recent press reports have suggested that he is considering whether different levels of alcohol in the blood should be considered, depending on the age of the driver? That would be a very bad thing to introduce because it would give the impression that drunken driving
    6
    at one age is more or less dangerous than drunken driving at another. Clearly the same level of alcohol should be considered whatever the age of the driver.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments and he referred to ideas that are out for consultation at the moment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, drinking and driving accounts for 900 deaths a year on our roads. It is the biggest single cause of road accidents and anything that can be done to make people more aware of the danger in which they put others when they drink and drive can only be helpful.
    Miss Lestor: Does the Minister agree that many of his proposals place an onus on local authorities to take more action? Bearing in mind that many of those initiatives, which are admirable in their way, will cost a great deal of money, the present restrictions on local authorities mean that unless more money is made available, the carnage and injury to our children will continue. It is important that when highlighting, quite rightly, what is happening with children and road safety—and the report is clear about that—money is made available to the local authorities. At the moment they are under such severe restrictions that many of them are saying that they cannot implement many of the recommendations.
    Mr. McLoughlin: It is perhaps not surprising that the Labour party has brought into play the question of money for local authorities. Those of us with extreme local authorities could point to several ways in which they could make savings and divert their money to areas where it could be used better and more effectively. It is not just the local authorities which should take the lead in this matter; parents and all those involved in educating children should also play a part. I totally and absolutely reject the idea that local authorities are short of money for that vital provision. However, it is not surprising to hear that claim from the Opposition.

    British Rail
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss plans for denationalisation.
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend will discuss privatisation, when appropriate at his regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail.
    Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate the frustration in great railway cities such as York which have seen the denationalisation of Sealink, Travellers Fare on-station catering, and British Rail Engineering Ltd., but not of the core business of British Rail? Would not it be more productive and better for those who actually use rail services if he were to call for denationalisation plans? That could be an opportunity for those who work in that great industry to have a share in its success, which my hon. Friend is frustrating at present.
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to achieve a better deal for the consumer—the passenger on British Rail. Therefore, the recent reorganisation plans that were announced by British Rail and which are based on the business sectors of British Rail—freight, international, InterCity, provincial and Network SouthEast—are to be welcomed because they focus

    7
    management's effort and attention on improving the service that is available to consumers. That reorganisation is not inconsistent with privatisation, but that is not a matter for this Parliament.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister explain to his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) that the chairman of British Rail recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport that, although the financial targets that had been set by the Government were being met, there was no question of the quality of service being met? That has a great deal more to do with the comfort of passengers than all the nonsense that is talked about trying to sell off an unprofitable business.
    Mr. Freeman: There is no prospect in this Parliament of any proposals for denationalising British railways. I was not present to hear the evidence that was given by Sir Bob Reid, but I assure the hon. Lady that the financial target that was set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the quality targets are achievable by British Rail. I shall shortly be having a meeting with the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of London Regional Transport to monitor what progress has been made on those quality objectives and to work with those two undertakings to make sure that they are achieved.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that if Japan, America, France and Germany find a need to subsidise railways as a public service, it cannot be a sound policy to keep on pushing up InterCity and commuter fares in the vain hope of selling off something which, if it is to be profitable, will leave us with three private lines? Will the Minister accept that railways are a necessary part of the infrastructure of this country and that spending £600 million on the A1 is not as important as spending £600 million on railways?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that, over the next three years, road investment in this country, paid for by the taxpayer, will be about £6 billion and investment in rail schemes by British Rail and London Regional Transport will also be £6 billion. A significant proportion of that railway investment will be paid by the public sector, either in subsidy for Network SouthEast or provincial railways, or by borrowing from the national loans fund. We have the proportion of investment in roads and railways right. If my hon. Friend looks at the experience of Germany and France, he will see that there are pressures there to reduce the losses and the subsidies that they are suffering and that they wish to emulate British Rail and the experience of this public sector.
    Mr. Prescott: Are the Minister and the Secretary of State aware of the conclusion of two recent reports by the European Commission and the chartered accountants' institute that British Rail is seriously disadvantaged in being prevented from raising private capital to finance a high-speed rail link, as in France and Germany, simply because of Treasury rules and the financial targets that have been imposed on British Rail by all Governments? Will he press for changes so that a publicly owned British Rail can raise private capital on its own to finance a new high-speed rail link this century rather than next century?
    Mr. Freeman: I must first correct the hon. Gentleman—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales did not produce that report. The body that
    8
    produced the report is not part of the institute—I happen to know that because I belong to it. The Hundred Group of chartered accountants is not part of the profession.
    Mr. Snape: Did the Minister read the report?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, I did. I not only participated in the production of the 1981 report, but carefully read the 1989 update.
    On the point about borrowing from the private sector for railway investment, of course, British Rail wants to use private sector finance. That was what the proposal that was put to us about the channel tunnel high-speed rail link was all about. The proposal did not work, because the balance was not right—[Interruption.] Well, I can advise the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that there is no shortage of capital in this country and no shortage of railway investment schemes in which people can invest. The problem is to find viable schemes that will ensure the repayment of that capital. The hon. Gentleman talks about raising £15 billion for a high-speed rail link—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, £15 billion for a high-speed rail link from Folkestone to Scotland. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that that scheme is not and will not be viable. He is assuming that money is available for projects that are not viable and where the money cannot be repaid.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is an agreement to take question No. 9 at the end. We therefore move to question No. 10.

    HM Coastguard
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons were directly assisted in 1989–90 by Her Majesty's Coastguard's civil maritime search and rescue service.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Provisional figures for 1989 show that from 6,837 incidents co-ordinated by the coastguards, more than 11,500 persons were assisted by a combination of Coastguard helicopters, vehicles and rescue equipment; Ministry of Defence helicopters, Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats and other vessels.
    Mr. Field: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Solent is the busiest coastal area in the United Kingdom? Will he add his tribute to mine to the coastguards for their excellent work in looking after our seafarers—both professional and amateur—365 days a year, and especially during the round the island race, which is probably the world's largest yacht race? Will he confirm that there will be no reduction in the provision of military search and rescue helicopters following the defence debate? Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the comments of the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties which condemned the manpower levels of the Coastguard service, when this Government have provided so much investment in new equipment and technology to ensure that our coastguards are the best in the world?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is correct that the Solent is the busiest part of our coast. There were 851 incidents in that area in 1989, in which more than 1,600 persons were assisted. That was an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year. There are carefully laid down criteria for the helicopter cover that is required along our

    9
    coastline. No reduction in that will be contemplated and any necessary changes will be made. My hon. Friend is also right to note that although the Opposition constantly tell us about all the cuts, we have, in fact, increased expenditure on the Coastguard service substantially. Compared with the 1983 figure, expenditure has now doubled to £28 million. The coastguards provide an excellent service. As we are approaching the time when most people take their holidays, it is perhaps worth reminding everyone that it is up to each person to take the proper precautions when at the coast.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: All of us who represent maritime constitutencies very much appreciate the work of the Coastguard service. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there will be adequate night cover, following the removal of helicopters from night duty at Leuchars and Fife, which are so important for air-sea rescue searches?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As I said earlier, we are satisfied that there is sufficient helicopter cover around our coastline. However, I shall certainly investigate the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised and write to her about it.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I commend the fantastic work carried out by the coastguards around our coastal waters, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there is still much room for improvement in the general public's understanding of the different sectors that offer search and rescue facilities? We have a tripartite organisational problem with the RNLI, the coastguards and other organisations that provide search and rescue cover. Will my hon. Friend assure me that once the new committee that he has endorsed—a local advisory body to help with the north Devon coastline—has proved its worth, he will replicate it throughout the United Kingdom so that all our coastlines will have a local group that can question and learn from local search and rescue services?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She rightly refers to an idea that she sponsored and which has been taken on board. I shall look closely at the results arrived at by the consultation body. If I find that the idea is worth while I shall consider expanding it to the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Ms. Ruddock: In the light of the figures that the Minister has given and the Prime Minister's recent high-profile excursion in a lifeboat, will the Minister tell the House just how many Coastguard stations he has closed? Is not he worried about the closure of the Hartland Coastguard station? Can he confirm that the bridging loans made available to members of staff who were relocated totalled about £200,000, and that for that sum it would have been possible to keep that important Coastguard station open?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The number of incidents in the area round the Hartland Coastguard station has declined since the station was closed. I stand by the fact that we have doubled expenditure on the Coastguard service from £14 million in 1983 to approximately £28 million and that the service is currently involved in a four-year programme to modernise its communications and provide computerised data handling equipment. If the Opposition believe that a Coastguard service can be maintained without giving it proper equipment with which to operate, the Government
    10
    do not agree. The Government propose to give coastguards the right, modern, effective communications equipment that they need to carry out their jobs.

    Leeds-London Rail Service
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total investment in the electrification of the Leeds-London inter-city service.
    Mr. Freeman: British Rail puts the total expenditure on electrification of the Leeds-London inter-city service at £164.4 million at 1989–90 prices.
    Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great success of electrification in improving customer service? Will he give sympathetic consideration this October to the application by the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive to invest its own resources in electrifying the Leeds-Bradford railway, as well as the Airedale and Wharfedale lines, especially as the investment will produce a positive return above the 8 per cent. criterion required for such schemes?
    Mr. Freeman: I am aware that my hon. Friend is a strong supporter of that proposal, along with several other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I intend to visit the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive and authority in September. We shall give the matter careful consideration. I am glad to note that today British Rail has added an option clause to its agreement for the purchase of rolling stock for the Birmingham cross-city service. That will safeguard about 14 trains by under-option for possible use on the extra electrified line.
    Mr. Madden: As the Minister's predecessor, in a meeting earlier this year, gave every impression of being extremely sympathetic to electrification of the Bradford-Leeds line, and as there are no doubts about its economic viability, will the Minister pull his finger out and approve the loan to the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority so that it can get on with the work? All sections of the community in Bradford have been pressing for the work to be done for the past six years.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's language is colourful, but I understand the strength of his feeling. He will recall that my predecessor said that a decision would be made once the autumn statement settlement had been announced. I also give him that assurance. I am well aware that the West Yorkshire PTE is seeking only credit approval, not section 56 grant. The scheme appears to be viable, so I give the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members the assurance that the proposal will be considered at the appropriate time when we have the new public expenditure survey settlement.
    Mr. Devlin: As my hon. Friend was criticised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) for investing too much in the A1, a much-needed transport link for the north and north-east, instead of investing in the railways, does my hon. Friend agree that the electrification of the east coast main line and the electrification scheme for the Leeds-Bradford line are two of 10 major schemes which amount to the largest-ever investment in British Rail?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that over the next three years British

    11
    Rail investment will be 75 per cent. up in real terms on that for the past three years. London Regional Transport investment will be about double in real terms. There is a substantial increase in investment which is significantly financed by the public sector through grants and borrowings.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Minister explain slowly, for the benefit of his more stupid and innumerate Back Benchers, that the £164 million for the electrification of the London-Leeds railway line is paid for almost exclusively by farepayers in almost the highest rail fares in Europe, while the £600 million for the upgrading of the A1 trunk road is paid for exclusively by taxpayers? As a colourful accountant, can the Minister explain that discrepancy in the Government's transport policy?
    Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures. The £3.7 billion investment in British Rail over the next three years is financed in four ways: £0.2 billion comes from its cash flow, before depreciation; £1.6 billion comes from grants, not only from central Government, but from passenger transport executives—
    Mr. Snape: You bet.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman says, "You bet", but only about £200 million of that £1.6 billion comes from local authorities. One billion pounds comes from loans and £0.9 billion comes from the sale of assets which belong to the taxpayer. I repeat that the vast majority of British Rail investment, which is the largest for 25 years and represents a 75 per cent. increase in real terms, comes from the public sector.

    Fishing Vessels
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to review the criteria for the registration of fishing vessels.
    Mr. Parkinson: We will review the criteria for the registration of fishing vessels should it become necessary when the outcome is known of the litigation covering part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 before the European Court of Justice.
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the great concern among Cornish fishermen in particular, following the recent United Kingdom cheating on quota and, more specifically, the problems with the Spanish vessels. May I hope that the Government will resist any review and fight on behalf of those fishermen to protect the quota system? After all, it makes no sense to have a national quota system if quota-hopping is allowed.
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European Court of Justice decided that our courts could issue interim injunctions suspending an Act of Parliament. It did not decide that the courts had to do so. Therefore, the Government will argue before our courts that, although they have the discretion, they should not use it and we shall argue strongly the major case that our registration arrangements should be allowed under European law. We shall fight both cases hard.
    Mr. Harris: Although I congratulate the Government on the way in which they are fighting these cases, both the short-term one in the House of Lords and the long-term
    12
    one in the European Court of Justice, does my right hon. Friend accept that 31 of those former Spanish vessels are back on our register through what is widely regarded as a loophole in the present registration procedure—they appear to be financed through loans or mortgages from Spain? Will he look at that problem and give an assurance that the Government will do everything in their power to deal once and for all with the scourge of quota-hopping?
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, originally more than 85 vessels applied for registration. Several have been registered, although I do not think that it is as many as 31. My figure is 26. Nevertheless, I shall look at the matter again. We are examining each case carefully and we are determined that only properly owned vessels should be allowed to appear on our register.
    Dr. Godman: I see that the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench. After the hearing that is taking place now in another place, may we have a statement from him about the judgment because it is of major interest both constitutionally and to our fishermen? Might one of the implications of the judgment be the end of national quotas and the allocation of quotas being determined in Brussels by European Commission officials?
    Mr. Parkinson: We should look only at the two issues. The issue before the House of Lords is the narrow one of whether it wishes to use a power that the European Court of Justice says it has. The major case about our registration requirements has still to be heard and I understand that there will be no decision on that until the end of the year. The hearing in the House of Lords is about a technical matter, an interim measure, and I am advised that the full hearing will not take place until the end of the year.

    Electronic Road Pricing
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to publish the preliminary studies being undertaken by his Department into the feasibility of introducing electronic road pricing in parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Parkinson: My Department is not currently undertaking such studies. We are, however, continuing to keep a close watch on the use of road pricing in other countries and on the development of the relevant technology.
    Mr. Taylor: As the cost to business of road congestion in and around London is about £15 billion a year, at the risk of being skinned alive by my constituents in Esher, may I ask the Secretary of State seriously to consider throwing a road-pricing ring round the old Greater London council boundary? We must overcome the problem of congestion in our capital city, and some of us must make the sacrifice. Technology appears to work in other countries, and it is worth bringing it in here.
    Mr. Parkinson: I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend in which countries the technology works. As far as I know, Singapore is the only one. There are toll booths in Norway, but they are designed not for road pricing, but for revenue raising. They are not intended to discourage people from using roads. In recent weeks the Dutch, who had been leading the way, abandoned their experiment and

    13
    the Swedes have voted—if I may coin a phrase—not to go down that road. Road pricing, although intellectually attractive, is incredibly complicated to implement, would be unfair and is not a readily available option.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Pub Bombings
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case with (a) Lord Lane and (b) Lord Donaldson.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Any discussion which I might have with the judiciary as a Law Officer would be confidential and not disclosed.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Attorney-General aware that for some time a number of senior judges have been going round quietly saying that the Guildford Four and the Maguire family had their convictions quashed only on a technicality and were guilty all along? Does he agree that that brings the judicial process further into disrepute? It is about time that we had a resignation or two so that those gentleman can say out loud what they can say at the moment only in the privacy of their clubs.
    The Attorney-General: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no, Sir. The remainder of the question does not arise.
    Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that nothing could be more deplorable than for the Crown's principal Law Officer to go round discussing with judges cases that may appear before the courts again? Is not it essential that there should be proper separation between the judicial and Executive functions, even those that exist for my right hon. and learned Friend? Will he ensure that he never speaks about any live case to any judge in his official capacity?
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir. My responsibilities for controlling the administration of sectors of the criminal and civil law would, on occasion, make discussion with the judiciary appropriate.
    Mr. Fraser: Would not it be wrong for the Attorney-General to discuss matters of this controversial nature with the judges? Is not the right way to go about it—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has views on it—to make a submission to the May inquiry, because it is equally clear that unless Ludovic Kennedy or my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) writes a book, the BBC makes a programme, and a police force holds an inquiry, some miscarriages of justice will not be put right? Is not it time the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave evidence to the inquiry?
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir, I set up the inquiry with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I await Sir John May's report of the first phase with great interest. He has promised it as soon as possible.
    As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have no proposals to discuss any such case with any of the judiciary. but—in response to a hypothetical question—I certainly do not propose to fetter the discretion that any holder of my office has, in the interests of the administration of justice, to do what he considers proper.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for one lawyer to represent clients in criminal cases on legal aid.
    The Attorney-General: On 19 June Standing Committee D, with Government support, added a new clause to the Courts and Legal Services Bill under which the Lord Chancellor would be unable to say that a defendant in criminal proceedings should have only one lawyer to represent him. The Government hope to be able to extend this provision to include cases in the High Court and the Court of Appeal when the House considers the Bill on Report.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Consumers Association about this provision. I hope that he will influence the Committee to ensure that the public have a proper choice and that enough lawyers are available to represent defendants in court cases.
    The Attorney-General: The Government have made it clear that there is no intention to use the power to fix fees under the legal aid scheme to require that any litigant shall be represented by only one legal representative. That will become clear when we reach Report stage.
    Mr. Skinner: Why is not the Attorney-General saying that this is a case of restrictive practices and overmanning and that the Government will weed out those elements? Instead, he says exactly the opposite. If it had been a trade union, the boot would have been on the other foot.
    The Attorney-General: I shall not discuss with the hon. Gentleman where he puts his boot—[ Interruption.] It is generally in his mouth. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to his feet if one of his trade union members had not been permitted the legal representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the day had decided—[Interruption.] Just for once, will the hon. Gentleman listen to an answer so that others can hear it? Let us suppose that one of his trade union members had been denied the representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the time—perhaps even a Conservative one—had decreed that he should have only one. I wonder what he would say then.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is nearly always necessary for there to be someone arranging for witnesses and trying to organise the times when they can come, and someone taking a note of the evidence? The Opposition would be the first to complain if they were involved in any sort of criminal trial that had to be delayed day after day merely because there was no one there to help the barrister on his feet.
    The Attorney-General: I thought that I had expressed the same thought, perhaps rather less amply.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General when the application for legal aid by Mr. McCready, of 5 Botsham house, Newcomen street, London SE1 will be dealt with.
    The Attorney-General: A number of regrettable errors in the handling of Mr. McCready's application for legal

    15
    aid delayed considerably the issue of a certificate. But I am pleased to say that an unlimited legal aid certificate was issued on 28 June.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Attorney-General agree that justice delayed is justice denied? Is the delay in this case—a delay, as he well knows, of more than a year—typical of the legal aid administration? Is he aware that solicitors are fed up with the delay and that many people just cannot get an answer? It is only because I have written to the Lord Chancellor about this case that there appears to be any movement at all.
    The Attorney-General: No, it is regrettable but it is certainly not typical. The Legal Aid Board has already increased from 50 to 63 per cent. the number of legal aid applications that are processed within six weeks of receipt, and it has set itself tough targets for the immediate future.

    Government Documents
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Attorney-General how many and what percentage of Government documents are lost each year (a) unaccountably, (b) as a result of fire or water damage, or (c) otherwise; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: No information is held centrally about this. To comply with their duties under the Public Records Act 1958, Departments are obliged to ensure that their documentary records are properly preserved.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Attorney-General agree that the majority of documents which disappear, shall we say, do so because of Government secrecy? For example, does he know that only 5 per cent. of Department of Trade and Industry documents reach his office and that 90 per cent. are destroyed?
    The Attorney-General: No. What the hon. Gentleman describes as the Government's policy of secrecy certainly does not lead to the loss of any documents. By framing his question in that way the hon. Gentleman has proceeded, by fire and water, to a rather expensive platform for denying justice to a Government who have so notably liberalised the Official Secrets Act, for example.
    Mr. Favell: While on the subject of documents going astray, will the Attorney-General look into the question of the documents that appear to be going astray at the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers? It has been reported that there will be a private investigation at the NUM before the police are called in. As that did not apply to Guinness or Barlow Clowes why is it applying at the NUM?
    The Attorney-General: I have no responsibility for what is taking place or what has taken place at the National Union of Mineworkers. I certainly do not wish to emulate its representative in the House, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), by straying into areas that are outside my responsibility.

    Supreme Court of Appeal
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his policy on the establishment of an independent Supreme Court of Appeal.
    The Attorney-General: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to change the present structure of the appellate courts.
    Mr. Allen: The Attorney-General will be aware, as are most hon. Members, that the people who are in prison for the Birmingham bombings are probably or very likely innocent. He is in an embarrassing position because he does not know how to get those people out of gaol. Would not it be better to have a totally independent and further Court of Appeal, so that the incarceration of innocent people could be dealt with without giving rise to the embarrassment which the Government obviously feel at keeping those people in prison?
    The Attorney-General: Without making any comment on the assertions with which the hon. Gentleman began his question, I must observe that any change of the sort that he envisages is a matter for the Lord Chancellor or, conceivably, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but not for me. Any judicial process depends upon the evidential material that is presented to it and upon the limits of its jurisdiction. The remit of Sir John May's inquiry is broad enough to consider whether it is desirable to change the way in which our courts deal with what are treated as appeals on referral from the Home Secretary. That is as far as I can take the matter at the moment.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Peru
    Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to send aid to Peru in respect of the recent earthquake and drought.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Following an appeal from the United Nations Secretary-General last month, we are making a bilateral contribution of $250,000 for immediate relief, channelled through the United Nations Disaster Relief Office which is co-ordinating donors' responses. This is on top of 0.120 million ecu, or £86,000, emergency assistance for earthquake victims, and 5.88 million ecu, or £4.2 million, of emergency food aid being provided from the European Community programme.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Minister confirm reports that about 3.5 million of the poorest farmers in that part of the world have lost their crops as a result of this catastrophe? What are her Department's long-term plans for assisting such farmers, especially in preparation for next year's crop and thereafter?
    Mrs. Chalker: I cannot yet confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave, but obviously we wait anxiously for news of what is going on. I think that he realises that Peru is a middle-income country and therefore has not figured largely in our aid programme, although we give help through technical co-operation and do much in terms of training, some of it in agriculture. When we know the position better, I can examine it again.
    I emphasise that we seek to concentrate our bilateral aid funds on the Commonwealth and the poorest countries. Therefore, although we will be generous with

    17
    emergency and relief aid, we feel that it is right to do that for the poorest countries, rather than for a country that has a per capita GNP of $1,440.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What difficulties are being encountered in getting our emergency aid through to the areas that have suffered from the earthquakes, especially bearing in mind the difficulties of the newly elected Government of Peru in exercising their democratic mandate in those areas, owing to the activity of the Maoist terrorists of Sendero Luminoso?
    Mrs. Chalker: We are well aware of the difficulties that Sendero Luminoso and other terrorists make for the Government in that country. I am not aware of specific difficulties in getting the aid through, but the new Government—under president-elect Fujimori—have a great deal to do, including sorting out a debt of $1.5 billion: those are substantial arrears.

    AIDS
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have now been made available by his Department to help combat the spread of AIDS in developing countries.
    Mrs. Chalker: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 18 June, which noted a number of financial commitments totalling £29.39 million. Since then a further £250,000 has been committed to support another national programme.
    Mr. Field: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of reading an article in The Sunday Times of 1 July which outlined the effect of AIDS on African leaders, and the need to combat AIDS where there are such cultural traditions among the poor as farmers exchanging their wives and daughters for fertiliser? As the AIDS epidemic has such a serious effect on the tiny percentage of African leaders who have had a formal education, and now that aid agencies throughout the world are turning their attention to the eastern bloc countries, what can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that Africa avoids that double jeopardy?
    Mrs. Chalker: I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend referred. However willing we are—and we are very willing—to do more to try to curb the HIV epidemic, we can do nothing without the commitment of Heads of Government and people at every level of life in those countries. A much wider use of condoms is necessary everywhere. In countries that already have high levels of HIV, the spread is bound to be far greater than any that we may have anticipated some years ago. It is no good simply asking for fidelity; we must persuade people to take effective practical action.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What requests has the Minister received from African countries for resources to combat the spead of AIDS? Does she accept that the amount of money that she spoke about is minuscule, given the plague-like proportion of the spread of AIDS, especially in east Africa?
    Mrs. Chalker: We are already helping Botswana, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire and Zimbabwe, and we are delighted to note the positive contribution being made in
    18
    Zimbabwe by Dr. Stamp, the new Minister of Health, in increasing public awareness and action. It is not simply a question of money, although we have greatly increased the amounts that we are spending, and will continue to do so. We are also working with advisers in those countries to ensure that they get their programmes right and that their publicity is fearless in putting over to everyone just what a problem this is. It is not the supply of condoms that is a problem; it is getting people to use them.
    Mr. Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some figures show that 45 per cent. of the adult population in cities and towns is sub-Saharan Africa have AIDS? If that is the case, what discussions has she had with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary concerning health screening for people who come to Britain from those countries?
    Mrs. Chalker: My responsibilities are not only to try to help to prevent the spread of AIDS but to educate, through our overseas aid programmes. The unique TASO project has started in Uganda—The Aids Support Organisation project—which is counselling people. That is the way forward. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is supporting action taken by my Department in those countries.

    Natural History Museum
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his inquiries about the effect of the changes in the natural history museum on research work of importance to his Department.
    Mrs. Chalker: I believe that the changes at the natural history museum should have no serious impact on the ODA's programmes, including our research work. The ODA's natural resources institute, which has close links with the museum and will continue to need its collaboration, will be keeping this matter under review. So will I.
    Mr. Dalyell: After her welcome visit in September, when she will see some of the 25.5 million specimens in spirits, some collected by Captain Cook, will the right hon. Lady require of the museum that it makes no changes in curatorial arrangements, in the light of the many letters from throughout the world from experts concerned with global changes in climate and other such matters?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see that nothing irrevocable is done. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and I between us will approach any changes that take place in the natural history museum in that spirit. It is important that the museum concentrates its efforts on the six scientific programmes that I shall be visiting in September. I was glad to talk to the associate director, Mr. Peake, abou this and about what it is aiming to do. As the museum accepts, it cannot do everything at all times. Therefore, we must get its research efforts concentrated on these vital issues.

    Women (Adult Education)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the overseas aid programme provides support for adult education for women in developing countries.
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, we provide such support in a variety of ways: as component parts of ODA projects, through in-country training and training on courses in British institutions, through distance learning, and in joint ventures with non-governmental organisations and in our contribution to the United Nations development fund for women, UNIFEM.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in too many parts of the world, opportunities for women are fewer because of their inadequate education? Therefore, the reason for adult education of women is that much stronger. Has the world conference on education for all, held in Thailand earlier this year, led to any advances, and can we support such projects?
    Mrs. Chalker: The education for all conference in Thailand was valuable because it called on Governments to give a higher priority to basic education. That should
    20
    enable us, and other donor Governments, to support adult literacy for women to a greater extent. We have to consider overseas Government priorities because without their support, we cannot proceed, and it is hard to persuade them to give full education to women in their teens, so that we do not have to catch up with adult education, which will be needed for the next 20 years.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister give us the number and percentage of women participating in ODA training programmes in developing countries? Is she ready to encourage those Governments who are reluctant to nominate women to support a quota system so that 20 to 30 per cent. of awards from the ODA are allocated to women?
    Mrs. Chalker: Like the hon. Lady, I want a higher proportion of women to come forward, and that is why I have been encouraging overseas Governments to nominate more women. Some 20 per cent. of the nominations for awards go to women, which is an improvement, and the number of women receiving training under the technical co-operation training programme is improving all the time.
    I cannot give the hon. Lady the other figures without notice, as she well knows.

Aviation and Maritime Security
The following question stood upon the Paper:
Mr. Michael Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve maritime and aviation security.
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): We are determined to continue to take whatever measures are necessary to improve maritime and aviation security. The Aviation and Maritime Security Bill will strengthen existing aviation security powers and introduce new powers in relation to maritime security.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I report on the investigation into the incident at Heathrow involving Dr. Jim Swire. A senior investigator from the aviation security inspectorate, who is a former superintendant in the Metropolitan police, has interviewed all those involved in the incident. Although there are differences in the detail of the incident as recalled by Dr. Swire and his travelling companion and by British Airways staff, the investigator's conclusions are, first, that it is beyond reasonable doubt that British Airways were aware that Dr. Swire and his travelling companion were relatives of Lockerbie victims when they bought their tickets, when they checked in, when their hold baggage was searched and when they were on the flight; and, secondly, that there are grounds for believing that British Airways staff, knowing who Dr. Swire was, were insufficiently stringent in checking the radio.
I accept that, because British Airways staff knew exactly who Dr. Swire was, it was understandable that they should conclude that he was not planning to take an explosive device on board his flight. Nevertheless, I am asking my chief inspector of aviation security to write to all airports and airlines to emphasise that they must be especially careful in checking electrical items, irrespective of to whom they belong.
Mr. Colvin: I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy—indeed, heartfelt condolences—to Dr. Swire for the tragic loss of his daughter in the Lockerbie disaster. Although he may have been a little unwise to go as public as he did, and in such a dramatic way, about the results of his escapade, he may have done the travelling public a service by identifying a weak link in the security chain.
Is my right hon. Friend happy that the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, now before Parliament, will give him all the powers that he needs to ensure that individual airlines and companies involved in services at airports can be kept in check? Are those powers strong enough for my right hon. Friend to ensure that the necessary security procedures are followed? Does he acknowledge that there is no such thing as 100 per cent. security?
Mr. Parkinson: I wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks about Dr. Swire. I have met him on a number of occasions, and know that he is a genuine person who is desperately keen to ensure that aviation security is improved. The Bill will be useful when the House passes it, and I hope that there will be no more filibustering of the sort that we experienced 10 days ago. Not only will the Bill give me the power to give directions to a wider range of people; it will also give me the power to enforce them—
22
including taking such action if necessary as, for example, closing airports, grounding airlines or putting directions on others who serve aircraft and airports. The Bill will be useful and it will provide the necessary additional powers.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right to say that it is virtually impossible to guarantee 100 per cent. security. However, that is no reason why we should not use every possible method open to us to reduce the risks.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the Secretary of State realise that his explanation is both singularly silly and singularly worrying? Is he seriously suggesting that we should accept that, if someone is known to the authorities, that means that they are safe? Could not a device be planted on such a person on just that premise? Does he accept—I am sure that he does, privately—that we are in no way reassured by what we have heard today and that we hope that there will be much more stringent action in future?
Mr. Parkinson: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have been following events, or he would not have made that remark. First, Dr. Swire admits that he was one of the percentage of passengers selected. He was taken, his luggage was searched, and the radio was found. Dr. Swire admitted that he packed his bag himself. Those are his words, not mine. The individual making the investigation realised who Dr. Swire was, and she is, as I said, open to criticism for not taking such stringent measures as she might otherwise have done. However, she saw the suitcase and the radio, and Dr. Swire confirmed that he had packed the case—so there was no question of Dr. Swire having been duped.
Mr. David Wilshire: As one of the Members of Parliament who represents part of Heathrow airport, I ask my right hon. Friend to clear up some confusion, for the sake of those of my constituents who undertake airport checks. Will he confirm that there was not a failure to detect a real bomb, and that Dr. Swire's action was not part of a genuine suicide attempt, for which staff are trained to be on the look-out? Will my right hon. Friend confirm also that the luggage in question was not unaccompanied, which is very different from the Lockerbie situation? Given that my constituents have an unenviable job to do, does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members who seek to score cheap party points over such an issue should tell my constituents whether or not they should show humanity and compassion towards an individual who so tragically lost a daughter?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I will confirm that there was not a failure. The plane involved was one of a number selected at random each week for investigation. Ten per cent. of all hold baggage on those flights is checked. In this instance, the luggage was checked, questions were asked, and the radio was found. The young woman concerned, knowing the identity of the person carrying the radio, took the view that Dr. Swire was unlikely to want to blow up himself and the aeroplane. She is open to criticism, but she did not have the benefit of the hindsight that we have now. I thought that Opposition Members would accept that she tried to use her judgment and to be understanding in a difficult situation.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I speak as someone who, some years ago, travelled on an aircraft on which there was a live bomb. Is the Secretary of State

23
aware that several people have already served prison sentences for carrying dummy or hoax bombs into aerodromes and airports and on to aircraft? Should not there be a common standard of justice, to ensure an end to nonsense of the kind that was perpetrated at Heathrow last week, when intercontinental flights were delayed by as much as three hours?
Mr. Parkinson: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, enforcing the law is a matter for the police. The police questioned him about his future conduct, and, in the very special circumstances they decided not to take further action. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a common standard, and that it must be enforced.
Mr. Patrick Ground: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in air transport the primary risk does not come from passengers who carry their own luggage and whose identity is known to those who undertake searches of them, but that progress needs to be made with securing greater international co-operation in improving security generally?
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. In the main, the real danger does not come from accompanied baggage, when the person carrying the bomb travels on the plane, but from attempts to put bombs on planes on which the persons planting them do not intend to travel. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is vital to improve international co-operation. That is why my predecessor and the American Secretary of Transportation took the initiative after Lockerbie of calling on the International Civil Aviation Organisation to draw up much tighter international standards. We continue to work for improved standards in international forums.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be easier for us to accept the explanation that Doctor Swire was recognised if there had not been a fairly lengthy hiatus between his announcement that he had tried to put a fake bomb on board and British Airways explanation that he had been recognised? Even if one accepts that statement at face value, is the Secretary of State not aware that he raises doubts in my mind when he says that the radio was discovered by the random checking of baggage? Why was the radio not picked up by the X-ray machine when the hand baggage went through? If he will forgive me for raising the matter, what action is he taking about an Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science who disgracefully said that a hoax bomb was in his red box?
Mr. Parkinson: May I say to the hon. Gentleman, who I know studies these matters carefully, that this was not hand baggage. It was hold baggage. It was detected as part of the 10 per cent. of hold baggage that is searched on selected aircraft.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, my hon. Friend has already made it clear that he regrets the incident. I ought to point out that the same rules were applied in his case as would be applied in everyone else's case. When he made his foolish remark about his case being full of bombs, the supervisor was immediately called. He was taken to a private part of the examination area and
24
asked to repeat the remark. He did not do so. He retracted it. Had my hon. Friend repeated the remark, the police would have been informed and he would have been interviewed by them.
Last year, there were more than 700 of these incidents at Heathrow and Gatwick alone, when jokesters—members of the public—made such claims once but withdrew them when pressed. My point is that the rules that apply to my hon. Friend apply to all those who travel and who make that sort of foolish remark.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is not the ludicrous difficulty that we face that, although it may be possible to test the degree of risk in particular circumstances in a complex operation, as any modern airport is, one has to remember that there is a finite limit to the tolerance of the public when it comes to the delays and inconvenience to which they are prepared to be subjected regularly, if we are to squeeze out the last possible risks?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Our objective is 100 per cent. screening of all hold baggage. We have written to all airlines and to BAA asking them to come forward with their plans for reaching that target. We recognise that our airports were not designed for this level of search and that there are substantial logistical problems. However, that is the Goverment's declared aim and we intend to pursue it.
It was reported in the press when I wrote to the airlines that some of them were thinking of not co-operating. The point about the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill is that they will not have a choice about not co-operating; directions will be issued and they will be capable of being enforced. We are working towards 100 per cent. screening of hold baggage, but it will take some time.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the last 10 years, those who use Heathrow airport every week—as many hon. Members certainly do—find that delays of up to 30 minutes are not uncommon when one is being screened for security? In those circumstances, the weaknesses and deficiencies of attempting to achieve 100 per cent. security become obvious. Tempers become frayed and people grow very agitated when they realise that they may miss their flight.
Mr. Parkinson: I recognise that there is always a conflict between getting an aeroplane away on time and getting it away safely. People become irritated and think that the security checks are unnecessary until there is an incident, at which point they appreciate the importance of security checks.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I am still worried about airport security. Will the Minister now state to what extent the security forces are protected by being authorised to carry arms? Are they armed at present or are they to be armed following the passage of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, which we hope will be enacted next time?
Mr. Parkinson: I do not want to go into too much detail about our security arrangements, because that is a very good way of telling people who might be tempted to get around them what they face. There are armed police on duty at Heathrow and, as the hon. Gentleman knows,

25
exercises are staged from time to time, with a full alert and fully armed soldiers. Our security arrangements do include the provision of armed security.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In his discussions about attempting to reach the 100 per cent. target for security, has the Secretary of State discussed with the various airlines and the British Airports Authority the need for funding? In trying to reach that target, it will be essential to increase the number of personnel who work at our airports and the number of machines that are used to X-ray baggage.
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, and one of the difficulties, especially in the south-east, is the recruiting and training of suitable staff. Before someone can be accepted for a security job, his employment records, going back over many years, have to he checked. In an area where there is almost full employment, people are not prepared to be subjected to that search if they can obtain another job. The difficulty lies in recruiting people and keeping them; the problem lies not in a shortage of funds but in getting the right number of staff. As the hon. Lady knows, from time to time people have to be flown from less busy airports to help out at Heathrow in peak periods.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, 18 days ago, four hon. Members flew from London to Leningrad via Frankfurt? While the hold baggage was checked right through to Leningrad, there were no transit facilities for passengers at Frankfurt, as a consequence of which the passengers had to leave and re-enter going through all the customs and ticketing procedures. That gives members of the public an opportunity to leave their hold baggage to go right through and then to leave the airport entirely. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a thoroughly dangerous procedure at Frankfurt? Can he confirm that the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill will ensure that, if anything like that happened in the United Kingdom, he could stop it immediately?
Mr. Parkinson: One of the main aims of the new arrangements post-Lockerbie is to separate incoming and outgoing passengers and transit passengers. We recognise that that is important, as opportunities could arise for exchanging luggage bombs and weapons. We are therefore concentrating on this separation of incoming and outgoing passengers at every airport. We think that that is a major step in the right direction.
My hon. Friend referred to transit baggage. As he probably knows, any transit baggage going through Heathrow on American airlines is automatically the subject of examination even though it goes straight into the hold.
Mr. John Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that we are fed up with continually being assured by Conservative Secretaries of State for Transport that our airport security is adequate, when time and time again its inadequacy is exposed by the press and others, such as Dr. Swire? Is he aware that, by limiting the inquiry into Dr. Swire's action and by blaming the operator staff, he is behaving in a manner that is typical of his Department, which is always shifting the blame? That is in sharp contrast to the Americans' full investigation into their Government authority's role in security matters—an approach that has been resisted by
26
the Department. Is not the real lesson of this case that we require a full inspection of luggage, which is expensive and which takes time, but for which we called in our amendment—which the Government resisted—to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill?
May I impress on the Secretary of State the fact that the relatives of those killed in the Lucherbie and Marchioness tragedies welcome the Department's announcement today of an inquiry into a possible injustice arising out of the Titanic affair 73 years ago but that they would like a full, open, independent inquiry into more recent tragedies, which the Department of Transport is avoiding?
Mr. Parkinson: We have just heard a typical rant from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He is always getting fed up about something, while other honest people, like the security staff at Heathrow, have the daily business of examining the luggage of hundreds of thousands of people. They do not sit there like him, hoping that something will go wrong so that they can criticise. They get on with the business of trying to make our aviation more secure.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's remark about the presidential commission and full inspection of luggage, Lockerbie is at the moment the subject of a huge criminal investigation including the investigation of security arrangements at Heathrow. It is also the subject of an air accident investigation branch inquiry, and it will be the subject of a fatal accident inquiry. I announced last week that the Government exceptionally are going to fund legal representation for the relatives of those who died in that dreadful accident.
I want finally to deal with the hon. Gentleman's feeble joke about the Titanic.
Mr. Prescott: It was no joke.
Mr. Parkinson: It was made to a member of my staff by Dr. Swire at about 1 pm today. There will be a marine accident investigation branch investigation about the Titanic. That will not be a huge full public inquiry; it will involve just the marine accident investigation branch. Exactly the same kind of investigation is already being conducted into Lockerbie by the air accident investigation branch. The hon. Gentleman's point was a total and utter non-point.
So as far as the Department is concerned, I want to repeat what I said earlier—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is really interested in aviation security, perhaps he should stop his noisy colleagues from filibustering on that vital Bill and perhaps we could get it through Parliament and help make Britain's airports safer.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With permission, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Redundancy (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973 (Revocation) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy Powers) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the School Boards (Financial Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1277) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

27
That the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1020) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Opposition Day
[I8TH ALLOTTED DAY, FIRST PART]
Opposition Day

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on environmental policy in the name of Plaid Cymru. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.57 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the current levels of pollution in the Irish Sea, particularly the dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge, and the discharge of untreated sewage, and is not satisfied with current measures to tackle the problem; notes the decision of the European Court of Justice to prosecute the United Kingdom Government for failure to comply with European Community Directives on the quality of bathing water; and calls on the Government to commission an independent survey into the effects of pollution in the Irish Sea and to act on its findings without delay.
  As the House will be aware, the gift of these minority party debates is organised through our colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party. As hon. Members of that party sit behind me in the Chamber, I begin by thanking them, as members of the senior minority party in the House for helping to facilitate this debate.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: On a subject in which we have a common interest.
  Dr. Thomas: Indeed—I want to explain why we selected environmental policy as the topic for the debate.
  We believe that concern about the environment is the major issue facing the Government and the House. The House will notice that our motion concentrates on marine pollution in the Irish sea. We intend to ask for a response from the Welsh Office and from the Government about that tonight. We will be pushing our motion to a Division because of our concern about the inadequate response so far from the Government on that issue.
  I might go so far as to suggest that the Government of the Isle of Man have shown greater initiative on that issue than the Northern Ireland Office, the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Welsh Office, the Department of the Environment or the Scottish Office. That should get me into sufficient trouble with all the Departments and parties in the House.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland scientists are excellent people, and their work is very good.
  Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for defending the integrity of the Scottish Office. I should not want to impugn it. The scientists have been very good. Marine scientists have provided us with excellent advice on the issue. We need intergovernmental action. The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an ideal subject on which to convene an intergovernmental conference similar to the one on the North sea. It would provide a forum not only for scientific opinion to be presented on the extent of chemical, sewage and radioactive pollution of the North sea but to initiate joint action.

  29
  Marine pollution is a sensitive issue in terms of the marine ecosystem. It clearly relates to food safety and the fishing industry and to the sensitive issue of bathing safety and the health of swimmers and tourists on Welsh beaches. That has clear implications for Ireland, Wales and the English coastline because of our emphasis on tourism and marine recreation. Members of Parliament, scientists and others who highlight marine pollution and dirty beaches are often accused of making political points that can appear negative in terms of marketing our tourist industry. I put that matter straight once and for all. We are deeply distressed about the level of pollution in the Irish sea and other coastal waters around Wales, and we shall not cease to draw attention to the issue as long as there is clear scientific evidence that such pollution exists and that it creates a potential risk to health.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not it a matter of shame that only one bay in Wales, Pembrey, has merited a European Community blue flag?
  Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I had the misfortune to officiate at the opening ceremony of a sewage outfall in my constituency last year. At that ceremony, I was faithfully promised by the water authority, now Wales Water—Dwr Cymru—that, within a year at the most, a blue flag would be flying over that beach. I have not yet seen it. I emphasise that point because there is a clear obligation on the Government to clean up marine pollution, as it affects the tourist industry. Indeed, there are international obligations on governments that are responsible for maritime pollution. We look not only to the Government but to statutory undertakings such as the National Rivers Authority for their assessment of the pollution in our estuaries and rivers, which lead into the seas and cause maritime pollution. In that context, we should look to the Welsh Office, in particular, to take a firmer lead on maritime pollution and other related pollution issues in Wales.
  Maritime pollution is a good example, because all the rubbish that we produce, dispose of and dump ends up in the sea. I refer not only to the rubbish that we produce but to the rubbish that other maritime countries produce. I am not suggesting for one moment that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) is more susceptible because it is an island, but my hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue. He hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to concentrate further on his proposals for cleaning up the Irish sea. Maritime pollution provides us with a case study of all the environmental problems that we face in Wales. I am concerned that we are not doing our bit to help to prevent the major international ecological disasters that now face us.
  The Welsh Office has not done its bit in terms of environmental policy. The Welsh Office has been with us for 25 years—we often imagine where we might be without it—yet it has not had a Minister responsible for the environment who would give his or her time and energies completely to that issue. Indeed, at official level, the Department does not have a co-ordinating mechanism to bring together all its responsibilities for the Welsh environment. I invite the Secretary of State, in his first major public response to us in the House, to acknowledge that he is the Secretary of State for the Welsh environment and that, along with his hon. Friends the Members for
  30
  Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), he will take seriously his responsibilities for the Welsh environment. I hope that the Department will produce an initiative on environmental policy that will co-ordinate all the activities of the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State for Wales must see himself as the guardian of the Welsh environment in all its aspects.
  I should like the Welsh Office not merely to contribute to the general debate on environmental issues, which is conducted at the level—
  Mr. Win Griffiths: On the point about the responsibilities of the Welsh Office for the environment, and especially for the aquatic and coastal environment, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that the Department of the Environment and the Crown Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the use of dredgers off the Welsh coast, which is causing the beaches from Southern Down to Sker Point in my constituency to be denuded of sand, leaving nothing but mud heaps?
  Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for raising that issue, which shows yet again the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments on activities that affect the marine environment.
  I hope that this debate will establish that the Secretary of State is taking overall responsibility for this matter. It is not enough for the Department to contribute to the current process of producing a White Paper for the Government as a whole; I expect to see the Welsh Office produce its own equivalent, as happens in other areas of policy, such as education, social policy and—dare I say it—for the health service. There is a Welsh Office face in all those spheres—although it is not always an acceptable face—but the same is not true for the environment. That Welsh Office face would enable those who are concerned, such as the statutory bodies, the local authorities and those involved in the strong environmental movement in Wales to make their representations directly to the Welsh Office and to ensure that the Department is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.
  After all, the Welsh Office is the Department of the Environment for Wales. It has most, but not all, of the relevant functions of the Department of the Environment. However, it is also the Department which is responsible for the national parks. At the moment, the Countryside Commission is undertaking a major review of the national parks. Although the initial report will be made to the Countryside Commission, it is important that the Welsh Office should be seen as the Department that takes any decisions that affect the structure of the national parks in Wales.
  The Welsh Office is also the Department responsible for the activities of local government. Its role is therefore to give a lead to local government in Wales through its policies on the environment. I am thinking especially of waste disposal in local areas, the separation of waste and the availability of waste for recycling. The Welsh Office should be giving a lead to the local authorities and providing small-scale funding to encourage projects that will enable local authorities to tackle such responsibilities in their localities.
  More than that, however, the Welsh Office should be giving a much higher priority to environmental policy in its own research budget. Much excellent environmental

  31
  research is already carried out in Wales. Happily, a great deal of it is done at my University college of North Wales at Bangor. I welcome the announcement last week by the Minister of State that the new central administration of the Countryside Council for Wales will be located at Bangor in the offices of the Nature Conservancy Council. There was great demand to locate the offices in other parts of Wales. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) would have loved to have it at Aberystwyth. I can tell him that the town council in Dolgellau wanted it.
  Mr. Anderson: Bala wanted it, too.
  Dr. Thomas: I should not speak about Bala, although it is relevant to the debate on the aquatic environment because it has the largest inland lake in Wales. I must get on with my speech.
  I welcome the announcement that the centre will be at Bangor. It will enable the centre to work alongside the excellent unit at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology which recently produced a document on pollution in Wales for those of us who attended its official re-launch earlier this year. Research has been carried out into acidification, deposition of nitrogen and other aspects of environmental pollution. Those studies represent a high quality of international research in Wales which is relevant to Wales and beyond Wales.
  The scientists who work at the unit at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and other experts on environmental policy with whom I have spoken emphasise that they are always short of funding. They often operate on short-term contracts. Where they have longer-term contracts, funding is sometimes inadequate to maintain existing databases. In environmental science where short-term projects produce interesting results it is important to maintain the database perhaps for 10 years. That is the time scale on which interesting, relevant scientific results may appear.
  I ask the Secretary of State specifically to examine the research budget of his Department and its priorities. He should ask himself whether the minuscule proportion of his Department's budget which is spent on research is adequate. He knows the figures, because he and his colleagues have answered parliamentary questions on the matter recently. About 1 or 2 per cent. of the Department's budget is spent on research. For a Department which spends £4 billion of public money in Wales, clearly that is not enough. The Department cannot simply say that the Department of the Environment already funds research in Bangor. That is true and we are grateful for it. The Scottish Office has funded other aspects of hill farming in Wales and we welcome that. But as the lead territorial Department, the Welsh Office should increase its research budget.
  In the present context of high priority for environmental issues, a doubling of the Welsh Office budget for research on the environment is the least that we can expect in response to the debate. I know that the Secretary of State is about to respond to me, and I am sure that he will take that suggestion on board.
  It is important not only to examine the Welsh Office programme of research but to consider how the research that we undertake in Wales can be valuable in
  32
  understanding the international implications of environmental changes. The nature of the country, its geology and topography makes Wales an ideal area in which to study climatic and environmental changes.
  The Secretary of State will be aware that, within a radius of 30 or 40 miles of the new office of the Countryside Council for Wales, there are major sites of special scientific interest which include marine sites and sites where alpine ecology can be studied, such as Snowdonia and other upland areas. Within Wales it is possible to study the impact on the Welsh environment of overall climatic changes. For that reason, it is important that Wales should make a direct contribution to international research.
  It is a matter not just of contributing to environmental research and assessing our environment, but of action research—in other words, of changing the form of activity which is polluting. I want to consider several sources of pollution. In recent years the farming industry in Wales gradually but continually has been reducing its fertilisers to prevent pollution. Only last week, at the royal show at Stoneleigh, we were discussing the substantial shortfall inorganic produce from the farming industry to supermarkets and the food industry.
  Mr. Anderson: Organic food is too expensive.
  Dr. Thomas: It is true that there is a 15 per cent. mark-up on premium quality organic Welsh lamb. If the hon. Gentleman were to taste it more often, he would understand why. It is tastier than the lamb that I suspect he usually eats.
  Dr. Kim Howells: What if my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is a vegetarian?
  Dr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is a vegetarian.
  Dr. Howells: I did not say that I was a vegetarian.
  Dr. Thomas: Let me get on with my speech.
  There is an opportunity for a substantial switch to organic farming in the hills in Wales. There is an opening in the market. The Minister has an opportunity to improve the perceived quality of Welsh products. After all, much of our farmland is grassland with a low level of fertiliser input, so the step to a greener farming industry in Wales is only a small one. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will have something to say about that if he has the chance to speak. We have an opportunity to reduce soil pollution from nitrogen fertiliser at the same time as developing quality products from our agriculture industry.
  All our manufacturing and extracting industries, particularly quarrying and mining, have a strong negative impact on the environment. Wales has put up with industrial processes which have created employment and unique communities—certainly in mining and quarrying—but which have also created environmental hazards and caused disasters with a cost to human life and young lives. Wales has a legacy of environmentally damaging industries in our economy.
  I say advisedly to Welsh Office Ministers and the House that when in future we look for inward investment in Wales we must ensure that we expect standards of environmental cleanliness as high as those that would be

  33
  expected elsewhere. The old argument that it is tolerable to place environmentally unfriendly activities, such as nuclear activities, in remote areas or chemical reprocessing in not-so-remote areas because of the levels of employment and unemployment has gone. We must ensure that we have a green environment which is resource balanced and economically active, based on the ability of the environment to attract industries which are themselves environmentally friendly.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is just such an urgent case before us now? If the Secretary of State for Wales looks north from his window in the great fortress of the Welsh Office, he will see the first hills of Wales at Taffs Well. There is a historic site of special scientific interest which at this moment is under threat from quarrying. That is repeated right through Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State will take that matter seriously when it is put before him, because it is a precious area of scientific interest.
  Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I may have visited that place during a recent by-election in which he was involved. I am aware of the impact of opencast quarrying because there is a lot of opencast slate mining in my constituency. I appreciate the impact that it can have not just on the immediate level of waste disposal, but on the landscape's overall shape.
  Where there are sites of special scientific interest or environmental destruction caused by noise pollution to communities and localities, the Secretary of State, as planning Minister, must consider the issues carefully. I know that the Secretary of State may tend to say, as his colleagues do on planning matters, that he does not want to talk about specific cases because he has to determine individual cases. However, surely he and his team are determining such individual cases in the context of environmental policy. Our frequent complaint is that we do not hear what that policy or strategy is. Where there is a conflict of interests or policy objectives between environmental conservation—whether in national parks or on the borders of urban areas—
  Mr. Ron Davies: Or Cardiff bay.
  Dr. Thomas:—or in Cardiff bay, as the hon. Gentleman says—wherever there are major individual projects and conflicts involving environmental policies, the Department's duty in that case is—if I may coin a phrase—to come clean and spell out clearly to the public its thinking in such matters. If there is a conflict of interest between the various duties of the Secretary of State and his Ministers according to which hats they are wearing, it is better that it should be known and debated in a public forum, rather than hidden behind closed doors in a castle at Cathays park.
  We have to consider not only the global effect on our Welsh environment, the contributions that we can make and the sensitivity of the marine environment, but the way in which the Welsh countryside is affected by changes in planning policies. This is an important opportunity for the Secretary of State to show himself to be the greenest Secretary of State there has ever been. I mean Green with a big "G", not a small "g". We know that he is not green in other senses, because he has had a hard training in other Departments. We also know that he has lived for part of his career in a Welsh environment and enjoyed visiting it.
  34
  I know that he has a love of the Welsh landscape. But we want to see the practical consequences of that and hear him declare himself a green Minister in planning terms.
  We need to protect the integrity of our national parks, environmentally sensitive areas, sites of scientific interest and designated areas and we need a coherent countryside planning policy. The areas represented by many of my hon. Friends present today include valley communities and the fringes of urban industrial south Wales, as it used to be called, and industrial north-east Wales. In those areas we can see the result of over-development, whether commercial or housing, that is out of character with the landscape and would not be permitted in a national park, where there are strict guidelines controlling the appearance of properties and estates.
  We need to adopt the same kind of sensitive approach everywhere in the countryside. We might spend a lot of public money trying to re-create an attractive atmosphere in the inner cities, such as the marine districts of Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, attempting to renovate districts with old industrial heritages and make them into conservation areas, conserving old buildings or landscaping away the effects of mining and quarrying, but it does not make much sense if we are destroying our landscape and heritage at the same time because of new development. We need consistency of approach by the Department.
  We need to set Welsh environmental issues in the global context of the threat to the ecosphere, with all its moral, ethical and—for the benefit of the hon. Member for Swansea, East—theological implications. We need to adopt a global approach when scrutinising the micro-environment in Wales—and we need coherence in policy. We must assess the implications for our environment of all policy decisions, and we look to the Secretary of State for Wales, as the new green Minister, to respond to all our points.
  4.25 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the major programme of investment to be undertaken by the privatised water companies to improve the quality of water and the comprehensive measures outlined in the Environmental Protection Bill; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the positive lead it is giving in areas of environmental concern; and looks forward to the publication of the Government's White Paper on the Environment later this year.'.
  I certainly regard environmental policy as my responsibility as Secretary of State, assisted by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State. Environmental policy is vital. The environment is one of the most important policy areas, and my objective is and will remain to improve the quality of life in Wales, with particular reference to the environment.
  We certainly inherit problems from the past, but, equally, we are trustees for the future. Although we may be able to point to actions in bygone years that have caused the situation today, that is no excuse and no alibi for not ensuring that we take the most urgent and positive action to overcome the problems of our inheritance—so that we can hand over a heritage of an improved quality of life.
  I must also respond to what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) said about farming. Agriculture is vital to the future of Wales, and a strong and healthy agriculture is crucial to the quality of

  35
  life there. We must ensure an improvement in that quality of life so that we have an even better environment in which to work and live.
  As we draw together the policies for the 1990s, towards the year 2000 and beyond, I should have thought that there would be almost unanimous agreement in the House that the environment is one of the key areas on which we must make our policies relevant to the needs of today and to those of future generations.
  Today's debate could be seen as part of the long-running campaign designed to draw attention to the perceived problems of the Irish sea, but despite the wording of the motion the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy drew back from such a confined analysis, and I welcome the fact that he widened the debate; such was the purpose of our amendment. I readily accept that we have pushed him in the right direction, and I welcome the way in which he responded.
  When dealing with the environment no single section of society and no single political party has a prerogative; we are dealing with a vital component in the thinking of us all. Environmental issues matter not only because they have an impact on us but because whatever we decide will have a major impact on future generations, too. In that sense we are the stewards of the future and must exercise our stewardship judiciously and with care and prudence. In every possible sense we must take account of the importance of environmental issues. We must be aware of what we are doing and the effects, and we must consider all the evidence before deciding how best to proceed. We must appreciate the damage that can flow from certain policies because such damage is often long-standing. Some problems can be corrected only at enormous cost and with great difficulty. The Government are conscious of the need to care for and protect the environment and of the need to devise policies to ensure that what we value today is available to future generations.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am grateful for the way in which the motion is worded, which shows that this is a United Kingdom debate. What do the Government propose to do about new modern trawlers that hoover—there is no other word for it—the sea bed, and especially the beds of the Irish sea and the Minches? Those trawlers drag dumped material to where it should not be, as ICI found in a recent explosives case. The actions of such trawlers lead to the destruction of many breeding grounds of fish and creatures on the sea bed. Serious damage is being caused. The problem has grown in the past four or five years. I am not attacking any Department, because the problem is not of the Government's making, but what do they propose to do about it?
  Mr. Hunt: The problem goes back much more than four or five years. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be aware of the positive approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the way in which he has raised such matters in the European Community. I do not want to go into great detail about those discussions, but if the hon. Gentleman has been present for debates and questions about fisheries, he will know that we are expressing serious concern about the need to ensure that not only are quotas strictly observed but that the breeding grounds are
  36
  protected for future generations. I am pleased at the way in which the hon. Gentleman approached his question and I reassure him about the Government's intentions as expressed in the robust language of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Many of the policies to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred are being implemented and will continue to be implemented to meet the concerns that have been expressed. Caring for the environment requires constant assessment of the relative costs of what is proposed and the benefits that will follow. The environmentally preferable solution is often the most costly. We must be sure that we are prepared to meet such costs, and we must be mindful of their extent in areas which I shall discuss later.
  Judgments must be made between environmental costs and environmental benefits. For example, we hear much about the cost of dumping sewage at sea, but little about the disbenefits of alternative methods of disposal. We must look at the whole picture. We have already taken some steps, but economic growth is needed to meet the cost of improving the environment, and such growth often causes other environmental problems.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Secretary of State refers to the disbenefits of certain matters. If the long sea outfall is long enough for two tides, will not that sometimes be preferable to trying to absorb the chemical effluent from a sewage disposal plant?
  Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. As I said earlier, experts believe that long sea outfalls can—if judiciously managed—be an effective means of disposal. A report by Consultants in Environmental Sciences has examined the assessment.
  Often, we must examine the environmental consequences of the alternative means of disposal. I am not aware of an urgent wish on the part of people living in certain areas to have a sewage disposal improvement plant adjoining their houses, or of any who are urging that we should allow effluent from sewage disposal plants to be injected into the sea near where they live. We must always ensure that we examine the total picture before reaching decisions about part of it, especially when that part has given rise to a pressure point from a section of public opinion.
  Mr. Anderson: Is not that debate already closed as the result of pressure from the European Community? Did not the Government announce on 27 June that any long sea outfalls yet to be put into operation must include a treatment plant? As I understand it, no timetable has yet been announced in respect of Welsh areas such as Swansea bay. When will the Minister be able to announce that timetable, which is the subject of considerable concern in a number of Welsh coastal areas?
  Mr. Hunt: I shall respond in more detail to the hon. Member's point in a moment.
  In working out any timetable, we must be aware of the costs, and also the relevance of the alternative means of dealing with the sewage. The sewage will not go away; we must find a better method of dealing with it. We must bear it in mind that alternative means of disposal can carry with them equally problematic difficulties for the environment. We must think through the consequences before embarking on the tight timetable that certain sections of public opinion are urging us to adopt.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept—given where his constituency lies—that the fact that a quarter of all the sewage sludge that is dispersed into the waters around these islands is dispersed by the North West water authority into Liverpool bay can cause an enormous localised problem. Given that the Irish sea turns over its water only about twice a year—a very low turnover—that may not be the most appropriate way of disposing of sewage in that location.
  Mr. Hunt: I am well aware of the consequences of over-disposals into an area that does not have the necessary turnover of fresh water, although I do not accept the double mechanism to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have not seen that statistic verified, but if it is correct it is equally relevant to the problem that we are discussing.
  We must be aware of the environmental impact of alternative methods of disposal when we embark on assessing the costs and benefits. As I said, the problem is that we need the economic growth to pay for improvements in the environment. The Government must provide the means for securing economic growth, while developing environmental policies to ensure that what we have and value remains for succeeding generations. Equally—as our environment is affected not only by what we do but by what other countries do—we must do our best to promote sensible environmental policies, not just in this country but in the wider world.
  I hope that it is accepted in the House, because I believe that it is widely accepted outside, that the Government have done a tremendous amount to promote and develop environmental policies. Let us take one or two examples. In 1974, a Conservative Government introduced the Control of Pollution Act, but there was a long wait until, under another Conservative Government in 1983, the benefits of that Act were put into operation. Last year, the Government established the National Rivers Authority, which was generally acclaimed as an effective way to improve the water environment. This year, we have in the throes of the parliamentary process the Environmental Protection Bill, which will provide us with the basic framework for our pollution control well into the next century.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not hesitate to ask this question as the university of Cardiff, with Professor Michael Claridge, who is president of the Linnean Society, and Professor Pritchard, has one of the most distinguished schools in this subject in Europe. The professors made the strongest representations about the natural history museum and the consequences of the changes there for research into all these matters. Will the Welsh Office use its influence to help those who are trying to help the museum to get proper funding for its worldwide responsibilities?
  Mr. Hunt: I shall let the hon. Gentleman have a detailed answer to that point, but the policy is that the Welsh Office does not fund museums and galleries, with the one specific exception of the national museum. We shall certainly do our best to help and encourage funding for the museums and galleries in Wales.
  Not only has this Conservative Government introduced these Bills and developed major environmental policies,
  38
  but we have produced the economic climate that allows us to make the investment necessary to implement the Bills when enacted.
  Water pollution problems are not new. They are not the result of the policies of, or of any recent activity or inactivity by, the Government. Nor did they suddenly appear when water plcs were created. Water quality problems result, in some cases, from industrial and agricultural policies that go back for decades and from a lack of investment by water authorities in relatively unglamorous sectors such as sewage treatment.
  Mr. Richard Holt: As a former member of a water authority, I do not feel that we should take all the blame for that, because the previous Labour Government slashed half the investment programme of water authorities. We should have happily spent the money if the Labour Government had given it to us.
  Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for that intervention. If the last Labour Government had a record, it was in the size of the cuts imposed on water authorities. I agree that there were serious economic problems, and the IMF had been asked to come in and bale out the Labour Government, so there are understandable reasons why the investment programme was cut. However, it produced the serious problems with which we are now dealing.
  It has been common practice in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world to discharge sewage effluent into the sea with only the most preliminary treatment to remove litter, rags and large solid particles, because it had been taken for granted that the size of the sea and the dilution that it provides, and the effect of the sun and the waves, would be sufficient to allow it to continue. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that, in many cases, it is.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is not one of the fundamental difficulties the fact that, when the European Community introduced the bathing waters directive in 1976, the Department of the Environment deliberately chose to interpret "bathing beach" in such a way that not a single bathing beach in Wales fell under the definition? As a consequence, the Government were able considerably to delay the implementation of the directive.
  Mr. Hunt: I did not wish to be drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) into criticism of the last Labour Government, and equally I should not be drawn into criticism of them by the hon. Member, although it may be attractive to do so to prove my point. The 1976 bathing waters directive was not observed by the previous Labour Government. I do not want to get drawn into the past, because I have a lot to say about what we are doing now, and what we propose to do in the future. I am responding to an intervention. I did not introduce this lengthy look into the past.
  Water pollution problems result from practices that have been going on for a considerable time. I remember reading the report, published by the Consultants in Environmental Sciences, of a study for the Department of the Environment of large domestic sewage discharging into coastal waters via a properly designed long sea outfall. It observed little environmental impact. Beyond 50 to 100 m from the point of discharge, the survey failed to detect measurable impacts. Outside the immediate mixing

  39
  zone, the study said that it would be difficult to detect differences in sea water quality resulting from discharges of treated effluent, or screened raw sewage.
  The point is that this Government have tackled the problems of water pollution. The Water Act 1989, with the consequential establishment of the National Rivers Authority, and our recent policy announcements are the pivots of our policies on water pollution and show clearly our commitment to resolving the problems. We are determined that the water environment should be improved by all practical steps and in the shortest time scale commensurate with the available technology and resources.
  Mr. Holt: As my hon. Friend will know, the Select Committee on the Environment recently carried out a detailed examination of long sea outfall, and its report will be published next week. I cannot say what is in the report, but I can hint that the long sea outfall will be given a fairly clean bill of health.
  Mr. Hunt: I am grateful, and I look forward to reading the report.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy spoke about quality. The last national survey took place in 1985 and these are the latest figures that I have been able to find. They show that river quality in England and Wales is such that 94 per cent. of Welsh rivers were in classes 1 or 2, and 83 per cent. were in class 1. Some 98 per cent. of estuarial waters in Wales were in those categories. A report published by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea said that, apart from Liverpool bay, where the mercury levels were close to the European Commission limit, although they are now declining, the problems of the Irish sea are essentially minor and short-lived.
  The Government are also doing more about river quality. One aim of the National Rivers Authority is to achieve a continuing improvement in the quality of rivers. Good quality river water is essential for environmental improvement, and polluted rivers are one of the main sources of sea pollution. This year, the authority is conducting a survey of river quality in England and Wales. When it is published, it will form the basis on which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will set river quality objectives. Those objectives will be the parameters within which NRA policies and decisions on matters such as discharge consents and abstraction licences will be founded.
  With regard to Wales, the advisory committee that I established under section 3 of the Water Act 1989—and which will advise me on NRA matters—will be meeting shortly. It will closely study NRA policies and will give me the benefit of its advice on how best I can ensure that the NRA implements its policies in Wales. I shall certainly give the NRA every possible encouragement to take positive action to secure improvements in water quality in the Principality.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am glad that the Secretary of State is setting improved standards. Will he ensure that the NRA has a better record for prosecutions, especially for industrial pollution, than did the former water authorities, as shown in the statistics recently produced by the
  40
  Department of the Environment? Some water authorities did not initiate a single prosecution when rivers were polluted in 1988.
  Mr. Hunt: Although I did not attend all the debates, I should have thought that it would have been made clear that one of the main reasons why it was thought right to introduce changes was the lack of positive prosecution. We separated the different responsibilities so that there could be an effective prosecution service. One of the first prosecutions by the NRA was for the Shell spillage last year into the River Mersey. The NRA acted with commendable speed and considerable effect in that case. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted one of the main reasons why the Government thought it right to introduce that legislation.
  The 1985 survey gave a number of reasons why river quality was not as good as it should be. The primary reasons were sewage effluent and agricultural pollution. That is why, in the next 10 years, sewerage undertakers in England and Wales will be spending £12 billion on sewerage services, including sewage treatment works and sea outfalls. Dwr Cymru will be investing £400 million during the next five years, including £140 million on sewage treatment works, and a further £300 million in the following five years. Work on some of the worst plants will be completed by March 1992 and will have an immediate impact on the rivers into which the works discharge.
  I have been concerned about the overall increase during recent years in the number of agricultural pollution incidents. In 1988 there were more than 4,000 reported incidents of pollution by agriculturalists, almost all from silage or slurry liquor. Both are far more effective than raw sewage in damaging the aquatic environment. Last year, the number of incidents fell by 30 per cent., which appears to be a good record, but which I regret was more likely to be caused by the exceptional summer than by good housekeeping. Later this year we shall introduce regulations setting minimum standards for the construction of silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil stores and given the NRA the power to require improvements to existing structures. That will go a long way towards reducing the devastating effect of such pollution.
  The Government have also taken a number of policy initiatives that will have a direct impact on the sea. The North sea conference agreements, in which we played a leading role, are generally welcome and the Government have scrupulously abided by them. Not only that, but we took the decision to extend the agreement for the North sea to all other seas round the United Kingdom, including the Irish sea. All the agreements reached in the North sea conference have been applied to the Irish sea. That was clearly set out in the guidance note on the second North sea conference in 1988, which said:
  "In the Government's view … other seas around the kingdom require an equal degree of environmental safeguarding and the changes of policy implied by the declaration will in general be applied consistently throughout the United Kingdom."
  That we have now done.
  Particular policy agreements reached in the second North sea conference include, first, that the dumping of polluting material should be ended at the earliest practical date; secondly, that as from 1 January 1989 no materials should be dumped unless there are no practical alternatives on land and it can be shown that the materials pose no risk to the marine environment; thirdly, that sea

  41
  disposal for sewage sludge be retained as an option, but that urgent action be taken to reduce the concentrations of certain dangerous contaminants and to ensure that the quality of such contaminants disposed of should not increase above 1987 levels; fourthly, that marine incineration be substantially reduced by not less than 65 per cent. by 1 January 1991; and, fifthly, that the practice be phased out by 31 December 1994. We have abided by the North sea agreement.
  On 22 February, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that industrial wastes were not to be dumped at sea after the end of 1992. The 1987 agreement accepted that wastes such as those licensed by the United Kingdom could continue to be dumped at sea, provided that they did not harm the sea and that there was no practical means of land-based disposal. Nevertheless, we have gone further and, with the co-operation of the companies concerned, we will end dumping of all such industrial waste.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman referred to industrial waste being dumped at sea. Does that include waste from Sellafield?
  Mr. Hunt: It does not. Industrial waste is carefully defined. I used that definition, and it was accepted, in the conference at which that was decided.
  On 5 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that by the end of 1988 the United Kingdom would end the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. At present, some 70 per cent. of sewage sludge is disposed of on land. We have continued to encourage sewerage undertakers to develop land-based disposal methods for the remainder of the sludge. As a result of significant advances in incineration techniques, we decided that the disposal of sewage sludge to sea should end. The time lag is required because of the substantial programme of work and capital investment required to implement alternative disposal methods, including obtaining planning permission.
  On the same day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that we had concluded that a case could be made for treating all substantial discharges of sewage. We have decided that, in general, municipal sewage should receive secondary treatment, but that primary treatment would be more appropriate for discharges to coastal waters where it can be shown that that would not adversely affect the environment. It is estimated that introducing that level of treatment will cost about £1.5 billion, which is additional to the investment currently programmed to improve the quality of our bathing waters. That in itself will cost £1.4 billion, of which £100 million is to improve bathing water quality in Wales.
  In the third North sea conference in March, further agreements were reached that will again be applied to all waters round the United Kingdom, including the Irish sea. It was agreed to end sewage sludge dumping by 1998; to cease dumping industrial waste by 1992; to destroy PCBs by 1995 if possible, and by 1999 at the latest; to reduce by 50 per cent. or more by 1995 some 37 key hazardous substances coming from rivers; to reduce from 1995 by 70 per cent. or more emissions to rivers or to the atmosphere of cadmium, lead mercury and dioxines; to reduce by 50 per cent. atmospheric emissions of 17 dangerous substances by 1995, or at the latest by 1999; to halve from
  42
  1985 levels the input of nutrients in sensitive areas by 1995; and to strive for a substantial reduction in pesticides, with control of their use and application by 1992. Those are important agreements, and as those policies come into effect, they will make a considerable impact on the seas round our coast.
  We have not finished there. The Environmental Protection Bill, now passing through another place, will provide further assurances of a cleaner, safer environment. We shall introduce the concept of integrated pollution control with, for the first time, a single regulatory body controlling emissions to land, water and air. In that respect, as in others, we are ahead.
  Our initiatives in recent years, and our continuing efforts in pollution control and environmental improvement are, by any standards, a considerable achievement. They demonstrate our total commitment to the improvement and protection of our environment and give impetus to other countries to follow suit. But we have not finished there. In the autumn, we will publish an environmental White Paper that will bring together in one document our achievements and will also set out how we intend to move forward with setting an environmental agenda for the rest of the century and beyond.
  The Environmental Protection Bill's 147 clauses cover much territory, but they are united by one goal—a cleaner and safer environment. Far too often these days, people come near to discrediting what is fundamentally a good cause. The best way of avoiding that is to provide more information, not less. The Bill will give the public more access than ever before to information on industrial pollution and on how individual firms will be obliged to clean up their operations. The Government have pressed for a Europewide agency to monitor environmental quality in every member state.
  The view is commonly held that environmental issues will play a prominent part in national and international political debate in the last decade of this century. Therefore, it is appropriate to begin with a Bill which will, whatever arguments may be made about it, provide a secure framework for much of our pollution control well into the next century.
  Control and regulations are vital for improved environmental quality, just as they they are important to the raising of health standards and securing safety at work. However, they provide only part of the means of enhancing environmental quality. Our unequivocal view is that the best way of achieving that objective is a judicial mix of government regulation and market economics. The market and private enterprise are often challenged by regulation to achieve higher technological standards and better performance, and that is right. The environmental history of eastern Europe in particular demonstrates that state control does not go hand in hand with better environmental standards and regulation.
  I do not know where the Opposition would strike the balance, but I trust that they accept that such controls are not without cost, and that incentives other than controls are often the best means of achieving environmental goals cost effectively. Whatever may be the Opposition's views on that point, they must share our belief that sensible and sustainable growth is the friend, not the enemy, of a cleaner and greener environment. It is vital that the coherent and sophisticated system of pollution control that we are introducing in the Bill is credible. Credibility

  43
  requires that such a system is operated by strong and effective institutions, and that it should be open to public scrutiny.
  We are to some extent still in the early stages of establishing some of the institutions that will monitor and control pollution. For example, the National Rivers Authority has only recently started operating, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution did not come into being until 1987. Institutional questions will inevitably take some time to get right, and we shall consider them in the context of our work on the White Paper to be published later this year. There would be little point in establishing an excellent system of pollution control without a means of implementing it.
  I referred to the history of pollution, and we are dealing with problems that have their origins a long way back. Others were created in the 1960s and 1970s. We have reduced the discharge from Sellafield to 3 per cent. of what it was in 1979, for example, so there have been major advances.
  The Environmental Protection Bill is far from being our last word on our environmental policies. It would be ludicrous to try to solve all the problems in one Bill—doubly so in respect of environmental issues, which require the most up-to-date scientific information and unparalleled international co-operation to resolve. We will set out in the White Paper our environmental policy for the United Kingdom for the rest of the decade and into the next century. It will bring together a strategy for the environment in a single, comprehensive document dealing with all aspects of environmental work. It will confirm that we as a nation are prepared to play our part in creating a preferred environment, and that we shall fully discharge our obligations as trustees for future generations.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: Before I comment on the speech of the Secretary of State for Wales, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome back to the Government Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), with my best wishes for his full recovery. I cannot give the same welcome to the hon. Gentleman's beard, but that is a matter of taste.
  We welcome this opportunity to debate environmental problems, particularly in respect of the Principality. The Government amendment allows more scope for debate than does the Plaid Cymru motion. The Secretary of State made several references to the Environmental Protection Bill. The Government were so concerned about that legislation and its impact on Wales that not one Minister from the Welsh Office or even one Conservative Member from Wales served on the Bill's Standing Committee—despite the fact that the Bill contains matters of considerable importance to Wales. The Minister from the Scottish Office did his best, but they were really matters for the Welsh Office. Doubtless that issue will be raised again.
  Although the motion concerns pollution levels in the Irish sea, it touches on an issue of significance for the Principality. The Secretary of State referred to the benefits of water privatisation, but were he to undertake a survey in north, mid or south Wales, he would find almost universal condemnation of it. That is not simply because
  44
  the people of Wales will have to pay a horrendous water poll tax in the next few months. They have other bills to pay, too, because they have, rightly, concentrated on improving the quality of the water in their rivers and reservoirs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) asked in a recent parliamentary question about the quality of drinking water in Wales. The answer that he received was that 21 of the 34 water works in Wales have failed the Government's tests for aluminium in water. Our beaches, which are so vital to the tourist industry, especially in the north and west of Wales, stand condemned in the eyes of the world because of the dirt and filth that pollute them.
  Our marine environment is precious to us all. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for having referred to the cuts in the natural history museum's budget. In answer to an intervention by my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State said that the Welsh Office does not deal with the funding of museums outside Wales. However, the Welsh Office funds research. Research at the natural history museum in London could play a large part in helping to solve the pollution problems in the Principality. I hope that when the Secretary of State returns to Wales he will arrange a meeting with Professor Claridge and discuss these important issues with him.
  The drinking water inspectorate and the National Rivers Authority will become part of a new environmental protection agency when there is a Labour Government. The agency would be mirrored at both regional and local government level. It would have an important role to play in determining and monitoring pollution in the Principality.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) for having pressed the Welsh Office—it has been hard to do so in recent months—about the sewage outfall at Lavernock in south Wales. Only reluctantly did they receive the answer that it would be fully treated before it entered the Bristol channel.
  Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman puts faith in the ability of local authorities to deal with waste. I remind him that local authorities in this country as a whole were given 10 years in which to submit their plans for waste disposal to the Department of the Environment. During that 10-year period, fewer than 50 per cent. of them bothered to do so.
  Mr. Murphy: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Were he to read the response given by the previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), to the Association of District Councils, he would find that the Secretary of State said that, in exercising their functions as waste disposal and collection authorities, Welsh district councils were doing an extremely good job. The main problem, however, is lack of resources. It is ironic that after more than 10 years of Conservative Government hardly any of the money that has come into our coffers from North sea oil has been used by the Government to deal with pollution, or with waste collection and disposal.
  The debate highlights the problems connected with waste collection and disposal in Wales. The problems are different in Wales. The district councils are both collection and disposal authorities. They face new problems over recycling industrial hazardous waste coming to Wales

  45
  from eastern Europe via West Germany and other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will, I am sure, refer later to the landfill tip in Swansea which deals with waste from eastern Europe.
  The Government have agreed to retain the existing structure in Wales. During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill the Government assured us that Welsh district councils will still be the collection and disposal authorities. The same will apply to Scotland. Scottish district councils will also be exempt from the private competition regulations that are to apply to England, but the Government are unwilling to exempt Wales, even though the position in Wales and Scotland is exactly the same. The last thing that Welsh district councils want when they are burdened with the collection and disposal of waste is to be still further burdened by having to compete with private industry.
  Waste disposal by private industry is exemplified by one firm in my constituency, ReChem International, which is a blight on Wales because of the pollution it causes. Last week the financial press referred to ReChem as a good investment; its profits were soaring, despite a slump during the past 12 months on account of bad publicity. Most of the company's profits are made from imports, most of which are polychlorinated biphenyls. The toxic waste trade is suspect and bitterly disliked. My constituency is the centre for the disposal of much of the world's most deadly poisons. That is wrong. Labour will end the commercial trade in toxic waste.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: This is an important matter. All of us are guardians of the world environment. What does the hon. Gentleman think that third-world countries should do with their PCBs if they are not allowed to export them to be destroyed by the countries which often provided them with the PCBs in the first place?
  Mr. Murphy: That is an important point, but ReChem International does not import toxic waste from many third-world countries. I am glad that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) intervened, because it allows me to tell him that the industrial waste comes from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. None of those is a third-world country. The figures provided to us by the Welsh Office suggest that the vast bulk of the trade in toxic waste coming to the ReChem incinerator in Pontypool is from developed countries. Our view, which I am sure is held by many parties, is that each developed country should look after its own toxic waste.
  It will be of interest to those hon. Members with port constituencies that the following ports have been used to import toxic waste: Chatham, Dartford, Dover, Felixstowe, Gravesend, Harwich, Immingham, Ipswich, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Seaforth and Tilbury. Toxic waste comes to Wales for disposal from each of those ports.
  We all welcome the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Recently it recognised for the first time that people in south Wales are genuinely concerned about having the ReChem incinerator in their midst. The Select Committee's recommendations amount to a first step towards a major public inquiry into what should happen to that plant.
  The Secretary of State has made much of the provisions in the Environmental Protection Bill and of what the White Paper will contain. However, that will have no
  46
  significance unless appropriate resources are provided to deal with the problem. During the past few years, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has been seriously under-resourced throughout Britain, but particularly in Wales. There are not enough inspectors. The Government must give a full commitment to increase substantially HMIP's resources, to ensure that there is proper monitoring of pollution in both Wales and the country as a whole.
  The most significant underfunding has been the underfunding of local authorities. We look to them not just to dispose of waste but to keep our streets clean and to ensure that litter is cleared away from our town centres. Throughout the past 10 or 11 years the Government have systematically robbed councils of rate support grant, which has made it increasingly difficult for Welsh councils to deal with litter. Although the Bill imposes a duty on local authorities to collect litter, it does not provide them with a single extra penny with which to carry out that duty. Therefore, that duty is bound to be empty and meaningless.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will battle with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Welsh local authorities—which have a good record in local government—have more resources put at their disposal. If the right hon. Gentleman spent more time exercising his mind about putting resources into the local authorities instead of wasting millions of pounds on administering the poll tax, he would be thanked by the vast majority of people in Wales.
  The fundamental problem lies with the Government. They dislike local government, and that has been evident from the number of Acts of Parliament affecting local government—more than 50 in the past 10 years. The Government are obsessed with privatisation and ideology. I suspect that that is why they have abandoned the pledge on the privatisation of electricity—that they would ensure that there are flue gas scrubbers in our coal-fired power stations. That is a major problem. The Government do not realise that there should be a proper mix of public intervention, regulation and bans and private sector intervention, in the form of the market, the price mechanism and green taxes. Opposition Members are at one in believing that, until Wales is rid of the Conservative Government, our environment will not get much better.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Michael Lord: I welcome the debate, even though it is inspired by the Opposition, because I welcome any debate on the environment. This is an issue that is so important that it needs to be kept at the top of our agenda but unfortunately, all too often, we naturally become obsessed with inflation, interest rates, mortgage rates, the community charge, defence and so on. The environment tends to be lost from our sight.
  It is important to give credit to the Government for what they have done well, as well as to demand action from them. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment are to be congratulated on the immense strides that they have made recently on the environment. I am delighted about that.
  Suffolk, Central is landlocked and therefore has no coastal problems. My excuses for intervening in the debate are that I am especially fond of the sea, one of a declining breed of sea bathers, and an extremely keen sailor, and,

  47
  perhaps more important—I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) will forgive me—I have been visiting the island of Anglesey for my holidays almost every year for more than 50 years. I am very fond of it and extremely anxious about what happens to it. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter in the past.
  I was in Anglesey at Whitsun, as were many other folk. The weather was quite good. I went, as I always do, to my favourite beach, Traeth Bychan. When I drew my curtains on the first morning, I was horrified to see my favourite bay looking as though it was full of brown Windsor soup. That is the only way that I can describe it. It remained like that for several days, during which families and young children wanted to go for a paddle or a swim and to enjoy the sea. The shallow water where children would paddle was even worse. To continue my culinary comparison, the shallow waters were more like chocolate mousse.
  I took my own samples and sent them off. I do not yet have the results. I do not know the reasons for the appearance of the sea. I have made inquiries at the university at Bangor—to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) referred—and elsewhere. I hope that I will receive some satisfaction and help from the university. From what I have been able to discover, it is almost certain that sewage will be implicated one way or the other.
  Mr. Anderson: I warn the hon. Gentleman to be aware that the scientists may claim that it is only algae that is at fault. We had a similar problem with the sea in south Wales which, with the sun, went brown. We thought that the problem was caused by "Douglas Hurds", but it was not. Whatever they were, they had the same effect. There was a direct correlation with pollution, although a form of algae was responsible.
  Mr. Lord: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Algae has been talked of as a possible culprit in the case to which I referred. Certainly, much of what I saw and waded into briefly did not smell like algae.
  I have quite an intimate knowledge of the local sewerage system in that part of the world. When, as an undergraduate, I had to earn some money to keep myself alive during the long summer vacations—like many other people—I worked for the contractor who installed the two outfalls in nearby villages—Benllech and Moelfre. I was involved there, albeit only as a labourer or a hod-carrier. There was a huge debate at the time about whether the outfalls would do the job, how long they should be and whether land-based treatment would be more satisfactory. Everybody who was concerned about the standard of water at that time was assured that all would be well.
  I cannot tell hon. Members precisely how far beyond low water mark the outfalls go, but my guess is that it is no more than 100 m. That means that their effectiveness depends on the correct use of tide flows, wind direction and so on. Bearing in mind those factors, it is not unlikely that whatever is realised from the outfalls may find its way back to our beaches—possibly just at the wrong time of year when people wish to enjoy the beaches. It has been suggested that Liverpool bay is implicated, and that may be so. One cause of the pollution could be discharges further up the coast in Wales and up the Lancashire coast, which may come back down to cause the damage.
  48
  No one can be really sure of either the cause or the long-term effect. But when our oceans are so precious, why take the risk? The only way to eliminate the problems in the long term is to deal with all our sewage on land. That is perhaps a radical solution, but I believe that we shall come to it eventually. I am concerned that, in all the huge projects that we are now discussing, the immense amounts of money involved—if not misspent—could perhaps be better spent. With hindsight we will wish that we had thought the matter through more carefully and seriously considered the possibility of treating sewage on land.
  I know that there are difficulties. Every day, 300 million gallons of sewage are discharged to our rivers and seas. I know what an enormous task and challenge it would be to deal with that sewage on land. The Secretary of State has pointed out all the difficulties—the costs, the burden on industry and the possible environmental effects on the land as well as on the sea. I believe that the challenge is worth taking up.
  For industry, necessity is the mother of invention, and I believe that industry would respond. When faced with the threat to the ozone layer in recent times, industry has responded rapidly to the problem of chlorofluorocarbons. In a more minor way, industry has solved the problem of the rings on Coca Cola cans which used to cause so many problems when they were thrown away or used to fiddle parking meters. The cans are now made so that the rings cannot be detached from them. Those are two examples—one major and one minor—of the way in which industry will respond to problems when forced to do so.
  Mr. Holt: Has my hon. Friend read the report by the Select Committee on the Environment on land pollution, especially the part of it dealing with the problem that the Dutch have experienced because they simply do not have enough land to dispose of all the slurry? Their solution has been to cull some of their cows. Does my hon. Friend suggest that we start culling some of his farmers' cows in Suffolk so that we do not overdo the pollution that could be caused on the land? Perhaps my hon. Friend is not taking into account the fact that we should be incinerating a great deal of waste.
  Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I am not suggesting that I have all the solutions to those problems. However, industry is working on them at the moment. For example, ICI is developing new plants to try to accelerate the process of treating sewage. It has also developed a product for treating the water that is released into our rivers after sewage has been treated. Although we can remove 90 per cent. of the bacteria that cause problems later, when the water is discharged to our rivers and seas, 10 per cent. of the bacteria remains. That is a major problem, although I understand that ICI has developed a system which eliminates that difficulty. It is an enormously beneficial move.
  Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lord: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that I should make progress. I am conscious that I do not represent a Welsh constituency, so I am imposing on the House tonight.
  I appreciate that my remarks may be rather more emotional than scientific. In an age in which we can put a man on the moon, when it takes four hours to get from London to New York by aeroplane and when satellites

  49
  allow us to sit in our homes and watch what is happening on the other side of the world, I cannot believe that it is right to simply discharge our waste products into the ocean. Time does not allow this evening for detailed technical arguments like those which my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is encouraging me to enter into.
  Anyone who has paddled or swum in the sea, sailed on it or fished it, thrown a pebble into it or simply sat and looked at it—that is, every one of us—must be aware of the physical and emotional importance of that hugely important asset and must accept that it should not be damaged or risks taken with it. I am aware of the difficulties, but as there is a White Paper in the offing I urge my colleagues on the Government Front Bench to consider the possibility of a commitment at some point to treat all our sewage on land.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Many of my parliamentary colleagues from Wales travel weekly to London. When I left Cardiganshire today to motor over the Plynlimon mountains to join the InterCity train at Caersws to take me across the border, I took a look at the environment. The countryside from Cardiganshire to the border is worth looking at at this time of year.
  Dr. Thomas: And then?
  Mr. Howells: I will come to that later.
  That environment was so beautiful, green and healthy-looking. Trees have been planted everywhere, perhaps with the help of the Forestry Commission, which planted many trees on the Plynlimon mountains 30 years ago.
  I then asked myself, "Who has been responsible for our wonderful environment in mid-Wales?" I suppose the answer is the farming fraternity, the agriculturists and our fathers and forefathers who, over many generations, tilled the land and planted the trees. I also asked myself whether I could find any fault with the environment as I see it today. I could not find any faults. It all looked so beautiful.
  I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) and by the Secretary of State that agriculture plays a major role in our environment. However, we must remember that agriculture is in dire financial straits at the moment. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that our industry does not have the opportunity to compete on equal terms with its counterparts in Europe. It should be the Secretary of State's top priority over the next 12 months to try to ensure that our farmers compete on equal terms. For example, with regard to the ewe premium, there is a variation between Ireland and Wales. In Wales, the premium is £7 per head, while I am told that in Ireland it is £18 per head.
  Confidence in our industry is at its lowest ebb. When I was a little child, there were about 30 full-time farmers in my village. They were all viable. They were all self-contained, and farmers' sons stayed at home. However, there are only three full-time farms in my village today and the rest are all part-time farmers like me. The others work in Aberystwyth and other areas. I am not
  50
  against part-time farming. It is a wonderful achievement to farm 20 or 30 acres and also be employed in industry or in a profession of one's own choice. That is a wonderful life.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Meironnydd Nant Conwy on introducing this debate on the environment. I will not disagree with him, but I hope that, when we next have tea together, he will define what he means by an organic Welsh lamb. I am sure that there are quite a few of them in Meironnydd and Cardiganshire, but unfortunately for his constituents and for mine, the majority of all those small lambs that are born on the hills are being exported to Italy. I am afraid that he has not eaten an organic lamb yet, but time will tell.
  What advice can the Secretary of State offer to the silage farmers, the majority of which are dairy farmers, some of whom unfortunately are breaking the law? That is a major problem in many parts of Wales, especially in Anglesey, the vale of Clwyd, Carmarthen, Pembrokeshire and my constituency. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer advice to some farmers who may be flouting the law unintentionally.
  This motion is welcome. It focuses on an important problem. With concentration on the North sea, it is some times forgotten that similar, or in some cases greater, problems exist in the Irish sea. The condemnation in the motion is, if anything, too mild. The Government have no answer to the charges, as can be seen from the fact that their amendment does not mention the Irish sea, but provides the usual self-congratulatory, wishy-washy generalisations which are the hallmark of the Government's approach to the environment.
  The Irish sea is gigantic proof, if any of us needed it, of the cavalier and irresponsible approach adopted by this Government and the previous Labour Government towards the environment. The Irish sea is shallow and slow to drain, and it will harbour some of its poisons for thousands of years.
  I want to consider now some of the specific problems. Since Sellafield opened, half a tonne of plutonium has been discharged into the Irish sea, making it the most radioactively contaminated—not radioactive—sea in the world. There are more nuclear installations bordering the Irish sea than any other sea.
  Britain's dirtiest estuary, the Mersey, drains into the Irish sea. In the recent Mersey clean-up campaign, the Government took steps to limit sewage discharges into the river. They shipped it all out to sea and dumped it. In other words, they made themselves reliant on sewage sludge dumping, which every other country has phased out. However, the Government intend to continue with such dumping until 1998. The Irish sea contains the second biggest sewage sludge dumping ground for the United Kingdom.
  The biggest industrial dump site in the north Atlantic is in the Irish sea, just off Cork. Each year, millions of tonnes of untreated sewage and industrial wastes are dumped in the Irish sea. The Irish sea is heavily contaminated in certain coastal areas with synthetic materials and heavy metals, especially mercury from the ICI works at Runcorn, although, thankfully, that company has at last stopped that practice.
  I now give some of the alarming facts. The Irish sea contains more man-made radioactivity than any other sea. It is bordered by more nuclear installations than any other sea. I have just mentioned Cork. Also, 250 chemicals were found in a single sample taken from a discharge into the

  51
  River Mersey. Three hundred million gallons of sewage go into the Irish sea every day, and 80 per cent. of it receives no treatment or is only screened.
  Whales and dolphins are now rare, but I have a dolphin family in my constituency. The other dolphin family lives on the north-east coast of Scotland. We are proud of our dolphins, as they have been with us for a long time. Let us hope that, in their wisdom, the Government will safeguard their interests as well as those of our constituents.
  After 1990, only two nations in the EC will be committed to dumping industrial waste into the sea. Those two nations are Britain and Ireland.
  On swimming, there is a message about the North sea—swim at your own risk. Nine million holidaymakers visit the coast of the Irish sea, yet not one beach has a "blue flag" to show that it is clean. Eighty per cent. of sewage outfalls into the Irish sea receive no treatment, or only a simple screening. Seventy per cent. of the pipes discharge at or above the low water mark. Untreated sewage discharged into bathing water brings the risk of illness, ranging from salmonella poisoning to hepatitis. Full sewage treatment would virtually eliminate those risks.
  I could go on for a long time, but the message is clear. I urge the Government to give extra financial aid and resources to research and development. It is a great pity that the Countryside Council for Wales is going to Bangor. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and I agree on nearly every issue, but the council should have been in Aberystwyth, the agricultural capital of Wales. I ask the Minister and the Government to do what they can to safeguard the coastal belt. The National Rivers Authority will need more financial help in the years to come. Our rivers, whether they start in Plynlimon, Snowdonia or Cader Idris, all flow gently and take everything with them to the sea. We must do all that we can to ensure that our rivers are made clean for the next generation.
  As I said, mid-Wales is a beautiful area. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who, as Secretary of State, established the Mid Wales development board. It is now 14 years later. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman because that board has done excellent work in mid-Wales. It is a great pity that the present Secretary of State cannot extend the boundaries of that rural board for mid-Wales to include areas in my constituency in north Pembroke, because we have an important link with Ireland at Fishguard and Goodwick. It would be a wonderful achievement if we could give the same facilities within the board area to that part of the country, which is in dire need of financial help.
  5.44 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) for giving hon. Members this opportunity to talk about the environment. This is not my first chance to discuss Welsh matters with him. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his sensible remarks. When we consider the environment and pollution, we must remember that man-made problems are subject to
  52
  man-made solutions. We should remember that substantial costs are involved in dealing with alleged forms of pollution. Therefore, we must be sure that the pollution that we identify is real and is as important as we see it.
  The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members talked about pollution of the seas and of the land because of mineral extraction and, in particular, the application of fertilisers. He did not talk a great deal about pollution of the air, which is of great significance to people in Wales, especially because of the alleged global warming and greenhouse gases. Dealing with that problem could have a profound effect not just on the environment but on jobs and industries in the Principality. We should deal with that issue at a little more length.
  If we had been debating this matter in the 1970s, we would probably have been talking about acid rain. Our concerns for the environment tend to go in cycles. There are fashions—issues come and go. We are very concerned about them at the time, but they pass as scientists bring a new issue to our attention. In this case, we are discussing issues that affect Wales in particular. We should talk about the effect of the carbon dioxide scare and its relationship to industry and life in that part of the world.
  Mr. Wigley: Although those matters certainly got more attention a few years ago, regrettably in Wales the problem has not gone away. In western Wales, there are 200 lakes in which fish life has died because of the acidity of the water. We are still struggling with that problem.
  Mrs. Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I commend to him a paper written by Professor Sir James Beament of Queen's college, Cambridge, in which he analyses the acid rain problem and casts grave doubts on the suggestion that sulphur dioxide is the cause of it. He identified leaching of the soil, magnesium and so on. I shall not go into the scientific details now, because of the time available, but there are other causes. We often identify the wrong cause and then set about dealing with it. In fact, we offer wrong solutions, and, in doing so, we can cause grave damage to industries and jobs and spend a great deal of taxpayers' money.
  One of the important points that have been raised so far is the need to make sure that the scientific evidence on which we base some of our policies is accurate and valid. Many of our concerns in the recent past arose as a result of a conference called Global 2000, which was staged by the American Government in the 1980s. Many scientists got together to survey the future, and they came up with many apocalyptic scenarios, one of which included global warming and greenhouse gases. It was suggested that that problem was largely caused by carbon dioxide and other carbon gases being released into the atmosphere.
  The conference neglected to consider other atmospheric gases, such as water vapour, which has important heat and radiation effects in the atmosphere, and oxygen. We all know that oxygen is never talked about in terms of radiation and global warming, but it is of great significance. Furthermore, the effect of the sun and our proximity to it was hardly mentioned. The sun is the great engine of our climate, as are sun spots, and both affect global temperature.
  Such things tend not to be covered in scientific papers, because we cannot legislate to do anything about our position in relation to the sun or the occurrence of sun spots. We can, however, legislate to cut our use of carbon

  53
  dioxide. That means that we place increased restrictions on the coal industry and on the manufacture of motor vehicles. In so doing, we may be over-reacting to the effect of carbon dioxide on what is only a small part of global warming.
  Hon. Members who represent the Principality know of coal's importance as a mineral. It is one of the most important minerals in all economies, and generates 40 per cent. of the world's electricity. We are all concerned about wasting energy and talk about putting tea cosies on our houses to keep them warm. However, we do not necessarily pay enough attention to making energy production more efficient.
  That brings me to the role that Governments can play in reducing alleged pollution. That could sometimes take the form of backing research and development into making energy production more efficient, instead of concentrating on saving energy at the level of using insulating devices in our houses, which results in only a small saving when compared with what we could do in terms of improving energy production.
  We must keep an eye on scientists. There have been scares throughout history. At the time of the millenium of the 10th century, people castigated themselves and their leaders because, according to the Book of Revelations, the earth was about to warm up and we would all frizzle and die. That apocalypse came and went, and nothing very much happened.
  The earth is the most amazing self-correcting organism. When there are changes in the balance of minerals, atmosphere and temperature, the earth generally corrects them. The carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which is produced partly by the coal industry, is a fertiliser and can be absorbed by plants and the ocean. The more carbon dioxide there is, the more plant growth there is and, as a result, there is sometimes more animal growth. Throughout its enormously long history, the earth has corrected the imbalances that occur in nature. Therefore, before embarking on costly and often ineffective methods of dealing with today's pollution, we should try to keep the scale of the problem in perspective.
  The earth is a water organism—70 per cent. of it is covered by water. The tides and the movement of water have enormous significance for our coasts, and for other coasts around the world. Humanity clings to only about 15 per cent. of the land mass. If we keep in mind that percentage of human activity on our globe, and compare it with the effect that the evaporation of water and the formation of clouds has on radiation and with the absorption of heat from the earth, we begin to see that many of the problems that have been identified have far less significance than we may believe. We tend to measure things against the scale of humanity. We tend to measure pollution within our own immediate geographical areas. We then extrapolate from those facts and produce great proposals for legislation and to change industrial processes way beyond what is necessary or important.
  Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment to keep the problem in perspective and to remember that, for every scientist who holds one view, another will hold a balancing view. The smaller voice may well be the voice talking the truth. Galileo's time did not believe that the earth went round the sun, but he could prove that it did, and he said so. His views were so welcome that he was forced to recant by the Church and ended up denying that solution.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest. I would not choose to cross swords with her about Galileo, who I assume is Welsh. I remind her of an old northern saying, "Where there's muck, there's brass." It therefore follows that, where there's brass, there's muck. Does she agree that, by creating lots and lots of brass, we have created infinitely more muck, which, however one sees it, cannot be to the advantage of Wales, the United Kingdom or anybody?
  Will she accept that the real problem is to reduce the amount of muck—or its modern version, "pollution"—and to ascertain how we can do that without having too great an economic effect on the industries that produce that muck or on the taxpayer? There is no point in going around saying, "It it not this or that," because there is too much muck and we want to achieve the same amount of brass with less of it.
  Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that he agrees that we do not want to tear up what we have achieved in industry and in the progress in people's standards of living for what could well be false hypotheses. There are plenty of false hypotheses in the scientific world, one of which is the greenhouse effect and the amount of attention that we pay to that effect.
  As and when we identify real problems, such as industrial waste being poured into rivers, where we can see that it is killing our fish, we must make those industries stop such practices. We have laws to do that. Where we can be sure that savings in energy can be made by more efficient energy production and new methods, clearly we should do so and the Government should encourage that. However, we should not spend billions of pounds of taxpayers' money and do great harm to industry without knowing what we are doing.
  The earth is not a delicate and fragile thing that is difficult to damage. It is resilient and has lasted for thousands of millions of years. A little alteration in terms of earth or water pollution—or even air pollution—will not destroy our planet as the greenmongers would have us believe. There have always been natural climatic changes. I refer now to the dinosaurs—but not those in this place. Dinosaurs are evidence that the climate of the earth changed naturally over time. Our greenhouse effect here and now is tiny in comparison. [Laughter.] I give up.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. John Morris: I am glad of this opportunity to raise the problem of environmental policy as it affects my constituency in the context of the administration and control of pollution in Wales. I join all those who have expressed their concern about the level of pollution in the sea. However, in the few minutes available to me I shall concentrate on the Government's amendment with its strange and nauseating phrase that Her Majesty's Government and Minister "congratulate" themselves
  "on the positive lead it is giving in areas of environmental concern".
  That was the very Government who slaughtered the Clean Air Council which I chaired 25 years ago as a young Minister, and the Noise Abatement Council. It is late in the day for the Government to start putting the environment first.
  It is my privilege to represent what I regard as an important industrial constituency. Without industry it is nothing. We have two major plants. Employment at the

  55
  Port Talbot steelworks has been savaged. Enormous efforts have been made by the unions, the management and me to ensure that the plant survives and investment in the harbour, the concast plant and the new mill flourishes and provides opportunities for my constituents and others to work.
  The other major industrial plant is BP Chemicals, which is much newer. It provides employment for a large number of people but on a smaller scale than the steelworks. We are an industrial constituency and I hope that we shall continue to be so. In future, industry must conduct itself in such a way that people's lives are not made a misery. I appreciate that large sums of money have been spent and will be spent locally by management to redress the balance and reduce pollution. However, my constituents continue to be dissatisfied with what they see, feel, smell and hear around them. The result must satisfy them, and that is what worries me about the smugness of the Government's proposals.
  People simply will not put up with the standards of yesterday. Children must be able to play in gardens. People must be able to hang washing on lines and leave windows open at night. Cars must not be smothered with soot and the air that we breathe must not be as polluted as it is now. Air pollution is far to frequently a problem in our major industrial areas, and it is certainly a problem in my constituency.
  After the problems of last year, I hoped that the problem at BP chemicals at Baglan, which persisted for so many days a few weeks ago, would not be repeated. The House can imagine my horror when I read the strongly worded letter from the chairman of the local authority's environmental committee expressing his anxiety and dissatisfaction. The local authorities in my constituency and elsewhere will do what they can, but the basic problem with pollution is the division of power and the ineffectiveness of existing powers. I fear that, if industry cannot come up to the required standard, it will have to compensate the locality. Compensation will have to be paid for each hour during which standards are transgressed.
  We do not live in the era of the pre-Aberfan syndrome, when people were resigned to living in bad conditions. After Aberfan, a programme of land clearance began with which I was proud to be associated later. Before Aberfan, we simply put up with the tips. The same applies today to air and general environmental pollution. Today people simply will not allow the clock to stop in the pre-Aberfan era.
  How can standards of pollution below which industries must not fall be measured? What is the acceptable norm? There should be public participation and consultation in making that decision. The standards are not necessarily the same everywhere. I wish that they were. Anyone who has had to spend time in London, even with the successful clean air policy in place, knows that. I pay tribute to the clean air policy. People such as Sir Gerald Nabarro and Mr. Harold Evans, when he was editor of The Northern Echo, played a formidable role in telling people about the importance of clean air and pushing for a clean air policy.
  After it got rid of the smog, London made great progress. But even today, if one leaves one's shoes out for two days, there is a layer of dust on them. Unhappily, the
  56
  standard of the air varies. I wish that the standard was always as good as that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). It is entirely different from the environment in our industrial constituencies and in London.
  Therefore, we must tackle clean air and the environment with the same energy as our predecessors did—I played a small part in it—in tackling problems of burning smoking fuels in our industrial conurbations. The same energy must be applied to find acceptable standards which accord with a reasonable quality of life in our industrial areas.
  The basic problem of dealing with pollution is the division of control over it. Local authorities have limited powers. I wrote recently to the chairman of the Health and Safety Executive, who took over three weeks to refer my letter to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The time of the inspector responsible for Wales and the west was so precious last year that no power on earth, not even the private office of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, could make him change the day of his visit to my council. I willingly postponed my holiday to ensure that I was present when the great man arrived from his business in Nottingham or wherever it was. That showed the pressure on that inspector.
  Underfunding and undermanning of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is a major scandal. It is peculiar that the inspectorate does not come under the control of the Secretary of State for Wales. I doubled the size of the Welsh Office and ensured that a vast amount of responsibility was transferred to the Welsh Secretary, so I was particularly sorry to learn that he had no control over Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I had to go to the Department of the Environment.
  Wales is part of the south-western region. The number of inspectorate personnel based in Wales was recently depleted. The Cardiff headquarters has become little more than an outpost of the south-western region which includes the whole of the Principality and a substantial part of south-western England. The number of inspectors who administer control of pollution measures in Wales was recently reduced effectively from three to one. The obvious result was a deterioration in the inspectorate's response. One gentleman from Cardiff has been seconded to a special project for an indeterminate period, so we shall not have a great deal of help from him. Is the Minister aware of what is happening to the inspectorate in Wales? It is simply not good enough. It is a major step backwards. My constituency and other industrial areas of Wales require the constant vigilance of an effective authority to minimise and control the effects on the population and the environment.
  I wish to propose some ideas for the Government's White Paper to be published in the autumn. First, supervision and overall responsibility for pollution and the environment in and around Wales should come under the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not understand why it is not already his responsibility. Perhaps he is not aware of it, but precedents have been set in other areas of policy. The Manpower Services Commission is part of a national body, yet the commission for Wales is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. The Secretary of State could attend to that matter in the White Paper.
  Secondly, the number of staff in the Cardiff branch of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution should be

  57
  increased immediately. Thirdly, local authorities should be given a new role as agents for the inspectorate on a day-to-day basis with statutory powers to impose restrictions on behalf of and in accordance with the policy of the inspectorate. That should ensure a more speedy response when it is needed.
  Fourthly, there should be an immediate plan to assess and examine the worst areas of Wales to reach a view on a reasonable standard of and target for clean air in our industrial areas. It would start in the worst areas and be a sort of pollution Domesday book. What is wanted is an assessment of the position and a determination of what standards should be. We can then build on that and we could have a major breakthrough on improving the environment. I concede that it may take a little time to set the right standards and get the right machinery.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the 21st century. As we approach the 21st century, people will not accept the standards of yesterday. For too long, fathers and mothers have put up with low standards which are no longer acceptable. We must put all our energies into ensuring that the quality of life is improved everywhere, taking into full account, as I did in my opening remarks, that we live in and represent industrial areas. Ideally standards should be the same everywhere, but I fear that that cannot be achieved.
  A great deal could be done, if the Government ceased to adopt the smug attitude reflected in their amendment. Then we could at least target the main areas and have plans to counteract the worst difficulties.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: Before I make a brief contribution, I apologise for my late arrival. I was at a meeting of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs which had to approve our report on sea defences in advance of tomorrows' estimates debate on sea defences and the avoidance of sea flood damage in Wales.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) and his two colleagues on enabling us to have this debate. I am sure that we would agree on one thing—that we have debates on Welsh affairs on the Floor of the House too infrequently. It would be in the interests of the Principality if we had more. Equally, the hon. Gentlemen will acknowledge that much useful work on Welsh affairs goes on outside the Chamber, because all of them at one time or another have been members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs.
  I declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to Welsh Water plc. I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Water Bill. The Bill provided a much tougher regulatory framework than was hitherto in place. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was speaking, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) asked him to ensure that the National Rivers Authority brought far more prosecutions against those who break the law than the water authorities did. In doing so, he acknowledged what we did in the Bill. That acknowledgement was confirmed by the moderate and basically sensible speech of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy).
  We recognised that the water authorities were both poachers and gamekeepers—both dischargers of sewage and monitors of sewage disposal. The hon. Member for Gower, who is Chairman of the Select Committee, is particularly aware of that, as the Committee undertook an
  58
  inquiry into the coastal sewage pollution in Wales. 'The separation of those powers is one of the great provisions of the Water Act 1989. We now have a much tougher regulatory framework than we had before.
  Even my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench may acknowledge that the Government learned from previous privatisations and regulatory frameworks which might have been better than they were. As we progressed with privatisations, our approach to regulatory frameworks became more professional, more specific and more effective.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Torfaen acknowledged that by saying that the Labour party would keep the NRA. I know that he did not serve on the Standing Committee, but his colleagues on it also said that. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who was the Opposition Front Bench spokesman from Wales on the Bill, will confirm that.
  Apparently a Labour Government would subsume the National Rivers Authority and the drinking water inspectorate in an environmental protection agency, but Labour always wants to subsume things in huge bureaucatic agencies. Why cannot Labour leave something in embryo—I do not want to get into an abortion debate or a debate on embryo experimentation, so I shall say instead, something which has just been born—to develop and get on with its job, instead of planning to reorganise it, should the nightmare occur and a Labour Government take power? They should leave it to get on with its job effectively. I am glad that Labour Members have at least acknowledged that we have done the right thing. Obviously, they themselves had the opportunity to do what we have done in the past, but they did not take it. At least they have graciously conceded that we have done the right thing.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in passing to pollution in eastern Europe, he was his usual generous, gentle self. He did not labour the point, although it could be laboured. In the past year. I have travelled to Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Hungary. Anybody who drives through what were the great and glorious forests of Bohemia and Moravia will see instantly the damage wreaked by acid rain. Anybody who goes to East Berlin will see the pall of smoke hanging over that once great city—hopefully soon to be reunited with West Berlin as a great city again—as soon as they step off the train. The appalling pollution there comes largely from those ghastly Trabant cars—amazing plastic vehicles which do not seem to go anywhere very fast, yet create a huge amount of pollution in the process.
  The same is true of Budapest. The two-and-a-half hour train journey from Vienna to Budapest takes one from one of the cleanest urban environments in western Europe to one of the dirtiest and most polluted in eastern Europe. State control and state socialism are no guarantors of a clean environment. The Opposition have evidence of that before their very eyes.
  I have alluded to the inquiry into coastal sewage pollution in Wales. I was already a member of the Select Committee when it undertook that inquiry in 1985. One of the points that came out of it was the large number of sea and coastal outfalls in Wales. We have a quarter of the total for the whole of England and the Principality put together.
  Mr. Wigley indicated assent.
  Mr. Raffan: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding vigorously. He sat next to me during many of our evidence sessions. He will remember as well as I do the damning statistics that emerged. Only 6 per cent. of the sea outfalls in 1985 were less than 10 years old, 75 per cent. were over 20 years old and 40 per cent. were over 40 years old. I well remember the hon. Gentleman intervening, rightly, to ask the chairman of the Welsh water authority, Mr. John Elfed Jones, about the size of his capital programme—and the time scale of it—to remedy this appalling situation. The hon. Gentleman was told that £75 million would be spent over 15 years. I subsequently asked the chairman:
  "Perhaps you would rather be in the position of a private company so that you would then be able to borrow according to your needs"
  and accelerate that capital programme. Mr. Jones replied:
  "The proposition has immediate appeal."
  That is precisely what has happened. The £75 million over 15 years has been replaced by a capital programme for Welsh Water of £500,000 every day every year for the next 10 years. That is a massive capital programme. Would that capital programme have taken place under nationalisation, under Welsh Water in the public sector? That is the crucial question.
  Welsh Water plc is no longer subject to external financing limits. It can go to the City, borrow more money more cheaply and accelerate its capital programme—something that all hon. Members are united in wanting. It can bring forward the day when the 40 per cent. of sea outfalls which are over 40 years old, can be replaced. The basic achievement of privatisation is that Welsh Water can now undertake such a massive capital programme.
  Welsh Water is no longer subject to external financing limits. If the Labour party were to have its way and return the company to public ownership—should the nightmare occur and it returns to office—the water industry would once again have to compete with housing, education and social services for its share of resources.
  Mr. Wigley: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with considerable interest. If the borrowing level is taken up by Welsh Water to the extent that he suggests—a level of £150 million to £200 million a year—the interest paid by the authority will have a considerable impact on the Welsh Water ratepayer—hence the £200 per household that they are now being billed. That is the bottom line of the policy advocated by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that Welsh Water is now a commercial company. He will know as well as I what it has achieved in the past six to nine months. It has embarked upon a massive capital programme; it has taken over Wallace Evans, the biggest civil engineering firm in Wales, so that it can commercially exploit its unique expertise, not just in this country but in many countries around the world. I think that Wallace Evans has 50 offices worldwide. Together with the French water company SAUR, Welsh Water has set up a subsidiary, Cambrian Water, of which it owns 50 per cent.—yet another commercial waste disposal venture. Welsh Water is already becoming a much more commercially orientated company.
  The cost of the capital expenditure to which I referred will not fall soley on the ratepayer—far from it. I do not want to compound the embarrassment of the Opposition, particularly the Labour party, about privatisation by
  60
  alluding to Welsh Water's results last week, but the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will be aware, as I am, that they have been extremely well received in the financial press and elsewhere, and have met with a long silence from the Opposition. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon for giving me the opportunity to make those additional points about the benefits of privatisation. It is a great tribute to Welsh Water that it has adapted so swiftly and effectively to the new commercial environment in which it operates.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen was gracious enough tonight to concede the importance and effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority and the drinking water inspectorate, saying that they would be retained by the Labour party, albeit subsumed in an environmental protection agency. Will the Opposition give a public commitment in the House that, should the nightmare occur—I do not believe that it will, but perhaps we can ask this as a hypothetical exercise—and the Labour party were to return to power in a year or two, Labour will ensure that, if Welsh Water is brought back into the public sector, its capital programme will not be curtailed?
  Can a commitment be given that a Labour Government would not indulge in the sort of cuts they indulged in pre-1979, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said, they slashed capital expenditure on sewage and water works by a massive 50 per cent.? If Welsh Water is brought back into the public sector, a Government would be able to do just that. I hope that the Opposition will be able to give that commitment, because it will be of great interest to the House and of great importance to the people of Wales.
  It is always interesting to see the Labour party turn green. I am not sure that its members have not turned green with envy at the Government's environmental record and the fact that we have, through the success of our economic policies which have all owed vastly increased capital expenditure in the water and sewage industries, begun to undo the damage that the Labour party wrought when it was in office. I think that Labour Members may also be slightly sickly green as they contemplate the, albeit remote, possibility of their party returning to office. They must be understandably nervous about how they would begin to compete with, let alone match, our record.
  I assure Labour Members that that event will not occur; we will save them from first night nerves, because their first night will never come—the election victory will be ours, and we shall continue the excellent programme that we have carried out so far. Privatisation has accelerated the water industry's capital programmes, our environment cleaner day by day. A capital programme spending £500,000 a day for the next 10 years in Wales is ensuring that the Principality has a much better environment than ever before.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) spoke of our being green with envy and embarrassment. If there is a clash of interest between the Welsh water authority, for which he gave a great hymn of praise and the interests of his constituents in terms of the £200 poll tax being imposed on them, will he speak for Welsh Water or his people and the people of Wales as a whole? We deserve an answer to such questions.

  61
  I wholly agreed with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said about the smugness of the Government amendment. We do not perceive in that amendment the Government who are seen in Brussels as the dirty old man of Europe. We do not perceive in it the reductions in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and its low morale, evidenced by the number of resignations.
  I wholly concur with the spirit of the speech made by the hon. Member for Meirionnyd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). I congratulate him and fully accept what he said about the need for much greater research funding on pollution from the Welsh Office. I welcome the fact that we in Wales give much greater priority to pollution. When I first came on the political scene, the emphasis was on jobs at all costs. I saw that when Carbon Black polluted my constituency—jobs were then the high point of the agenda. I welcome the change, whether it be that Carbon Black no longer exists or the fact that people revolted against opencast mining, which their predecessors had been prepared to accept.
  I accept what the Secretary of State said about the improvements in Wales. That can be seen in the greening of our valleys post-Aberfan, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon, a former Secretary of State, said. We can also see that improvement in the greening of corners of our cities. I congratulate my own city council of Swansea on the tree planting programme that has so transformed the city. The lower Swansea valley was once the most concentrated area of industrial dereliction in the United Kingdom, but improvements have been made.
  However, who can doubt that, in many respects, the pollution is much worse? Most people are not worried about the great subjects of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect, but local issues. In Swansea, the issue under discussion is the Cwmrhdyceirw quarry already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), and the pollution in Swansea bay, mentioned in the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell).
  As a boy, I spent most of my summer bathing on the beach at Swansea bay, and used to collect cockles there with my family. Now, no one would dare eat them, even if they were to be found. On the only occasion last year when I ventured on to that beach from my house, which adjoins it. my throat was immediately affected, which is evidence of the bay's deterioration. We accept that Welsh Water and the Government have plans, largely thrust on them by the European Commission. Only one beach in Wales, Pembrey, has been given the European Community's blue flag, and we wish to know more about the timetable for the others.
  The Cwmrhydyceirw quarry poses an environmental nuisance, and I agree wholly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and his colleagues said in the Select Committee report, at paragraph 41. For reasons of time I will not go into the report in detail, but it is clear that Welsh Water expressed anxiety about its lack of powers in this area. It is also clear that the quarry has not been and is not being properly managed, and that the local authority has insufficient powers. I am glad that, under the Environmental Protection Bill, licences can be revoked or refused if the licensee is deemed not to be a fit and proper person. I also welcome potential regulations under the Bill
  62
  on the import of direct landfill substances. I hope that the Government will respond speedily when the Bill becomes an Act.
  It is bizarre that imported heat-treated dried sludge from Switzerland—not, I hasten to add for the benefit of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), from a third-world country—has been imported and sold to farmers as soil conditioner—at a time when sewage sludge from Mumbles is sprayed on land and when such sludge from other local works is dumped in the Bristol channel. Why the difference? Is it because of inadequate resources, or do we lack the technology that must be available in Switzerland?
  For most of our people, the environment means whatever has the most immediate impact on them. That puts me in mind of Dylan Thomas's "Return Journey" in which he said that in the first world war people talked about casualties at the front, but the only front that he knew was just in front of his house. The same applies to most of my constituents, who are not concerned with the rather grand subjects of the ozone layer, although they may be worried about Swansea bay. What concerns them more are areas such as Penlan, where motor cycle scrambling makes so much noise that it is hell for the residents. I hope that the Government will put a curb on some of these activities; certainly the police have not given enough priority to tackling this sort of nuisance.
  For many people in Portmead and Blaen-y-Maes the immediate environment is menaced most of all by stray dogs and horses. I ask the Government to accept the Lords amendment in respect of dog registration, because of the health hazards of dogs fouling the environment. Environmental health officers in my local authority do not know how many dogs there are or hence how to plan their resources or allocate money for wardens. Horses tend to congregate near schools because of the green areas nearby which provide cheap feed, but they are an immense danger to children: they can stampede, for instance. At present, the local authority can charge only for the bare cost of feed and for vets even when the horses are in a compound. The authority should be given penal powers to cover its full and real costs.
  I am delighted that we in Wales are giving environmental matters a higher place on the national agenda, and we shall help to keep them there. We shall press for the resources and equipment which we believe have not yet been fully forthcoming.
  6.34 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: That was the first I have heard about horse droppings from Swansea polluting the Irish sea.
  I must agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that the terminology of the Government amendment is nauseatingly self-congratulatory. I should have had the utmost difficulty supporting it had I not listened to the persuasive and reasoned speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in which he convincingly set out the steps that the Government are taking. There is still a long way to go, and I am anxious to see that they keep travelling down the same road.
  The Government claim—backing up that claim with statistics—that our rivers are among the cleanest in Europe. Anyone looking over the Terrace would find that

  63
  hard to believe, but the statistics prove it. Our rivers are a great deal cleaner than those that flow through most continental countries.
  Our beaches are a different story. It is not good enough to claim that we have no dirty beaches on the ground that we have no beaches at all. To refuse to classify beaches as bathing beaches because they are too filthy to bathe from is a dishonest way of evading our responsibility to clean up. I am sick of being told by one expert after another that Mediterranean beaches are filthy. I was unlucky enough to find myself in Benidorm at the end of August last year for one night. I bathed on the pocket hankerchief of a beach in spotless, crystal clear water. At Villefranche I was able to read the front page of a newspaper lying under four feet of water at the quayside—I doubt whether I could have done that at many of our beaches. We do not keep them clean and it is time that we did.
  Anyone alighting from the train at Colwyn bay will find a delightful innovation—a restaurant set up at the edge of the station and serving food of the highest quality. It has a fabulous view over the beach; at high tide the outlook is pleasing, but at low tide it is a good deal less so. One can see the short sea outfalls discharging at what is optimistically called the low water mark, which appears to be about 100 yd above the point to which the sea recedes at low tide. The beach is littered with supermarket trollies. For the life of me I cannot imagine why Britain does not adopt the practice of most continental countries and require a £1 coin to be deposited in the trolley, to be retrieved when it is returned. The beach, in any case, seems a favourite place for leaving them. There are other even less attractive things littering the beach, too.
  It will be difficult to persuade my constituents that long sea outfalls, even properly screened, are the answer. They may well be, but people will have to be persuaded that whatever goes out through them has been properly screened and treated.
  I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) said about full inland treatment. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I find it hard to argue against water authorities when they tell me that inland water treatment has its own serious drawbacks; it usually results in extensive leaching into the water courses nearby. If we went over to such treatment we might have cleaner beaches but even dirtier rivers, so we would not have made much progress.
  The costs of all this cleaning up have been bandied to and fro, as have the failures of the local authorities—a long time ago—and then of the nationalised water boards to take the necessary measures to clean up. Hon. Members who were in the House 10 or more years ago will have to acknowledge that the extreme unpopularity of the water rates featured in a great deal of the mail that we received. Rates were bad enough: water rates were regarded as intolerable. Regardless of party, we have a duty to make people aware that cleaning up the environment will be an expensive business.
  I am not enthusiastic about the privatisation of water, but, whether it is privatised or not, we do our electors a disservice if we encourage them to believe that, because of or despite privatisation, water has suddenly become expensive. The plain fact is that it will have to be expensive to pay the interest charges. Whether it competes with other
  64
  priorities in the Treasury or for money on the London money markets, water is going to cost us an awful lot of money and we must face up to that.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The debate has shown how well advised my party was in its choice of topic. I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to the spirit of this interesting and in parts well-informed and constructive debate because the subject is not partisan and was chosen in an effort to draw attention to major problems affecting our coasts. Many hon. Members have spoken about their constituencies, and such matters are also relevant to the debate.
  People are becoming increasingly concerned about the effects of pollution at sea. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Sir A. Meyer) and other hon. Members mentioned that. Public awareness is so high that people are rightly demanding action. In recent years the quality of our bathing water has deteriorated and the effects of pollution can be clearly seen. Sea discolouration is apparent along the north Wales coast and it is accompanied by a nauseating stench. There are also vast areas of rotting vegetation.
  Mr. Keith Mans: I agree that we have much to do to improve the quality of our beaches. However, what evidence has the hon. Gentleman to support the idea that the quality of our water has deteriorated over the past 10 or 15 years?
  Mr. Jones: I shall not go down that road now, except to say that the European Commission has prosecuted the United Kingdom over the quality of our bathing waters. The Government have had 10 years to solve the problem and have failed to do so. I shall return to that.
  The hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) need not worry about gatecrashing the debate; he made a valuable and constructive speech and I and my colleagues agreed with most of it. As he said, regular visitors see a deterioration in the environment. I shall try to deal with some of the problems that have been mentioned.
  A letter sent by Llandudno town council on 28 February 1989 to me, other hon. Members and Welsh local authorities galvanised many of us into doing something about the issue. The letter states:
  "The Llandudno Council is becoming increasingly concerned about the continual pollution of the North Wales Coastal Waters: the Irish Sea and Liverpool Bay.
  Despite concern and outrage prompted by the recent scientific reports, action has not been taken by the Government to prohibit, or even substantially reduce, the practice of dumping human and industrial waste into these waters.
  It is hoped that as many MPs as possible will be prompted to ask questions in Parliament and saturate discussion with this issue."
  We cannot say that we have saturated discussion with the issue, but at least we have had a debate about it and tried to respond constructively to concerns expressed by many people in our part of Wales.
  I have been in touch with most local authorities in north Wales about the issue and every one which has so far responded has expressed the same concern. The problems have been highlighted in the debate and I shall try to sum them up. The first problem is the raw sewage that is discharged into the sea and its effect on bathing amenities. Water turbidity causes problems in the Menai straits

  65
  because raw sewage is not diluted and dispersed as quickly as in other areas, where it is washed out to sea and does not come back for a long time.
  Hon. Members have mentioned sewage sludge. North West Water plc dumps 85,000 tonnes of sewage sludge into Liverpool bay every year, and there is evidence that such sludge contains unacceptably high levels of heavy metals which can have toxic effects on living organisms. Industrial wastes may contain mercury. Off Ynys Seiriol in my constituency, a cormorant was found to have died from a high concentration of mercury in the brain. Nitrates, phosphates and other chemicals are discharged into our rivers from the land and then reach the sea. Sunlight may react with those phosphates and nitrates to create algae on our beaches. Such matters worry our constituents, but they are not just local or minor matters; they affect both sides of the Irish sea and all countries in Britain. Such problems are not exclusive to Wales. I hope that the experience of people who live in all parts of the United Kingdom can be highlighted to galvanise the Government into further action.
  We acknowledge that the Government have responded to the North sea conference. However, that was a reaction to international concerns that were expressed by countries in the European Community. The Government are occasionally prepared to bow to international pressure, but they do not seem to be so ready to bow to pressure in the United Kingdom. That is why we have used the debate to introduce local issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) said, the Government could demonstrate their concern about pollution by agreeing to an intergovernmental conference at ministerial level on problems in the Irish sea. Because of the pressure resulting from such a conference, the Government would have to act much more quickly.
  No doubt the Welsh Office is aware of research by the north Wales marine study group which has conducted important surveys in recent years. It is worried about the effect of pollution on sea life. Its members have conducted underwater observations and have been able to highlight some of the problems. The Government amendment has enabled us to widen the debate and that has been to everyone's advantage. However, as hon. Members have said, the amendment is extremely complacent. It is not good enough to place responsibility for cleaning up pollution purely and simply on the shoulders of private industry. The issue is wider than that.
  I hope that Welsh Water and other water authorities, whether privatised or not, will spend money on cleaning up our beaches and on providing proper sewerage works. The matter cannot simply be left to private industry. Resources must be devoted to research which will show that work has to be undertaken. When that happens, the Government will have to face their responsibility and work alongside industry. The commitment is enormous and we have discussed a range of issues that require investment. My biggest charge against the Government—especially in terms of their amendment—is one of complacency. It seems to me that they are not prepared to work alongside private industry.
  The proliferation of marine algae has caused much local disquiet. We are not sure where it comes from or what causes it, but there should be an in-depth survey, and the Government should fund independent research. If that research shows—as many of us believe that it will—that we
  66
  still need to take action, I will then demand from the Government a commitment to play their part and provide resources to clean up our beaches, rivers and environment.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): This has been an interesting short debate, and I congratulate Plaid Cymru Members on tabling the motion: this is a subject that interests all hon. Members. Hon. Members who come from the country—as I do—will remember that 20 years ago trout could be seen swimming in roadside streams. Now, although the water may be clear, there are no trout swimming in it. I am pleased to see poppies growing on the roadside again: many hon. Members will remember when they could be seen in the corn, although that is bad farming. It is a joy to see colour in the countryside again, as it is to see some hedges.
  I am afraid that the debate has brought forward some of the old scare horses about the environment. I shall use this brief opportunity to knock some of them on the head, at least partially.
  The hon. Member for Ynys Môn, for instance, referred to mercury in Liverpool. Trace levels of mercury in sewage sludge licensed for sea dumping have fallen from less than 4.2 tonnes in 1976 to 1.1 tonnes in 1986. Mercury concentrates in Liverpool bay fish have fallen substantially, and are within international environmental quality standards.
  Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) used the debate to mount a small political attack. I thank him for his welcome of my return—although I did not appreciate his non-appreciation of my beard, of which Mr. Speaker seemed to think rather more highly. Nevertheless, he should know that Government policy is to allow the wastes about which he complained to be imported only for specialist treatment or incineration, and that transfrontier movement for direct landfill should be exceptional and take place only when permitted by the importing country.
  We believe that advanced industrialised countries—those belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—should deal with their own wastes, and that is the line that we are taking in international discussions. It is now Community policy that the Community as a whole should be self-sufficient, as should individual countries. Our intention is to reduce the volume of waste to the environmentally justified minimum.
  It is our clear intention that the volume of waste brought to this country—although small when compared with imports by other countries—should be reduced. To that end, enabling powers to prohibit or restrict waste imports are included in the Environmental Protection Bill. The powers are enabling because of the need to agree the detail in negotiations still under way in the EC and the OECD.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) spoke of the living conditions of some of his constituents. I came to know that area when I was a candidate in his constituency 20 years ago. I remember listening to a broadcast on Welsh radio about a year ago: a gentleman from Blaengwynfi was speaking about a visit from the then Secretary of State for Wales—my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). He said that my right hon. Friend had done more for the Afan

  67
  valley than any previous Secretary of State for Wales, including presumably his own constituency Member. When asked whether he would be supporting the Conservative party he replied, "Good heavens no, I'm a communist." That is the thanks we get, but never mind.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon also referred to the staffing of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. At present there are three HMIP officers in the Welsh Office, and another who is based in Cardiff and involved with air pollution. The HMIP office was created in 1987 and originally had 148 staff in post; it now has 211. It is recruiting hard. The complement has been raised to 250, and inspectors' salaries were increased by 20 per cent. last autumn. They are being kept under review, and we are recruiting actively. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fears are misplaced.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) referred to dolphins. It is known that persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls—PCBs—accumulate in the blubber of dolphins, and they were identified in the body of a young bottle-nosed dolphin found in 1988 in Cardigan bay. However, the general background level of pollutants in the Cardigan bay area was very low, with PCBs below detectable levels. Therefore, there is no obvious source of contaminants.
  The other day my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—announced a project to fund analytical work related to the post mortem of cetaceans. The project will run for one year, and the Welsh Office is contributing to the cost. Hon. Members will know that, at the third North sea conference this year, it was agreed to destroy PCBs by 1995 if possible, and definitely by 1999 at the latest.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North also referred to the Irish sea in general. In 1988, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas—a highly regarded international scientific body of the kind to which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn and others have referred, and which is concerned with all aspects of marine environment in the north Atlantic area—undertook a review of current knowledge of human influences in the Irish sea. His message was clear: it argued that, while there were localised pollution problems in the Irish sea, they were essentially minor, and the resulting problems short-lived. It described the claims of abnormal plankton blooms caused by human activity as unconfirmed or speculative, and said that it had no reason to suppose that observed fluctuations and change in plankton and zoo-plankton were anything but natural. Examination of seal carcases found that seals were accumulating heavy metals and other persistent contaminants, but not at levels likely to cause death.
  In what he referred to as a rather emotional speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) referred to a brownish slick which everyone has seen off Anglesey. There have been reports from local fishermen about this brownish discoloration. As we have heard tonight, it is alleged to have been caused by sewage sludge or by waste from the road construction project at Conwy—the remarkable tunnels for the A55.
  68
  An analysis commissioned by the agricultural department at the Welsh Office through MAFF's Caernarfon office ruled out sewage pollution. As for the road construction theory, no dumping has taken place within the past 12 months. The National Rivers Authority is exploring the possibility that the discolouration has been caused by an erosion of boulder clay during the exceptional winter storms, the clay having been kept in suspension. The results of the authority's investigations are awaited.
  The motion begins by deploring the dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge in the Irish sea. No industrial waste is dumped in the Irish sea, nor will any be dumped in any of the seas round Britain by 1992. Sewage sludge from north-west England is dumped in the Irish sea under MAFF licence, and that will end—as announced—by 1998. I should point out that assessments made by MAFF about the impact of dumping show that it has no implications for the ecosystem of the Irish sea.
  Many, if not all, hon. Members will have felt concern about the pumping of untreated sewage into our seas—more particularly when the outfall is close to the shore, but even when there is a long sea outfall. That is why last year the Government announced a £1.4 billion programme to improve our bathing waters, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced, on 5 March, a new additional programme costing £1.5 billion, whereby all sewage would be treated before being discharged to estuarial or coastal waters. Current measures involve the ending of sewage sludge dumping, and the treatment of all sewage discharged to sea. Some works, such as those at Lavernock—to which the hon. Member for Torfaen referred—will change, because of the change in design, from the proposed long sea outfall to one where sewage will in future be treated.
  We shall give priority to introducing treatment for bathing waters that fail the bathing water directive. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the remaining Welsh beaches at Llandudno west shore will comply with the directive by 1993, Rhyl and Kinmel bay by 1994 and the remaining Welsh beaches by 1995. That is an extraordinarily good change. The House will note the enormous sums being invested in cleaning up what we have inherited, and the new freedom that the establishment of the private water companies has given us. We are set for a clean environment under the Government.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 297.

  Division No. 285]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blunkett, David

  Allen, Graham

  Boyes, Roland

  Alton, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashton, Joe

  Carr, Michael

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clay, Bob

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beggs, Roy

  Cousins, Jim

  Beith, A. J.

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cryer, Bob

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  69

  Darling, Alistair

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  Madden, Max

  Dewar, Donald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dixon, Don

  Marek, Dr John

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Doran, Frank

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Meacher, Michael

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Michael, Alun

  Eastham, Ken

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fearn, Ronald

  Morley, Elliot

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Murphy, Paul

  Flannery, Martin

  Nellist, Dave

  Foster, Derek

  O'Brien, William

  Foulkes, George

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fyfe, Maria

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Parry, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Pike, Peter L.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Graham, Thomas

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Radice, Giles

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Redmond, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Reid, Dr John

  Hardy, Peter

  Richardson, Jo

  Haynes, Frank

  Robertson, George

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Rogers, Allan

  Henderson, Doug

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hoyle, Doug

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Illsley, Eric

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Janner, Greville

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Turner, Dennis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Vaz, Keith

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Wallace, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Lambie, David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Lamond, James

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Leighton, Ron

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Lewis, Terry

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Litherland, Robert

  Wilson, Brian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Worthington, Tony

  McAllion, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McCartney, Ian

  McFall, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McKelvey, William

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

  Maclennan, Robert

  Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Allason, Rupert

  Benyon, W.

  Amess, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Amos, Alan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Atkinson, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bowis, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Bendall, Vivian

  Brazier, Julian

  70

  Bright, Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

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

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hannam, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

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

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Burns, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butcher, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Chris

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butterfill, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hill, James

  Cash, William

  Hind, Kenneth

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chope, Christopher

  Holt, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irvine, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Cran, James

  Janman, Tim

  Critchley, Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Curry, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, James

  Dover, Den

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Tony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knowles, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Knox, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Favell, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Latham, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lilley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gale, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gill, Christopher

  Maclean, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Madel, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maples, John

  Gorst, John

  Marland, Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mates, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Grist, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ground, Patrick

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mellor, David

  Hague, William

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  71

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Squire, Robin

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Moate, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Steen, Anthony

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stern, Michael

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Needham, Richard

  Stokes, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thorne, Neil

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pawsey, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tracey, Richard

  Portillo, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trippier, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Redwood, John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Walden, George

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Riddick, Graham

  Waller, Gary

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rost, Peter

  Watts, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilshire, David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Wood, Timothy

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shersby, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sims, Roger

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Speller, Tony

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the major programme of investment to be undertaken by the privatised water companies to improve the quality of water and the comprehensive measures outlined in the Environmental Protection Bill; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the positive lead it is giving in areas of environmental concern; and looks forward to the publication of the Government's White Paper on the Environment later this year.

  Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time)
  7.12 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott: I beg to move,
  That the Order of the House [28th March] be supplemented as follows:—

  Lords Amendments
  1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 28th March, those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.
  2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  73

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
  The motion provides for a total of three hours debate both on the motion itself and on Lords amendments to the Bill. I do not intend to detain the House overlong, as I hope that there will be general agreement that we should move quickly to debating the important issues before us.
  I make no apology for asking the House to agree that we should limit the debate on our consideration of these matters to three hours. The House will know that we do not introduce such motions lightly. I am especially mindful of the passionate speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in the debate on the original timetable motion moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House on Report on 28 March.
  The House will expect me clearly to set out why we are taking this further step. The motion is being introduced in the knowledge that the Bill is not an especially sizeable piece of Government legislation—it has only 23 clauses and seven schedules. Nevertheless, it has had a great deal of time devoted to it—I believe, its fair share of time—both here and in another place. To date, it has had 50 hours of debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and a further 30 hours in another place. Much of that time has been well spent as it has provided opportunities for amendments to the original Bill that have been widely welcomed, especially those on the pensions provisions and on the clause dealing with income support in residential homes. We have responded to debate and consultation both here and elsewhere and we have made important changes. There will be further evidence tonight of the Government's willingness to listen to Parliament.
  The Bill has had a good run and the timetable motion is being introduced in the knowledge that only a limited amount of business remains. I have no doubt that the House will wish to spend some time debating benefit entitlement for students and, perhaps, the scheme for the recovery of benefit from tort damage awards. However,
  74
  the bulk of the remaining amendments made to the Bill by another place are minor and technical and should not long detain us.
  I emphasise that it is important for social security issues to be debated regularly and fully in Parliament. The contributions made during debates are almost invariably thoughtful and sincere, although I would not suggest for one moment that it always provides a comfortable time for Ministers or that the Government agree with everything that is said. However, it is important to remember both the limited time that we have available for the business tonight and the fact that there will be other formal occasions on which such debates will arise—for example, those that arise from the annual uprating statement and the associated orders.
  I very much hope that the sensible motion for the timetabling of the business is acceptable to the House.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: In an understandably and desirably short introduction, the Minister referred to minor and technical changes and suggested that the remaining business could be dealt with easily within the proposed three hours. I want to set out the Opposition's reasons for believing that such a timetable is pitifully and unreasonably short.
  As hon. Members are only too well aware, the Government have already guillotined the Bill's proceedings. Since then, at least four highly significant changes have been made in another place. In particular, an issue is now developing that could blow up into a serious constitutional argument between this House and another place, especially in the wake of the War Crimes Bill. I am referring to the rights of students, especially postgraduates, to retain entitlement to housing benefit unless adequate alternative compensation is made. As I shall show, that is not being provided for in the Government's proposals. The issue incenses not only the Opposition, but widespread, independent and informed opinion outside this place. It has united 21 full-time academics and 12 university vice-chancellors in another place—mostly on the Cross-Benches—in opposition to the Government. Above all, it is a vital issue affecting the basic interests of hundreds of thousands of students, yet it has never been debated in this place.
  We are now being allotted a mere three hours to debate not only the timetable motion, but the 20 Lords amendments that the Government are seeking either to amend or to overturn, plus other Lords amendments. That is the same abuse of the principles of parliamentary debate as Lord Justice Purchas complained of so bitterly last week, when he excoriated the Government for what he called wholesale and unregulated powers taken by the Secretary of State over the administration of the social fund. In his judgment, he assumed that Homer nodded—in other words, that Parliament had been asleep. In fact, we were not asleep; we were simply overriden by the juggernaut of the Government's guillotine. I advise the judge—or, indeed, any other judge—that on this occasion Homer is not nodding. We are protesting with the greatest vigour at our disposal about what we might call the laughable—if it were not so objectionable—truncating of the time for debate of what is fast becoming a significant constitutional issue.

  75
  It is not only the manifest and blatant injustice of withdrawing the entitlement of students to housing benefit that is being squeezed into a three-hour debate; there is also the significant losses being inflicted on disabled people and the nasty little issue of the Government's proposal to deduct social security benefits from the Motor Insurers Bureau's compensation payments. That is on top of the Government's action in deducting social security benefits from compensation payments for industrial injury, so that the injured worker ends up with very little—and nothing for his pain and suffering. That matter also needs adequate time for debate.
  In addition, there are the Government's highly objectionable proposals to restrict entitlement in cases of error. The McKiernon judgment laid down that the rule that limited claims to five years from the time of the industrial injury was ultra vires. The Government are now advancing the constitutionally dubious doctrine that what was ruled to be illegal shall be made retroactively legal. Furthermore, the Government are introducing a new doctrine on the backdating of claims. They propose that a successful claim shall be backdated only to the date of the commissioner's decision rather than to the actual date of the claim itself. In other words, if the Department of Social Security gets the law wrong, the new law will deem that it got it right up to the point that it was told of its error. That is manifest nonsense. Those matters, too, urgently require adequate time for debate.
  There are two other aspects that are new to the Bill since it left this House. One concerns the real danger of eviction of elderly people from residential and nursing homes as a consequence of what is still a major shortfall in income support, even after the Secretary of State's concession. The other is the £10 disregard for lone parents, to give them an incentive to claim maintenance from the absent parent. A whole range of other issues arise in the 20 Lords amendments. One is equal pensionable ages for men and women in respect of money purchase schemes. That is a major issue, if ever there was one, but we may not even have time to debate it tonight.
  Other matters clearly require further and proper debate, but that will be denied by the guillotine. It will preclude discussion of the many outstanding social security issues, such as the continued freezing of child benefit, and abuse of natural rights under the social fund—which is regularly the subject of judicial attack. There is also the removal of all benefit rights from 16 and 17-year-olds, and the worsening plight of homeless families. To restrict debate on all the Lords amendments to only three hours makes a mockery of the principle of adequate parliamentary debate. To do so when one group of those amendments has huge financial implications strikes at the heart of our further and higher education system, and has never previously been debated in this House is, by any standards, an outrage.
  I cannot believe that every Conservative Member denies that we are justified in rejecting the guillotine with a vote. Our only reason for not doing so is that we do not intend to collude with the Government in restricting even further the time available for debate. It is wrong and unprincipled to confine debate on 20 Lords amendments to three hours. Having made our position clear, we intend
  76
  to concentrate debating time and the maximum number of votes on the subject of those amendments, to which we are so strongly opposed.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: This is another preposterous motion to guillotine debate on issues of enormous importance to people who crave our help and concern for problems that most right hon. and hon. Members have never had to face. The problems of disabled students, to which several of the Lords amendments refer, alone merit a three-hour debate in this House.
  There need be no speculation about the effect of the Government's motion. It will make impossible any debate on many of the amendments and that alone is a parliamentary outrage, yet even the amendments that will be dealt with must be debated with insulting brevity in what remains of the three hours the Government are allowing for debate on the motion and the amendments as a whole. It is put to me by one severely disabled person that even some of the most dictatorial regimes across the world allow more consideration of disputes over social policy than this House will be permitted by the motion before us.
  The more we try to do justice to any particular amendment this evening, the less time we shall have to debate others. That happened when our debates on Report and Third Reading on the Bill were guillotined and I want to describe briefly just one of the consequences. We had no time then—just as we shall have no opportunity this evening, despite the summary dispatch of other issues—even to discuss a provision the Government inserted into the Bill that will cheat of disablement benefit a huge number of people who have been deafened by their work or who suffer from industrial asthma.
  In the case of my constituent Mr. Frank McKiernon, now aged 74 and a victim of occupational deafness, it was unanimously held by the Court of Appeal that the Government acted illegally in denying him disablement benefit. They were also refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The Government's reaction to the referee's decision was not one of apology but of defiance. Having been given the red card, as it were, they resolved to sit it out on the pitch and then to use force majeure to change the rule book.
  The Government decided, without giving their intentions any publicity, to use this Social Security Bill to reverse Mr. McKiernon's legal victory in the Court of Appeal. The guillotining of our consideration of the Bill had helped the Government both to avoid publicity for a tactic that is bitterly resented by the disabled people affected and to duck the debate that there ought to have been, or should be now, in this House.
  The Government will save more than £100 million by their action, while countless thousands of deaf people and victims of industrial asthma will have the right given to them by the Court of Appeal taken away. Warm praise is due to Peter Rosenfeld of Wythenshawe citizens advice bureau for his work on Mr. McKiernon's case. My constituent's legal adviser, Richard Poynter, to whom great credit must also go for his handling of the case, says in a scorching criticism of the Government:
  "For the DSS to change the law retrospectively in order to cheat a disabled old age pensioner of his court victory is an act of petty spite. Once again, the Department is putting itself above the law by changing the rules to suit itself after the

  77
  event rather than obey them while they are in force. Its vindictive action against Mr. McKiernon shows the Government's contempt for the rule of law."
  That is a grave charge against the Government, one that merits vigorous debate, but there will be no opportunity even to express a view.
  By their guillotine, the Government have succeeded in enacting the most odious kind of retrospective legislation, of which Lord Boyd-Carpenter, from the Conservative Benches in another place, described as "oppressive" and which everyone else who knows what is happening condemns as a shocking abuse of power.
  It would be a stain on the reputation of this House for the Government to go unchallenged. Nothing more clearly shows the harm that has been done already by guillotining our consideration of the Bill and the authoritarian nature of the Governnent's further curtailment of parliamentary scrutiny of its provisions.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wholly applaud the attitude taken by the official Opposition in forgoing an extensive debate on the guillotine motion, so that we can spend the valuable time remaining considering the substantive issues that are before us.
  I accept that Government need to resort to a guillotine in Committee and put their proposals to the House when a Bill is first presented. Sometimes, Opposition parties collectively decide to use time as a weapon. If I were the Government, in such cases I would reluctantly resort to the guillotine—but this evening we face a very different situation. The membership of the House of Lords includes many people of high standing and of considerable expertise in particular areas. That is particularly true of their knowledge of the academic world, and many of the amendments before us have a direct bearing on our educational system and the way that students are financed. For this House to skate over decisions taken by the other place, after full consideration, is wrong and is in a completely different category from the guillotines to which Governments resort when a Bill is being considered in Committee.
  I have never been behind the curtain of secrecy in any Government Department. The Minister may say that I am the better for that. Perhaps it will never happen but I live in hope. However, the Minister's Department has the benefit of social security Bills each year. This issue will not be left to languish for three or four years. We cannot anticipate what will be in the next Queen's Speech, but unless something unusual happen the Department knows that there will be an opportunity in the next Session to address these important issues within a more appropriate time scale. The Department therefore has no excuse for rushing through these provisions, which will result in ill-digested legislation.
  I do not know what power Ministers have over the authorities of the House and the Leader of the House. However, social security matters are getting slightly out of hand. The courts of the land, as well as Opposition Members, are now saying with monotonous regularity that the means by which we are implementing technical changes to a very technical social security system is not good enough. The Government's ill-digested legislation
  78
  will lead to future problems. They will have to introduce yet more guillotines if they want future social security Bills to reach the statute book. Conservative Members should also be worried; their constituents will suffer from the effects of ill-digested legislation.
  This is an issue of the House of Commons. Whatever view I may take of the contents of the Bill, the House is right to object strongly and loudly at its treatment. If we do not object, what will happen? The trend will get worse. I do not know whether it is the Department or the Leader of the House who keeps saying, "Don't worry; we'll slip this through in three hours. We did it last year and we got away with it; we had only a few court cases to clear up as a result. We've got to get our timetable through, so don't worry about that." It is a scandalous way to deal with legislation. If hon. Members did not take the opportunity to say so at this stage, it would be a great disgrace, and we should be doing a great disservice to the House of Commons.
  7.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I shall be brief, in the interests of allowing hon. Members to debate the important amendments that have come to us from another place. However, I must repeat what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said at the beginning: timetable motions are not tabled lightly. The motion, however, provides us with sufficient time to consider the amendments.
  The Bill has been given a fair amount of parliamentary time, both here and in another place. It will lead to changes in social security benefits for the disabled and provide greater protection for members of occupational pension schemes. The Bill includes interim measures to help lone parent families to obtain maintenance. It also makes changes to the law relating to income support and various other benefits, including national insurance contributions.
  It is a short Bill; it contains 23 clauses and seven schedules. Eighty hours of debate have already been devoted to it. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to a number of social security matters, as well as to the Lords amendments. I remind him that we are debating not the Bill as a whole but the Lords amendments. He referred to the McKiernon case, as did the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I remind them that Mr. McKiernon was granted an award last week, including substantial arrears.
  There will be an opportunity for the House to debate a number of the detailed issues raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, who, I know, has a particular interest in disabled students. As long as we make progress, we shall have time adequately to consider the Lords amendments. I do not apologise for the number of Government amendments that have been brought here from the Lords for consideration. The vast majority are minor, technical changes. The House understands the complexity of the law, notably the law relating to pensions. I repeat thal we regret having to introduce a timetable motion. However, it is important for the smooth conduct of both the remaining stages of the Bill and parliamentary business as a whole. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Lords amendment: No. 1, after Clause 2 insert the following new Clause—
  Income support: disabled students
  " . The following paragraph is inserted at the end of paragraph (c) of section 20(3) of the 1986 Act—
  "(cc) he is a disabled person and he is participating in a course of higher education and he fulfills the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection;"."
  7.34 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and the Government motions to disagree with those Lords amendments.
  Mr. Scott: I ought to explain that, when Mr. Speaker's original selection list was issued, Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were to be considered alongside Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. As a result of discussions through the usual channels, it was agreed that it would be more convenient if we split consideration of the amendments.
  This group of amendments brings us to the issue of students' entitlement to social security benefits. Wearing my hat as Minister for Disabled People, I initially approached Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 3 with some sympathy. They relate to the position of disabled students and how we propose to define and indentify those who will remain eligible for income support and housing benefit. Despite my sympathy, however, I intend to explain why I believe that the amendments should not remain on the face of the Bill. May I also explain briefly why we have taken the unusual step of making proof copies of the social Security Advisory Committee report on the draft student loan amendment regulations available to the House before the regulations are laid.
  You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there has been a good deal of speculation in the press about the content of the committee's report, much of it wide of the mark. There were also a number of references to the report during the debates in another place. In these circumstances, and in view of the interest that hon. Members have already demonstrated in the subject, we thought that it would be helpful and to put proof copies of the SSAC's report in the Library and to make copies available in the Vote office in order to ensure that the House was as fully informed as possible before today's debate. It would, of course, have been inappropriate for the Government to lay the regulations before the House had taken a view on amendments that would affect the scope of the regulations. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree that this unusual step was sensible and helpful.
  The amendments seek to introduce a definition of a disabled student, based on the criteria used for the local authority register of disability. I have already said that I
  80
  have some sympathy with the intentions underlying the amendments. However, they are seriously defective and I shall seek the House's agreement to overturn them. Rather than quibbling about the precise technical drafting of the amendments, I shall confine my comments to the intention that lies behind them, which I understand.
  I am certainly aware of the concerns expressed by hon. Members and their Lordships about the position of certain disabled students under the new arrangements for student support, which will take effect from the next academic year. We, too, recognise the special circumstances of students in vulnerable groups, including the disabled. We have always intended to preserve their entitlement to housing benefit and income support. Our views have differed only in defining what we mean by a disabled student for the purposes of benefit entitlement.
  Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained what our original proposals were and our reasons for putting them forward. The draft regulations that were referred to the SSAC in February provided for the continuation of income support and housing benefit entitlement for those students who meet the criteria for the disability premium and, additionally, any student who had previously met the definition of a disabled student under existing income support regulations.
  In practice, we expect most—if not all—students who have met that income support definition to meet the new one. However, because the old definition is based on the decision of an adjudication officer, it could not be imported into the housing benefit system. The housing benefit scheme operates without adjudication officers and it was therefore important to establish clear and straightforward qualifying conditions which it would be easy for local authorities to apply efficiently.
  The criteria for the disability premium are based on the receipt of one or more of the disability benefits, long-term incapacity for work or registered blindness. These criteria are now well established in the income-related benefits and are being successfully applied both by local authorities and by local Department of Social Security offices. We felt that the criteria would cover a sufficiently broad spectrum of disability to pick up those students who face significant extra living costs because of their disability. Moreover, they could be clearly expressed in regulations and would be familiar both to claimants and to those administering the schemes. The House will have noted from the copies of the report that have been placed in the Library that the Social Security Advisory Committee also believed the definition to offer a reasonable and practicable yardstick.
  The existence of the premium structure in the income-related benefits recognises the fact that certain groups of people face additional financial burdens. The disability premium is no different in that respect. However, I should stress that neither the disability premium nor disability benefits generally are intended to cater for the special educational needs of students with disabilities. In our proposed definition we therefore sought to identify students who face additional daily living costs that were not necessarily consequent on their attendance at a course of education.
  I am sure that hon. Members who have studied these affairs will not need reminding that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has substantially enhanced the financial assistance available

  81
  through the disabled students allowance. Those improvements will provide a good deal of support for disabled students to help them with their particular educational needs.
  A number of debates have now taken place on disabled students—during our proceedings on this Bill and during the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. In those debates the position of deaf students was of particular concern. Indeed, their Lordships' debate on the amendments before us focused almost entirely on those students, although the amendments would go substantially wider.
  In one respect, however, I believe that the criteria suggested by the amendments would not go far enough towards meeting their Lordships' wishes. It would not be possible to identify deaf students in Scotland. Registration with the local authority of the kind operated in England and Wales does not exist north of the border, and there is no register of any sort for the deaf. It would therefore be impossible under those amendments for housing benefit officers and DSS administrators to identify the group at issue.
  We have considered carefully the concerns expressed in both Houses and those voiced by organisations representing deaf people. As a result, I am pleased to report to the House that we propose to consult the local authority associations on draft regulations which will preserve the income support and housing benefit entitlement of students who are entitled to a disabled students allowance by reason of deafness. Incidentally, under these arrangements we would include any student who has such an additional requirement indicated on his notice of award, even if, because of the means of testing of the disabled students allowance, the student was not actually entitled to payment of that allowance.
  That criterion will be additional to those that we have already proposed, and we will aim to have it in place for the start of the next academic year, subject to the consultation with the local authority associations. To allow adequate time for the consultation, I propose to lay the necessary regulations, which will be subject to the negative procedure, after the main body of regulations.
  We believe that an extension of the present proposed arrangements to include deaf students who are entitled to a disabled students allowance recognises the needs and concerns expressed in this Chamber and elsewhere. In view of the Government's willingness to meet the concerns voiced on behalf of deaf students, and bearing in mind the defective nature of the amendments, I urge the House to reject them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to inform the House that Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 both involve privilege.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Time for this debate is now so strictly rationed that I must necessarily deal only very briefly with these important amendments. In doing so, I note that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), which would have had our support, has not been selected for debate.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and me, the hon. Gentleman is a trustee of the fund that Lord Snowdon so generously founded to help meet the costs incurred by students with disabilities for which there is no statutory
  82
  provision. Work with that important fund strongly emphasises the truth that all such students by definition—and not least those who are deaf—have problems over and above those experienced by the generality of students. That is why I warmly welcomed the Lords amendments when they were accepted in the other place.
  The Government oppose the Lords amendments in the terms in which they are drafted. In the case of the Minister for Disabled People, I am sure that he does so with some serious and sincere misgivings. The Minister has clearly lost at least part of a battle with the Treasury, and my purpose this evening is to make our contribution to ensuring that the overwhelming public support for the Lords amendments is properly reflected in this House.
  7.45 pm
  I sometimes have the feeling that, if the Lords were to dare even to amend factual or spelling errors in their legislation, Social Security Ministers would now be made to move,
  "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment."
  In supporting the Lords amendments, we on the Opposition Benches are concerned to correct now the unacceptable effects of the Bill as it left this House and to vouchsafe to all students who are disabled the retention of their entitlements to housing benefit and income support.
  The Government have recently stated that deaf students are among those least likely to incur extra weekly costs because of their disabilities and, therefore, that they should not continue to receive such help. That is not true. By design, housing benefit and income support are not intended to cover additional costs. They are income maintenance benefits and, in fact, the Government failed in the other place to respond to a direct challenge made to them by Lady Darcy de Knayth on this point.
  The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has shown that, unlike other students, those who are deaf cannot top up their maintenance grants with earned income. They have to spend longer on their studies due to communication difficulties and, even if part-time or casual work in vacations or in the evenings is not an impractical option for them, they are seen by many employers as "difficult" employees. That is because they often have to rely on lip-speaking or sign language interpreters for effective communication. The Minister for Disabled People knows all this as well as I do, just as he knows that, by its very nature, part-time and casual work for students—which is often waitressing, bar or reception work—is not always suitable for deaf people.
  There is much statistical evidence that deaf people not only find it harder to obtain jobs but are, on average, paid less than people who can hear. In that regard, deaf students face problems similar to those faced by other disabled students whose vulnerability is already identified. They are undoubtedly much more likely to be unemployed or underemployed than able-bodied people with the same qualifications. There is, of course, no shortage of able-bodied students looking for part-time or casual work. That is just one of the difficulties in which students with disabilities find themselves today.
  From many recent case studies undertaken by the RNID, I want to cite just one to illustrate the way in which deaf students, through no fault of their own, can be worse off than their peers. A deaf student at London university

  83
  had numerous applications for part-time and casual work rejected. At long last, her persistence was rewarded by the offer of a job handing out magazines at tube stations in the mornings. But she was unable to keep the job, as it involved phoning in each morning at 5 am to confirm that she was coming and to receive details of the station at which she would be required to work that day.
  In a letter to Lord Henderson of Brompton dated 17 May, Baroness Blatch for the Government referred to the problem of providing straightforward criteria
  "which can be clearly expressed in regulations and readily understood by those who administer the benefits and, indeed, by those who might claim them."
  But that is not a problem as far as deaf students are concerned.
  The Minister said that he will now be consulting local authorities about definition, but is it not already solved? The clinically accepted levels at which people are judged to have a significant hearing loss can be used. Those levels, approved by the British Society of Audiology, were initiated by the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf. Their use would be a straightforward basis for assessing entitlement to the retention of existing benefits. All hearing-impaired students who can benefit from hearing aids must have regular audiograms and the proof that they offer could be simply understood by those administering benefits. I hope that the Minister will accept that the RNID, in its briefing for this debate, has already provided the way forward in solving the difficulties about definition to which he referred.
  In supporting the Lords amendments, we are not asking for deaf students now to have their educational needs subsidised by social security payments. On the contrary, we are saying that deaf students should not have to use for other purposes the money given to them for essential communication support and equipment in the course of their studies. Before the introduction of the new allowances, deaf students often had to use their maintenance grants to provide educational support. Unless they all retain existing benefits, as I hope will now very soon be confirmed, further to the Minister's welcome statement, the opposite will happen and they will be left in financial hardship.
  In a letter that I received today, Lord Renwick states that the Dyslexia Educational Trust is trying to make a similar case on behalf of dyslexics. I am sure that there are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who will want to help if parliamentary opportunities occur to argue the trust's claims. Nothing in all my years in this place gave me more pleasure than to legislate on the educational needs of dyslexics in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The Minister clearly does not intend to help them now. Sadly, he said nothing that took account of the claim of the Dyslexia Educational Trust for very urgent consideration of the needs of dyslexic students.
  I should like the Government to think very carefully again about definition. In the case of students who are deaf, we are discussing perhaps no more than 300 whose problems are already daunting enough without adding to those of any one of them by rejecting the Lords amendments. The cost of helping them all is minuscule. In his statement the Minister said nothing about the anticipated cost, but it is clearly very small. He knows as well as I do that disabled students passionately want to succeed, by their studies, in exchanging dependence on social security for the independence of having a job and
  84
  becoming a taxpayer. It would be wrong to mock their brave efforts by rejecting the opportunity to help all of them given to us by the Lords amendments
  If the Government refuse to listen to those who support the Lords in their amendments, I hope that the other place will stand by them if they are not satisfied with the response that we are given.
  Mr. John Hannam: I very much welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People about deaf students. I have been very concerned that the Government were taking the wrong path in seeking to exclude deaf and dyslexic students from entitlement to income support and housing benefit. We had been given repeated assurances at meetings of the all-party disablement group and on the Floor of the House that disabled students would retain entitlement to social security benefits.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) gave that assurance during the Committee stage of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. In a letter on 15 January to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, he stated:
  "I do not believe that the loans scheme will penalise deaf students or those with disabilities. On the contrary, the terms of the scheme—retention of benefit entitlement—are designed with their needs very much in mind."
  There was no question of only some disabled students getting the benefit and it was therefore a bit of a surprise and a disappointment to find a different definition of disability introduced in the draft regulations. That definition would have excluded deaf students while entitlement to the disabled students allowance, which the Government have generously increased and extended, included all those disabilities that cause extra costs and earnings problems for students.
  The argument put forward to me in a parliamentary answer on 7 March was that deaf students are unlikely
  "to have additional weekly living expenses because of their disability … that income support and housing benefit are intended to meet."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168; c. 681.]
  I am pleased that that argument has now been overturned because it was completely illogical to say that those benefits are not and never have been designed to meet extra disability costs. They are, of course, income maintenance benefits.
  As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, much of the casual and part-time work for students is in restaurants, bars and in reception work in hotels. Those are not usually suitable jobs for deaf people or dyslexic students. Those students take much longer to study at college or university and they must work extra hours catching up on their notes for their lectures and tutorials. They do not have the opportunity to work part-time, even if jobs were suitable for them.
  I understand the definition problems that certainly confronted my right hon. Friend the Minister and which benefit officers might face in identifying those groups with learning difficulties. That is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) tabled an amendment which was not selected. It was drawn up in conjunction with organisations representing deaf and dyslexic students and it was a genuine attempt to provide some criteria that would be useful for the assessment by benefit officers.

  85
  The question of cost should not really enter this matter. We are talking of only about 300 deaf students and probably a similar number of dyslexic students. No one in this House would want those deserving participants in higher education to be placed in an invidious position.
  When talking about numbers, it bothers me that little accurate information is available about the number of disabled students in higher education. I hope that, in future, a much more detailed attempt will be made by the Department of Education and Science and my right hon. and hon. Friends to examine that matter and carefully to monitor the effect of any of the changes on the number of disabled students. I sincerely hope that we shall not see a reduction in the number of disabled university students.
  Notwithstanding the very welcome concession by my right hon. Friend, I hope that we shall not forget dyslexic students and others with learning difficulties. I am sure that that matter will come back into focus. I hope that we shall look at their position again. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has always been most helpful in considering the problem of deaf students. His announcement will certainly be wholeheartedly welcomed by people concerned with deaf students. I congratulate him and I shall be happy to support him in the Lobby tonight.
  8 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wholeheartedly support the pleas that were made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and the amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Exeter and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). I had hoped that hon. Members would have a chance to discuss that amendment in detail, but we cannot do so because it has not been selected. We can do nothing about it.
  I hope that the Minister will say more about the consultations that the Government have announced. He is right that there is no register of deaf students in Scotland. If there are to be such consultations, I hope that the system north of the border will get the benefit of any agreements or changes that flow from the consultations. I should be obliged if the Minister would say a word about that matter and reassure me. I agree with the hon. Member for Exeter on the need to monitor the position. If the Government are minded not to heed what has been said in this House and in the other place and intend to stick to their guns with this proposal, I hope that we shall get an assurance that there will be careful monitoring in the coming months and years to make sure that the number of students does not drop as a result of additional financial difficulties.
  The Government have made no case in this argument, which is essentially about administrative convenience. I do not underestimate that; I do not wish to make light of the difficulties. However, the amendment to which I referred is a good attempt to try to categorise in clear, definable and understandable terms to those who follow these things, the extension of the definition of students with disabilities. It is difficult to balance that against the individual needs of students. The amendment, the discussions and the suggestions that we have heard are perfectly reasonable, sensible and workable ways in which to proceed.
  If hon. Members stick to the proposal as it stands and disagree with the Lords amendments, we shall have a
  86
  system that is administratively more convenient and easier to oversee, but it is inevitable that individuals will lose out substantially because their circumstances are not properly addressed by the broad brush approach that the Government are taking.
  I agree with everything that hon. Members have said, and I hope that the Government will take account of it. The number of students about whom we are talking cannot possibly mean that the amount of money and resources to be deployed are an issue. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the arguments that have been put so logically and lucidly.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I was very happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in backing the amendment. I too was sorry that the amendment was not selected, because it has a number of possibilities for debate and would have been helpful in the theatre of disabled students. However, the point that we are able to debate is the excellent proposal that was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister, which will assist deaf students.
  I must at once declare several interests. My first interest, apart from those who are profoundly deaf, is that I sincerely hope and believe that, in the foreseeable future, which should be very soon, deafness will not be considered a handicap any more than short sight, which can be fully corrected by spectacles, is considered a handicap. We have a large gulf between the situation today and that perfect position that I outlined. That gulf, I hope, is being bridged by new provisions of hearing aids.
  The correct hearing aids exist, but people are simply not getting them. That is due to large defects in the system, which I have outlined to the House before and I shall not go into it again, but I do not mean to stop pressing that cause. We should be able to obtain hearing aids on the high street, just as readily as we can obtain spectacles. A surgeon wrote to me in horror, asking:
  "Miss Nicholson, how could you be proposing this? Do you wish us to end up like the United States of America, where people can buy hearing aids in the supermarket?"
  I most certainly do, because easy access to appropriate hearing aids means that most deaf people will not have to be considered handicapped. Once one has a proper hearing aid or proper spectacles, one is not handicapped.
  I do not for a moment turn aside from the enormous and permanent difficulties that the profoundly deaf will always face. Even if, perhaps, that a large proportion of people who are partially hearing—or course, that includes those with a decibel loss above 45 decibels—have the correct hearing aids, they will need additional aids also. If we identify the need for income support and for housing benefits, additional money is required, because, to wake up in the morning, they need a different alarm clock. One may need something unique and special under one's pillow to bump one awake. One may need help with one's doorbell or telephone.
  The great problem with being a student—I recall it so well from my time in the Royal Academy of Music—is that one never has any money. To get additional helps and aids, one must find the money somewhere. The rest of the world may not be able to supply them. How excellent it is that this new proposal will give the funds to provide additional aids for students.
  As other hon. Members have already mentioned, the great problem is finding employment. As we all know, finding employment for the disabled is excruciatingly

  87
  difficult throughtout their entire would-be working lives. I say "would-be working lives" because, when students stop studying and seek work, whether they are leaving school, higher education, college or university, they have four or five times the difficulty of able-bodied students with no handicap. That is why it is so difficult for deaf students and many other disabled students to find work. It is really tough for them to try to earn their living during vacations, even though people with some form of deafness are marvellous employees, just as any other student is a good employee. Society's bias against disabled students, rather than the students themselves, is at fault.
  Is it not true that one cannot look upon a human being as someone who is disabled? One sees a human being who has one or more than one motor function that is functioning at a lesser level than that of other people's, and that is all there is to disability.
  We need money for disabled students who have a degree of deafness, in particular until proper hearing aids are readily available on the high street to people who need them. We shall always need additional help for deaf students because of their great difficulties in finding employment until employers throughout the British Isles are prepared to set aside their biases, use the grants that the Government have put forward for adapting their workplaces, and make employment more generally available.
  The difficulties of definition have already been referred to. It has been suggested that graphs of hearing loss might be available to authorities, which could then decide who was aurally disabled. The great problem is that only a tiny fraction of those who need hearing aids obtain them. That means that only a fraction of those who need aid will receive a grant. Therefore, I beg my right hon. Friends and anybody else who is concerned about this matter to concentrate hard on considering how on earth we can get those readily available gadgets to everybody who needs them. All who need such aids would then have the appropriate graphs, which would be relatively easy to study and to define.
  I do not believe for a moment that we are talking about 300 students—because there is such a pool of undefined hearing loss, we are talking about many more. The pity is that, if they do not catch what is going on, some of our brightest people may under-achieve. Deaf students, deaf youngsters and deaf older people significantly under-achieve, which is why we must think hard about this whole area.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People most sincerely. I thank also the chairman of the all-party disablement group, the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for his unremitting work at all times for all categories of disabled people. He is a most remarkable colleague.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: It is difficult for me to speak now, because I appreciated that compliment from the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), but I do not agree with some of her points. She is well-meaning and does a great deal for deaf people, but when she speaks about hearing aids being available in the high street, I must warn the House that we do not want deaf people to have to pay the price of private hearing aids. We want good hearing aids
  88
  to be provided free of charge all the time to all deaf people. I am worried by the idea of hearing aids on sale in the high street. I know that the hon. Lady is seeking to help, and I admire her aims, but the private hearing aid industry must not be allowed to make a profit out of deaf people.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People are present. I give them clear notice that many deaf people would object violently to any incursion into the provison of free hearing aids. I am sure that they will accept and understand that point.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West said that deafness should not be regarded as a serious handicap. Again, I appreciate her intentions, but the fact is that deafness is a grave and serious handicap, and it must be recognised as such. It is a devastating disability. Although it is true that a hearing aid can correct a slight hearing impairment and that those who are hard of hearing can be helped, a hearing aid is not a magic wand that can restore full facility to all deaf people.
  I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that there are many people who, like myself, are totally and irreversibly deaf and who have no hearing at all. I cannot even hear my own voice. No hearing aid can help me. Many other people like me cannot be helped by hearing aids, either. It is therefore wrong to imply that deafness is not a serious handicap; it is a grave and serious handicap. Even those who are hard of hearing find that that is a difficult handicap. I warn the House and the hon. Lady that deaf people must not be discriminated against because they can deal with and handle their handicap. I think that that is the thrust of what the hon. Lady meant.
  8.15 pm
  I had prepared a speech, but I do not have the time to deliver it now, because I have taken up too much time on that problem. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for what he has said this evening. I welcome the concession that the Government have made, because it is important for deaf and disabled people.
  I should like to put on the record a disturbing figure that is a reason for helping deaf people. Each year, only 100 deaf and hearing-impaired students enter higher education, of whom only 10 are profoundly deaf, yet in the years when those students were born, about 700 profoundly deaf babies would have been born. The fact that only 10 out of 700 of those young people enter higher education is a shocking and terrible indictment of our university system. Profoundly deaf people are being denied the opportunity of an education.
  I do not have the time to describe the Bill's many flaws. However, in his usual precise way, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will attack the Bill with all due vigour over a wide area. Although I have been critical of the Government and the Bill, I welcome the concession that they have made. I thank them for their recognition of the problems of deaf and disabled people. Therefore, although there will be more criticism of the Bill, for now I thank the Government very much.
  Mr. Scott: I begin by expressing my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for the warmth of his welcome for the concession that I was able to announce. I was mildly surprised that some other hon. Members did not seem to recognise that

  89
  we have, in practice, solved the problem for deaf students. I hope that, on reflection, the whole House will warmly welcome the steps that we have taken.
  Consultation with the local authorities will not delay the introduction of the provisions in any way. If they are in place at the beginning of the academic year, that will meet the need. We are under a statutory duty to consult the local authorities on housing benefit matters.
  I explained earlier that the Lords amendments are defective. My advice is that if the House were to follow the advice of some Opposition Members and pass their Lordships' amendment, they would effectively exclude all claimants, other than disabled students, from income support and housing benefit. I am sure that that was not their Lordships' intention, but I cannot possibly advise the House to support their amendment.
  However, I did not want to dwell on that aspect, I should rather deal with the intention behind it, and as I have said, I have some sympathy with their Lordships' intention and well recognise the difficulties that deaf people face. I welcome also the growing awareness in society of the problems faced by deaf people. For too long, the problems of disabled people were a subject for amusement. There is now increasing recognition of and an increasing response to the needs of deaf people in society. I am sure that we have further to go, but we are making progress.
  The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has set up a new company, Sound Advantage, to ensure that, at the frontiers of technology, facilities are available to deaf people to improve the quality of their life and—perhaps most importantly—to enable them to enter employment and to enjoy the independence and self-respect that holding down a job can provide to those who suffer from disabilities of one sort or another.
  On a trip to the United States last year, I was impressed when I visited the California Relay system. It is a telephone exchange for the deaf, which enables all the deaf and hard-of-hearing people throughout the state of California to have access to the state telephone system. Other states in the United States are developing such a provision for deaf people. I am happy to say that, as a result of my visit, and of subsequent consultation with Oftel and British Telecom, the development of a national service along similar lines for deaf people will begin here in the autumn.
  I was most struck not that California and its telephone system provided a social service for the deaf and hard of hearing but that they enabled many thousands of deaf people in California to enter employment, hold down jobs and acquire independence. We are making progress, but we do not underestimate the difficulties that deaf people still face in our society. We must all do more to help them.
  I appreciate the points made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about the difficulties that face deaf students. It is precisely because we recognise those difficulties that we have introduced the concession to enable them to receive income support and housing benefit. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we might have a medical test to establish entitlement to benefit. We already stretch the medical manpower resources severely in assessing other types of disability. I should be reluctant to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, particularly as a much better method is available to us.
  90
  When students who suffer a disability through deafness apply for an award from a local education authority to enter higher education, they will also apply for disabled students allowance. The form on which the notification is made will state the cause of their disability. Deafness will be defined as one of the disabilities that qualifies them for the allowance. That will be a passport for the student to income support and housing benefit. That method is simpler and clearer. It avoids the requirement for a medical examination and it will be in the interests of deaf students.
  Mr. Frank Field: So good for deaf students. Will the Minister advocate extending the concession to mobility and attendance allowance?
  Mr. Scott: I have considered the matters in the light of the introduction of disablement allowance in 1992. We could not do away entirely with medical assessments for attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the tremendous increase in take-up of those two benefits in recent years. I am anxious that we should make the common assessment in the adjudication process for the two components of disability allowance as simple and straightforward as possible, with only one assessment for both components if someone is entitled to both. That method will be easily understood and, in an overused phrase, as user-friendly as possible. An element of medical assessment will remain an essential part of protecting the public purse while responding to the needs of those who need help because of their disability.
  I was asked earlier why, if we are making a concession for deaf people, we cannot do so for the dyslexic. Whenever one makes a concession, a line must be drawn somewhere. There will always be some who will urge us to go further. I have family experience of dyslexia. My son suffers from the condition. It is more difficult to define dyslexia than to define deafness, as we have done in making this concession. On balance, the concession that I have announced establishes a proper balance between the various needs. I am glad to have been able to announce that concession.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for welcoming the concession. We believe that the improvements in the disabled students allowance announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science acknowledge the extra educational costs incurred by deaf students. But we were convinced of the case for extra help through the income support and housing benefit system. I recognise the point that my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) made. They urged that we should monitor the effect of the changes. Of course, the Department of Education and Science will carefully monitor the overall effect of the new system of student support. I shall talk to my colleagues at the DES about making sure that the needs of disabled students are not overlooked.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked about Scotland. If we had implemented the initial proposal, we could not have properly recognised and met the needs of disabled students in Scotland. In our consultations with local authorities we shall include local authorities in Scotland. I am advised that there is no problem in extending the concession to Scotland if we

  91
  accept the proposal that I suggested to the House. In a sense the whole purpose of the new proposal is to meet the needs of Scotland, as well as the rest of the country.
  I do not propose to enter into the dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West and the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South about hearing aids. Increasingly, deaf people are looking for choice and flexibility in the provision of hearing aids, so private provision might play an important role in future. I ask the House to overturn the three amendments.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: With the leave of the House, I shall give the Opposition's response. We are not unappreciative of the Minister's endeavours to help, but, as I said earlier, he appears to have lost at least part of a battle with the Treasury. In supporting the Lords amendments, we were seeking not only a promissory note for all the disabled students to which the amendments refer, but a definite decision by the House tonight. As to definition, we already have a wholly objective definition. It is the one approved by the British Society of Audiology. The Minister spoke about the shortage of medical manpower, which I fully appreciate. I know that there are difficulties; indeed, I experienced them myself as a Minister. But I must stress that a definition is already available. Is the definition of deafness approved by the British Society of Audiology not good enough for the Government?
  We intended to demonstrate our support for the amendments in the Lobby. But there is little enough time left to debate other important amendments even now. We shall not divide the House, therefore, but I hope that the Minister will make a further statement to the House soon on progress concerning the matters that we have discussed tonight. If he can agree to do so, I am sure that it will be a welcome undertaking to all the organisations of and for disabled people.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 disagreed to.

Clause 3

  REDUCED EARNINGS ALLOWANCE AND RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE
  Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 26, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
  "(8) The following provisions shall cease to have effect—

  (a) in section 2 of the Social Security Act 1988, the subsection (8) originally enacted (restriction on entitlement to reduced earnings allowance); and

  (b) in Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, paragraph 8(7) (which substitutes for that subsection a subsection (8) and a subsection (8A))."

  Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This is a technical amendment, necessary because subsections (8) and (8A) of section 2 of the Social Security Act 1988, amended in schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, had not been commenced.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

  RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF SECTION 165A OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT
  Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  "(2) In Schedule 20 to the principal Act (glossary of expressions), the entry relating to "entitled" and cognate expressions—

  (a) shall be taken at all times on or after 2nd September 1985 but before the passing of this Act to have had effect with the substitution, in the second column, of the words, "section 165A and 165B" for the words "section 165A"; and

  (b) shall have effect as from the passing of this Act with the substitution for those words of the words "section 165A to 165D"."

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 70 to 84.
  Mrs. Shephard: The amendments correct minor drafting difficulties in relation to clause 5 and commencement. Their aim is to amend various provisions of the Social Security Acts 1975 and 1986 to re-establish the accepted policy that, generally speaking, a person shall not be entitled to benefit for any period unless a claim has been made within the prescribed time limits.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Bob Clay: The Under-Secretary of State may say that these are minor, technical amendments but, certainly in one case, they reflect an outrageous constitutional precedent. They are all major pieces of retrospective legislation. We are dealing with a swathe of retrospective legislation.
  The amendments to clause 5 have a long history, going back to the McCarthy judgment in the House of Lords in November 1984. It established that a person could be entitled to a benefit, even if he or she had not claimed it. That meant that a claim could be made outside normal time limits. In 1985 the Government tried to prevent that by adding section 165A to the Social Security Act 1985, but last year a social security commissioner decided in the Cartwright case that section 165A did not operated retrospectively. In other words, it was still possible to make a late claim, at least for the period before September 1985, when section 165A came into force. Tonight, the Government are retrospectively preventing that from happening from now on.
  The amendments to paragraph 7 of schedule 6 deal with important retrospective principles. Paragraph 7 deals with what arises when a social security commissioner, the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords has decided that the Department of Social Security has got the law wrong. It is intended to ensure that other claimants in similar circumstances cannot claim arrears of benefit for the period before the decision of the commissioner or court.
  Paragraph 7 was introduced on Report in the House in April 1990. It was not debated because of the guillotine. That takes us back to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others when we debated the timetable motion tonight. It is outrageous that we have so little time to debate a

  93
  provision, which has been made even worse in the Lords, which we could not debate properly on Report because of the guillotine. The provision was amended in the Lords and the amendment almost completely rewrites the paragraph, which runs to two and a half pages of the Bill. We are debating paragraph 7 as a whole, not merely the points of detail.
  Under paragraph 7, apart from the individual whose case is decided by the commissioner or the court, no one can claim the benefits to which they were legally entitled for the period before that decision. This is a major constitutional alteration, which denies thousands of claimants back payments of benefit. It is a complete reversal of the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the judiciary. Parliament makes laws and, if there are doubts, the courts, including social security commissioners, interpret laws. They decide not merely what the law means in future, but what it has meant since Parliament enacted it. Nobody, not even the Secretary of State, is entitled to substitute his or her interpretation for that of the courts. If the Secretary of State does not like what the courts decide, he can ask Parliament to change the law. Even then, the change would not normally be retrospective.
  Paragraph 7 places every adjudication officer in a DSS office or unemployment benefit office above the highest court in the land. In effect, it says that the law means whatever the adjudicating authority thought it meant, even if the commissioner or the courts subsequently decide that it meant something entirely different.
  Paragraph 7 raises practical implications. One category of claimants affected is the large number of disabled people who suffer from vibration white finger. I have considerable interest in the matter as thousands of my constituents have outstanding claims mainly as a result of working in shipyards, mines and heavy engineering. An important decision was made by the commissioners in respect of my constituent Mr. Kenneth Potts.
  Thousands of people await review of claims for reduced earnings allowance. Provided that the review is carried out before this Bill receives Royal Assent, they will be entitled to 12 months' arrears from the date on which they applied for a review, but those whose cases are still in the pipeline will lose that entitlement. It is an utterly absurd, arbitrary guillotine. Apart from the fundamental objections to paragraph 7, it is plainly utterly unjust that its effect on individuals should depend entirely on the length of the administrative delay on applications for review.
  In the same town, the backlog of reviews could be dealt with at a different pace in two different DSS offices. Those who claimed a review in one office considerably before someone who claimed a review at the other office could lose out simply because the administrative delay at one office is greater than at the other. To have these administrative delays on reviews is bad enough, but for the Government to compound that by bringing down an arbitrary guillotine on the procedure is outrageous.
  The position of the Minister of State is somewhat peculiar and I hope that he will listen carefully. I pay tribute to him for listening to arguments about the particular problems that arise from vibration white finger and for laying an order last year. As a result of representations, he agreed to lift the order for a period which we welcomed. As a result, thousands more late claims were made by people who realised that they could claim as a result of the Potts decision. Thousands are now
  94
  outstanding. The Minister has, in effect, cruelly lifted an order so that thousands more claims can be made, but now that those claims are registered and awaiting review, he has amended the Bill in the Lords so that, if the reviews are successful, they cannot be backdated.
  When the amendments were debated in the Lords, Lord Henley defended them on the grounds that they gave effect to what the law was always intended to be. Who is to say what the law was intended to be? In the Crompton case, the commissioner, Mr. R. A. Saunders, commented:
  "One cause of the problem is that the expression "non-dependant" in the provisions in question has been given what is on any view a completely artificial meaning. It seems to have nothing to do with dependency in the ordinary sense of the word."
  The commissioner went on to say that he could see nothing in the wording of the regulation to suggest that it had the meaning attached to it by the DSS adjudication officer. Yet in Lord Henley's view, Parliament is now to be assumed to have intended it to have that meaning, although the commissioner has effectively said that that is nonsense.
  The people who will be affected by the decision are those who were entitled to a severe disability premium in the light of the Crompton case. That decision was dated 17 May. A claimant who succeeds in getting his claim reviewed before Royal Assent will be entitled to arrears of premium, not for 12 months but at least for the period up to 9 October 1989 when the regulations were amended in anticipation of the commissioners' decision. If the claim is not reviewed before Royal Assent, the claimant will get nothing.
  If from now on the law is to be not what Parliament enacts, but what the Government intend or the adjudication officer thinks was intended, what is the point of our coming here and debating these matters? The practical outcome of the amendment to paragraph 7 will be that if a number of claimants appeal on the same grounds, and the commissioner treats one of them as a test case and finds in favour of the claimant, only that one claimant will receive arrears of benefit. What an absurdity. I shall spell out the practicalities to Ministers and ask for a specific assurance.
  Logically, if the Government persist in this nonsense, claimants will insist that massive joint cases are taken to the commissioners. Instead of the simplicity of one test case, each claimant will say, "I want my case decided by the commissioners." Will the Government say tonight, first, whether they accept that that is likely to be the position and, secondly, what administrative arrangements they will make so that, if necessary, hundreds or even thousands of claimants can simultaneously appeal to the commissioners for decisions when they believe that they have a common ground for claiming? That is the administrative nightmare into which the Government will have got themselves if they continue with this nonsense.
  This group of amendments also involves retrospective legislation on industrial deafness. Last year, the arbitrary regulation put a five-year limit on claims for industrial deafness, which was found to be ultra vires. Tonight, the Government are retrospectively saying that, regardless of the commissioners' decision, from now on the law will retrospectively cut off those claims that people could make until tonight.
  This is a swathe of retrospective legislation aimed at people with little power to fight back. It totally undermines

  95
  the independence of the social security adjudication system. The precious little confidence that many people have in the system will be undermined even further. Many thousands of people in many districts, particularly those suffering from industrial vibration white finger, who thought that after a long struggle they were to obtain some rights, a fair review and a small entitlement as their just deserts, for whom orders had been laid, withdrawn and laid again, will now discover that they will not receive back payment. That is outrageous, and even at this stage the Government should think again.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: As always, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on the force of his arguments and his intimate knowledge of the subject drawn from his constituents, particularly those suffering from vibration white finger.
  In relation to amendments Nos. 5 and 6, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North is right when he quotes McCaffrey and Cartwright. A legal understanding on entitlement has existed through Administrations of both complexions at least back to the start of the national insurance scheme in 1948. He was right when he said that until a judgment of the House of Lords in November 1984, it had been our understanding that the law achieved such an effect on entitlement. In the McCaffrey case, their Lordships held that entitlement to benefit could exist even where no claim had been made. Although the McCaffrey judgment referred specifically to non-contributory invalidity pension, the decision had wider implications across the social security sphere. Therefore, we decided that the effects of the McCaffrey case should be nullified, and section 165A was inserted into the Social Security Act 1975 to achieve that, with effect from 2 September 1985.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Cartwright case of June last year, when a social security commissioner held that the word "entitled", where relating to an event before 2 September 1985, meant "entitled" in the McCaffrey sense—without requiring that a claim must be made for benefit. I repeat that it has been the understanding of Governments of both complexions since 1948 that, in order to be entitled to benefit, a claimant should make a claim.
  8.45 pm
  The effect of the proposed change is to restore the law on entitlement to that which we had always thought it to be before the McCaffrey judgment, following the introduction of section 165A. Clearly, there must be a limit beyond which it is neither practicable nor consistent with the proper administration of public funds to have to investigate benefit entitlement. Until the McCaffrey judgment and the Cartwright decisions, the 12-month statutory time bar on claiming had always provided such a limit. All we aim to do now is to restore that position.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North overstated his concern about amendments Nos. 70 to 84. I ask the House to agree with those amendments. There have been statutory restrictions on the payment of arrears since 1948. The amendments correct drafting defects in paragraph 7 of schedule 6 to provide that arrears of benefit payable on the review of a claim or on a new claim following a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority are restricted back to the date of that reinterpretation. The
  96
  maximum amount of arrears payable for new claims is limited to the current absolute time limit for claiming the benefit at issue or, where there is not one, 12 months.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the present arrangements provide a 12-month limit on arrears, where adjudication officers review decisions in consequence of a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority. However, the hon. Gentleman must know that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration criticised that provision as inequitable because, where, following a reinterpretation of the law, an affected case does not come to light immediately, the claimant will effectively lose one week's arrears from every week's delay before a review decision is given.
  It was in response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that we brought forward our amendments. We decided to introduce the arrangements provided by the amendments to give equity of treatment for all gainers from a reinterpretation of the law—by providing a common start date for payment of arrears—that the current backdating arrangements lack.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Crompton case. I am aware of the concern about the effects of paragraph 7 on such cases affected by that decision. Anyone whose benefit is affected by that decision, and whose claim is reviewed before the introduction of paragraph 7 on Royal Assent, will have his or her benefit arrears calculated under the existing rules. Anyone whose case is reviewed after Royal Assent will have his benefit arrears limited back to the date of the social security commissioner's decision on Crompton.
  I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the amendments. Their purpose is to return the law to the position that Governments of both complexions believed it to be. We think that the proposals are fair, sensible and desirable. I commend them to the House.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 205.

  Division No. 286]

  [8.48 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Allason, Rupert

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

  Amess, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amos, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burns, Simon

  Ashby, David

  Butcher, John

  Atkinson, David

  Butler, Chris

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chope, Christopher

  Benyon, W.

  Churchill, Mr

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W, (Croydon S)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cran, James

  Bowis, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Brazier, Julian

  Curry, David

  97

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Ian

  Dover, Den

  Latham, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Durant, Tony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Favell, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lord, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Maclean, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forth, Eric

  Mans, Keith

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maples, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Marland, Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, George

  Mates, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gill, Christopher

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mills, Iain

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gow, Ian

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Moate, Roger

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Grist, Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ground, Patrick

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hague, William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, John

  Norris, Steve

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

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Harris, David

  Page, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hayward, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hill, James

  Portillo, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Price, Sir David

  Holt, Richard

  Raffan, Keith

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

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Irvine, Michael

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Janman, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jessel, Toby

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rost, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ryder, Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  98

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shelton, Sir William

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin

  Ward, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stern, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sumberg, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mr. Greg Knight and

  Thorne, Neil

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Alton, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Anderson, Donald

  Dixon, Don

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Doran, Frank

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Ashton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beggs, Roy

  Fearn, Ronald

  Beith, A. J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flannery, Martin

  Blair, Tony

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Fraser, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  George, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Caborn, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gould, Bryan

  Canavan, Dennis

  Graham, Thomas

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Carr, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clay, Bob

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Haynes, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Crowther, Stan

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Geraint

  Darling, Alistair

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  99

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Reid, Dr John

  Kilfedder, James

  Richardson, Jo

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robertson, George

  Lambie, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Lamond, James

  Rogers, Allan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leighton, Ron

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livsey, Richard

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McAllion, John

  Short, Clare

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  McKelvey, William

  Snape, Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Soley, Clive

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Madden, Max

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stott, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Meacher, Michael

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wallace, James

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wilson, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Nellist, Dave

  Worthington, Tony

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Mr. John McFall and

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Pendry, Tom

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: No. 7, before clause 6, insert the following new Clause—

  Exemption for full-time students
  ". In section 20(12)(h) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be inserted the words "provided that no person shall be so treated solely on the ground that he is a full-time student.""
  9 pm
  Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 and the Government motions to disagree. The three amemdments involve privilege.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have said that these amendments involve privilege. Can you explain that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is because they have financial implications. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps more than any other hon. Member, knows as well as I do what we mean by privilege in a Lords amendment.
  Mr. Rhodes James: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If they involve privilege, why have they been selected?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the House to judge whether to allow their Lordships' amendments to prevail.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What you have said is valid. However, when we had exactly the same proposals from the Lords on the Education (Student Loans) Bill, they were ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker and were not even allowed to come before the House. Now those proposals, which we thought were in order because they are in the Social Security Bill rather than the Education (Student Loans) Bill, are suddenly victims of privilege. What is the point of the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would not dream, retrospectively or in any other way, of commenting on the ruling by Mr. Speaker. I am sure that his ruling was right. The hon. Members for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) know that a battle was fought 300 years ago about the rights and privileges of the House.
  Mr. Scott: After that short digression, I remind the House that I am asking it to disagree with the Lords in these amendments. I do not think that anybody will be surprised by that advice, because, if these amendments were not overturned, they would strike at the core of our policy on social security benefits for students, and they are intended to deal it a lethal blow. I understand that some hon. Members disagree with the underlying policy. Nevertheless, it has been clear Government policy to change the system.
  In practice, the amendments would prevent the Government from withdrawing students' entitlement to housing benefit from the next academic year. That means that students would not only have access to grant, a top-up loan, access funds and any parental assistance, but continue to have access to housing benefit. The Government believe that it would be both undesirable and unnecessary for students to fall back on the benefit system under the new funding arrangements coming into force in September.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Minister recites to the House the sources of income for which students might be eligible, and then says that the Government wish to put a block on them. Surely the test is whether their income is above the level of eligibility for housing benefit. By trying to reject the Lords amendment, the Government are attempting to create a special category of people who, irrespective of their level of income, will not be eligible for housing benefit.
  Mr. Scott: We are making it clear that, unless students are members of vulnerable groups, responsibility for their maintenance will be a matter for the education authorities

  101
  and the education system, not the social security system. I believe that, as a whole, the House is perfectly well aware that there has been a long-standing commitment to remove the majority of full-time students from that system.
  It would not benefit the House for me to rehearse again all the arguments that led the Government to that decision; suffice it to say that the educational maintenance system has been designed for that purpose, and that from the next academic year the system of student support is being enhanced to provide students with an income for the full year, including the long vacation. Overall, it will provide an additional 25 per cent. in total student support. In that context, we propose to withdraw students' entitlement to housing benefit. It makes no sense to duplicate the financial support arrangements for students; to do so would not be a sensible use of resources, and it would not liberate local authorities from the disproportionate administrative burden of claims that so often result in either no benefit or only small amounts being paid.
  Mr. Field: Surely the Minister accepts that, if students' income was over the housing benefit level, they would be ineligible in the first place. The Government are only introducing the regulations to penalise those who would be eligible for housing benefit if they were not students. Their income from all the sources from which the Minister has told the House that they may gain help does not take them above the eligibility level for housing benefit.
  Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was preparing that intervention rather than listening to my remarks. Quite often, because total income will be either above that level—in which case they will receive nothing—or just below it—in which case they may receive a tiny amount—we believe that it is better to separate the whole thing, and relieve local authorities of the administrative burden.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Can the Minister tell the House how many local authorities have complained about the administrative burden of providing benefit in those circumstances?
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of the administration of housing benefit, he will know that it is complicated, and that not all local authorities perform to a high standard in that regard. As he knows, they are under a duty to pay it within 14 days of a claim being made. That is not always met by local authorities, especially where students are involved, and it can take a considerable time before benefit is paid. The measure would contribute in no small part to the administrative burden on local authorities.
  Our statistics show that fewer than one fifth of students claim housing benefit during term time. Other survey data reveal that only a small proportion of those claim it during the summer vacation, and that the average benefit received across all benefits is £315 a year among students who do claim. That amount is well below the amount of student loan available.
  Dr. Hampson: If the amount is so small, why does the Minister not accept the proposal from the vice-chancellors and from some hon. Members that the withdrawal should be phased out? I gather that the loss is about £560; the loan is £420. There will be hardship. How much of the take-up that he has announced is by postgraduates who have family and debt commitments? We should encourage them, not discourage them.
  Mr. Scott: I shall return to that point about the position of graduates when I wind up. I should like first to make the basic case. I make no apology for this. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the matter, and he has argued about it in a number of forums since the Government announced their plans. There is no question of the Government resiling from their commitment to separate students, unless they are in vulnerable groups, from the social security system and to make them dependent on the educational maintenance system.
  The average amount of benefit received is £315 a year, among those students who claim. This amount is well below the amount of student loan available. The access funds have been set up, and increased, to assist students with additional needs. Furthermore, those students who have special financial needs, because of disability or lone parenthood for example, will continue to be eligible for housing benefit and income support.
  I accept that the access funds will play a crucial role under the new arrangements, and our policy is predicated on provisions being introduced in the education system to meet the challenge. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has undertaken to monitor the operation of the access funds. I hope that hon. Members will accept the Government's assurances on this issue and support our policy, which—
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Scott: I am in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be courteous enough to allow me to complete it.
  I hope that hon. Members will accept the Government's assurances on this issue and support our policy, which has been accepted by a majority on the Social Security Advisory Committee, that housing benefit should no longer be available to students.
  Mr. Smith: Does the Minister accept the unanimous judgment of the Social Security Advisory Committee that some students could be left destitute as a result of this scheme? Why does he not cover that possibility, as the committee unanimously recommended, by providing for a safety net below which no student should be allowed to fall? If he does not accept that, is he not admitting the possibility that some poor students will be left destitute?
  Mr. Scott: The committee said that, during the long vacation, some students might be particularly hard hit, and that they should have recourse to a safety net. There is already a safety net—the power for local education authorities to pay hardship payments. That is a better way, and more educationally attuned to the needs of the student rather than to the generality of the population, than turning to the social security system, which is designed for an entirely different purpose.
  Lords amendment No. 9 would impose a provision in the housing benefit scheme that already exists in practice. It would require local or regional rent levels to be taken into account in the calculation of maximum housing benefit. The House will be aware that housing benefit is calculated to take account of three key factors. The first is that the level of a claimant's needs should be taken into account in the assessment—the applicable amount—the

  103
  second is the amount of the claimant's resources, and the third is the amount of rent that the claimant has to pay, less any ineligible costs.
  Because the calculation is based on the individual claimant's rent liability, by definition it must reflect variations in local and regional housing costs. This arrangement does not differ for students now, and will not differ for those students who retain entitlement to housing benefit from September. In other words, the amendment is unnecessary, as it is already reflected in the system. I cannot advise the House to accept it.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: The Opposition strongly repudiate the Government's attempt, at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings, to remove students from housing benefit entitlement. The Minister's talk of administrative difficulties for local authorities and the other excuses that he gave are unacceptable. It is particularly obnoxious that this is being done when the proposal was not contained in the original Bill, has not been debated and is being inserted even before the Government's student loans scheme is in place. It has been roundly condemned by senior independent academic opinion, including the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It was the subject of not one, but three, Government defeats in the Lords.
  The Government's proposals are ill-founded both in concept and in practical application. In concept, the justification given regularly by the Minister for disentitling students from social security benefits is that they have voluntarily withdrawn from the labour market. The vice-chancellors' committee, in its letter of 16 March to the Social Security Advisory Committee, called that a fundamental misconception. It said:
  "This ignores the fact that a large number of students are not only available for work for approximately four months a year, but rely on the income which that work provides when they are studying during the rest of the year. In future, therefore, a large number of students will continue to be active in seeking work during the summer vacation, but if they fail to gain employment they will be unable to claim benefits and will, therefore, face further financial hardship."
  I do not think that a condemnation of the basic rationale could be clearer than that.
  The proposal to withdraw housing benefit is also flawed in its practical application. The Minister stated again tonight, as he did in a recent parliamentary answer, that an average of £315 a year would have been paid in benefits to those students making a claim in this year, while a student loan would be £420 on average, and that the average student would be better off. There is no more credibility in his figures on student costs than there is in the Government's figures on unemployment or on levels of poverty.
  Ministers appear to be admitting that. On 26 March, I asked the Secretary of State for Social Security
  "what is (a) the total value and average weekly payment of housing benefit currently being claimed by claimants aged 18 to 24 years, (b) the total value of housing benefit paid to students in the academic year 1988–89 in each region of the country"?
  The Under-Secretary of State replied:
  "Information is not available in the detail requested … Similar information for claimants receiving both income
  104
  support and housing benefit is not held. Housing benefit spending on claimants who are aged 18 to 24 is not identifiable within total expenditure.
  Information on housing benefit paid to students is not available in the form requested".—[Official Report, 26 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 81.]
  She could not have more clearly shown her lack of knowledge of the issue.
  The National Union of Students, which has more reason to know the facts than anyone—[ Laughter.] I know why the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) is laughing, but he is a little premature. In its submission the Social Security Advisory Committee, the NUS cited a survey that suggested that, at present, the sum total of financial resources available to a student outside London is £3,260, while under the new system of loans it will be about £2,685—about £580 less.
  There are those, such as the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding, who think that the conclusion of the NUS is one of vested interest by those who have a good reason to up the figures. However, that conclusion is almost identical to the conclusion of the vice-chancellors' committee. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that it said that, in the south-east in 1988–89,
  "housing benefit could be claimed on rents in excess of £14 per week. The average rent for privately-rented accommodation in this area, cited by a number of universities, has risen to £37.50 a week"—
  the point has already been made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson)—
  "so that a student stands to lose £560 in housing benefit during the academic year."
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the most inappropriate comparison, because average rents take account of the whole range of housing available? Students are not expected, at such a stage in their careers, to be living in the higher range of accommodation available, so the average figure for rent is irrelevant when considering the basis of student costs.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman falls into exactly the same trap as the Government, in quoting average figures. The Government quote average figures of £420 and £315, but we know that there are substantial variations and that averages are inappropriate. However, because the Government used average figures, I quoted the arguments made on the same basis by the vice-chancellors.
  It is not only the Opposition who think that the Government are all over the shop. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West will surely not mind if I quote his apposite article in The Times Higher Education Supplement:
  "Recent Parliamentary Questions show that the Government does not seem to know exactly how much goes to students in various forms of welfare benefit. Clearly some benefits will be offset by a student loan, but some will not because of the difference in regional and urban housing costs."
  That is exactly true. It can be said with certainty that housing benefit is something dear to the heart of the Government—a targeted benefit. It takes into account differences in income and in regional housing costs, and it is the only benefit that does so.
  Because the variations in regional housing costs are now so large, if that benefit is replaced by a loans scheme, it is certain that many students would find themselves below—in some cases substantially below—the income support level or official poverty line. That runs wholly

  105
  contrary to the Government's declared intention not to deter students from low-income backgrounds from pursuing courses of higher and further education.
  The White Paper refers to access funds, which the Minister also mentioned,
  "to provide discretionary support, in individual cases of financial need, for students losing entitlement to benefits."
  However, the £5 million to be made available for that purpose to those within the scope of the student loans scheme is derisory. The vice-chancellors estimate that it will provide less than £7 per university student per year. Frankly, that is useless.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Figures just released in Scotland on the amount to be made available under the access scheme show that, last year, Edinburgh university students received more in housing benefit than students attending 17 institutions controlled by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That puts the figures into perspective.
  Mr. Meacher: That is an effective statistic, and I hope that the Minister will reply to that point when he winds up. My hon. Friend makes the case very forcibly.
  There is one further aspect of disentitlement to housing benefit that is particularly scandalous. It relates to postgraduate students, who are the subject of amendment No. 8, and number 50,000. Not only will they be ineligible for student loans, but disqualified from claiming housing benefit. By any standard that is totally unjust. It is also an absurdly short-sighted economy measure, as it will deter many from pursuing postgraduate studies. Because we feel strongly about that aspect, we will, if we have time, put amendment No. 8 to a Division.
  It is difficult to exaggerate the impact of the amendments on further and higher education. A study of the student rented sector in Manchester that was published last month by Rowntree found that housing costs after housing benefit represented 28 per cent. of students' notional income. In the current year, after including the full loan of £420 a year, it is estimated that that figure will rise to 36 per cent. to 40 per cent., depending on the rate of rent increases. Taken together with the 23 per cent. real decline in the value of student awards since 1979, that can only narrow the basis of recruitment for higher education in the next generation.
  In their White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" the Government say:
  "The Government is committed to increasing the opportunity for people from all backgrounds to participate in higher education."
  Because we passionately believe in that objective and because the motion shows that the Government do not, we intend to divide the House.
  Mr. Rhodes James: If these Lords amendments were taken in isolation from the other Government proposals relating to student finance, the Government would have a good case. I am particularly strengthened by my right hon. Friend's response to the previous Lords amendments, which we greatly appreciated. I wish that it were possible to remove students entirely from the need to depend on social security benefits of any kind. The matter cannot, however, be viewed in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of the effects of the Government's full proposals and the regulations that we shall debate later.
  I am grateful to Jesus college, Cambridge, for a detailed, factual and objective analysis of student
  106
  expenditure and income in that college. It is particularly constructive, because it demonstrates how difficult life has become, even for Cambridge undergraduates who enjoy advantages that students elsewhere do not. The figure will be of interest to hon. Members and, perhaps, to the Minister.
  If an undergraduate is living in Jesus college, the cost of accommodation varies from £900 to £500 a year, depending on the amenities. However, a large and an increasing number of undergraduates and graduates have to live outside college. They face a market rate for a room of, on average, £40 a week. Normally, it also has to be paid in the short vacations. This, on the basis of a 38-week year, amounts to £1,520, to which must be added £86.70 for the community charge. Unfortunately, we have a Labour council in Cambridge. That has to be found out of a total income in 1990–91 of £2,575: a grant of £2,155 and a loan of £420, if the regulations are approved. Thus, for a Cambridge student living out of college, allowing for a notional £334 for essential expenditure, there is £421 left, or £11.08 a week for 38 weeks, after accommodation costs. For the favoured undergraduate living in college, the position is better; he is left with £22.62 a week for 38 weeks.
  The figures demonstrate the huge proportion of grant and loan that has to be spent on accommodation and why the removal of housing benefit will have such a disproportionate impact on student finances. I am talking about students who have a full grant. Many do not. They depend on parental contributions that some parents will not or cannot provide.
  There is another point of deeper significance that relates not just to money. One of the great and unique strengths of the British university system as it has evolved is that it is not home-based. I know of some university systems that are home based. Their weakness, as real universities, lies in that fact; it applies to many of the state universities in the United States.
  I had the privilege of going to university on a scholarship, before grants were available. One of the factors that made it such a unique experience for me, apart from leaving home, which was a happy one, was that I met people from entirely different backgrounds and from entirely different parts of the country and the world. That was a major part of my education. It was then that I appeciated the value of, for example, the Rhodes scholarships and of the arrangements for overseas students. That mixture of young adults from very different backgrounds, who are given the opportunity of coming together in a different place rather than in their home base, gives the British universities and polytechnics their special quality.
  Ministers have not sufficiently realised that the abolition of eligibility for housing benefit, combined with the regulations that will be debated later this evening, will make British universities more home based. That will destroy not only the lives and the incomes of students and their parents, but something much more profound. I hope that Ministers will bear in mind those deplorable consequences, because we are talking not simply about housing benefit and the problems that affect this year's or next year's students, but about the whole future of higher education.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) because, as a modern historian, he, more than most in the House, can locate that certain point in a Government's life—the point at which the Administration begin to unwind. The events surrounding that point are often not dramatic, but they are telling. Tonight there are two examples of that in one measure.
  First, if the Government press their will on the House and win—they have a large majority and may well win—we shall have an example of the Government spitting in the wind. They will win the vote but lose the argument, and the argument here is whether the Administration understand how the real world works. In the 11 years that I have been in the House, that is a badge that the Government have proudly worn, labelling Opposition Members as people who have no real idea of what goes on in the world outside. It is proper to say that we do not want students to have to rely on social security benefits to survive. Few hon. Members will go to the stake or anywhere else on that point. But we are dealing with the real world and our constituents who are students have to deal with the real world, and the plain and unalterable fact is that social security benefits are crucial for students' survival.
  In the light of the information that the hon. Member for Cambridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) have given, and if we are to prevent destitution and homelessness, it is important that we should not agree with the Government tonight but should stand by the amendment that the Lords have made. That is the first telling point—the Government are willingly spitting in the wind despite all the evidence presented to them.
  Secondly, if the Government win the vote tonight, they will damage themselves in another equally fundamental way. They have based much of their social policy on what they like to call targeting but which hon. Members on both sides of the House call means-testing. There could not be a more perfect example of the market system at work. If one is above the line, one does not get help, but if one is below the line, help is targeted towards one. But now the Government are saying to the House, "Never mind how that market system works. Never mind if students can prove that their income is below the level of eligibility for housing benefit. We will step in. We will interfere and take actions that prevent that part of the market system from working." We are asked to approve that argument, and that is what will happen if the Government win the day.
  We are debating an issue that concerns students which, sadly, does not command the respect in the country that it should. But we are also debating something that is perhaps much more important: that point in the Government's long life at which the whole of their policy begins to unwind. We are seeing that in two important respects. In the first place, they are denying what we all know to be true—that students need that help—and, secondly, they are setting aside 11 years of targeting policy because they know in their heart that it does not work.
  Sir George Young: I have the deepest respect for both the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose independent views on social issues are so often echoed on the Conservative Benches, and for my
  108
  hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), whose views on social issues broadly mirror my own. However, on this issue I cannot agree with them and I hope that the House will agree with the Government and reject the amendments.
  The debate so far has revolved around two key issues: the proposed new structure for student support and the level of provision. The new structure for supporting students embodies the principle that students should no longer look to the Department of Social Security for help. Instead, they should look to the Department of Education and Science, which, after all, already funds the bulk of their living costs. I find no difficulty with that principle. I see some merit in having one Department instead of two concerned with the financial viability of students. I also see an advantage in educational institutions managing the access funds instead of students looking to housing benefit. I honestly believe that the new structure has much to commend it. It is tidier.
  Part of the DES grant already goes on housing. Students who do not receive housing benefit already spend part of their grant on housing. I see nothing wrong in extending the principle by saying that instead of looking for just part of their housing costs from the DES, they should look for the whole of their costs from the DES. I see nothing offensive about the principle that students in future should no longer look to two Government Departments, but should look to one for the support to which they are entitled from the Government as they pass through university or higher education. I see nothing to go to the stake for on that.
  The second issue has been the level of support. The proposed access funds have already been increased in response to representations. I am sure that they have been designed to be adequate for the purpose for which they are intended. If it turns out that they are inadequate, Conservative Members who follow such issues will be the first to press for more funds. However, housing benefit has not been immune from cuts. There have been several changes to housing benefit which have reduced its appeal. When there have been reductions in housing benefit, it is not particularly logical to say that we should stick with the housing benefit scheme because that is what is of most benefit to students. There are positive advantages in encouraging students to look to the access funds that are designed for students, as they are likely to be far more targeted to their needs.
  Overall, the new regime will cost much more. It will involve £178 million in the loan scheme and £25 million in the access fund, making about £200 million in all. However, there will be only a £68 million saving in benefits.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend has campaigned more eloquently and more persistently than most against the community charge. Does he realise that to bring this new change in at precisely the same moment that students are being caned by the community charge will create real prolblems?
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend refers in flattering terms to the doubts that I had about the community charge. However, I see no particular logic in trying to relate what has happened in respect of the community charge to this debate. The structure for student support

  109
  that we are now proposing is perfectly logical. The resources being devoted to that new structure are more generous than under the present structure.
  Dr. Hampson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir George Young: No, I must conclude and if I do so, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) will have an opportunity to address the House.
  Neither on the structure of the proposal nor on the level of provision do I believe that there need be doubts on the Conservative Benches about the matter and I propose to support the Government.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I must take issue with one half of the proposition of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). His case for the system of payment from one source and one Government Department is perfectly reasonable. I have no quarrel with the Government's long-stated social security view that students should not have to rely on social security payments. No hon. Member would dissent from that view. However, page 6 of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report states that, if the value of the grant is allowed to depreciate and wither over a period, it will not be possible for students to exist under the educational system of support. The hon. Gentleman seemed to accept that point.
  Hon. Members who examine the way in which the level of grant in real terms has been eroded, and who consider their own constituency cases, must conclude that there are students below the income levels that we use as definitions, unofficial or otherwise, of the poverty line. The hon. Member for Action cannot have both parts of his proposition. Of course the structure should be unified. Of course we should all like the DES to provide the money, but if the DES is not to provide the money, there must be a safety net somewhere. The safety net has been the social security system.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has made the key point in the debate. If the Government's scheme is approved, we shall discriminate against students, who will be the only group in society who will knowingly be asked to subsist on levels of income that, for other social security purposes, are judged to be inadequate. I do not think that that is acceptable.
  Mr. Mike Watson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a survey that was carried out by welfare officers in Edinburgh, which is near his constituency? It was found that the average housing benefit claim during the academic year was £290 and, during the summer vacation, £209, giving a total of about £500, which was well in excess of the student loan available. Is not that bound to lead to a situation in which students are much worse off and are dissuaded from taking up full-time higher education?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Absolutely. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am aware, of that survey. No doubt, if he had had time, the hon. Gentleman would have made the point that it will have a disproportionate effect on low-income families and their access to higher education. That point has not been mentioned, and I do not think that the Government have properly addressed it.
  I should like the Minister to address some of the questions that the Social Security Advisory Committee has
  110
  raised, particularly about the long vacation and postgraduate students. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) rightly mentioned that point and said that about 50,000 postgraduate students are not eligible for loans but will be disqualified for housing benefit. Amendment No. 8 is a particularly objectionable proposition. The Government are putting postgraduate students into an indefensible position.
  The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) deserves further attention. As far as I am aware, there have been no great complaints by local authorities about the administrations of the housing benefit system as it affects students. Of course there are difficulties in the complexity of the scheme that the Government ask local authorities to administer, but I have heard no complaints in relation to students.
  It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it is only bawbees in any case, that they are not deriving a tremendous amount of benefit, and, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West rightly pointed out, that the Government do not have cast-iron statistics or figures relating to the amounts of money that we are talking about; if they have, we have not seen them and they did not come to light in the important debates in the other place. The Government are taking a great leap into the dark and playing ducks and drakes with the future of a vulnerable and valuable group of people in our society. I do not think that the amount of money will be enough. Some students will struggle.
  The access funds are totally inadequate. The hon. Member for Acton was quite wrong to talk about £5 million for the further education sector, £14 million for those who are undertaking first degree courses, and £6 million for postgraduates. It is totally inadequate, according to the evidence from Cambridge and Edinburgh and all other available survey evidence. The Government have not paid enough attention to that matter. The administration of the scheme will prove an even bigger bureaucratic nightmare than the administration of housing benefit by local authorities.
  For all those reasons, I believe that the Government's proposals will be fraught with difficulties and will cause increasing hardship. The House will be forced to return to this issue at an early stage. The Government will have to come back, cap in hand, and Opposition Members will take great pleasure in saying, "We told you so."
  9.45 pm
  Dr. Hampson: If I may, I shall address my remarks directly and immediately to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I must advise him that there is a valid parallel with the community charge. When Conservative Members told the Government that there would be immediate hardship because the scale of the increase in the business rate would be too acute, the Government responded and phased in the implementation. Why, therefore, are they not prepared to phase out housing benefit when there is hardship, especially for postgraduates?
  I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Acton to consider the community charge bill for a postgraduate student couple, who might have a house and a mortgage, hire purchase payments on a car and television, and perhaps even a family. Postgraduate students make a sacrifice—they are not eligible for loans—but the Government are

  111
  withdrawing housing benefit. Furthermore, the access fund is so small that in London, even if he was eligible for access funds, a postgraduate student would have to find an extra £500 because of the withdrawal of housing benefit.
  Postgraduate students are at a premium. In the next 10 years there will be a shrinking pool of talent, especially in science and engineering. However, the amount of money that is currently available to help postgraduate social science students is also shrinking. The Economic and Social Research Council currently has only 220 graduate scholarships at its disposal, whereas 10 years ago it had 2,000. We are squeezing the amount of help to postgraduates. The access funds are inadequate and scholarships and loans are not available.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is responsible for higher education, is on the Treasury Bench, because I believe that it is no coincidence that only a week ago, with great panache, the Department of Education and Science announced increases in postgraduate award rates. The fact that that happened just a week before this debate is meant to say, "Yes, we believe that there is a problem and we—the DES—recognise that postgraduates will suffer because of what another Department is insisting on doing."
  I do not object to the principle of what is being done. The principle is to try to ensure that students are not dependent on welfare benefits. That must be right. I am sure that no Conservative Member would question that, but some of us believe that, by withdrawing housing benefit in such a rigid and determined way, the Government are causing hardship. Because the DES knows that, it has tried to claim that it will increase postgraduate awards by £400 a year. However, that increase of £400 will not come in until next April. Awards increases have always been granted in October. If, this October, postgraduate students automatically received the increase that they have received every year, more or less in line with inflation, they would be getting £370. However, they will not automatically receive £370 this October; they will receive £400 next April.
  Without any question, postgraduates will suffer at every level. Financially, they will not be as well off as they have been. Housing benefit was a targeted benefit that helped especially those postgraduates in real hardship because of their family or other circumstances. No Minister has shown tonight that the Government even know how much money is currently given to postgraduate students through that benefit. I suggest that it is a relatively small amount. It is a shame that the Government, of whom we are all a part, are not prepared in this instance as they have been in so many instances—I refer particularly to business men and the community charge—to show sensitivity, to recognise hardship and at least to try not to create further disincentives to postgraduate education, which will affect the future development of the country.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House I accept the principle that students should be paid for out of the education
  112
  budget. There is widespread agreement on that. I am not particularly worried by amendment No. 7, but we should think hard about amendment No. 8.
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not speak on amendment No. 8 in his opening remarks. The point behind it is not entirely new. It has been raised on other amendments. What my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said carries a strong ring of conviction. When my right hon. Friend the Minister replies, he must give accurate figures on how far he believes that the access grants will alleviate the problems of post graduates. He must also fill out the position on their grants. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West made those points eloquently.
  I, like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, believe deeply that it is crucial to this country that we produce research scholars of the highest possible standard. Anything that prevents that must be contrary to the national interest. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will either come up with good arguments or, better still, think again.
  Mr. Cormack: I can do little more than echo what has been said by my right hon. Friend for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), and most of all by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge showed what Cambridge will lose. He is a splendid Member of Parliament, who knows the universities well. We heard what he said in his short speech. I for one am extremely sorry that he has announced that he will not seek re-election at the next general election.
  It is a great pity that the Government are so obdurate on this matter. It is sad that the people who will be hit are the very people on whom the Government have relied for their support. The measure will hit at the middle of middle England.
  Mr. Kirkwood: And Scotland.
  Mr. Cormack: As the hon. Gentleman says, it will hit Scotland too. If only because they want to maintain their bedrock support, the Government must think again. After all, the creation of an access fund shows that the Government recognise that there is a need. The access funds are woefully inadequate to meet that need, yet we are cutting out a whole category of people and treating them uniquely in the process.
  The people who will be hit include constituents of mine who have been hit—I make no apology for returning to the subject—by the community charge. Suddenly they have found that their student sons and daughters face the prospect of entering their earning life substantially in debt. Because of their increased burden, they cannot give their student son or daughter as much as they would like. Now their children are not eligible for housing benefit. Their sons and daughters will also have the community charge to find—albeit only 20 per cent.
  What do such people do? In some cases they seek to dissuade their sons and daughters from going to university or following any higher education course. I do not wish to speak disparagingly of an institution, but in other cases parents encourage their children to go to the local polytechnic rather than to go away to university. That point was made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member

  113
  for Cambridge. Such a trend could distort the social balance of the country and the pattern of where people seek higher education. That would be a great pity.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, I am especially worried about postgraduate students. Such students have often taken on family commitments. We are supposed to be the party that believes in the family. I do not suggest that other parties do not believe in the family, but the Prime Minister has rightly made great play of the family in recent months. We are the party that believes in the family and in encouraging the integrity of the family. Yet the Government make it difficult for families which include one or perhaps two postgraduate students to benefit not only themselves but the whole community by following a postgraduate course.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers on the Treasury Bench to think again. The sums involved are small. We are dealing with flexibility as opposed to inflexibility. There is virtual unanimity about the desirability of the Government's general aim. We do not want students to depend on social security benefits. None of us, or hardly any of us, wherever we sit in the House, wants that. Why cannot we for once listen carefully to what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said? We should phase in the scheme, bring it in gently, adjust, respond and consider. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) can groan, but she has a university in her constituency—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A very good one.
  Mr. Cormack: —and a very good one. Many of the students who attend it will suffer as a result of the insensitivity of this proposal.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My students seek employment in the long vacation, and the vast majority of them find it. The right way to bring up children is to show them how to be independent and to seek employment if they can possibly find it.
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend makes the case for me in her intervention. The vast majority of her students and mine find employment. I encourage that, just as she does. Nevertheless, there are exceptions who, through no fault of their own, cannot do so. That is particularly true of postgraduate students.
  I have great respect for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, particularly my right hon. Friend who will reply. He has an extremely good record as a listening Minister and a man who is genuinely concerned. I ask them, for goodness' sake, to think again, and not to become so inflexible as to create the problems to which the vice-chancellors rightly pointed.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am surprised that the Labour party has decided to take up so much of the limited time for this debate to press this Lords amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about all the Tory Members?"] It is the Labour party, not my party. In mitigation, Labour Members have not turned up in large numbers. Perhaps the strength and extent of feeling is not as widespread as some Labour spokesmen have been inclined to make out. I am surprised, because our welfare state, to which I am enormously committed, has been built up—as you Mr. Speaker, will be the first to acknowledge—by the
  114
  contributions of statesmen from all three parties over many generations. All those statesmen, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, would have been horrified to imagine that the welfare state would be used as a form of student support. William Beveridge, Clement Attlee, Ernie Bevin and Herbert Morrison would be spinning in their graves if they heard some of the remarks of their successors.
  I cannot think of a more inappropriate use of the social security system or of anything more demoralising for students than to start life on the benefit system and, indeed, to be encouraged to play that system for all it is worth even before they have taken any paid employment. I cannot think of anything more damaging to the credibility of social security among the general public as a whole. The Government are to be greatly congratulated on removing this impardonable anomaly, which has lasted for too long.
  The Government could not simply withdraw the benefits of the social security system from students without ensuring an effective alternative means of support. They have done that. They have taken advantage of the introduction of top-up loans to increase by about 25 per cent. the resources available to students in the forthcoming academic year. That is a substantial increase by any standards.
  It has been said on both sides of the House, by my hon. Friends as well as Opposition Members, that in some cases those new resources will be insufficient. The Government have gone even further and provided access funds that are infinitely preferable, as a way of supporting students who run into financial difficulties, to the social security system. That is not merely because of the psychological and moral reasons to which I have referred, but because the access funds provide an opportunity for that support to be decided by educationists and educational institutions, taking into account the student's individual circumstances. The funds will not be allocated according to some anonymous rule book by a large army of bureaucrats—which, unfortunately, is inevitably how any social security system works. It is an enormous improvement.
  It has been hinted on both sides of the House that access funds will be insufficient. I wish that Opposition Members who take that line would have the intellectual honesty to say that they want the access funds to be increased. That is simple, and if that is what they had in mind, they should say it. I congratulate the Government on a humane and timely measure.
  10 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: This debate has shown the price of the guillotine. An enormously important change that will damage the lives and opportunities of many individuals, our education system and the country's future prosperity has to be squeezed into a small space of time. Nevertheless, there have been a number of significant contributions, much criticism from Government Members, and even more from Opposition Members. Some of my hon. Friends who wished to speak have held back so that Conservative Members would have a chance to do so.
  Britain has become, and is increasingly becoming, a backward educational country compared with other countries in Europe and even the world. In South Korea, of all countries, there are more students, as a proportion of population, in higher education than in Britain. That is

  115
  a disgrace, and, it will damage the prospects of our country. It is a measure of our backwardness and continuing slide and decline, particularly during the 11 years of this Government.
  There have been measures with bad effects on nurseries, standards in schools, quality of books for school children and buildings. Our staying-on rates are appalling, and tonight we are considering a measure that will make matters considerably worse. It will make significant numbers of students gravely poorer. It will affect those with the greatest difficulty in entering higher education—groups with the lowest participation rates, people from low-income backgrounds and working-class and black students. There is no doubt, and everyone who has considered the matter seriously predicts, that those under-represented groups which we need to get into higher education if we are to compete with other countries will be put off by the measure.
  During the past 11 years, the Government have cut the value of student grants by 27 per cent. in real terms. As in so many other sectors, there have been repeated cuts in social security benefits to bring the system into disrepute—as the Government are currently doing with child benefit—and push students on to loans. The Government pretend that it is all right if they cut grants further and introduce a national loans system to cut the cost of young people going into full-time education.
  There is no disagreement between the two sides of the House that the principle that the education system should provide for the maintenance of students is a good one, and they should not be funded from the social security system. It is disgraceful hypocrisy to use that sort of logic as an excuse for cutting students' income and driving many of our talented young people from low-income backgrounds out of higher education.
  The whole principle of student loans is ridiculous. They should be provided according to need and then, when people did well and found better jobs as a result of having been students, they could pay them back through the tax and national insurance systems. That is the fairest, most universal and most sensible system.
  These three amendments deal with the abolition of the right to housing benefit. I apologise to Conservative Members who have spoken about postgraduate students; we share their concern, but because of the guillotine we have the opportunity to vote on only one amendment, so we must vote on the one that restores the right to housing benefit for all students. It affects the largest number. We wholly agree with what has been said about the needs of postgraduates, but the guillotine has meant that we have had no chance—there was already no chance when I rose to speak—to vote on the amendment related to them.
  The Minister of State was at his least eloquent this evening. I have paid him this compliment before, but when the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in something, he speaks badly. Tonight he spoke worse than I have ever heard him speak.
  Mr. Scott: There has been a certain amount of gloom and doom from various quarters in the debate. I see no need for that when I look at higher education in this country. This year there were more applications to get into higher education than ever before, and it looks as though
  116
  that number will be exceeded in the coming academic year. If the whole country were petrified by the idea of student loans, that would not be so.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) queried the basis for the estimates that we make in this area. The average of £315 which I announced earlier as the total benefit is based on an independent survey carried out by Research Services Ltd. during the academic year 1988–89 and adjusted to 1991 levels. The average loan of £420 is greater than that, and those who cannot receive more will have access to the funds that have been specially established.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West derided us for having access funds for undergraduates of £5 million—but the correct figure is £14 million. These funds will be monitored once they are in operation to determine whether they are adequate for the needs for which they have been set up. That is the right way to tackle the matter.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there was unanimous opposition to the proposal to remove housing benefit entitlement. He omitted to mention that a majority on the Social Security Advisory Committee accepted the Government's proposal to withdraw housing benefit from full-time students. The committee also shares our view that student support should come from the educational system rather than from social security benefits, and several of my hon. Friends backed up the Government by supporting the basic principle that we are implementing.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West then returned to a question that he had asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and said that we did not know what was happening in this area. I confess that the statistics that we have do not differentiate between different sorts of students. However, they clearly show that fewer than 20 per cent. of students claim housing benefit during term time, and for those who receive it, of whom some will retain entitlement, the average amount claimed is under £10 a week.
  We heard a great deal from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and others about postgraduate students. Of course it is true that, if the postgraduate's spouse is not herself a student, the couple will still be entitled to housing benefit. Secondly, a postgraduate student pays only 20 per cent. of the community charge—not the full whack. The uprating of the grant for postgraduates is for this autumn, not for next April. The couple that the hon. Gentleman exemplified were paying a mortgage, in which case they would not be entitled to housing benefit.
  Dr. Hampson: This is important, because the official press release from the Department of Education and Science said that the uprating of the postgraduate award is from April. Of course, postgraduates are not entitled to student loans if they have access to housing benefit.
  Mr. Scott: One increase has already been announced and there will be another in April. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science are well aware of the need for support in this area and are honouring their obligations.
  Postgraduate students may also qualify for education maintenance grants that are intended to cover all their financial needs for the year, including long vacations

  117
  falling within the course. An access fund of £6 million is being established specifically to provide additional support for postgraduates who face special difficulties.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) accused the Government of setting aside their normal policy of targeting. The new student support arrangements through the education system are not intended to replicate the benefit system. It was never intended that students should fall back on the benefits system and the fact that they do is a totally unplanned by-product of changes in the benefit system in recent years. Education maintenance is designed to meet the particular financial needs and expenditure patterns of students. The benefit system is not. We firmly believe that students should be supported by the education system and we are putting in more than £100 million of extra resources to achieve that.
  The House is being asked to decide whether the Department of Social Secrity or the Department of Education and Science knows more about the needs of students and the need for educational maintenance. I have no doubt that the Department of Education and Science will be more in touch with student's state of life and will be better able to run a system suitable to their needs.
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Order [this day] relating to the Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time) MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the said Order, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker then proceeded to designate Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11, 24, 25, 28, 42, 59, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 91 as appearing to him to involve questions of privilege.
  Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on motions moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords amendment.
  Lords amendment No. 8 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 9, before clause 6, to insert the following new Clause—
  " . In section 21(6) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be inserted the words "and may provide for the regional or local level of housing costs and any payment for the purpose of meeting such costs to be taken into account in determining the maximum housing benefit where the claimant is a full-time student." "
  Question put,That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.:
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 218.

  Division No. 287]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Allason, Rupert

  Benyon, W.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Amess, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amos, Alan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Boswell, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Atkinson, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowis, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brazier, Julian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bright, Graham

  118

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

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hannam, John

  Buck, Sir Antony

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

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burns, Simon

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Chris

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Holt, Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

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

  Churchill, Mr

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jackson, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Janman, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Cran, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

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

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knowles, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lang, Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Latham, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fallon, Michael

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Favell, Tony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lightbown, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lilley, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Franks, Cecil

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gardiner, George

  Mans, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maples, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mellor, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grist, Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Ground, Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hague, William

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  119

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Steen, Anthony

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stern, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stevens, Lewis

  Needham, Richard

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stokes, Sir John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Sumberg, David

  Norris, Steve

  Summerson, Hugo

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pawsey, James

  Thorne, Neil

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Portillo, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tredinnick, David

  Price, Sir David

  Trippier, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Riddick, Graham

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walden, George

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waller, Gary

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Ward, John

  Rost, Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Watts, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shelton, Sir William

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Sims, Roger

  Yeo, Tim

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Speller, Tony

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blair, Tony

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Blunkett, David

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Paul

  Alton, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Anderson, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beggs, Roy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Beith, A. J.

  Carr, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

  Clay, Bob

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clelland, David

  120

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Livingstone, Ken

  Coleman, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cousins, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Cox, Tom

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Crowther, Stan

  McCartney, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dalyell, Tam

  McKelvey, William

  Darling, Alistair

  McLeish, Henry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  Madden, Max

  Dixon, Don

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dobson, Frank

  Marek, Dr John

  Doran, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Douglas, Dick

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Martlew, Eric

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Meacher, Michael

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Meale, Alan

  Eastham, Ken

  Michael, Alun

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fearn, Ronald

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Morley, Elliot

  Fisher, Mark

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Nellist, Dave

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galloway, George

  O'Brien, William

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Neill, Martin

  George, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Parry, Robert

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pendry, Tom

  Gould, Bryan

  Pike, Peter L.

  Graham, Thomas

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Prescott, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Grocott, Bruce

  Radice, Giles

  Hardy, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Redmond, Martin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Henderson, Doug

  Reid, Dr John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robertson, George

  Home Robertson, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rogers, Allan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Howells, Geraint

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Illsley, Eric

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ingram, Adam

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kilfedder, James

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Snape, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Soley, Clive

  Lamond, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Leighton, Ron

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Terry

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  121

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Wilson, Brian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Vaz, Keith

  Worthington, Tony

  Wallace, James

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mr. John McFall.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 11, 29, 31, 33 and 40 to 42 disagreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to Lords amendment No. 42 disagreed to.

Schedule 1

  AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE RECOVERY FROM DAMAGES ETC OF SUMS EQUIVALENT TO BENEFIT
  Amendments made to the words so restored to the Bill:
  (a) in page 28, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  "(b) for the words following that paragraph there shall be substituted the words—
  "but does not include benefit or an exempt payment or so much of any payment as is referable to costs incurred by any person;"."
  (b) in page 28, line 20, at end insert—
  '(3) In consequence of the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, in the definition of "relevant period" in the said section 22(3), the words from "whether or not" onwards shall be omitted.
  (4) In paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 to that Act, after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) A person who makes any payment (whether a compensation payment or not) on behalf of himself or another—
  122

  (a) in consequence of any accident, injury or disease suffered, or any damage to property sustained, by any other person, or

  (b) which is transferable to any costs, or, in Scotland, expenses, incurred by any such other person by reason of such an accident, injury, disease or damage,

  shall, if the Secretary of State so requests him in writing, furnish the Secretary of State with such particulars relating to the size and composition of the payment as may be specified in the request.".".—[Mr. Scott.]
  Consequential amendment made: (c) in page 70, line 25, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 22(3), in the definition of "relevant period", the words from "whether or not" onwards.'.—[Mr. Scott.]

  MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question, with respect to the Lords amendments designated by him which had not been disposed of, That this house doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
  Lords amendments Nos. 24, 25, 28, 59, 70, 73, 74, 76 to 78, 83, 84, 86 to 89 and 91 agreed to. [ Special entry.]
  Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1 to 3, 7 to 9, 11, 29, 31, 33, 40 and 41.—[Mr. Scott.]
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mrs. Gillian Shephard be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Scott.]
  Ordered,
  That three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Scott.]
  Ordered,
  That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Scott.]

Student Loans
10.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
The draft regulations are laid under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. They will establish the loans scheme with effect from the autumn of 1990. The Government agreed that they should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, a course which provides a welcome opportunity to lay the detail open to the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. There was approval following a constructive debate in another place.
The draft regulations set out the detail of the policy that the Government have already announced and which the House has already debated. They demonstrate the merits of the flexible approach which the Government have adopted. That approach was criticised at the time, but I think that all can now see the advantages of the procedure that we have followed. The basic Act is underwritten by detailed regulations which are capable of being adjusted annually. Some of the provisions will need to be changed each year while others may need to be altered in the light of the monitoring to which we are committed. The general substance of the scheme is outlined in this first set of regulations, and that is why it should be adopted under the affirmative resolution procedure, which gives the House an opportunity to examine the scheme.
The draft regulations set out the detailed eligibility criteria for the loans scheme. Basically, the scheme is parallel to the criteria for mandatory awards, but we have deliberately drawn the criteria wider. This means that 50,000 or more students who are not eligible for grant will be eligible for loan. The regulations set out the terms of the loan. The amount that is outstanding will be indexed to inflation so that no real interest will be charged. The repayment period will be five years, or seven years for those who are taking the longest courses. We expect that the amount of repayment each year will be about £400 per annum for those who are eligible to repay. The deferment and cancellation arrangements will protect those with low incomes. Under the regulations, no graduate with an income below £11,500 will be expected to repay his loan.
Finally, the regulations set out the responsibilities of the higher education institutions in confirming their students' eligibility. The House will have seen the minutes of evidence of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which caused some excitement last week. I am pleased to see in his place an eminent member of that Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Now that the House has had a chance to study these matters, I hope that it will think that any delay has been worth while.
I should explain to those who have not read the regulations that they bear on three main points. First, there is clarification of the position of disabled borrowers. That is to be found in regulation 8. Regulation 9 includes provision—this has been announced already—for the disregard of disability-related benefits when income is assessed for deferment purposes. Disabled borrowers may claim deferment on higher incomes than other borrowers.
124
In regulation 8, we have added to the discretion of the Student Loans Company Ltd. in relation to the starting time of, or the period for, the disabled borrower's repayments.
Regulation 3(3) is a technical amendment which deals with loans for Scottish minors. It recognises that, under contracts that are governed by Scottish law, a minor should obtain the prior consent of his curator, who in most instances is his parent or guardian. Courts in Scotland may possibly take the view that a minor can validly ratify contract on reaching his majority only if he obtains such consent or if he was already independent of his family when he entered into the contract.
Regulations allow for students under 18 years of age on higher education courses to be eligible for loans. Obviously we must expect such students to repay their loans once they have graduated.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Have the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish banks formally agreed to this?
Mr. Jackson: The issue of Scottish minors and their responsibilities vis-a-vis credit is one of the more recondite points of Scottish law. There are different views on the matter. It has never been tested in the courts. The Government take the view that the issue is not ratification. If the issue is enforceability of the loan, the loan will be enforceable.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not quite so technical a matter as the Minister makes out. It is a practical matter and affects many people. I repeat the blunt question that I asked: have the Law Society of Scotland and the banks agreed to this? The frank answer is no, is it not?
Mr. Jackson: I have difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman's question, because I do not see how the banks come into it. I do not believe that the Law Society of Scotland has been asked about the matter. Ultimately this is a matter for the courts to determine. If the hon. Gentleman studies the regulations, he will see that the issue that we are considering is ratification at the age of 18, not enforceability. The Government's view is that the loans will be enforceable.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that on 11 May the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe, meeting at Strasbourg, passed a unanimous resolution, to the effect that
"Systems of loans … can be encouraged".
That resolution was proposed by the rapporteur, Mr. Bassinet, a French Socialist. Not one of the 12 British Labour Members of Parliament who are members of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly voted against it. Why is the Labour party so hopelessly inconsistent? Why does it say one thing at Strasbourg and the opposite at Westminster?
Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend asks a very good question, but we could come even closer to home. There is a marked difference of emphasis and tone on student loans between some of the Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen in this House and some of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in another place. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that inconsistency.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister suggest that the Government are so incompetent in the law relating to minors in Scotland that they cannot draft

125
appropriate regulations, but they have to rely on test cases in Scottish courts? It is ridiculous to place any Scottish student in that position. I ask the Minister to take the regulations back. It seems to me that the Government drafted panic measures before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments met.
Mr. Jackson: The enforceability of loans against minors who take them out before they reach 18 is an obscure area of Scottish law. There are differences of view about it. The issue can be determined only by the courts. Under the regulations, students who are minors will be allowed to make use of a loan. That is entirely as it should be. We expect the students to repay their loans. The general rule is—
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the fact that the Minister of State is not occupying her normal place on the Treasury Bench have any implications, as rumoured in the press, or does it mean that we ought to be told something that so far she has not been allowed to tell us?
Hon. Members: Shame.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I think that the hon. Gentleman had his answer while he was raising his point of order.
Mr. Jackson: The general rule is that students under 18 can claim the loan. We expect them to repay it. To do so, we need to protect the taxpayers' interests. I am sure that the House will agree with me that the interests of taxpayers, whether they are in England or Scotland, should be safeguarded.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I have an interest to declare, in that I have two children who will be going to university this autumn, and they will probably be taking out loans. My hon. Friend has been talking about the enforceability of loans in Scotland. Is he implying that, if the loans turn out not to be enforceable in Scotland, Scottish students will not have to pay back the money, whereas my children will have to pay it back because they have attended English universities?
Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is looking too far ahead. There is a question about the enforceability of loans to minors in Scotland. The Government believe that such students would be obliged to repay their loans for that period but there is some dispute about the matter. We have made arrangements in the regulations for ratification as a way of handling the problem. We shall have many opportunities to return to the issue, because repayments will not start for some time to come.
Mr. Jack Straw: Have the Scottish Law Officers been consulted about this matter, and what is their opinion?
Mr. Jackson: The matter has been discussed within the Government. As I have said, the Government's view is that loans taken out by minors in Scotland are enforceable, but there is an argument about it. That was one of the matters that surfaced during the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Let me proceed now—
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jackson: I shall give way finally to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Mr. Hughes: Why will not the Under-Secretary be honest with the House and say that there is an omission from the regulations because the Government cannot deal with the point? And is not that only one of the omissions? For example, the name of the company administering the scheme is omitted: the regulations contain no reference to the Student Loans Company. Does that betoken an omission or was it the result of an intentional decision to provide for privatisation in the near future?
Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is very good at speculation. The Government have said previously that that course might be followed—it might not be—but it is certainly not an intentional feature of the regulations that that should be so. No decisions either way on that point are made in the regulations.
Let me press on to the third technical point arising from the regulations—the clarification of the role of the higher education institutions. For those who are following the matter in close detail, that is dealt with in regulation 11(2).
In assessing students' eligibility for loans, the higher education institutions must determine whether they meet residence requirements identical to those that apply for mandatory awards, which are verified by the local education authorities. That is mostly a straightforward matter, but there are a few cases in which detailed information may be needed from the student.
The regulations now ensure that the institution's investigations go only as far is reasonably practicable. There is no need for them to pursue the matter exhaustively. In addition, the unqualified requirement in the earlier draft to certify the accuracy of information on students' eligibility is replaced by the requirement to certify accuracy to the best of the institution's knowledge and belief.
I take this opportunity to repeat the tribute that has been paid in another place to the constructive approach that is adopted by the institutions' administrators, who have been attending a series of meetings and seminars arranged by the Student Loans Company. They have provided invaluable feedback. They have allowed the company to refine its procedure. They have also demonstrated their professional commitment to making the scheme work in the interests of their students, and I am sure that that approach will attract the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
On 20 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the Student Loans Company's provisional budget for 1990–91 is £14.25 million exclusive of VAT. That includes payments to the higher education institutions for certifying their students' eligibility—£3.50 for each correctly completed application form. The administration costs therefore fall within the £10 million to £20 million range to which the Government referred throughout the passage of the Bill, and are far lower than the extraordinary figures that were bandied about by the supporters of alternative approaches. I can remember some of them citing the figure of £150 million.
Hon. Members already know the justification for the Government's scheme, but let me repeat the basic points. The idea of the loans scheme is to lift a financial restriction on the growth of higher education. There are now more than 1 million students in all kinds of higher education

127
—almost a quarter of a million more than in 1979. Both the Government and the Opposition are committed to continued expansion. However, the expanding cost of supporting students' living expenses cannot be supported by taxpayers and parents alone. Between 1962 and 1989–90, the cost in current prices of student grants has increased by 264 per cent. Parental contributions have increased under successive Governments and about 40 per cent. of students whose parents are assessed for a contribution find them unable or unwilling to make up the full amount.
Mr. Andrew Smith: Is the Minister going back on earlier answers that he has given to me, which show that, over the next 20 years, it would cost £2.17 billion more to operate the scheme than it would cost to uprate grants in line with inflation?
Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that with any loans scheme there is a period when money is advanced before it starts to come back. If the hon. Member studies the White Paper he will see our projections and we have given the basis of the projections in exhaustive answers to the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary questions. As the number of students starts to grow substantially at the end of the decade, we will reach a point at which the student loans scheme will be repaying larger and larger sums of money and that will help to fund the expansion to which we are committed and which we intend to pay for in the way that we are proposing. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is committed to expanding, but he has not said anything about how he will pay for that.
Loans offer additional funding through the anticipation by students of their own future income as graduates. We follow the line that is taken by every other country that has large numbers of students. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred to other countries that have large numbers of students in higher education. All those countries have loan schemes, and those schemes help fund those students.
The loans are being offered on generous terms and there is full protection through deferment for those not achieving high incomes. Providing additional resources as grant is simply not a viable option, as no savings would accrue. The cost to the taxpayer would continue to rise inexorably.
Around 500,000 students will be eligible for loans in 1990–91. We are budgeting to provide £178 million in loans next year and there will be more than that if the take-up exceeds 80 per cent.—the sum is not cash-limited. We are also making available £14 million of access funds for those who are eligible for loans. Discounting the estimate of £68 million in social security benefits forgone by those students, there is an increase in the public support for eligible students of about £124 million. Students will also, of course, benefit from the uprating of mandatory grant. Loan and grant together will constitute a 25 per cent. increase in student funding in the course of a single year.
There are substantial additional resources for students in the next academic year. The freezing of the grant means reducing the parental contribution in real terms from 1992
128
eventually to little over half its present level. We have in prospect the relief of a burden on taxpayers as loan repayments accrue and cumulative savings are produced.
The scheme is necessary to the future of higher education. The regulations are necessary for the implementation of the scheme. There is no need to debate the principles of the scheme, but I shall respond later to the points that are raised about the details of the regulations. I commend the regulations to the House.
10.47 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: We oppose the regulations and the scheme behind them. The loans scheme is ill-considered, misconceived and extraordinarily wasteful of public funds. As the Minister has just admitted, it will cost over £2,000 million extra above the cost of uprating the grant system in line with inflation between now and the year 2009—nearly 20 years away.
The scheme has been brought in with a degree of administrative chaos that has rarely been seen for any new scheme. That is reflected in the fact that the regulations had to be withdrawn last Tuesday and in the way in which they were pushed through the other place. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who we should remember is chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers, launched a strong attack on the way in which the regulations were physically presented to that House. He said:
"Can my noble Friend really say that this dirty bit of paper with inked-in corrections, deletions and amendments all over it and with two typed-in so-called riders is the form in which your Lordships' House should be asked to approve legislation?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 1990; Vol. 520, c. 1766.]
That would be funny were it not serious. It shows that Ministers have been working hand to mouth, not knowing what they have been doing from one minute to the next. That was clearly demonstrated when the Minister failed to answer a number of questions about the applicability of Scottish law to the regulations.
The regulations are unfair. They provide no help for postgraduates, and there are no special conditions for low-paid professionals such as teachers or nurses. It is true that, if someone is earning less than £965 a month—£11,500 a year—he or she can defer the loan, but, during the period of deferral, for every minute that he or she defers, interest accrues. Therefore, people will have to pay more when they come to repayment when their salary rises above £11,580. In case the Minister is wondering about that, it is specified clearly for the avoidance of doubt in paragraph 9.6 of the regulations. No help is provided for women returners to work, and there is a lack of serious concession for disabled students.
Let me refer to the detail of the regulations and to the applicability to them of Scots law. They had to be withdrawn in their initial draft form because it was clear that they did not properly take account of the law of Scotland relating to minors. I concede that the law of Scotland relating to minors is complicated. In certain circumstances, under the doctrine of quadrennium utile, it is possible for a minor to enter into a contract and for it then to be voidable at his suit within a period of about four years if he can show that he entered into the contract under duress. There are also certain circumstances that appear to apply here. It is essential that a contract for a loan is guaranteed by the student's or the minor's curator—his parent or guardian.

129
I, in common with the Minister and his officials, am no expert on Scots law, but it is appalling that the Minister has admitted that no consultation took place with the Law Society of Scotland. Nor, as became clear from his evasion of my question, has there been any consultation with Scottish Law Officers. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that the matter was dealt with in government. Everyone knows that, when Law Officers are brought in, Ministers are able—they frequently do so—to state categorically before the House that the Law Officers have been consulted and that they assent to what has been brought before the House. In this case, the Minister either does not know whether the Law Officers have been brought in or, as I suspect, knows that they have not been brought in and wishes to avoid giving that information to the House.
There is then the detailed matter of the deferment of the arrangements that apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was told by the Minister:
"The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks. Borrowers wishing to defer repayments will be required to produce evidence that their income falls below 85 per cent. of national average earnings."—[Official Report, 19 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 504.]
Hon. Members were pleased to hear that, but how does his answer square with information that the Secretary of State gave in press notice 6590 on 26 February 1990? It said specifically:
"Verification could be required of banks."
Paragraph 6 of the press notice states:
"In applying, the borrower authorises checks of current income with employer, bank, etc."
Are banks to be consulted without the direct knowledge of the student application?
Then there are the duties of the Student Loans Company and the duty of the institutions that are required to implement the regulations. There is a marked contrast between the great powers given to the Student Loans Company and the Secretary of State which are not specified in the regulations—indeed, as has already been pointed out, the Student Loans Company is not even mentioned in the regulations—and the overbearing duties that are imposed on higher education. Why is the Students Loans Company not specified at any point in the regulations, and why not are its duties specified?
Ministers have produced an extraordinarily complicated administrative scheme for student loans. Under paragraph 11(5) no fewer than three separate forms will be required from individual students. Under paragraph 11(2), the student is issued with and has to return an
"eligibility questionnaire provided by the loans administrator."
Having returned that, under paragraph 11(2)(d), the student then has to complete
"an eligibility form provided by the loans administrator",
and then, under paragraph 11(2)(g), the student is provided with and must complete
"a loan application form provided by the loans administrator."
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has claimed—Opposition Members accept this—that the procedures are
"unnecessarily cumbersome … Universities are quite capable of making effective administrative arrangements and may well be able to find more efficient ways of doing things. As currently laid down the procedures are more complicated than for grant applications to the LEAs."
130
Is it really necessary for students to be required to complete three separate forms before they get a loan? Why cannot they complete one form, and if they turn out to be ineligible, be sent a note telling them so? What is the purpose of laying one layer of bureaucracy upon another, upon another?
There is also the question of the fee of £3.50 to each institution in respect of each set of applications that is completed. That fee is insufficient, given the burden of the administrative arrangements.
Mr. Andy Stewart: More resources.
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State's private secretary, who should know that his job is to be seen, not heard. says, "More resources." As he knows only too well, this is a very wasteful scheme—and his deeply embarrassed Secretary of State knows it, too. We wish the scheme to be scrapped altogether, but if it is to go ahead, the Government must pay the institutions the cost of the scheme, or, the institutions will be using money that was given to them for other purposes, such as teaching students, to run this damn silly scheme. Is the Minister genuinely satisfied that the £3.50 fee is sufficient?
During the considerations of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the official who gave evidence accepted that the original draft was "very harsh, perhaps … oppressive" on the institutions that are required to implement the regulations. It is a great tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and his colleagues in this place, and counsel to the Commiteee, that they were able to force these changes in the regulations. However, the truth is that the regulations are still oppressive on the institutions and, above all, on the students.
There is a nice irony and contrast between the debate that we have just had and this debate. In the previous debate, at the behest of the Government, a carefully targeted benefit, housing benefit, was denied to students. Now we are having a debate that will force through regulations to help those students who need it least. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said on 20 October 1989:
"Far from helping poorer people to gain access to higher education, the scheme will amount to an indiscriminate subsidy to the middle classes who need it least."—[Official Report, 20 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 428.]
Mr. Spencer Batiste rose—
Mr. Straw: I am just about to complete my remarks.
This is the truth about the scheme. In tonight's Evening Standard, we read that, according to a Gallup poll, four out of five parents believe that the state should pay all or part of the costs of their children's higher education, and only 4 per cent. think that their children should contribute anything to their further education—[Interruption.]—except through taxes, of course. That finding is paralleled only by the proportion of Conservative Members who think that the Minister should stay on after the mini-reshuffle.
Mr. Batiste rose—
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Straw: No, I am just about to complete my remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste).
Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman said that a Labour Government would scrap the scheme. If that is added to his intention to uprate the benefit in the form of grant, what does he intend to do about all the students who are included in the loans scheme but are not at present eligible for grant? Will he include them in a new scheme? Has he quantified that cost, and if so, where does he intend to find the money?
Mr. Straw: I think that that was the hon. Gentleman's first intervention on the grants scheme. If he had attended the debates on it more assiduously, as many of his hon. Friends have, he would have worked out what they have and what has made them oppose the scheme with such force—that not only is this a rotten and unfair scheme but it will cost the country far more than the grants scheme. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we are satisfied that by replacing loans with fair grants we shall not only do better for students but save the country a great deal of money.
This is a rotten scheme and these are rotten regulations, and we shall oppose them tonight.
11 pm
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: In this debate on the regulations, I do not want to go over in detail again why I find them so astonishing. That is why I propose to take only two or three minutes to say why I oppose the regulations.
No one outside the House who is associated with higher education has a good word to say for what we are doing tonight. I should be interested if any hon. Member could mention any responsible body which says that it is the way forward.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, in Sweden, the socialist Education Minister says that a loan scheme is the right way to proceed and that he is not prepared to introduce a grants scheme in Sweden, because it would damage the motivation of students in Sweden?
Mr. Miscampbell: Of course, other countries have schemes which are different from that which I favour. The West Germans are changing their system. The Americans are also changing their minds. But we must understand that we are tail-end Charlie in producing graduates. It is not a question of charging students but of finding out how we can cease to have the lowest production of graduates in the industrial western world. Of course, it would be those who have no difficulty. We should examine West Germany's production of graduates and compare it with what we produce. We should ask why there is a difference and what we should do to produce more.
I shall take only a moment or two, because other hon. Members wish to speak. We must understand that the scheme will produce nothing for the Government as we move into the next century. It will do nothing to supply our present lack of engineers and many other graduates whom we need badly and who are the seedcorn of our future. We are not producing sufficient numbers of such people.
My constituency of Blackpool produces people capable of going to the top. Many of them come from fairly humble backgrounds. Let us consider a simple practical problem. How will it help us if, by the turn of the century, such people face a heavy debt? Never mind the figure now
132
—it may be £300 or £400—but by the end of the century students may have a debt of £7,000 or more around their necks. How will that help us to solve our problems?
At the beginning of the 1980s, students were radicalised. By the middle of the 1980s—I know, because my children were educated through the 1980s—they had stopped agitating. They had decided that a good job was available for them and that, with a good degree, they had a future. That has all changed now. The Government have simply made students today angry with us. How will that help?
It may be that those who have a privileged education and a further degree could be asked to pay more. I do not agree with that, because I believe that such people are the seedcorn of all our futures. If one accepts that, that is what should happen. It is not as if the scheme were the only one open to the Government. The academics offered two schemes, either of which would do. Why not simply pick up the money in income tax from those who had a proper and substantial grant, if that is what is wanted?
If, 25 years ago, when I and, dare I say, others were adopted by our executive, I had said, "I propose that when your children have completed their university education they should leave university with £7,000 round their neck in debt," I would not be here, for the good reason that I would not have been adopted.
11.5 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell). He spelled out the fundamental objection that there must be to the student loans scheme which the Government have persisted in introducing. He is absolutely right to object to it on that principal ground. His objection goes to the heart of the debate, although Ministers have seen fit simply to shrug it off, despite being plagued with difficulties that others predicted they would run into from the start. A Government with a little more humility might well have withdrawn the proposals at an early stage or at least gone back to the drawing board to start again, rather than attempt to cobble the regulations together as they went along. The Government will be saddled politically with this for a long time.
Rather than make general criticisms, I shall deal with specific points, as important detailed problems have already been highlighted in the debate. The problems arise precisely because of the way in which the Government have cobbled the regulations together in response to one crisis after another as their original proposals were undermined and fell apart, even as they tried to present them.
The Minister should at least have the humility to acknowledge that this is an important debate and that it is as well that it is taking place under the affirmative resolution procedure. He was wrong to reject that principle originally as unnecessary. If nothing else, the hasty, additional handwritten amendments to the regulations, even as we came to debate them, and the embarrassing events of last week have proved that this is a worthwhile procedure.
Mr. Jackson: I am happy to pay tribute to the Liberals, who proposed in the House this idea, which we decided to accept in the House of Lords.
Mr. Taylor: That is courteous of the Minister, and I thank him for his comment. I hope that in future he will advocate the principle on Bills and on other occasions. In some circumstances, it is a lifebelt for Governments and Parliament.
Why does there appear to have been no consultation on the regulations, at least in relation to part V? It is hard to believe that it is Department of Education and Science policy not to pursue consultation on these matters. Had there been consultation, some of the problems would not have arisen and some of the hasty amendments would not have been needed at an earlier stage.
Given that the Department has not consulted on the matter, why has it opted for such a cumbersome administrative system? It requires questionnaire forms, security checks, eligibility forms, further security checks and final despatch to the Student Loans Company. I cannot believe that a system as administratively complicated as that was proposed by Price Waterhouse or any other leading management consultant. I wonder why Ministers have insisted that such a system should be used.
I am amazed that the regulations lay out the range of specified tasks for universities and polytechnics, but do not even mention by name the company that will administer the loans scheme. It seems that civil servants, in drafting the regulations, have sought to put the problems that they are creating on to the universities and polytechnics that have opposed the system and not acknowledged—through detailed regulations about the operation of the Student Loans Company and its taking on board some of the difficulties—that such problems should be tackled by the Government Department that pushed the system through.
We have every reason to expect such details about the Student Loans Company to appear in the legislation, not least because the Bill states that we shall receive them. The fact that such details are missing has already led my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to ask whether the Minister would pursue privatisation for the Student Loans Company. The Minister has again, following a number of interviews outside this place, suggested that that option is still on the agenda.
Perhaps the Minister will make his position on that clearer later. If we have not received the details in order to open the way for privatisation of the company, would it not be more appropriate for the Minister to spell out what the administrator of student loans would be expected to do as a public, and potentially private, service?
We can envisage moving rapidly towards the privatisation of the Students Loans Company, as the Government originally intended. We shall do so without any idea or debate in the House of the details of what the company, in the public or private sector, is expected to do, how it is expected to do it and what commitments and obligations it will have. It is high time for the Minister to spell out the discussions that have taken place with the Department about how the company will operate and what its long-term future is. I do not believe that discussions about the possibility of privatisation and how it will happen, have not taken place in the Department.
There has been strong pressure from both Houses about future loan arrangements for disabled people. Concern about that should unite Members across the House. Schedule 2(3) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 makes it clear that the availability of loans is not intended to bring hardship to any disabled borrower. The
134
regulations have gone some way towards meeting that aim, but they have not achieved what was intended, particularly by the other place.
The fatal flaw lies in the tie for a student or subsequent graduate to be in receipt of a disablement benefit before he or she is eligible to begin repayment at a later date or to have the length of repayment extended. It is well known that many disabled students who come within precisely the criteria mentioned in both Houses are not in receipt of benefit, of which the outstanding group must be deaf students, although there are many others as well.
Research shows that deaf students, who will mostly not be eligible for this sort of support, are likely to earn lower incomes than other students after graduation. British studies confirm that the number of deaf students going into higher paid professions is proportionately lower than the number of other students. Disabled people face living costs associated with their disability, and that is riot recognised in the regulations. By tying the regulations to eligibility for benefit, the Government have missed the essential point, which is that we should tie repayment to ability to repay, not to eligibility for benefit.
The regulations are unamendable—that is one of the faults in the way in which the government have decided to proceed—so I want an assurance from the Minister that, when the regulations made under the Education (Student Loans) Act are examined next year, the Department will ensure that disabled students are not defined by virtue of their receipt of benefit; a wider definition of disability must be used, under which repayment exemptions for disabled borrowers are based on need, not benefit entitlement.
The regulations fail to make clear the legal situation of people under the age of 18 who take out loans. The Under-Secretary of State referred to Scottish law, and we shall await developments with interest. But it appears that the Department itself is uncertain about the position of 18-year-olds, whether in Scotland or in England or Wales. What preparations has it made to fight legal battles in a year or so—or even next September—when people start to make claims against the Government and refuse to pay?
It is dubious whether the Government, under any legal system, can impose on students who are not old enough to enter into one an agreement by which they must abide under threat of receiving no further payments. That they should attempt this is extraordinary.
The Government stand condemned by the regulations in general and the student loan scheme in particular—and by the faults of detail that they have left in the regulations. The Liberal Democrats will vote against them, and they deserve to be defeated.
11.17 pm
Mr. John Marshall: I shall try to be briefer than the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) who rather selfishly used up too much time.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that he was in favour of a fair grant scheme. Does he believe that the present grant system is fair given that it denies grants to some students and means that others do not receive the assessed parental contribution? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said that no academic approves of these regulations. As a former academic, I must point out to him

135
that 364 academic economists signed a letter to The Times in 1981. They were wrong, just as the academic opponents of the regulations are wrong.
I recognise that the universities of this country offer a first-rate system of education and provide a unique ladder of opportunity for the students who go to them. I welcome the regulations because they will play an essential part in the expansion of higher education.
The paradox is that we have the most generous system of student support in the western world, and a lower percentage of young people in higher education. The hon Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) adversely compared the United Kingdom with South Korea. She did not tell the House that Japan, which has more students than the United Kingdom, has no system of university grants. Our opponents ignore the fact that our present grants system is unsustainable if we are to have the expansion in higher education that we all want. The choice facing us is between grants for the few or higher education for the many. The vast majority of our people want to see more people entering higher education rather than a system of privileged grants for the few who are currently in education.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James rose—
Mr. Marshall: I will not give way. My hon. Friend has said that I am the temporary Member for Hendon, South. The temporary Member for Hendon, South is not giving way to the temporary Member for Cambridge.
Our opponents also fail to recognise that even with the proposed changes we will still have the most generous system of student support anywhere in the western world. Our critics compare our performance with that of Japan, Korea, Germany, and Sweden but fail to say that even under these proposals we will be far more generous than any country that they can name. The proposals are socially just. On the whole, those going to university can look forward to a much higher income than those who do not have the privilege of such an education.
It is right that those who benefit financially from higher education should make a contribution, albeit small, to the cost of that education by repaying a loan. Of course some graduates will have a low income, but that is no argument for saying that no one should repay the loan. It is an argument for deferring the repayment for such people, as the scheme does. It is also an argument for higher salaries. It is no argument against a loan scheme to say that teachers, vicars, nurses and social workers are paid too little. That is an argument for paying such people more and not for presuming that in our system of support for university students all students are underpaid. The vast majority of British students receive very large incomes when they enter the real world.
Those who talk about access fail to mention that, last October, a record number of students entered higher education. A parliamentary reply to me last week showed that in October there will be a 4 per cent. increase in the number of students going to university. Those who will repay the loans do not share the doubts of my hon. Friend for Cambridge. They know the worth of higher education and are willing to take the chance.
I am appalled by the patronising attitude of some people towards children whose parents are on low
136
incomes. Those potential students recognise that a course of higher education will provide them with the best possible opportunity in life. They will not be put off by the need to repay a loan at some stage in the future. They recognise that, if they do not take the opportunity of higher education, their future will be bleak.
It is important for children from low-income families to stay on at school. If they do not remain there beyond the age of 16, they have no chance of entering higher education. The Conservative party has been responsible for encouraging more children to stay on after the age of 16. The introduction of the GCSE, which is more interesting and relevant than the old GCE O-level, will encourage more students to stay at school and proceed to A-levels and university. The regulations are fair to the taxpayer, the student and the country. They will help to underwrite the expansion in higher education which all Conservative Members so earnestly desire.
11.24 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I genuinely intend to be brief; however, I feel that it is incumbent on me, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to confirm that the evidence that the House decided should be available has illuminated the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned the debate in the House of Lords. It is worth pointing out that the House of Lords cannot debate these or any other regulations until the Joint Committee has reported: it was therefore quite wrong of the Minister to try to continue the debate—as he did at one stage—when a vital piece of information had not been made available.
It is clear from the evidence that the regulations were rushed into existence. It is worth pointing out that they were changed only on the representation of counsel to the Committee, who pointed out that, in their original form, they made unusual use of powers and were almost certainly ultra vires, as well as being mistaken in another context. That referred to the proposals for disabled students, the Scottish legislation and the attempt to ensure that the academic institutions provided information that was certified correct when it was patently impossible for any such body to do so. As a result of those representations, and for no other reason, the regulations were withdrawn and retabled.
It is incumbent on the Department and the House to endorse regulations that are as clear as possible, so that people—students in particular—are not faced with court actions, whose costs could run into tens of thousands of pounds, in an attempt to clarify the legal position. I am delighted that tonight the House has demonstrated the value of the Joint Committee's work—work that the Minister was prepared to ignore.
I have dealt with the Committee's point of view; I wish now to speak briefly about the merits of the regulations, with which the Committee does not deal. The loan scheme is anathema to me. I speak as probably the only hon. Member who had to go to university with a loan: in 1953, when it was very difficult to obtain a grant, the local authority refused me one. Had I known that I would have to go through university on an annual loan, I would not have entered in the first place. Instead of spending pleasurable weeks at home, as all the sons and daughters

137
of wealthy Tories will be able to do, I had to work week after week in a part-time job to eke out my university existence.
The loan was a millstone round our necks. I say "our necks" because it continued well into my married life—and I was married at 29; I was not exactly a child groom. The burden of those repayments was still there in my early 30s. I would not wish to impose such an onerous duty on any other student, and for that reason alone I strongly oppose the regulations: they are unfair and unjust. All credit to Tory Members who have had the guts to stand up and put their point of view—to the intense and sneering displeasure of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who dismissed a potential intervener with a disdain and lack of courtesy that I have never before witnessed on the Conservative Benches.
I can say from my experience that the loans system is unfair, unjust and onerous, and should be opposed.
11.28 pm
Dr. Keith Hampson: My hon. Friends will know that, way back in the days when the Conservatives were in opposition, I supported one of the colleagues of the present Leader of the Opposition—a member of his education team when he was a political adviser to Baroness Castle—who advocated student loans. It always seemed admirable in principle, for the very reasons that the then Government advisers gave, which is that the grant system is a millstone around the neck of expansion of higher education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said. I have opposed the scheme as inadequate in a number of ways. I shall now ask some specific questions about the regulations.
The regulations say about the designation of courses that the Secretary of State will have power to
"designate courses of higher education at institutions other than institutions receiving support from public funds."
Can my hon. Friend the Minister say categorically that he will be allowing loans for students attending the University of Buckingham? Will he consider other vocational qualifications, which increasing numbers of students are taking, as the Government's philosophy encourages them to do, at institutions other than universities and polytechnics?
As that is about qualifications through institutions, what would be the position regarding the eligibility of categories of students? Am I right to suggest that nothing in these regulations, and certainly nothing in the statute, prevents my hon. Friend the Minister, or his successors, from allowing loans to be granted to postgraduates or part-time students? I recall that the Prime Minister, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, came out against student loans for graduates, but was keen on grants to postgraduates. My hon. Friend should explain whether, with the statute as we have it, that would be possible.
An admirable provision allows deferment and reduced repayments for those who have problems. It says that a person will not have to repay if his income for any month does not exceed £965. That is a precise figure. Is the suggestion that, as inflation goes on—even under this Government, it goes on—the Minister will regularly return to the House with regulations, which will all be subject to affirmative resolution of the House?
I agree with the provision in regulation 9(4):
138
"In determining whether a borrower's gross income in any month exceeds the amount specified in paragraph (1) no account shall be taken of any disability-related benefits paid to him in that month."
However, what about other sources of income? What about unemployment pay, and what is the position of deemed interest? We have the acute problem with the community charge that, under social security regulations, it is necessary, when determining the income rate at which the threshold operates, to count an exorbitant interest rate, of 20 per cent. or so on capital. Does that apply to mature students, who may have to defer their payments?
Will my hon. Friend look at the German scheme? Regulation 7(5) on page 4, says:
"Nothing … shall be taken to prevent a borrower from reducing or discharging his liability".
That is admirable. If people wish to pay off their loan faster than five years, that is great. However, are we not in the business of building incentives into the system? In Germany, lower interest is charged if one pays back early. Equally, it should be possible to get concessions on the interest and repayments if one gets good grades. That is also a feature in many other loans systems. Why are we not thinking like that?
11.33 pm
Mr. Mike Watson: The debate on these regulations was delayed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, because of Government incompetence. The evidence that we sought on Tuesday last week is now available. Those of us who have had the chance to look at it know that the officials concede that the first set of regulations published were flawed in that they did not adequately reflect the law north of the border.
That was just the latest in a production line of disasters throughout the sorry passage of the Education (Student Loans) Act. It has been blighted by one disaster after another. The consultation process on the loans scheme was a sham. On Second Reading, Conservative Members lined up to attack the plans, and the Bill was a disgrace—only a few pages of enabling clauses, with no mention of the limits of the scheme. During the Committee stage, in which I participated, the faults in the Government's arguments were largely exposed.
Matters went from bad to worse. Earlier this year, under pressure from all sides, the banks withdrew their support and left the scheme in tatters. It had no friends then, and it has picked up few in the intervening period. The Under-Secretary contributed to the Bill's misfortunes at its various stages. On Second Reading, he made the remarkable statement that the top-up loan equated to nothing more than the cost of a skiing holiday, seemingly unaware that skiing holidays are relatively rare in my constituency and, I am sure, in his.
In Committee, he made another remarkable comment to the president of the Edinburgh university students' association. He said that he had published the address of the Student Loans Company in Glasgow for the specific reason that the demonstrators could smash its windows, and apparently thereby give added weight to the Government's case. That was mentioned in Committee. The comment may have been made in a jocular manner, but it called into question the Under-Secretary's judgment in the way that he has guided the Bill through the House.
When the Bill went to another place, several important amendments were carried—but the Government ran

139
scared and, in a dramatic move, introduced a guillotine to curtail debate on the Lords amendments. They did the same this evening when entitlement of students to housing benefit under the Social Security Bill was discussed. The Bill has been little more than an unmitigated disaster for the Government, yet it will be forced through at the last minute.
Two substantive issues arise in Scots law. It is regrettable that it is impossible to amend the regulations to take account of them. First, the regulations set out the Scottish legal position—that a loan to a minor cannot be made without parental consent, other than a minor without a curator. Secondly, what will happen to a student with a curator or parent who refuses to sanction the loan? Would the Student Loans Company still make the loan? If it did, that would be against Scottish law. It gives rise to the question of discrimination as English and Welsh students do not require parental consent; they need only have the agreement ratified when they reach the age of 18. That is an important point, because more 17-year-olds go into higher education in Scotland than in England or Wales because of the different system of education.
A sizeable minority of parents fail to complete the forms for student grants, so it is possible that a greater number will not give their consent to a loan application. In Scotland, if a loan were granted on the expectation of the consent of the parent or curator, but it was subsequently refused, I presume that the loan would have to be returned and the agreement made null and void. I hope that the Under-Secretary answers those points.
The regulations do not rectify an anomaly. All that they do is to spell out the legal position. They do not facilitate the provision of loans to all eligible under-18s in Scotland, and that is just one of a number of serious faults in the regulations and in the Bill.
11.39 pm
Mr. Spencer Batiste: The objections to the regulations seem to fall under two broad heads, and the first set relate to technicalities. Those who are familiar with parliamentary procedures will know that any regulations, in whatever form of words, on a controversial issue of this sort would undoubtedly be subject to criticism. If every proposal that has been advanced by the opponents had been set out in the regulations, the opponents would have found other proposals. The regulations need to be in place for the coming academic year, and the Government have acted properly in trying to bring them forward as quickly as possible, so that there is as much time as possible for them to be understood and implemented.
It is no fault of the Government's that the banks withdrew from discussions at a late stage and that alternative arrangements had to be made for the administration of the scheme. It is—[Interruption.] The scoffing of Opposition Members reminds me of a saying that was coined at the time when the railways were being built. It was said that no one would ask a stagecoach company to build a railway.
With the benefit of hindsight it was not an especially good idea to ask the banks to be involved in the student loans scheme. We were asking them to act in direct competition with a fair part of their lending. Only this week I visited a polytechnic, at which the academics said
140
clearly that one of the benefits of the scheme will be that many students who are borrowing from the banks by using plastic credit cards and paying 34 per cent. and more in interest charges will be relieved from their present onerous obligations.
Most students who go to a university, as I did many years ago, and many other students, end up borrowing. They borrow on straight commercial terms, which leads to an onerous burden. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has drawn attention to that already. The scheme will enable borrowing to take place on much more realistic terms.
Mr. Miscampbell: How will the scheme save students a penny? Loans that are made under the scheme will be only a substitute for grants. Students will be borrowing from the banks as well as entering into loans under the scheme.
Mr. Batiste: That just is not so. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will come to understand the position more clearly when he thinks about it.
If students want to borrow more than the sum which is made available to them under the scheme, they will be able to do so. The reality, however, is that students will have a loan option that will broaden the base of their financing from Government grant alone, and on terms that are far more advantageous than at present through normal commercial lending.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) will know, there is never a final word on detailed regulations for a complex scheme. Experience will be gained as years pass and lessons will be learnt. I hope to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will have an open mind when they consider ways in which the technicalities of the scheme can be improved.
Whatever the regulations were about and whatever they included, the Opposition would oppose them. That is because they do not want a loans scheme in principle. There lies the fundamental division between the two sides of the House. That is why I ask the hon. Member of Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Opposition spokesman on education and science, what his commitment to an alternative would be. We heard the same weasel words from the Opposition tonight as we heard from them last week about schools. We are told, "We shall introduce a fair loans scheme." It is then said, "When resources permit, we shall add resources to the scheme." No one believes that a Labour Government would ever be capable of managing the economy better than a Conservative Government. Extra resources would never be available to a Labour Government.
We know from our surgery experience that there are flaws in the existing grant system. Students tell us that they cannot obtain either mandatory or discretionary grants to enable them to take courses. Those students are not covered by the present system and they will be major winners as a result of any new proposals that are included in the regulations. When I asked the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who led for the Opposition, whether that large number of potential students would benefit from the Labour party's alternative proposals, he deliberately avoided answering the question. The Labour party will continue to avoid answering it. The hon. Gentleman has no discretion to commit additional resources to student funding.

141
I shall use the device that the hon. Gentleman used last week. If he is prepared to give a commitment on behalf of the Labour party that in his definition of a fair loan scheme he will include in the uprating of all students who at present do not qualify for grants but who will qualify under this scheme for loans, including help for all those students who are entitled to a parental contribution but who do not get it, I shall give way to him now. I see that the hon. Gentleman is making not the slightest effort to rise to his feet. Nor will he, because the Opposition's case is based on humbug. They imply that they will devote more resources. As soon as they had an opportunity to do anything about student loans, however, they would welsh on their commitment.
The scheme is vital. It represents a great step forward in broadening the basis of financing higher education. It is a basis on which future Governments of this complexion will build. I would take a bet with anyone that there is no way in which a future Labour Government could find the resources that would enable them to undo the loan scheme.
11.46 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith rose—
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been a short debate. The Front-Bench spokesman will have consumed more than half the allotted time. I do not cavil at your calling of hon. Members, but on the next occasion could the usual channels come to an understanding? There does not need to be a summing-up speech from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman and for other hon. Members who have not been called. However, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman rose to his feet and, as is customary, I must call him. Mr. Andrew Smith.
Mr. Andrew Smith: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) should not judge my speech before he hears it. The time that remains to me means that my speech will be far shorter than those of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
It has been true from the outset of this half-baked and mean-spirited legislation that the regulations have all the hallmarks of a rushed and botched job. The Government embarked on a dogma-driven dash for the statute book and have tripped themselves up all the way. It is significant that the only two speeches that we have heard in support of the regulations were from the hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). Their speeches must have reassured the Minister. On the strength of what they said, we can be sure that they will not be in the front rank of candidates for his job.
The scheme has been a comedy of errors from the word go. However, it is not very funny for the students who will lose or for those who may never become students because of the barriers that it places in their path. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) pointed out, it began with the Government's refusal to publish, even in summary form, the responses to the White Paper consultations. When we analysed them, we found that 95 per cent. of the respondents rejected the scheme. That was why the Government refused to publish the responses.
142
The Government dragged their feet for almost 12 months before they would even provide time for a proper debate on the scheme. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary told the House that we could amend the regulations. However, as he subsequently recognised, and as we recognise tonight, we cannot do so.
Then there was the, "will they, won't they?" pantomime of the banks pulling out of the scheme and the Prime Minister fizzing with fury and promising retribution. And so it has gone on. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, the universities have not been properly consulted about the regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn our attention to the fact that the version of the regulations that was put to it was ultra vires on three counts.
More recently, such was the rush to incorporate last-minute amendments in time for the equivalent debate in the other place that properly printed copies of the regulations were not even available, and their Lordships debate was delayed while hapless officials leapt back to the printers for copies without handwritten corrections and typed riders. We have witnessed a Government display of concentrated incompetence from start to finish.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should not the hon. Member who closes the debate for the Opposition sum up the debate rather than reading out word for word what was written yesterday?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us get on with the debate. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) did not hear all the debate. In any case, numerous hon. Members mentioned the concentrated display of incompetence to which I referred.
In implementing the Education (Student Loans) Act, the regulations will reflect all the damaging consequences of the parent legislation—the deterrent effect on poorer students, to which the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) referred; the unfair penalties for longer courses and on students in Scotland; the difficulties imposed on those entering poorly paid jobs; the administrative burden and the £2,170 million extra that the scheme will cost for the next 20 years, over and above the cost of uprating grants in line with inflation; as well as all the hardship that will be caused by the withdrawal of entitlement to social security benefits, which we discussed in the previous debate.
Dr. Hampson: That is all very well, but is it not about time that at least some Opposition Members acknowledged the fact that both the Minister for higher education in the last Labour Government, Gerry Fowler arid Maurice Peston, now Lord Peston, who was special adviser to Fred Mulley, now Lord Mulley, when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science, agreed with the principle of student loans? Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that?
Mr. Smith: That is not true, and our record speaks for itself. We did not cut student maintenance by more than 20 per cent., as this Government have done during their period in office, making that an excuse for introducing the regulations before us. On the question of the much-vaunted but hopelessly inadequate access funds. what incompetence it is that, even now—not a couple of months

143
before students will be making applications—institutions still do not know how much they will have available to allocate to them.
I invite the Minister to attempt to answer the question that he failed to answer earlier about the technical position in Scotland. Has he or has he not taken the advice of the Scottish Law Officers, and is it or is it not the case that the last-minute amendments that have been spatchcocked into this wholly inadequate legislation do not cover the position in Scotland in respect of a minor who does not have the consent of his parent or curator? Let the Minister answer that question in his reply and let him answer, too, the points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) on other vocational qualifications. What about the physiotherapists and others registered under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960? Are they or are they not covered?
Time does not permit me to go all through the inadequacies of the regulations, but they are flawed from start to finish, as is the legislation on which they are based. That so many questions should remain unanswered at this very late stage in the introduction of the student loans scheme is as bad for parliamentary democracy and public accountability as it is for the many students who, like their places of study, Will be facing enormous difficulties this autumn. These are bad regulations under a bad Act, and they give effect to a thoroughly bad scheme. I urge the House to vote against them tonight for the sake of the educational opportunities that should be available as a right and not a privilege. The Labour party will stand up for that right when in government.
11.53 pm
Mr. Jackson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate in the six minutes that the hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr. Smith) has left me. It is important that students should have access to loans in the academic year starting this autumn. There is no trace of the deterrent effect that has been argued by the Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, applications in both the university and the polytechnic and colleges sectors are up by 6 to 7 per cent., and that is a substantial—indeed, a record—number of applicants.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked about the use of the banks to verify graduate income. Policy has developed since February. The Student Loans Company will not contact a graduate's employer or a bank for evidence of income, but it will seek evidence from the graduate. That may include information that is available to the graduate from such sources as employers.
The hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) both asked why there was no Student Loans Company by name. The reason is simply consistency with the main Act, which does not mention the Student Loans Company either. According to the main Act, the Secretary of State is empowered to make arrangements with
"such person or persons as may agree to do so … or bodies constituted … for that purpose."
That is the basis on which we are proceeding in the regulations.
The hon. Members for Blackburn and for Truro also asked about the alleged cumbersomeness of the
144
procedures. Of course, there is a need to protect public money in the scheme. We also need to square the operation of student loans with the requirement of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, we can review the procedures each year in the light of experience and that is one advantage of the flexibility that we have allowed ourselves. We will keep the matter under review. We can also keep the £3.50 fee to the higher education institutions under review in the light of experience.
The hon. Member for Truro asked about disabled students. A happy feature of the legislation is the considerable improvement in the position of disabled students and graduates. They retain their entitlement to benefits as well as to the loan and that has now been extended to include deaf students. Disabled students allowance, which is payable with the mandatory grant, is increasing by 30 per cent. and we have introduced two further allowances to help disabled students for non-medical personal helpers and for major items of specialist equipment. For disabled graduates, we have provided that disability-related benefits will be disregarded when income is assessed for the purpose of deferment, and we have given discretion to the Student Loans Company to provide for a longer grace period.
The hon. Member for Truro asked for assurances that we would keep the position of disabled students under review. I am happy to repeat that we will continue to keep the position of all students under review.
The hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) asked why we changed the regulations after they had been tabled. The simple fact is that the draft regulations were submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which the hon. Member for Bradford, South is chairman. The Committee was inquorate, and that gave my officials the opportunity to discuss the draft with counsel. Although we were not obliged to, we were happy to revise the form of the regulations in line with counsel's advice on a couple of technical points. I emphasise that those are changes in the form of the structure of the regulations and not in their underlying policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) asked several questions. We have to consider the designation of private sector institutions and we will make an announcement shortly. He asked about part-timers and postgraduates. They could be brought within the scope of the scheme, but that would require an amendment to schedule 1 of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. The deferment threshold will be reviewed annually and the revision will not be subject to affirmative resolution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East also asked about the possibility of scholarships. We have considered that, but the loans are being made on favourable terms and there is no need for us to make them more favourable.
I was also asked about the Scottish Law Officers.
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we are not going to pass the regulations without a clear sign from the Minister that the Scottish Law Officers will—[Interruption.]
Mr. Jackson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has left me time to answer that point. The Scottish Law Officers were not consulted, because there is no specific question to

145
put to them. As indicated, only the courts can rule whether a loan agreement is enforceable in the particular circumstances of any case.
We are now in the last stages of the enactment of student loans. It has been a privilege for me to have had a share in the responsibility for the legislation. As hon. Members have pointed out, some with greater relish than others, we have had some exciting—
It being one and 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 300, Noes 217.

Division No. 288]

[12 midnight

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Cran, James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Allason, Rupert

Curry, David

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

Amess, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amos, Alan

Day, Stephen

Arbuthnot, James

Dorrell, Stephen

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Dunn, Bob

Ashby, David

Eggar, Tim

Atkins, Robert

Emery, Sir Peter

Atkinson, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Evennett, David

Baldry, Tony

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fallon, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Favell, Tony

Bellingham, Henry

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bendall, Vivian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Benyon, W.

Fookes, Dame Janet

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forman, Nigel

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Body, Sir Richard

Forth, Eric

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boswell, Tim

Franks, Cecil

Bottomley, Peter

Freeman, Roger

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

French, Douglas

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Gale, Roger

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gardiner, George

Bowis, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gill, Christopher

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Brazier, Julian

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bright, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gorst, John

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gow, Ian

Buck, Sir Antony

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butcher, John

Gregory, Conal

Butler, Chris

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Butterfill, John

Grist, Ian

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Ground, Patrick

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carrington, Matthew

Hague, William

Carttiss, Michael

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Cash, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hampson, Dr Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Hanley, Jeremy

Chope, Christopher

Hannam, John

Churchill, Mr

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

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

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Harris, David

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hayes, Jerry

Colvin, Michael

Hayward, Robert

Conway, Derek

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)

Couchman, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

146

Hill, James

Norris, Steve

Hind, Kenneth

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Holt, Richard

Page, Richard

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Paice, James

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

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Patnick, Irvine

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Pawsey, James

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunter, Andrew

Porter, David (Waveney)

Irvine, Michael

Portillo, Michael

Jack, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Jackson, Robert

Price, Sir David

Janman, Tim

Raffan, Keith

Jessel, Toby

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rathbone, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Redwood, John

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Riddick, Graham

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Key, Robert

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Knapman, Roger

Rost, Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rowe, Andrew

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Knowles, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lang, Ian

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Latham, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lawrence, Ivan

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shelton, Sir William

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lightbown, David

Shersby, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lord, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin

Maclean, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Malins, Humfrey

Stern, Michael

Mans, Keith

Stevens, Lewis

Maples, John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Marlow, Tony

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stokes, Sir John

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sumberg, David

Mates, Michael

Summerson, Hugo

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mellor, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Miller, Sir Hal

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mills, Iain

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Sir David

Thorne, Neil

Moate, Roger

Thornton, Malcolm

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thurnham, Peter

Moore, Rt Hon John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Tracey, Richard

Moss, Malcolm

Tredinnick, David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Trippier, David

Neale, Gerrard

Twinn, Dr Ian

Needham, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Nicholls, Patrick

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Walden, George

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

147

Waller, Gary

Wilshire, David

Ward, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wood, Timothy

Warren, Kenneth

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Watts, John

Yeo, Tim

Wells, Bowen

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wheeler, Sir John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Whitney, Ray

Widdecombe, Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Tony Durant.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Fisher, Mark

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Flannery, Martin

Allen, Graham

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Alton, David

Foster, Derek

Anderson, Donald

Foulkes, George

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fraser, John

Armstrong, Hilary

Fyfe, Maria

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Galloway, George

Ashton, Joe

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

George, Bruce

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Beckett, Margaret

Golding, Mrs Llin

Beggs, Roy

Gould, Bryan

Beith, A. J.

Graham, Thomas

Bell, Stuart

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bermingham, Gerald

Grocott, Bruce

Blair, Tony

Hardy, Peter

Blunkett, David

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Boateng, Paul

Haynes, Frank

Boyes, Roland

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Bradley, Keith

Henderson, Doug

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Home Robertson, John

Caborn, Richard

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Howells, Geraint

Canavan, Dennis

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hoyle, Doug

Carr, Michael

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clay, Bob

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clelland, David

Illsley, Eric

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ingram, Adam

Coleman, Donald

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cousins, Jim

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cox, Tom

Kilfedder, James

Crowther, Stan

Kirkwood, Archy

Cryer, Bob

Lambie, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lamond, James

Dalyell, Tam

Leadbitter, Ted

Darling, Alistair

Leighton, Ron

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lewis, Terry

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

Litherland, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Livingstone, Ken

Dixon, Don

Livsey, Richard

Dobson, Frank

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Doran, Frank

Loyden, Eddie

Douglas, Dick

McAllion, John

Duffy, A. E. P.

McAvoy, Thomas

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McCartney, Ian

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Macdonald, Calum A.

Eastham, Ken

McFall, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McKelvey, William

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

McLeish, Henry

Fatchett, Derek

Maclennan, Robert

Fearn, Ronald

McNamara, Kevin

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McWilliam, John

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

Madden, Max

148

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Marek, Dr John

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Rowlands, Ted

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Ruddock, Joan

Martlew, Eric

Salmond, Alex

Meacher, Michael

Sedgemore, Brian

Meale, Alan

Sheerman, Barry

Michael, Alun

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Short, Clare

Miscampbell, Norman

Skinner, Dennis

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Morgan, Rhodri

Snape, Peter

Morley, Elliot

Soley, Clive

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Spearing, Nigel

Mowlam, Marjorie

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mullin, Chris

Steinberg, Gerry

Murphy, Paul

Stott, Roger

Nellist, Dave

Straw, Jack

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

O'Brien, William

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

O'Neill, Martin

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Turner, Dennis

Parry, Robert

Vaz, Keith

Pendry, Tom

Wallace, James

Pike, Peter L.

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Prescott, John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Radice, Giles

Wilson, Brian

Randall, Stuart

Winnick, David

Redmond, Martin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Worthington, Tony

Reid, Dr John

Wray, Jimmy

Rhodes James, Robert

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Richardson, Jo

Robertson, George

Tellers for the Noes:

Robinson, Geoffrey

Mr. Allen McKay and

Rogers, Allan

Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Rooker, Jeff

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.

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

INCOME TAX (ITALY)
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Italy) Order 1990 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 6 June.—[Mr. Lightbown]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

INCOME TAX (NETHERLANDS)
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1990, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 6 June.—[Mr. Lighthown.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

AGRICULTURE
That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990 (S.I. 1990, No. 1126), dated 21 May 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 June, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Horse Racing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6 June, be approved.—[ Mr. Lightbown.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

COAL INDUSTRY
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.—[ Mr. Lightbown.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Local Government may be proceeded with, at the sitting on Wednesday 11 July, though opposed, until midnight; and, at the sitting on Thursday 12 July, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings in the remaining Motions; and

(2) If proceedings on the above Motions have not been completed before Seven o'clock at the sitting on Thursday 12 July, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the said Private Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Cambodia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lightbown.]
12.11 am
Mr. Jim Lester: This is the second time that I have raised the subject on the Adjournment and the third time that I have spoken in the House about Her Majesty's Government's policy on Cambodia. Having put that on the record, I do not intend to repeat the points that I have made previously. I am sure that all hon. Members who take an interest in Cambodia are anxious about the lack of progress towards a settlement. We recognise that, perhaps inadvertently, delay cuts right across the Government's declared policy as I understand it, one of the major elements of which is to prevent the return of the Khmer Rouge. We have stated that strongly on more than one occasion.
The present delay leaves longer for the Khmer Rouge—which we and other EC countries, as well as the Association of South-East Asian Nations, have declared unacceptable in the strongest terms, if words mean anything—to undermine the existing order in Cambodia and to maim and kill even more innocent people by indiscriminate use of mines and hit-and-run tactics, to boycott the talks in Tokyo. It was behind the fourth occasion on which Prince Sihanouk, as leader of the so-called coalition, signed an agreement with the Hun Sen regime and backed out of it.
In previous debates, I have never suggested that recognition of the Government is a good policy. It is essential to reconcile the internal and external Khmers. They need to work with each other if a democratic, neutral future is to be assured. However, as the months go by, that seems an increasingly attractive alternative.
I remain deeply worried about Her Majesty's Government's inability to make any further direct moves beyond the delegation that visited Phnom Penh in December last year and the welcome distribution of £1 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to United Nations and non-governmental organisation operations in Cambodia.
I recognise the diplomatic skills of senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials in moving the Security Council to overall agreement on 16 January. Two of the 16 points agreed were that no acceptable solution can won be by force of arms and that there is an urgent need to speed up diplomatic efforts to achieve a settlement.
On 26 May, a further agreement was made. It said :
"The Five reaffirmed that a comprehensive political settlement must include specific provisions, as follows:

(a) To ensure the verification of the withdrawal of all foreign forces and the cessation of external military assistance, …

(b) To establish formally a supreme national council;

To enshrine the fundamental human rights and freedoms which the Cambodian people must enjoy, together with the necessary protections and guarantees;
To provide a system of guarantees for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia."
We understood that there was to be a further meeting of the Security Council tomorrow, but that has been postponed to 17 and 18 July. It is in advance of that that I want to raise these points, because it is at that meeting that we hope that some progress will be made.

151
Since those two rounds of meetings, we have seen the results of the recent Tokyo discussions, after considerable preparations by the Japanese Government. They tried to promote what many of us have argud for—a supreme national council based on a 50:50 split between the Hun Sen Government and the coalition. I understand from the Minister of the Cambodian Government that there was an agreement to form a supreme national council on the basis of six from the Hun Sen Government and two plus two plus two from each of the other factions. The Khmer Rouge boycotted it.
The second agreement was that, if the Khmer Rouge boycotted the discussions, the other formula could be six plus three, plus three from each of the other groups. I understand that all that work has been rejected by Prince Sihanouk as of no value.
Meantime, we have seen a rush of recent claims about what is happening inside Cambodia. Nobody knows the true security position. We have seen reports of the four-five-six stratagem cutting the main routes in the north-west to starve the people in Phnom Penh of food. We have heard further assertions by the Khmer Rouge that they want to cut the routes to the south, which would bring about the fall of the Government. We do know, however, as there is plenty of evidence, that Cambodian boat people are now in Australia, where they seem far from welcome, and in Indonesia, and that between 20,000 and 80,000 are internally displaced people. This certainly was not the case when I last visited.
I understand that there are 11 relocation sites, some of which have been visited by the Red Cross and Oxfam. That shows that people are on the move because of this continuing civil war, which is indirectly assisted by external support for the coalition. It is taking its toll of innocent civilians and making genuine settlement more difficult.
I press my hon. Friend the Minister to make more contact in Phnom Penh to get even-handed information better to form our policy. Other countries, such as Thailand, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden and Australia, have closer contacts than we have. India has a diplomatic representation. France has opened an office of the Alliance Francaise, which is the equivalent of the British Council, but is staffed by a diplomat. Does my hon. Friend share the information from that office? Does the Soviet Union, which is also knowledgeable about the short-term situation in Cambodia, keep the Government informed?
I am worried that this delay means a gradual undermining of the Cambodian economy and the military situation so that only the Khmer Rouge could gain a victory. We are all set against that. If it ever happened, where would we, despite all our protestations, hide our face?
It is not seriously disputed that the Hun Sen Government have instituted a generally constructive administration under great difficulties. Certainly nobody would dispute that they stand qualitatively superior to their predecessor. I hope that my hon. Friend will at least refrain from the hostile language of previous debates when, despite condemning the Khmer Rouge, we have tried to argue that the regime in Phnom Penh is of Khmer
152
Rouge officers imposed by Vietnamese bayonets. After 10 years and many visits from hon. Members from both sides of the House, that is no longer a legitimate argument.
If we cannot set up our own mission, at least we should back a European or United Nations' mission in Phnom Penh to show that we are even handed in our assessment of the external and internal Khmers. A great deal of work needs to be done to plan for aid projections for the future when a settlement is agreed. We should provide economic assistance to balance the withdrawal of Soviet and east European aid, a welcome sign of the change in those countries' attitudes. But in countries such as Cambodia, and certainly Vietnam, it poses short-term difficulties.
We should work enthusiastically towards a ceasefire, so that we can implement the Secretary-General's Paris recommendations. I hope that we can talk in strong terms to China, the United States and the USSR to agree to stop shipments of military arms and resources. I should like Thailand to take active steps to ensure that human rights exist in the coalition camps, and at least move those who wish to go to neutral camps under United Nations protection, so that they can avoid conscription to fight in the civil war.
I should like us to press the United States, and particularly China, to change their policy of treating the the existing regime as an extension of Vietnam, which it is not. There are many sources of information, including congressmen and senators who have been to see the position for themselves. I welcome the report in today's edition of The Independent that the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, is talking about reviewing American policy on Cambodia. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister has any idea what that means, but if he does we shall be pleased to hear from him.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his persistence on this issue. Does he agree that, whether or not the United States changes its policy on Cambodia, the British Government should get together with other EC Governments and pursue an independent foreign policy in relation to Cambodia? Time is short—the hon. Gentleman will have seen the detailed report by Mr. Raoul Jennar stating that the regime in Phnom Penh has between 12 and 18 months, after which time it will go under. Some substantial assistance, more than just a seat at the United Nations, will have to be rendered to Cambodia if it is to survive.
Mr. Lester: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons that I asked for this debate was because I sensed that it is a critical situation. I believe that nobody genuinely knows the military state in Cambodia. The Government is in a catch-22 situation. If they say that they cannot win, they are not regarded as able to defend their territory, and so are not seen as a potential Government. If they say that they are strong and intend to fight, it gives the impression that they seek to continue to solve the problem by military means.
One of the criticisms that I heard in Washington when I was there arguing with the United States Administration was that they said that they do not support communist regimes, and they described the Hun Sen regime as communist. The question that I, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister, should ask is, in that case, why do they support Laos and have an embassy there? Why do they give China most favoured nation trading status? Why

153
cannot they normalise their relations with Vietnam, which would be one of the most significant factors in bringing about peace in south-east Asia?
One of the comments made by the Cambodian Government is that their only fault is that they were liberated from Pol Pot by the Vietnamese. They say that, if they had been liberated by any other force—the Thais or anyone else—they would now be in a much happier position. They are given no credit for any of their actions.
I wish to ask a question of my hon. Friend—this time well in advance of the United Nations General Assembly. Last year, ironically, it passed a resolution that was profoundly out of date with the day-to-day position, but which there was not time to renegotiate in between the withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces and the drafting of the ASEAN countries.
My question is: what view are Her Majesty's Government going to take in the next session? I hope that they can influence the nature of the ASEAN draft in good time and accurately reflect the fact that the Vietnamese have withdrawn; that there is a civil war in Cambodia; that it is being fought against a ruthless army led by men who have been universally condemned for their past actions; and that they are now establishing, in the hiatus, a strong guerrilla base trying to win by attrition what they could not win by negotiation or the ballot box.
The second issue at the United Nations is that of who will occupy the seat increasingly being held by the dubious external Government of the coalition. I know that my hon. Friend will say that the British Government do not recognise them as the external Government but just go along with the rest of the United Nations by using the term. We have all seen that the fact that the Khmer Rouge has held the seat on behalf of the coalition has given them incredible advantage in terms of the negotiations.
On 3 July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"In future, we shall reconsider our vote as to who shall take that seat for Cambodia."—[Official Report, 3 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 856.]
Tonight I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider our overall policy and actions on Cambodia and to tailor them to meet the statement made by my hon. Friend the Foreign Minister to me on 26 March:
"Our abhorrence of the Khmer Rouge remains absolute, and we are doing what we can to prevent Pol Pot and his friends from returning to power."—[Official Report, 26 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 29–30.]
I am asking whether what we are doing will prevent Pol Pot and his friends from returning to power.
12.26 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secetary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for providing this further opportunity to discuss the efforts of the international community to restore peace and stability to a country and people that have known war and desperation for too many years.
We may be approaching a decisive stage for Cambodia's future. The five permanent members of the Security Council meet again on 16 and 17 July to pursue their efforts to formulate a comprehensive political settlement acceptable to all the Cambodian parties; we are waiting to see whether the agreement between Hun Sen and Prince Sihanouk in Tokyo in June will lead to an end to hostilities and the creation of a supreme national
154
council by the end of this month. There are signs that the Hun Sen regime is faltering as economic difficulties bite and military pressure from the resistance increases; and we and others are already considering how to handle Cambodia at this year's United Nations General Assembly. This is clearly a good moment to review recent developments and to consider the prospects for the peace process.
My hon. Friend asked how we get our information to furnish the background against which to carry out this reconsideration. Although we do not have diplomatic representation in Phnom Penh, we keep ourselves well informed of events there. Our embassy in Bangkok is responsible for reporting on Cambodia and draws on a wide variety of sources for its information. We exchange information with our friends and partners, including the French, other members of the 12, our partners in the permanent five and, of course, the Australians. We take every opportunity to meet people who are living and working in Phnom Penh. There is, however, no question of our having Government-to-Government relations with the state of Cambodia without a comprehensive political settlement.
We continue to play an active part in the search for peace, based on a conviction that a comprehensive political settlement is the only effective way of safeguarding Cambodia's future and preventing a return to the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime. When the House last debated Cambodia, in November 1989, hon. Members may recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to new diplomatic ideas coming forward, in particular an
"interim United Nations authority, as suggested by Congressman Solarz".
He added:
"A return to the negotiating table is becoming increasingly urgent".—[Official Report, 13 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 51.]
His remarks were clearly in tune with the thinking of our friends and partners. In late November, the Australian Foreign Minister, Senator Evans, proposed a settlement based on an enhanced United Nations role in Cambodia, including an interim United Nations administration. Meanwhile, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have also been considering their role, given that they are uniquely well placed to influence the development of a settlement in Indochina.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Opposition substantially share the view advanced by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). The Minister says that the permanent five are especially well placed to put forward a solution. Britain, which is one of the permanent five, is even better placed, because it is not seen to have any axe to grind. So far, the Minister has spoken as an observer. It would help the House if he could tell us what positive proposals or suggestions the Government will put forward at that meeting to try to help solve the difficulties.
Mr. Sainsbury: I am coming to that. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the permanent five must work together on the problem if there is to be an effective solution and real progress.
The five were encouraged by the international response to Senator Evans's initiative, and in particular by the fact that none of the Cambodian parties dismissed it. They

155
concluded that they could usefully develop Australian ideas with the eventual aim of putting definite proposals to the Cambodians themselves. We regard this as a helpful and important step towards reviving the negotiating process.
Against this background, the Asia directors of the permanent five have made encouraging progress in their four meetings so far. At the first, in Paris, they agreed 16 principles to guide them and others in working for a peaceful settlement. These confirm the objectives that Britain has consistently pursued in the search for peace: that no acceptable solution can be achieved by force of arms; that a comprehensive political settlement is the only way of ensuring a durable peace; and that free and fair elections must be held. Those principles have since been widely accepted, most notably by the three members of the resistance coalition National Government of Cambodia, as the best foundation for a settlement.
At their second and third meetings, the five had more detailed discussions on specific aspects of a possible settlement. These included the modalities of peacekeeping—including military aspects—the administrative structure in Cambodia in the period before elections; the organisation of elections; and a supreme national council as the repository of Cambodian sovereignty.
The most recent meeting of the permanent five, in New York, took place in rather different circumstances. There were indications of a rapprochement between China and Vietnam, and Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen were about to meet in Tokyo. The five, therefore, while indicating that they could be flexible over the scale and scope of a United Nations role in Cambodia, also stressed that there must be certain indispensable conditions for a comprehensive settlement in Cambodia if the United Nations was to play an effective part without quite unacceptable risks to its personnel and if the settlement was to be durable. They spelled these out, and I think that they are important enough to repeat in full.
Such a settlement must ensure the verification of the withdrawal of all foreign forces and the cessation of external military assistance; a durable ceasefire; the re-grouping of the armed forces of the factions into designated cantonment areas—all under the control of an effective United Nations peacekeeping operation. It must formally establish a supreme national council and ensure free and fair elections for a constituent assembly under United Nations auspices. It must enshrine the fundamental human rights and freedoms which the Cambodian people must enjoy, together with the necessary protections and guarantees. It must provide a system of guarantees for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia.
These conditions reflect our hopes for Cambodia's future, and are the minimum guarantees that the Cambodians will eventually be able to live in peace and stability, free from the fear of civil war and the return of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
We hope that the Cambodian parties can agree a settlement on that basis. The structure and powers of the SNC are really for it to decide and we would not wish to insist on any specific formula for the inclusion or otherwise of all the Cambodian parties. But it is an open question whether the Cambodians will be able to agree without
156
strong outside help. Their record is not good. Earlier this year, the Australians pursued a useful but inconclusive series of contacts with the Cambodian parties in an attempt to establish what common ground existed between them. In February, the Indonesians hosted a meeting of regional countries, including the four Cambodian parties, but the participants failed to agree on a final document, mainly because Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge did not seem ready to settle.
However, in Tokyo, Hun Sen and Prince Sihanouk signed a document committing themselves to the creation of a supreme national council and a voluntary end to hostilities by the end of July. That could be a step in the right direction, but it also illustrates the difficulty of trying to achieve a partial settlement which is not organically linked to all the other elements in a comprehensive and internationally acceptable settlement.
Mr. Lester: The point that I wanted to make—as I said in my speech—is that I understand that Prince Sihanouk has now withdrawn from that agreement. This is the fourth time that he has reached an agreement with the Hun Sen Government, and the fourth time that he has withdrawn.
Mr. Sainsbury: I think that that reinforces what I have just said about the difficulties of reaching agreement with all the Cambodian parties. The Khmer Rouge disassociated itself from the document because it claimed that it was not treated as an equal partner. Without the agreement of all parties, there must be serious doubts about the effectiveness of any ceasefire, and without the other minimum indispensable elements that the five agreed in May, the United Nations is unlikely to become involved in such a settlement.
Where, then, does the way forward lie? We are approaching a turning point. By the end of this month, with or without the Khmer Rouge, a supreme national council may exist, opening the way to a new alignment of the Cambodian parties. Hun Sen embraced the idea with great enthusiasm—as well he might, for his own position is looking increasingly uncertain. As the countries of eastern and central Europe look to their own economic development, money is being progressively cut off. The same is happening to Hun Sen's foreign mainstay, Vietnam: not only the rug but the floor and foundations are being pulled out from beneath both regimes.
The Government in Phnom Penh are becoming demoralised, at the same time as military pressures from the resistance increase. Hun Sen should therefore have every incentive to reach a settlement as soon as possible. The resistance coalition should also be ready to negotiate. The Khmer Rouge must know that the international community would never accept its return to power alone in Cambodia by military force, and that under it Cambodia would be condemned to isolation, continuing misery and probably civil war. We call on all the Cambodian parties to compose their differences and begin the essential process of national reconciliation.
Our conclusion, therefore, is that there is greater urgency than ever to achieve an internationally acceptable comprehensive political settlement. The permanent five had intended to meet representatives of all four Cambodian parties at their next meeting in Paris. Failure of the Tokyo meeting to demonstrate unanimity among the Cambodian parties has caused the five to think again.

157
We agreed that, before meeting the Cambodians direct, the five must agree what they intend to say to them. The aim of the five's Paris meeting will therefore be to complete a detailed examination of a series of working papers to form the basis of a comprehensive political settlement. These would then serve as a mandate for a meeting with the Cambodian parties as soon as possible thereafter. If the Cambodians themselves are prepared to work within the five's framework, it may be possible to consider a date for reconvening the Paris international conference on Cambodia. I do not wish to raise hopes that this will happen in the near future, but we should like it to: it is our aim.
As my hon. Friend has already made clear, if no settlement is reached, another concern is the question of Cambodia's representation at the United Nations, and this year's debate on Cambodia at the General Assembly. As I stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 13 June—in column 283 of Hansard—we are reviewing our policy on this matter with our EC partners. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated that in answer to questions on 3 July—in column 856.
Our friends and partners are all well aware of our reservations about allowing the status quo at the United Nations to continue, given the changes in the situation since last year's General Assembly. With this in mind, over the summer we shall be looking at the possibilities for change, taking into account the efforts of a range of countries—including those of the permanent five—to achieve a comprehensive political settlement.
The question of Cambodia's United Nations representation will first come up in the credentials committee in about mid-October. Much could happen before then. In the event of a comprehensive political settlement, the issue would resolve itself: in the period before free elections, the supreme national council would occupy the seat in place of the National Government of Cambodia. It would be defeatist to assume now that a challenge to the credentials of the national government of Cambodia—in the credentials committee or on the floor of the General Assembly—will be necessary by October. As for the General Assembly debate on the situation in Cambodia, we have yet to see a resolution, and would not expect to do so until the autumn. When we do, we shall take a view on how to respond.
Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the humanitarian needs of the Cambodian people are as great
158
as ever. Since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced our intention of building up our humanitarian aid programme for the benefit of all Cambodians, we have made good progress, especially inside Cambodia. To date, we have already contributed £224,000 to British non-governmental organisations for projects inside Cambodia and have committed a further £230,000. A number of other proposals with a total value in excess of £500,000 are also under consideration.
My hon. Friend referred to the pledge of £1 million we made at the beginning of this year for the work of multilateral agencies inside Cambodia. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced in her written statement on 5 July, we shall be donating £500,000 to UNICEF, £300,000 to the world food programme, and £200,000 to the World Health Organisation. Each pledge is for a specific purpose to alleviate suffering and raise the standard of people's lives inside Cambodia. We also remain committed to providing humanitarian assistance for the civilian population of camps for displaced persons along the Thai-Cambodia border, administered by the non-communist resistance factions.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sainsbury: No, I am afraid that there is not enough time.
No-one, however, could deny that the best way of bringing relief to all Cambodians is a return to peace and stability, with the opportunity to choose whom they wish to govern them. We are committed to working for this and will do our utmost with our friends and partners to achieve it. Unless the Cambodians themselves want peace, however, and are prepared to work constructively and co-operatively towards it, no settlement will be successful. We would urge all the Cambodian factions to take full advantage of the opportunities that the international community is making for them to reach a comprehensive political settlement. If they do, they can be sure of Britian's help and support in Cambodia's reconstruction and development.
The motion having being made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will place in the Library the correspondence between himself and the president of the Linnean Society on the level of funding for taxonomic research at the natural history museum.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: I have placed copies of my correspondence with Professor Claridge in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from the Geologists Association concerning the attitude of the natural history museum towards sponsorship from South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: An hon. Member has forwarded to me a letter that he received from the president of the Geologists Association about the natural history museum's attitude towards sponsorship from South Africa. Sponsorship policy at national museums and galleries is a matter for their directors and boards of trustees.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects to bring forward proposals to change criteria applied by the International Monetary Fund for loans to developing countries.

  Mr. Ryder
  No.

  Family Incomes
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the percentage increase in the average family's real income over the last 11 years.

  Mr. Lilley
  A married man with two children on average male earnings has enjoyed an increase in real net income of over a third since 1978–79.

  European Currency Unit
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to make the ecu legal tender in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: It is not necessary for the ecu to be made legal tender for it to be used in transactions if both parties so agree.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Conveyancers
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received about the payment of insurance commissions to conveyancers.

  The Attorney-General
  Since the Courts and Legal Services Bill was published on 6 December 1989, I have received three representations and the Lord Chancellor has received 20 representations concerning the payment of insurance commissions to conveyancers.

  City Fraud
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding City fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Primary responsibility for the prosecution of commercial fraud rests with the Serious Fraud Office; I met the director of the Serious Fraud Office on Monday 2 July to discuss matters of departmental interest.

  Pub Bombings
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case with(a) the Lord Chief Justice and (b) the Master of the Rolls.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will issue guidance to the Crown prosecution service or prosecution lawyers in respect of the care to be exercised in regard to comments in court which may be damaging to individuals and communities not directly involved in the case before the court.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Guidance on this subject is already given to all barristers and solicitors, including those appearing in court on behalf of the CPS, in the codes of conduct issued by their respective professional bodies, the Bar Council and the Law Society.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the work of the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions for this purpose on 5 July 1990.

  Extradition (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Government of the Irish Republic about extradition; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I discuss these matters from time to time with the Irish Attorney-General as the need arises.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many stipendiary and non-stipendiary magistrates are in post; how many were in post 10 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  In England and Wales on 1 January 1990 there were 64 stipendiary magistrates and 28,700 lay magistrates in post; in 1980 there were 52 stipendiary and 24,700 lay magistrates; and in 1970 there were 47 stipendiary and 19,300 lay magistrates in post.

  The number of lay magistrates continues to increase and the Lord Chancellor values the contribution they make to the administration of justice. Stipendiary magistrates are appointed where they are needed to support the lay magistracy.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the countries which subscribe to the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  The countries subscribing to the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid are:

  Austria

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Eire

  France

  Greece

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Norway

  Portugal

  Spain

  Sweden

  Turkey

  Finland, which is not a member state of the Council of Europe, has acceded to the agreement.

  Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of the Director of Public Prosecution's consideration of the report of the West Mercia police on the murder of Hilda Murrell.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecution is awaiting a report on the outcome of the further police inquiries to which I referred in my answers to the hon. Gentleman on 18 June at cols.675–76. Further consideration will be given to the case once that report has been received.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made by the Lord Chancellor's Department towards the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  The Children Act 1989 represents a major step towards the Government's objective of providing proper and rationalised arrangements for hearing and determining family proceedings. It 4
  brings together in one statute all the public and private law on the care and upbringing of children with the overriding purpose of promoting and safeguarding the child's welfare. It also establishes a new jurisdictional structure encompassing the magistrates court, county courts and the High Court in which children's cases will be heard at the appropriate level of tribunal by trained lay and professional judiciary, according to uniform rules and procedures.

  An extensive programme of work is being undertaken by the Lord Chancellor's Department, in conjunction with the Home Office and the Department of Health, to ensure that the Act can be implemented in October 1991.

  First, new rules of court, embodying the recommendations of an advisory committee on procedure chaired by Mrs. Justice Booth, will be drafted for consultation this autumn. There will also be public consultation on the criteria to be laid down by the Lord Chancellor for the allocation of cases between courts.

  Secondly, it is intended that children's cases in the higher courts should be heard by judiciary who, by reason of their experience and training, are specialists in family work. An amendment will be tabled to the Courts and Legal Services Bill giving the Lord Chancellor the power to nominate such judiciary, with the concurrence of the president of the family division. The Judicial Studies Board has already embarked on a programme of 17 inter-disciplinary seminars throughout the country to explain the guiding principles of the Act to both lay and professional judiciary and these will be followed next year by more detailed training in the new procedures.

  Thirdly, all courts with divorce jurisdiction will continue to deal with such cases, but work requiring the attention of a circuit judge will be concentrated on a network of family hearing centres. Some 52 of those courts will also act as centres for care cases transferred up from the magistrates courts.

  Finally a central advisory committee will be established to advise on whether the guiding principles of the Act are being achieved and the new system is working effectively. Local groups will also be set up before October 1991 to ensure that the system is properly established at local level by the date of implementation and thereafter maintained.

ENVIRONMENT

  Architects
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East of 18 June,Official Report, column 419, if he will make inquiries with the Governments of (a) Germany, (b) France and (c) Italy as to whether they have any records of the numbers of United Kingdom qualified architects who have been registered by the appropriate professional bodies in each of these countries as qualified to practice as architects.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The European Commission has recently invited all member states to provide statistics on the registration of migrant architects. It is expected that the responses will be available later this year.

  Ferro Alloys (Emissions)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the arrangements to monitor air emissions from the Ferro Alloys chimney stack in Glossop, and of air emissions from the stack in each of the last 12 months.

  Ferro Alloys and Metals Ltd—SO2, Calculations July 1989—June 1990

  Month

  Total SO2 (Tonnes)

  Days Production

  Average SO2/Day (Tonnes)

  July 1989

  248

  31

  8·0

  August 1989

  132

  17

  7·7

  September 1989

  252

  30

  8·4

  October 1989

  263

  31

  8·5

  November 1989

  248

  30

  8·3

  December 1989

  247

  31

  8·0

  January 1990

  242

  31

  7·8

  February 1990

  242

  28

  8·6

  March 1990

  240

  31

  7·7

  April 1990

  235

  30

  7·8

  May 1990

  231

  31

  7·5

  June 1990

  212

  30

  7·1

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the sulphur dioxide emissions were required to be reduced following the decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment to uphold the appeal to extend the planning permission for the Ferro Alloys chimney stack in Glossop; and if the process will be covered by IPC.

  Mr. Trippier
  The sulphur dioxide emissions were required to be reduced to a rate not exceeding 113 kg/hour by 31 August 1992, a reduction of 70 per cent. on previous emission rates.

  The process will be covered by IPC.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information held by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution or his Department concerning(a) emissions from the Ferro Alloys chimney stack in Glossop, and (b) other producers of sulphur dioxide in the area, has been exchanged with the Peak Park planning board.

  Research contracts commissioned by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of pollution during the year ending 30 June 1990

  Contractor

  Contract value (excluding VAT) £

  Duration (months)

  Area of work

  University of Lancaster

  60,340

  15

  Study of Polonium 210 levels

  Research Surveys (GB)

  64,750

  15

  Cumbrian coastal area habit surveys

  W. S. Atkins

  89,000

  12

  Modelling gas generation

  Biotreatment

  77,221

  12

  Removal of radionuclides by bio-sorption

  UKAEA

  45,200

  12

  Study of environmental distribution of technetium

  NRPB

  10,050

  7

  Exposure of sewer workers

  National Nuclear

  39,500

  12

  Management of tritium wastes

  UKAEA

  85,000

  12

  West oxidation of organic waste

  UKAEA

  80,000

  9

  Effect of elevated temperatures on cement and blended cements

  PA Technology

  90,000

  24

  Microbiological treatment of low level waste

  UKAEA

  104,000

  24

  Removal of active species from liquid effluent

  Taymel

  1,500,000

  24

  Quality checking of radioactive and hazardous wastes

  RPRWC

  19,945

  8

  Monitoring of tritium discharges

  UKAEA

  10,000

  6

  Determination of the efficiency of absorber materials

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  83,634

  9

  Study of scope of site investigation programmes

  6
  Mr. Trippier
  The darkness of the emissions is monitored continually by measuring transmitted light. Sulphur dioxide emissions are assessed by calculations based on the levels of sulphur fed into the plant. Tests made by an HMIP sampling team in December 1988 confirmed this correlation.

  Information on sulphur dioxide calculations covering the period July 1989 to June 1990 is shown in the table.

  Mr. Trippier
  Glossop is within the High Peak district council area and not the Peak Park planning board, and there has been no exchange of information with the latter.

  The Ferro Alloys chimney stack is the only registered works within the Glossop area producing sulphur dioxide.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give full details of all contracts awarded in the last year by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to private consultants, university departments and other bodies, and include the value of each contract, the research/analysis to be undertaken and the duration of the contract.

  Mr. Trippier
  The research contracts listed in the table were commissioned by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution during the year ending 30 June 1990.

  In addition, a number of short-term consultancy contracts were awarded during the same period by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
  7

  Contractor

  Contract value (excluding VAT) £

  Duration (months)

  Area of work

  NERC

  295,000

  24

  Nature and complexing properties of humic substances

  NERC

  380,000

  12

  Colloid migration studies

  ANS

  18,880

  6

  Management options for organic liquid waste

  UKAEA

  119,368

  31

  Radioactivity in air and rainwater

  Laboratory of Government Chemist

  306,321

  39

  Radiochemical analysis of drinking water supplies

  ICI Tracerco

  143,299

  39

  Radiochemical analysis of private water supplies

  NRPB

  186,500

  38

  Radiochemical analysis of effluents

  ICI Tracerco

  293,856

  39

  Environmental radioactivity monitoring programme

  UKAEA

  85,100

  45

  Assessment and reporting of environmental monitoring programmes

  UKAEA

  49,100

  12

  Artificial radioactivity in tide-washed pastures

  Electrowatt

  144,812

  11

  United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory

  UKAEA

  28,800

  6

  Pollution control at chemical incineration works

  Environmental Resources

  35,080

  6

  Pollution control at large glass works

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  32,500

  6

  Pollution control at municipal incineration works

  Cremer & Warner

  28,100

  6

  Pollution control at hospital incineration

  UKAEA

  160,000

  12

  Microbial aspects of gas generation

  Clayton, Bostock Hill and Rigby

  25,500

  6

  Pollution control at sewage sludge incineration works

  National Nuclear

  41,500

  12

  Liquid effluent treatment

  UKAEA

  22,600

  4

  Review of organic material in radioactive wastes

  INTERA-ECL

  28,704

  4

  Data requirements for groundwater modelling

  W. S. Atkins

  74,500

  9

  Thermodynamic detabase and geochemical modelling

  NRPB

  20,000

  24

  Development of atmospheric dispersion model

  UKAEA

  328,220

  24

  Testing of models for colloid transport

  UKAEA

  86,700

  11

  Technetium removal from aqueous effluents

  UKAEA

  30,000

  11

  Effects of radiation on wasteforms

  UKAEA

  76,800

  11

  Treatment of complexed radionuclides

  University of Aberdeen

  326,460

  11

  Effect of elevated temperatures on cement in radioactive waste isolation

  UKAEA

  240,000

  10

  Actinide sorption on geological materials

  INTERA-ECL

  39,000

  10

  Methodology for assessing disposal of wastes

  WRC

  38,612

  5

  Sewage sludge BPEO study

  British Ceramic

  24,500

  6

  Monitoring of coke oven emissions

  IMPEL

  20,400

  7

  Assessing industrial process emissions

  City Grants
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by region, and in chronological order(a) all projects and (b) companies involved, the amounts they are investing and the amounts they are likely to receive, which have been offered a city grant.

  Approved city grant projects by region

  Date offer made

  Project name

  Developer's name

  Approved grant (£)

  Private investment

  Number of schemes

  West Midlands

  6 October 1988

  Windmill Lane, Smethwick

  McLean in the Inner Cities Ltd.

  775,000

  2,286,000

  —

  28 October 1988

  Seven Stars Industrial Estate

  Deeley LCP Ltd.

  1,627,000

  4,748,000

  —

  9 January 1989

  The Bond

  Raltorten Ltd.

  391,355

  785,000

  —

  9 January 1989

  Garrick Business Park

  Garrick Properties Limited

  750,000

  4,099,000

  —

  18 January 1989

  Startpoint Industrial Development

  Pentos plc

  283,000

  850,000

  —

  27 January 1989

  Kings Norton Business Centre

  Slough Properties Ltd.

  1,260,000

  7,635,000

  —

  1 February 1989

  Sandwell Ski Centre

  Glenarn Investments Limited

  282,000

  2,101,000

  —

  26 April 1989

  Washington Centre, Dudley

  Folkes Properties Ltd.

  3,500,000

  8,486,000

  —

  10 May 1989

  Garrison Lane, Ind. Dev. Birmingham

  J. A. Elliot (Developments) Ltd.

  570,000

  2,906,000

  —

  9 June 1989

  Constitution Hill

  T. S. Gandhi

  67,933

  284,000

  —

  30 June 1989

  St. Marks Church Conversion

  Quest International Partnership

  368,865

  1,037,000

  —

  3 August 1989

  Waterlinks

  Waterlinks plc

  6,200,000

  22,600,000

  —

  22 August 1989

  Walsall Chamber of Commerce

  Walsall Chamber of Commerce

  68,377

  281,000

  —

  8
  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is as follows:
  9

  Date offer made

  Project name

  Developer's name

  Approved grant (£)

  Private investment

  Number of schemes

  22 August 1989

  Hay Lane/Bayley Lane, Coventry

  Ice Developments Ltd.

  624,000

  1,792,000

  —

  25 September 1989

  Jewellery Business Centre

  Grosvenor Laing Urban Enterprise Ltd.

  934,271

  3,136,000

  20 October 1989

  Davenport Warehouse and offices, Willenhall

  H. Davenport & Sons Ltd.

  110,000

  604,000

  —

  14 December 1989

  The Arcadian Centre

  Avatar Limited

  3,200,000

  17,160,000

  —

  27 February 1990

  Browning Street, Ladywood

  Nationwide Housing Trust

  902,000

  3,375,000

  —

  27 February 1990

  Bordsley Village, Phase I

  Bryant, Tarmac, Wimpey

  1,401,257

  5,200,757

  —

  29 March 1990

  Batmans Hill Development, Sandwell

  Douglas Homes Limited

  1,399,431

  10,633,500

  —

  9 April 1990

  Industrial Estate, Bilston

  Echo Estates (trading as Richardson Developments)

  1,160,725

  4,266,990

  —

  10 May 1990

  Molineux Alley

  T. S. Frobisher Ltd.

  666,120

  1,723,550

  —

  10 May 1990

  Old Heath Road, Wolverhampton

  Manders Property (Wolverhampton) Limited

  154,421

  3,066,472

  —

  11 May 1990

  Tipton Trading Estate, Phase II

  A. & J. Mucklow

  1,660,000

  5,200,000

  —

  4 June 1990

  Bordsley Village Initiative

  Bellway Urban Renewals (New Homes) Limited

  3,720,603

  10,990,500

  —

  Regional Total

  32,076,358

  125,246,769

  25

  North west

  —

  2 August 1988

  Frederick Street, Farmworth

  Allen Homes Ltd.

  202,820

  1,766,000

  —

  2 August 1988

  Prospect Mills Housing

  Tay Homes (Northern) Ltd.

  649,773

  1,593,000

  —

  24 October 1988

  Oozebooth Mill

  Euro Jeans Ltd.

  142,000

  441,000

  —

  12 December 1988

  Park Road Hotel

  Florshiem Company (UK), Limited

  1,053,000

  4,755,000

  —

  22 December 1988

  Salford University Tower

  Manchester Parc Securities Limited and Amec Regeneration Limited

  2,550,000

  8,614,000

  —

  18 January 1989

  Atlantic Mill Site

  Hillcrest Homes Limited

  377,123

  1,508,000

  —

  25 January 1989

  Hazel Avenue and Acme Mill Housing Development

  Brackenlea Ltd.

  580,000

  2,915,000

  —

  3 March 1989

  Ice Rink, Blackburn

  Arena Associates Ltd.

  679,500

  1,980,000

  —

  25 April 1989

  Carriageway, Manchester

  Upton-Hunter Estates Ltd.

  99,100

  261,000

  —

  26 April 1989

  Bell Crescent, Manchester

  Tay Homes (North West) Ltd.

  621,700

  2,347,000

  —

  26 April 1989

  Every Street Housing Scheme

  Tay Homes (North West) Ltd.

  456,615

  1,674,000

  —

  9 June 1989

  Rose Hill, Bolton

  Lovell Urban Renewal Ltd.

  559,987

  2,483,000

  —

  30 June 1989

  Stretton Road/Tabley Road, Bolton

  Rushmoor Investments Limited

  308,000

  1,880,000

  —

  30 June 1989

  Low Hollin Ind. Units, Blackburn

  Northern Trust Company Limited

  100,992

  312,000

  —

  14 August 1989

  Moat House Hotel, Bolton

  Fraserfort Ltd.

  900,000

  9,430,000

  —

  22 August 1989

  Portland Mews, Manchester

  Barratt Manchester Ltd.

  451,000

  1,907,000

  —

  6 November 1989

  Queens Park Deck Flats, Blackburn

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Limited

  738,620

  3,300,000

  —

  24 November 1989

  Housing and Urban Park, Lower Audley

  Elite Homes (North West) Ltd.

  1,209,000

  6,007,885

  —

  4 December 1989

  Oak Hotel, Wigan

  Oak Group Hotel

  360,000

  3,991,000

  —

  19 December 1989

  Bennington St. Housing, Lower Audley

  Lovell Urban Renewal Ltd.

  707,000

  3,577,000

  —

  19 December 1989

  Exchange Street Development, Blackburn

  Rawlings Estates Limited

  258,247

  846,750

  —

  31 January 1990

  Orient Mill, Salford

  Clark & Terry (Manchester)

  202,000

  875,000

  —

  27 February 1990

  Grand Hotel, Manchester

  Trusthouse Forte PLC

  1,215,000

  15,799,000

  —

  27 February 1990

  Woodside Mills

  Bellway Homes Ltd.

  550,983

  3,936,000

  —

  27 February 1990

  Park/Persian Mill, Bolton, MK2

  William Hargreaves Ltd.

  398,233

  2,969,405

  —

  27 February 1990

  Wilson Park, Manchester

  Grand Metropolitan Estates Limited

  3,519,810

  11,863,760

  —

  27 February 1990

  Oldham Town Centre Redevelopment

  Arlington Retail Developments Ltd.

  4,793,842

  65,330,330

  —

  23 March 1990

  London Road, Blackburn

  Norwest Holst Partnerships Ltd.

  688,407

  3,152,000

  —

  23 March 1990

  Derker Street, Oldham

  Wiggett Construction Ltd.

  165,443

  850,406

  —

  29 March 1990

  St. Annes School, Manchester

  David Hill & Frank Moyle

  107,290

  315,000

  —

  29 March 1990

  Units at St. Annes School, Manchester

  Meir Heilpern & David Adler

  134,735

  378,000

  —

  4 April 1990

  Hurel-Dubois Factory, Burnley

  Hurel-Dubois UK Limited

  135,730

  480,000

  —

  6 April 1990

  Crown Business Centre, Oldham

  P & O Developments Limited

  200,000

  1,350,000

  —

  10 May 1990

  Kersal Vale, Salford

  Regalian Estates Ltd.

  5,152,000

  26,202,000

  —

  17 May 1990

  Sovereign Business Park, Wigan

  Allen Commercial Developments Limited

  362,760

  3,000,000

  —

  22 May 1990

  Brandsby Gardens, Salford

  Willan Homes Ltd.

  100,000

  585,250

  —

  31 May 1990

  Globe Works, Padiham, Burnley

  Colway Contracts

  63,140

  200,000

  —

  Regional Total

  30,793,850

  198,901,786

  37

  10 11

  Date offer made

  Project name

  Developer's name

  Approved grant (£)

  Private investment

  Number of schemes

  Northern

  17 November 1988

  7–19 Mosley Street

  Kelburn Holdings Ltd.

  413,000

  1,606,000

  —

  15 December 1988

  Ascot Court, Phase 3, Farringdon

  Two Castles Ltd.

  100,806

  403,000

  —

  20 January 1989

  Grosvenor Mews, North Shields

  R. A. Construction Ltd.

  64,620

  253,000

  —

  9 March 1989

  Dean Street, Newcastle

  Avatar

  351,000

  896,000

  —

  9 March 1989

  43–49 Grey Street, Newcastle

  City and Northern Properties Ltd.

  487,500

  3,660,000

  —

  22 March 1989

  Coach Lane, North Shields

  Nomad Properties plc

  88,892

  442,000

  —

  10 April 1989

  Gilley Law, Sunderland

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd.

  1,221,447

  4,119,000

  —

  10 April 1989

  Ascot Court, Sunderland, Phase 4

  Two Castles Limited

  54,910

  309,000

  —

  21 April 1989

  Wellington Road, Dunston

  Stannah Lifts LImited

  200,704

  1,002,000

  —

  26 April 1989

  Boldon Business Park

  Boldon Investments Ltd.

  1,230,940

  2,472,000

  —

  5 May 1989

  Owton Manor, Hartlepool

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd.

  570,000

  1,454,000

  —

  8 June 1989

  West Row, Stockton

  Glynns Estates (Cleveland) Ltd.

  96,722

  425,000

  9 June 1989

  Hartlepool Business Park

  East Mercia Developments Ltd.

  634,600

  3,940,000

  —

  9 June 1989

  Mowbray Court, South Shields

  Red Castle Properties Ltd.

  100,693

  411,000

  —

  14 August 1989

  Former Walkers Department Store

  Onix Construction Ltd.

  128,500

  414,000

  —

  20 September 1989

  Baronshill

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd.

  438,445

  1,116,000

  —

  23 October 1989

  Grange Road, Middlesbrough

  Tendermill Ltd.

  247,841

  4,044,000

  —

  24 October 1989

  Dorrington Road Flats

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd.

  1,087,000

  2,817,400

  —

  5 December 1989

  Clayton Street

  Highbridge Properties Ltd.

  310,073

  1,144,119

  —

  30 January 1990

  Moore Street, Gateshead

  East Coast Ltd.

  30,750

  210,400

  —

  13 March 1990

  Bertha Street

  Gowerflag Ltd.

  78,077

  336,700

  —

  15 March 1990

  Newport Road: Phase 3

  Roseberry Construction Co-operative Limited

  223,900

  1,068,090

  —

  17 May 1990

  Jackson's Building, Newcastle

  Peaston Investments Ltd.

  450,670

  2,777,568

  —

  Regional Total

  8,611,090

  35,320,277

  23

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  26 October 1988

  Abbey Park

  Barratt Leeds Ltd.

  364,516

  1,997,000

  —

  2 November 1988

  175 Arundel Gate

  Manor Developments (Chesterfield) Ltd.

  245,730

  856,000

  —

  30 November 1988

  Victoria Buildings

  Lynthorpe Property and Development Ltd.

  72,790

  224,000

  —

  13 February 1989

  Canalside Warehouse

  Mr. Marino Belivacqua

  100,567

  349,000

  —

  9 March 1989

  Huttons Buildings, Sheffield

  Crofton Place Estate Co. Ltd.

  269,750

  1,520,000

  —

  6 April 1989

  Maxi's Chinese Restaurant

  Maxi's (Yorkshire) Co. Ltd.

  74,000

  614,000

  —

  11 April 1989

  Site 2, Ringway Industrial Centre

  Slough Properties Ltd.

  218,720

  565,000

  —

  24 April 1989

  Holroyd Hill/Wibsey Bank

  Amex Regeneration Limited

  700,000

  4,536,000

  —

  6 September 1989

  The Sheffield Arena

  International Sports Marketing Inc.

  4,750,000

  26,250,000

  —

  20 September 1989

  Tudor Square Hotel

  Able Property Developments Ltd.

  1,044,000

  10,080,000

  —

  20 November 1989

  New Wholesale Market and Residential Development, Mark 2

  Harrogate Properties Ltd. and Clayton Bowmore Ltd.

  492,090

  2,428,680

  —

  13 December 1989

  Charnwood Hotel, Sheffield

  Charnwood House Limited

  179,000

  1,216,000

  —

  19 December 1989

  Pelican House, Bradford

  Crownhold

  80,000

  350,000

  —

  17 January 1990

  Roger Street Development

  Ackroyd and Abbott Ltd.

  169,654

  937,500

  —

  27 February 1990

  Lower Grange, Bradford

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd.

  2,652,707

  10,812,500

  —

  27 February 1990

  Wombwell Industrial Estate, Barnsley

  Rafahart Limited

  162,677

  2,000,000

  —

  4 April 1990

  Dubrovnik Hotel and Restaurant

  Mr. and Mrs. Basic

  150,000

  1,150,000

  —

  11 May 1990

  Redbrook Business Park

  Tinselsave Limited

  559,123

  5,372,563

  —

  17 May 1990

  Birdwell Development, Barnsley

  Rafahart Limited

  453,982

  1,873,832

  —

  18 June 1990

  Thorncliffe Road, Industrial Units, Bradford

  J. R. Timme and Sons Ltd.

  60,000

  219,000

  —

  4 July 1990

  Midland Road, Bradford

  J. and S. Batty Brothers Limited

  136,860

  720,000

  —

  Regional Total

  12,936,166

  74,071,075

  21

  London

  20 September 1988

  Alami Import/Export

  Alami Import and Export Ltd.

  780,000

  2,547,000

  —

  25 January 1989

  Alaska Works, SE1

  Charterhouse Estates Limited

  4,162,590

  16,587,000

  —

  14 February 1989

  Catholic Church Site, Deptford High Street

  First Premise Limited

  157,785

  437,000

  —

  27 February 1989

  Atlantis Paper Company

  Atlantis Paper Company

  400,000

  3,277,000

  —

  1 March 1989

  Ackermans Chocolates Ltd.

  Ackermans Chocolates Ltd.

  70,000

  280,000

  24 July 1989

  Priter Way Arches

  British Rail Property Board

  505,000

  2,500,000

  —

  12 13

  Date offer made

  Project name

  Developer's name

  Approved grant (£)

  Private investment

  Number of schemes

  7 November 1989

  Archbishop Temple

  Lenta Business Space

  500,000

  3,855,000

  —

  24 November 1989

  Ffinch Street Railway Arches, Deptford

  British Rail Property Board

  300,000

  1,070,000

  —

  19 January 1990

  Stamford Wharf, Southwark

  CSCB Ltd.

  3,327,050

  15,300,873

  —

  27 February 1990

  Former Synagogue, Brixton

  R. C. McLure Esq

  1,033,000

  4,058,000

  —

  23 March 1990

  Sardar Manufacturing Company (Leather) Ltd.

  Sardar Manufacturing Company (Leatherwear) Ltd.

  410,000

  1,184,777

  —

  11 May 1990

  Raleigh Hall Mk 2, Brixton

  Inner City Enterprises plc

  359,212

  988,070

  —

  Regional Total

  12,004,637

  52,034,720

  12

  East Midlands

  11 May 1988

  8 Stanford Street, Nottinghamshire

  Rushcliffe Developments Ltd.

  305,500

  1,159,000

  —

  28 July 1988

  Rutland Square Hotel

  Rutland Hotels Ltd.

  738,000

  2,478,000

  —

  2 August 1988

  Sir Francis Ley Industrial Park South

  Shaftsbury Commercial Properties Ltd.

  3,287,000

  8,300,000

  —

  20 October 1988

  The Nottingham Business Design Centre

  Priest Marian Developments

  2,019,000

  4,635,000

  —

  8 November 1988

  20, 20a, Fletcher Gate

  Garratt Properties

  159,304

  424,000

  —

  24 November 1988

  Glasshouse Street (Avalon Court)

  Avalon Holdings Limited

  673,688

  3,690,000

  —

  17 February 1989

  Lamberts Factory Office Development

  Pickering Developments Ltd.

  796,548

  2,594,000

  —

  17 February 1989

  Pilcher Gate, Nottingham

  James McArtney Architects

  79,833

  627,000

  —

  3 March 1989

  St Johns Corner

  Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association

  566,463

  5,078,000

  —

  13 March 1989

  Arnhem House, Leicester

  London & Manchester Assurance Co. Ltd.

  708,200

  6,079,000

  —

  29 March 1989

  The Former Art Annexe

  Michael Goodall Quality Homes Limited

  120,000

  364,000

  —

  17 April 1989

  Players Court, Nottingham

  Thomas Long & Sons Ltd.

  969,590

  3,000,000

  —

  18 May 1989

  3 & 4 Kayes Walk, Nottingham

  Spenbeck Ltd.

  129,534

  444,000

  —

  14 August 1989

  Commerce Square, Mk 2

  Commerce Square Limited

  1,630,874

  4,886,000

  —

  22 August 1989

  Kingsway Industrial Estate, Derby

  K & A Enterprises Derby) Ltd.

  1,050,000

  4,007,000

  —

  22 August 1989

  Raynesway Park, Derby

  St. Modwen Developments Ltd.

  564,000

  2,930,000

  —

  5 June 1990

  Bitterlings Factory Redev. Nottingham

  Topical (Nottingham) Limited

  93,123

  535,000

  —

  27 June 1990

  Queensway Buildings, Leicester

  R. S. Gill, G. S. Gill, M. S. Gill, H. S. Gill.

  445,167

  1,084,660

  —

  Regional Total

  14,335,824

  52,314,660

  18

  Merseyside

  24 May 1989

  Former Huntley & Palmer Building

  Anglo International Holdings Ltd.

  334,690

  1,307,000

  —

  10 October 1989

  Green Bank: Ravenhead

  Green Bank Ltd.

  6,330,000

  19,350,000

  —

  1 November 1989

  Halton Road, Runcorn

  John Ross Properties Ltd.

  62,000

  277,000

  —

  1 February 1990

  Cathedral Chambers Commercial Area

  Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Christ

  1,349,765

  5,966,947

  —

  15 May 1990

  The Hotties, St Helens

  Pilkington Properties Ltd.

  3,048,000

  14,130,000

  —

  5 June 1990

  Prudential/Colonial Offices, Liverpool

  Villagate Properties Ltd.

  1,164,000

  5,428,630

  —

  Regional Total

  12,288,455

  46,459,577

  6

  South West

  22 December 1988

  Hawks Gymnastics Centre

  Bristol Hawks Gymnastics Club Ltd.

  145,000

  310,000

  —

  Regional Total

  145,000

  310,000

  1

  GRAND TOTAL

  123,191,380

  584,658,864

  143

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average time taken in 1989–90 by each regional office of the Department of the Environment to process completed applications from the private sector for city grant.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Although city grant applications are initially submitted through the Department's regional 14
  offices, they are considered by the appraisal team which is based in London. The average time to decide applications made in 1989–90 was 13 weeks.

  Single Homelessness
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those places which have obtained approval and agreement following his consultations under his plan to tackle single homelessness;

  (2) if he will list those (a) Church organisations and (b) other organisations he consulted when drawing up his plans to tackle single homelessness.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We had informal preliminary discussions with a number of voluntary and church groups. My announcement stressed the importance of co-operation with voluntary groups, housing associations and local authorities in developing our package of measures. We are now taking forward these consultations urgently.

  Air Emissions, Sellafield
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give full details of the arrangements for monitoring air emissions of radioactive substances at Sellafield.

  Mr. Trippier
  Emissions of radioactive gases from the main discharge points are monitored continually; emissions from approved places other than those monitored points are estimated from air concentration data obtained at the site boundary.

  Planning Applications
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the calling-in procedures over planning applications, so as to give greater protection to the general public interest.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to modify the Government's policy on calling in planning applications for his decision. That policy was set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) on 5 May 1987. I am satisfied that the procedures for operating that policy generally work well, and I have no present plans to review them.

  Land sold to private developers in 1989/90 by size of site

  Urban development corporation

  Number of sites smaller than 1 acre

  Number of sites between 1 and 5 acres

  Number of sites between 5 and 10 acres

  Number of sites larger than 10 acres

  Black Country

  3

  3

  1

  0

  Bristol

  None

  Central Manchester

  None

  Leeds

  None

  London Docklands

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Merseyside

  4

  4

  1

  0

  Sheffield

  None

  Teesside

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Trafford Park

  2

  1

  1

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  75

  1

  3

  0

  Canals
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the mechanism of accountability to him or his Department for decisions made by British Waterways about the management and operation of canals in its remit.

  Orlit Housing, Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been paid and when the money was paid to Ealing council in respect of defective Orlit housing relating to(a) owner-occupiers and (b) council tenants in the Ferrymead avenue area of Greenford; if he expects to make further payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The following payments have been made to Ealing London borough council in respect of 11 Orlit dwellings under the housing defects legislation:

  £

  1986–87

  5,830

  1987–88

  11,779

  1988–89

  15,054

  These payments represent the notional loan charges on 75 per cent. of the difference between the repurchase price and the defective market value of the dwellings, and will be payable for a period of 20 years.

  The market value of properties repurchased is included in the calculation of the authority's entitlement to main housing subsidy (to 1989–90) and to housing revenue account subsidy (HRAS) from 1990–91. The costs incurred by the authority in maintaining and repairing its housing stock are similarly included in those calculations.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each urban development corporation in 1989–90 the number of sites sold to private developers which were(a) smaller than an acre, (b) between 1 and 5 acres in size, (c) between 5 and 10 acres in size and (d) larger than 10 acres.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The table gives the information requested.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The British Waterways Board is a nationalised industry which the Department sponsors. The board acts in accordance with broad policy objectives agreed with Government, but decisions about day-to-day waterway management are entirely the board's responsibility.

  Weston Shore (Pollution)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he intends to make to the legal proceedings opened by the European Commission in respect of the pollution of the waters off Weston Shore in Southampton Water; and what action he intends to initiate to ensure that these waters meet European Community standards.

  Mr. Trippier
  By convention legal proceedings of this kind are not conducted in public. However, it is the Government's intention to respond firmly to the complaint. We are at present consulting the National Rivers Authority and Southern Water Services Ltd. to confirm the relevant facts.

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the membership of the public interest panel of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee; and what public interest groups are represented on the public interest panel.

  Mr. Trippier
  Attendance at the public interest panel of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) is by invitation. The following organisations were invited to send representatives to the meeting of the panel in February 1990:

  Environment Council

  Caithness Against Nuclear Dumping

  Institute of British Geographers

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment

  Institution of Environmental Health Officers

  Society for Radiological Protection

  Institution of Water and Environmental Management

  Nuclear Free Zones—Scotland

  Institute of Biology

  Royal Society of Chemistry

  Drigg and District Action Group

  National Society for Clean Air

  Institution of Geologists

  Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping

  Ecological Affairs Committee (for British Ecological Society)

  Institution of Civil Engineers

  Institute of Waste Management

  Institute of Physics

  Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Council for the Protection of Rural Wales

  Dounreay Action Group

  Friends of the Earth Ltd.

  Friends of the Earth—West Cumbria

  Green Alliance

  Highland Anti-Nuclear Group

  Institute for European Environmental Policy

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what vacancies are current or forthcoming on the public interest panel of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee; if meetings of the public interest panel are open to the public; and if there is funding available to facilitate public attendance at these meetings.

  Mr. Trippier
  The public interest panel has no fixed membership. The chairman invites representatives of environmental organisations to attend, according to the topics on the agenda. The meetings are not open to the public.

  Global Warming
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what approximate calculations have been made of the relative importance of car and aircraft emissions in global warming.

  Mr. Trippier
  The total fuel consumption of road traffic compared with aircraft gives a good approximation to their relative importance in terms of global warming. World figures for 1986 show that aviation accounted for about 12 per cent. by weight of the combined consumption of motor fuel, jet fuel and aviation gasoline.

  Housing, Exeter
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what amount he has given his consent for Exeter city council to spend this year on the building of houses from its general fund capital receipt.

  Mr. Chope
  Under the new system of local authority capital finance local authorities are free to use all their usable capital receipts for capital expenditure on any service and no consents are required.

  House Prices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state(a) the average percentage rises in house prices, by region, annually in the last 10 years and (b) the current average house price for each region.

  Mr. Chope
  Dwelling price indices showing the annual change in the prices of houses and flats bought with building society mortgages, and adjusted to take account of the mix of dwellings sold, for the years 1978 to 1988 are in the latest annual volume of "Housing and Construction Statistics—Great Britain" (Table 10.8), a copy of which is in the Library. The corresponding indices for 1989 and the average dwelling prices for the same year are as follows:

  Index 1985=100

  Price1 £s

  North

  170

  37,374

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  194

  41,817

  East Midlands

  207

  49,421

  East Anglia

  221

  64,610

  Greater London

  203

  82,383

  South East (excluding Greater London)

  216

  81,635

  South West

  219

  67,004

  West Midlands

  219

  49,815

  North West

  184

  42,126

  England

  207

  58,458

  Wales

  193

  42,981

  Scotland

  144

  35,394

  Northern Ireland

  124

  30,280

  United Kingdom

  202

  54,846

  1 These are simple average prices of dwellings purchased with building society mortgages, not adjusted for the mix of dwellings. Figures for earlier years are in table 10.11 of the publication referred to.

  European Environment Agency
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the establishment of the European Environment Agency.
  19
  Mr. Trippier
  The EC regulation establishing the agency was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 7 May 1990 but will not come into force until a decision has been taken by the Council on where it is to be located. The agency will not start its work until then.

  Dilapidated Buildings
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from(a) Eastbourne borough council or (b) any other borough or district council that the powers conferred upon local authorities by section 79 of the Building Act 1984 are inadequate; what proposals he has to strengthen those powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received no such representations. I am not aware of any general feeling that the powers available to local authorities under section 79 of the Building Act 1984 are inadequate and I have no proposals to strengthen those powers.

  CITES
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 7 June,Official Report, column 689, if he will make a statement regarding his consideration of the World Wide Fund for Nature's request for a contribution towards the costs of the investigation and enforcement officer employed by the CITES secretariat.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The World Wide Fund for Nature's request is still under consideration. I will write to the hon. Member when a decision has been reached.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to take any action to help parish and town councils with the community charge bills because of the loss of income from the business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Parish and town councils have the same access to the income from business rates as do county and district councils. I see no need for action to change this position.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects those people who have a holiday caravan on a protected site within the meaning of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to receive the benefits of the changes to the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 30 March at column 346.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), 27 June,Official Report, columns 258–59, whether the quarterly statistical survey referred to will be published, placed in the Library and sent to all individual right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Chope
  I am willing to place an analysis of the returns from local authorities in the Library of the House,20
  once sufficient returns have been received. We would also make the analysis available to the local authority associations, but I have no plans to send them to all individual right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he used in reaching his decision to vary from his original proposal the budget reductions required of(a) the London borough of Brent, (b) the London borough of Southwark and (c) the metropolitan borough of Wigan.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: My right hon. Friend's decisions on caps for the 17 authorities, including Brent, Southwark and Wigan, which did not accept the caps which he proposed for them and which put forward alternative amounts within the statutory 28-day period, represent in each case his view of what is achievable and appropriate in the light of all the circumstances of the individual authorities concerned, on the basis of all the information available to him.

  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the additional borrowing requirement of local authorities in England and Wales arising as a direct result of late payment and non-payment of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: No analysis is available of the separate effects of the many factors which influence the borrowing requirements of local authorities. The indications are that the vast majority of community charge payers are already making payments to their local authorities. However, the Government have paid 25 per cent. of authorities' revenue support grant in the first two months of the financial year to compensate them for any cashflow problems caused by the introduction of the new local government finance system.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the borough or district council element of each community charge in Essex in descending order from the highest to the lowest.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: The operation of the collection fund means that the community charge is not split between the councils providing services in each Essex district.

  If all authorities had provided a standard level of services the community charge could have been set at £278 throughout Essex, before safety net adjustments. Each additional £1 per community charge payer that a district council raises above the amount needed to provide a standard level of service adds £1 to the community charge in its area. The effect of district councils' 1990–91 budget decisions on community charges in Essex is shown in the table.

  Effect on community charge £

  Basildon

  +154

  Harlow

  +113

  Thurrock

  +75

  Brentwood

  +73

  Southend-on-Sea

  +45

  Castle Point

  +38

  Chelmsford

  +36

  Rochford

  +31

  21

  Effect on community charge £

  Tendring

  +25

  Braintree

  +16

  Epping Forest

  +15

  Maldon

  +5

  Colchester

  +2

  Uttlesford

  -3

  Notes: The figures for each district show the level of demands on the collection fund minus the standard spending assessment, expressed as an amount per head of relevant population. The standard spending assessment covers services provided by both parish and district councils. For consistency, the effects shown above include parish as well as district council spending.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the future of the Property Services Agency office in Leeds.

  Mr. Chope
  PSA Services has a number of offices in Leeds, including a regional headquarters, design office, estates office and district works office.

  PSA Services is reviewing all its organisation as part of its drive towards greater efficiency and in the light of future business needs.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the reasons for the delay in placing in the Library the letter from his officials to the National Rivers Authority referred to in his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 504, until 5 July.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The letter was placed in the Library without undue delay and was sent direct to the hon. Member.

  Acid House Parties
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations or guidelines his Department has initiated with local authorities concerning acid house parties.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are supporting a private Member's Bill which would increase the penalties for infringement by party organisers of the licensing laws. The working party on my Department's review of noise has been looking into the problems posed by acid house parties. Subject to its recommendations, my Department with the help of the Home Office will be issuing guidance to local authorities.

  Dolphins and Porpoises
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to protect dolphins and porpoises in British waters and internationally.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: All species of cetacean already receive protection through their listing in schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This means that it is an offence to kill, injure, take or sell any wild cetacean.
  22
  At the third North sea conference at the Hague, Ministers of states bordering the North sea signed a memorandum of understanding on small cetaceans. The agreement specifies a series of measures to improve our knowledge of the health and status of these species and threats to them and gives a commitment in principle to take appropriate regulatory action where it is clear that human activities are causing damage.

  At the meeting of the International Whaling Commission now taking place in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom has fully supported the proposal by New Zealand to bring small whales, dolphins and porpoises within the remit of the commission.

  Whales
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that investigations are carried out to establish the causes of death of whales washed up on the British coast.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 6 July 1990]: I am pleased to announce that the Department of the Environment is commissioning three new research projects which will focus primarily on dolphins and porpoises but will extend as appropriate to other species in the cetacean or whale group. The first project establishes a co-ordinator based at London Zoo to oversee a systematic collection of samples from strandings and to arrange post mortems on appropriate animals. This project will apply to English and Welsh coasts and separate arrangements are being made to establish a similar system in Scotland.

  A second contract, co-ordinated by the sea mammal research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council and also involving the British museum of natural history will cover the cost of tissue analysis, particularly for contaminants. A third project, with the United Kingdom Mammal Society, will update and improve information from sightings surveys.

  The Department of the Environment is contributing £180,000 to the cost of these projects with additional contributions from the Welsh Office, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Welsh region of the National Rivers Authority.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on cases of toxic waste sites being in close proximity to underground water supplies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 6 July 1990]: This is a matter primarily for waste disposal authorities in carrying out their disposal licensing functions under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Prior to their assuming these responsibilities, the Department and Institute of Geological Sciences co-operated with local government and water authorities in 1973–74 on a desk survey of disposal sites which might pose risks to water. The survey results were published in 1975. More recently a list of the sites has been supplied to the National Rivers Authority to assist in its review of groundwater monitoring requirements.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the terms of reference given to Deloittes, in respect of the Crown Suppliers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells—now known as Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—was appointed to provide accountancy advice on the sale of the Crown Suppliers in May 1989. I have put the terms of reference for that work in the Library. In addition it has recently been given a commission based on the expansion of some of that work, but the terms of that commission are commercially confidential.

  DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS

  TERMS OF REFERENCE

  Advice on taxation matters relating to the transfer of TCS
  To advise on taxation issues which may require special attention in TCS legislation. To examine the tax consequences of any legislation or administrative action (such as incorporation or capital restructuring) proposed before a sale. To advise on the taxation implications of incorporating and selling TCS, having regard to the effect of taxation on direct sale proceeds and on overall Government revenue.

  Accountants' Report
  To prepare long form reports on those activities of TCS indentified by the Secretary of State as being businesses to be privatised.
  In addition to the long form reports, to provide abbreviated reports if required for publication in any documents related to the privatisation of TCS which are to be made available to prequalified potential purchasers. These abbreviated reports will draw upon the long form reports rather than present an audit report of prior years. The abbreviated reports will include a reconciliation between the statutory accounts and the accounts of the businesses which are being sold.

  Other matters
  To attend as required various meetings leading up to an invitation to bid. Also as required to carry out further work associated with the invitation document(s), including consideration of any accounting matters which might arise in the course of the sale, and reviewing any financial information which is to be released, together with the issue of formal comfort letters.

  Rural Areas (Planning)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to review the planning procedures for rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on 27 June,Official Report, column 273.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has held with the Council for the Protection of Rural England on planning issues in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) on 27 June 1990,Official Report, column 272.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those urban development corporations(a) which have elected members of the relevant local authorities on their boards and (b) which have on their boards elected members of the relevant local authorities nominated by those same local authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The board of each English urban development corporation normally includes one or more elected members from the local authority, or authorities, in its area. These appointments are made only after consultation with the relevant local authorities. There are currently temporary vacancies for such members of the boards of Leeds, London Docklands and Sheffield development corporations.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Development Education
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of funding for development education in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Chalker
  With schools as a main focus, most of the ODA's information budget is spent on development education, raising public awareness of the interdependence between developed and developing countries. So far in the current financial year over £300,000 of this budget has been committed to specific development education activities.

  Guyana
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria his Department employs in deciding on the funding of aid projects in Guyana; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our criteria are Guyana's priority needs and Britain's ability (along with other donors) to help meet these. We have not given financial aid in project form since the capital aid programme was suspended in 1984. The new capital aid programme (begun in 1989) is being used to finance essential imports in connection with Guyana's IMF and World Bank supported macroeconomic reform programme. Our technical co-operation is concentrated on the key areas of training in the United Kingdom and local training for both public administration and the private sector.

  Population Growth
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government make to international programmes aimed at slowing population growth.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are major contributors to the three multilateral population programmes. We also support bilateral projects and programmes and research and teaching at United Kingdom institutions aimed at reducing population growth. Aid programme spending on activities directly related to population concerns has increased from £6·5 million in 1981 to £17·3 million in
  25
  1989. We intend to increase the level and quality of this assistance and help promote awareness of population issues within developing and developed countries.

  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to reduce the growth of the world's population; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution is made through the overseas aid programmes to international efforts to slow population growth.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are major contributors to the three multilateral population programmes. We also support bilateral projects and programmes and research and teaching at United Kingdom institutions aimed at reducing population growth. Aid programme spending on activities directly related to population concerns has increased from £6·5 million in 1981 to £17·3 million in 1989. We intend to increase the level and quality of this assistance and help promote awareness of population issues within developing and developed countries.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made, and what action they propose to take, with regard to the United Nations report on estimated world population growth.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Newport West (Mr. Flynn) on 22 June at column 718.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government will be proposing at the G7 summit in July to promote debt relief for developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government keep the debt strategy under continuous review, and we are hoping to discuss its achievements and prospects at the summit, with particular attention to the needs of the poorest debtors.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the sufficiency for developing countries of the Toronto plan for the poorest indebted countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The impact of concessional rescheduling on the financing needs of the poorest countries is kept under close review; 17 countries have already benefited, and other creditor Governments have joined us in writing off old aid loans to the poorest.

  Southern Africa
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of aid to the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference's programme by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other donor countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  United Kingdom pledges to the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference's programme total £70 million: information 26
  on pledges from other donors is not readily available. In 1988 net bilateral aid to the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference member states from DAC donor countries totalled $2,668·46 million (nearly £1,500 million) of which the United Kingdom provided $247·62 million (£139 million).

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Overseas Development Administration has to introduce new initiatives to help black people in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 19 March at column 431.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's support to SADCC programmes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 24 May at column 368.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has recently had discussions with non-governmental organisations on the subject of aid for people in Southern Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 18 June at column 391.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current levels of each of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference countries' external bilateral debts to the United Kingdom broken down into concessional and non-concessional categories.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 28 November 1989 at column 200.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Ethiopia in respect of food supplies.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has in respect of the famine in Ethiopia.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the famine situation in Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The situation remains essentially as stated in my replies of 18 June at column 394 to the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), respectively. We have since been pleased to hear that both the Government and rebel sides have agreed to an early visit by United Nations personnel to assess the extent of damage to the port of Massawa and the prospects for reopening it to relief shipments. We await the outcome of the visit with great interest.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has given further consideration to the idea of sending another British delegation to review the situation in Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 18 June.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development needs of Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 5 July. Britain is helping to meet the basic humanitarian needs of the people of Cambodia by supporting the projects of British NGOs under the ODA's joint funding scheme and by contributing to the programmes of international agencies.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commomwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the refugee camps on the Thai-Cambodian border.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are approximately 300,000 Cambodian displaced persons living in camps administered by the Cambodian resistance factions. The United Nations Border Relief Organisation (UNBRO), other international agencies and NGOs provide humanitarian assistance. In common with other members of the international donor community, the United Kingdom provides financial support for these humanitarian relief activities. Support is channelled through the various relief agencies and is aimed at providing food, water, shelter and medical services for the non-communist groups.

  Environmentally Sustainable Development
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the call in the OECD's development assistance committee 1989 report for a stronger concern for environmentally sustainable development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I welcome and endorse the DAC chairman's comment on this point.

  Namibia
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to help relieve Namibian debt incurred before its independence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 3 July.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government are making in support of a substantial beef quota and least-developed country status for Namibia under the Lomé convention.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We favour generous terms of accession both as regards a beef quota and least-developed country status under the Lomé convention for Namibia. We expect to receive proposals from the Commission shortly.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of British official development assistance.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Net official development assistance in 1989 is provisionally estimated at £1,579 million, compared with £1,485 million in 1988.

  Caribbean Bananas
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position the Government will be taking towards the Caribbean banana producers when the European single market comes into effect in 1992.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Commission is currently considering the arrangements to apply to bananas post-1992, but has not yet come forward with proposals. We are encouraging the Commission and other member states to ensure that any new arrangements fulfil our commitments to Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers and that they take account of consumer interests, trade policy considerations and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market initiative.

  Environmental Projects
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support Her Majesty's Government are giving to proposals by President Mitterrand for a special global environmental facility to finance programmes to tackle environmental problems through the World Bank.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on 14 May.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any environmental projects or initiatives in the third world have been funded by money additional to the existing aid budget.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain's contribution of up to $15 million to the funding mechanism to help developing countries meet their obligations under the strengthened Montreal protocol will be separate from the aid budget to developing countries. It will form part of a new and separate item in the ODA's expenditure plans.

  Hazardous Imports
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on efforts by the Overseas Development Administration to build technical expertise and institutional structures within developing countries for the regulation of hazardous imports.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ODA has been involved in a number of projects designed to help developing countries to tackle a range of environmental issues associated with hazardous substances. For example in 1988 expert advice was provided to Nigeria on the status and disposal of a toxic
  29
  waste dump in Bandel state. I am ready to consider providing further assistance of this kind if so requested by developing countries. To help developing countries to strengthen their capacity to deal with pollution and hazardous substances, amongst other environmental problems, the ODA funds training in the United Kingdom for developing country nationals, for example, in environmental education, environmental pollution control and industrial waste management.

  Women (Adult Education)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is given by the Overseas Development Administration to provide adult education for females.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes, we provide such support in a variety of ways: as component parts of ODA projects; through in-country training and training on courses in British institutions; through distance learning; and in joint ventures with non-governmental organisations and in our contribution to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM).

  Forestry Projects
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the cash limit for the 1990–91 aid programme has been increased in respect of the extra £100 million for forestry projects announced by the Prime Minister in November.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The planned aid budget for 1990–91 of £1,587 million set out in this year's Public Expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1002) was £75 million higher than the earlier planning figure for 1990–91 set out in Cmd. 602. This covers in part the increased expenditure arising from the Prime Minister's announcement in November 1989 that we aimed to commit a further £100 million on forestry projects over the next three years.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department is measuring the impact of Britain's bilateral aid programme on global warming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) on 18 June.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government will be proposing at the G7 summit in July to assist developing countries to adapt to global climate change and a rise in the sea level.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government will be proposing at the G7 summit in July to help developing countries implement policies to reduce the growth rate of carbon emissions.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The summit is an informal meeting between Heads of Government and I cannot predict in advance what will be discussed. However, it is likely that the issue of global warming and developing countries will be debated.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government are giving developing countries in their efforts to regulate imports of pesticides.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ODA attaches great importance to the promotion of pesticide safety in developing countries and has carried out a wide range of activities aimed at strengthening the capacity of those countries to address pesticide safety issues. For example, last year we helped to fund a training workshop in the United Kingdom for government and parastatal organisations from developing countries on the FAO international code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides. I am writing to the hon. Member giving further examples of our activities.

  India
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of British aid to India in the past 10 years has been spent in projects in the Punjab or Kashmir.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Statistics for the British aid programme are not collated for the regional distribution of aid within recipient countries.

  However, assistance has been offered for projects in both states in response to requests from the Government of India. This includes an aid agreement for £17 million concluded in 1989 for the Uri hydroelectric power station in Kashmir and the offer of aid in connection with a coach factory in the Punjab, as well as technical co-operation projects.

  Animal Conservation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding support from Her Majesty's Government for animal conservation schemes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We regularly receive such representations, from a wide variety of sources, ranging from interested members of the public to official requests for assistance from NGOs and overseas Governments. No central record of such representations is kept, but recently many have concerned support for elephant and rhino conservation in east Africa. We are already funding a number of such activities and are always ready to consider new requests for help.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what purposes the recent United Kingdom allocation of £600,000 to Nicaragua will be used.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The funds will be provided as grant in support of activities crucial to Nicaragua's economic recovery. Specific uses will be agreed with the Nicaraguan authorities shortly.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what criteria have been used for providing the recently announced £600,000 aid package to Nicaragua.
  31
  Mrs. Chalker
  We decided to provide this aid to assist the new, democratically elected government of Senora Chamorro in its efforts to revive the Nicaraguan economy.

  South-East Asia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's aid to Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government are supporting British NGO activities in both Cambodia and Vietnam. We are also funding humanitarian aid programmes administered by international agencies in Vietnam. We have no bilateral aid programme to Laos. In Thailand we have a technical

  Net official development assistance from G7 countries 1979—1989 (£ million)

  Country

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  United Kingdom

  1,016

  798

  1,081

  1,028

  1,063

  1,070

  1,184

  1,185

  1,160

  1,485

  1,577

  Canada

  498

  462

  586

  684

  942

  1,216

  1,258

  1,156

  1,150

  1,318

  1,289

  France

  1,626

  1,789

  2,060

  2,305

  2,515

  2,835

  3,082

  3,482

  3,982

  3,854

  4,715

  Germany

  1,599

  1,533

  1,569

  1,801

  2,094

  2,082

  2,269

  2,613

  2,679

  2,656

  3,152

  Italy

  129

  294

  328

  463

  550

  848

  847

  1,639

  1,596

  1,793

  2,007

  Japan

  1,265

  1,441

  1,564

  1,727

  2,479

  3,232

  2,929

  3,842

  4,480

  5,128

  5,794

  United States of America

  2,208

  3,069

  2,851

  4,686

  5,327

  6,518

  7,253

  6,523

  5,458

  5,693

  4,490

  El Salvador
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance Her Majesty's Government have provided to the Government of El Salvador between 1984 and 1990.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Between 1984 and 1988 we provided bilaterally £1 million of financial aid, all for disaster relief; and £113,000 of technical co-operation. The provisional figures for 1989 are £140,000 (disaster relief) and £4,000 (technical co-operation). European Community aid commitments in 1984–89 totalled 45·79 million ecu; expenditure in 1984–88 was 8·3 million ecu; the United Kingdom share of this aid is about 20 per cent.

  Chile
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have considered granting financial help towards the newly established solidarity and social investment fund in Chile, along with other European Governments.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have a bilateral technical cooperation programme for Chile which we have recently decided to increase. We have given careful consideration to the Chilean Government's request for further bilateral assistance, but have had to conclude that we cannot help.

  We also assist Chile through multilateral channels such as the World Bank and European Community action; in 1988 expenditure on Chile by the EC amounted to just under £1 million, of which the United Kingdom share is about 20 per cent.

  Environmental Conference, Japan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects it is proposed to discuss at the conference the Minister for Overseas Development is attending in Japan on the environment, in relation to Japanese treatment of the rain forest.
  32
  co-operation programme of about £1·5 million per year, focused mainly on the provision of training awards and English language teaching. Financial aid is also available to Thailand under the aid and trade provision.

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relative trends in the British aid budget since 1979 and that of other G7 countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The level of net official development assistance since 1979 of the United Kingdom and other G7 countries is as follows:

  Mrs. Chalker
  Development Ministers visiting Japan for the annual Tidewater meeting will discuss a wide range of current and development issues, including the environment.

  Zambia
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provisions Her Majesty's Government have made to cancel Zambia's aid debt.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As I told the House on 5 April at column 734, as part of our support for Zambia's present programme of structural adjustment and economic reform we have offered to reschedule all repayments, totalling some £12·85 million, of aid debt due from Zambia in the current (1990–91) United Kingdom financial year. These include accumulated arrears since Zambia ceased to service its aid loans in 1987. We hope to finalise the arrangements shortly.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is considering making additional funds available for refugees and displaced people in Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I announced in April a grant of £3·5 million and 10,000 tonnes of food aid for displaced persons within Mozambique. The £3·5 million will be used for basic relief supplies, seeds and food.

  I also announced in June a further £3 million, in response to an appeal by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for Mozambican refugees in Malawi and other neighbouring countries. I will continue to monitor the situation in Mozambique very carefully.

  Angola
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make further funds available in addition to the £500,000 British emergency aid so far given to help fight the Angolan famine; and what other action he intends taking to help reconstruction in that country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since September 1989 I have announced two pledges totalling £1 million for relief in Angola. Detailed discussions with the Angolan authorities and international and British relief agencies have been necessary because of the very difficult logistical and organisational problems present in Angola. All of the first £500,000, and £240,000 from the second pledge, has now been allocated to specific requirements. We are ready to allocate the remainder as it becomes possible to do so. Reconstruction is unlikely to be possible on a large scale until the fighting has stopped.

  Kenyan National Parks
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply of 7 June,Official Report, column 677, if he has now completed agreement with the Kenyan Wildlife Service on the communications project in the Tsavo and Meru national parks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The agreement with the Kenyan Wildlife Service on the communications project has not yet been signed, but we hope to conclude formalities very soon.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  International Development and the Environment
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans the Government have to increase spending on education in the United Kingdom on international development and environmental issues.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In England it is for individual local education authorities, schools, and further and higher education institutions to determine the resources to be devoted to education on international development and environmental issues.

  School Psychological Service
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether costs related to the school psychological service will be passed to individual schools to be met under their local management of schools budgets.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under local management of schools it is for individual local education authorities to decide whether to delegate the costs of the school psychological

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil1 1988–89 cash terms

  Local education authority2

  Maintained nursery and primary schools

  Maintained secondary schools

  Maintained special schools4

  £

  £

  £

  Barking

  1,255

  1,970

  7,680

  Barnet

  1,250

  1,820

  7,070

  Bexley

  1,100

  1,685

  5,845

  34
  service to individual schools or to retain those costs centrally. All LEAs have chosen to retain some of the costs centrally, and most are retaining all the costs.

  GCSE
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider establishing machinery to monitor examining in GCSE English language and literature by public examining bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council is responsible under section 14(4)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 for keeping all aspects of examinations and assessment under review. In addition to this my right hon. Friend has responsibility under section 4(2)(c) of the Education Reform Act 1988 for determining arrangements in connection with the assessment of the national curriculum. We have every confidence that the arrangements being made by the GCSE examining groups for the examination of English following the introduction of the national curriculum will build on and improve those at present in force.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the sitting dates for GCSE examinations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received nearly 50 representations from head teachers and others about the GCSE timetable. The joint council for the GCSE is preparing to consult a sample of centres offering the GCSE about this matter. My right hon. Friend will expect to discuss with it the outcomes of the consultation.

  Education, London
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the cost in each London education authority of providing a school place for each child between five and 11 years of age; and what is the additional cost deemed necessary for each child with special needs in(a) a special school and (b) an integrated unit of a school for children under 11 years;

  (2) what is the cost in each London education authority of providing a place for each student between 11 and 18 years; and what additional cost is deemed necessary for each child with special needs in (a) a special school and (b) integrated unit in a secondary school.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The available information is contained in the table. It shows net institutional expenditure for each type of school in 1988–89. Local education authority expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment do not give separate figures for the education of pupils in integrated units in ordinary schools, or for different age ranges within special schools.
  35

  Local education authority2

  Maintained nursery and primary schools

  Maintained secondary schools

  Maintained special schools4

  £

  £

  £

  Brent

  1,375

  2,305

  6,945

  Bromley

  1,165

  1,770

  5,725

  Croydon

  1,180

  2,040

  5,935

  Ealing

  3n/a

  3n/a

  3n/a

  Enfield

  1,110

  1,715

  6,210

  Haringey

  3n/a

  3n/a

  3n/a

  Harrow

  1,115

  1,740

  9,795

  Havering

  1,095

  1,860

  6,475

  Hillingdon

  1,195

  1,870

  4,870

  Hounslow

  1,270

  1,895

  6,555

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,175

  1,900

  5,625

  Merton

  1,210

  1,660

  9,035

  Newham

  1,360

  2,140

  6,700

  Redbridge

  1,070

  1,735

  5,775

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,180

  1,640

  5,020

  Sutton

  1,095

  1,630

  4,990

  Waltham Forest

  3n/a

  3n/a

  3n/a

  ILEA

  1,610

  2,510

  8,820

  1 Net institutional expenditure includes the costs of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DOE and pupil number returns to DES.

  3 n/a denotes that an expenditure return has not been received from the LEA.

  4 Spending on special schools will vary according to the learning difficulties catered for, the pupils' disabilities, and the pattern of provision in each LEA.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have recently applied for grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The governing bodies of 17 schools published proposals for grant-maintained status during the first six months of this year.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out a list of local education authorities, indicating for each authority(a) the number of schools which qualify for application for award of grant-maintained status, (b) how many have applied for a ballot, (c) in how many the ballot has been successful, (d) in how many the ballot has been unsuccessful, (e) how many have submitted an application to him, (f) how many applications have been agreed, (g) how many applications have been declined, (h) how many schools have achieved grant-maintained status, and (i) how many, including those in (h), will have achieved that status by September.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It will take a long time to put together the information. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  TVEI
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department is carrying out any current evaluation of the educational impact of the technical and vocational education initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department of Employment Training Agency is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the technical and vocational education initiative. Her Majesty's inspectorate does, however, inspect TVEI in the schools and colleges and a number of those reports have been published; HMI will be carrying out two surveys focusing on TVEI provision for 16 to 19-year-olds in the forthcoming academic year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit Mauritius in order to ascertain from the Ilois people whether they wish to return to Diego Garcia in the changed military circumstances.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Those concerned worked on the former copra plantations in the Chagos Archipelago. After the plantations closed between 1971 and 1973 they and their families were resettled in Mauritius and given considerable financial assistance. Their future now lies in Mauritius. The defence facilities in British Indian Ocean Territory continue to make a vital security contribution.

  Manchester Olympic Committee
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what specific steps she and the Government are taking in support of the Manchester Olympic Committee's bid to stage the Olympic Games in 1996; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government wholeheartedly support Manchester's bid to host the 1996 Olympic Games and have offered the bid team whatever promotional help they can. I have made our support very clear both in correspondence with His Excellency Juan Samaranch, President of the International Olympic Committee, and in statements to the House.

  In addition, the Government have provided Manchester with the necessary assurances required by the Olympic charter, and will pay full regard to the Olympic rules and byelaws and do all within their powers to facilitate entry and freedom of movement to members of the Olympic family. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has met the bid team, visited Manchester to meet an International Olympic Committee evaluation team and attended a dinner in honour of 10 International Olympic Committee members hosted by the British Olympic

  37
  Association. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has written to International Olympic Committee members endorsing the bid and our posts overseas are supporting the bid team in their lobbying efforts.

  Adult Basic Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister what investigation has been undertaken to assess the relative spending on adult basic education in Scotland with that in England and Wales; and with what findings.

  The Prime Minister
  Overall comparisons between Scotland and England and Wales are not practicable because it is not possible in Scotland separately to distinguish between spending by local authorities on adult basic education from spending on community education generally.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister what current urban aid programmes involve provision for ethnic minorities.

  The Prime Minister
  The urban programmes for England, Wales and Scotland all make provision for ethnic minorities as one of the priority groups to be helped in the inner cities. Local authorities are required to ensure that the needs of ethnic minorities are being met when submitting their bids for urban programme resources.

  Open Learning Centres
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister how much the Scottish Education Department gives to open learning centres.

  The Prime Minister
  The Scottish Education Department provided a grant of £29,500 in 1988–89, £35,000 in 1989–90 and £40,000 in 1990–91 to assist with the running costs of the Whitfield open learning centre in Dundee.

ENERGY

  Oil Rig Abandonment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 350, to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), if he will make a statement on further monitoring of the oil rig abandonment programme.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I shall shortly be writing to Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia) Ltd. and its co-venturers to inform them about further work they will be required to carry out under the abandonment programme for Piper Alpha. When I have done so, I will inform the House.

  Nuclear Power (Privatisation)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library a copy of all correspondence between Kleinwort Benson and his Department regarding the feasibility and costs to public expenditure of privatising nuclear power generation.
  38
  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Oil Rigs
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce legislation requiring the segregation of production and accommodation quarters on British oil rigs in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Existing legislation provides comprehensive controls over the design and construction of offshore installations. This requires, among other things, that accommodation should be placed and constructed so as to afford protection to persons on the installation, and that the certifying authority should carry out an independent assessment of the design and method of construction of the installation.

DEFENCE

  Polish Resettlement Act 1947
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his reply on 11 May,Official Report, column 212, when he now expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 3 April on the Polish Resettlement Act 1947.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces indicated in his letter of 24 April to the hon. Member, this is a complex issue which involves archive research and consultation with a number of other Government Departments. Unfortunately this process is taking longer than we had hoped, but my noble Friend will give a substantive reply to the hon. Member as soon as he is in a position to do so.

  Transmitter, Glen Garry
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the bodies consulted by his Department on the proposed extremely low-frequency transmitter in Glen Garry.

  Mr. Neubert
  The following have been consulted at various times:

  1. Forestry Commission (local and regional).

  2. West Highland Estates.

  3. Nature Conservancy Council.

  4. Countryside Commission for Scotland.

  5. Lochaber district council.

  6. Highland regional council.

  7. Scottish Wildlife Trust.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which company is conducting the environmental impact assessment of the proposed extremely low-frequency transmitter in Glen Garry; on what date the contract was awarded; what is the value of the contract; and what is the contracted completion date for the assessment.

  Mr. Neubert
  A contract for preliminary work, including an assessment of environmental impact, was awarded to W. A. Fairhurst and Partners of Newcastle on 14 November 1989. The value of the contract is a matter of commercial confidentiality. It is expected that this work will be completed by the end of this year. A formal notice
  39
  of proposed development, together with an environmental impact assessment, will be submitted to Highland regional council at the appropriate time, if it is decided to proceed.

  Valiant Submarines
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in checking the reactor equipment of Valiant class submarines following the discovery of faults earlier this year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The programme of inspections of our nuclear powered submarines is continuing.

  Low-frequency Communications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on the extremely low-frequency communications programme in each year since 1979; and what is the projected expenditure for the next three years.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to identify separately spending on individual research projects.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to review the use of the base on Diego Garcia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Exercise Teamwork 90
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature of NATO's exercise Teamwork 90, planned for September; where in Scotland it will take place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Teamwork 90 is a NATO maritime exercise to be held in the North Atlantic and in the waters off Norway from 6 to 23 September 1990. The exercise is designed to train NATO's maritime forces, including amphibious and air forces, to defend and operate in this geographically demanding area.

  The exercise will involve some activity at RAF stations in Scotland and in Scottish waters.

  Military Salaries
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the percentage change in real terms in the annual amount of Government expenditure on military salaries between (i) 1969 and 1979 (ii) 1979 and 1989;

  (2) what is the percentage change in real terms in the pay upon appointment of (a) a field marshal, (b) major generals, (c) colonels, (d) captains, (e) second lieutenants, (f) sergeants, (g) corporals, and (h) privates, between (i) 1969 and 1979 and (ii) 1979 and 1989.

  Table 1 Intake to United Kingdom Regular Forces from civilian life

  Males

  Females

  Total number

  Total

  Officers

  Servicemen

  Total

  Officers

  Servicewomen

  All Services

  1971–72

  55,454

  48,876

  2,378

  46,498

  6,578

  392

  6,186

  1972–73

  46,324

  41,007

  1,989

  39,018

  5,317

  359

  4,958

  1973–74

  32,433

  27,722

  1,921

  25,801

  4,711

  316

  4,395

  1974–75

  42,236

  36,852

  1,890

  34,962

  5,384

  273

  5,111

  1975–76

  46,906

  41,686

  1,882

  39,804

  5,220

  253

  4,967

  1976–77

  40,244

  36,390

  2,007

  34,383

  3,854

  320

  3,534

  1977–78

  38,237

  34,188

  1,957

  32,231

  4,049

  297

  3,752

  40
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The military salary in its current form was not introduced until 1970 and it would not therefore be realistic to provide comparisons from before that date. Comparisons for the two 10-year periods commencing with the financial year 1970–71 are therefore provided.

  The real changes in rates of pay were:

  Financial year 1970–71 to financial year 1979–80 per cent.

  Financial year 1979–80 to financial year 1988–89 per cent.

  Field Marshal

  -24·3

  + 86·4

  Major General

  -30·5

  +44·5

  Colonel

  -12·1

  +29·7

  Captain

  -4·8

  +21·9

  2nd Lieutenant

  -13·6

  +13·1

  Sergeant

  +9·0

  11·9

  Corporal

  +10·7

  +9·0

  Private

  +11·0

  -4·0

  Government expenditure on military salaries for the corresponding periods showed a drop of 2·8 per cent. in real terms between financial year 1970–71 and financial year 1979–80 and an increase of 13·4 per cent. in real terms between financial year 1979–80 and financial year 1988–89.

  Services (Recruitment)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many men and women were recruited into the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in each financial year since 1969; and how many left each of the services prematurely.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: Information on intake and premature wastage in the years before 1971–72 is not available in the form requested. The total intakes to the United Kingdom regular forces in each financial year since 1971–72 are shown in table 1 below. The total numbers of exits from the services under premature wastage outflow categories during the same period are shown in table 2. The categories included in the outflow numbers are those listed in table 4.18 of volume 2 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates (Cm. 1022–11) with the exception of "Time and age expires or exercise of rights at option point" and for service women only "By exercise of right to give 18 months notice". Individual service officer premature outflow figures for 1989–90 have been amended from those given in the answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on 5 June at columns 426–28 which, regrettably, contained a number of errors in compilation.
  41

  Males

  Females

  Total number

  Total

  Officers

  Servicemen

  Total

  Officers

  Servicewomen

  1978–79

  43,366

  38,774

  2,110

  36,664

  4,592

  280

  4,312

  1979–80

  50,652

  46,206

  2,547

  43,659

  4,446

  333

  4,113

  1980–81

  50,488

  46,693

  2,924

  43,769

  3,795

  409

  3,386

  1981–82

  22,607

  21,188

  2,319

  18,869

  1,419

  282

  1,137

  1982–83

  21,647

  19,342

  2,136

  17,206

  2,305

  232

  2,073

  1983–84

  36,991

  33,760

  2,544

  31,216

  3,231

  305

  2,926

  1984–85

  34,721

  32,076

  2,716

  29,360

  2,645

  300

  2,345

  1985–86

  32,651

  30,407

  2,799

  27,608

  2,244

  327

  1,917

  1986–87

  34,049

  31,147

  2,920

  28,227

  2,902

  360

  2,542

  1987–88

  33,826

  31,215

  2,548

  28,667

  2,611

  362

  2,249

  1988–89

  33,863

  30,862

  2,262

  28,600

  3,001

  361

  2,640

  1989–90

  36,412

  32,337

  2,599

  29,738

  4,075

  376

  3,699

  Royal Navy

  1971–72

  10,846

  9,667

  492

  9,175

  1,179

  51

  1,128

  1972–73

  11,034

  9,865

  536

  9,329

  1,169

  67

  1,102

  1973–74

  8,065

  6,983

  493

  6,490

  1,082

  60

  1,022

  1974–75

  9,802

  8,723

  470

  8,253

  1,079

  42

  1,037

  1975–76

  8,910

  7,732

  488

  7,244

  1,178

  35

  1,143

  1976–77

  8,195

  7,238

  485

  6,753

  957

  34

  923

  1977–78

  7,167

  6,269

  487

  5,782

  898

  42

  856

  1978–79

  6,791

  5,978

  533

  5,445

  813

  27

  786

  1979–80

  8,526

  7,701

  649

  7,052

  825

  22

  803

  1980–81

  9,088

  8,130

  685

  7,445

  958

  47

  911

  1981–82

  3,805

  3,353

  400

  2,953

  452

  18

  434

  1982–83

  3,584

  3,078

  395

  2,683

  506

  13

  493

  1983–84

  4,785

  4,223

  445

  3,778

  562

  8

  554

  1984–85

  4,582

  4,231

  537

  3,694

  351

  14

  337

  1985–86

  4,276

  3,987

  568

  3,419

  289

  32

  257

  1986–87

  5,336

  4,791

  592

  4,199

  545

  36

  509

  1987–88

  5,181

  4,601

  455

  4,146

  580

  26

  554

  1988–89

  5,298

  4,598

  484

  4,114

  700

  31

  669

  1989–90

  5,556

  4,696

  516

  4,180

  860

  42

  818

  Royal Marines

  1971–72

  Included in Royal Navy figures

  1972–73

  1973–74

  1974–75

  1975–76

  1,154

  1,154

  46

  1,108

  —

  —

  —

  1976–77

  929

  929

  46

  883

  —

  —

  —

  1977–78

  903

  903

  48

  855

  —

  —

  —

  1978–79

  1,282

  1,282

  51

  1,231

  —

  —

  —

  1979–80

  1,676

  1,676

  42

  1,634

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  1,674

  1,674

  69

  1,605

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  699

  699

  52

  647

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  447

  447

  28

  419

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  447

  447

  33

  414

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  954

  954

  43

  911

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  1,093

  1,093

  65

  1,028

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  1,233

  1,233

  62

  1,171

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  991

  991

  53

  938

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  937

  937

  43

  894

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  1,063

  1,063

  45

  1,018

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  1971–72

  34,303

  31,298

  865

  30,433

  3,005

  180

  2,825

  1972–73

  28,862

  26,484

  750

  25,734

  2,378

  172

  2,206

  1973–74

  17,554

  15,310

  822

  14,488

  2,244

  157

  2,087

  1974–75

  24,264

  22,041

  997

  21,044

  2,223

  134

  2,089

  1975–76

  29,591

  27,238

  1,096

  26,142

  2,353

  145

  2,208

  1976–77

  24,088

  22,344

  1,003

  21,341

  1,744

  134

  1,610

  1977–78

  22,550

  20,868

  1,020

  19,848

  1,682

  149

  1,533

  1978–79

  25,254

  23,528

  1,021

  22,507

  1,726

  156

  1,570

  1979–80

  29,189

  27,164

  1,127

  26,037

  2,025

  154

  1,871

  1980–81

  28,871

  27,241

  1,285

  25,956

  1,630

  204

  1,426

  1981–82

  14,204

  13,603

  1,198

  12,405

  601

  148

  453

  1982–83

  13,071

  11,679

  1,157

  10,522

  1,392

  132

  1,260

  1983–84

  22,348

  20,811

  1,295

  19,516

  1,537

  173

  1,364

  1984–85

  22,278

  20,914

  1,435

  19,479

  1,364

  160

  1,204

  1985–86

  20,268

  19,173

  1,374

  17,799

  1,095

  151

  944

  1986–87

  19,918

  18,718

  1,362

  17,356

  1,200

  154

  1,046

  1987–88

  21,041

  19,895

  1,254

  18,641

  1,146

  148

  998

  1988–89

  21,348

  19,921

  1,150

  18,771

  1,427

  147

  1,280

  1989–90

  22,084

  20,398

  1,377

  19,021

  1,686

  177

  1,509

  Royal Air Force

  42 43

  Males

  Females

  Total number

  Total

  Officers

  Servicemen

  Total

  Officers

  Servicewomen

  1971–72

  10,305

  7,911

  1,021

  6,890

  2,394

  161

  2,233

  1972–73

  6,428

  4,658

  703

  3,955

  1,770

  120

  1,650

  1973–74

  6,814

  5,429

  606

  4,823

  1,385

  99

  1,286

  1974–75

  8,170

  6,088

  423

  5,665

  2,082

  97

  1,985

  1975–76

  7,251

  5,562

  252

  5,310

  1,689

  73

  1,616

  1976–77

  7,032

  5,879

  473

  5,406

  1,153

  152

  1,001

  1977–78

  7,617

  6,148

  402

  5,746

  1,469

  106

  1,363

  1978–79

  10,039

  7,986

  505

  7,481

  2,053

  97

  1,956

  1979–80

  11,261

  9,665

  729

  8,936

  1,596

  157

  1,439

  1980–81

  10,855

  9,648

  885

  8,763

  1,207

  158

  1,049

  1981–82

  3,899

  3,533

  669

  2,864

  366

  116

  250

  1982–83

  4,545

  4,138

  556

  3,582

  407

  87

  320

  1983–84

  9,411

  8,279

  771

  7,508

  1,132

  124

  1,008

  1984–85

  6,907

  5,977

  701

  5,276

  930

  126

  804

  1985–86

  7,014

  6,154

  792

  5,362

  860

  144

  716

  1986–87

  7,562

  6,405

  904

  5,501

  1,157

  170

  987

  1987–88

  6,613

  5,728

  786

  4,942

  885

  188

  697

  1988–89

  6,280

  5,406

  585

  4,821

  874

  183

  691

  1989–90

  7,709

  6,180

  661

  5,519

  1,529

  157

  1,372

  Table 2 Premature outflow from United Kingdom regular forces

  Number

  Total

  Males Total

  Officers

  Servicemen

  Females Total

  Officers

  Servicemen

  All Services

  1971–72

  33,822

  28,806

  1,950

  26,856

  5,016

  245

  4,771

  1972–73

  34,248

  29,324

  2,136

  27,188

  4,924

  233

  4,691

  1973–74

  31,164

  26,624

  2,355

  24,269

  4,540

  215

  4,325

  1974–75

  32,764

  28,406

  1,953

  26,453

  4,358

  194

  4,164

  1975–76

  30,089

  26,259

  2,433

  23,826

  3,830

  188

  3,642

  1976–77

  29,121

  25,733

  2,599

  23,134

  3,388

  176

  3,212

  1977–78

  30,951

  27,810

  2,707

  25,103

  3,141

  168

  2,973

  1978–79

  33,702

  30,544

  2,570

  27,974

  3,158

  159

  2,999

  1979–80

  30,861

  28,068

  2,098

  25,970

  2,793

  146

  2,647

  1980–81

  25,313

  22,884

  1,810

  21,074

  2,429

  144

  2,285

  1981–82

  18,932

  16,905

  1,948

  14,957

  2,027

  170

  1,857

  1982–83

  16,838

  14,879

  1,971

  12,908

  1,959

  142

  1,817

  1983–84

  19,330

  17,413

  2,096

  15,317

  1,917

  139

  1,778

  1984–85

  21,422

  19,488

  2,088

  17,400

  1,934

  136

  1,798

  1985–86

  22,407

  20,413

  2,303

  18,110

  1,994

  150

  1,844

  1986–87

  21,901

  19,911

  2,286

  17,625

  1,990

  152

  1,838

  1987–88

  22,474

  20,383

  2,191

  18,192

  2,091

  153

  1,938

  1988–89

  24,251

  22,452

  2,187

  20,265

  1,799

  162

  1,637

  1989–90

  27,184

  25,006

  2,460

  22,546

  2,178

  184

  1,994

  Royal Navy

  1971–72

  6,050

  5,218

  415

  4,803

  832

  42

  790

  1972–73

  7,396

  6,533

  551

  5,982

  863

  53

  810

  1973–74

  5,875

  5,004

  378

  4,626

  871

  40

  831

  1974–75

  6,698

  5,901

  430

  5,471

  797

  50

  747

  1975–76

  5,549

  4,688

  375

  4,313

  861

  37

  824

  1976–77

  5,038

  4,278

  388

  3,890

  760

  35

  725

  1977–78

  5,138

  4,437

  491

  3,946

  701

  35

  666

  1978–79

  7,305

  6,584

  457

  6,127

  721

  36

  685

  1979–80

  7,073

  6,497

  442

  6,055

  576

  20

  556

  1980–81

  5,675

  5,092

  387

  4,705

  583

  24

  559

  1981–82

  4,275

  3,864

  409

  3,455

  411

  31

  380

  1982–83

  3,004

  2,635

  406

  2,229

  369

  30

  339

  1983–84

  3,448

  3,007

  473

  2,534

  441

  44

  397

  1984–85

  3,786

  3,394

  329

  3,065

  392

  17

  375

  1985–86

  4,700

  4,344

  369

  3,975

  356

  17

  339

  1986–87

  4,702

  4,332

  380

  3,952

  370

  17

  353

  1987–88

  4,145

  3,760

  389

  3,371

  385

  20

  365

  1988–89

  4,091

  3,747

  409

  3,338

  344

  17

  327

  1989–90

  4,963

  4,576

  469

  4,107

  387

  21

  366

  Royal Marines

  1971–72

  930

  930

  33

  897

  —

  —

  —

  1972–73

  997

  997

  39

  958

  —

  —

  —

  1973–74

  1,075

  1,075

  38

  1,037

  —

  —

  —

  1974–75

  1,134

  1,134

  40

  1,094

  —

  —

  —

  1975–76

  843

  843

  38

  805

  —

  —

  —

  1976–77

  728

  728

  38

  690

  —

  —

  —

  1977–78

  889

  889

  42

  847

  —

  —

  —

  44 45

  Total

  Males Total

  Officers

  Servicemen

  Females Total

  Officers

  Servicemen

  1978–79

  1,100

  1,100

  43

  1,057

  —

  —

  —

  1979–80

  1,344

  1,344

  28

  1,316

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  1,123

  1,123

  27

  1,096

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  573

  573

  37

  536

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  434

  434

  33

  401

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  492

  492

  37

  455

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  658

  658

  33

  625

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  809

  809

  36

  773

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  831

  831

  39

  792

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  777

  777

  27

  750

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  766

  766

  38

  728

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  834

  834

  48

  786

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  1971–72

  20,953

  18,718

  913

  17,805

  2,235

  92

  2,143

  1972–73

  19,523

  17,341

  833

  16,508

  2,182

  72

  2,110

  1973–74

  16,613

  14,561

  818

  13,743

  2,052

  96

  1,956

  1974–75

  18,311

  16,362

  701

  15,661

  1,949

  57

  1,892

  1975–76

  17,379

  15,757

  1,047

  14,710

  1,622

  79

  1,543

  1976–77

  17,383

  15,947

  1,202

  14,745

  1,436

  70

  1,366

  1977–78

  19,039

  17,704

  1,432

  16,272

  1,335

  71

  1,264

  1978–79

  20,659

  19,349

  1,522

  17,827

  1,310

  67

  1,243

  1979–80

  17,471

  16,244

  1,180

  15,064

  1,227

  85

  1,142

  1980–81

  14,366

  13,354

  1,013

  12,341

  1,012

  66

  946

  1981–82

  10,852

  9,904

  1,051

  8,853

  948

  67

  881

  1982–83

  10,061

  9,106

  1,025

  8,081

  955

  58

  897

  1983–84

  12,025

  11,165

  1,133

  10,032

  860

  43

  817

  1984–85

  13,126

  12,186

  1,205

  10,981

  940

  66

  874

  1985–86

  12,680

  11,657

  1,335

  10,322

  1,023

  76

  947

  1986–87

  12,343

  11,401

  1,287

  10,114

  942

  49

  893

  1987–88

  13,508

  12,492

  1,256

  11,236

  1,016

  65

  951

  1988–89

  14,233

  13,490

  1,139

  12,351

  743

  58

  685

  1989–90

  15,267

  14,393

  1,332

  13,061

  874

  71

  803

  Royal Air Force

  1971–72

  5,889

  3,940

  589

  3,351

  1,949

  111

  1,838

  1972–73

  6,332

  4,453

  713

  3,740

  1,879

  108

  1,771

  1973–74

  7,601

  5,984

  1,121

  4,863

  1,617

  79

  1,538

  1974–75

  6,621

  5,009

  782

  4,227

  1,612

  87

  1,525

  1975–76

  6,318

  4,971

  973

  3,998

  1,347

  72

  1,275

  1976–77

  5,972

  4,780

  971

  3,809

  1,192

  71

  1,121

  1977–78

  5,885

  4,780

  742

  4,038

  1,105

  62

  1,043

  1978–79

  4,638

  3,511

  548

  2,963

  1,127

  56

  1,071

  1979–80

  4,973

  3,983

  448

  3,535

  990

  41

  949

  1980–81

  4,149

  3,315

  383

  2,932

  834

  54

  780

  1981–82

  3,232

  2,564

  451

  2,113

  668

  72

  596

  1982–83

  3,339

  2,704

  507

  2,197

  635

  54

  581

  1983–84

  3,365

  2,749

  453

  2,296

  616

  52

  564

  1984–85

  3,852

  3,250

  521

  2,729

  602

  53

  549

  1985–86

  4,218

  3,603

  563

  3,040

  615

  57

  558

  1986–87

  4,025

  3,347

  580

  2,767

  678

  86

  592

  1987–88

  4,044

  3,354

  519

  2,835

  690

  68

  622

  1988–89

  5,161

  4,449

  601

  3,848

  712

  87

  625

  1989–90

  6,120

  5,203

  611

  4,592

  917

  92

  825

  Outflow of United Kingdom Regular Forces: by category

  Number

  Financial years

  1 April—31 December

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1988

  1989

  All Services

  34,554

  36,521

  36,961

  36,938

  39,278

  28,964

  31,987

  Male officers

  3,194

  3,388

  3,258

  3,374

  3,369

  2,643

  2,865

  Commissioned officers

  2,577

  2,678

  2,492

  2,690

  2,747

  2,168

  2,272

  Time and age expiries or exercise of right at option point

  1,106

  1,085

  972

  1,183

  1,182

  898

  942

  Premature release at own request1

  1,094

  1,223

  1,121

  1,154

  1,160

  969

  1,044

  Redundancies

  10

  7

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical reasons and deaths

  104

  110

  106

  91

  110

  89

  77

  Unsatisfactory, disciplinary and other reasons

  263

  253

  287

  262

  295

  212

  209

  46 47

  Financial years

  1 April—31 December

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1988

  1989

  Officers designate

  617

  710

  766

  684

  622

  475

  593

  At own request

  73

  119

  127

  110

  128

  95

  101

  Medical reasons and deaths

  12

  8

  26

  20

  9

  6

  25

  Other reasons

  532

  583

  613

  554

  485

  374

  456

  Servicemen

  28,901

  30,493

  30,936

  30,680

  33,187

  24,304

  26,846

  Before completion of 6 months service

  5,925

  5,437

  6,299

  6,535

  6,676

  4,844

  5,629

  By exercise of right

  4,009

  3,863

  4,414

  4,372

  4,716

  3,379

  3,828

  Unsatisfactory, disciplinary and other reasons

  1,695

  1,429

  1,721

  2,030

  1,799

  1,350

  1,637

  Medical reasons and deaths

  215

  144

  161

  132

  157

  114

  154

  Compassionate release

  6

  1

  3

  1

  4

  1

  10

  After completion of 6 months service

  22,976

  25,056

  24,637

  24,145

  26,511

  19,460

  21,217

  Time and age expiries or exercise of right at option point

  11,501

  12,383

  13,311

  12,488

  12,922

  9,556

  9,927

  Premature release at own request1

  6,113

  7,215

  6,742

  7,052

  8,774

  6,275

  7,651

  Redundancies

  422

  505

  147

  26

  —

  —

  —

  Unsatisfactory, disciplinary and other reasons

  3,538

  3,379

  3,067

  3,182

  3,165

  2,382

  2,260

  Medical reasons and deaths

  1,194

  1,408

  1,197

  1,254

  1,479

  1,122

  1,229

  Compassionate release

  208

  166

  173

  143

  171

  125

  150

  Female officers2

  298

  351

  334

  328

  335

  259

  251

  Time and age expiries or exercise of right at option point

  162

  201

  182

  175

  173

  135

  114

  At own request

  108

  110

  120

  120

  129

  102

  112

  Medical reasons and deaths

  12

  3

  7

  5

  7

  4

  6

  Unsatisfactory, disciplinary and other reasons

  16

  37

  25

  28

  26

  18

  19

  Servicewomen

  2,161

  2,289

  2,433

  2,556

  2,387

  1,758

  2,025

  Time and age expiries or exercise of right at option point

  58

  96

  136

  167

  164

  119

  124

  By exercise of right to give 18 months notice

  305

  349

  459

  451

  486

  351

  425

  At own request

  307

  296

  373

  358

  391

  279

  407

  Marriage, pregnancy

  1,261

  1,325

  1,171

  1,247

  1,079

  822

  833

  Unsatisfactory, disciplinary and other reasons

  185

  182

  237

  267

  210

  151

  174

  Medical reasons and deaths

  41

  36

  53

  61

  50

  32

  58

  Compassionate release

  4

  5

  4

  5

  7

  4

  4

  1The numbers shown as premature release at own request, for both officers and servicemen, relate only to trained personnel.

  2As the numbers for female officers designate are small, they have been included in those for female officers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gifts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedure exists for documenting gifts received from foreign powers; and what becomes of them.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office follows well-established and recognised procedures, applying to both Ministers and officials, for dealing with the receipt of gifts.

  These are that either:

  (i) the gift may be placed on the inventory of the British mission concerned or the Foreign Commonwealth Office as appropriate; or

  (ii) it may be given to another appropriate institution, eg a museum, or

  (iii) the direct recipient may either keep or buy the gift depending on its value; or

  (iv) it may be disposed of by public auction.

  In all cases, the receipt and eventual disposal of the gift is recorded centrally within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Administrative Grade
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the number of persons recruited to the administrative level of the Foreign Office(a) in the past year, (b) on average each year during the past decade and (c) on average each year during the previous decade; and how many he intends should be recruited in the coming year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have recruited the following number of persons into the administrative level of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

  Number

  (a) In the past year

  19

  (b) On average each year during the past decade

  20·5

  (c) on average during the previous decade

  19

  Our recruitment target for 1990 is 30.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the United States the future of the Diego Garcia base in the
  49
  British Indian Ocean Territory, and the possibility of the Ilois people, living in Mauritius, being given the chance of returning home.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The defence facilities in British Indian ocean territory continue to make a vital security contribution. The former plantation workers were resettled in Mauritius in the early 1970s and their future lies there.

  Armoured Personnel Carriers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department made of the human rights implications when it was consulted about the sale of 24 Shorts Shortland S55 armoured personnel carriers to Pakistan's Sind police.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our custom to give information on specific sales, but the hon. Member can be assured that the human rights implications of any such contract would be carefully considered along with the full range of other issues.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to negotiate a purchase on behalf of Her Majesty's Government of all stocks of elephant ivory held in Hong Kong by traders after midnight on 16 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Visas
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will show the cost charged for a visa to intending visitors to the United Kingdom from each country in eastern Europe, each Commonwealth country and the United States of America; and what requirements are made of such applicants with regard to proof of financial self-support.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The standard worldwide fee for a United Kingdom visitors visa is £20, payable in local currency. This fee is charged to all eastern European visa nationals and to applicants from the following Commonwealth countries:Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
  Visitors from the United States of America do not require visas.

  Applicants for visit visas must show that they are able to meet their living expenses in the United Kingdom. Proof of an applicant's ability to support himself can take the form of cash, travellers cheques, letters of credit or other similar bank guarantees. Where the major costs of a visit are to be borne by the host in this country evidence of the sponsor's ability to do so is required. Copies of bank statements, building society or other savings accounts, or a bank letter confirming the sponsor's financial standing are all acceptable for this purpose.

  Israel
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Israeli Foreign Minister to discuss United Kingdom-Israeli relations.
  50
  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to meet the new Israeli Foreign Minister before too long. We regularly discuss the peace process with the Israelis. They are well aware of our view that a direct dialogue between Israel and representative Palestinians is needed soon as a first step towards an overall settlement.

  Romania
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter of 9 May from Mr. and Mrs. B. O. Smith of 208 Sheffield Road, Killamarsh, Sheffield, concerning contacts with the British embassy in Bucharest.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My private secretary replied to Mr. and Mrs. Smith's letter on 5 July. I regret the delay. Her Majesty's embassy in Bucharest is aware of Mr. and Mrs. Smith's interest in adopting a Romanian child and will assist them as much as possible.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the aid provided to Romania by the International Red Cross since 1 March; and if he will publish it in the Official Report.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 11 June]: The information is not available for the precise period requested by the hon. Member. However, I understand that between 1 February and 25 June, contributions to the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies' aid programme to Romania totalled approximately £11·6 million. This figure does not reflect numerous donations for which no value was indicated. The contributions, from over 30 national societies and private donors, consisted mainly of medical supplies, medicaments and basic equipment for orphanages, homes for the elderly or disabled, hospitals and dispensaries. Donations also include food, clothing, toys and other supplies.

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his reply of 4 July,Official Report, column 609, if he will make it his policy to ask the Government of Syria to help to obtain information of relevance to the international investigation into the Lockerbie air disaster.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The investigation into the Lockerbie air disaster is being pursued by the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, under the direction of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office stands ready to assist the constabulary in any way they require in pursuit of international aspect of the investigation.

  Declarations of Interest
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his reply of 4 July,Official Report, column 619, whether advisers to his Department who are not employees of the Crown are asked to declare their pecuniary interests before taking up their responsibilities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the Government's position on the patenting of intellectual property rights and on the consequences for developing countries of inclusion in the current general agreement on tariffs and trade round of trade in intellectual property rights.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Government recognise that adequate levels of protection for intellectual property rights, including patents, are a necessary incentive for innovation. A successful outcome to the GATT negotiations on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights will provide a favourable international climate for innovation from which all trading nations will benefit. Particular benefits for developing countries will include greater confidence for domestic and foreign investors alike and an improved framework for technology transfer. The European Commission is responsible for these negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom and other member states.

  GATT
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being proposed in the Uruguay round of the GATT by the European Community; and what practical measures the Government have introduced to ensure transparency in the negotiations and access to information for the public.

  Mr. Ridley
  The European Community plays a prominent role in the GATT Uruguay round, and has submitted proposals from time to time in all 15 areas of the negotiations. The European Commission represents the Community in the negotiations. The Community's negotiating position is regularly reviewed by member states through the article 113 committee of senior officials and the Council of Ministers.

  Her Majesty's Government participate fully in this process, and maintain close liaison with interested business and other organisations in the United Kingdom. A public information point has also been established in the Department of Trade and Industry.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the status of the ERS–2 and DRTM programmes of the European Space Agency.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  These programmes were discussed at the Council of the European Space Agency on 27–28 June. I am pleased to report that the ERS-2 programme has now formally commenced following confirmation of subscriptions from all participating states. ERS-1 and ERS-2 will together constitute a major European contribution to the monitoring of climate and environment. The United Kingdom Government are allocating some £60 million to ERS-2. This will fund inter alia the provision of two major instruments—the active microwave instrument and the along-track scanning radiometer. DRTM (to which the United Kingdom has commited £32 million) has also formally commenced. In the TM element,52
  United Kingdom industry will be active in the development of advanced land mobile services, optical (laser) inter-satellite communications, ion propulsion and nickel hydrogen cells. The data relay satellite system element is in a preparatory phase.

  Girobank
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the sale of Girobank to the Alliance and Leicester Building Society.

  Mr. Forth
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave on 2 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

  Timeshare Operators
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet the Timeshare Developers Association to discuss including timeshare owners in its membership.

  Mr. Forth
  I shall be happy to meet the Timeshare Developers Association if the association requests such a meeting. However, the composition of its membership is a matter for the association.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will introduce a mandatory code of conduct for timeshare operators;

  (2) if he will implement the recommendations of the Director General of Fair Trading on timeshares;

  (3) if he will introduce a licensing scheme for timeshare operators.

  Mr. Forth
  The Director General of Fair Trading's report on timeshare was published on 3 July. I shall be looking very carefully at his recommendations for legislation.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his statement of 19 December,Official Report, column 203, whether he has taken any action against any of the third parties implicated in the Barlow Clowes collapse.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department is engaged in an urgent and wide-ranging assessment of possible legal actions against third parties to identify those cases which are worth pursuing in order to reduce the cost to public funds of the payments made to Barlow Clowes investors.

  Research Council
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Research Council on 29 June.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I represented Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of the Community's Council of Ministers (Research) in Luxembourg on 29 June.

  The Council adopted a research and technological development programme on human genome analysis, which will run for two years with a total budget of 15 million ecu (£10·7 million). The Council agreed common positions on the EURET (transport research) and

  53
  EUROTRA (development of machine translations systems) research and technological development programmes. The council also agreed a resolution on co-operation between COST (European co-operation in scientific and technical research) and the countries of central and eastern Europe.

  There was also a preliminary discussion of two recent communications from the Commission on research co-operation with third countries and with eastern Europe. The Council is likely to have further discussion on this subject later in the year.

  Financial Regulatory Organisations
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in his Department have responsibility for overseeing the workings of(a) the Securities and Investments Board, (b) the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation, (c) the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, (d) the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation and (e) the Securities Association.

  Mr. Redwood
  Within the financial services division of my Department, the responsibilities of six people include, but are not confined to, oversight of the workings of the Securities and Investments Board. Oversight of the self-regulating organisations is the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board itself.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the names, annual salaries and terms of contract for(a) the chairman, (b) the chief executive and (c) other directors of the Securities and Investments Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The names of the board of directors of the Securities and Investments Board together with directors' emoluments are given in the Securities and Investments Board annual report which was laid before the House on 6 June. Sir Mark Weinberg and Mr. Eddie Ray retire from the board on 31 July and Mr. John Craven is appointed a director from 1 August. The terms of contract are a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what discussions he has had with the Securities and Investments Board regarding the rationalisation of its five self-regulatory organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This subject was among those discussed when I met the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board on 30 April. I welcome the recent announcement that the Securities Association and the Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers are to merge.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward legislation to increase the use of guest beers.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 already provides that from 1 May 1990 tenants of brewers with interests in more than 2,000 on-licensed premises and those receiving tied loans from such brewers, must be free to sell a cask-conditioned guest beer from any supplier of their choice.
  54
  Mr Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the large brewers; and what was discussed.

  Mr Redwood
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last met representatives of the six national brewers collectively on 6 July 1989. In addition, the Department had a meeting with representatives of the Brewers Society on 10 November 1989 to hear representations on the draft Supply of Beer Orders.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will arrange to meet the Director General of Fair Trading to discuss the results of his office's monitoring of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on brewing.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans at present to meet the Director General of Fair Trading. I will do so if and when we think it necessary. However my Department keeps in close contact with the Office of Fair Trading on their monitoring of the implementation of the measures the Government took in response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. Monitoring by the Office of Fair Trading will extend at least until the end of 1992, when the Supply of Beer Orders have taken full effect.

  Aldi Stores
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when the Office of Fair Trading's preliminary report into the alleged refusal of companies to supply Aldi stores will be available;

  (2) if he will detail the allegations of unfair trading practice which the Office of Fair Trading is considering in respect of Aldi stores;

  (3) if he will estimate the time scale for a full investigation into the alleged refusal of companies to supply Aldi stores.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 6 July 1990]: Aldi have made representations to the Director General of Fair Trading that various suppliers of goods withheld supplies to them, within the meaning of section 12 of the Resale Prices Act 1976. I understand that the director general is making exploratory inquiries with a view to establishing the circumstances, following which he will decide what action if any he should take. The present inquiries do not constitute a statutory investigation and will not end in a report.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies have been made by his Department of the costs of retuning video recorders associated with the reception of channel 5 output; in respect of how many transmitters have the calculations in respect of such costs been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office explained during the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill on 15 February 1990, my Department has made a study of the possible cost of retuning video recorders affected by interference from Channel 5 in cases where the user has not arranged to receive the Channel 5 service. This study was

  55
  based on the planned national coverage figure for the service of 70 per cent. The number of transmitters assumed in the study for this planned level of coverage was 25.

  The new service is not expected to commence for about three years. The market is growing and changing rapidly. Any estimate of the costs must therefore be subject to great uncertainty. The study also made a range of other assumptions in addition to that concerning the number of transmitters. It is therefore important that franchise applicants carry out their own studies of the costs.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Servants (Workplaces)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have been undertaken at workplaces used by civil servants in his Department.

  Mr. Needham
  The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations do not yet apply in Northern Ireland. A consultative document setting out the Department of Economic Development's proposals for controlling substances considered hazardous to health was issued on 5 March 1990.

  An initial assessment of potentially hazardous substances has been made by officials in the Northern Ireland Office and the PSA. This assessment is kept under constant review.

  Terrorism
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table to show for each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland the number of deaths from terrorist action since 1 January 1969 until June 1983 and also for each present parliamentary constituency, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 3 July 1990] The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Remand
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average number of days that prisoners spent on custodial remand for scheduled, non-scheduled offences and both together, in 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: The average period on custodial remand for persons tried in 1989 for scheduled offences was 94·5 days; for non-scheduled offences, 61 days; and both together 80 days.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average period between remand and trial for prisoners refused bail and charged with scheduled offences in Northern Ireland in 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: The average period between remand and trial for prisoners charged in scheduled offences and refused bail who were tried in 1989, was 94·5 days.

WALES

  Registered Holdings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered holdings in Wales are eligible for less-favoured area projects.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There is no register of agricultural holdings. Lists maintained for the purpose of collecting agricultural statistics contained at June 1989 20,576 statistically significant agricultural holdings which had some land in the less-favoured areas. The eligibility of a holding for assistance under any project will depend both on the project and on the individual circumstances of the holding.

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange for each health authority to supply him with the waiting lists for cataract operations; and if he will publish the results in the Official Report.

  Mr. Grist
  Information about waiting lists for individual procedures is not collected routinely. The Welsh hospital waiting list bulletin 1990 (No. 1), a copy of which is available in the Library, contains information on each health authority's ophthalmology waiting lists as at September 1989.

  Market Research
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the market research surveys commissioned by his Department or paid for by his Department in each of the past five financial years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  General Practitioners (Prescribing)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intendes to issue fresh guidelines(a) to general practitioners in respect of over-prescribing and (b) to family practitioner committees in respect of the operation of regulation 16 of the Service Committee and Tribunal Regulations.

  Mr. Grist
  A working paper will be issued shortly which deals with prescribing in general practice. This will indicate the initiatives being taken to encourage general practitioners to improve the quality of their prescribing. The working paper will also indicate that it is the Government's intention to amend regulation 16 of the Service Committee and Tribunal Regulations.

  Teaching (Language)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the right of parents to have their children taught in their first language.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Our general policy is that all pupils, as part of the national curriculum in schools in Wales, should study both English and Welsh.

  The medium of instruction in an individual school, either Welsh or English, is a matter for determination by the head teacher and governing body within the context of the local authority's curriculum and language policies.

  NHS Reforms
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated total cost to his Department of the Government's proposed publicity campaign in respect of their National Health Service reforms.

  Mr. Grist
  We are preparing a bilingual booklet for circulation in Wales which will explain the main changes taking place in the National Health Service in the Principality. The total cost of preparing and distributing the booklet has yet to be finalised, but we expect the unit cost to be broadly similar to that of the booklet being distributed in England.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those responsibilities which will no longer be exercised by district health authorities in Wales(a) following the passing of the National Health Service and Community Care Act and (b) following the implementation of the Government's plans for reform of the national health service.

  Mr. Grist
  Under our programme of reforms, DHAs will be responsible for securing quality health services for their resident populations. In certain areas of activity this purchasing role will be undertaken by any GP fundholding practices that are set up.

  To the extent that NHS trusts are established and DHAs contract with other agencies for the provision of care, health authorities will not be responsible for the direct delivery of services. They will, however, continue to be responsible for the purchase of quality care under contract.

  Current expenditure on schools 1989–89

  £'s per pupil

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Clwyd

  1,041

  1,734

  9,449

  Dyfed

  1,151

  1,658

  12,864

  Gwent

  1,123

  1,821

  11,264

  Gwynedd

  1,115

  1,661

  6,818

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,159

  1,686

  8,911

  Powys

  1,409

  1,885

  11,734

  South Glamorgan

  1,021

  1,520

  6,264

  West Glamorgan

  1,174

  1,991

  11,071

  Total Wales

  1,126

  1,730

  9,190

  Land Use (Cardiff)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has undertaken with Cardiff city council and South Glamorgan county council regarding the future use of land and buildings currently used for industrial training purposes at Western avenue, Cardiff.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the future use and ownership of the land and buildings occupied by the skill centre at Western avenue, Cardiff.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what land and buildings he has made available to Astra Training Services at Western avenue, Cardiff for(a) present and (b) future industrial training facilities.

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners will be equipped with the necessary software to enable them to be responsible for their own budgets from 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Grist
  Discussions are continuing with the computer companies. The details of these discussions are commercially sensitive, but the general objective is to ensure that the necessary software will be available to all those GPs who wish to take part in the scheme.

  Education (Special Needs)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the cost in each local education authority of providing a place for each student between 11 and 18 years; and what additional cost is deemed necessary for each child with special needs in(a) a special school and (b) an integrated unit in a secondary school;

  (2) what is the cost in each local education authority of providing a school place for each child between five and 11 years; and what additional cost is deemed necessary for each child with special needs in (a) a special school and (b) an integrated unit of a school for children under 11 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The cost per pupil of providing a school place in 1988–89 for(a) nursery and primary children (b) secondary children and (c) children in these age groups with special needs is shown in the following table. It is not possible to identify expenditure on integrated special units.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I understand that Astra Training Services Ltd. has taken a three-year lease from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for most of the freehold site at Western avenue.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what deadline he has set for all clinical grading appeals by nurses in Wales which are currently outstanding to be dealt with.

  Mr. Grist
  Appeals against clinical grading decisions are conducted under complex procedures agreed between the staff and management sides of the general Whitley council. The procedures which provide for three separate levels of hearing are resource-intensive for staff and management sides alike and in view of the unprecedented numbers of appeals it is not feasible for any deadline to be
  59
  set. It is to be regretted that nursing trade unions chose not to pursue the possibility of adopting a simpler and quicker appeals procedures at the time the new structure was negotiated.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the completion of the single European market on economic growth and employment in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The impact of the single market on Wales will depend on the flexibility with which individual firms and industries respond to the opportunities and challenges which it presents. The Europartenariat forum which was recently hosted in Wales by the Welsh Development Agency, with the support of the European Commission, provided an excellent opportunity for firms, particularly small firms, in Wales to develop the potential for business co-operation with companies elsewhere in Europe and I am delighted that so many Welsh firms took the opportunity to participate.

  Hospital Costs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the latest information he has on the cost of operations and hospital care in each hospital; and when he expects all hospitals to publish a price list for all operations and treatments available for patients.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the cost of operations in each hospital is not available centrally. The latest available information on hospital costs is contained in "Welsh Health Costing Returns 1988–89", a copy of which is in the Library. The pricing of services will be included in the contracts for health services which will operate from April 1991. It is intended that these contracts should be made publicly available once agreed.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what figure for inflation his Department advised(a) district councils, (b) county councils and (c) health authorities in Wales to use in the advance planning and estimate-making for the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Individual local authorities determine their own budgets, including the inflation and other assumptions on which they are based. The appropriate level of local government expenditure for each financial year is set by the Government and it is regrettable that actual spending by local authorities has consistently and unnecessarily exceeded those levels. No record of local authorities' budget assumptions is kept and no estimate of the inflation in local government costs to which they have contributed is made by my Department. I will respond separately to questions raised with respect to health authorities.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 230, if he will list the recipients of the £96,000 grant aid to voluntary organisations; and how much was given to each.
  60
  Mr. Grist
  The entire allocation was to Wales MIND.

  Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the total amount offered by the Training Agency for 1990–91 in Wales to training providers of(a) youth training and (b) employment training in each training and enterprise council area in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  All training and enterprise councils in Wales are at present in their development stage and not yet fully operational. This information is not, therefore, available.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the number of people requiring guaranteed training places within each training and enterprise council area during 1990–91.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In advance of the formal establishment of training and enterprise councils in Wales I cannot give figures for individual areas, but I am satisfied that sufficient places will be made available to meet the demand.

  Planning
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call in for decision by himself the current planning application in respect of Rhos-y-Chellis farm, Northop, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales understands that Delyn borough council is meeting today to determine this planning application. Should it be minded to grant planning permission for the proposal development it has indicated that it will refer the application to my right hon. Friend, under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) (Wales) Direction 1981, as a material departure from an approved development plan. He will then decide whether to call it in for his determination and I shall ensure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is informed of that decision when it has been taken.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy concerning the relevance of subjective financial criteria affecting the viability of planning applications in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Generally speaking, financial considerations play no part in the determination of planning applications, the viability of a proposal being essentially a matter for the developer. There will be occasions, however, when the planning consequences of the financial viability of a development must be taken into account, for example, the likelihood of a development being only partially completed or the viability of a farming enterprise in assessing the need for an agricultural dwelling. The relevance of those factors will depend upon the particular circumstances of individual cases.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Video Recordings (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under the Video Recordings Act 1984 in the last convenient period of 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Waddington
  In 1988, 27 defendants were prosecuted under the Video Recordings Act 1984. Information for 1989 will not be available until the autumn.

  Prison Service Headquarters
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the factors involved in the shortlisting of Birmingham, Coventry, Derby and Nottingham for consideration as a location for the prison service headquarters; and if he will make a statement on the decision-making timetable.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 11 January that he had accepted the recommendation of a joint prison service and PA Consultants Group review team that the headquarters of the service should move from London to the midlands. Since then, further work has been done to identify specific options. Specialist consultants have conducted an evaluation of the area to identify which cities would be best able to support a substantial headquarters operation of around 1,500 staff. Among the criteria which they took into account were the availability of secretarial and clerical staff, the capacity of the local housing market to absorb a significant influx of new residents, the quality of local amenities and infrastructure and ease of access to prison service establishments around the country. In the light of their assessment it was decided that six cities merited further consideration, subject to the availability of suitable sites. Particular options in Birmingham, Coventry and Derby are now being explored. It is likely to be some months before a decision is taken.

  San Salvador Killing (Police Report)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whose property is the report of the investigation carried out by Detective Chief Inspector Tony Comben into the killing in San Salvador on 16 November 1989; and what plans exist to make it public;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the costs arising from sending a team to E1 Salvador to investigate murders by death squads in San Salvador.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Officers from the Metropolitan police went to E1 Salvador at the request of President Cristiani. Their report will be sent to the Government of E1 Salvador. It will be for the Salvadorean authorities to decide on future action, including publication. The costs are a matter for the FCO and the Salvadorean authorities.

  Fire Risk Areas
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many A category fire risk areas there are in each fire brigade area in England and Wales.
  62
  Mr. John Patten
  The information which is available centrally and shown in the following table relates to the number of hectares within the area of each fire authority in England and Wales which that authority has reported as fire risk A.

  Fire authorities in England and Wales Areas categorised 'A' fire risk

  Fire authority

  Hectares categorised 'A' fire risk

  Avon

  975

  Cleveland

  7,222

  Derbyshire

  850

  Devon

  375

  Greater Manchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  1,300

  Hampshire

  741

  Humberside

  3,321

  Kent

  106

  Leicestershire

  225

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  14,175

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  3,259

  South Glamorgan

  125

  South Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  1,010

  Suffolk

  565

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  900

  West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  4,525

  West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  1,351

  Source: figures provided by fire authorities September 1989.

  The remaining fire authorities in England and Wales have reported no areas of category A fire risk. Areas of fire risk are categorised on the basis of the predominating risk within the area. Areas with fire risk categories other than A may contain individual premises which would otherwise be categorised A risk; isolated higher risks of this kind are generally categorised as special risks.

  Vagrancy Act
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider seeking to amend the sections of the Vagrancy Act 1824 under which young persons sleeping on the streets have been arrested and convicted.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Vagrancy Act 1824 has already been amended, in particular by the Vagrancy Act 1935 and the Criminal Justice Act 1982, so that no one can be convicted for sleeping rough unless it can be proved that he had first refused or failed to apply for free and reasonably accessible accommodation to which he had been directed, or it can be proved that his doing so causes harm. Sleeping rough is not now either an arrestable or imprisonable offence. It is extremely rare for anyone under the age of 18 to be prosecuted for this offence.

  We have no present plans to amend the vagrancy laws.

  Child Migrants
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 25 June from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East concerning a case of adoption from Romania under his reference 18059/90.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to take a decision in this case.

  Acid House Parties
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department has given to regional or other police forces concerning acid house parties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office has not issued any guidelines to the police specifically concerning acid house parties, but we have discussed the problem and how best to tackle it with the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue revised codes of practice in accordance with section 67(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have today laid before Parliament draft revised codes in accordance with section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I intend to bring them into operation with effect from 1 January 1991 by order made by statutory instrument and I will seek their approval by resolution of each House of Parliament as soon as possible.

  Remand
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the changes in the number of people in police cells on remand in Greater Manchester over the last four weeks.

  Mr. Mellor
  Over the past four weeks the numbers of people in police cells, on remand in the Greater Manchester area, have been as follows:

  Number

  1 June 1990

  505

  8 June 1990

  551

  15 June 1990

  574

  22 June 1990

  569

  29 June 1990

  581

  Constable

  Sergeant

  Inspector

  Chief inspector

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  1974

  Salaries

  1,497

  2,349

  2,388

  2,745

  2,808

  3,162

  3,689

  4,097

  1975

  Salaries

  2,202

  3,120

  3,138

  3,651

  3,678

  4,287

  4,341

  4,974

  Percentage change

  (18·4)

  (6·9)

  (5·8)

  (7·05)

  (5·4)

  (9·1)

  (-5·3)

  (-2·3)

  1976

  Salaries

  2,332

  3,276

  3,295

  3,834

  3,862

  4,495

  4,549

  5,182

  Percentage change

  (-9·1)

  (-9·9)

  (-9·9)

  (-9·9)

  (-14·1)

  (-10)

  (-10)

  (-10·6)

  1977

  Salaries

  2,553

  3,603

  3,624

  4,218

  4,248

  4,929

  4,989

  5,688

  Percentage change

  (-5·5)

  (-5·1)

  (-5·1)

  (-5)

  (-5)

  (-5·3)

  (-5·3)

  (-5·2)

  1978

  Salaries

  3,189

  4,809

  4,683

  5,406

  5,406

  6,198

  6,198

  6,966

  Percentage change

  (15·3)

  (23·2)

  (19·3)

  (18·3)

  (17·5)

  (16·1)

  (14·7)

  (13)

  1979

  Salaries

  4,086

  6,471

  6,186

  7,095

  7,095

  8,058

  8,058

  8,967

  Percentage change

  (13)

  (18·6)

  (16·5)

  (15·7)

  (15·7)

  (14·7)

  (14·7)

  (13·5)

  1980

  Salaries

  4,956

  7,848

  7,503

  8,607

  8,607

  9,774

  9,774

  10,875

  Percentage change

  (2·8)

  (2·8)

  (2·8)

  (2·8)

  (2·8)

  (2·8)

  (2·8)

  (2·8)

  1981

  Salaries

  5,610

  8,883

  8,493

  9,744

  9,744

  11,064

  11,064

  12,309

  Percentage change

  (1·2)

  (1·2)

  (1)

  (1·2)

  (1·2)

  (1·2)

  (1·2)

  (1·2)

  64
  The number of prisoners held in police cells was initially a result of the recent prison disturbances but is now largely due to industrial action or lack of good will on the part of prison officers in some establishments.

  There is room to accommodate the majority of these prisoners in prison accommodation. Holding prisoners in police cells is bad for everyone concerned. It draws scarce police resources off the streets and means prisoners are held in unsuitable conditions. I hope prison officers in the establishments concerned will cease this unwarranted action at the earliest opportunity. We are pursuing discussions to bring this about.

  Police Forces
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to carry out a major restructuring of the police forces in England and Wales in the near future.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Police Pay and Manpower
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in police pay and manpower since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since this Government came to office, the pay of police constables has increased by just over 41 per cent. in real terms. Police manpower has increased by 15,284 to 126,777, an increase of just under 14 per cent.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the money and real terms pay increases of a police constable, sergeant, inspector and chief inspector in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: The information requested is as follows:
  65

  Constable

  Sergeant

  Inspector

  Chief inspector

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  1982

  Salaries

  6,189

  9,798

  9,369

  10,749

  10,749

  12,204

  12,204

  13,578

  Percentage change

  (1·6)

  (1·6)

  (1·6)

  (1·6)

  (1·6)

  (1·6)

  (1·6)

  (1·6)

  1983

  Salaries

  6,708

  10,620

  10,155

  11,652

  11,652

  13,230

  13,230

  14,718

  Percentage change

  (3·6)

  (3·6)

  (3·6)

  (3·6)

  (3·6)

  (3·7)

  (3·7)

  (3·6)

  1984

  Salaries

  6,708

  11,193

  10,704

  12,282

  12,282

  13,944

  13,944

  15,513

  Percentage change

  (-4·7)

  (0·4)

  (0·4)

  (0·4)

  (0·4)

  (0·4)

  (0·4)

  (0·4)

  1985

  Salaries

  7,212

  12,033

  11,508

  13,203

  13,203

  14,991

  14,991

  16,677

  Percentage change

  (1·3)

  (1)

  (1·3)

  (1·3)

  (1·3)

  (1·3)

  (1·3)

  (1·3)

  1986

  Salaries

  7,752

  12,936

  12,372

  14,193

  14,193

  16,116

  16,116

  17,928

  Percentage change

  (1·1)

  (5·7)

  (5·7)

  (5·7)

  (5·7)

  (5·7)

  (5·7)

  (5·7)

  1987

  Salaries

  8,352

  13,938

  13,332

  15,294

  15,294

  17,364

  17,364

  19,317

  Percentage change

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  1988

  Salaries

  8,352

  15,125

  14,466

  16,593

  16,593

  18,840

  18,840

  20,958

  Percentage change

  (-4·7)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  (3·4)

  1989

  Salaries

  9,900

  16,521

  15,804

  18,129

  18,129

  20,583

  20,583

  22,896

  Percentage change

  (10)

  (1·4)

  (1·4)

  (1·4)

  (1·4)

  (1·4)

  (1·4)

  (1·4)

  Notes: Salaries are based on 1 September for each year. Figures in brackets show yearly percentage change in real terms.

  Prison Disturbances
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio of prisoners to prison officers injured in the recent prison disturbances.

  Mr. Mellor
  During incidents in April and May involving numbers of inmates acting in concert and using violence towards staff or property, the ratio of injuries was approximately one prisoner to two prison officers.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to reduce the number of experiments conducted on animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Applications for licences are considered individually on their merits. As figure 5 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 1988 (Cm. 743) shows, however, the number of experiments has fallen consistently for many years and this trend is continuing under the strict controls of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Prisoners (Payments)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement setting out the uses to which the general purposes fund was put, the classes of prisoner to whom payments were made and the basis on which the payments were calculated.

  Mr. Mellor
  The general purposes fund is used to provide recreational and sporting facilities for all prisoners in addition to those provided from public funds and to provide facilities for inmates' spouses and families. Cash payments may be made at the discretion of governors on special occasions.

  Prisoners (Deportation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are subject to orders for their deportation at the conclusions of their sentences or otherwise liable to be deported; how many of these are held in open prisons; and whether his Department issues any guidelines as to the granting to such prisoners of facilities such as home leave and education at outside establishments and who is responsible for taking decisions on the granting of such facilities.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Prisoners subject to a court recommendation that they should be deported at the end of their sentence or to a notice of intention to deport issued by the Secretary of State may be granted some leave or temporary release by the governor for a variety of purposes, including education, subject to the agreement of the immigration department. Prisoners who are the subject of a signed deportation order are not eligible for home leave or temporary release.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received, and on what dates, from United Kingdom and international airlines suggesting possible changes to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987; and whether he is considering amendments to the Act.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: The dates and precise nature of representations received from airlines could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I can, however, say that the only fundamental changes proposed by the airlines or their representatives have been (i) the introduction of a variable charge up to a maximum of £1,000 per passenger, (as opposed to the existing set charge of £1,000 per passenger); (ii) the removal of liability

  67
  in respect of those passengers who, notwithstanding the absence of proper documentation, are granted leave to enter the United Kingdom. British Airways, in particular, has raised a number of issues about the implementation of the Act, and these are under consideration.

  I have no present plans to amend the Act.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, according to airline, the number of convictions and fines and costs involved, all United Kingdom and international carriers penalised for contraventions of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: The Act gives rise to a civil liability in respect of improperly documented passengers brought to the United Kingdom. It is not the practice to disclose information on the record of individual airlines under the Act.

HEALTH

  Radioactive Caesium
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by county, and by year for the last five years, the number of reported cases of radioactive caesium in people.

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

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his latest estimates of(a) HIV and (b) AIDS cases in the United Kingdom currently; and what are the projected figures on current trends by the year 2000.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At the end of May 1990, the cumulative United Kingdom total of AIDS cases reported was 3,346 of whom 1,845 are known to have died.

  It is not possible to predict how many HIV-infected individuals or cases of AIDS there will be by the year 2000. The Day report, "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in England and Wales to end 1993" published by the public health laboratory service in January 1990 as a supplement to the communicable disease report, made it clear that AIDS predictions beyond 1993 are subject to great uncertainty, and made no estimate of the number of HIV-infected persons beyond 1990.

  The Day report estimated that there were between 12,250 and 26,400 HIV-infected persons in England and Wales at the end of 1988. On the assumption that the behavioural trends necessary to produce the upper 1988 estimate continued unchanged, the Day report estimated that there could be 46,450 people infected by the end of 1990. From the report, the expected cumulative total of AIDS cases in England and Wales for the period 1979–1993 for planning purposes is 11,360; with a lower band of 8,115 cases and an upper band of 16,390 cases.

  A separate group is currently preparing new estimates of short-term predictions of HIV incidence and prevalence estimates of the numbers of AIDS cases in Scotland as a revision of the projections contained in the report of the national working party on health service implications of HIV infection (the Tayler report). Copies of both the Day and Tayler reports are available in the Library.
  68
  Reported incidence in Northern Ireland is too low to make accurate estimates of the likely spread of HIV infection.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of hospital units interested in self-governing status where(a) a ballot includes more than 50 per cent. of consultants in support of an application, (b) more than 50 per cent. of consultants opposed to an application and (c) no ballot has taken place and is unlikely to do so.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have consistently made it clear that it would not be appropriate for changes in management of National Health Service services to be subject to ballots, and we have not asked for data on ballots. Regional health authorities will seek the views of community health councils and other parties with an interest, including consultants and other staff, on individual proposals before any decisions are made.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total financial cost of family practitioner committees nationwide.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total net administrative costs related to family practitioner committees in England and included in the supply estimates 1990–91 amount to £118.389 million.

  Infant Mortality
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of infant mortality rates in 1979; and what they are today.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table:

  Infant mortality rates1 England and Wales 1979, 1989

  Year

  Rate1

  1979

  12·8

  1989

  8·4

  1 Rate per 1,000 live births.

  Maternity Mortality
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of maternity mortality rates in 1979; and what it is today.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table.

  Maternal mortality rates1, England and Wales 1979, 1989

  1979

  1989

  Maternal mortality including abortion

  11·51

  8·10

  1 Rate per 100,000 total births.

  General Practitioners (Prescribing)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to issue fresh guidelines(a) to general practitioners in respect of over-prescribing and (b) to family practitioner committees in respect of the operation of regulation 16 of the Service Committee and Tribunal Regulations.
  69
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The recently published working paper, "Improving Prescribing", (a copy of which is available in the Library), describes a range of new initiatives to improve the quality of general practitioner prescribing. It is the Government's intention, as set out in paragraph 10.2 of that working paper, to amend regulation 16 of the Service Committee and Tribunal Regulations.

  National Health Service Reforms
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is the Government's intention to use outside consultants in its proposed publicity campaign in respect of its national health service reforms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated total cost to his Department of the Government's proposed publicity campaign in respect of its national health service reforms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 5 July at column 675.

  General Practitioner Budgets
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners will be equipped with the necessary software to enable them to be responsible for their budgets from 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are currently engaged in discussions with the computer companies. The details of these discussions are commercially sensitive, but the general objective is to ensure that the necessary software will be available to all the general practitioners wishing to take part in the practice funding scheme.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimated cost of developing and supplying the computer software systems for doctors eligible and electing to run their own budgets.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Development and supplying of the software for practice funding is a matter for the general practitioner computer suppliers. The Department does not hold the information necessary to estimate individual companies' costs.

  Hospital Care (Cost)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the latest information he has on the cost of operations and hospital care in each hospital; and when he expects all hospitals to publish a price list for all operations and treatments available for patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the cost of operations and hospital care by individual hospitals is not collected centrally. From 1 April 1991 health authority contracts for health services with both public and private providers will be publicly available once they are signed. This will permit a steady improvement of information on the outcome of contract negotiations in terms of service covered and quality as much as price.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage increase or decrease in the numbers of people waiting for treatment between March 1987 and September 1989 for(a) general surgery, (b) trauma and orthopaedics, (c) ear, nose and throat and (d) obstetrics and gynaecology; and if he will rank each health authority, giving the greatest increase first and the greatest decrease last.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: Figures for waiting lists in themselves are of little value unless considered with figures for waiting times, which are far more important for patients and figures for patient cases which are a much better measure of a unit's activity level. Comparisons between waiting lists in one place and another are also unreliable because of variations in referral practice, the acceptance of patients onto lists and the verification of the lists themselves. Changes in individual waiting lists between two points in time in at district level should also be interpreted with care as large changes can for example be due to errors in the data or transfer of responsibility between districts. However, the information requested will be placed in the Library. Nationally, the in-patient waiting lists for these four clinical specialties fell by 3 per cent. over the period March 1987 to September 1989 from 475,000 to 461,000. Over approximately the same period, the number of in-patient cases remained roughly constant at 2,375,000 per year but the number of day cases rose by over 4 per cent. from 530,000 to 552,000. Since 1979 the total number of in-patient cases in these four specialties has risen by 12 per cent. and day cases by 68 per cent. In-patient waiting lists have fallen by 7 per cent. overall and by 18 per cent. for these four specialties, including by more than a quarter for general surgery and gynaecology over the same period.

  General Practitioners (Information)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted into whether general practitioners read letters from(a) the Committee on Safety of Medicines and (b) pharmaceutical companies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: Inquiries and increases in adverse drug reaction reports (yellow card reports) indicate that general practitioners and hospital doctors read and take appropriate notice of the information they receive.

  The Department does not conduct research into the readership of letters issued by pharmaceutical companies.

  Health Service Spending
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give figures for each financial year of the amount spent on the national health service from 1979–80 inclusive(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage change after adjustment for medical inflation, and using 1979–80 as a base year; and if he will give similar estimates for 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: The table shows total National Health Service gross expenditure in cash for 1979–80 to 1989–90 and planned expenditure for 1990–91 and 1991–91 in cash. There is no specific index for medical inflation in the national health service but there is

  71
  a composite National Health Service index of changes in input unit costs and this has been used to adjust the cash figures to a 1979–80 basis. Estimates of changes in unit costs are not made until after the end of the relevant financial year and so it is not possible to put the 1990–91 and 1991–92 figures on this basis.

  Year

  National Health Service expenditure England (cash)

  Adjusted for input unit costs (1979–80 prices)

  Percentage change

  1979–80

  7,755

  7,755

  1980–81

  10,103

  7,887

  1·7

  1981–82

  11,329

  8,180

  3·7

  1982–83

  12,353

  8,372

  2·3

  1983–84

  13,113

  8,455

  1·0

  1984–85

  14,103

  8,592

  1·6

  1985–86

  14,919

  8,645

  0·6

  1986–87

  16,052

  8,700

  0·6

  1987–88

  17,652

  8,816

  1·3

  1988–89

  19,597

  8,858

  0·5

  11989–90

  21,162

  21990–91

  23,552

  21991–91

  24,690

  1 Estimate.

  2 Plan.

  Cholesterol Screening
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the early introduction of cholesterol screening by general practitioners for those individuals judged to be most at risk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: Opportunistic blood cholesterol testing is already undertaken by many general practitioners. The Standing Medical Advisory Committee has now reviewed the cost-effectiveness of various levels of opportunistic cholesterol testing, and their economic appraisals of these were based upon testing in general practice. I have today issued the committee's report for wide consultation.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received the Standing Medical Advisory Committee report on cholesterol screening.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: In July 1988 I asked the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to consider whether opportunistic cholesterol testing could make a cost-effective contribution towards identifying and treating people at increased risk of coronary heart disease. I have now received the committee's report and have thanked them for their work.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library. The report sets out the results of a detailed study which the committee advises is full of scientific complexity. The report explains that opportunistic blood cholesterol testing can make a cost-effective contribution to coronary heart disease prevention in certain circumstances and sets out a number of possible options for consideration.

  In those circumstances, I believe that all those with an interest in the prevention of coronary heart disease should now have the opportunity to consider the report's findings and let me have their comments on them. I am therefore today issuing the report for consultation.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Telephones
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any plans to review telephone facilities in the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Arrangements are in hand to provide direct dialling access to a limited number of European Community institutions and organisations; plans exist for the Palace of Westminster telephone exchange to be upgraded to make the most economic use of available telephone routes.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security(a) how many people who apply for mobility allowance are refused after their initial medical; and how many are awarded the benefit, (b) how many appeal against refusal; how many are subsequently awarded the benefit after a further examination at a medical centre, and how many are refused; and (c) how many are awarded mobility allowance resulting from an appeal to a medical appeal tribunal and how many are refused; and if he will express these figures for each region over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. The available information, which relates to decisions made during the year ending 31 March 1990, is as follows:

  Decision in claimant's favour

  Decision adverse to claimant

  Decisions on initial claims

  105,500

  113,590

  Decisions on renewal claims

  29,490

  10,800

  Appeals and references decided by medical boards

  6,989

  18,675

  Appeals decided by medical appeal tribunals

  2,821

  5,980

  As mobility allowance is administered centrally, it is not possible to break those figures down by regions.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will commission research into the possibility of extending mobility allowance or the mobility component of the disability allowance to people with a mental handicap and behaviour problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  On 10 January we laid before Parliament "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People", which details our major proposals arising from our review of the balance and structure of social security benefits for disabled people and their carers. One of the proposals concerns the introduction of a new disability allowance for people of working age or below which will extend help to less severely disabled people, and will also subsume the help currently provided through attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The initial rate of the mobility component—set at £10—will be awarded to people who are not independently mobile, for example those with a
  73
  severe mental handicap or behavioural disturbance, and who do not otherwise fulfil the current criteria for mobility allowance. We estimate that 150,000 people will receive this new form of help.

  Benefit Leaflets
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason his Department has ended the practice of sending sample leaflets on benefits, as they are published to local authorities and welfare rights organisations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department has not ended the practice. The mailing of sample leaflets is carried out by Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) on behalf of the Department.

  I understand that HMSO experienced temporary difficulties in providing the service recently but that the service has now been restored. Arrangements are in hand to issue not only future material but those items which should have been sent earlier.

  Pensions
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage of the average wage paid in pensions to single people and married couples in each European Community country, including the United Kingdom; what increase would be required to bring United Kingdom pensions up to the level of the highest pension rate in the European Community; and what that would cost in additional public expenditure in a full financial year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Pensions in other member states of the European Community are usually related to length of the individual's contribution record and the level of earnings on which contributions have been paid. The relationship with the overall average wage in the country concerned will therefore vary from individual to individual. Details of pensions in all member states are set out in "Tables of Social Benefits in the European Community" published by the Department, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the number and percentage of people who were refused discretion-based awards because the items for which they are requesting assistance are excluded by the social fund directions, by local office in Scotland.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by local office in Scotland the number and percentage of people who were refused discretion-based awards because they had insufficient funds to repay the loan.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number and percentage of households and persons in Scotland below and at 40 per cent. above the income support level for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90, by local office in Scotland.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is not available.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage expenditure take-up of the social fund from 0 to 10 per cent. to 90 to 100 per cent. for each of the local offices in Scotland, for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  Figures on expenditure in all local offices can be obtained from the information placed in the Library.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are repaying social fund loans at(a) 15 per cent., (b) 10 per cent., (c) 5 per cent. and (d) less than 5 per cent. of their income support.

  Mr. Scott
  At 31 May 1990, the latest date for which data are available, 418,604 social fund loans were being recovered. A detailed breakdown of the percentage rates at which loans are being repaid by individual applicants is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I regret that there was an error in my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 28 June at column 352. The number of social fund loans being recovered at 30 April 1990 should have read 422,055.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review the payment of unemployment benefit before the next election.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Unemployment benefit, in common with other benefits, is reviewed each year as part of the process of uprating.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, for students who will still be eligible for housing benefit and non-student partners who are in receipt of housing benefit, he plans any amendments to reflect the new arrangements for grants to be paid for the whole year as opposed to the previous practice of grants awarded for the academic year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We propose that the student grant, which is not intended to provide financial support for the long vacation, will continue to be treated as now in the calculation of housing benefit. The new student loans will provide support throughout the whole of the course including the long vacations falling within it. We propose that income from loans will be apportioned over the whole year for the purpose of calculating benefit entitlement. We also propose that income from top-up loans will attract a weekly disregard of £10 so long as the recipient remains a student.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provisions he intends to make within the Social Security Benefits (Student Loan) Amendment Regulations 1990 with regard to students in receipt of discretionary grants from local authorities.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Students are not currently treated differently for benefit purposes on the basis of the type or source of the educational grant or bursary they receive. This will remain our intention under future arrangements.

  Disability and Care Allowances
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many women would be entitled to(a) severe disability allowance and (b) invalid care allowance if women could claim these benefits up to the age of 65 years.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that the additional number of women who would qualify each year if they could make a new claim between the ages of 60 and 65 is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Severe disablement allowance

  2,000

  (b) Invalid care allowance

  1,800

  Low Incomes
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help is currently being given to families on low incomes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A range of benefits is available to families on low income. Child benefit continues to provide a worthwhile contribution to the costs of bringing up children. Lone parents are also eligible to receive one parent benefit. In addition help is available in the form of a range of income-related benefits—income support, family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit. Expenditure on each main benefit is set out in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm. 1014), copies of which are in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each office and its region making deductions from income support to pay the community charge; and how many claimants are having deductions made by each office for this reason.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is collected centrally on a quarterly basis. The latest available figures are for May 1990 and I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on 2 July at columns 460–61.

  Fraud
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he intends to reorganise fraud resources within his Department into sector teams; and when such reorganisation will be complete.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We intend, wherever possible, to align the new fraud sectors with our local office network 76
  for benefit payment. Existing fraud resources will be merged to form approximately 170 sector teams, grouped with some 20 areas for line management purposes. We plan to have this new organisation in place by the end of the year.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will revise the data given in his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths)Official Report, 17 March 1989, column 390, on household incomes, to take into account the errors in the originally published data.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The figures quoted in the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 17 March 1989 were only marginally affected by the recalculated data.

  The main figures are as follows:

  Real growth in mean net income before housing costs: 1979 to 1985

  by decile group

  by family type

  Lowest

  6

  Married pensioners

  15

  2nd

  5

  Single pensioners

  15

  3rd

  4

  Married with children

  9

  4th

  4

  Married without children

  6

  5th

  4

  Single with children

  10

  6th

  6

  Single with children

  6

  7th

  7*

  8th

  9

  9th

  11*

  Total population

  9

  Highest

  18

  Notes:

  All these figures are as previously published, except the two marked *, which were previously shown as 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively.

  Any changes in the detailed figures contained in the original table are likely to be equally trivial. Moreover, as explained in the original answer, those figures are of limited significance, because the deciles used were for the whole population rather than specific to each family type.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to raise benefits to take account of water charge rises above inflation in each of the next five years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Benefit levels are considered for uprating each year, and we seek to take account of all relevant factors.

  Pensions
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what he estimates would be the cost to his Department of adding £3 per week to the pensions of pensioners over 75 years of age;

  (2) what he estimates would be the cost of adding £5 per week to the state pension for a single pensioner at current prices;

  (3) how much he estimates it would cost his Department to increase the pension for a married couple by £8 per week at current prices;

  (4) how much it would cost his Department to provide every pensioner aged 75 years and over with £10 per week extra at 1990–91 prices.
  77
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answers 5 June and 12 June 1990]: The estimated gross and net costs with the accompanying estimated savings in income-related benefits for each of the additions is shown in the table.

  Addition

  Estimated gross cost £ billion

  Estimated net cost £ billion

  Estimated savings in income related benefits £ billion

  £3 per week to all pensioners over 75

  0·61

  0·42

  0·20

  £5 per week to single pensioners

  1·15

  0·73

  0·43

  £8 per week to married couple pensioners

  1·37

  1·10

  0·26

  £10 per week to any pensioner aged 75 or over

  2·03

  1·50

  0·53

  Note: Costs shown use 1990–91 benefit rates.

  Local Councillors
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has issued to his Department's offices with regard to(a) the new arrangements relating to allowances payable to local authority councillors in general and (b) how the new lump sum payments will be treated in calculating councillors' entitlements to means-tested benefits in particular; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The office of the chief adjudication officer is responsible for issuing guidance to the Department's offices and will be doing so shortly on the treatment of the revised allowances payable to local authority councillors.

  These allowances, including any lump sum payments, will continue to be treated as earnings for benefit purposes in the normal way and apportioned on a weekly basis.

  Cohabitees
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the savings made by(a) treating cohabitees as a couple for the purpose of claiming benefit and (b) refusing spouse additions to cohabitees' benefits on the basis that they can be paid only to legally married couples; and what proportion of the savings accrue from national insurance and noncontributory benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Current statistical information does not permit us to make such an estimate other than in relation to widow's benefit. In the 12-month period ending 31 March 1990 widows benefit was disqualified on grounds of co-habitation in 2,313 cases. Resulting benefit savings for the same period are estimated to be approximately £1·9 million. All the estimated savings accrue from contributory benefits.

  The best estimate of the savings arising from non-payment of spouse additions of benefits where a couple are not legally married is £4·3 million per annum; 0·6 per cent. of the estimated savings accrue from non-contributory, non-income related benefits and the rest relate to national insurance benefits.

  Maintenance Orders
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many maintenance orders for the support of children of lone mothers have(a) not been served and (b) have fallen into abeyance because the fathers cannot be traced, for each of the years 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.
  78
  In 1988, 11,280 maintenance orders were made in magistrates courts. The further information sought is not available.

  Grants and Loans
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of local offices in Scotland which received additional allocations of moneys for (i) maternity payments, (ii) funeral payments, (iii) cold weather payments, (iv) community care grants, (v) budgeting and (vi) crisis loans, for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what was the additional amount paid for each category and the total additional amount paid.

  Mr. Scott
  Local offices do not receive specific allocations for maternity payments, funeral payments and cold weather payments. Expenditure is demand led within the provisions contained in class XIV, vote 4.

  There were no revised allocations to local offices for the year 1988–89. Information on revised allocations for 1989–90 has been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Motorway Repairs
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed motorway lane rental repair scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In June 1989 I announced that lane rental would be adopted as the norm for maintenance schemes on major strategic motorways and trunk roads. Since then over 10 schemes have been identified as suitable for this form of contract, and it will continue to be adopted on all future schemes amenable to this treatment. Although lane rental costs slightly more, the evidence shows that the additional costs are handsomely recouped from the greatly reduced delay costs to traffic at roadworks on our key routes.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if his instruction to the Scottish Development Agency to carry out an analysis of the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland allows it to examine the prospects for an independent steel industry;

  (2) if he will give a specific instruction to the Scottish Development Agency to engage in a study of the feasibility of an independent Scottish steel industry based upon British Steel plant and assets in Scotland.
  79
  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency has been asked to examine the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland and to seek to identify any opportunities. It is intended that the analysis will be wide ranging and will seek to identify any present and future opportunities in the sector. It would not be appropriate to restrict the scope of this exercise by imposing any prior assumptions about the ownership or control of existing or potential operations in Scotland.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many agency-based nursing and auxiliary staff are currently employed in acute wards of hospitals managed by the Greater Glasgow health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The board's policy is that agency nurses will be employed to cover for absent staff only when there is no alternative to doing so. The number therefore varies from day to day and I understand that on 5 July, 31·95 whole-time equivalents were employed in acute wards.

  Adult Basic Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent each year on a constant price basis on adult basic education in the community since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  European Environment Agency
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Scottish-based organisations which he has recommended for consideration as part of the European Environment Agency network.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The EC regulation establishing the agency was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 7 May 1990 and will take effect once its location has been decided by the Council. Once the agency begins its work, which will not be before that date, we shall be considering the merits of organisations for inclusion in a list of candidates for the agency's information network.

  Hillington Skill Centre
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received representations from M. I. Technologue Ltd. about the sale of Hillington skill centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No such representations have been received.

  Education Costs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the cost in each education authority of providing a place for each child between five and 11 years; and what additional cost is deemed necessary for each child with special needs in(a) a special school and (b) an integrated unit of a school for children under 11 years;

  (2) what is the cost in each education authority of providing a place for each student between 11 and 18 years; and what additional cost is deemed necessary for each child with special needs in (a) a special school and (b) an integrated unit in a secondary school.
  80
  Mr. Lang
  The available information is given in the table which has been compiled from local authority financial returns. Information on the cost of special education is not recorded separately for primary and secondary age pupils. Expenditure on special units in primary and secondary schools is recorded under special schools, but is not separately identified.

  Net current expenditure per pupil in primary, secondary and special schools—1988–89

  Primary £

  Secondary £

  Special £

  Region

  Borders

  1,333

  2,188

  8,119

  Central

  1,224

  2,114

  11,289

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,204

  2,273

  17,922

  Fife

  1,302

  2,251

  3,909

  Grampian

  1,192

  2,281

  8,239

  Highland

  1,284

  2,095

  7,704

  Lothian

  1,175

  2,282

  9,953

  Strathclyde

  1,262

  2,252

  8,910

  Tayside

  1,215

  2,331

  9,385

  Orkney

  1,380

  2,991

  19,750

  Shetland

  1,655

  3,544

  63,778

  Western Isles

  1,580

  2,814

  8,786

  International Literacy Year
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special initiatives his Department has taken to support International Literacy Year.

  Mr. Lang
  None. The Department does, however, provide resources to the Scottish Community Education Council to co-ordinate and develop provisions in adult literacy in Scotland and, in 1989, for the first time, funds were made available to voluntary organisations towards new development projects concerned with adult basic education.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to safeguard basic literacy and numeracy training from budgetary restrictions in the employment training programme.

  Mr. Lang
  I am satisfied that the Training Agency has sufficient resources to meet the demand for training places for unemployed people with special needs in relation to literacy and/or numeracy.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution the Scottish Education Department is making to plans for care in the community.

  Mr. Lang
  The social work services group, which is part of the Scottish Education Department, is responsible for co-ordinating, within the Scottish Office, work on the implementation of the Government's community care policy. This includes the preparation of guidance for local authorities. Four consultation papers have so far been issued, including one on community care planning, and formal guidance will be issued in the light of the comments received.

  Health Board Members (Payments)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payment is made to Mrs Iris Isbister as chairperson of Tayside health board; and whether this is a part-time post.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Friday 6 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker),Hansard, volume 175, column 733. All health board chairmen are appointed on a part-time basis.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the payments made to each health board member in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health board members currently receive allowances to cover travel, subsistence and loss of remunerative time expenses resulting from board duties.

  Mental Welfare Commission
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether civil servants can be appointed to the Mental Welfare Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Section 2(6) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 debars serving civil servants from appointment to the Mental Welfare Commission.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations involved in mental illness and mental handicap that he consulted prior to recommending appointments to the Mental Welfare Commission; and if he will give the dates when they were consulted.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Before my right hon. and learned Friend makes recommendations to the Mental Welfare Commission he must, in accordance with section 2(5) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned. Most recently, the following bodies were consulted, on 19 June 1989:

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped

  Royal College of Psychiatrists (Scottish Division)

  Psychiatric Nurses Association of Scotland

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  British Medical Association

  Royal College of General Practitioners

  Standing Conference of Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland

  The Faculty of Advocates

  The Law Society of Scotland

  British Association of Social Workers

  Association of Directors of Social Work

  Royal College of Nursing

  Edinburgh Association for Mental Health

  British Psychological Society

  The Church of Scotland Board of Social Responsibility

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payment is made to Mrs. Iris Isbister as a member of the Mental Welfare Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As a part-time member of the Mental Welfare Commission, Mrs. Isbister is paid an annual fee, currently amounting to £1,420, together with travelling and subsistence expenses.

TRANSPORT

  Road Safety
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve road safety.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A wide range of measures to improve road safety have been taken under the umbrella of our "Safety on the Move" campaign. Britain has a good record on road safety. An area of great concern is that of child safety—especially child pedestrians, where there is particular scope for improvement. A sustained programme of measures on child safety was launched in May including proposals to enable local authorities to make residential streets safer. We will be launching a further phase of this campaign concentrating on child pedestrian safety shortly.

  Rail Ramblers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding rail ramblers.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received no representations about rail ramblers apart from those from the hon. Member and the Lancashire Rail Ramblers Committee.

  London-North West Rail Service
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on British Rail's proposals to improve the London to the north-west of England main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I welcome British Rail's recent announcement of its strategic plans for further improvements on the west coast main line, and I look forward to seeing British Rail's detailed investment case when this comes forward in due course.

  London Underground
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much is being invested in London Underground over the next three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Underground Ltd. alone is planning to invest approximately £1·7 billion over the next three years. This is more than double in real terms the amount invested over the three years to 1989–90.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of foreign investment in underground railways in central London.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware of any significant foreign interest in underground railways in central London beyond the funding contributions to the Jubilee line extension and the Bank extension of the docklands light railway which have been agreed by Olympia and York.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make more resources available to London Underground for improved passenger security.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have given London Underground Ltd. £15 million to introduce a programme
  83
  of passenger security measures as recommended in this Department's 1986 report on crime on the London underground. Implementation of this programme is currently under way. London Underground Ltd. will additionally be spending about £80 million over the next 10 years on extending the most successful of these measures throughout the Underground network. London Underground Ltd. funds the Underground division of the British Transport Police, the complement of which has been increased to 400 officers.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of investment in London Underground this year; and what the level was in 1984–85.

  Mr. Freeman
  Investment by London Underground Ltd. will be approaching £400 million in 1990–91. In the financial year 1984–85, when funding was determined by the GLC, the corresponding figure was about £117 million. This represents an increase of 148 per cent. in real terms.

  Privately Financed Roads
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for privately financed roads in Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Dartford-Thurrock crossing will be the first major privately financed road this century. In addition, I recently invited views on the suitability of six further possible privately financed schemes. Three of these would serve Essex if the schemes were taken forward: a lower Thames crossing, a new link between Chelmsford and the M25 and a new route parallel to the A127 from the M25 to Rayleigh.

  Compulsory House Purchases (Compensation)
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to improve present arrangements for compensating house owners where properties are acquired for transport improvement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is presently considering the responses to a consultation paper, containing proposals for improvements to land compensation, issued last year. He intends to bring forward legislation when the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Tankers, West Coast
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to complete his detailed consideration of the findings of the review of tanker traffic in the deep water route west of the Hebrides and in the Minches.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I hope to report my conclusions to the House before the summer recess.

  Submarines
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current state of studies sponsored by his Department into systems to help submarines avoid fishing nets.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A prototype system, based on specifications prepared by the Admiralty Research Establishment (ARE), to help submarines to avoid fishing nets will be tested this summer.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the figures for investment in Network SouthEast for 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures are as follows:

  Network SouthEast investment 1988–89—1991–92

  Cash prices £ million

  1988–89

  300

  1989–90

  325

  1990–91

  1325

  1991–92

  1415

  1 Planned.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider the introduction of regional and national awards for best bus services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The quality of bus services is a matter for the operators. The Bus and Coach Council already promotes a competition entitled "Britain's Brightest Bus Service".

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the cancellation of high-speed train links with the channel tunnel does not damage access of passengers and exports from Scotland to the continent.

  Mr. Freeman
  The recent announcement related to a particular proposal for a joint venture by British Rail and Eurorail. BR is continuing to develop proposals for a new passenger rail link between the tunnel and London to cater for traffic growth in the longer term. It was never intended that the new line or the high-speed link to the tunnel in France should carry freight. British Rail intends to provide both passenger and freight services to cater for the Scottish market from the outset.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to give his approval to British Rail for investment plans in relation to King's Cross being the international terminal linking the North with the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has not yet submitted its investment plans, which I would not normally expect to see before they get parliamentary approval.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the need for a fast rail link between Scotland and the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have recently received several representations from various parts of the country, including Scotland, about the desirability of fast and efficient rail links to the channel tunnel.

  Transport, London
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of London Transport to discuss future transport strategy in London.
  85
  Mr. Parkinson
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I regularly meet the chairman of London Transport to discuss all aspects of London Transport's operations including its plans for the future.

  Public Transport, Manchester
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about public transport in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is essentially a matter for the operators and the passenger transport authority and executive. The Government are at present making resources available for two major projects to improve public transport in Manchester, Metrolink and the airport rail link.

  M1 (Junction 21)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement regarding traffic congestion at junction 21 of the M1 motorway.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Works commenced on an interim scheme to reduce congestion at junction 21 of the M1 motorway on 18 June. The scheme will be completed later this year. It will provide relief to the junction until the mid-1990s.

  A longer-term improvement at this junction is being investigated as part of the motorway widening and junction improvement scheme announced in the 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity".

  Roads, London
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a further announcement on the public transport proposals of the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Parkinson
  We asked British Rail and London Transport in March to give further consideration to public transport proposals recommended by the London assessment studies which were not already under active examination. Announcements will be made after this work has been completed.

  British Rail (Land Sales)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total income received by British Rail from the sale of surplus land in(a) 1974, (b) 1979, (c)

  Mr. Freeman
  Gross income received by British Rail from the sale of surplus land for each of the years, at constant 1990–91 prices, was as follows:

  1974 £ million

  1979 £ million

  1 1988–89 £ million

  63

  29

  299

  1 British Rail changed the basis for recording this information from calendar to financial years with effect from 1984–85.

  Roads (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made an assessment of the environmental implications of his Department's road building programme; and if he will make a statement.
  86
  Mr. Parkinson
  The environmental benefits and disadvantages of all schemes are considered carefully. Protecting and enhancing the environment will continue to be a major priority in our plans.

  Inner City Transport
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to improve transport in the inner cities.

  Mr. Parkinson
  National road schemes worth £3 billion are under construction or planned to assist the inner cities including major schemes on the A 13 to aid revival of London's docklands, the M66 Denton to Middleton scheme and the A69 Newcastle western bypass. Over 100 major local road schemes to assist inner city areas, costing nearly £1 billion, are supported by 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant; examples are the Birmingham heartlands spine road, the Leeds inner ring road and the Haringey north-south route. We provide grant under the Industrial Development Act 1982 to help build access roads to development sites, such as the Meadowhall development in Sheffield and improvement of Aldwarke lane in Rotherham. In February I announced approval for the electrification of the Birmingham cross-city railway line. We are providing grant under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 for the Manchester Metrolink. The Docklands Light Railway has contributed greatly to the regeneration of London's docklands. It is now being extended westwards to Bank and eastwards to Beckton and we are consolidating the revitalisation of the area with the Jubilee line extension.

  Marchioness
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the publication of the final report into the sinking of the Marchioness.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Solicitors representing next-of-kin and survivors, and others, have written to my right hon. Friend urging publication as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend also saw a deputation of representatives of the Marchioness disaster group on 16 May.

  Roads, Yorkshire
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects new trunk road provision to serve east-west transportation and movement in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no proposals at present for a new east-west trunk road in South Yorkshire. Barnsley metropolitan district council has included a proposal for a link between the M1 and the A1, the "Dearne towns link road", in its forward plans. I understand that it hopes to complete the route by the mid-1990s.

  Buses (Official Journeys)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions in the last 12 months when he made an official journey by bus in London.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend and I have travelled by bus, underground and rail in London on a number of occasions in the last 12 months.

  Air Traffic Control, Wales
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about air traffic control over Wales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The control of air traffic in the United Kingdom is the responsibility of the national air traffic services, which is a joint organisation of the Ministry of Defence and the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Air traffic over Wales is controlled in precisely the same manner as air traffic over the rest of the United Kingdom. The controlling centre for en route traffic over Wales and much of England is the London air traffic control centre.

  M40
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the construction of the M40.

  Mr. Atkins
  Construction work is progressing quickly and we are now working towards a full opening of the route in the spring of 1991.

  Buses (Passenger Seat Belts)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has given the bus and coach industry concerning passenger seat belts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised the House on 5 June, he met representatives of the Bus and Coach Council on 8 June to discuss the fitting of seat belts in coaches.

  The Government believe that operators should provide good quality, easy-to-use retractable seat belts on all seats. Belts are offered for sale by manufacturers, but most operators do not buy them. At the meeting on 8 June, the Bus, and Coach Council undertook to recommend to its members that all new vehicles purchased should in future be equipped with appropriate seat belts on all seats. Officials are meeting the BCC today to explore further how existing vehicles might best be equipped with seat belts.

  Bus Miles
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of bus miles operated in the United Kingdom in 1974, 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the number of vehicle kilometres (in millions) operated by buses and coaches in Great Britain.

  1974

  1979

  1988–89

  Local (stage) Services

  2,360

  2,238

  2,416

  Other Services

  1,102

  1,099

  1,365

  All Services

  3,462

  3,338

  3,781

  Data for 1989–90 will not be available until later in the year.

  Light Rapid Transit Schemes
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to light rapid transit, metro and tramway schemes under construction or proposed.
  88
  Mr. Freeman
  The docklands light railway is being extended to Bank and Beckton, the Tyne and Wear Metro is being extended to Newcastle airport and work has begun on the Manchester Metrolink, for which the Government are providing grant. Some 40 other light rapid transit schemes have been proposed or are being considered. These include light rail schemes in South Yorkshire, west midlands, and Avon.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on proposals for private finance for the construction of the Jubilee line extension.

  Mr. Freeman
  Olympia and York, Regalian and British Gas have agreed to make contributions towards the costs of construction of the Jubilee line extension.

  British Rail (Rental Income)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rental income was received by British Rail in respect of commercial lettings to private companies in(a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c)

  Mr. Freeman
  Gross rental income received by British Rail from commercial lettings to private companies for each of the years, at constant 1990–91 prices, was as follows:

  £ million

  1974

  85

  1979

  91

  1 1988–89

  114

  1 British Rail changed the basis for recording this information from calendar to financial years with effect from 1984–85.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of people killed on Britain's roads in(a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c)

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of people killed on Britain's roads in(a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c)

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  1974

  6,876

  1979

  6,352

  1989

  1 5,282

  1 Latest provisional estimate.

  This 23 per cent. fall in fatalities has been achieved despite an increase of 68 per cent. in total traffic.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of(a) fatal accidents, (b) serious accidents and (c) other accidents on the A36 between Wylye and Plaitford in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The personal injury accidents recorded over the last five years are as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  (a) fatal accidents

  2

  2

  2

  1

  5

  (b) serious accidents

  18

  10

  16

  14

  25

  (c) slight accidents

  89

  54

  53

  55

  74

  89

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  109

  66

  71

  70

  104

  Unleaded Fuel
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of vehicles used unleaded fuel in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  The percentage market share enjoyed by unleaded fuel in December of each of the years mentioned was as follows.

  per cent.

  1987

  0·13

  1988

  3·14

  1989

  28·34

  We do not have figures relating these percentages to numbers of vehicles.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the petition recently presented to him concerning disabled people's access to public transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We fully support the principle of moving towards more accessible vehicles. However, in view of the operational and technical difficulties to be resolved, we believe that the target date of 1992 is unrealistic.

  We are currently working on the development of a new generation of low floor buses that can accommodate wheelchair users on regular services. We are concerned that for the benefit of both the operators and the potential passengers such vehicles should be able to provide effective and sustainable services. We have some way to go in the development of these vehicles before we can be sure that those concerns have been met. We hope to start trials on what is likely to be the first in a series of low floor accessible demonstration vehicles later this year.

  We are also working with coach manufacturers on design requirements for lifts to be fitted to high floor coaches. For both buses and coaches the most effective way forward is likely to be through Europe-wide legislation.

  Bypasses
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses will be started or completed this year.

  Mr. Atkins
  Some 30 bypass schemes with a works cost of over £500 million are programmed to start or be completed this year, totalling over 110 miles of new road.90
  Whether classified as bypasses or not, nearly all new road schemes bring relief to local communities from intrusive through traffic.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made to reduce vehicle emissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have recently laid before the House regulations which will introduce the strict limits on vehicle emissions which have been agreed by the European Community.

  The regulations include for the first time a requirement for the motorist to keep his vehicle in good emissions tune. This has paved the way for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's recent announcement that we propose to include a check on emissions in the MOT test.

  Negotiations are now taking place on a further directive to limit emissions from cars. In addition to setting stricter limits for medium cars, the new directive will include provisions on evaporative emissions, durability of emission control equipment and a longer test cycle which includes a new high speed element. I hope the negotiations can be concluded quickly. The timetable is short if the new requirements are to take effect by the end of 1992.

  When these new requirements are agreed, it will mean that from 1992 virtually all new petrol-engined cars will have to be equipped with three-way catalysts.

  The Commission has also announced recently proposals for tighter limits on gaseous emissions from heavy diesel-engined vehicles and for the introduction of limits on particulate emissions from these vehicles. From what we have seen, the proposals may not go far enough. We are looking for standards similar to the United States 1994 limits by the mid-1990s. These are the strictest standards for heavy diesels being considered anywhere in the world.

  British Rail (Quality of Service)
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures the Government are taking to improve the quality of service on British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have agreed quality of service objectives with the board which cover, among other things, train reliability and punctuality and, for most subsidised passenger services, passenger loading standards. The details are set out in my right hon. Friend's letter of 19 November to the chairman (Official Report, 19 December 1989, column 227–31).

  British Rail has plans to invest £3·7 billion over the next three years, much of which is for new rolling stock and infrastructure works to improve quality of service and cater for growth in demand. I shall be discussing progress with British Rail very shortly.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of local authorities to discuss transport in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministers frequently meet representatives of local authorities to discuss a wide range of issues. The provision of rural transport is a matter for the operators and the local authorities concerned. In addition, the Department of Transport provides £1 million a year for the rural transport development fund to support innovative public transport schemes in rural areas.

  A40 Western Avenue
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the cost of the A40 Western avenue improvement at the junction with Long lane, Hillingdon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since the beginning of May the hon. Member has himself forwarded two letters on behalf of three constituents concerning the estimated cost of the scheme, and the National Farmers Union wrote in support of one of the constituents.

  Trolleybuses
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any proposals to introduce trolleybus routes.

  Mr. Freeman
  The West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire passenger transport executives have both obtained powers to introduce trolleybus routes in their areas. The West Yorkshire PTE has put worked up proposals to the Department for an experimental route in Bradford, and I recently agreed to provide credit approvals for the costs of the infrastructure.

  Women Travellers
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss new plans to improve the safety of women.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has frequently discussed passenger safety with the chairman and his predecessor and expects to do so in further meetings. Much has already been done to improve passenger security including better lighting at stations and station car parks. Closed circuit television has been installed where appropriate. The British Transport Police have increased patrols at likely trouble spots and BR is working on a standard specification for customer security in co-operation with the police.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make public transport more attractive to women.

  Mr. Freeman
  Such matters are primarily for the transport operators. The Government welcome any efforts to make public transport more attractive to all types of users, and potential users.

  A13
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the A13 trunk road improvement between the M25 and Dagenham.

  Mr. Atkins
  In spring 1992, subject to the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures.

  Transport Investment
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of investment approved by Government in all types of transport for the next three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 23 April this year.

  Rail Links, Europe
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the impact of rail links into Europe on all regions of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  The opening of the channel tunnel will be a great opportunity for the railways to compete more effectively in the international passenger and freight markets and to bring extra choice of services to all parts of the United Kingdom.

  British Rail (Discussions)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of British Rail on 27 June for one of their regular discussions.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail.

  Central Line
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total amount of planned investment in new stock on the Central line by London Underground Ltd.

  Mr. Freeman
  About £350 million. This is the biggest rolling stock order ever placed by London Underground, and is part of the £700 million modernisation of the Central line which the Government approved in 1988. The 85 new trains, along with the rest of the programme, will substantially increase peak capacity, improve regularity of services, and reduce journey time.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the increase in real terms in transport supplementary grant for
  local authorities in 1990–91.
  93
  Mr. Atkins
  The provision for transport supplementary grant in class VII, vote 5 for 1990–91 is £233,125,000, an increase of 7·3 per cent. in real terms on the corresponding provision for 1989–90.

  Street Works
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received concerning his proposals to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Horne committee.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 11 June 1990 at column 20.

  British Rail (Investment)
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of investment in British Rail over the next three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  BR plans to invest some £3·7 billion over the three financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Rail Services
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage further private sector participation in the provision of rail services.

  Mr. Freeman
  In December 1989 the Government set the British Railways Board the objective of increasing further the contribution of the private sector where this enabled more cost-effective and competitive services to be provided. For the longer term we are continuing to consider the privatisation of British Rail.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of railway line have now been electrified; and what estimate he has as to the amount of electrification due to take place over the next five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  At 31 March 1990, BR had 2,830 route miles electrified. BR's 1989 plan proposed electrification of a further 560 route miles by 1993–94, three quarters of which have already been authorised. Major electrification projects are expected to include Cambridge to King's Lynn, the Birmingham cross-city link and the final stages of the east coast main line electrification.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the sites for channel tunnel depots in the regions.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a commercial matter for British Rail.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects the first train to travel through the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for Eurotunnel. Its projected completion of the tunnel system is 15 June 1993.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Minister last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss the channel tunnel terminal at Waterloo.
  94
  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's approval for BR's investment at Waterloo was announced on 18 May.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the increase in capital spending on national road maintenance between 1974 to 1979 and 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  Capital spending on motorway and trunk road maintenance in the years 1975 to 1990 is set out in the table below. Before 1975 capital and current expenditure were not separately recorded. Capital spending on road maintenance includes roads renewal, bridges renewal, and the purchase of vehicles and equipment.

  Financial year

  Capital spending £ million (cash)

  1975–76

  26·9

  1976–77

  29·5

  1977–78

  33·5

  1978–79

  46·0

  1979–80

  64·2

  1980–81

  68·4

  1981–82

  111·0

  1982–83

  148·1

  1983–84

  130·0

  1984–85

  154·1

  1985–86

  165·9

  1986–87

  220·4

  1987–88

  264·5

  1988–89

  190·6

  1989–90

  1 330·4

  1 Provisional.

  Aircraft (Vapour Levels)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 302, what advice he has received from Professor Hoskins on vapour levels and aircraft.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None as yet. The necessary basic data are currently being assembled.

  Fishing Boats
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to station one inspector-surveyor to check small fishing boats at either Lowestoft or Great Yarmouth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The location of all fishing vessel surveyor posts, including that vacant at the Great Yarmouth office, is presently under review. A decision on the future location of such posts will be made shortly.

  Level Crossings
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last 10 years the number of accidents occurring in the immediate vicinity of automatically opening locally monitored level crossings, specifying for each year the number of such incidents which involved(a) loss of life, (b) personal injury and (c) damage to property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following table shows for each year in the period 1979–88, the number of automatic open
  95
  crossings locally monitored (AOCLs) on British Railways only, the number of accidents, and the number of casualties on both BR and other railways. The latter are shown in brackets. Where the information is available, I have shown damage to property. We do not have details of road traffic accidents near a level crossing, which do not affect the operation of the level crossing or the safety of a train.

  The reports on 72 of these accidents show that the road vehicle driver failed to obey the "stop" road traffic signals.

  Year

  Number AOCL

  Number of accidents

  Number dead

  Number injured

  Property damaged

  1979

  84

  1

  —

  1

  1 motorcycle

  1980

  107

  1

  —

  —

  1 motorcycle

  1981

  114

  2

  —

  2

  2 cars

  1982

  122

  4

  —

  3

  1 car, 1 bus, 1 pick-up truck,

  (19)

  (4)

  —

  (4)

  1 dumper-truck (4 cars)

  1983

  128

  4

  —

  7

  1 taxi, 2 cars, 1 van. (1 car, 1 van,

  (3)

  —

  (2)

  1 steam locomotive, 1 bus)

  1984

  144

  4

  1

  7

  1 lorry, 3 cars (2 cars, 1 taxi, 1 tram)

  (3)

  —

  (1)

  1985

  188

  11

  2

  7

  10 cars, 1 motorcycle, 1 lorry

  (1)

  —

  (1)

  1986

  206

  8

  —

  9

  7 cars, 1 van, 1 DMU train, (1 car)

  (1)

  —

  —

  1987

  206

  10

  2

  8

  7 cars, 3 vans (2 cars)

  (2)

  1988

  211

  16

  1

  8

  1 minibus, 15 other vehicles,

  (1)

  —

  (1)

  (1 permanent way trolley, 1 car)

  British Rail

  61

  6

  52

  Other railways

  (15)

  —

  (9)

  Total

  76

  6

  61

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number and locations of uncontrolled pedestrian and vehicular level crossings on the British Rail system; whether he plans any discussions with the chairman of British Rail about additional safety devices at such crossings; if he will make additional funds available for the installation of such devices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  At the end of 1988, the most recent year for which detailed figures are currently available, there were 2,213 uncontrolled footpath crossings and 5,721 uncontrolled vehicular crossings, the majority of which are on private roads.

  My Department's published requirements for level crossings lay down safety criteria for open crossings on public roads which are lightly but regularly used. Other vehicular crossings used by very low levels of local traffic are provided with user-worked gates or barriers in accordance with the requirements. The requirements do not cover private accommodation or occupation crossings which may be accessible to the public, but the railways
  96
  Of the other four, one accident was caused when a lorry skidded on ice, one was caused when a car drove in front of a Tyne and Wear Metro train proceeding slowly over a crossing as a result of a signal failure, two were caused by train drivers not following the set procedures for crossing a road when there is a signal failure.

  British Rail is undertaking a programme of improvements to AOCLs in accordance with the recommendations made by Professor P. F. Stott to make the signs and signals even more conspicuous.

  inspectorate and British Rail have agreed safety criteria for such crossings and a programme of implementation is in progress.

  The inspectorate will be reviewing the use of footpath crossings with British Rail to define criteria for practical and cost-effective measures to improve safety. The chairman and I meet regularly; safety is his top priority.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list incidents involving unmanned level crossings, involving risk to the public, in the past two years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the number of accidents and "systems failures" at the various types of unmanned crossings during 1987 and 1988, the most recent years for which full figures are currently available, together with total crossing numbers. "Systems failures" are occasions when a controlled crossing fails to operate currently but no accident occurs. Safety procedures for failures, laid down in the authorising statutory orders, are designed to minimise risks to the public. There are, of course, no records of occasions on which crossing users put themselves at risk—for example, by ignoring the flashing red traffic signals which warn of an approaching train—but where no accident occurs.
  97

  Crossing Type

  Number in use

  Number of accidents

  Number of failures

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  Automatic half barrier

  323

  357

  3

  4

  7

  3

  Auto half barrier locally monitored

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Auto open remotely monitored

  44

  33

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Auto open locally monitored

  206

  211

  13

  17

  3

  2

  User-worked gates + Min warning lights

  116

  140

  3

  2

  —

  —

  User-worked gates

  4,004

  4,919

  15

  12

  —

  —

  User-worked gates + telephone

  733

  738

  5

  6

  —

  —

  Open crossing

  63

  64

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Footpath crossing

  2,195

  2,213

  5

  6

  —

  —

  Total

  7,684

  28,676

  50

  54

  10

  5

  1 Includes accidents on minor railways.

  2 Figures for 1988 are based on a survey which updated previous records of crossings and for both years are for British Rail only.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 63, whether any further consultation with chambers of commerce about TECs has taken place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department liaises closely with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce about the development of training and enterprise councils (TECs). TECs themselves work closely with local chambers of commerce, and a number of business leaders who are also senior office holders from chambers have accepted invitations from TECs to serve on their boards.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the date of publication of the study on employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The report of the efficiency scrutiny of take-up of Employment Department programmes, including employment training, will be made publicly available before the summer recess.

  Women Workers
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the reasons why mothers undertake paid employment; and what proportion indicate that without such work their family income would fall below poverty levels.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The 1984 British social attitudes survey asked women in paid work (of at least 10 hours per week) with a child aged under 16 to give their main reason for working. The results were as follows:

  per cent.

  Need money for basic essentials

  50

  To earn money to buy extras

  22

  Enjoy working

  17

  To follow my career

  4

  To earn money of my own

  3

  For the company of other people

  2

  For a change from my children or housework

  2

  Working is the normal thing to do

  1

  Percentages total more than 100 per cent. due to rounding

  There is no generally accepted definition of what constitutes a poverty level. No evidence is available on the
  98
  proportion of mothers who indicate that their family income would fall below poverty levels without paid employment.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 375, on minimum wage effects, what other assumptions on the restoration of pay differentials besides that given in the note deposited in the Library have been considered; on what evidence they are based; and what would have been the impact of a minimum wage set at half average earnings on each of these assumptions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimates produced by my Department of the job losses arising from the introduction of a national minimum wage assumed, on a central estimate, that differentials for those employees earning more than the minimum would be half-restored.

  To establish a lower limit for the impact of a national minimum wage on jobs, a second estimate was produced on the basis of there being no restoration of differentials at all. My Department estimates that, in this case, about 100,000 jobs would be lost.

  Also a third estimate, to establish an upper limit, was produced on the basis of there being a full restoration of differentials. My Department estimates that, in this case, about 1·4 million jobs would be lost.

  Both the assumptions of no restoration and full restoration are implausible.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) each of the research studies and (b) all other sources of evidence which his Department used in determining the assumptions contained in the note placed in the Library entitled "Estimating the Effect of a National Minimum Wage"; and if he will identify separately the evidence and research used to formulate the assumption that differentials are half-restored in percentage terms following the introduction of a national minimum wage.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The assumptions made by officials in my Department in constructing the estimate of the effect of a national minimum wage, were derived mainly from the published Treasury paper "The Relationship between Employment and Wages: Empirical Evidence for the United Kingdom" (January 1985) and data from the New Earnings Survey (1989).

  The Treasury paper estimates the relationship between employment and real wages in the United Kingdom, and the relationship expected between increases in money

  99
  wages and real wages given an unchanged nominal framework. The new earnings survey each year indicates the earnings distribution prevailing in the country at a stated time.

  Apart from those reviewed in the Treasury paper, other papers studied included:

  From The Dole Queue to the Sweatshop: Minimum Wages and Government Policy—Henry Neuburger (Low Pay Unit, 1984);

  Minimum Wage Fixing—Gerald Starr (ILO 1981);

  On the Employment Effects of Introducing a National Minimum Wage In the UK—Stephen Bazen (University of Kent Working Paper 88/5, 1988);

  Wages Floors in the Clothing Industry 1950–81—Phillip Morgan, Don Paterson, and Robert Barrie (Department of Employment Research Paper No. 52, 1985);

  Low Pay or No Pay?—David Forrest and S.R. Dennison (Institute of Economic Affairs Hobart Paper 101, 1984);

  The assumption that differentials are half-restored in percentage terms is a justified central estimate. Similar assumptions are made in some of the work listed above.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assumptions about the effects of increased productivity and competitiveness as firms switch to higher wage and higher skill strategies were taken into account in the estimates contained in the note placed in the Library entitled "Estimating the Effect of a National Minimum Wage".

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimates, produced by my Department, of the job losses arising from the introduction of a national minimum wage were not based on any explicit assumptions about the effects of higher real wages on productivity, competitiveness, and employers' skill strategies.

  However, the estimates utilise results from the Treasury model (published in the Treasury paper "The Relationship between Employment and Wages: Empirical Evidence for the United Kingdom", January 1985), which are based on the past performance of the economy and take into account substitution between labour and capital as their relative prices alter and the consequent effects on productivity and competitiveness.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 2 February, to the hon. Member for Stretford,Official Report, column 375, what assumptions about increased demand for consumer goods by those receiving higher pay, as a result of the introduction of a statutory minimum wage, have been taken into account in reaching the conclusions on the effects of the introduction of a minimum wage.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimates, produced by my Department, of the job losses arising from the introduction of a national minimum wage used results from simulations reviewed in the published Treasury paper "The Relationship between Employment and Wages: Empirical Evidence for the United Kingdom" (HM Treasury, January 1985).

  These Treasury estimates of the impact of changes in real wages on employment do take account of the effects on consumer demand of changes in real wages, as well as the offsetting effects on company sector demand which arise from corresponding changes in their costs.

  Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the financial contribution of employers in 1990–91 to the training of young people with special needs;

  (2) what assessment he has made of employer contributions to youth training since the renegotiation of training contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 2 July at column 472.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans for an autumn advertising campaign on training.

  Mr. Eggar
  Discussions are continuing within the Department on publicity matters, but no decisions have been taken on an autumn training campaign.

  Youth Training (Payment)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the payment in arrears of voluntary sector training providers of youth training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Voluntary sector providers make an important contribution to youth training. The level and timing of funding is a matter for negotiation between training providers and Training Agency area offices or training and enterprise councils.

  Community Industry Scheme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers joining the community industry scheme for the years 1987–88 to 1989–90; and what are the plans for the years 1990–91 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Entrants

  Agreed places

  1987–88

  9,844

  7,000

  1988–89

  10,793

  7,000

  1989–90

  13,094

  7,000

  An average of 6,200 places nationally have been agreed with the training provider, Community Industry Ltd., for 1990–91. No plans have been made for 1991–92 to 1992–93.

  Publicity
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total estimated expenditure on Employment Department Group publicity in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total estimated expenditure on Employment Department Group publicity in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 is set out in table 6.31 in the Public Expenditure White Paper, Cm. 1006.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy that the Employment Department Group publicity will continue to be based on the principles set out in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 1006, page 27, paragraph 95.
  101
  Mr. Tim Eggar
  It is and will remain my policy that Employment Department Group publicity will continue to be based on paragraph 95 of the Public Expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will(a) list the companies involved in the Employment Department Group's publicity in 1990–91 and (b) estimate the total expenditure to be paid to each of them.

  Mr. Eggar
  Companies involved in the Employment Department Group's publicity in 1990–91 are Saatchi & Saatchi; Gold Greenless Trott; Industrial Publicity Services; Ogilvy & Mather; Delaney Fletcher Slaymaker Delaney and Bozell; FCO; BMP DDB; WBH Advertising; Yellowhammer.

  It is not yet possible to estimate how much will be spent with each agency.

  Private Office (Expenditure)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total expenditure of his private office in 1988–89, 1989–90 and the estimated expenditure in 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the expenditure of individual Ministers' private offices is not available. Total expenditure on Ministers, senior management and their offices is set out below.

  Year

  Expenditure (000s)

  11990–91

  £1,592

  1989–90

  £1,775

  1988–89

  £1,535

  1 Estimated

  Note: Figures include salary costs of Ministers, the permanent secretary and two deputy secretaries but exclude accommodation costs.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the proportion of trainees under the youth training scheme or youth training who fail to complete their full entitlement of training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) on Monday 30 April at column 541–42.

  Skill Centre Sale, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions he has given to King and Company, chartered surveyors, to sell his interest in the land and buildings occupied by the skill centre at Western avenue, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  King and Company has been instructed to market the Government's remaining skill centre property interests—which includes the freehold site at Western avenue, Cardiff—and to recommend to the Secretary of State which offer or offers to accept. As an aid to marketing the properties, King and Company has also been instructed to advise as appropriate on planning consents, dilapidations and other property matters.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from small businesses urging prompt payment by Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received a number of representations in the past year on the general subject of prompt payment, some of which referred to Government Departments' payment practices. However, I have received only six representations from small businesses which refer to specific cases of late payment by Government Departments. In only one of these cases has it been shown that a Department was directly responsible for the late payment of a debt. The delay was due to an administrative error.

  The Government as a major purchaser of supplies and services, worth about £15 billion each year, have a good record on prompt payment which demonstrates our commitment to the policy that all payments should be made on time. Furthermore, I am always prepared to take up any specific examples of late payment by Government Departments to small firms that are brought to my attention.

  Employment Service Agency
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the replies to hon. Members' questions from Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Hon. Members are offered the option of having placed in the Library of the House replies from the chief executive of the Employment Service Agency.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Artioposthia Triangulata
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the distribution in Britain of artioposthia triangulata; what assessment he has made about its impact on the nature ecosystem; and if he has any proposals for control measures.

  Mr. Curry
  The New Zealand flat worm needs damp conditions and is unlikely to survive in well drained agricultural land. It is sporadically sighted in Scotland but has not been found in England since 1965.

  North Sea (Nitrogen)
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the percentage of the nitrogen load in the North sea off the British coast which has been caused by(a) agriculture and (b) forestry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Of the total nitrogen inputs to the North sea from all sources, some 80 per cent. is attributable to the inflow of water from the north Atlantic and English channel. The remainder is attributable to inputs from all countries via the atmosphere and rivers together with a small contribution—1 per cent.—from direct dumping and
  103
  discharges. Of the total inputs of nitrogen, the contribution from United Kingdom agriculture and forestry, both via the atmosphere and rivers is estimated to be around 2 per cent. The greater part of this input derives from agriculture rather than forestry.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's role in protecting Southwold, Reydon, Walberswick and surrounding villages from the sea(a) currently, (b) in the next financial year and (c) till the year 2000;

  (2) if he will make it his policy urgently to assess the criteria for saving domestic dwellings from the sea to take account equally of environmental factors, cost benefits and housing.

  Mr. Curry
  A scheme under the Coast Protection Act 1949 to protect Southwold harbour is with the Department for approval. Many additional schemes are being undertaken in this financial year following the winter storms and they also have priority, so some schemes approved this year may be delayed into the next financial year.

  I am not aware of any plans to protect Reydon, Walberswick and the surrounding villages. However, if a scheme satisfying our normal technical, economic and environmental criteria is submitted to the Department it will be given full consideration.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward an urgent scheme to compensate people who lost their homes to the sea in cases where environmental considerations outweigh coast protection schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Works carried out to protect land under the terms of the Coast Protection Act 1949 require my prior consent. In deciding whether to give such consent our policy is to require a proposal to be technically sound, cost effective and environmentally sympathetic, and we have no plans to change that policy.

  We are not aware of any case in which a coast protection authority has decided not to seek our approval

  Division

  Counties covered by division

  Number of items claimed

  Chelmsford

  Essex, Hertfordshire, parts of Greater London

  15

  Huntingdon

  Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire

  7

  Lincoln

  Lincolnshire

  21

  Norwich

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  22

  Crewe

  Cheshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire

  345

  Nottingham

  Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire

  33

  Preston

  Lancashire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester

  91

  Worcester

  Warwickshire, West Midlands, Metropolitan County, Hereford, Worcester

  35

  Beverley

  Humberside, South and West Yorkshire

  44

  Carlisle

  Cumbria

  134

  Newcastle

  Northumberland, Durham, Tyne and Wear, Cleveland

  26

  Northallerton

  North Yorkshire

  82

  Guildford

  Hants, IOW, Surrey, West Sussex, parts of Greater London

  39

  Maidstone

  East Sussex, Kent, parts of Greater London

  18

  Oxford

  Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire

  30

  Exeter

  Devon

  237

  Gloucester

  Avon, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire

  86

  104
  for works because environmental considerations were judged to override protection of homes. No proposal submitted to us has been denied our consent solely by reason of environmental considerations. The Coast Protection Act does not provide for compensation to be paid for losses arising from coastal erosion and we have no plans to change our policy in this respect.

  Pollution Control
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money is allocated under the capital grant scheme for pollution control measures for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In England, provision for the farm and conservation grant scheme as a whole in 1990–91 is £23·23 million. There is no separate allocation for pollution control measures which are among several other types of investment eligible under the scheme.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money has been paid out under the farm capital grants scheme for pollution control measures for(a) February 1989 until March 1990 and (b) April 1990 until the present day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Grant paid in England for pollution control measures under the farm and conservation grant scheme for the periods requested is as follows:

  (a) February 1989 to March 1990—£5,252,524.

  (b) April to May
  19901—£2,760,577.

  1Figures for June not yet available.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms, by county basis, have taken up grants under the capital grant scheme for farm pollution control measures since the scheme was introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the number of items claimed in the category of waste facilities under the farm and conservation grant scheme in each division of the Ministry.
  105

  Division

  Counties covered by division

  Number of items claimed

  Taunton

  Dorset and Somerset

  117

  Truro

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  84

  Total

  1,466

  Source: MAFF statistics.
  106

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

The Estate Agency Industry
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the law concerning the estate agency industry.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, following the recent review of this matter and the failure of the industry to agree a suitable code of practice the Government have decided to make a number of changes to the regulations, on which consultations are now taking place.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. While I welcome the proposals to penalise the worst abuses practised by a minority of estate agents, is not the only long-term solution to the problem to transform estate agency into a properly regulated profession, with qualifications for entry? While the Government are considering that possibility, will my noble friend also consider whether written offers to purchase property should not be made binding?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the last point made by my noble friend is a matter for the contractual terms rather than the practice of estate agents' business generally. As to the first question posed by my noble friend, we believe that the way to proceed should have been by means of an agreed code of practice, if that could have been achieved. It is regrettable that the Director General of Fair Trading was not able to achieve that. However, I believe that the way forward now proposed, by means of a range of regulations
2
listing among other things undesirable practices, will curb most of the abuses which rightly concern my noble friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that if the suggestion made by the noble Lord in his supplementary question, that written acceptance should be treated as a contract, was written into the law, that would stop some of the unfortunate gazumping which mainly affects young, first-time buyers? Does he agree that it might also act as a brake on the undesirable inflationary spiral in house prices which has occurred over the past two or three years?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not necessarily disagree with the noble Lord any more than I disagreed with my noble friend. However, it is important to remember that responsibility for the practices to which the noble Lord refer red rests with individual parties involved in the transaction. Estate agents are sometimes drawn in to such practices through their common law obligation to pass on all offers to their clients, but I do not believe that the solution to the problem necessarily lies in regulating the profession in the way my noble friend suggested.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the draft statutory instruments that his department has issued for consultation contain many sins of commission—things that are undesirable if they are done—but no sins of omission, in the sense that if estate agents refrain from giving information they are not culpable? Is there not a gap in the orders?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe so. Naturally, one of the purposes of the consultation is to ensure that there are no obvious gaps such as the noble Lord has suggested. A number of requirements will be laid on estate agents in terms of what they must do as well as a range of things that they must riot do. I hope that if the noble Lord is able to find the time to study carefully the four different sets of regulations he will come to the same conclusion as we have.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but I only obtained a copy

3
of the document through devious means because I was not, alas, on the list of those to be consulted. Does the noble Lord accept that if in future he would like to consult the Opposition on such orders he may receive serious comment from us?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are always anxious to hear the views of every noble Lord, including those sitting on the other side of the House. I can reassure the noble Lord that he has until 31st July to submit his views, and if he wishes to do so we shall be very happy to receive them.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I obtained a copy of the regulations through the "devious means" of asking the Library?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, whether that was the same route by which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, received his copy, I cannot say.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in Scotland the system of buying heritable property has virtually put an end to gazumping? Has that method been carefully considered by the committee that is looking at the point at present?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is no legal impediment to the use of the Scottish system in England and Wales. However, the certainty that it offers to prospective vendors and purchasers is to some extent offset by other disadvantages.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say to what extent problems are created by the fact that individuals are able to practise as estate agents without having any qualifications whatsoever? Does he agree that there are two major qualifications; namely, membership of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers and of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors? Would it be advisable to bring pressure to bear upon those two branches of the profession to unite in some way, and will he introduce legislation to ensure that only those with a proper qualification can practise?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Director General of Fair Trading went to considerable lengths to try to persuade the bodies concerned—or maybe one of them, if that could have been agreed—to produce a code of practice which might conceivably have included the kind of provision which the noble Lord indicated. It is a matter for regret that that did not prove possible. Naturally, any professional body involved in this or any other field is likely to suggest that every practitioner in the field ought to belong to its organisation. As I said, it is unfortunate that they were not able to agree the way forward. We believe that it is important to ensure that purchasers and vendors of property are protected from the kind of abuses that have been prevalent recently. That is why we consider it better to proceed in the way which we now propose and upon which we have invited the views of all those who are involved.

EC and UK Law: Conflicts
2.46 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of the ruling of the European Court of Justice on 19th June that courts in the United Kingdom must suspend Acts of Parliament where they conflict with European Community law.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the decision of the European Court of Justice was on a reference from this House in its appellate capacity. The Solicitor-General has put certain arguments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government before the appellate committee on the effect of the judgment and we await the committee's views.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the ruling of the European Court is contrary to the established doctrine of this country that Parliament is sovereign? Is it not further evidence that the institutions and constitution of this country are being downgraded by our membership of the EC? Can the noble and learned Lord say what protection our fishermen have against the greed of the Spaniards who are trying to infiltrate our quotas? Are they not to have the protection of Parliament? And are Acts of Parliament to be set aside by our courts on the instruction of an alien court sitting outside the shores of this country?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the second part of the noble Lord's question is directed to the merits of the matter presently being considered by the appellate committee. It would be quite inappropriate for me to attempt to comment on that. In regard to the first part of his question, it has to be remembered that Community law has the force of law in this country by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972 passed by the sovereign Parliament in the exercise of that sovereignty. Section 2(4)—the earlier parts of the section having provided for the effectiveness of Community law—states that,
"any enactment passed or to be passed, other than one contained in this Part of this Act, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section".
So it is the sovereignty of Parliament which is the basis for the present law, including the effect of Community law, in this country.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a distinction might be made where the Act of Parliament inadvertently conflicts with European Community law? Might not a different position arise if the Act of Parliament were to say:
"notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is clear that the effect of a later Act will be subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) unless it is plain that the later Act is intended to operate in some different way. The kind of phrase that my noble friend used might well indicate

5
such an intention. But the provision of the 1972 Act was obviously intended to have an effect on later Acts in the way that I first indicated.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I admire the most unusual moderation of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon on these matters. Does the noble and learned. Lord agree that the situation should not come as a surprise to Parliament? It has been well known for many years—since the Act to which he referred—that where there is a conflict between European Community law and national law, Community law prevails. Does the noble and learned Lord agree—I take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon—that an injunction is a discretionary remedy which would only be exercised if the court thought it proper in certain circumstances? Will he join with me in hoping that in the course of the deliberations one finds out who could apply for such an injunction? For example, could Her Majesty's Opposition, or a Member of Parliament, apply to restrain Parliament from passing a certain Act?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is plain, I believe. from the Act of 1972 that the intention of Parliament in passing that Act was to make the Community law effective in this country. When I say "effective" I mean effective; in other words, no national law should have effect against it. I do not believe that there is any present question of an injunction against the passing of an Act of Parliament. While that might be a matter for the future, I would hope that it might be for the rather remote future.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for returning to the matter. Is he saying that the decision we are discussing did not include the fact that an injunction could be applied for?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no, I did not say that. I said I did not think that there was any question in that case of an injunction arising against the passing of a particular Act of Parliament; and that I hoped, and remain of the hope, that any such question would be very much in the future if it ever were to arise.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that I am always most moderate in my behaviour and my questioning in this Chamber? Perhaps I may thank him for confirming that by the passing of the European Communities Act 1972 followed by the Single European Act 1986 we gave away a great tranche of our sovereignty despite the fact that those of us who predicted such a situation were told that we were talking rubbish.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure that I would regard an assertion that the noble Lord was talking rubbish as particularly moderate, but it might depend on the circumstances. I certainly regard the noble Lord's questions as always extremely appropriate a' though sometimes rather penetrating. It is fair to say that in 1972 Parliament passed an Act which in no way prejudiced its power to pass further Acts. However, it passed an Act which it intended to have a further effect. I gather that the noble Lord did not
6
fully agree with all that was then being proposed. That Act was passed by Parliament in the exercise of its sovereignty. I do not believe for a moment that that in any way damages the sovereignty of Parliament as a concept or doctrine.

North Cyprus: Cultural Heritage
2.53 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the report accepted by the Standing Committee of the Council of Europe on 6th July 1989 (Doc. 6079) on the serious losses of cultural heritage in North Cyprus.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we attach importance to the preservation of the cultural heritage of Cyprus and welcome initiatives by specialised bodies to ensure this. I understand that the document to which the noble Baroness refers, which usefully describes some of the issues involved, has been duly noted by both the Culture and Education Committee and the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, since the document has been merely "noted", it does not look as though any action is intended. Is any action intended? The main recommendation of the report was that:
"Means must be found by the international community of ensuring that the necessary experience and financial help reaches those responsible for the cultural heritage in north (as well as south) Cyprus".
Is that recommendation accepted? Do the Government intend to do anything to help it forward?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we believe that specialist organisations are much better qualified than governments to take the necessary steps to ensure the preservation of the Cyprus heritage. However, we support a number of bodies which could play a useful role in this matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords. is there not a case for saying that the survival of the cultural heritage in Cyprus—one of the most important in the world—is probably in peril unless a long-term settlement can be achieved? Does the Minister recall that Mr. Perez de Cuellar made a real attempt on behalf of the United Nations to secure agreement between the two sides and, sadly, failed? Have Her Majesty's Government any plans for a further initiative to seek to resolve the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right when he says that this matter would be more easily and better settled if a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem could be found. Our aim is to help to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in the framework of one state and two communities. We regret that the last round of inter-communal talks in New York reached an impasse. However, the way ahead was mapped out in Security Council Resolution 649 which was adopted

7
unanimously on 12th March. The United Kingdom has played an active role in these consultations which led to the adoption of that resolution.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed Cyprus in the past week with both the Greek and the Turkish Foreign Ministers.
Lord Willis: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if we wait for a settlement in Cyprus, the situation with regard to the cultural heritage may become very much worse? There is an elected, democratic government in North Cyprus which happen to be very poor. They are doing their very best to preserve the culture. Because of the special responsibility that Britain has towards Cyprus would it not be a good idea for the British Government to enter into direct talks to see what can be done to save the heritage?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no, we do not recognise the Government of Northern Cyprus. Therefore it would not be appropriate for us to enter into direct talks with them. I would only urge noble Lords and others who have contacts with the Government of Northern Cyprus to use their good offices to help with some solution to the problem.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister told us that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had discussed those matters last week with both the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers. Can he tell us what effect the discussions had, and what response he received from them? Does he foresee any reasonable chance of renewing the inter-communal talks at a fairly early date?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot say exactly what response my right honourable friend had from either the Greek or the Turkish Foreign Minister. I should make clear, if I have not done so in my original Answer, that it was not on the specific issue of the cultural heritage of Northern Cyprus, but on the whole Cyprus problem. We very much hope that talks can go ahead. We send the Secretary General our best wishes for making progress in that direction. We shall do anything to help.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is it not unfortunate that we are talking today about the treasures of Northern Cyprus and, by implication, the whole of Cyprus? Surely this marvellously rich heritage is the result of a variety of civilisations. Does the Minister recall that these treasures come from the Greeks, the Phoenecians, the Venetians, the Ottomans and the Byzantines? Some came from this country. They were a heritage from Richard Coeur de Lion who had a honeymoon there on his way home from the Crusades. Therefore the important point is not where these treasures are situated geographically today but that there should be recognition that this heritage belongs to the whole of Europe—in fact to the whole of civilisation. Why cannot we encourage international scholars to work on this heritage, perhaps through
8
UNESCO, by access and by financial help? That might well be a healing and civilised element in that sad country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that we can achieve a settlement of the problem for the reasons given by the noble Baroness. Undoubtedly there is a role in that for the Council of Europe, but I understand that as yet UNESCO is not involved. It would be favourable to find a solution to the problem.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Strasbourg it is said that British parliamentarians are not enthusiastic in pursuing the preservation of cultural heritage? Can the Government encourage a little more commitment in that direction?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment on the noble Baroness's assertion that British parliamentarians are not concerned. That is a matter for them. However, the fact that the noble Baroness has raised the issue at Question Time today demonstrates concern. I am sure that the best way forward is to complete a comprehensive settlement as regards Cyprus and then it would be easier for us to have an influence in what happens in the north.

Drug Misuse: Use of Confiscated Funds
3 p.m.
Lord Bottomley Lord Bottomley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they propose to make whereby a proportion of the sums confiscated from drug traffickers as a result of international agreements might be used directly to strengthen the United Kingdom's enforcement measures and other efforts to curb drug misuse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government have decided that some of the funds which may be confiscated here under drug confiscation arrangements with other countries should be available for action against the traffic in and misuse of drugs. The amount of money available and the use to which it is put will be determined each year as part of the normal public expenditure planning exercise. No funds have yet become available under the one agreement which is currently in force with the United States, although some assets are frozen pending trial. Other agreements are expected to be in operation later this year.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the Attlee Foundation, of which I am chairman, helped to establish Phoenix House, which is a wonderful organisation that does a great deal to control drug abuse? The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is the chairman. Does the Minister agree that a substantial amount of the moneys received as a result of drug trafficking should be given to organisations such as Phoenix House and the Pegasus Project?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have not yet considered exactly how moneys will be distributed when they are received. Any organisation, whether public or private, needs to have continuity of assets as opposed to

9
receiving windfalls. However, on the whole one would expect the moneys to go towards international drug trafficking arrangements.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that drug trafficking is now a world evil of immense proportion and that there is little evidence that it is being brought under control? Can he say whether there are reasonable international discussions or whether the Government believe that there is room for improvement upon present agreements and that more severe measures should be taken?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is difficult to control organisations dealing in international drug trafficking in the light of opportunities available as regards aeroplanes and methods of concealment. However, I assure the noble Lord that a great deal is being done nationally and internationally. We have our own national drugs intelligence unit. Moreover, £17.5 million per year is channelled through health authorities, for instance, to expand and develop services for drug misusers in England, Scotland and Wales. A great deal of work is being carried out between countries.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his Answer indicated that the Government would not be prepared to accept moneys offered if they were earmarked for a particular case? Is that not an example of the Treasury's obsessive objection to any form of hypothecation carried to absurd limits, when it could mean that the taxpayers are net losers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has, unusually, jumped to a conclusion which is perhaps anticipatory of the facts. If people or countries give money with strings attached, we must see whether we can accept the conditions. Clearly, other countries have their own methods of giving money and we have our methods of receiving and dealing with it. If countries are prepared to give money to help solve the problem, we shall willingly consider what it suggested.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, can the Minister in his kindness return to the spirit of the Question—that confiscated moneys obtained from drug traffickers as a result of international agreements should go to combat drug trafficking? Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to argue for that course rather than allow the moneys to go into general Exchequer funds, which would be wrong?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the general route is that money goes into Exchequer funds and then government departments argue for it to come out again. Already £1 million has been given to set up a police fund and this has been available since April of this year. It is to meet additional police costs incurred overseas during international drug investigations. The noble Lord has made a fair point; if money is accepted from drug trafficking it should go towards combatting it. It is our hope that that will be so, but clearly it must follow several special routes.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage that, but I would
10
not give the noble Lord an undertaking that every single pound or penny accepted from that source will find its way back.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many specially-trained sniffer dogs are used in the detection of drugs and whether some of the money can be spent on training more of them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my brief contains much information on a number of subjects but not about sniffer dogs. If possible I shall ascertain the answer and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, did the Minister say that as yet no money has been confiscated from drug traffickers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as yet no money has been confiscated from international drug trafficking, although some has been frozen.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment the Second Reading of the Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Bill will be taken.

Broadcasting Bill
3.7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Independent Television Commission]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after first ("be") insert ("established for the purpose of carrying out the functions outlined in section 2(2) (c) below").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment and has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 16 and 19. The Bill has turned into a kind of television series shown at infrequent intervals, one episode not regularly following another. There was a long interval between the Bill passing through its stages in the other place and its Second Reading in this Chamber. There has since been a further interval. The amendment which I move is extremely important and goes to the root of the Bill; it is concerned with public service broadcasting.
Despite the various interpretations that have been put on the term, public service broadcasting is in general recognised as being the mainstay of quality which has earned British broadcasting such a high reputation at home and abroad. That was indicated in

11
many of the speeches made on Second Reading. Indeed, the Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee 1988 on the future of broadcasting states:
"In particular, we are convinced, as is the Home Office, that the principles of public service broadcasting should be an integral part of the new broadcasting environment".
That was backed up by what might thought to be an even more respectable source. The Home Office memorandum to the Home Affairs committee 1987–8 stated:
"In the United Kingdom, following the recommendation of the Crawford Committee of 1926, a system of public service broadcasting was established, the central principles of which continue to apply to services regulated by the BBC and Independent Broadcasting Authority. These are that: (a) broadcasting is a national asset which should be used for the national good rather than for the benefit of particular interest groups; (b) responsibility for broadcasting should therefore lie with one or more broadcasting authorities, appointed as the 'trustees for the national interest' in broadcasting; (c) viewers (or listeners) in all parts of the country who pay the same licence fee should be able to receive all public service channels: the concept of universality; (d) the broadcasting authorities should be free of Government intervention in their day to day affairs and in the contents of their programmes".
It appears that the government intention behind the lighter touch in independent television is not just to increase competition and open up the market but also to distinguish between the public service channels—the BBC and Channel 4—and the rest of independent television.
The BBC will not just be the cornerstone of public service broadcasting. It may become a public service ghetto, with independent television freed from most of its public service obligations. The Bill is committed to competition, but objectors seem to assume that there is an incompatibility between public service broadcasting and competition. That is not necessarily true and it certainly does not have to be inevitable, as the Bill seems to assume.
Let us look at other analogies. I do not like to refer to the results of broadcasting as a product. However, standards are set for a number of projects. Quality, safety and many other features are insisted upon; that is in a market economy where there is great competition. They are not incompatible.
Previous legislation, Conservative as well as Labour, has increased competition but has also set careful public service broadcasting standards. Quality, range, diversity and universality of access are key elements of public service broadcasting, plus a properly balanced schedule. That is covered by Amendment No. 16 to which my noble friend Lord Ardwick will speak. Although Amendment No. 16 is tied up with this amendment, it covers a somewhat different point and needs separate explanation.
The sum of those parts is relatively high production costs. Good quality TV is costly, as Members of the Committee will be aware. To make the BBC and Channel 4 the repository of PSB is to put them at a distinct disadvantage in the market place.
Evidence was commissioned by the Peacock Committee in 1985–86 from Professor Jay Blumler of America and Professor Tom Nossiter in this country.
12
It showed that if there were systems of mixed funding—that is, licence fees on the one hand and advertising, subscription and sponsorship on the other—unless there is adequate regulation, the public body financed by licence fees is driven downwards. That study was carried out again and what was discovered in 1985–86 was confirmed for 1989. It will be published in a large volume next year. They looked at Sweden, France, Italy, Germany and the United States, as well as this and other countries. Where little or no regulation drove down standards, there was a great surfeit of game shows, soaps and old films. The important point is that it cost 10 times as much to put on a good drama as it did to put on any of those other cheaper television products. Whatever is said in the original bid, when things go wrong economically the contractors will be forced to go down market still further because of the cost of producing quality television and radio.
The Channel 3 companies will go down market, as will the BBC. However, if PSB is built in, they may slip but not so badly. The principal amendment, No. 19, states:
"To discharge their functions under this Part as respects the licensing of television programme services in a manner in which they consider best calculated to ensure the dissemination of information, education and entertainment".
It seems to me extraordinary that there should be resistance to that when the Government have said on so many occasions that that is what they wish to see. One is merely spelling out the parameters of what should be in place. It should be shown and ensured that those matters are kept in place and do not disappear.
If the quality of mass audience programmes descends too far, the BBC and Channel 4 will be left as a quality ghetto. That is not what is wanted in this country. It is rather extraordinary that up to this point—and I hope that there will be a change in this respect—the Government have resisted (or they did in the other place) placing those words on the face of the Bill when their inclusion would act as an important guide when we are going into the unknown. There will be so many more regulations and methods of dealing with independent television in the future than there have been in the past. It seems to me and to my noble friends on these Benches and, indeed, to other Members of the Committee, that it is very important that that matter should be written onto the face of the Bill.
We ask why, if the Government still believe, as they do—I take their word for it—in the importance of public service broadcasting, that should not be made clear so that it is recognised and seen by both the audience and the contractors. The contractors will be applying for the new licences both for television and radio. This amendment applies to both. The fact that it is implicit is not good enough. It was spelt out most recently in the 1981 Act, which was an extremely good piece of legislation. It was clear; it has worked well all this time. To wash this out would be a tremendous mistake when we are entering a new era.
The technological changes have meant that we are not only dealing with terrestrial television but also

13
with cable and satellite. These are both new and novel methods in this country and it is therefore even more import ant that we keep our hand on the old definition of public service broadcasting to make quite clear what we want and what we stand for.
Serious people, whether they are practitioners or form part of the audiences, in countries which have either got rid of public service broadcasting or have never had it are amazed that we should be allowing it to slip out of our legislation when it is so important. It is not a party political matter. It is a question of doing the best we can to obtain the highest quality television and radio in this country; the amendment is to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: On behalf of and at the request of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, who is unavoidably absent and in whose name the amendment also stands, I wish to support this amendment. As the noble Baroness explained, it is purely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 19, which is the amendment of substance concerning public service broadcasting.
The aim of disseminating information, education and entertainment, which was included in previous broadcasting Bills and in the BBC's charter, is noticeably absent from this Bill. This amendment attempts to put it into the Bill. The Government's line has been to stress the need to respond to technological developments in broadcasting. As the noble Baroness rightly said, a response to those technological developments is absolutely right and necessary. The Government have responded in such a way as to affirm Their overriding belief, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, that,
"the viewer and the listener are the ones who matter. In short, it is that people should have a wider choice and a greater say over what they watch and what they listen to. There are other matters of great importance, but they are secondary to that overriding philosophy".—[Official Report, 13/12/88; col. 838.]
We would be the first to welcome increased choice if it was real choice. By real choice I mean increased diversity; that is the only way one has real choice. In New York at any one time on 13 different channels one has the choice between 13 different old films. I do not believe that is real choice. We want diversity.
In paragraph 91 of the Home Affairs Select Committee report, The Future of Broadcasting, dated June 1988, it is said:
"Market led programming will not maintain diversity, information and education".
When the Government are making broadcasting more competitive and market-led it is absurd for them to remove the public service principle from the face of the Bill as it was included on the face of all previous broadcasting Bills. That is the reason it must be included in Independent Television's remit on the face of the Bill. Television can all too easily become dominated by the need to deliver audiences to advertisers rather than programmes to viewers.
We must not regard public service broadcasting as something which is boring and which must be imposed
14
on viewers. It is something for which there is a high demand from viewers. That is shown by the JICTAR ratings. I have taken part in some of those broadcasts. I presented a public service broadcast which went out four times a week for 19 years and w as repeated on Sundays. I did not do that because it bored everybody stiff but because people wanted it.
Television is now the ordinary person's major source of information. It provides information on all topics—politics, current affairs, sport and the weather. People do not obtain information to the same extent from the press, from schools or from ordinary conversation. They obtain it from television. The recognition of that and of the fact that one of the major purposes of television broadcasting is to be a source of information—reliable information of the kind the public are seeking—should not be overlooked. But it has been overlooked because it is not included on the face of the Bill. These amendments would so include it and therefore we support them.
Lord Ardwick: I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 16, which reintroduces the precise wording of the 1981 Act relating to the high quality and scheduling of programmes. It requires the companies to offer a wide range of programmes in their subject matter having regard to the programmes as a whole and also to the days of the week on which and the times of the day at which the programmes are broadcast.
A children's programme is not much use if it is scheduled at a time when most children are unlikely to see it. Similarly, documentaries and current affairs programmes have less impact if they are not broadcast at or near peak viewing hours. In terms of choice viewers are placed at a disadvantage if there is no overall shape to programme schedules as between channels. Programme makers and advertisers face problems if they cannot be sure that some regard will be had to scheduling.
One Minister in Committee seemed to think that widespread possession of video recorders solved the problem of uncoordinated scheduling. Of course it does not. Only 70 per cent. of the population have them and in my experience less than 70 per cent. of the owners of them are able to work them properly. Amendment No. 16 does not impose a duty on ITC to vet schedules in advance; it imposes only a general responsibility to have regard to them in allocating licences.
I should like to say a few words in support of what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said about "information, education and entertainment". Those are the words used to define public service broadcasting in a concrete way; otherwise it becomes a rather vague phrase. They enable us to give an agreed answer to the question, "What do we mean by public service broadcasting?" The authority for those words again comes from the 1981 Act.
As my noble friend said, Channel 3 cannot leave it to Channel 4 and the BBC to take the major nominal responsibility for public service broadcasting. Channel 3, broadcasting to mass audiences, cannot be

15
sheltered from public service principles simply in the interests of its profits. The Minister said that it might only be a notch or two down from public service broadcasting. That is acceptable provided the notches are not too far apart. Mr. Russell gave us an assurance that the level may be as much as 80 per cent. of the current level of public service broadcasting on ITV. Therefore, why keep the public service element in Channel 3 under wraps? Why not define it?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Quinton: As a veteran of the Peacock Committee it seems to me right that someone should oppose the amendment. I have three reasons for doing so although in the manner of issues of this nature they tend to run into one another.
The first is the desirability of calling things by their right names. Even in the speeches so far made on this group of amendments the term "public service" has been applied in two different ways. In one way it has been applied comprehensively to cover information, education and entertainment; in the other, less comprehensively, to cover information and education only. There really is a distinction—even if not a very sharp one, a real one—between the programmes which people in general broadly want and which persons commercially interested in providing them will provide, and programmes which enlightened persons believe viewers at large ought to have.
As a moderately enlightened person I agree that there are programmes which people ought to have, or be offered, whether or not they want them. However, I want that called by its right name—namely, public service broadcasting—and provided for directly. That is reason number one. It seems to me inefficient to oscillate or, if you like, to pretend that entertainment is part of public service broadcasting. Certainly, programmes that are public service broadcasting pure and simple may contingently entertain and, in a way, they have failed if they do not. But that is not what makes such programmes public service broadcasting. It is inevitably a Reithian improving notion. I do not object to it on that account; I just want it recognised for what it is.
My second point is that in legislation of this nature negative requirements are easier to operate than positive requirements; that is, it is absolutely right that legislation of this kind should rule out obscene, offensive, politically biased or in some other way objectionable material, the identification of which is not likely to be too controversial. It is much easier to make those negative arrangements than to lay down positive requirements of quality which are intrinsically highly controversial and exceedingly difficult to police. After all, the weapons at the disposal of the authority are of a somewhat blunt character, such as the withdrawal of a franchise, and it will require outrages of a substantial kind to bring that about. Only in that way can you enforce the positive requirements embodied in these amendments.
It is much more efficient to identify clearly public service broadcasting in the narrower and, as I see it,
16
more candid form as broadcasting the primary intention of which is to inform and educate and then to take rational steps to bring it about. There are, of course, two ways of doing that. The first is to make it the prime responsibility of one specific channel funded, for example, by the licence fee. However, that is not the only way. A second method is what one might call the Arts Council model; that is, to institute a public service broadcasting council, perhaps financed from the franchise payments of the commercial broadcasters, which will devote itself primarily to subsidising those improving programmes which I, as much as anybody on the other side of the Committee, agree should be done by broadcasting.
It seems to me better not to arrange this in the style of an American serviceman's meal, with the nourishing part and the pudding all mushed together in a confused way. We must separate the pure entertainment element which, after all, is essential. As Dr. Johnson said about literature, it enables us to enjoy life and to endure it. The endurance of life is sustained, to some extent, by entertainment. But there is also the role of improving people, if they choose to accept it. It is part of the, so to speak, delegated responsibility of a representative system of government to make provision for that. Just as people are compelled to go to school whether or not they like it, so people should be compelled to contribute by some means or other to their own improvement through public service broadcasting.
Calling things by their right name is much more efficient and a much more easily managed and clearly perceived satisfaction of the public service broadcasting requirement than trying to lay down, in rather edifying but indefinite terms, certain high purposes that ought to be served. If, as was said on the other side of the Committee, audience research shows that people are actively interested in, and demand, edifying programmes, then we can leave it to the simple commercial motivations of the commercial broadcasters to ensure that people are provided with what they want.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: As the amendment has been opposed from the Government Benches perhaps I may support it from these Benches. From what the noble Lord said I did not detect an objection of substance but what seemed to me to be an objection to the nomenclature. The words are in the amendment and if, by chance, one of my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench mentioned two of the qualifications instead of all three, to take that up is being pernickety and neither here nor there. We are supporting proposals in the amendment which have stood the test of time over the whole of this period. Therefore, from this side of the Committee, we are seeking to maintain what has worked well over the years. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.
Lord Renton: It is a matter of opinion, of course, as to whether everything has worked well over the years. I wish to raise a narrow but important point. I do so

17
without committing myself to the support of these amendments because I agree to a great extent with what my noble friend Lord Quinton said.
In line 27 on page 2 of the Bill we find that it is the duty of the commission,
"to discharge their functions under this Part … in the manner in which they consider is best calculated to ensure"
and so on. In other words, instead of an objective test, as there has been until now, the BBC, the commission, is to be made judge in its own cause as to whether it is fulfilling the intentions of Parliament. I should have thought that the proposals in the amendment have at least put us on inquiry by leaving out those words. That is done in Amendment No. 16 by leaving out from "which" to the end of line 30 including the words "they consider best". I hope that when my noble friend replies he will tell the Committee whether he considers that the words "which they consider best" should remain in the Bill and whether it would not be better to replace them with the simple word "on" so that we then have an objective test.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that there was nothing party political in the amendment. I agree. We are all striving for good, high standards in a changing era—changing in technological terms, the number of channels, and so forth.
I first deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. I believe he referred to the BBC; I assume he meant the ITC.
Lord Renton: It was a slip of the tongue on my part.
Earl Ferrers: I thought that it must have been a slip of the tongue. If not, the emphasis of what I intend to say would have been slightly different. It is right that the words,
"which they consider is best"
should remain in the Bill because they put a duty on the commission. The only duty one can put on the commission is that it should discharge its functions under this part of the Bill in respect to the licensing of television programmes in the manner which it considers is appropriate. One likes to get the Government out of it and give responsibility to the Independent Television Commission to set the standards as far as possible. That is the whole purpose of this Bill.
The three amendments referred to at the beginning are Amendments Nos. 1, 16 and 19. Taken together they would apply the public service obligation to all the services which are regulated by the Independent Television Commission. I hope I shall be able to persuade the Committee that this is neither necessary nor desirable. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Quinton made the point that he did. He made it very clearly. The reason why we believe that that measure is not right is not because we or the Government have any antipathy to the notion of public service broadcasting. Far from it. The public service principle is that broadcasting should inform and educate as well as entertain, and that it should cater for a wide range of tastes and interests. That is what one means by the
18
public service principle. That has produced television and radio services in this country which are, and have been, admired throughout the world.
However, that principle was devised in a different era when the number of services was, for technical reasons, very limited. In preparing the Bill the Government had to consider how best to apply that principle which, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, has stood the test of time. The question is how to apply that principle to the new period that we are now entering in which television services are proliferating.
The first decision that we took—and it is an important one—was that the public service remit of the BBC (that means BBC 1 and BBC 2;1 and Channel 4, should be maintained. So the public service remit is maintained there. That will guarantee the continuation of three high-quality television channels which will set a standard of excellence. It is important to remember that a standard of excellence will be set against which other channels will have to compete.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that he wanted good choice. I suggest that is the way to get it. If the standard is high in the main channels and the others compete, they will have to compete against that standard. I agree with my noble friend Lord Quinton when he says that that was the best way to achieve it. I sometimes think that when one considers the ITC one tends to think about ITV, and that when one thinks about ITV one automatically thinks of the independent television channel.
The ITC will be a very different body. It will cover not only Channels 3, 4 and 5, but all the satellite and cable services besides additional services such as Teletext. We have concluded—and we hope that the Committee will agree—that it would not be sensible to apply these same regulatory obligations to all television services. Such an idea is not new because it was the conclusion that Parliament reached in 1984 when it passed the Cable and Broadcasting Act.
There is here a basic point of principle. When there were very few channels it was only reasonable to ensure, through fairly detailed and intrusive regulation, that each one catered for a wide range of interests. However, now that the number of channels is to proliferate we believe that viewer choice, rather than the strict regulatory imposition, can be increasingly relied on to ensure a di verse range of attractive and high-quality programming, which is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, wants.
The development of specialised cable and satellite channels which serve particular interests is beginning to bear that out. For instance, there will be no need—as the amendments suggest will be necessary—for the ITC to stipulate that satellite channels should include news when there are already two satellite channels, namely, Sky News and CNN, which are devoted to news. In the same way, regulation will not be needed in order to ensure that those with an interest in sport can find something to watch. There are already three satellite channels. (Eurosport, Screensport and the Sports Channel) all of which are competing for the viewers' attention.

19
I do not think that regulatory imposition will be needed to ensure that satellite channels cover the performing arts. The "Now" channel of British Satellite Broadcasting does so in its weekend schedule. Those are a few examples; I could give others. The general point is that the market is now beginning to deliver the diversity of programming for which, until recently, we had to rely on regulation.
It will be unnecessary to apply public service obligations right across the board. It would also be impractical. Public service broadcasting has required detailed regulation. In particular, in the past it has required the approval of programming scheduling by the regulatory body. That is a point touched on by Amendment No. 16. It is one thing for the IBA to have to approve the schedules of its current limited number of services. I suggest that it would be quite another for the Independent Television Commission to have to approve the schedules of dozens of services. Quite simply, I believe that would make a bureaucratic nightmare.
Therefore, we have concluded that, in general, services other than the BBC and Channel 4 should not be subject to positive obligations. There are two important exceptions to that principle; namely, Channels 3 and 5. We recognise that there is a strong tradition of high-quality programming on ITV. We are acting to ensure that this tradition shall continue. That is why we have proposed the extensive quality threshold in Clause 16. This threshold has become higher as the Bill has made its way through Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said that he hoped that it would not drop too many notches. If he considers its progress through Parliament he will find that the Bill has gone up several notches.
It has been described as a Becher's Brook. I do not know whether these similes are very good though that is how it has been described in the past. I doubt whether that awesome fence is any longer an adequate description for Clause 16 as it is now framed. We now have something that is more akin to the fences that make spectators fear for the horses' safety at the conclusion of the puissance.
There is no question of simply letting the standards of ITV fall away. At the same time we have to recognise that Channel 3 will be operating in a more competitive world than ITV has done. Therefore, we must be careful not to load it down with so much regulation that it cannot survive. Positive programming obligations are of no value unless there are flourishing broadcasters who are in a position to fulfil them. That is why the regulatory regime for Channels 3 and 5 will be—to use the phrase employed by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, but more accurately—just a notch lower than the public service broadcasting.
I have tried to give the Committee a full account of the way in which the Government consider public service broadcasting. It is important. I hope that the Committee will realise that the public service remit standards will continue on the BBC and on Channel 4. Let us not forget that the other services include the satellite and cable services. They will all have a
20
standard to live up to. With that in mind I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the Bill would be better left as it is.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: I wish to be absolutely clear about what the noble Earl has said to us. Am I right in thinking that he has said that, under the legislation as it now stands, the Channel 3 station will have no public service obligations? If that is correct, does the noble Earl not agree that that is in conflict with the present position in which the IBA, as it now is, has a positive responsibility to ensure that the independent television companies do in fact fulfil certain public service obligations? Can the noble Earl clarify that point?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is perfectly correct. The present public service broadcasting remit falls upon the independent television operators. They have that public service remit. What we have now is not that same remit but a substantially strengthened Clause 16 which gives all the hurdles that will have to be negotiated before they can receive the licence to operate. With that system one will have not the force of regulation which ITV has at the moment but the enhanced standard which the television company has to achieve before it is given its licence: and thereafter there is the competitive element.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord, Lord Quinton, said that the removal of the licence was a blunt instrument. I should have thought that once the licence had been granted there would be opportunity for considerable dilution of the public service element in Channel 3. I am only quoting what the noble Lord said.
Earl Ferrers: I do not want to answer for my noble friend, but I should not have thought that the removal of the licence was a blunt instrument. If the chairman of a television company was asked what he would think if he had his licence removed, he would not think very much of it.
Lord Tordoff: As I understood the noble Lord, he was saying that this instrument could be used only very rarely indeed and therefore might not be as effective on a day-to-day monitoring basis as the present system.
Earl Ferrers: Other sanctions such as fines and so on could be applied at an increasing rate, but the final sanction would be the removal of the licence altogether, which would be punitive.
Baroness Blackstone: As a former member of the IBA Educational Advisory Council I should like to comment on something said by the noble Lord, Lord Quinton. It is highly undesirable that educational programmes in particular should be ghettoised and separated from the normal output on independent television. What the Government are proposing, and what emerges from the noble Earl's response to the amendment, is that education and information can go out on Channel 4 and BBC and that it does not matter if they do not appear as good programmes on independent television. To go down that route would be a disastrous mistake.
Earl Ferrers: I do not want to hog the debate but that is part of the licensing operation when any company puts forward its proposals for obtaining a licence. What it intends to portray will determine whether it gets a licence.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may ask a question in order to disclose my ignorance in the matter. The noble Earl emphasised diversity. Is he now saying that the quality of broadcasting of ITV and BBC which is renowned internationally can be protected adequately by reference to Clause 16? Are the Government relying on Clause 16, coupled with diversity, to protect the quality of broadcasting in the United Kingdom? If the noble Earl cannot answer now perhaps he will answer later.
Earl Ferrers: The answer to the noble Lord is, yes. Clause 16(2) (0 states:
"that (taken as a whole) the programmes so included are calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests".
They will have to pass the threshold of being good programmes and of being programmes of a high standard before they are even considered for a licence. If they do not reach that standard they will not even he in the running for the licence. It is only after that point that the bidding comes in.
What I have tried to suggest is that when there were only three or four television channels the standards had to be applied by regulation in order to ensure that standards were high. We are now talking not only about Channel 3 and Channel 5, but about a whole variety of satellite and cable channels all of which the ITC has to cover, and all of which would be covered under the amendments. When one considers that point r believe that it would be asking too much to have a whole series of regulations for each company to deal with. Once a company has secured its licence, which it will secure only if it is good and effective, it will have the standards of the BBC and other channels to compete against.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Earl.
Baroness Birk: I cannot say that the noble Earl's answer is satisfactory. I was not quite sure to whom the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, was referring. He seemed to be exercised by the fact that someone had referred to information and education and not entertainment or vice versa. If it was me I do not remember it, and it would have been a slip of the tongue.
The noble Lord reminded us that he was a member of the Peacock Committee. The Peacock Committee was established to look into the financing of the BBC but it cast its net very much wider and to great effect. However, I do not remember the committee casting it in the direction of doing away with public service broadcasting criteria on independent television. That was not within its remit.
With respect, I believe that the noble Earl is wrong. Negative requirements are easier to operate than positive ones. He made it sound as though a very much more onerous duty is being imposed than is so. If he reads the terms of the amendment again he will
22
see that it is something that we have lived with since before 1954. This has been going all the way through British broadcasting and has been envied by people all over the world. It is wrong to think that this situation will throw the independence of companies. All it does is set a skeleton framework within which companies are asked to operate. That is not asking too much.
The noble Earl said that the old system was devised in a different era. He is quite right, but I see it the other way round. Because we are moving ahead so rapidly in the technological field it is even more necessary to have a skeleton structure within which people can operate and which they can understand, which is certainly not onerous and under which entertainment as well is of good quality and is properly scheduled. There is good quality entertainment and bad quality entertainment. Children are the greatest watchers of television; they spend more time watching television than they spend at school. They should not be watching bad quality television, whether for entertainment, for information or for education. The point about pushing the matter on to the BBC and Channel 4 was so well expressed by my noble friend Lady Blackstone that I shall not go over it again.
The Minister said that the Government have no intention of,
"letting the standards of ITV fall away".
I am sure that that is not his intention. I do not believe that the Government intend it either. The danger is that by their actions, or by what they are refusing to be active about at the moment, we shall see the very thing which they have said they do not want. No argument has been put up against retaining a system which I believe we throw away at our peril. This matter is so fundamental to the Bill that I should like to take the opinion of the Committee.
Earl Ferrers: I realise that the noble Baroness is concerned about the matter. Perhaps I may point out one thing to her. She said that she does not want bad programmes. None of us does. The whole point is that before a licence is issued the programme maker will have to go through the hoop of Clause 16. If she looks at that clause she will see that a sufficient amount of time is given, in the programmes included in the service, to news programmes and current affairs with both national and international matters, and that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes to ones which are of high quality. All those points have to be gone through by the programme maker before he is even considered for a licence. That is the strength.
4 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Earl must surely realise and understand—I am sure he does—that the existing programme companies, Anglia, Border and so on, all had to go through such a hoop. Having done so, and obtained the franchise, they had an obligation placed upon them with regard to public service broadcasting. The Minister said that these companies will have to go through a hoop—and we accept that fact—but, having gone through the hoop, it would seem that that obligation has been removed.
Earl Ferrers: At present the broadcasting company—that is, ITV—is the actual broadcaster. However, it will now be the individual companies which will be the broadcasters; the ITC will only be the regulatory body. I see the noble Lord shaking his head: I can assure him that that is the true position.
Lord Morris: As I understand it, Clause 16 compels the ITC to adopt a procedure, referred to by many noble Lords as a "hoop", prior to issuing licences. I should have thought that it was unthinkable for the ITC to issue licences which did not contain conditions along the lines of those set out in Clause 16. If that was not the case, there would be no reason for having this clause. There is absolutely no point in prescribing a Bill in the way noble Lords opposite suggest.
Baroness Birk: All that has been said is true. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is quite right: we are talking about two different concepts. When the words that I wish to insert in the Bill were included in the broadcasting conditions—they appeared in the Broadcasting Act 1981—companies still had to go through a so-called "hoop". However, changes are now taking place. If the auction procedure remains, that would present an entirely different case over which the ITC would certainly not have anything like the control that the IBA had.
It is because the ITC would have a much lighter touch in controlling such matters and because it is not a broadcaster, as the Minister rightly pointed out, that, in my opinion and that of others who think along the same lines, it is even more necessary that we should insert these words in the Bill.
It seems extraordinary that the Minister has chosen to explain at some length, correctly and courteously, that this provision is not necessary when it already exists. As so many of us feel that it is not sufficiently emphasised, why cannot the Government accept what is proposed? That is all we want. We do not seem to be arguing in the main about the principle of the matter; we are arguing about whether these words should be included. In my view, they would impose a very light obligation upon the commission.
Amendment No. 16 which deals with scheduling, is also a matter of great importance. It is not covered elsewhere in the Bill. As the Bill stands, programmes could be scheduled but broadcast at a very inconvenient hour. Educational programmes could be broadcast at a time of night which was not convenient. This is a fundamental matter of principle. Unless the Minister wishes to intervene again—and I would be happy for him to do so—I feel that I must take the opinion of the Committee.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ardwick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Birk, B.

Bottomley, L.

24

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

London, Bp.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Longford, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mellish, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ennals, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Mulley, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peston, L.

Fitt, L.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L.

Plowden, L.

Galpern, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Soper, L.

Hayter, L.

Stallard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tenby, V.

Hunt, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Walston, L.

Kearton, L.

Warnock, B.

Kennet, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Leatherland, L.

Willis, L.

Listowel, E.

Winstanley, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Allerton, L.

Elles, B.

Arran, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Elton, L.

Auckland, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Beloff, L.

Gainford, L.

Belstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bessborough, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Blatch, B.

Granville of Eye, L.

Blyth, L.

Gridley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hailsham of

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Saint Marylebone, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Halsbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Hives, L.

Caithness, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Joseph, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Liverpool, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Long, V.

Colwyn, L.

Luke, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lyell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cox, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

De Freyne, L.

Marsh, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Eccles, V.

Mersey, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Middleton, L.

Effingham, E.

Morris, L.

25

Mountevans, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Munster, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Nelson, E.

Selborne, E.

Newall, L.

Selkirk, E.

Norfolk, D.

Sharpies, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Slim, V.

Orkney, E.

Stockton, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pender, L.

Swansea, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Swinfen, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Swinton, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Quinton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Reay, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rees, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rodney, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Romney, E.

Wise, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Independent Television Commission: Supplementary Provisions]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 142, line 11, after ("including") insert ("(subject to sub-paragraph (4))").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 224 and 225. These amendments will make the borrowing powers of the ITC and the radio authority under paragraph 1(3) of Schedules 1 and 6 subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Once the commission and authority are up and running, we expect that they will finance their expenditure in full from licence fee income. Should they face a shortfall in working capital, paragraph 13 enables advances to be made from the Exchequer. It is not the intention that the commission or authority should finance capital spending from commercial sources, but they may from time to time need to run a limited commercial overdraft. The amendment will enable the Secretary of State to issue a formal approval for the purpose, once the detailed financial needs of the commission and authority become clear. The new sub-paragraph (4) provides for a general authority in order to avoid the need to approve each and every act of borrowing. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 142, line 12, at end insert:
("(4) The power of the Commission to borrow money (otherwise than under paragraph 13) shall not be exercised by them except with the consent of, or in accordance with a general authority given by, the Secretary of State.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 5:
26
Page 142, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) In appointing members to the Commission the Secretary of State shall seek to ensure that the Commission is representative of a wide range of consumer and broadcasting interests and opinions and that no appointment gives undue prominence to any political party or opinion.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. He regrets his absence and he will be here as soon as he can. The amendment is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and is self-explanatory. It lays certain requirements on the Secretary of State with regard to his appointments to the commission. The matter has arisen in a number of contexts. There is nothing improper about appointments being made by the Secretary of State or the Government. However, where government appointments are made, there comes a time—particularly when a certain government remain in power for a long time—when they have made almost all the appointments. Therefore, whatever the body, be it the Independent Television Commission, the Court of Appeal or any public body, after a time it tends to begin to reflect the views of the government that appointed it. This is particularly so if the government remain in power for a long time, and it has happened with a number of organisations. It has possibly happened with regard to the governors of the BBC.
I do not wish to make too much of the last sentence in the amendment,
"that no appointment gives undue prominence to any political party or opinion".
The first part of the amendment requires that,
"the Secretary of State shall seek to ensure that the Commission is representative of a wide range of consumer and broadcasting interests and opinions".
Surely that is what we want. We do not specify everybody who has an interest in broadcasting. Every person has an interest in broadcasting but this means anybody who has an active interest. It might mean people from the various associations concerned, even trade unions which are intimately involved. It is important and right that in making these appointments to a body which will be of immense importance to broadcasting, under the Bill, considerable powers are left in the hands of the commission. It is not merely the original power to select the successful applicant for the franchise for an area. That is no small power; it is immense. The commission awards power and influence to a particular company.
If a statutory body such as this is appointed by the Secretary of State, it is essential that we should carefully scrutinise in advance, or lay down so far as we can, the way in which appointments to that body are made.
I do not wish to elaborate because the amendment is self-evident. We wish to ensure that when the commission comes into being—the members having been appointed by the Secretary of State—the origins, the nature and the qualifications as well as the interests of its members are such that we feel happy that we have a body which represents all the different

27
interests in broadcasting. We wish also to feel that the members will have no particular political flavour. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment, particularly the concluding words. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, seemed to have little enthusiasm for them. They seem to suggest that only nonentities should be appointed to the commission. It is quite obvious that we want a balance of political, social and other opinions among those appointed to this extremely important body. The amendment seems to rule out any individual whose appointment would give undue prominence to any political party or opinion.
Any person of standing or calibre has opinions which are often known. His appointment would give prominence—I do not know what "undue prominence" means—to those views. If we are to have a strong body of high standing in which the public will have confidence, the last thing we wish to do is to inhibit the Secretary of State in appointing people of character and calibre to it. I hope therefore that the amendment will be either withdrawn or negatived.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps the noble Lord has misread the amendment. It states:
"no appointment gives undue prominence".
That is rather different from saying that people should have no views. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was more tactful than I should have been. The Government have made an abnormal number of appointments to various bodies which directly reflect their political point of view. That emphasis is a serious matter.
The description in the Bill is negative: it states what the member should not be. Curiously, it makes reference to:
"Three of the members of the Commission other than the chairman and deputy chairman shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to be suited to make the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, their special care".
Are we to assume that if the word "consumer" were to appear, it would not then include people who have an interest in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland? They view in the same way as everybody else.
The words in the amendment are a distinct improvement because all too often the consumer is not represented on enough bodies or has no direct representation. Therefore, it is important to appoint people who view. I have sat on commissions where people, in a superior way, have stated that they do not look at television. Therefore they are not in an expert position to tell other people what they should view on television. Consumers' views are very important. There is no suggestion that appointees should not have political views, but there should not be a political emphasis. If the Government change, as we are quite sure they will, the noble Lord might like to be considered for the appointment, but if the matter is left as it stands, he may not be.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and at the same
28
time express a fear that by the time we reach the end of Committee stage, the Bill, which is already quite substantial, may have reached gigantic proportions. By the time we have finished dealing with everybody's intentions and how they should be carried out and detailing the functions of every single person who is appointed and the people who appoint them, we shall have a very long Bill. I hope that for those general reasons the Committee will reject the amendment.
I should like to ask one simple question. Suppose that there were to be a Home Secretary—and we do not have such a one—who was an ardent political partisan and saw no view but his own; to what extent would he feel inhibited from making an appointment by the words
"that no appointment gives undue prominence to any political party or opinion"?
He may think that the green light was sufficient and that he need not be inconvenienced in any way by words that I can only describe as padding.
Lord Marsh: My objection to the amendment is that it assumes, as political parties do, that people's political views are in neat little packages and that there is a Labour Party view, a Conservative Party view or a Liberal Party view. We all know that that is not the case. Anyone who has been in this building for very long knows that behind the facade views are held which would be complete anathema to other party supporters. That situation applies to all sides of the House, and it is particularly true in relation to these Benches, where there are 250 noble Lords who hold very strong political views on different issues. Those views are not Right-wing or Left-wing; they vary.
The amendment is unattractive in that the only way that the provision could be properly discharged would be to carry out an investigation into the opinions of potential candidates. Anyone who has been a Minister in any Cabinet charged with the task of making appointments to various bodies knows full well that his party supporters will not expect him to be obsessed by objectivity; they will want to see friends and fellow party members appointed to those posts. Everybody knows perfectly well that someone can get round that situation quite easily because he knows people well enough to know that, whatever their party label, their views are sound, sensible and reasonable.
I do not think that the amendment could be practically absorbed. If one sought to do so one could only do it properly by trying to ascertain the political views of individuals; and in most cases whoever tried to do so would probably be wrong on many issues.
Lord Willis: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. However, one question arises. I should like to take the example of the National Health Service. I do not have the figures but I have some experience of the South-East region. Approximately 80 per cent. of the appointments that have been made in the last eight or nine years have been from Conservative Party ranks. How does one avoid that situation?
Lord Marsh: The noble Lord asks a direct question. The situation evens itself out in our system. If one goes

29
back to the post-war years, parties in this House have changed sides in terms of government at fairly regular intervals. When a Conservative Government have been in office for a period of 10 years, not surprisingly many appointments will have been of Conservative sympathisers because they are the people that are well-known. When a Labour Government are eventually elected, that situation will change because the La hour Party will then appoint its friends. On the whole, the system works out quite well.
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is wrong because the last Labour Government appointed more Conservatives than many supporters were happy about.
I should like to look at the other aspects of the amendment, which are very important. I shall leave the political aspect aside except to say that my noble friend Lady Phillips was quite right when she stated that the objection is not to a prominent political personage but to too many people of a political party being represented on the commission.
The other part of the amendment, which is even more important, considers the wide range of consumer and broadcasting interests. Therefore, those who have knowledge of certain aspects of television and radio would represent different kinds of consumers. That is how I read the amendment and in that event I think that it is a harmless one.
Viscount Whitelaw: I have a small amount of experience of appointing people to exactly the bodies that we are discussing. I have always been told that Acts of Parliament should not contain words that are unnecessary. I cannot believe that the words in the amendment are necessary.
I can assure your Lordships that in my time I desperately tried to get the right balance on those bodies and to appoint as many people from as wide a circle as I could. I did not require an Act of Parliament to do so. I tried desperately hard. The only reason that I sometimes failed was that I could not persuade some people to serve on those bodies; but that is another matter.
Any Secretary of State who is worth anything would surely conduct himself in the spirit of those words, whether or not they are in the Bill. I do not think that the words are necessary and they should not be there.
The Earl of Halsbury: I do not know whether I can be of assistance. As an ex-governor of the BBC I had two colleagues, Dame Anne Godwin, president of the Office 'Workers' Union, who was Labour, and Thelma Cazlet-Keir, MP, who represented Conservative interests in the other place. We were far too interested in the affairs of the BBC to have any time for politics.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We have had an interesting, although short, debate. I have no quarrel with the thought behind the first part of the amendment down to the words "interests and opinions". It states a principle from which we would not dissent. I can assure the Committee that the Government will take that principle into account in making appointments to the ITC. We have already
30
made some appointments to the shadow ITC. I am sure that noble Lords who know the personalities involved will realise that they represent a very broad spectrum of opinion and have very wide interests. That picture will further be borne out by the remainder of the appointments which we hope to be able to announce before very long.
I am sure that my noble friends will be pleased to hear that I do not think that it is necessary to place the Secretary of State under a statutory duty of the kind proposed in the amendment.
I do not wish to become involved in the politics of the matter, but I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that we have a very good member of the board of the BBC governors in the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I reject the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am considering that carefully at the moment. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, will not be too distressed if I say that I very much agree with some of the things he said about this amendment. I also agree that the amendment is in two parts, as has been pointed out. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had obviously misread one part. He asked whether we wanted a whole set of nonentities. The amendment says nothing like that at all. It says:
"In appointing members to the Commission the Secretary of State shall seek to ensure that the Commission is representative of a wide range of consumer and broadcasting interests …".
The people can be very eminent indeed. I do not mean to refer to nonentities there—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Go on!
Lord Winstanley: They could be very distinguished people; and the amendment continues:
"and that no appointment gives undue prominence to any political party or opinion."
I am bound to say that I am not entirely happy with those words because they seem to deal with one particular appointment. What I would not be happy about is the situation in which, if appointments were made in general, over a period those appointments in general would accumulate, as it were, and could come to represent a particular political flavour. That would be rather different.
I am grateful for the assurances the noble Lord has given us. He has more or less said that the things we would like to see done will be done. As regards the last part, I think we must wait and see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 143, line 23, after ("7") insert ("and 7A").
The noble Lord said: At the outset I should like to apologise to my noble friend for the lateness of my tabling of these amendments. I hope this has not caused him or his officials undue inconvenience.
It will be clear to your Lordships that this amendment requires all ITC meetings, with specific

31
exceptions, to be held in public. Under paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 1, the Secretary of State may approve the carrying out of any of the ITC's functions by committee and this amendment would extend to meetings of any such committee. Your Lordships will recall that the government White Paper, Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality, states at paragraph 6.5 that,
"the ITC would apply lighter, more objective programme requirements. The way in which the Commission enforced them could be tested in the courts."
The amendment seeks to pose the question: how can this answerability to the courts, a vital element in ensuring that the ITC's approach is a
"less heavy handed and discretionary approach than the IBA",
be expected if the public, including journalists and anyone affected by the ITC's decisions, cannot gain admittance to the ITC's meetings?
It is worth recalling the range of responsibilities of the ITC. They will be taking decisions, inter alia, on Channel 3, Channel 5, direct broadcasting by satellite, cable licence awards by competitive tender, Channel 3 regulation, Channel 4 regulation, Channel 5 regulation, non-domestic satellite licensing and regulation, supervision of transmission arrangements, the collection of revenue for the Exchequer, codes on programme and advertising content and the imposition of sanctions. All these issues are of real public interest and the interested public should be allowed to hear how the decisions are made.
My noble friend may, as a criticism of this amendment, suggest that many of the matters considered by the Independent Television Commission are likely to include commercially sensitive and therefore confidential material submitted by such persons as the future licensees. However, I think that the exception which has been written into the amendment is capable of being expanded should that be requested.
Another criticism might be that the admission of the public would inhibit the ITC in its discussions. That is a fear which is a luxury of bodies which know nothing of public accountability. My noble friend will know that in the United States of America there is a long tradition of open decision making, with public access being guaranteed to meetings of public bodies. It seems to work extremely well there, and I suggest that it could work to the great benefit of the public in this country if the meetings were held in public and not taken in the way they have been taken in the past. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The amendments would require the ITC, as I understand it, to admit members of the public to its meetings, except where it was considering matters relating to its staff. I share my noble friend's view that business affecting the public should be conducted in public wherever possible, and I shall attempt to draw to my noble friend's attention some of the points of difficulty about this aspect.
I am afraid that this requirement would be impractical in the case of the ITC. The reason is
32
simply that a large proportion of the commission's time will be taken up with the discussion of commercially confidential matters, as my noble friend has indicated might be the case. For instance, it will have to consider competing applications for licences and that will often involve considering the realism and soundness of the applicant's business plans. That would not be possible if their commercial rivals were sitting in the public gallery. It is pretty obvious that they would not submit candid applications if they knew that was likely to happen.
All that means that the ITC would be quite unlike a local authority, which is perhaps the model that my noble friend may be considering. The fact that its meetings will not be public, however, does not mean that the ITC will be a remote body, impervious to the views of the public. The shadow ITC under Mr. George Russell has already indicated that it plans to set up viewer consultative committees in different parts of the country and this will give viewer representatives an opportunity to tell the ITC what they think of programmes. The Bill also lays down specific procedures for public consultation by the ITC on the award of the important Channel 3 and Channel 5 franchises. It will he required to publish the names of all applicants, together with programme plans.
The ITC will be obliged to take into account any comments made by members of the public before deciding whether the applicant has passed the quality threshold. Public accountability is more effectively secured through specific procedures of this kind rather than through a general right of public access to meetings, which few ordinary members of the public would probably exercise.
My noble friend suggested that the difficulty about commercial confidentiality might be overcome—I think this was behind his thinking—by having open and closed agendas, in the same way as his amendment would allow for personal matters to be dealt with in the absence of the public. I am afraid that I do not think this would be practicable. So much of the ITC's business will be commercially confidential that the public would have to be excluded for a very great deal of the time from the workings of the ITC.
My noble friend asked how the ITC could be accountable to the courts if the public did not have access to meetings. If the ITC's decisions were to be tested in court—for instance by judicial review—the court could demand the production of the relevant documents. I know this will come as some disappointment to my noble friend, but I hope that when he has considered what I have said—and not everything that comes from the other side of the Atlantic is necessarily something that we should go along with—he will realise that there are difficulties in accepting his amendment.
Lord Morris: I am not in the least disappointed by that answer. On the contrary, I am grateful to my noble friend for his very full reply to the amendments. He has certainly given me an appetite for expanding the exception but I shall consider very carefully before coming to a final decision. I thank my noble friend. I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5B not moved.]
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 144, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) The Commission shall undertake to ensure that appointments are made in line with good practice for equal opportunities employment policies.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 6 requires the implementation of equal opportunities employment policies for ITC staff. We are asking for this rather specific commitment to equal opportunities both because we think it important and right but also in anticipation of the wider measure which the Minister in another place undertook to put forward. The Minister, Mr. David Mellor, in responding to amendments put forward by my honourable friend Mr. Mark Fisher which required applicants for a licence and independent producers used by them to provide an undertaking of their commitment to an equal Opportunities policy, said:
"It is appropriate that we should put in a statutory arrangement for an equal opportunities policy. I envisage that the ITC will be placed under a duty to attach conditions to the relevant licences, requiring the licensees to pursue an equal opportunities policy in matters of employment and promotion and to review it from time to time. That would enable the ITC to ask applicants how they would propose to fulfil that condition … I hereby undertake to bring forward in the other place a new clause in the terms that I have described".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/90; cols. 93–94.]
We look forward to seeing the new clause which the Government have in mind.
There is ample evidence of the need for the amendment. I pointed out on Second Reading some of the very large imbalances between the numbers of men and women in the industry and some of the adverse conditions affecting women. For example, only 21 of the 220 top jobs in the BBC are held by women. In ITV women occupy only between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. of the technical posts available. On the other hand there is ample evidence that women enter the industry. At the bottom of the scale, as many as 93 per cent. of studio production assistants are women. It is further up the ladder that one recognises the sad fact that many of those women have been pushed aside or have left because they were discouraged. At director level 81 per cent. of the posts are held by men. Only 19 per cent. of high ranking jobs are held by women.
The availability of good employment conditions for women in the industry is also disappointing. There is patchy provision of child-care facilities. Some television companies do well in the provision of maternity leave, but all are well behind the police who offer very good conditions—three months maternity leave on full pay with no qualifying period. That makes a great difference regarding retention of staff.
All in all, the statistics show that there is an overwhelming need for an equal opportunities commitment in the Bill. It is important that ethnic minorities and the disabled should be included in equal opportunities policies, although I have focused my few remarks in this instance on women.
We look forward to hearing what the Government have to offer and reserve the right to comment on their
34
provisions. In the meantime we believe that the amendment, requiring the ITC to demonstrate its commitment to equal opportunities, is appropriate and gives a good lead to the industry. I believe that there should be a balance of men and women in the commission. Television and the media are crucial to education, culture and politics in our society. If the ITC has a proper balance of women and good equal opportunities policies, it will set a very good example to the industry. I believe that providing such a model at the very hub of the broadcasting environment would give a great deal of encouragement to emulation throughout the industry. The amendment seeks to achieve improvement through example. I very much hope that it will find favour with the Minister. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I believe that we are at one on the thought underlying Amendment No. 6. We should all agree that the ITC makes appointments in line with good equal opportunities practice, whether on racial or sexual grounds, and adopts the same policy in matters such as promotion and training. Where I differ from the noble Baroness is that I do not agree that it would be appropriate to place the commission under a statutory duty to that effect. The ITC, like any other employer, will be subject to the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. It will also inherit from the IBA a strong commitment to equal opportunities. Perhaps I should state what that strong commitment is, as set out in a letter from the IBA:
"The IBA has an equal opportunities policy which is reviewed from time to time in consultation with the recognised trade union. The operation of the policy involves the monitoring of the ethnic origin of the IBA's staff and applicants for posts in the IBA. Contacts are maintained with the Commission for Racial Equality and with organisations such as Project Fullemploy and the Windsor Fellowship".
Nothing that we intend for the ITC will detract from that policy. With that background we are confident, that the ITC will be a good employer in these matters.
The amendment could also have unintended implications. If the ITC were to be placed under a statutory duty, doubt might be cast on the commitment to equal opportunities of other statutory bodies without such a duty. Any legislative initiative in this area inevitably could have wide-ranging implications.
The noble Baroness used the critical words "in the industry". I should like to comment on those words and advise her what the Government intend to do to fulfil the commitment given in another place. The noble Baroness pointed out that the Government gave a commitment in another place and that the main ITC and radio authority licensees would be placed under a duty in relation to equal opportunities. We hope to bring forward amendments later in he Committee stage to fulfil that commitment. But the position of the licensees is different from that of the ITC. We decided to introduce a provision in relation to the licensees because of the particular ability of broadcasters to affect public attitudes. It is important that they should pursue equal opportunities policies for all the

35
standard reasons. But there is a further reason. The people whom they employ influence the portrayal on the screen of women and ethnic minorities. What appears on the screen helps to shape public attitudes. That specific consideration does not apply in anything like the same degree to the regulatory bodies to which the noble Baroness referred.
I hope that the noble Baroness will see, by my having drawn the distinction between the two areas, why we resist the amendment. I give her the assurance that we shall come forward at a later stage with the amendment proposed in another place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I hope that we shall not have this approach too often. I am not in great disagreement with the words of the noble Baroness's amendment but I had little sympathy with her speech and the way she approached the matter. If that was the intention behind the words, I shall have to look at them again. What does the emotive phrase "the women are pushed on one side" mean to those who have to interview people before making a decision to employ them? It appears that if one makes a decision which does not happen to mean the employment of a woman, she is "pushed on one side". But people, whatever their sex, are not pushed on one side if, at an interview, they do not come up to the level that the interviewer wanted to find.
The provision of crèches has nothing to do with the amendment. We should all like them. I was delighted to hear my noble friend give the kind of assurance that satisfies us. When interviewing people for a job, one should concentrate on whether they are capable of doing the job and choose, from all the applicants, the best and most likely to make a success of it. So the words are all right: I am glad that the spirit of the amendment is accepted by my noble friend. But the introduction at a very early stage of emotive sex discrimination, which is often too exaggerated to allow the people who have to do the job to carry it out properly, is rather disturbing.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter put his name to this amendment. Speaking in his absence, I am sure that he would take the view that the Minister has repeated the concession which was made by his honourable friend in the other place. Speaking for myself, I take the view that the position of the licensee is even more important than the position of the commission itself. Therefore, I welcome what the Minister said and look forward to seeing the amendment when he tables it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, becomes disturbed rather easily. My point was that an enormous number of women enter the industry. I did not mean that direct discrimination made them leave; I meant that they were unable to stay because of lack of facilities for child care, bad maternity leave arrangements and a whole variety of reasons. The point I made was that there was no lack of a wish to go into the industry. Many women go into it but very few of them end up
36
at the top. No doubt sometimes it is because they are not as appropriate as male candidates but in many cases they have been unable to stay in the industry.
Nevertheless, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, agrees with the spirit of the amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for having reiterated the Government's commitment to bring forward amendments on a more wide-ranging basis. I agree with him that it is most important for the licensees to have to abide by an equal opportunities policy. We shall look forward to the further stages of the Bill in order to see the proposals that the Government will bring forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 144, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) The Commission shall, in pursuit of its obligations as an employer, seek to reach agreement on wages and conditions with those registered bodies established to represent the interests of its staff").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with collective bargaining procedures between the ITC and its staff. Section 25 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 provides for collective agreements and protective measures for employees and the use of ACAS to resolve disputes. At present the Bill acknowledges no role at all for collective bargaining or trade unions.
The investigation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into alleged restrictive practices in the film and television industries completely exonerated the staff unions. So there is no question of a sanction being needed. Most broadcasting organisations have recently negotiated new flexible contracts and working conditions. Indeed, in a letter to the broadcasting unions and in meetings with their general secretaries, the Minister and the chairmen designate of the ITC and of the RA have acknowledged that existing negotiated terms of employment will be honoured in the transfer of engagements of IBA staff and that the Federation of Broadcasting Unions will continue to be recognised for negotiating purposes.
The main point is that it is felt that that should be acknowledged on the face of the Bill in the same way as it is included in the 1981 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is a very one-sided amendment. It proposes to impose on the commission a duty to,
"seek to reach agreement on wages and conditions"
but does not impose a comparable duty on organisations representing the staff to seek to reach agreement with the employers. Therefore, it is quite plainly one sided and for that reason, I hope, will be rejected.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Like my noble friend I am not attracted by the amendment. It would require the ITC to reach agreement on wages and conditions with a registered trade union. The IBA has always had a good relationship with those who represent its staff, as demonstrated by the responsible and, I believe, sensitive way in which it has handled the consequences for its staff of the privatisation of transmission. I have

37
no doubt that the ITC will continue to behave in the same way. However, I also believe that a statutory requirement would be heavy handed and indeed unnecessary. I do not think I need say any more. I note what the noble Baroness said, but I am afraid that I wish to resist the amendment.
Baroness Birk: I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is right. We are talking about collective bargaining and agreements and when these matters will be discussed. That is not to say that they should be one sided and that the ITC should immediately agree with everything put forward by the unions. That is not how I understand the matter. If collective bargaining and negotiations feature in the 1981 Act, I cannot understand why they should not appear in this Bill. It is not some great draconian measure.
Lord. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the noble Baroness will look at her own amendment. It proposes to impose a statutory duty on the commission to seek to reach an agreement. It imposes no comparable duty on the unions to seek to reach agreement. Therefore it is one sided.
Lord Marsh: I do not have a great deal of concern about the amendment as worded. Any intelligent employers, faced with organised labour—which is going to be the case in the television industry for the foreseeable future—would be extremely stupid if they did not seek to reach agreement in the beginning. If that is what the amendment means, it does not mean anything because that is what people will do in any case. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was possibly hinting, it will not be seen in that way at all.
I should declare an interest at the beginning of these discussions. I am a founder shareholder of TV-am and, by my standards anyhow, I still have a significant holding in that company.
This proposal will be interpreted as meaning that pressure should be put upon employers to continue negotiations after a point at which they have decided that there is no purpose in continuing those negotiations. There is no point in beating about the bush. The Committee may agree or disagree but that is the only value of the amendment. It is a very significant amendment if seen in those terms.
The fact is that in recent years, in a number of areas—for example, the miners' dispute—when it was decided that there was no longer any purpose in continuing the negotiations, the employers have broken them off and have sought to impose a settlement. That happened in the long saga of News International at Wapping. Indeed if the employers, in the shape of Rupert Murdoch, had not stood firm at that tine, it is my view that a number of national newspapers would have gone out of business. One thing is absolutely plain. There was no point in continuing negotiations any further because the stand of the trade union in that case was clear. And it was perfectly legitimate; this is a free country. Very understandably the unions wished to retain conditions of service which were attractive to them. However, it
38
was the employers' view—and I think that they were right—that had they been successful in so doing they would have put the company out of business, with a threat to jobs.
Let us consider the case of TV-am. The noble Baroness said that many conditions in the television industry have changed over the past couple of years. That is undoubtedly true. Many people in the television industry must be concerned at what happened in the print industry. The print industry stood in defence of the indefensible for so long that it suffered deterioration in its conditions of service as a direct result. However, if TV-am had not stood firm on at least two occasions and had not imposed conditions because it could not negotiate those it thought right, that company would have gone out of business on each of those occasions with a consequential loss of jobs.
My anxiety is that the amendment simply pays tribute to a stand which any sensible employer in such an industry would take. The amendment is intended to provide that pressure can be applied to an employer to force or seek to coerce him into continuing negotiations beyond the time when he believes there is any point in so doing. If that had happened in the case of News International and Fleet Street generally, there would have been thousands more jobs lost than resulted through imposing conditions which the unions could not have accepted voluntarily. If that had happened in some sections of the television industry, the same situation would have resulted. For reasons which are perfectly understandable, it would have been impossible for the trade unions freely to accept conditions which were eventually imposed on them to the benefit of the industry and employees.
5 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have much sympathy with what has been said on both sides. However, I cannot help feeling that we have been making heavy weather of this issue. The amendment is perfectly reasonable. It is not draconian in any way. It merely asks the commission to seek to reach agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, sensible employers would do that anyway. That is no reason why they should cavil about having the provision written in the Bill. However, the amendment does not suggest that there is an obligation to reach any agreement which might be on the table. The commission is merely asked to negotiate—to attempt to reach agreement. If it does not reach agreement, something else will happen. The argument that the amendment is one-sided is surely false or mistaken and misguided. I dare say that it is a good debating point.
However, one cannot possibly reach agreement by oneself. One must have somebody else to agree with. The amendment cannot therefore possibly be one-sided in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, tried to suggest. It is a fairly innocuous amendment. I am not wholly convinced that it is totally necessary but it cannot possibly be harmful. I was a little disappointed with the Minister's

39
reply. He said nothing except that he did not much like the amendment, and sat down. I believe that he should have given his answer a little more beef.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord is very interesting. It is pleasant to try to put oneself in a position where one can appear so reasonable. He began by saying that he agreed with both sides. One cannot agree with both sides on the amendment. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, put two aspects of the argument which I believe are unanswerable. One aspect is that the amendment is one-sided. If the amendment stated, "The Commission and all unions concerned shall pursue and will endeavour", that would be fair enough. But there is no need for those words because the fact that they are meeting to talk means that that is what they will try to do. From that point of view the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is true and unanswerable. If the provision were in the Bill, Parliament in its legislation would be putting an obligation on one side of the argument to arrive at a decision, and the other side is not mentioned. It is an encouragement for people who may have lost an argument on merit to say, "But Parliament laid it down that they wanted you to reach an agreement. It is there in the Act. The amendment was accepted". I do not believe that that is fair. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh; I do not think that it is practicable either.
If the employing side—the commission in this case—wishes to keep a successful organisation, the financing is most important. To be under an obligation to have to carry on beyond the point where one's experience and knowledge indicate that one is wasting time would be wrong. On the one hand, it is an unnecessary amendment. On the other hand, I agree that in practical terms it can only do damage with regard to reaching agreement at the end of the day.
Baroness Phillips: It is a little unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, seems to have used this very innocuous amendment to launch what I would call an attack on employees. I hate to repeat this argument. I sat through the discussions relating to lawyers and solicitors. I talked to the journalists and printers in other disputes and to those involved in the TV-am dispute. Men and women do not strike or demonstrate on the streets unless they have a very good cause. They have to be driven to it. In the present climate it is essential to have everything underlined and written into legislation. What is the first thing that employers do when they wish to save money and protect their profits? They cut back on manpower. That happens all the time. This very simple amendment seems to me to be unnecessarily harshly taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
Lord Aylestone: It is perhaps worth remembering that the Committee is discussing the commission and not the IBA. The IBA employs many thousands. The commission at best will employ a couple of hundred.
Lord Willis: With respect to the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that one-sidedness may be a good debating point but it is totally illogical in the context of this Bill.
The clause seeks to define some duties of the commission. It cannot possibly define the duties of the trade unions. One cannot have that in the Bill because that has nothing to do with broadcasting. All that one can say is that attempts should be made to reach an agreement on wages, conditions, and so forth. But one cannot write all the unions concerned into the Bill and send them such instructions. The Bill has nothing to do with trade unions. If another Bill were introduced which instructed trade unions by law to negotiate with the commission, that would be fair enough. But such provision has no place in this Bill.
Baroness Birk: There is very little left for me to say. My noble friends Lord Willis, Lord Howie and Lady Phillips have said it all. The response was unfortunate. Perhaps when Members of the Committee read the amendment more carefully in conjunction with the Bill they will understand that it is intended to make provision for collective bargaining and for negotiation and collective agreement. In the meantime, it is quite clear that I shall not get far with it this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ardwick Lord Ardwick moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 145, line 40, at end insert:
("(3) The report shall include an assessment of the programme service provided by each person holding a licence to provide a Channel 3 or Channel 5 service, and in particular such assessment shall compare the service provided with the proposals submitted by the licence holder under section 15(3) (b), (c) and (d)").
The noble Lord said: Under Schedule 1 the commission is obliged to give a general report of its proceedings to the Secretary of State at the end of each financial year. He is obliged to lay copies before Parliament. Only one proviso is made—that the report shall have attached to it the statement of accounts and the auditors' report.
That proviso appears to be rather casual. It is consistent with the commission exerting not merely a light touch but a gossamer touch. The Minister has accepted the proposal that the report should be comprehensive but has opposed the proposal for a list of the issues with which it should deal. Why has he done so? The 1981 Act gave tougher directions. There was no lighthearted approach to a general report but there was a stern demand for the IBA to produce a detailed account of the quality and diversity of the programmes provided by ITV. There is no doubt that Mr. Russell, the excellent director of the commission, will provide a report of that kind. However, who can be sure about his successor?
It appears to Members on this side of the Committee that the commission must deliver an assessment of how consistently and well the licensees are delivering the goods that they promised when they made their plea for a licence. That assessment must be made available to the public. We wish to add the

41
provision that the report shall assess the programme services of each licensee in relation to the promises made by him in his application.
I hope that I am not pushing at a closed door. The government amendment, Amendment No. 177, appears to be in accord with the spirit of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We certainly envisage that the ITC's annual report will be both comprehensive and pertinent and may include the areas set out in the proposed amendment. The noble Lord missed paragraph 15(1) in which the commission is asked to prepare a general report of the proceedings during the year. However, we believe that the ITC should essentially decide for itself the form and content of its own report. We therefore consider that it is inappropriate for the Bill to lay down specifically what should be included in the ITC's annual report.
The important point is that the proposals submitted by successful applicants under Clause 15(3) (b) (c) and (d) will become licence conditions. If licensees do not fulfil those conditions one will expect the ITC to impose appropriate sanctions. The imposition of such sanctions is likely itself to be a feature of the ITC's annual report. They will be important parts of the proceedings of that body during the course of the year. I believe that it would be wrong to lay down every requirement of the ITC in regard to the report. However, in relation to some of the problem areas I am sure that they will appear in the report naturally.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I apologise for my absence at the start of the Committee stage. I had a long-standing and unavoidable commitment in Scotland, from which I have just returned.
I hope that the Government will give further consideration to the amendment because a great deal of importance is attached to it on this side of the Committee. The fundamental change in principle that the Government are introducing in the Broadcasting Bill is in converting the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which is a regulatory authority, into the Independent Television Commission, which is a licensing authority. That basic change has important consequences. Therefore it is important not only that the ITC should set out careful and detailed conditions for licences but that the implementation of them should be monitored closely in a public way. That should be reported regularly to Parliament and to the public.
The basic change that is being made in converting to a licensing authority means that we must reinforce the machinery whereby the public is reassured every year that the conditions in the licences of each licensee are being adequately fulfilled. Therefore the new licensees should be under a statutory obligation to show that they are fulfilling the conditions. The ITC should have a rigorous monitoring operation and should annually lay before Parliament and the public the results of that monitoring.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment. Clause 16 deals with quality conditions, which have been variously described as Becher's Brook or the last part of the puissance. If they are properly and heavily relied upon it is important that every year an assessment should be made showing whether the conditions have been satisfied, and the public should be informed. However, it is not easy to say whether the conditions have or have not been met because they are conditions of quality. Assessment therefore involves an element of judgment. It is easy to say that a promised programme was broadcast under the agreed name but it may be evident that the quality of the programme has degenerated. It is important to remember that the companies providing the programmes will be under constant pressure from advertisers to increase the programme ratings. Not enough is made of that fact. It is easy to promise quality but it is less easy for companies to uphold that quality when the advertisers are continually breathing down their necks.
Although in the old days the companies often complained about the IBA and the conditions that were laid down they often used its requirements to enable them to maintain the quality of their programmes. They could use those requirements in negotiations with advertisers, saying that the IBA would insist that they do this and that. That element is in danger of being lost. All kinds of promises may be made which satisfy the provisions of Clause 16. However, they may be forgotten unless each year there is a detailed comparison between the service provided and the proposals submitted by the licence holder and that is made public. The amendment is important in reinforcing the proper insistence on the provisions in Clause 16.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I believe that the effect of the amendment is to strengthen the hands of the commission, and as such it should be welcomed.
Lord Colwyn: Can my noble friend say whether his earlier remarks show that the intention behind the amendment is covered elsewhere in the Bill or in future amendments? The Government have stressed the importance of quality threshold and positive programming requirements. They have also declared their intention of allowing exceptional quality to take preference over the highest cash bid. T he intention is that the ITC will judge the programme and business plans to determine whether they can, in reality, be delivered. In the uncertain competitive market that will greet the franchise winners the ITC has been given power to ensure that licence conditions are met and maintained. That power must surely include an assessment of each Channel 3 company's performance against its promises. The amendment makes that possible through the ITC annual report and seems to me worthy of support.
Lord Willis: History shows us that the amendment is necessary. If we go back in history to the IBA, we can see that on two or three occasions franchises were awarded to certain companies on the basis that those companies would deliver quality. Unfortunately, they

43
fell into financial and other difficulties and they had to water down the programmes in order to survive. The IBA gave its blessing and permission to alter those programmes.
In the very early days—and I am going back to 1956—at least half a dozen companies started off with very high ambitions. They nearly went broke and the 'planes to America were crowded with English television producers travelling to buy cheap television programmes with which to fill our airways. The IBA had to lower its standards tremendously.
The same thing happened as regards London Weekend. When that company was awarded the franchise, it made all kinds of wonderful promises, and it had a very glamorous board. Very rapidly it ran into difficulties, and again standards were lowered and changed—so much so that the board which eventually took over bore no relationship to the board which had been awarded the franchise. These matters are very important and should not be ignored. The amendment should be supported.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: One accepts the noble Lord's arguments. One listens with care to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, because he has day-to-day contact with these matters and he knows the abstract and concrete consequences which are likely to flow.
However, I believe that his argument is supporting Clause 15. It has not much to do with this amendment. Clause 15 imposes an obligation to provide a very detailed report. I do not know what my noble friend's reaction will be to this amendment. However, I believe that the amendment is stating how the report should be written. I would expect that any report would include the matters which are mentioned in the amendment. I do not see that it could be a full report without that.
In any case, if by inadvertence or for some reason there are omissions, then the report will come before Parliament and those omissions can be rectified at that stage. I agree with the message which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is trying to give to us. I believe that is an argument in support of this amendment; it is in support of the Bill and Clause 15 in particular.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: The noble Lord said that this amendment seeks to tell the authority what should be included in the report. It seeks to place a requirement upon the authority. That requirement will be welcomed because it will publicly strengthen the authority, and all concerned, including advertisers, will know that it is there. That is the important point. As Members of the Committee opposite have said, the amendment strengthens the position of the authority. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, that this is no longer a regulating authority but is a licensing body. Anybody who knows anything about the business will know that such a body needs all the strength it can be given from a legislative point of view. I hope that the Government will see that there is force in this argument, and that they may be prepared to consider the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, when he referred to Clause 15 not being relevant to this argument it does not appear to me—and I may be mistaken—that he has listened carefully to what the Minister has said. One argument which the Minister put forward against the amendment was his suggestion that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and my noble friend Lord Thomson had not read adequately Clause 15(1). That clause is not relevant as an answer to this amendment. The amendment states that:
"such assessment shall compare the service provided with the proposals submitted by the licence holder under Section 15(3) (b),(c) and (d)."
As my noble friend Lord Thomson said, that seems to be relevant in order to ensure that there is a regulatory machinery which is so essential in these circumstances.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said. The position is that in the past some applications have been little more than essays in imaginative journalism. The position as regards this amendment is that it would impose a clear duty upon the commission to compare what the licence holder said in his application with what he has done. That seems to me wholly desirable. I can see no serious argument against it. In my view it would be highly advantageous to the boards of many of the companies because they would be aware that their record would be examined on an annual basis. Having had some past involvement with independent television, I can say that the effect of such an amendment would undoubtedly increase the likelihood that companies would live up to the terms of their application.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, decides what to do with this amendment, perhaps I may comment again. First, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to these discussions, and I am grateful for his intervention because I take careful note of what he says.
Perhaps I can go back to an amendment which was discussed before the noble Lord arrived. That dealt with applications. Some of the discussion on this amendment has verged on a discussion of what happens at the application stage rather than what will happen as regards the report. I want to make it clear that the Bill lays down specific procedures for public consultation by the ITC on the award of the important Channels 3 and 5 franchises. It will be required to publish the names of all applicants together with programme plans, and the ITC will be obliged to take into account any comments made by members of the public before deciding whether the applicant has passed the quality threshold.
We now come to the question of the report to which my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls attempted to draw to the attention again of the Committee. I have listened to what was said. Without any commitment, I should like to look carefully to see whether anything can be done which would not tie the hands of the ITC as to what should be written; in other words, we should avoid having the Government's hand at the elbow of the ITC as the report is being written. That

45
would be wrong. However, I should like to look at the wording of the Bill to see whether enough is written onto the statute. As all Members of the Committee have said, the ITC should be given a clear indication that we need to be sure that the monitoring process which should appear on the face of the annual report will do so. I hope that with that assurance, the noble Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention, and for the fact that he is ready to look further at this amendment. I appreciate his anxiety that the hands of the ITC should not be tied. The ITC appreciate that particular argument.
Perhaps I can put another argument to him which might persuade him to look as thoroughly as possible at a further amendment. I take to heart the words of my noble friend Lord Willis about what has happened in the past and the old arrangements with the IBA. They were not wholly satisfactory. We can consider the whole question in more recent times of bringing up to scratch the new breakfast franchises of commercial television.
Perhaps the Government would be prepared to strengthen Clause 15 to ensure that there was careful and consistent public monitoring of the fulfilment of the licence conditions and to issue public statements regarding how far those who obtained these valuable licences were fulfilling their obligations. Although I have been a critic of the Bill, as noble Lords are aware, I suspect, that the new Broadcasting Act might then be a better Act than the previous one. I hope that I can tempt the Minister with that proposition.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is going fairly wide and perhaps attributing to me more than I have offered; that is, to look at the terms under which the report is presented. That is crucial to the ongoing monitoring of the performance of the various licensees. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ardwick: We want to ensure not just the provision of a detailed report but that the report explains how the companies have performed during the previous year in relation to the promises that they have made. If the Minister can assure me that that is the Government's intention, I shall be glad to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I assure the noble Lord that I shall certainly look at that point to see whether we can do anything to meet some of the aspirations expressed all around the Chamber.
Lord Ardwick: Very well. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 145, line 42, leave out paragraph 16.
The noble Earl said: In rising to move Amendment No. 9 I invite the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to tell us a little about the arrangements he proposes in relation to the groupings. This is a massive Bill for which seven days in Committee are provided. It
46
follows, in terms of the advice that we have received, that we shall be speaking to amendments on one day and perhaps voting on them on another. I ask him whether he has anything to say regarding the groupings.
Earl Ferrers: It is entirely up to the Committee how we take these amendments. It seemed to me that there was something to be said for speaking to all of the religious amendments together, even though they will be moved separately. If we did that, all the religious concerns would appear together as opposed to appearing in a number of different, separate debates, a number of them overlapping.
If that met with the general approval of the Committee it would mean that we would speak together to Amendment No. 9 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, Amendments Nos. 43 to 47, 82 and 88, all of which are in my name, Amendment No. 96 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, Amendment No. 127 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, Amendments Nos. 130, 195, 208, 209, 247, 250, 253 and 255, all of which are in my name and some of which have the privilege of having the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, attached as well, plus Amendment No. 227 in the name of the noble Earl. That would encompass all the religious amendments, which we could take, with the consent of the Committee, in one general debate.
Baroness Birk: Before we continue perhaps I may say that Amendment No. 9, which removes the general duty of the Radio Authority to appoint advisory committees, does not give any indication of having any connection with religion. We have tabled amendments after that setting up other advisory bodies. I could not find out clearly enough when negotiations were going on this morning whether the noble Earl's amendment was in the religious field or the general field.
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness. Amendments Nos. 9 and 227 were intended to be probing amendments in order to introduce a discussion on CRAC. They are not amendments that I shall press to Division and the noble Baroness need therefore have no anxieties on that score. It will become more apparent when I move Amendment No. 9.
The Lord Bishop of London: I should like to say something regarding Amendment No. 9 on the role and place of advisory committees without involving the religious element contained in the later amendments. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on Amendment No. 9. I am aware that it is a probing amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I could ask that we organise ourselves as to the format of the debate. When the noble Earl has completed moving his amendment, which he has not yet done, the right reverend Prelate can speak to it. I understand that the right reverend Prelate would prefer Amendment No. 9 not to be taken with the remainder.
The Earl of Halsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and to speak to its associated Amendment No. 227, which is identical in content but refers to the Radio Authority rather than to the ITC. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 and reserve my position on Amendments Nos. 96, 127 and 130 and speak to them when they are moved.
Amendment No. 9, as I explained to the noble Baroness, was intended to lure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool into a discussion on CRAC. Since then he has tabled his own Amendment No. 13 on CRAC, and I therefore only need to move Amendment No. 9 in terms of its own merits. The paragraphs it deletes are otiose. I remember what was said a little while ago by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, regarding not writing into statutes anything that is strictly unnecessary. One does not need statutory provision to seek advice. The seeking of advice is a common law right intrinsic in the subject. Anybody can seek advice on any subject. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, nods in agreement.
Seeking advice and taking advice are two different things. You are not bound by any advice you seek. But if you decide to take it, the responsibility for doing so is your own, and you are answerable to the source of your authority. There are many subject matter advisory committees both in the BBC and the IBA (the ITC as it will be). They are not statutory committees; they are appointed by the BBC and the IBA. They can be dissolved by the BBC or the IBA. It is therefore unnecessary to write into the statute the ability to set up an advisory committee.
I have nothing further to say on Amendment No. 9, but in terms of the grouping it is now my prerogative to say something about the substantive amendment which stands in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. It deals with CRAC.
The history of CRAC is as follows. In the days when there was only sound broadcasting, when there was only the BBC with a monopoly over it and when the BBC was under the direction of a director general who was a profoundly devout Christian—the late Lord Reith—it sought such advice as it felt it needed from a domestic committee of the type I have described called the Sunday Committee. At some time before 1948, which is the first reference I can find to it, it changed its name to the Central Religious Advisory Council, of which CRAC is the acronym and which I shall use henceforth.
The 1981 Act which set up the IBA required the IBA to form a statutory advisory body in the field of religion. In order to simplify matters the IBA appointed the BBC's domestic advisory council, CRAC, to be the statutory authority for the IBA. Section 8 of the 1946 charter of the BBC requires the BBC to set up a general advisory council but without any explicit reference to religion. There are no other provisions on that subject for the BBC. If the Bill becomes law the IBA will be abolished. It will disappear into thin air and the ITC will inherit the position it once occupied. However, with the abolition of the IBA goes the statutory provision in the 1981 Act
48
to set up CRAC, or a CRAC-like body. Unless some other body is brought into existence CRAC will revert simply to being a domestic advisory body of the BBC.
The amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate would reintroduce a CRAC-like body into the system. That leads me to take a look at CRAC. It is nominally a representative body consisting of the main religious Christian denominations in this country with a sprinkling of Hindus, Moslems and, at one time, a Buddhist. It meets but twice a year and is therefore ineffective in the executive sense. It does nothing. It exerts no authority. It does not sanction anything to be broadcast or ban anything from being broadcast. The directors of religious broadcasting at the BBC and the IBA do that. CRAC merely comments after the event.
Whether or not that is a satisfactory situation, I do not know, but I want to make clear that if I criticise CRAC I am not pursuing the argument ad hominem. It does not apply in any personal sense to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London who preceded the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool as chairman of CRAC. I have not the slightest doubt they have both made the best of the position to which they were appointed. I am sure their colleagues are honourable and devout men doing their best in circumstances into which they have been lured.
To describe the attitude of other people towards this situation, correspondents of mine write as follows:
"In the background lies our deep disenchantment with and suspicion of the shadowy religious controllers and bureaucratic theologians who have virtually acted hitherto as a censorship over religious programmes in relation to both the IBA and the BBC. They are a small elitist and unrepresentative group of people appointed from within the Broadcasting hierarchy".
The Earl of Longford: Who is the noble Earl quoting?
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am simply quoting from a couple of correspondents. I take responsibility for doing that. Let us now consider the results. Results speak for themselves. The early directors of religious broadcasting at the BBC were of the opinion that, and I now quote,
"the true task of religious broadcasting was missionary and evangelistic".
That is quoted from Asa Briggs' monumental History of Broadcasting in Britain. From the same work I learn that the BBC made much of the task of making Britain a more Christian country. I can trace that to 1948.
Twelve years later, in 1960, the Pilkington Committee said that the objective of religious broadcasting was to reflect the worship, thought and action of those Churches that represented the mainstream of Christian tradition in Britain, to stress what is most relevant in the Christian faith for the modern world and to try to reach those outside the Churches. A further 17 years later, in 1977—I am still referring to the Asa Briggs' book—CRAC recommended to the Annan Committee that these should be amended to the following objectives: first, to seek to

49
reflect the worship, thought and action of the principal religious traditions represented in Britain, recognising that these traditions are not exclusively Christian. That is nonsense from beginning to end. The traditions of this country from legendary times have been exclusively Christian. We must not confuse tradition with what may have been imported into this country with the many different peoples who came to this country as refugees, or whatever, since the war. That is nothing to do with tradition. Tradition is not of a post-war character.
Secondly—this is CRAC again—to seek to present to the viewer and listener those beliefs, ideas, issues and experiences in the contemporary world which are related to a religious interpretation of life. Thirdly, to seek and to meet the religious interests, concerns and needs on the fringe of or outside the organised life of the Churches. Thus, the main thrust of religious broadcasting changed from reflecting the maintenance of Christian tradition to reflecting principal religious themes. The Committee will see that it was getting progressively softer. Is it therefore any surprise that when I drafted something like Amendment No. 130, reciting that the tradition of this country was Christian from time immemorial, I was told that it was much too aggressive for a statute. To quote from Hamlei,
"O … what a falling off was there".
I now take another Act of Parliament and another body. The Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 made no provision whatever for a CRAC-like body to advise the authority. It went ahead on its own, guided by the common sense of those who were running it. It has run happily without anything like CRAC for six years now. From time to time it has broadcast what the IBA and the BBC have banned; but the heavens have not fallen and nobody has taken exception. Of course, CRAC has banned nothing. It did not ban anything to which I referred on Second Reading or anything that may be referred to again this afternoon. The IBA did the banning.
The Lord Bishop of London: Under what power does the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suppose that CRAC could have banned items had it wanted to?
The Earl of Halsbury: I have said that CRAC cannot and that it does not. There is no question about that. The IBA did the banning; but CRAC, the IBA and the BBC between them exercise a monopoly censorship which plays hide and seek when one tries to pin them down. That is why my argument is that a CRAC-like body is unnecessary. This has been proved by the 1948 Act incorporating the cable body which has run happily for years without any trouble or criticism. That is why I also speak to Amendment No. 13. If necessary I shall divide the Committee against that amendment but I understand that the convention on grouping is that in so far as Amendment No. 10 is a paving amendment the voting will be against the paving amendment and then the substantive amendment will not be called. I checked that with our noble Leader and I believe that to be correct. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: The noble Earl said that I was lured into being chairman of CRAC for five
50
years. I am not going to be lured now into saying anything about CRAC or into trying to deal with the rather strange picture he has given the Committee of that body and its activities over the years.
I wish to speak specifically to Amendment No. 9 as it stands. It may be only a probing amendment but it proposes the abolition of advisory bodies. I know that the commission will be free to advise but it is a very different matter to have no reference to it whatever. Advisory committees exercise a very important role in the community generally and in particular in relation to broadcasting. Broadcasting must not be allowed to operate as a kind of closed system independently of society and merely affected by market forces, audience research and the responses of the very few people who choose to write in, all of whom are self-selected.
It is very important that the broadcasters and, therefore, the commission which is responsible for them, should be structured so that there is a system for receiving advice about the various aspects of life in our society. I personally would have wished that the clause stated that there shall be advisory committees and not that there may be. To remove those words is doing something that we should not.
There is all the difference between never having had something and abolishing it. We have a clause in the Bill saying that there may be advisory committees. It would be very foolish to remove that provision. It is recognition of the fact that the commission itself has a responsibility not merely to take account of market forces and things of that nature, but also to relate to all the different aspects of life in our society irrespective of the religious issue that will be debated shortly.
Therefore, I resist this amendment very strongly on the ground that I believe the provision of an advisory committee on the face of the Bill represents a fundamental principle about the relationship of broadcasting to society within which it operates and which it seeks to serve.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: Before I speak to my Amendments Nos. 10 and 13, I wish to say a little about the structure of the debate. I am anxious that we do not get in a muddle. There is an issue here, which is worth talking about, concerning the religious advisory committee. Later, there are the Minister's Amendments Nos. 82 and 88 which are withdrawing the no undue prominence clause that was previously in the Bill. They refer to new requirements for the owner of a cable station. I wish to comment briefly on those matters. I also wish to reserve my position to speak to some of the amendments which have been tabled in connection with religious advertising. That matter received no debate in another place. It is a matter of sufficient importance for there to be a proper debate in this Chamber.
Therefore, I come back to the matter of advice. Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 are probing amendments. We hope that the Government will say something to us which will allow us to withdraw them. The Broadcasting Bill will lead us into a new era and, in some respects, into unknown territory. As regards

51
religious broadcasting, on the one hand there is the wish to allow a wide range of freedom to religious bodies—I share in that wish—and, on the other hand, as with other areas of broadcasting, there is concern for quality programmes. There is a balance to be struck here.
I hope that those who have put great emphasis on freedom to broadcast for all kinds of religious bodies share the concern that I have, that what is broadcast shall be honouring to God's name. We have reason to be concerned because of experience in other parts of the world. I say that the Bill is taking us into unknown territory. It will lead to the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority having much discretion. For example, there may be areas of discretion and doubt concerning the interpretation of words that we shall consider in the amendments. They are words such as "improper exploitation", "responsible and appropriate persons".
It is not possible to lay down rigid codes. I am not certain that I understand the thrust of Amendment No. 92 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and others. If the intention there is to write down a rigid code, that does not appear to be handling the matter with a light touch. Issues will arise that cannot be foreseen. There is bound to be the development of running case law.
It seems good sense that the commission and the authority wish to have an advisory body with whom they can consult. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has added his name to this amendment. He has had experience of the value of an advisory body. Both the chairman designate of the ITC and the chairman designate of the Radio Authority have told me that they anticipate that they will need to look to us for advice more than they have ever done in the past.
I have obviously failed badly in regard to persuading the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, about CRAC, although at Second Reading he was telling the House that it was a very powerful body that censored people and blocked them. Today he has told us that the body is not powerful enough and that it is vague and ineffective. Because of what he has said it is right to say a little to the Committee about the Central Religious Advisory Committee, of which I have been chairman for the past year.
I remind the Chamber of some of the words used at Second Reading and today. It was stated that advisory bodies were in danger of becoming religious censors. If it was not the advisory body itself that was so threatening, it was run by powerful managers and officers. Those words come from the Official Report.
Perhaps I may tell the Committee a little about this body with the remarkable name CRAC so that it may know what lies behind the words. It has no managers or officers or officials of any kind. Its meetings are serviced by the staff of the BBC and/or the IBA. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has told us about its origins. We were a Reithian-improving notion. CRAC serves both the BBC and the IBA. I mentioned the
52
membership in rough terms at Second Reading, but it is worth reminding the Committee of how the body is made up.
It is drawn from the whole of the United Kingdom; from the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church in all four countries; the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church, the Baptist Church, the black-led churches, the Orthodox Church, as well as Jewish, Moslem and Hindu representation. It is quite a mix. It is an elite body. There are representatives of the black-led churches; one of the Anglican representatives is a black deacon from inner city London. They would not recognise the description of the body that was given just now.
It is true that the way of working which I have inherited is that the Committee has two meetings for two full days each year. There is a BBC part of the meeting and also an IBA part. There is also a joint meeting. Senior members of staff of the BBC, of programme companies and the IBA, attend our meetings. Producers come to discuss television and radio programmes which we have all watched previously or to which we have listened. Members are at liberty to raise whatever questions or make whatever suggestions, positive or negative, that they wish.
From time to time between meetings we appoint smaller groups to attend to particular tasks. If matters are raised with me as chairman, as they are several times between each meeting, I take them up with the BBC or the IBA. I did so last Friday. I believe that I have access at every level within these organisations. What has been misunderstood, according to some of the documents which Members of the Committee have been lobbied with, is the suggestion that in some way CRAC vets or censors programmes before they go out. That does not happen. What we are able to offer is a considered view representing all the mainline Churches and other faiths. I believe that our voices are listened to with seriousness. Of course the BBC and the IBA and the programme companies can and do take other advice. They are open to lobbying and submissions from other bodies. That is going on all the time.
The members are invited to join the committee jointly by the BBC and the IBA. I insist that we consult very carefully with the Church or faith concerned to establish that they are happy when such people are approached. I myself was approached by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had consulted with leaders of other Churches before he put my name forward to the chairman of the BBC and the chairman of the IBA. I believe that there is here a body of real substance, made up of people of independence of thought and integrity. Our powers are limited but we are able to put forward honest opinions, comments and criticisms. There are a number of examples of times when CRAC has objected to policies and has brought about a change in them.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, correctly noted a change of purpose as our nation has changed. It is

53
right that we should try to see that programmes reflect worship, thought and action of faiths present in this country. The overwhelming majority of those programmes reflect the Christian faith. They do so because of history and because of the numbers of people who subscribe to the Christian faith. I want hotly to defend the quality of a great deal of religious broadcasting. It is frequently adventurous. It tries to throw the light of the gospel on the common ground on which viewers and listeners stand. It does not always get it right, but there is none of the blocking which has been alleged.
I think of the last time I appeared on television. It was on Easter Day. It was a service a year on from the disaster at Hillsborough. It was held at Anfield football ground. No script was required. Anyone hearing the address that I gave at the service with all the Church leaders together would have heard me speak in quite unequivocal terms of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and my faith in it. I have frequently appeared on television and radio without any kind of vetting or blocking of wholehearted Christian testimony. Since I became chairman of CRAC I have asked for videos and tapes weekly. I am aware that a great many objections come, I am sorry to say, from the evangelical side of the Churches. I see and hear a great deal of what is authentic full-blooded evangelical faith being proclaimed through the mainline channels. I want to defend the producers and the people who promote those programmes.
I come back to the matter of advisory committees. We are entering unknown territory in religious broadcasting. I hope the Government will agree that there needs to be an advisory body to represent the Churches and the faiths.
6 p.m.
Baroness Birk: Before Amendment No. 9 is lost in this sea of amendments I want to say that I feel most unhappy about the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. Although he said that it is a probing amendment, it seems to be a little heavy handed to get rid of all advisory committees when, in the vernacular, he appears to be gunning at a particular one.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am not proposing to get rid of all advisory committees. I am seeking to leave it to the individuals to appoint any advisory committees they want to, but not in a statutory sense.
Baroness Birk: It is a permissive power, so they do not have to if they do not want to and if nobody wants them. I am concerned because my noble friend Lord Thomson and I have a later amendment. I do not know what time of night or early morning it will be called so I think that I had better say something now. Otherwise, Members of the Committee will have gone home or, worse still, we might still be talking about the different religious aspects. I think it is quite wrong to do it in this way when some of us want to talk about advisory committees for entirely different reasons. The religious advisory committee is one kind; and as there are advisory committees I do not see any reason why I should not have one as well.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Baroness said that the amendment is permissive. That is perfectly true under her amendment, but in Amendment No. 13 the word used is "shall". Is she distancing herself from Amendment No. 13 while supporting her own amendment?
Baroness Birk: Amendment No. 13 does not stand in my name. I do not go along with it. I am talking about Amendment No. 11. If the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, succeeded in his amendment, Amendment No. 11 could not be accepted.
Lord Orr-Ewing: Before I approach the issue of CRAC I hope the Committee will excuse me if I quote the Coronation Oath embodied by Act of Parliament. It requires the Sovereign,
"to uphold to the utmost of my power, the Laws of God in the Realm; and the true profession of the Christian gospel".
Then Parliament pledges itself in the Coronation service, through its senior Peers—one of each rank—to support him or her. If the freedom to preach or profess the gospel is being eroded in an area of public life—namely, religious broadcasting—a previous generation appears to have given Parliament, and this House in particular, special responsibility for looking after our interests and religion. It is not inappropriate at the start of the Committee stage of the Bill to remind ourselves of almost the only constitutional obligation that we have.
Like my noble friend Lord Halsbury, I would not wish in any way to attack either the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who led CRAC for many years with great conscientiousness, or the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who spoke so movingly today. I do not in any way blame them. I just think that the organisation has grown not too cumbersome but too archaic in a way and too arthritic. It has been there for too long. We have to start again. The organisation is not necessary.
The BBC religious policy seems to have strayed a long way from Lord Reith's intentions. This was exemplified only too clearly by Radio 4's Lenten Talks given by atheists, including Dr. Marietta Higgs. That seemed to me to be rather far outside the normal arrangements.
On 19th March a letter from Lambeth Palace commented:
"The documentary output of the BBC's religious television department is all too often unadulterated humanism and therefore a misuse of a budget allocated for religious programmes".
The end of the letter stated that the Archbishop—the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, of course—supported that view.
I give these examples to show that something is wrong. It is no good leaving matters as they are now. CRAC has not proved to be imaginative or conscientious. Too much power has fallen into the hands of the officials but the leaders are obviously above criticism.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough told the Church of England General Synod in February of last year that we do not get

55
Christian broadcasting today because we have not stood up in the past for what we believe in. Now, because of the good work done down the corridor in another place, there will be much greater freedom for religious broadcasting. I hope that when the Bill becomes law that criticism will be a good deal less justified.
Surely one of the most powerful reasons for avoiding—
Lord Willis: I trust that the noble Lord will forgive my intervention, but I should like to ask him a question. I am an unadulterated humanist but, strangely, I watch a great many religious programmes. I was brought up as a primitive Methodist and I like to sing all the old hymns which I remember from my childhood. However, I have never yet seen an unadulterated humanist on a religious programme. Can the noble Lord tell me where he has seen one?
Lord Orr-Ewing: I often hear a humanist on the morning radio programme "Today", in the religious spot just before the 8 o'clock news broadcast. However, it may be that the noble Lord does not listen to that programme. I do not wish to go into great detail as regards examples, but, as I said, Christianity is the adopted, traditional and mainline religion of this country. I was simply underlining the reasons.
Surely one of the most powerful reasons for avoiding statutory religious advisory committees is that CRAC, and both heads of religious broadcasting at the IBA and the BBC, have consistently campaigned against freedom for independent Christian broadcasting now provided for in this Bill. The head of religious broadcasting at the IBA wrote in the Sunday Telegraph of 26th November last year:
"the Central Religious Advisory Committee for the BBC and IBA was unanimous in its view that religious bodies should not be permitted to hold a television or Radio Authority licence".
The BBC's head of religious broadcasting, writing in the June 1990 edition of the Christian Third Way magazine, commented:
"the argument centres on whether religious groups should be allowed free access to the new radio and television services".
He described the campaign for this freedom as misguided. One example of this problem was reported in The Times of 22nd April this year concerning the banning of the television series "Jesus Then and Now" by the Channel 4 religious editor who was previously in charge of the IBA religious broadcasting policy. The film was produced with the late Reverend David Watson, who was a very highly respected Anglican clergyman. However, it was banned and turned down.
On 16th February 1990 in the Church Times the IBA's head of religious broadcasting wrote:
"CRAC … will continue to advise the BBC, and when the ITC is constituted and considers the arrangements I would be surprised if it did not avail itself of CRAC's services".
CRAC says that it is representative of virtually all the main religious groups in the United Kingdom, but Appendix E of A Matter of Respect, a paper prepared by the Church of England's communications committee, admits that,
56
"Members of the CRAC committee come from the churches and other faiths but are appointed by the BBC/IBA rather than by the bodies which they 'represent—"'.
Here we have the establishment itself criticising the present set-up. Of course, we have examples where it is not a censorship but where it is very difficult, as my noble friend said, to grasp where the responsibility lies. If we say, "The head of this department seems to have banned the programme", you are told that CRAC did it. However, if you go to CRAC it will say, "No, we do not ban anything". It is very difficult to find out exactly what has happened. Nevertheless, it all operates through programme initiation, with certain ideas being adopted and others rejected. There will be invitations for some people to take part in the proceedings with certain people being selected and, again, others being rejected.
Last December's opinion poll, commissioned by the National Council for Christian Standards, showed that 71 per cent. of those questioned agreed with allowing British Christian broadcasting stations to operate. Eleven per cent. disagreed with the idea and 18 per cent. did not mind. If there is a demand, we can justify the need for a religious advisory committee to censor positive Christian broadcasting. I advocate the Cable Authority system which has been in operation since the authority was set up. It applies good sense interpretation of the general restrictions and rules to all channels, including religious outlets.
We do not need a firm statutory successor to CRAC. I am sure that the BBC will set up its own arrangements, as will the ITC when it comes into being. We do not need this to be cast in tablets of stone so that it can never be changed. Of course there must be changes, and people will be consulted—that is, people who are representative of the main religious stream in this country.
It is not very often that we have four right reverend Prelates on parade, especially as a synod is being held at present. However, despite their very persuasive arguments, I believe that they are mistaken in this case. I think that we should give more liberty and freedom to those who are not strictly in line with the present established Church. I believe that we should not seek to reform CRAC.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: I heard the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, say that he was going to vote against Amendment No. 13, which is tabled in the names of the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Liverpool and Winchester. I shall support it. On the last occasion I paid tribute to the Evangelical Alliance which gave me a great deal. It has also given me much advice on this occasion. However, I shall neglect part of it but not all.
When I seek evangelical advice, I am inclined to look in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Soper. However, he is unfortunately not present in the Chamber. In his absence, I turn my attention to the right reverend Prelate. There was a fine statement of his in today's edition of The Times in which he said that this was the beginning of an evangelical campaign. But are these evangelical friends going to

57
sabotage the evangelical campaign at the very beginning? I am horrified by that attitude. If I may say so with the greatest respect, my evangelical friends are not the only people who read the gospel every day. I do not think for a moment that you must have a particular form of words put into the arrangements for CRAC.
However, if the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, produces an amendment at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings suggesting a firmer statement of Christianity on the part of CRAC, I may support it. In my view, getting rid of CRAC and throwing away the only religious committee that we have would be a most un-Christian act.
Baroness Cox: In speaking to this group of amendments, perhaps I may begin by saying how much I appreciate the Government's concessions, improvements and proposed amendments to the Bill, especially in this most crucial area of religious broadcasting. I speak in terms of my personal position as a Christian and also as a Christian who has a deep respect for the rights of other faith communities. I share the concerns that the faiths other than Christian should be represented in religious broadcasting. That point was emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I wish to see that right enshrined in principle and in practice, as was achieved in initiatives with which I was associated in the Education Reform Act, where the rights of faith communities other than Christian to request religious education and worship according to their own faiths were recognised in historic amendments.
However, I argue against the right reverend Prelate's amendment (Amendment No. 13) on several grounds. First, and briefly, I do so because of the track record of the body which is the precedent for that proposed in this amendment—namely, CRAC—with its increasing commitment to a multi-faith approach which may diminish the specifically Christian input of broadcasting. Many points have been made in that respect by other noble Lords and therefore I shall not repeat them. However, I suggest that not only would this development be theologically dubious but it would also run counter to the sociological realities of contemporary Britain in terms of the number of people who claim to be Christians, and in terms of viewer or listener appeal.
Many recent surveys show that a high proportion of the population call themselves Christians and see themselves as such. Therefore it is not unreasonable that their commitment should be reflected in a strong commitment to specifically Christian programmes. For example, the MORI survey reported in The Times on 4th July found that nine out of 10 people in this country claim to be Christians. The fact that so many of these people do not go to church possibly has more to do with their church than their Christianity. I must admit that many of my friends, especially Anglicans, I am sorry to say, find it increasingly difficult to attend a church which they see as becoming increasingly secular and politicised.
Despite falling church attendances in certain major denominations, there is a real interest in Christian
58
broadcasting. The television programme "Songs of Praise" has a bigger audience than "Match of the Day"—that is, except on Cup Final days—and there are bigger audiences for religious broadcasts than there are for any news, current affairs or documentary strands of programming. Moreover, on Radio 4 the daily service now has a higher audience than at any time since television began to make inroads on radio audiences.
Therefore I believe that the influence which CRAC has had against specific Christian broadcasting and in favour of a more multi-faith approach has not only been unpopular with many Christians but is also not justified in terms of public accountability. I also argue that it is anomalous in the extreme to advocate such a body, with potential for direct or indirect censorship, at a time when other parts of Europe are gloriously freeing themselves from censorship.
Although the committee proposed in the amendment is defined as advisory, in reality it could develop and maintain effective monopoly control over religious broadcasting similar to that which has already been exerted, directly or indirectly, by CRAC through its influence on the IBA and the BBC.
Regarding ownership, I seek from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool an assurance. I understand that at the con Terence of the Churches Advisory Council on Local Broadcasting on 22nd May this year, the chief executive designate of the Radio Authority stated that the authority would assess the suitability of religious groups For ownership and that they would consult CRAC. I hope that I am wrong, but I also understand that CRAC has expressed its opposition to any independent Christian broadcasting stations. Does that mean that these will be disallowed or discouraged, despite the intentions of the Bill?
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will confirm that there is no need for any central religious advisory committee for independent religious broadcasting. It is much better to expect that the Radio Authority and the ITC will apply "good sense" interpretations of the rules within the Bill for religious broadcasting, as with every other type of broadcasting. Why does religious broadcasting have to be singled out for special treatment? There is a good precedent already set by the Cable Authority which allowed the licensing of responsible and legitimate Christian broadcasters such as the Vision TV channel and the United Christian Broadcasters Radio Station.
I hope that the Committee will oppose this unnecessary and potentially undesirable amendment. It is unnecessary because all necessary safeguards are to be enshrined in the Bill. It is potentially undesirable because if it were to operate on the lines of CRAC as a precedent—and even if it did not operate on those lines—it is undesirable per se as an extra bureaucratic body intervening in matters of ownership and in issues of content.
It is sad when Christians feel obliged to diverge from, or to oppose, right reverend Prelates. However, I speak as a Christian, and I have been approached by

59
many other Christians of different parts of the household of faith who share profound concern and who oppose the amendment.
For the record, I wish to point out that many well known and well established intercessory and prayer groups are praying today because they are so concerned about the amendment, its implications and the possible extension of the influence of CRAC that would follow from Amendment No. 13. At least six major prayer groups—Intercessors for Britain, the Lydia Prayer Fellowship, Women's World Day of Prayer and three Scottish prayer networks—are all praying that the influence of CRAC will not be extended in this way.
Perhaps I may make one other point in order to avoid rising again on a separate issue. I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister two questions with regard to the ownership amendments in his name. I welcome the government amendments and the way in which the Government have proved themselves a listening government responding sensitively to the concerns expressed during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It would be reassuring if my noble friend could provide the clarification I seek.
First, I understand that it has been the promise of the Government that positive and specifically Christian television channels and radio stations will be permitted. Can my noble friend say whether the Government are able to guarantee that the ITC and the Radio Authority will not put some of the deemed undesirable multi-faith components into their general guidance or guidelines? Secondly, there is perceived to be real danger that the publication of guidelines may slow down the process whereby religious groups can apply for licences on the same footing as secular groups. There is concern, for example, that religious groups should not be so disadvantaged and should be able to be at the starting line when new broadcasting licences are being offered and not still awaiting guidelines. Can my noble friend reassure us on the timing of the guidelines so that no religious groups will be disadvantaged as a result of non-availability of the guidelines?
In conclusion, I welcome once again the Government's amendments and hope very much that the Committee will not support the amendments in the names of the right reverend Prelates, which are deemed by many people, including Christians, to be unnecessary and essentially undesirable.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: The debate has been monopolised by those who take the oath rather than by those of us who affirm. Perhaps it is time that the voice of one who does not take the oath was heard. I share the view put forward by a number of noble Lords and by my noble friend Lady Birk, as well as the right reverend Prelate, that we are in danger of getting into a mess. We are discussing whether or not there should be a committee and at the same time considering a number of amendments describing advisory committees of various kinds. Since, whether we like it or not, we may be committed to this, it is necessary to say what we are talking about.
60
I believe that Amendment No. 9 should be defeated. It is desirable to have a statutory obligation for committees to be in existence. I know that they can exist without a statutory obligation, but it is much better to have the provision in the Act so that everyone knows that the committee exists by right. Although there is no obligation, there is the power and the power needs to be in the Act. That is obvious.
One of the problems we face is that we are discussing religion primarily on the basis—as my noble friend Lady Birk pointed out—of amendments which have nothing to do with religion. My position is somewhat similar to hers. For example, I take the view that Amendment No. 11 should be supported but I do not support Amendment No. 13. The reason is that the latter amendment seems to create a situation in which religion and Christianity are defined as virtually synonymous. They are no longer synonymous. If this amendment is agreed, it seems to me that in order to provide for other religions or non-religions we must provide for a series of alternative advisory committees: a Moslem committee; a Hindu committee; a non-religious committee; an atheist committee; an agnostic committee. It seems to me therefore that the amendment should be much more widely drawn so as to admit the possibility—if the right reverend Prelate believes in it—of laying down or describing the historical, traditional pre-eminence of the Christian religion, though not necessarily of the Established Church. If one were not careful, one might get into the situation in which one brand of religion was in competition with another. We could be in grave difficulty if Amendment No. 13 were carried in its present form. Therefore, that resolution should not be supported.
I take the view that we should proceed on the basis of whether we can deal with the matter on a rather wider foundation. There are people who are religious without being Christian.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I wish to point out that Christianity is not mentioned in the amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Amendment No. 13 says that persons appearing to represent mainstream religious thought in England, Scotland, and so on, should advise on,
"matters of a religious nature and in particular on religious programmes included in licensed programme services".
The definition is insufficiently wide. Perhaps I may explain. George Bernard Shaw was a religious man. He was not an atheist; rather he was in the position which I try to follow—an agnostic. He thought that the human brain had certain limitations. If it tried to go beyond those limitations, it was prone to fall into error. Therefore, he did not subscribe to any particular religion. Anyone who stated that the play St. Joan was written by an irreligious man would be entirely mistaken. He was a man who was concerned with religion without being religious.
An amendment of this kind is desirable, but I think that it should be wider in its terms.
Lord Ashbourne: With the leave of the Committee I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 13 and then say a brief word about Amendments Nos. 43 to 47. I shall try to spell out clearly what I am speaking to when dealing with this huge gaggle of amendments. I am confused, as many other noble Lords may be.
Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 13 concern the formation of committees. The right reverend Prelates and noble Lords who are moving the amendments are trying to ensure statutory status for CRAC. I have misgivings about that situation.
On 28th April the Daily Mail printed a discerning article by Paul Johnson which was entitled:
"Why we're really no longer a Christian nation".
In the article he argues
"The clerical bosses hang on tightly to their privileges and maintain the carve-up of religious television and radio they operate among themselves. They are determined to stop outsiders homing in on their joint monopoly".
The key to the amendments is the fact that Christians in their various churches fear that the religious broadcasting controllers and CRAC will extend their control to decide who is appropriate to broadcast. The danger is that they may try to exclude various strains of Christianity. For example, the Evangelical Alliance represents approximately 1 million people and the less well known British Evangelical Council represents a further 1,200 churches. When one adds together the independent churches, the house church movements, the Afro-Caribbean churches, the pentecostals and the evangelical streams of our main denominations, one is talking of a sizeable percentage of the population.
When religious broadcasting began, the situation was different. In the Reith diaries Charles Stuart said of Lord Reith:
"His own religious standpoint was simple and evangelical; he enjoyed complete faith in Christianity and wanted others to share in it".
That positive attitude to religion was reflected at the BBC where both of the renowned directors of religious broadcasting, Dr. J.W. Welsh and the Reverend F.H. House, are recorded as agreeing that the true task of religious broadcasting was both missionary and evangelistic. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has already made that point.
However, today's BBC producers' guidelines for religious broadcasting state:
"Guests invited to take part in religious programmes may not use the opportunity to evangelise on their behalf".
One has the situation that presenters of religious programmes are not allowed to evangelise; and if their guests are not allowed to do so either, it would appear that the. BBC religious department, directly under CRAC, has started down the road of restricting our traditional evangelical Christianity.
Over 50 per cent. of those being ordained in the Church of England now come from evangelical college. They are the younger men and neither the church leadership nor its broadcasting establishment
62
yet represents that strength. We can no longer pretend that those people do not exist. Surely they must not be excluded from the broadcasting media.
The religious controllers in the CRAC system monopolise control of religious broadcasting in Britain. In another place during Report stage it was stated that religious broadcasting has been sanitized by the present regime. I do not want to see history repeat itself. I strongly oppose any attempt to re-establish a religious advisory committee such as CRAC. I urge noble Lords not to accept Amendments Nos. 10 and 13.
Amendments Nos. 43 to 47 concern a different subject. I am happy to commend them to your Lordships. I welcome the Government's press announcement that:
"The Independent Television Commission and Radio Authority would not normally regard religious groups as disqualified unless they did not comply with viewer and listener protection safeguards".
That situation should allow broadcasting freedom for both the liberals and the evangelicals from the churches.
I should like to ask a question of the Minister. How will the Government ensure that the general guidance that is to be published by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority concerning the appropriateness for holding licences is in line with the Government's intentions and wishes? If the Minister can enlighten the Committee, I am sure that we would all be greatly in his debt.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the General Advisory Council of the BBC, and I am its chairman. That body has within it the chairmen of all the other advisory councils, of which CRAC is one. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool is a member of the GAC. A number of other people are appointed to the GAC who are representative of a variety of different interests.
I should like to say a few words in defence of CRAC. Both the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Liverpool and the Bishop of London can no doubt defend themselves but they may appreciate it if I refute some of the quite extraordinary statements that have been made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing.
I have no religious axe to grind, unlike those noble Lords. However, I can say that the programme makers who are responsible for religious broadcasting in the BBC and in the independent television companies enormously appreciate and value the advice that CRAC provides. That is the purpose of such advisory committees. The purpose is not to represent a range of religious opinions; it is to help create good quality religious programmes, in the same way as other advisory committees exist to advise programme makers on how to make good quality programmes on science, education and agriculture or for schools.

63
I hope that Amendment No. 9 will be dismissed because it is the view of those who are responsible for producing television programmes that to be able to rely on a group of well informed experts, on whom they can try out new ideas and from whom they can get some feedback, is enormously useful. I hope that the Bill will contain a requirement that advisory bodies should be set up under the new arrangements.
In regard to Amendment No. 13, a body such as CRAC ought to be reinvented under the new arrangements for the reasons that I have given and because those who serve on advisory bodies of that kind, contrary to what was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—I regret that he is not in his place—are extremely conscientious and hardworking. They are concerned to represent a variety of different views.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool will perhaps clarify what is meant by mainstream religious thought, but I assume that it does not mean Christianity alone but all major religions that are represented in our multi-faced society. If that assumption is correct, I have no difficulty in supporting the amendment. If, however, the term refers only to Christianity, I shall withdraw my support.
The main point that I should like to make is that advisory committees are extremely helpful to those who are responsible for running the BBC and the independent companies and to those who make programmes.
The Earl of Halsbury: Before the noble Baroness sits down, could she tell me whether the chairmen of these advisory bodies who join her on the Advisory Council of the BBC are specified as such in the 1986 Charter of the BBC so that they are the equivalent of statutory bodies?
Baroness Blackstone: I do not know the answer to that question, but I do not believe they are. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who is a governor of the BBC, can help on that.
The Earl of Halsbury: The noble Baroness has made my point for me.
Lord Thorneycroft: If I may intervene for just a moment in this complicated debate, I would say that this is not an easy subject because the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, interprets Amendment No. 13 as being "multifaith" and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, thinks it is so totally Christian as to be unacceptable on that score. If you can get those views honestly and sincerely held by intelligent people on both sides of the Committee, I think the right reverend Prelate would agree with me that we have to think carefully about the wording that we use.
I should like to say, even if I may be quite alone, that I am wholeheartedly in support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I do not know about CRAC; I am not sufficiently important for people to write letters to me about that body. I have in my time listened to some brilliant and moving religious broadcasts and have very much valued them. I do not attribute them all to CRAC, but they
64
certainly do not seem to have prevented some discussions on this subject which are of great value and influence for at least one Member of your Lordships' Committee.
There are many amendments on religion here but most of them are negative. They deal with what we should avoid, how we must not offend anybody, how we must be careful about this and be cautious about that. I feel that if the right reverend Prelate is allowed a committee which is broadly representative of the mainstream of religious thought in this country we are more likely to get a positive approach on religious issues.
At this moment in our time the world is changing very fast indeed. Many things are happening and we attach enormous importance to them. For example, we have the reunion of Germany and monetary union in Europe. We debate these things by the hour; but I cannot help feeling that perhaps the most important thing that is happening in the world at the moment is a new opening of the doors to Christianity. The old obstacles that existed are disappearing and there is a change in the attitude of communism. We have the opening of the possibility of religious teaching in the new free states which are emerging, and all these things are important. I may be alone in this, but it seems to me that perhaps the most important opportunity we have now is a widening of the Christian religion, in this country and outside it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool—and one can criticise all bishops as I often do—has a remarkable record, if I may be permitted to say so. The relationships between the Anglican and Catholic Churches and the work he has done in a part of this country which is more difficult, politically and in most other ways, than perhaps any other I would think peculiarly fit him to give advice on how religion should be dealt with in television and broadcasting generally. If we are going to get any large impetus behind religion, it is certainly going to depend on broadcasting to a great extent. I think it would be very odd for your Lordships to refuse him that committee at a time when his work is so great and the needs of this country are so important.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I rise very briefly to support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate, for two reasons. First, I should like to say something about the work that has gone on over the years in the Central Religious Advisory Committee from my own experience when I was chairman of the IBA. More importantly, I should like to apply my mind to the problems that will face the successor organisation, the ITC, in the field of religious broadcasting.
I am bound to say this afternoon that I have hardly recognised the caricature of CRAC we have had from some noble Lords during this discussion. It is rather hard luck that in an age of acronyms the Central Religious Advisory Committee should be called CRAC. I am bound to say that during my time with the IBA it did its work most conscientiously and was

65
of immense help to the board of the IBA, as I am sure it was to the board of governors of the BBC. It was an evolving organisation, as indeed it ought to be.
I yield to no one in my admiration to Lord Reith as the founder of the basic standards for public service broadcasting in this country. I am not entirely sure that some of the things the Government are doing in the broadcasting field would have commanded total support from Lord Reith. However, the world changes around us and, in my experience, CRAC performed its role in representing the mainstream of religious thought in this country, and in doing so in a humane and tolerant way which is increasingly important in a world where there is too much fanaticism in terms of religious and theological argument. The work CRAC has done in the past will need to be carried on in the new circumstances of the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, if I may have his attention for one moment, in his enthusiasm, with which I fully sympathise, for seeing a proper role for religious broadcasting under the new legislation perhaps forgot that this Bill, as originally introduced, contained no provision for religious broadcasting. The Government very wisely introduced in another place the amendments which have now found their place in Clause 16(2) (e).
The Government and indeed this Chamber are bound to pay close attention to the fact that the ITC, the successor body to the IBA, feels, in welcoming these amendments introduced by the Government, that there is a very great need, as the right reverend Prelate said, for the continuation of a body like the Central Religious Advisory Committee. That view was echoed by the new chairman of the Radio Authority, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. It is a fact that important duties are now going to be placed on the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to ensure that the opportunities afforded by the new amendments to the Bill are used responsibly by everybody concerned. Both regulatory bodies will have to draw up acceptable, workable codes and guidelines in respect of ownership, programme content and advertising. In doing this they will need to consider a wide range of advice from authoritative sources. It is surely better that that advice should be provided by an advisory body with the traditions that have been built up over the years by the Central Religious Advisory Committee.
Noble Lords have praised—from their point of view, quite rightly—the way in which the Cable Authority has broken new ground in that respect. The Cable Authority is to be merged in the new Independent Television Commission and that provision will continue. The Bill permitted such ownership of local radio stations from the outset.
There has to be regulation of these matters, and we ought to seek to ensure that it is the wisest possible regulation. Advice will be needed. There will be no great free market in religious ownership of broadcasting in this country under the Bill. There has
66
to be proper guidance, and wise guidance. For my part, I trust the traditions of the Central Religious Advisory Committee.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: There is nothing like religion for arousing interest and suspicion. There are some noble Lords who are afraid of something. There are other noble Lords who are afraid of other noble Lords who are afraid of something. It is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of the debate without taking one's cue from the voices that we hear that are so reminiscent of the debates on the Education Bill two years ago. One has only to close one's eyes and listen to know that one is in the middle of the same controversy as two years ago. I deplore that.
Even on the simple, semi-routine course of appointing or not appointing advisory committees we immediately wander almost knee deep into a debate on religion. Unless we are careful all the other aspects of the Bill will take second place to who is going to have what in terms of the use of the media for religious purposes.
I take the view that since we are dealing with the Independent Television Commission and not with the BBC we are entitled to look at that side of the broadcasting empire from a more secular point of view than the other. It is not part of the Establishment. It does not represent all that is noble and worthy in our philosophical and religious life. It represents the moguls of the media. It represents the advertising profession, the hidden persuaders, those who in a moving moment in a broadcast when we are almost reduced to tears intrude into our drawing rooms with an advertisement telling us that it is time that we used a different deodorant or installed a new bathroom. We are dealing with the commercial broadcasting empire; it is no good trying to turn it into the Church of England.
I believe that there is no such thing as a religious broadcast. There is no divine ordination of religious broadcasting. It is the broadcasting of religion. That is not quite so saintly as religious broadcasting. We should keep those differences in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, who made a speech a moment ago, bless him, very much like the one that he made on the Education Bill, thinks that we ought to pour the milk of human kindness and religious belief over the whole of the community in order that it can face the future. Some of us take a somewhat different view. I do not believe that the broadcasting services should be used by evangelists, extremists, crackpots and those who might otherwise intrude on our listening time.
I shall vote against Amendment No. 13. I see no reason at all for an advisory committee as recommended by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I shall vote against Amendment No. 9 because I see no reason why the broadcasting authority should not appoint advisory committees if it wants. Those who have had experience of advisory committees, as I have, know that one appoints them in order to listen to them and then take no notice of what they say. That satisfies the advisory committee

67
because it has made its point. It satisfies the public because they believe that someone who might exercise power wantonly and mischievously has listened to the better advice of those around them. It is all a charade.
What is at the bottom of this debate is that certain religions want to get their hands on this method of communication and of proselytising their religion. We are overlooking the fact that there are a great many churches up and down the country which could hold a lot of people if they would only go. Why do they expect to have religious broadcasts in their homes? To stop them going out on a rainy night to the church. We do not allow them to vote at home; they have to go out and go to the polling booth. Why should they not go to church? I believe that it is a great conspiracy by the religious authorities and influences in this country to get hold of this mechanism of dissemination of belief.
If religious broadcasting was concerned with behaviour instead of belief there might be more justification for it. However, apparently, we cannot teach people good behaviour without telling them to believe in something of which there is no evidence that can be produced for their consideration. That is what we are putting across to everyone—in the schools and everywhere. They have to believe in something that they cannot see. They have to believe in something they have never heard. They have to believe that goodness is gained from a source that they cannot imagine. They are utterly bewildered. Yet parents, who would themselves have great difficulty in putting that across to their children, believe that teachers can do it, or that if the teachers cannot do it the parsons should, and if their children listen to the religious broadcasts all will be well.
I believe that somebody ought to bring a blockbuster into this debate, blow it up and let us see what lies underneath. Underneath are some not very worthy sentiments. They are concerned with the power of religious influence among the people. I believe that that should be diminished rather than increased. Leave the broadcasters alone. Give those who are entrusted with the responsibility the authority to exercise it. If they fall down on the job and upset the public then there is a means of letting them know. But why erect all this apparatus of advisory committees, religious authorities, independent authorities and other authorities? It is a network of religious bureaucracy. I do not believe that we ought to have any truck with it. Let the commission appoint its advisory committees and listen or not as it chooses. Let it get on with it. That is the most sensible answer on which to close the debate.
Earl Ferrers: It may help the Committee if I intervene at this point. I do not wish to truncate the debate and Members of the Committee may speak after me, but I thought that it might be of some help if I put the Government view.
I do so with a certain amount of trepidation. I thought that, as I usually do, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby; but there
68
was only one fleeting moment in which I could do so. That was when he said that if the ITC wants an advisory body let it have one.
That is precisely what the Bill says. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, wants it to have an advisory body. He tabled an amendment seeking to remove it and at the beginning said he had no intention at all of moving it but just wanted to have a debate to let light into CRAC.
I felt rather sorry for the right reverend Prelates, for so they were. The bullets were flying past me across the Floor toward the right reverend Prelates because of what CRAC does or does not do. I thought it would probably be better for the Government to keep their head below the parapet and not become involved, although I do not think that one can do that. I only hope that the right reverend Prelates had on their bullet-proof surplices. The fact is that under the Broadcasting Act 1981 the IBA was not only enabled to take advice from appropriate bodies but was obliged to do so. It had to do so; it had to set up a number of advisory committees. They looked at such matters as religion, advertising, education and medical matters, and the IBA found its committees of great assistance.
Under the new arrangements we do not wish to impose too many administrative and, in some circumstances, as in the case of radio, expensive, tasks on the commission and authority because they will not have the resources to cope. Nor, I think, will the licensees necessarily be able to meet the expenses. It should be open to the commission and the authority to appoint committees and take advice as they see fit of their own volition. The Bill provides for that. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be pleased about that.
Religious broadcasting is an area where the regulatory bodies are likely to seek expert advice. I cannot imagine them not doing so. But I understand from the IBA that the ITC and the Radio Authority have yet to consider in detail the advisory structure which may be needed to help with their responsibilities toward religious broadcasting in the Broadcasting Bill. I do not have any direct knowledge of that, for fairly obvious reasons. I understand that CRAC has been a useful sounding board primarily for the broadcaster and I have no doubt that it will continue in that capacity for the BBC. Although they will no longer be broadcasters, the ITC and the Radio Authority are still likely to wish to consult CRAC in the immediate future on draft proposals for the coverage of religious matters in programme codes, guidelines and the code on advertising.
I understand that CRAC's role in the past has been centred on advice about programming rather than ownership matters. It will be for the new regulatory bodies to reach a view on whether that should continue to be the case. However, I should like to make clear that the Government see the discretion which is to be vested in the ITC and the Radio Authority as to whether religious groups should be disqualified from holding certain types of licences a

69
having nothing whatsoever to do with what one might call church politics and whether CRAC is a good or bad thing.
Incidentally, although we have discussed CRAC for the past one and a half hours, CRAC is not mentioned at all in the Bill. It is, I suppose, merely brought in by insinuation. The Government see the discretion as entirely grounded on the need to safeguard the viewers and listeners against the exploitation or abuse of the right to broadcast. It is an advisory body and, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, its advice is not always followed. That is probably quite right.
The Bill would not prohibit the ITC or the Radio Authority from obtaining advice from any other group or individuals. They can get their advice from where they like. Indeed, we should expect them to take account of all serious expressions of view which are made in drawing up the proposals for religious broadcasting, and indeed the wider broadcasting issues.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to mention the other amendments tabled in my name because they are grouped together and are very much attached to the religious emphasis which the Government are trying to incorporate in the Bill. The Bill has been amended a great deal in another place to require Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees to give a sufficient amount of time to religious programmes and to give the Independent Television Commission discretion to allow religious groups to own cable and non-domestic satellite channels. The amendments in my name seek to give effect to four further changes.
First, we propose the deletion of the "no editorialising" and "no undue prominence" rules in relation to all religious broadcasting. I know that a number of the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, have the same aim. There was a good deal of anxiety about the effect of those rules on religious groups which had won licences to run satellite or cable channels or radio stations.
I am bound to say that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing have been extremely helpful in channelling those representations to us. Some groups feared, for instance, that the, broadcasts of church services would have been prevented. Certainly we did not think that the rules would have that effect or that they would be that restrictive. But we do not want there to be any unnecessary anxiety or uncertainty about the effects of the law and that is why we propose the deletions in Clauses 6, 42, 54 and 85.
Secondly, as we undertook to do, we are replacing these rules with what we believe to be a safeguard for religious broadcasting. That will require all religious programmes to avoid any improper exploitation of the susceptibilities of the audience and any abusive treatment of the religious beliefs of others. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a much clearer safeguard against the abuse of religious broadcasting. It will operate alongside the other viewer and listener protection safeguards which are in the Bill. The new
70
requirement is to be found in Amendment No. 82 to Clause 6, and is repeated in Amendments Nos. 208 to Clause 54 and 255 to Clause 85.
The third point relates to the test of "appropriateness" in paragraph 2(2) of Part II of Schedule 2. This is the test that the Independent Television Commission is required to operate in considering whether a religious group should be disqualified from holding a non-domestic satellite service or cable channel licence. It has been strongly argued to us that the test should not be left unqualified but that it should be spelt out.
It is certainly no part of the Government's intention that religious groups should be prevented from owning satellite and cable channels merely because they are insufficiently establishment or mainstream. The Government however have reservations about limiting the discretion exclusively to the fit and proper person safeguards and the other provisions which are designed to protect the viewers. I know that some Members of the Committee would like us to do that. The main problem that we see is that if we do so, we might leave loopholes. For instance—this was a problem that concerned my noble friend Lady Cox—suppose that the ITC received an application from a new religious cult or an extremist group to own a satellite channel. There might be no concrete evidence that the group did not intend to comply with the consumer protection safeguards and there might be no provable record of wrongdoing or irresponsible behaviour on which the ITC could invoke the fit and proper persons provision. I question whether it would be right if the regulatory body had no power to regard such a group as disqualified in such circumstances.
In answer to my noble friend Lady Cox, our policy is to enable the ITC to disqualify cults and extremist groups which might exploit the audience. There is no intention to force channels to be multi-faith channels and there is no intention to disadvantage religious groups on timing. The ITC and the Radio Authority—this was a point about which the noble Baroness was concerned—will have to have guidelines in place in time for the commencement of the issuing of licences by the ITC and the Radio Authority.
My noble friend Lord Ashbourne asked how the Government will ensure that the guidance is in line with the Government's intentions. I can tell him that the IBA has already said in one of its briefing papers:
"We would not expect either the ITC or the Radio Authority to be unreasonably restrictive. We agree with Mr. Mellor's statement of the 2nd July in which he envisages that the ITC would not normally regard people as disqualified unless they were thought unlikely to comply with the viewer and listener protection safeguards or to be unfit persons to hold broadcasting licences".
The Government have already discussed these matters with the IBA and no doubt will discuss them further with the ITC and the Radio Authority. We have tried to meet these points by the alternative means of requiring the regulatory bodies to publish general guidance to applicants as to the principles which will be applied by them in determining whether it is appropriate for religious groups to hold the relevant licences. That is the concern of Amendment

71
No. 47 to Schedule 2. That amendment provides a vehicle for making clear that consumer protection considerations should normally be the basis upon which the discretion would operate. Religious groups could be precluded from holding a licence only for reasons which are associated with safeguarding viewers and listeners. I hope that the Committee will find that is satisfactory.
The government amendments bring radio into line with television for the purposes of religious ownership. The effect of that is that the Radio Authority would have discretion to allow religious groups to own local restricted and satellite radio licences and licences for licensable sound services.
I believe that the Bill gives far greater freedom to religious broadcasters than has any other previous broadcasting legislation. At the same time it contains pretty clear safeguards against abuse. It is these safeguards which we have tried to refine and to improve in these amendments. The balance which will now be struck between freedom and responsibility and religious broadcasting I hope will be welcomed by everyone who takes an interest in the subject.
It has been made perfectly clear this evening that Members of the Committee are concerned about the issue. One can never have a guarantee. One can only set up the right structures. I believe that by allowing the Independent Television Commission to set up such committees as it thinks fit is the right way. Whether or not it chooses that that should be CRAC is a matter for the commission and not for us.
The Earl of Halsbury: I think that it would be proper for me at this stage to wind up on Amendment No. 9 which is before the Committee.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before the noble Earl does so, I should like to put before the Committee one point which may help. My interpretation of the debate that we have had so far—which has been informative and helpful—boils down to one aspect. Do we wish to leave the provision that the commission shall appoint, or that it may appoint? That is the only decision that this Committee ought to make. The data that will flow from it will come later in our debate. Is there no way of clarifying that point?
I agree with my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft that we ought to decide that it shall appoint an advisory committee. Who is on the committee will be its decision. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said that he has worked with CRAC, and found that it worked. Although I am three-quarters of the way along the road in agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, I should like to know a little more about how CRAC works. If an advisory committee will replace CRAC, I should like to know. The right reverend Prelate is chairman, as indeed was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. He sits on the committee with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. When on that committee did he put his point of view or that of CRAC?
I should like a decision on this issue. I believe that it is the only decision that the Committee ought to
72
make. Do we provide that the commission shall appoint an advisory committee; or that it may appoint an advisory committee? Like the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, I believe that we ought to be definite on that issue. I prefer Amendment No. 13 which provides that the commission shall appoint an advisory committee. The other amendments leave matters in the air. It is a matter on which I should like to know the view of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
The Earl of Halsbury: I spoke to Amendment No. 13. I did not move it. It is up to the right reverend Prelate to move Amendments Nos. 10 and 13. I moved Amendment No. 9. I now seek to wind up on Amendment No. 9. That has no inhibitory effect on the right reverend Prelate moving Amendments Nos. 10 and 13. The debate can continue. However, if I wind up on this amendment, it might give Members of the Committee an opportunity to adjourn for supper since the hour is a little late.
Amendment No. 9 is not one on which I could justify dividing the Committee. Apart from the lure to persuade the right reverend Prelate to come into action, the true nature of the amendment is otiose. It is not necessary to appoint sub-committees without saying what they are for. To make a statutory sub-committee for a particular purpose would have meaning; but merely to say that an organisation may appoint sub-committees achieves nothing because it can do so in any case. Whoever one is, a private or a corporate person, to take advice from whom one pleases is a common law intrinsic right. One cannot add to it. As the noble Viscount said, do not write things into Acts of Parliament that are unnecessary. Members of the Committee must not confuse removing the permissive setting up of unspecified advisory councils with an embargo on doing the same thing. I am not embargoing anything. I merely say that the provision for setting up advisory councils is useless. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool The Lord Bishop of Liverpool had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 145, line 42, at beginning insert ("(1)").
The right reverend Prelate said: I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I state that it is a probing amendment. In due course I shall not move the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for the response that he has already given and what he has said about the value of advice. I believe that I owe some answers. I shall try to be as brisk as I possibly can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised some points. I am grateful that prayer groups are praying for us. I wonder what they were told that made them think that such a dire threat was being put to the Christian religion. The noble Baroness asked about a meeting in May—I forget the title of it—at which it was quoted that CRAC had expressed opposition to the ownership of cable stations. I believe that that was in CRAC's submission in response to the White Paper. I

73
hope that it will be well understood that there is a distinction between arguing a case for what may be conceived to be best and then accepting the Bill that is being passed. From the heart, I accept with much gladness that religious bodies are allowed to own cable stations. There is no possibility that CRAC would be seeking to block such ownership in any dogmatic way.
I was grateful for the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth's phrase. I hope that we can deal with any advice that we were asked to give in a humane and tolerant way. That is our style. At Second Reading I said that it would not be possible in my opinion to produce a proscribed list. Some have argued hotly for freedom. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, pressed me to look at the Official Report of what the Minister said at Second Reading in another place. The noble Viscount built a great deal on the Minister having said that Christian bodies would be allowed to own such stations. I wrote to the Minister. He wrote back to say that that statement was not meant to be exclusive, that it referred to religious bodies. It is very important for us to understand that it refers to any religious body. What is a religious body? There begins to be some fuzzy areas. Clearly some methods of promoting religion are used in a good many other parts of the world. The Minister and others who have argued for freedom have said, "We don't want such expressions here". I therefore welcome the phrases about ownership that the Government have brought forward in the amendment, at the same time that they have withdrawn the reference to no undue prominence.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, spoke repeatedly about the place of evangelicals. Does he know that a third of the members of CRAC call themselves evangelical Christians? A great many evangelical Christians—including a number of broadcasters—are indignant at the campaign that has been carried on, supposedly in their name. They are extremely angry that it has been supposed that without question a full-blooded evangelical faith is blocked from the airways. I do not believe that to be true. Unless people have watched and listened to a good deal they should take care in repeating that concept.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked that CRAC should set out to ensure that there is a fair balance. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked whether it represented only Christianity. The answer is, no, there are representatives from the Jewish, Moslem and Hindu faiths. For reasons that have been expressed in the debate, the majority are from the Churches on the wide front that I named.
The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, rightly reminded us of the opportunity for spreading religion in its best sense through television and radio. Here is a tremendous opportunity. Surely it is important that it is done in a quality way and that we should not say that the quality does not matter. It has been said that sometimes programmes are banned. However, I am sure that Members of the Committee will know that quality decisions are made by a producer who should properly make such decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, asked whether I expressed my opinion or that of CRAC when I attend the general advisory council. I express my opinion with all the freedom that I wish. Sometimes I might tell the council what CRAC thinks about certain issues and I feel free to do so. I am grateful to the Minister for the safeguards which have been given while at the same time removing the "no undue prominence" aspect.
I wonder about the picture that Members of the Committee have of the future. We shall move away from a principle which has existed since the days of Lord Reith; that a fair balance representing religious bodies throughout the country should be carefully kept and monitored. That will no longer be the case because money will be able to buy air time. We have come from York, from the General Synod and from Budget time. The Church of England is committed to maintaining a ministry in every part of the land, like all the other mainline Churches. The notion that it can find substantial amounts of money for doing so is totally unrealistic. I do not believe that the mainline Churches here, any more than those in the United States, are likely to take up the opportunities presented by cable stations, advertising and so forth. We need to ensure that the Churches are likely to be those of more marginal groups which will not be equally represented because only some will have access to wealthy people. For that reason it is right that safeguards are brought into place in the Minister's amendment. I welcome the response that he has given and shall not move Amendments Nos. 10 and 13.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 25 minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Bill
7.24 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill carries on the theme that we have been discussing, although by accident and not intent. It relates to places where marriages can be conducted but excludes places of worship of the Church of England, Quakers, Jews and by a later addition the Church of Rome. The present law requires that before a building can be registered as a place where religious marriages may be solemnised it must, first, be certified as a place of religious worship; secondly, be declared by 20 householders to be their usual place of public religious worship; and, thirdly, be a separate building. The Bill deals with the requirement that it should be a separate building.
The law has been in place for about 200 years. When it was considered some 150 years ago the then Solicitor-General said in a debate in another place

75
that the phrase "separate building" is meant to imply a building which has no internal communication with any other. The object of the old law was to stop the spread of clandestine marriages. They were becoming a common occurrence and were, for instance, being celebrated in the Fleet Prison chapel by clergymen who were imprisoned there for debt. Sir Robert Peel, as he then was—I do not know whether I should refer to him as my late noble friend—continued to be concerned about clandestine marriages. He drew attention to the fact that there were many dissenters whose religious worship was performed in rooms or apartments. He did not approve of marriages being held in such places. The separate building proviso was inserted as a means of continuing to reduce the opportunity for clandestine marriages.
It is accepted that marriage needs to be a public event. However, I suggest that the separate building requirement is an anachronism which works against the interests of many people who are precluded from marrying in the building where they normally worship because it is not separate. In recent times the problems have become more acute because the emphasis is now on including religious buildings as part of a community or cultural centre. That trend is to be welcomed. However, the church part of such centres is normally interconnected with other parts and therefore it cannot be registered for marriages. During the past two years 19 applications for the registration of buildings have been rejected because the buildings were not separate. I have in my file various quotations from newspapers ridiculing that fact.
The effect of this two-clause Bill is supported by the Churches Main Committee, the Free Churches Federal Council and all those with whom I have had contact on the subject. It will enable Christian and non-Christian people alike to marry in buildings where they regularly worship. The Bill simply deletes the reference to the need for separateness in Section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949 and carries out certain other consequential amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Viscount Brentford.)
7.29 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that my name does not appear on the printed list. I shall speak only briefly. I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Viscount for presenting the Bill so clearly. When people worship regularly in a building it is only reasonable that they should be allowed to marry there. As has been said, that is the aim of the Bill for Christians and non-Christians alike. I understand that it has overwhelming cross-party and all-party support. We on these Benches wish it a speedy passage into law.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I notice that the sponsor of this Bill in another place called it a brief, worthy and uncontentious piece of legislation. I would go further and say that it is an admirable proposal. It
76
ends an anomaly. The Bill is of enormous practical use and advantage. Therefore, from this side of the House, I am happy to support it.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend Lord Brentford on bringing this Bill forward for our consideration today. The Bill is short and straightforward and it makes a small but important change to the marriage law of England and Wales; under it many couples would become able to marry in the buildings where they regularly worship. They cannot do this at present where the building is not a separate building, because the present law prevents it being registered for the solemnisation of marriages.
As my noble friend said, this restriction, which incidentally does not apply to the Established Church, Quakers, Jews or Roman Catholics, was included in early 19th century legislation as a way of preventing the clandestine marriages which were then seen as a major social problem. Clandestine marriages were thought more likely to take place undetected if they could be conducted in part of a building, often containing many rooms where different, unrelated activities also took place, rather than in a building given over wholly to the practice of religious worship.
The requirement for a building to be separate is not appropriate in modern times, and it increasingly causes problems which could not have been anticipated at the time the legislation was enacted. Many religious bodies today seek to provide wider community benefits in their buildings, and accordingly the place of worship is built as part of a community or cultural centre. This may contain a dining room to provide meals for the elderly, or a bookshop, or a games hall for youth groups: churches are often linked to sheltered housing accommodation. At the moment such interconnections can preclude the building being registered as a place where marriages may be solemnised.
As my noble friend said, the Registrar General has had to reject 19 applications from the trustees of such buildings over the past two years. In some cases there has understandably been adverse public reaction. The religious bodies concerned find it extremely hard to accept that their more community centred approach has debarred their building from registration for marriages, and they may become even more aggrieved when they find that other denominations are not similarly restricted. The members of their own religious community are similarly unhappy to learn that they cannot marry where they regularly worship. Yet the present law, I must emphasise, gives the Registrar General no discretion at all. Therefore the law has to be applied in those hard cases.
The Bill being considered today will remove this quite unnecessary restriction. Meanwhile it does not affect in any way the fundamental law, which the Government support; that is, that unfettered public access to marriage ceremonies must continue. The Bill has the support of the Churches Main Committee, the Free Churches Federal Council and individual

77
denominations both Christian and non-Christian. The Government endorsed the removal of the separate building requirement in the White Paper, Registration: proposals for change, which was published on 31st January and therefore offer their full support to the Bill. I commend it to this House.
7.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down to speak in this debate. I speak on behalf of those who officiate on such occasions. Although it does not affect the Church of England, we warmly welcome this Bill for other Churches for which the anomaly has undoubtedly been a handicap. I must add that we are dealing with the desires of those who are marrying. Wherever they may worship regularly, the attraction of Gothic buildings and four-part harmonic choirs is greater than anything covered by this Bill. Having said that, I wish to add my support to this small but generous Bill.
7.33 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend the Minister. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.34 unti18.25 p.m.]

Broadcasting Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 145, line 42, at beginning insert:
(" The Commission shall establish an advisory committee for each region to give advice to them on matters relating to the services of licence holders in that region, including services on Channels 3, 4 and 5, local delivery services and domestic satellite services.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 11 refers to advisory committees but in a different context to that which we were discussing before dinner. The amendment would oblige the ITC to establish advisory committees in each region to cover all independent television. It is different in that it would not be a committee for a specific subject but an advisory committee in the region set up to give the ITC advice relevant to that region.
The 1981 Act currently specifies that national advisory committees be established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 11 would require the ITC to establish 15 advisory committees for each region covered by a regional Channel 3 licence. The interpretation of the word "region" in the amendment does not necessarily link it to the number of Channel 3 regions and therefore leaves the ITC with some discretion as to the number of regions. The regional diversity of the UK makes it very important
78
for each region to have its own advisory committee. The closer the link between the public as represented by the advisory committees and the Channel 3 licence holders in particular, the more accountable the service will be to the consumer.
It is probably even more important that there should be advisory committees for the ITC, although there were advisory committees for the IBA. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, how successful and necessary they were. There are also separate advisory committees which have been working for a long time for the BBC. Last year the BBC completed an internal review of its advisory committees. One or two were wound up and others, including the committee for agriculture, had their remit extended to take in rural affairs. It was a thoroughgoing review of cost and effectiveness.
The advisory committees in the different regions would not only be cost-effective but would be of great assistance to the ITC, as has been mentioned on other amendments to the Bill, in keeping it in close communication with the viewers and listeners. I hope that the Government will look on the amendment with some pleasure and satisfaction and perhaps accept it as it stands. Although there is the proviso in the Bill that advisory committees may be established, there is nothing which sets out the regional nature of the committees. I consider that to be important. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I understand the concern behind these amendments. As the noble Baroness said, they cover a slightly different point from that discussed before dinner. However, the amendments are unnecessary.
The Bill already gives the commission a broad power to appoint advisory committees to advise it in relation to its statutory functions. I understand that the shadow ITC has decided that it will establish viewer consultative committees in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, most importantly, as the noble Baroness recognises, the regions of England.
Amendment No. 12 would also have the effect of preventing the ITC from establishing advisory committees other than on a national or regional basis. That would be unfortunate since the ITC might well decide that it would benefit from advice on, for example, specific types of programme or advertisement.
I hope that the noble Baroness realises that the spirit in which she puts forward the amendment is accepted by the Government but that the statutory nature of the requirement is not.
Lord Willis: I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lady Birk, but on this issue I regret that I must depart from her path. My experience of advisory committees is that they are largely window-dressing. They give the illusion that there is some kind of local representation. They give the illusion that local people are being drawn in. A meeting is held every quarter and the committee members are given a nice dinner. Their advice is politely listened to, but, in fact, very little notice is taken of it.

79
I do not believe in that form of window-dressing. I am not against advisory committees. They make the people feel happy. But they have no power and no authority, and they do not really work.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I feel torn between the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. However, as my name is on the amendment, I am, of course, on the side of the noble Baroness.
I strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about the importance of advisory committees. It is easy to poke fun at them. We have both the great and the good, locally and nationally, and they are easy targets. However, it is important with public operations, particularly broadcasting—as I believe the right reverend Prelate said in a different context before dinner—that there should be some outside input from concerned citizens on the quality that the broadcasting services provide.
In my experience at the IBA—I am sorry to go back to that—I certainly found that the national advisory committees, as they were called, performed a useful service in the circumstances of their time, and I am happy to hear that the ITC proposes on its own initiative to continue with them. When I was chairman I made a point of attending meetings as often as I could. I obtained a feeling and a reaction among concerned citizens about what was happening in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales that was of use.
We are concerned about the future. I want to make the point that in the new situation under the Broadcasting Bill the advisory committees will become even more important. We shall have a much more competitive market place in broadcasting generally. That will be particularly true about commercially-funded broadcasting. The Government have proposals for contractors holding more than one licence—the so-called pennyfarthing system—which we hope to resist. We, on these Benches, believe one should preserve the principle of one contractor, one licence. The Government's proposals are of a different character.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, has a Scottish background. I say to him that, given the nature of modern broadcasting, one should not underestimate the pull of the metropolis—the pull of London—for professional broadcasters. In the more competitive commercial market place, that pull will be much stronger than it was in the rather genial days when I had the good fortune to be chairman of the IBA. That will be true in all sorts of ways. If the Government go ahead with the pennyfarthing proposition—I do not want to anticipate the debate on that matter—there is the possibility that any surplus capacity in Cardiff, Aberdeen or Ulster will suffer in favour of the studio capacity in the metropolitan area. I am sure that the Minister knows very well from representations made to him that independent producers from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are continually complaining that London is the main attraction.
80
I do not profess to believe that perpetuating the advisory committees and giving them a statutory guarantee will solve the problem. But it will be a useful countervailing force. Therefore, I hope the Government will feel that with the commitment, which I know is genuine, from the present IBA and the future ITC to wish to continue with the advisory committees they will accept the amendment. The position changes as the years go by. An Act of Parliament is an Act for perhaps a decade or more. It will be worth reinforcing the position with some statutory underpinning.
Lord Ardwick: Perhaps I may add a personal word. As a former newspaper editor of both provincial and national newspapers, I often envied the BBC its advisory committees. The ideas inside a newspaper office are taken from staff members who lead distorted lives—half of them on night work and separated from their roots. It was difficult to know what society was thinking. A great deal of the reason for the BBC being ahead of the national press in social matters—many such matters were regarded as unprintable—was that it had the backing and encouragement of the advisory committees.
Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to take part in the debate. I am prompted by the intervention we have just heard. I declare an interest as director of a regional television company but also as a former Secretary of State for Wales who understands very well the pressure for regional advice and who lives in a world where we have committees looking at this and many other matters.
I also chair another public body, the National Rivers Authority, which makes very strong use of regional advisory committees. Nonetheless, I have a sense of caution. Here again we have a matter that is very much better left to the discretion of the new ITC controlling body. My experience in these matters is that there is a need for flexibility because the situation changes. This is a matter that should not be built into statute but left to the good sense of the body that can make a judgment as to where it is sensible to obtain advice.
We are dealing here with the companies that will have surmounted something which was described as more than a hurdle by my noble friend during discussion on an earlier amendment. I believe he described it as that final fence in the puissance which people will have to jump. They will have had to jump that final fence to establish themselves as companies with the ability to produce strong regional programmes and satisfy the commission about the nature of the resources and the facilities that they will have in the regions.
It seems absolutely certain that these companies themselves will have strong regional representation. Their boards will contain people from the regions. It seems inconceivable that companies like my own will approach the bidding stage without ensuring that we have people who very much represent the interests of those whom we seek to serve in those regions.

81
I then begin to see the kind of difficulty that one is going to get into. The companies will examine their own performance in the regions. The directors and senior staff go round the regions and very often they are in the closest possible contact at every stage with local people and local events. They are trying to form a view. Then another committee on the outside seeks to second guess the way in which provision is made.
I am not sure that that will improve things. If there is a feeling in the ITC that it is losing touch with what is going on locally and wants some specific advice on particular aspects of regional affairs, it is much better that an appropriate committee should be set up, and, appertaining to the point that concerns them, to seek the best possible advice at the time and from the people most highly qualified to provide it.
I believe that a group of people will be appointed to one of the committees and they may be perfectly sensible appointments when first made. However, it is the way of these matters that the members will continue sitting for a very long time. They may cease to be in quite such close touch with events as they were when they were appointed. On this occasion I beg the Committee to go for flexibility and to back the good judgment and sense of the ITC in this matter. I ask the Committee not to impose a statutory set of rules. I do not think anything will be gained by so doing, and it will cause us a great deal of difficulty.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I find the noble Lord's argument rather difficult to follow. He started by saying that he thought that advisory committees might or might not be useful, but that their appointment should be left to the discretion of the ITC. He went on to say that he felt that the committees were positively un-useful. He said that they were like sleeping dogs lying about the place and out of touch with events. He advocated that when an issue arose people should be chosen who are experts in the subject and they should be appointed to give advice.
The point about advisory committees, whether they are specialist ones such as CRAC or the BBC musical advisory committee, is that they are in touch with the broadcasting scene. The people involved are not called in at the last moment to give advice to an organisation with which they have no continuing contact. Hence, I feel it is rather odd to reach the conclusion that the noble Lord reached or to accept the advice that he gave us; namely, that the ITC should not be encouraged or instructed to appoint advisory committees because such committees will see it as their duty to represent the consumer in the region in question. That is very important in regional broadcasting.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: There is very little that I can add to what I have already said. The practical fact of the matter is that the shadow ITC has decided that it will establish pure consultative committees in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. There is a use for them despite the fact that some Members of the Committee believe that they do
82
not serve any useful purpose. I agree with my noble friend that flexibility over the whole matter is better addressed by not having a statutory obligation. Hence, the Government take the view that they have presented to the Committee tonight.
Baroness Birk: It does not seem that we can get much further tonight. I am not convinced by the Minister's arguments about the committees. We have heard from other speakers of experience where there are advisory committees to the effect that they are extremely useful and helpful. There does not appear to be any reason why that provision should not be undertaken. They were in the 1981 Act and they were working at that time.
We have heard from the former chairman of the IBA as to how useful the advisory committees were. He put them into practice; he lived with them and got the benefit of their work. I know him too well to think that he would help to initiate an amendment unless he thought that it was worth doing. Perhaps we shall return to the subject at another stage when we may have a slightly larger Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 145, line 42, leave out ("may appoint, or arrange for the assistance of") and insert ("shall appoint regional or national (as appropriate)").
The noble Baroness said: I do not have very much hope in my heart for this amendment—
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: According to my grouping Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are grouped together.
Baroness Birk: I have very little more to say. I wondered what the Minister was up to. He was answering Amendment No. 12 as well. Amendment No. 11 referred to the regional level. This amendment refers to the national or regional provision as being appropriate. The same arguments apply. I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regulation by Commission of provision of television services]:
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 13A:
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("ensure fair and") and insert ("maintain and promote").
The noble Lord said: It will be quite clear to the Committee that this is a modest drafting amendment, but I believe that it is very important. It has a substantive element to it. The wording,
"to ensure fair and effective competition",
is reactive rather than proactive. For that reason I very much prefer the wording that I have had the effrontery to suggest; namely, to "maintain and promote". That is particularly important in these days of volatile change not only in the broadcasting environment but also because of the technological change concerning the delivery and receipt of these

83
kinds of service. This amendment is also in the nature of a probing amendment. I am looking forward very much to my noble friend's justification for changing the form of words. I hope to find out why he prefers the wording that appears in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before I answer, may I take it that my noble friend is not speaking also to Amendment No. 14A, which I thought was grouped with this?
Lord Morris: That is absolutely right. I am not. It is a different issue.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, it is. This amendment would place the ITC under a duty to maintain and promote effective competition. Clause 2(2) of the Bill places the ITC under a duty to exercise its functions so as to ensure that a wide range of services is available throughout the United Kingdom and that there is fair and effective competition in the provision of such services. That is a sensibly framed duty. It effectively requires the ITC to hold the ring in a regulatory sense between competing licensees. My noble friend's amendment would give the ITC a more active interventionist role in promoting competition. That would be inconsistent with our view that the ITC should be a light touch body. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morris: I am most grateful for that explanation. My noble friend will be aware that I found this wording in Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. If he feels that those words are not acceptable perhaps he will support me in a Private Member's Bill to change the wording so far as concerns the Telecommunications Act. This is relevant because these matters are closely linked. As he himself admitted in his response to my amendment, a duty is laid on the ITC to hold the ring. I am worried that once the ring is designed there will be no incentive for the ITC and that it will be more concerned with maintaining the status quo than with reacting to changing events. That is why I moved the amendment.
I shall read carefully what my noble friend has said and consider the matter further. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 14A:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("(iii) to enable persons providing services in the United Kingdom to compete effectively in the provision of such services outside the United Kingdom; and").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19A. I have again lifted this amendment wholesale from the Telecommunications Act 1984. In this day and age no one is unaware of the fact that cables cross frontiers and satellites deliver legible signals across frontiers. Under the Telecommunications Act a duty is laid squarely on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Director General of the Office of Telecommunications
84
to enable persons providing services in the United Kingdom to compete effectively in the provision of such services outside the United Kingdom.
That is an extremely important duty. The Bill is designed to assist the United Kingdom in placing itself in the forefront of the provision of broadcasting services. There will in the future be a greater opportunity for developing a market for those services abroad, not least with developing countries. This is a lacuna in the Bill. That is why I have suggested the addition of the amendment. Amendment No. 19A is a technical consequential amendment arising from Amendment No. 14A. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am afraid that I see some difficulty in how the ITC could in practice ensure that United Kingdom companies were able to invest elsewhere. If there were any regulatory barriers preventing United Kingdom companies from investing abroad it would be beyond the power of the ITC to remove them. We are precluded by our Treaty of Rome obligations from discriminating between United Kingdom companies and companies from elsewhere in the EC. Equally—this is important—United Kingdom companies should be allowed freedom to invest in Europe. We have indicated that we shall take up with the Commission any complaints United Kingdom companies might have about barriers to investing in Europe.
But moving beyond the European Community, the Bill precludes non-EC companies from controlling ITC licences with the exception of licences to provide non-domestic satellite services, licensable programme services and local delivery services. For those specific categories we consider that the interests of the viewer and the listener would best be served if the market were opened up to all potential investors. This should enable the industry to develop as far as possible without unnecessary restrictions on its sources of finance. I am sure that my noble friend realises what I am talking about. Without the investment interest of North America in the United Kingdom cable industry thus far, it would hardly have developed at all over the past couple of years.
We do not think it would be sensible to maintain the present restrictions on the control of the United Kingdom cable companies from outside the EC simply as a bargaining counter. The Government are as keen as my noble friend in seeing any regulatory constraints on investment abroad by United Kingdom companies removed, but we do not think that retaliatory action is the right way to achieve that objective. With that explanation I hope that my noble friend will understand the Government's position.
Lord Morris: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. There has been a misunderstanding as to the purport of the amendment. He suggested that the amendment attempted to ensure that persons providing services in the United Kingdom could compete effectively in the provision of such services outside the United Kingdom. The amendment seeks to "enable" them, which is a slight but important difference. I am concerned about the somewhat tacit role placed on the ITC with regard to the export of

85
British broadcasting. No duty or function is mentioned in regard to this matter as there is with regard to telecommunications services in the 1984 Act. That is why I moved the amendment. I shall consider carefully what my noble friend so kindly said in his reaction to the amendment and think on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord. Winstanley Lord. Winstanley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 26, after ("services") insert ("both in any region and nationally").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to regional matters in which I have a great interest and about which I spoke at Second Reading. It seeks to amend Clause 2(2) (b) which deals with the functions of the commission:
"as respects the licensing of television programme services in the manner in which they consider is best calculated to ensure the provision of such services which (taken as a whole) are of high quality and offer a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests".
Essentially, this part of the Bill relates to diversity of programmes. That is a very important matter indeed. The amendment seeks to ensure that Britain is not taken as a whole when diversity of services is sought and that a proper balance is achieved in each constituency—I put the word in inverted commas—for which the service is licensed. Thus Border Television would be expected to supply as diverse a range of quality programmes as Thames Television. As it reads at present, the Bill could be interpreted as allowing the ITC to judge diversity in terms of the television system in its national entirety.
I made a point on Second Reading and I shall make it again on this occasion. When we talk about regional television programmes, we should not merely be thinking in terms of parochial programmes such as regional news and other such matters; we should allow a region to undertake a variety of programmes which by their very nature, as they are made in one particular region, will be different from a similar variety of programmes undertaken elsewhere. Therefore, the diversity is of a different kind.
I think that this occasion may be appropriate to mention another minor apprehension which I have with regard to this amendment and many others. Clause 2 of the Bill says:
"It shall be the function of the Commission to regulate, in accordance with this Part, the provision of the following services".
However, when we discussed the first amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that we no longer had a regulatory body. He said that the commission was a licensing authority and not a regulatory body. We have just spent a great deal of time discussing advisory bodies. But who are such bodies to advise? Presumably they will advise the licensing authority, whereas before they advised the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which was a regulatory body and which exercised a continual scrutiny over the programmes. Therefore, it could say to the programme makers, "Look, you're not doing this", and so on. But, as the noble Earl told us earlier, all
86
that the commission can now do is to insist that the companies comply with the terms of the licence. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain the position when he replies.
I believe that this amendment, which provides for the insertion of the words,
"both in any region and nationally",
would ensure that, in deciding on the diversity of programmes, the commission would look at each region and expect it to provide a wide variety of programmes and not expect a wide variety of programmes to come from the independent network nationally. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I, too, have an interest in regional television. I do not apologise for that fact. I understand well the thoughts behind the amendment which is intended to underpin the quality and diversity in regional as well as national services. That is an aim which the Government fully share. If the noble Lord will turn to Clause 16 of the Bill he will find that it includes specific safeguards for regional television. It provides that Channel 3 services must give a sufficient amount of time to a suitable range of regional programmes, including news programmes—Clause 16(2) (c). It also requires that a suitable proportion of the regional programmes should be made in the region concerned—Clause 16(2) (d). Further, applicants for Channel 3 licences are required to state what regional facilities they would use—Clause 15(3) (d).
Taken together, those provisions constitute a formidable set of safeguards for the regional tradition in British television. I should point out to the noble Lord that nothing like them has appeared in legislation before, and although similar conditions were contained in the IBA contract they were not set out in the statute.
The noble Lord questioned whether the ITC was a licensing or a regulatory body. He called my noble friend Lord Ferrers in aid in what he said. I should point out to him that it is in terms both a licensing and a regulatory body. It licenses services and then regulates those services by policing the conditions attached to the licence. Of course, there are penalties which it can enforce under Clause 36.
Lord Ardwick: I should like to add another Mancunian voice—although, perhaps, I should say an old Mancunian voice as we went to the same school—to that of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I should point out that I am speaking mainly to Amendment No. 28. In this amendment we seek to ensure that regional television is the real thing: that is, a television service provided for a region; a television service provided from a region; and a television service with programmes good enough to be shown on the national network with other regional programmes of high quality and universal interest.
Having regional services is not the most economical or profitable way of providing the country with a television service. However, it is simply the best way. It can give the regional viewers the news and information services that they need. It can also

87
stimulate an excellence in the arts and in feature production which would otherwise lack the stimulus which inspires a region as well as providing good television.
Of course, the television company must have its base in the region; it must have some of its staff living there; and it must have a first class studio and equipment in the area. A regional service cannot properly be given if all the weight of authority and effort is based in London. In such a situation, the region is merely regarded as a branch office. I am also reminded of T.S.Eliot's theory on culture, that the richness of our central metropolitan culture is greatly increased by the richness of our peripheral cultures.
Lord Winstanley: I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in every way. I agree with him as, I suspect, does the Minister. I am reassured by what the Minister said as regards the provisions contained in another clause of the Bill. I have read that section and it does, in many ways, give effect to the sort of anxieties which I expressed.
I was also interested in the Minister's precise definition of the functions of the commission which frankly seems to me to be somewhat different to that given to me earlier by his noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, I do not wish to cause any split or division between Members on the Benches opposite. I shall read both speeches with great care and compare them. It may be that at a later stage I shall have occasion to remind either Minister of what was said on a previous occasion. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("(taken as a whole)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 17 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. I hope that the Government will find it easy to accept this amendment. At first sight it looks a purely semantic affair, but it is rather more significant than that. It is concerned with the central aspect of the Bill, in which we are glad to say that the Government have moved significantly since the days of the White Paper. They now recognise that quality is important and cannot be left entirely to the market and to finance.
The amendment concerns quality. Clause 2(2) (b) as amended would read:
"It shall be the duty of the Commission … to discharge their functions under this Part as respects the licensing of television programme services in the manner which they consider is best calculated to ensure the provision of such services which (taken as a whole) are of high quality and offer a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests taken as a whole".
This is significantly different in emphasis and meaning from the clause as it now stands. As I interpret the clause, the present wording would allow a company to put on a high quality programme or series late at night when few people were listening and to have much inferior programmes or series at peak times in order to attract large audiences.
I wish to make clear that when I talk about the quality of television I am not talking about the difference between up-market and down-market programmes. I am saying that all programmes put out should be of high quality. There could be high quality soap, high quality chat shows and high and low quality news. The amendment says that it is up to the ITC to ensure that, taken as a whole, what the programmes put out should be of high quality. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. It seems to me that there should be no difficulty on his part in accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Clause 2(2) (b) requires the commission to carry out its licensing function so as to ensure programme services which are of a high quality when taken as a whole, as the noble Lord said. The amendment would remove that important qualification. The general duty in respect of the range and quality of television programme services applies to services taken as a whole because it would not be reasonable, we believe, to expect all services to meet these criteria in their own right. We must be careful not to give the commission unrealistic objectives.
When there was only a handful of channels it was necessary and reasonable to place the regulators under a duty to ensure that they were all of a high standard. However, as the number of channels increases such a requirement would, we believe, no longer make sense. With more services available there is less need for a regulatory body to ensure that each and every one is of uniformly high quality. In the more sophisticated market that is now developing, poor quality channels will, we believe, be able to be allowed to go to the wall.
The Bill says that news must be shown at peak hours but that also means that the Bill leaves it to the licensees to decide these matters. It would not be practical for the ITC to control scheduling on many channels. I hope that the noble Lord realises that with the amount of work that will come in future years with television services we must be careful that we give the commission a job that it can do and not one that it attempts to do and then falls down on.
Baroness Birk: I support the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I put my name to the amendment. He explained it thoroughly and concisely. We wish the words "taken as a whole" to remain in the subsection. The disagreement seems to be over where the words should be.
It takes a few minutes of study to realise that to change the position of the phrase makes a great deal of difference. We are concerned that the words "taken as a whole" appear before the word "quality". What is likely to be the balance between high quality shows and other shows? How many cheap, imported and poorly made cartoons and soaps or badly made domestic quizzes will one South Bank Show cancel out? It is not a matter of costs or of television snobbery. A quiz show can be very well made but yet appeal to a mass audience. A soap does not lose its appeal because it is well acted, written and filmed.
We are talking about high quality. I do not agree with the Minister when he states that the amendment

89
demands much more. I think that it states the same kind of thing but puts it in the right place. The current wording would allow a company to put on a high quality series late at night and have some kind of dross at peak times in order to attract a mass audience as cheaply as possible. The juxtaposition of the phrase "taken as a whole" prevents that situation.
The phrase should remain in the subsection because, although in principle everyone would seek diversity, taste and appeal, nevertheless, with the growth of multi-channel satellite stations, there will be exclusive services which extend the range of viewing opportunities; for example, sport or children's channels. The satellite company should be judged across the four or five channels that it is offering and each channel should not be expected to be internally diverse. That is the reverse of the argument stated by the Minister, because that situation is more flexible for the company. Therefore I support the amendments. They are minor amendments but they are very important in relation to the interpretation that is put on the phrase.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: If the question is whether "taken as a whole" should remain where it is or whether it should be put at the end of the paragraph, I think that the Government have got it right.
"The provision of such services which taken as a whole".
That point was made by my noble friend. If "taken as a whole" is put at the end, it is not the services which are taken as a whole but the taste and interest. They are different things. The phrase should remain where it is.
Baroness Birk: I think that there has been a misunderstanding. The noble Lord stated that he thought that it was proposed to move "taken as a whole" to the end of the sentence. However, it is not. Under the amendment the phrase should read:
"services which are of high quality and (taken as a whole)".
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Baroness has corrected me. I agree that I put the phrase at the end, but my main point remains. "Taken as a whole" currently refers to the quality of the services. If it is moved from that position the meaning is not as clear. I think that the Government are right.
Baroness Birk: With respect, I think that the meaning is clearer. The noble Lord, Lord HarmarNicholls, is obviously intelligent and picks things up very quickly. With respect, this matter has confused him, so it must be in the wrong place.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Are we not splitting hairs? First, we appoint a grandiose independent broadcasting commission, full of brains and experience—great big people to represent the nation—and then we treat them as though they were tiny tots. These are broadcasting instructions for tiny tots.
I should like to remind my noble friend Lady Birk that her partnership with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, seems to have produced quite a crop of amendments. I should like to utter a plea. I appear to be the last on the agenda for tonight and I am
90
bursting with anxiety and interest to know what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will say in regard to Amendment No. 21, which states:
"Page 3, line 21, at end insert (or (2) (aa) or (h)')".
A most eloquent speech is bound to be made in support of Amendment No. 21 and I think that we should hurry on a bit to get to that point. I am sorry to be so serious about the matter but time is going on and we have a lot to do. Can we move on a bit instead of discussing whether "on the whole" means on the whole or not quite on the whole, or whatever we are being asked to decide? I am sorry to intervene and I beg your Lordships' pardon, but there you are. I cannot sit here and not say something.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Things have come to a pretty pass when the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, tells us to move on quickly. I would only say that I will move on as quickly as I can, but I think this amendment is more than semantics. It is very easy for the Minister to accept. We do not believe that any television company will always achieve high quality but we believe that they should always aim to do so.
The noble Lord, in answering my amendment, rather blew the Government's case, I think. He said, as I followed his argument, that a sophisticated market could put up with low quality and that it was quite acceptable. Is that really what he meant? Is it really the Government's policy that by regulation we should flood the market with low-quality programmes which our sophisticated public would find acceptable? If that is the case I find it very strange that the Government should have moved quite a long way from their original intention of letting all television be governed by purely market considerations.
The noble Lord went on to say that it was asking too much of the ITC that it should control scheduling. We are not asking it to control every item of scheduling: we are asking that it should lay down guidelines as to the nature of the scheduling the companies should follow. That is precisely what the Government are asking all these regulatory bodies, such as the notorious Broadcasting Standards Council, to do. Guidelines are not beyond the capacity of bodies set up by the present Government in the television world; so I hope we are not asking too much of the noble Lord in inviting him to think about this. When we come back at a later stage I hope he will give us a more positive response.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I agree with the noble Lord that this is not a question of semantics. It is an extremely important amendment. It is very important that whatever we decide in this particular clause should be made to work. However, I have to stick to my feeling, with which my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls agrees, that, taken as a whole, this is the correct place to describe the working of the ITC and how it should operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said he thought that we were being obtuse in not accepting his position for those words. It is a fundamental point. The Bill will not say that all services here are to be of high quality. But there will be market pressures for

91
high quality, just as the market encourages the production of high quality books, newspapers or whatever. We have to be careful that we do not give duties to the ITC which could be very difficult to carry through but which the noble Lord obviously believes could be carried through very easily. On this matter we differ. I shall look very carefully at what the noble Lord has said, but I cannot give any guarantee that the Government will reconsider the position of the phrase.
Lord Bonham-Carter: At the risk of annoying the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I shall read his reply carefully. I am astonished that he apparently thinks the market produces high-quality newspapers. There is some evidence in some parts of the newspaper world that this is hardly the case. However, in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 19A not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Broadcasting Training Fund

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall determine amounts to be levied on qualifying programmes, to be paid to the Commission, appropriate for the purposes of this section.

(2) Any amount received by the Commission under subsection (1) above shall be credited by them to a fund established by them under this section, to be known as the Broadcasting Training Fund.

(3) The fund shall be under the management of a Committee appointed by the Commission for the purposes of this section and shall be applied by the Committee in the making of grants to finance the training of persons engaged in the preparation or making of television programmes and to connected purposes.

(4) When making any grant out of the fund pursuant to subsection (3) the Committee may impose such conditions as they think fit.

(5) The persons appointed to be members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine, but the Commission shall, when making any such appointments ensure that a majority of the members are persons with a knowledge of training in broadcasting including representatives of the broadcasting unions.

(6) The terms of the appointment of the members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine; and in the case of any members of the Committee who are neither members nor employees of the Commission, the Commission may—

(a) pay to them such remuneration and allowances, and

(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of them such sums by way of allowances, pensions or gratuities, as the Commission may determine.

(7) Any expenses incurred by the Commission either under subsection (6) or for salaries of Commission employees whose services have been furnished to the Committee, shall be defrayed out of the fund.

(8) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year, the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings for that year and transmit it to the Commission.

(9) In this section "Commission" means the Independent Television Commission and "qualifying programmes" means programmes of such description as the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purpose.").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to establish a broadcasting training fund financed by a levy on the industry and managed by an industry-wide co-ordinating committee. There is little doubt that the industry may well face a serious and worsening skills shortage unless the supply and co-ordination of training is improved immediately. A report by the Institute of Manpower Studies which was published earlier this year found that the industry was not making adequate provision for quality training in the freelance and independent sector.
Traditionally, quality training has been provided in quantity by the broadcasters in areas of permanent employment. However, most freelancers now enter the industry directly as freelancers or have worked for independent companies. The demand for freelancers is expected to increase by as much as 30 per cent. by 1992 while the broadcasters are currently shedding a quarter of their staff. The growth in the freelance and independent sector, which already constitutes half of the industry, will further increase the demand for access to affordable, high quality training.
The Government have conceded in Clause 15(3) (c) that an obligation should be placed on applicants for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences to indicate their,
"proposals for training or retraining persons employed or to be employed",
by them. The Government have since gone further and tabled Amendment No. 112 requiring Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees to make provision for the training and retraining of freelancers engaged in independent production.
The ITV companies then took a very important initiative and announced on 3rd July that they intend to use royalties from educational programmes to start a training fund for freelance workers. That may have been a result of the amendment tabled by the Government. In any event, it is a welcome move. Both that initiative and the Government's amendment are to be commended.
However, those proposals do not guarantee industry co-operation on funding and managing training; nor do they oblige independent companies themselves to pay to train their own in-house or freelance staff. There is little doubt that only an industry-wide training fund will achieve those key objectives.
The Government have so far rejected arguments in favour of placing a general training requirement on the independent production sector because that would make it directly accountable to the ITC. The new cable and satellite services need to operate under a light-touch regulatory system. However, not only is it unfair to the broadcasters to be expected to meet the training requirements of the whole industry but it is clear that they will no longer do so in the increasingly competitive environment of deregulation. I believe that the independent sector should not be allowed to escape its responsibility to train, particularly as it has benefited enormously from the statutory backing for the 25 per cent. independent production quota.
Most industry organisations representing the independent sector are in favour of some form of obligation to train being placed upon this fragmented sector; for example, the IPPA, the producers' association and Channel 4. The Welsh independent producers' association has gone even further and decided to levy 1 per cent. of its members' production budgets. Unfortunately, independents in the rest of the United Kingdom will not come up with a similar commitment voluntarily.
It is probable that without statutory backing for a levy system the independent sector will continue to draw from the existing pool of labour until it runs completely dry. The only practical mechanism for delivering funding for training for the freelance and independent sector is a central, cross-industry training fund financed by a levy on independent production budgets of broadcasters and independents alike. The fund would be held and collected by the ITC but it would be managed by the industry. The management committee should include representatives of all sectors and subsectors of the industry together with trade union representation.
I end by saying that I think that there can be no disagreement with the fact that as new technologies emerge there is an enormous necessity for our broadcasting industry to have a very highly trained workforce, both in order to maintain its high standards and also to face the competitive years ahead.
We believe that the amendment is the only way to ensure that situation. We very much hope that the amendment will find favour with the Minister. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This is obviously a very important amendment. We on this side want to see a satisfactory level of training within commercial television. But we believe that essentially this must be the responsibility of the programme-making companies, whether they be ITC licensees or independent producers. If they see a need to create an industry-wide training body, funded by a levy, there is nothing to prevent them setting one up. But we do not believe that either the Government or the ITC should impose such a structure.
I believe that the broadcasting training fund proposal is fraught with practical difficulties. The money would be compulsorily removed from companies, which would then be obliged to apply to get some of it back in the form of training grants. The system would be highly bureaucratic and a recipe for friction between the ITC and licensees and between the licensees themselves. It is not clear how funding would be managed or how independent producers would fit into the system, since the ITC would have no direct powers in relation to them, nor how duplication of effort with the BBC would be avoided.
I take up the points made by the noble Baroness and acknowledge that she welcomes the moves that the Government have made, particularly in relation to Clause 15(3) (c), which sets out that an applicant for
94
a Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence must include in his application his proposals for training or retraining persons employed or to be employed by him. Also, the noble Baroness welcomed our Amendment No. 112, which has still to be debated and which requires the applicant also to supply his proposals for encouraging the training or retraining of persons employed or to be employed.
I should like to take the matter a little further than that. Clause 15(3) (b) requires an applicant to set out his proposals for providing a service which would comply with the programme requirements set out in Clause 16(2) or (3). It is intended that those promises should be incorporated as a licence condition. That is achieved in Clause 18(1). However, since that clause is to be deleted as part of the revision of the requirements associated with performance bonds, a separate clause is to be added after Clause 30—Amendment No. 177—which will effectively enable the ITC to write as licence conditions the programme promises made by the applicant, together with any undertakings that he gives in relation to training and use of regional facilities.
I hope that the noble Baroness will see that we are trying to get at the root of the problem of training by a different route to that which she took. I hope that she understands that we intend to try to achieve that end and will make use of the licence conditions to do so.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am grateful for what the Minister said in relation to the changes that we are to see in the Bill. I want only to draw attention to the fact that the amendment that we introduced is a reflection of the generally unbelievably poor performance of this country in training and retraining. If one compares this country with our continental competitors, we come bottom of the league by a mile. I happen to serve with the noble Baroness, Lady David, on a committee which is examining training in the European context. The picture that we have seen is extremely depressing. This country faces a crisis in this matter, as I think the noble Baroness will agree.
I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I should be perfectly ready to accept changes in the wording of our amendment. We want to ensure that it is not left solely to the BBC, as it has been in the past, to undertake training and that this obligation to train is spread throughout the industry. Unless industry in this country takes on this obligation generally we shall find ourselves in the future in an extremely weak competitive position in relation to our neighbours on the Continent and elsewhere.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The record ought not to give the impression that we do not produce well trained and experienced technicians in this field. I accept my noble friend's point. As an interest, I am chairman of Radio Luxembourg (London) Ltd. I have been on the board for 28 years and have been chairman for the past eight or nine years. We take it as part of our duty to train people in techniques and general presentation. I know that disc jockeys and other such people are not top-of-the-pops in this

95
Chamber, but some who have earned great renown and are international figures were willingly trained by Radio Luxembourg. That goes on every day.
I agree with my noble friend that if it had been possible to obtain help with funding the cost of the training that we have given as a matter of course we would have been after such funding like a shot. There would have been paperwork; we would have had to justify it. At the end of the day I doubt whether it would have produced any more trained personnel than we actually did because we are interested in maintaining quality.
I do not know the committee on which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord sat where they were so disillusioned with the contribution that our country was making. But that is certainly not my experience.
Baroness David: We sit on sub-committee C of the European Communities Committee which deals with social affairs and looks into vocational training. I am delighted that Radio Luxembourg does so well and has skilled technicians. I hope that when the report is published the noble Lord will read it very carefully, together with all the evidence. The evidence is certainly that we are very badly off for skilled people. The employers, government and indeed individuals need to contribute towards such training. There is no doubt that we are doing extremely badly as a nation. Every encouragement should be given for more training.
Baroness Seear: Just to confirm that aspect, I have in my handbag some figures recently quoted of the percentage of the industrial workforce which has had skilled vocational training. The figures are, for France, 80 per cent., for Italy, 79 per cent., for West Germany, 67 per cent., for Spain, 56 per cent. and for the UK 36 per cent. Need anything more be said?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I only make this point. The people we have trained would not appear in any statistics. The training was there. The noble Baroness quoted figures. I am saying that whether it is visible or invisible, the training goes on.
The noble Lord at the Dispatch Box knows of the vast amount of training in the newspaper industry, quite apart from formalised schemes conducted as a result of grants. The general contribution does not fit in with the rather dismal picture that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have painted. That is the only reason that I intervened.
Lord Ardwick: There is excellent training in this country, but not enough of it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: That is fair enough.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I too was very happy that the Minister responded in the way he did. He showed his obvious concern about the issue. He also pointed out the various changes that the Government have made or are making to try to strengthen the training base. However, there can be no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, that everything that we can do to redress the lack of training in this country is to be welcomed.
96
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, asked where we had become disillusioned. I watched television one evening and saw a programme about the Channel Tunnel. I should hate to think that the training of our broadcasting staff might fall to the level that this programme stated was the case with our industrial workforce. I agree that it is a rather different area. Nevertheless, we do not want the French to take over our broadcasting system, which is what I understood to be the case in respect of the Channel Tunnel.
During the 1970s good training schemes were introduced by Granada and Thames Television, but they have been discontinued. We are worried about the enormous increase in the number of freelance workers and the decrease in the number of permanent staff. The freelancers are now training themselves because there are insufficient training places. They must pay for their own training and undertake it during their working hours. That is of great concern.
Training goes hand in hand with equal opportunities. There is no doubt that women and ethnic minorities need training so that they can expect to be drawn into the industry and kept at a certain level. I am grateful to the Minister but I shall consider introducing another amendment relating to training. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Licences under Part I]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert ("or (2) (aa) or (b)").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 to 38 and 240 to 244. They are not designed to achieve a moratorium on takeovers, about which the Government have a separate amendment that we shall debate on another occasion. Clauses 5(3) and 83(3) make provision for the ITC to revoke a licence after it has been granted. As they stand, these clauses could not be invoked if a relevant change occurred after the licence had been awarded but before it had been granted. These amendments provide the appropriate enabling power.
"Relevant change" is defined in the amendments as a change in the ownership or control of a prospective or existing licensee which would have led the regulatory body not to award a licence if the change had occurred before the licence was awarded. Where such revocation of a licence takes place, the subsequent award of the licence is operated as if the person who has had his licence revoked had not applied for it in the first place. In other words, the licence would pass to the runner-up in the original selection process provided that he was prepared to take the licence on. If he was not, it would be offered to the third placed applicant, and so on.
I feel sure that Members of the Committee will not want ITC or Radio Authority licensees to slip through the ownership net and will support the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [General licence conditions]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("during the period for which it is in force,") and insert ("at such times thereafter as may be determined by or under the licence,").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 31 and 32 and 236 to 239. The first two amendments, which were suggested by the IBA, give the ITC more flexibility in charging licence fees. As the Bill is drafted, the ITC may charge a fee on the grant of the licence or during the period for which it is in force, or both. What it cannot do, however, is to charge a fee on a regular basis from the date on which the licence is granted. The amendments will provide that flexibility. This will be helpful to the ITC since there could be quite a long period—perhaps over a year—between the grant of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence and its coming into force.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are purely drafting amendments. The four amendments to Clause 82 are Radio Authority equivalents. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("determined by or under the licence") and insert ("so determined").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Ardwick Lord Ardwick moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4. line 13, at end insert:
("( ) conditions enabling the Commission to supervise and enforce technical standards in connection with the provision of the licensed service;").
The noble Lord said: I intend to move this amendment formally. It gives the ITC a role in enforcing technical standards of television. I understand that the Minister said in Committee in another place that the Government intend to introduce that provision in due course. I hope that the course is run, the day is here and that the Minister is able to give me an assurance that the amendment is acceptable.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am unaware of that last statement. However, I shall try to explain the Government's view on this matter. The amendment would enable the ITC to impose licence conditions regulating technical standards for television programme services. There are strong commercial pressures for broadcasters to achieve high technical standards. Viewers in this country are used to a high picture quality. Any television service which cuts corners on technical standards would, therefore, risk losing viewers.
Nonetheless, we believe that it is sensible to give to the ITC power to impose conditions about picture quality, coverage and reliability on the licences for the main services—Channels 3, 4 and 5. Clause 61 provides for that. In addition, it places an analogous
98
duty on the Welsh authority in relation to S4C. However, we do not believe that it is necessary to give the ITC similar powers in relation to all other television services. With the BBC and Channels 3, 4 and 5 acting as a benchmark, there will be strong commercial pressure on the other services to maintain technical standards. Picture quality of cable television is not directly regulated at present but, as the noble Lord may know, the picture quality can be very high.
I hope with that explanation and the fact that Clause 61 provides what the noble Lord seeks, he will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Birk: Are the Government intending to bring in an amendment in a different clause? I do not believe that the position to which the Minister referred has yet brought forth any new amendment from the Government.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As I understand it—and I shall need to look closely at this matter—the Government undertaking to which the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, referred related to Clause 61.
Lord Ardwick: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 15, at end insert:
("(e) conditions which require the licence-holder to comply with directions given by the Commission, and also with rules made by the Charity Commissioners, for the making of broadcast appeals for public support by money, goods or services for charitable objects.").
The noble Lord said: Having moaned about the time, I must be rather brief on this matter. However, it is important and not merely a verbal change. Successive Home Secretaries have received representations and views from me for a long time on this subject. For some period now there has been in existence an all-party group to advise the Home Secretary on the desirable changes in charity law.
Since the publication of the consultative document on the proposed changes in charity law, we have prepared notes on all matters, had them printed and, when the time comes—next year I hope—there will be a charity Bill which will be comprehensive. At that time, much of the work which we have done will bear fruit.
I would not have asked specially for legislation to deal with the matter in the meantime, but long ago I said that if the Broadcasting Bill did come along it would be a suitable time to raise the matter as well as dealing with it in charity law changes next year. What began as low expectations in television appeals for charitable purposes grew to mammoth proportions. There are now three television appeals for money from the public—the BBC "Children in Need", "Telethon" and "Comic Relief". Between them they raise around £50 million per year.
When the origins of the appeals were investigated, the administrative provisions, the accountability for

99
the money and ensuring that everything was in order, one was initially given little assurance. It was very much an improvisation when the money began to roll in, and there was no suitable machinery for coping with it. I do not want to raise doubts regarding the way the appeals have been made or conducted; I merely say that they have not been business like and could not have satisfied the Comptroller and Auditor General. Self-regulation entered into the picture some time ago. The Charity Commissioners lent their assistance to the administrative side of the appeals to satisfy themselves that the public interest was fully safeguarded.
Two questions arise concerning the appeals. First, I do not know what authority a broadcasting corporation has for entering the field of large scale fund-raising for charity. Secondly, I do not believe that it was ever contemplated when television began that there would be a time during the year when broadcasting authorities would set aside a large slice of their normal programme time for money-raising efforts on the screen to secure large scale donations to charity. That is what now happens.
At the beginning of this year we were told that every fortnight there would be a trailer for "Telethon", the great day of collection being in the month of May. So it was. Emotional pictures were shown of hardship and deprivation; calls for assistance piled up. Then the great day came. And £24 million was raised. I need scarcely say that there was a lot of contrivance about the raising of so great a sum. All sorts of devices were adopted—quite honourable and worthy—in order to build the collection up to the climax which one saw. The question is: who receives the money? How is it distributed? How is it decided who receives what? Those are matters which must be looked at.
I do not complain that there are serious grounds for doubt, although there were at one time. We have taken evidence from all these people. The all-party group has gone into these matters very carefully and the people concerned have been very frank with us. I do not make any hostile comments about the appeals. I merely say that for their own good and for public satisfaction they should be brought within a certain framework of control.
Why control by the Independent Television Commission? It is because matters of policy are involved. When three television programmes raise £50 million and aim at raising another £50 million as time goes on they will be the largest charitable patrons in the land. They will be able to influence the Government's social policy. It depends what they select for their attention as to whether the statutory benefits are any longer needed or what may be needed to supplement them. We cannot know where we are going when three bodies can distribute nearly £100 million.
Another matter of policy is that the commission should be able to say to licence holders what it thinks about their efforts in this field, especially as their authority is so hazy. Who set them about it? Who put
100
them in the position of being box-rattlers around the land for charitable purposes of their own choosing? They choose their own local trustees and appoint their own people and trust them to look after the business side of the matter. The commission should be able to exercise some influence over general policy.
Another item of general policy is that although these vast sums are being collected for charity they exclude animals. Why do they exclude animals? By what right do they decide that nothing shall go to animal charities? "Oh", they say, "they have plenty of money already". There you are, an ex-parte judgment by the people with the box in their hands, who say they will not give it to animals because they already have enough money. That is ridiculous. We must have policy, public considerations, social considerations and governmental attitudes all syphoned into the policy judgment of the ITC. That is why I say that in this regard the licence holders should comply with the directions given by the commission.
The Charity Commissioners come into the situation in regard to administration. We should have, especially under the new regime, Charity Commissioners with teeth, who can go into these appeals and decide what their requirements are, either in law or in oversight of administrative practices. That is where the Charity Commissioners must come in. Incidentally, we might have to bring in other public corporations sooner or later. I do not know what authority the Post Office had last year to invent a charity stamp and charge the public one penny more for it, hoping to raise £1 million. It raised only half of that amount and the Post Office has still to tell me where that money has gone. It is ridiculous for the Post Office to say that a decision to put one penny on Christmas postage stamps for charity purposes was made in the ordinary course of commercial policy. That is absolute rubbish. The Post Office set out to be a beneficial organisation. It wanted to gather public sympathy. It thought it would overcome the public objections to late deliveries. The Post Office took the attitude, "We are in the charity business. Look what good fellows we are!". They wanted us to forgive them for delivering the morning mail at 11 o'clock. They wanted us to believe that they were doing their best.
I hope that I will receive a sufficiently favourable answer to avoid keeping the Committee until midnight. The Government have had enough notice. The all-party committee came to the conclusion that self-regulation was all right for the time being, and self-regulation it is. Not until the ITC comes in will the oversight come into operation, and not until the charity law is altered will the other part come into operation. However, to anticipate the two is prudent in the circumstances. It is a big responsibility.
I will not entertain the Committee any longer with what goes on to raise £50 million for charity every time the television appeals are made. I can tell the Committee that it is a fascinating story. Why have all these people from the commercial sector in "Telethon" and "Comic Relief"? Does the Committee know that "Comic Relief" is a private company organised and run specifically to deliver money to

101
charity? What about that? That is a new feature. When we tackled "Comic Relief" about some of the incidental effects of what it was doing, one of its representatives brashly said: "We have a good product and we are going to sell it".
That. is a very nice approach to charitable fund raising. It probably brings in the money. They know what to do. There are a few homeless people a hundred yards from my home. They were to be photographed and put on the screen. Someone is needed just to nudge an organisation now and again and say "You are a public corporation asking the public for money. You are getting millions of pounds and you are being trusted. You are held in high regard. Do not spoil it, but let us see what you are doing and how you are doing it in order to assure the public that everything is above board". In addition, account should be taken of what people think on the management side of the ITC and also on the government side of the role of public institutions that go into fund raising in a very big way.
10 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, may not be aware that Clause 7(1) (b) already requires the ITC to draw up a code giving guidance on the rules to be observed when making appeals for donations in programmes. Perhaps I may read part of the clause to him:
"The Commission shall draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance …
(b) as to the rules to be observed with respect to the inclusion in such programmes of appeals for donations and … the Corn fission shall do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the code are observed in the provision of licensed services".
Adherence to the code proposed in Clause 7 will certainly be required in the licence conditions. We would expect the ITC to take account of the Charity Commissioners rules in drawing up the code. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will understand that the ITC will take its responsibilities in this area. very seriously.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I shall let the matter rest there for the moment. We are getting on. What has been put on the record should be taken note of in the various quarters concerned. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4 line 15, at end insert:
("( )) In the case of a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service, the Commission shall include such conditions as it considers necessary to secure that the service provided under the proposals submitted by the licence holder under section 15(3) (b), (c) and (d) conforms to the detail of those proposals.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple and straightforward amendment though we regard it as a very important one. We are seeking to require the ITC to include programme promises in the licence conditions. The Bill contains extensive sanctions for the regulatory bodies against franchised bidders who fail to adhere to their licence conditions.
Therefore, it seems to us that it is vital that the programme promises made by the bidders for a licence at the application stage are written into the licence so that the licensees can be forced to adhere to them. From my own experience of the present. Broadcasting Act, if this kind of provision can be written into the new Act and made to stick, it will greatly assist the viewers and listeners in ensuring that those who acquire what we hope will be lucrative and profitable contracts will fulfil the programme promises that they make.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, at an earlier stage in the debate this evening pointed out some of the historic occasions when those who have enjoyed commercial television contracts on the basis of differing promises have found them extremely difficult to fulfil. I myself have had some experience of that. As I said on an earlier occasion, I am a critic of this Bill. I feel that the power of the ITC will be considerably more effective than the power of the IBA has been in the past provided that the programme promises themselves are thoroughly spelt out and included in the licence conditions. I beg to move.
Lord Ardwick: I rise briefly to support the amendment. If one wants to make sure that a company keeps its promises, one has to put its promises into the licence conditions. The amendment makes it a duty of the ITC to do exactly that. The quality threshold has been strengthened in the Bill, yet in adverse circumstances—if one has been in Fleet Street trying to follow a noble path one knows how those circumstances can occur—the quality could slip. The strain on the promises a company made on some glad morning when it put in its application could be considerable in days when the revenue goes down, when competition for advertisements becomes desperate and a perverse public is not renewing its subscriptions. That is why it is essential for the ITC to have an effective monitoring system and sanctions that can be enforced. The ITC can insist on detailed applications and has the power to fine and revoke licences. That means that it must monitor. Monitoring should be explicit in the Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: There is a good deal of merit in the amendment from the point of view of the people putting in their bids. If they knew that this was there and that it would be checked up on, they would be less likely to make flippant suggestions in order to look attractive at the time. I hope that some words can be introduced into the Bill at an early stage to issue that warning.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We certainly envisage that the ITC will operate the licence procedure in relation to Channel 3 as set out in this amendment. The applicant's programme proposals are the basis on which he is awarded the licence. They must be incorporated into the licence conditions. Indeed the only way the licensee will be under a contractual requirement to meet his programme promises will be if they form part of the licence conditions. For that reason we have put down a government amendment, Amendment No. 177, which relates to Channel 3 and to Channel 5 and which will fully achieve the purpose

103
of this amendment. I hope that when noble Lords study what I have said they will understand the Government's position, which is entirely in line with their wishes.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am most indebted to the noble Lord for that response. I had not reached Amendment No. 177 on the Marshalled List. In the light of the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 31 and 32:
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("The") and insert ("A").
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("that tariff, and every revision of it,") and insert ("every such tariff").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Rights of Way Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Gaming Amendment Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE: ELIGIBILITY
  SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE: ELIGIBILITY
  PROCESSED ANIMAL MATERIAL
  PROCESSED ANIMAL MATERIAL
  CHILDREN ACT 1989
  CHILDREN ACT 1989
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: ASSAULTS
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: ASSAULTS
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PROTOCOL No. 6
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PROTOCOL No. 6
  SHOT GUN AND FIREARMS CERTIFICATES
  SHOT GUN AND FIREARMS CERTIFICATES
  PRISONERS: SUICIDE PREVENTION
  PRISONERS: SUICIDE PREVENTION
  POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT: REVISED CODES OF PRACTICE
  POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT: REVISED CODES OF PRACTICE
  CAMBODIA: ASSISTANCE
  CAMBODIA: ASSISTANCE