Sitting of 18 July 1990

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

    Short-termism
    Mr. John Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to make any proposals to counter short-termism in British industry.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): Like my right hon. predecessor, to whom I pay tribute, I recognise the importance of this issue. Companies' ability to invest for the long term is a function of their profitability. The profitability of British industry has returned of late to the highest level for 20 years and business investment has consequently reached record levels.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell the House that on his appointment he was able to convey to the Prime Minister the magnitude of his task in repairing the damage that has been done to British industry because of short-termism? Does he recognise that it is also a malady which appertains to his own job? Can he again assure the House of his long-term commitment to industry?
    Mr. Lilley: I have a long-term commitment to industry—have no fear—although I understand that the time customarily spent in this Department is shorter rather than longer. I shall certainly do all in my power to ensure that British industry continues to be profitable and therefore remains in a position to invest for the long term, as it has increasingly done under the Government.
    Mr. Batiste: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to this important job. Will he consider whether short-termism is largely due to the fact that because of our tax system too much of British savings is channeled to institutions whose fund managers are subject to short-term pressures? Is not the solution to encourage individuals to save more directly in United Kingdom industry?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he has hit upon an important point which lies behind some of the measures that we have taken in recent years to encourage direct individual saving in industry. Companies benefit from and welcome a large mass of individual direct shareholders and we are glad that there are now 11 million direct shareholders in British industry.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post. On countering short-termism, as the right
    982
    hon. Gentleman has moved from the Treasury, does he agree with the Chancellor on economic and monetary union that
    "we are all committed to this goal",
    or does he agree with his predecessor, who said in his resignation letter that
    "economic and monetary union … would be a disaster"?
    Does he agree with the Chancellor—[nterruption.] This is about the long-term future of British industry—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am no great expert on economic matters, but surely the question relates to short-termism.
    Mr. Brown: On the question of the long-term view for this country and for industry, does the Secretary of State agree with the Chancellor that the hard ecu is one possible route to a single currency, or does he hold to the view that a single currency without a single European Government is almost inconceivable—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very long question.
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I am glad to find myself opposite him again. It should be no surprise to him that I entirely endorse the position of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and indeed the whole Government, on the issue of the hard ecu and EMU. That should be no surprise as, until a few hours ago, I had some responsibility under the Chancellor for that policy.

    Airline Competition
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure greater competition amongst British airlines to prevent the development of a monopoly by any one airline; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend will continue to exercise his powers, where appropriate, under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and other competition legislation. In particular, he will continue to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission those mergers in the airline industry that appear to raise United Kingdom competition or other public interest issues.
    However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has specific responsibility for airlines in the United Kingdom. His policy, which I support fully, is to encourage a sound and competitive industry with a variety of airlines while promoting healthy competition in all markets, in the interests of consumers.
    Mr. Amos: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Given that competition invariably benefits the consumer through lower fares, more choice and a higher quality service, will he do his best to ensure that the smaller airlines are given every possible assistance and encouragement to resist the predatory and often unfair trading practices of British Airways? Despite British Airways' massive economies of scale, its prices are up to 40 per cent. higher than those of the smaller airlines. It also operates an unhealthy monopoly on the London to Newcastle route.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend identifies an important point. I agree that smaller airlines have an important part to play in maintaining a healthy, competitive airline

    983
    industry. I am conscious of the importance of smaller airlines and small airports to the economic development of the regions which I visit in the course of my ministerial duties.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that when Mr. Michael Bishop and British Midland Airways applied for licences to fly between Glasgow and London, they stated that, if they were given those licences, they would compete fairly with British Airways in terms of price and service? Now that British Midland is no longer competing with British Airways in terms of price, it is complaining when British Airways gives a better service to passengers on flights between Glasgow and London. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman inform British Midland that, instead of trying to stop the service that British Airways provides for people travelling on that route, it should compete in terms of price? Will the Government break the pricing cartel of British Midland and British Airways?
    Mr. Hogg: These are essentially matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but I shall ensure that he is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's views.
    Mr. Hill: Why is it almost impossible to have deregulation in the United Kingdom and Europe? America ably achieved deregulation almost overnight. Does not the international aviation industry compete with aviation industries in other countries? Rather than encouraging competition between United Kingdom airlines, we should open the markets to all, resulting in lower fares throughout Europe and the world generally.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am in favour of considerable competition, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that we must carry many other countries with us on the subject of further deregulation.

    Rover Group
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to respond to the European Community's recent communication on the sale of the Rover Group.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: As yet we have not received the formal decision letter from the Commission. When we do, we will reply expeditiously. We have decided, subject to any representations by British Aerospace, to accept the Commission's decision on repayment.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he ask the new Secretary of State whether he will clear up the mess created by his two predecessors and tell the House, as he must tell the Commission in due course, the details of the secret tax incentives given to Rover and British Aerospace for the shabby Rover deal? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask the new Secretary of State to condemn his predecessors for their deception of the House and the Commission?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman raised two points. I wish first to say something about my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State. In this respect, I speak on behalf of all Ministers and officials who had the privilege of serving under him. We very much regret what happened. My right hon. Friend was held in the highest affection and respect by those who knew him well, and I
    984
    have a low opinion of those who now try to make personal political capital out of his misfortune. As to the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer to the question.
    Mr. Hogg: On the question of taxation, our position has always been that Rover Group and British Aerospace will be treated in precisely the same way as any other taxpayer. There is nothing in the Commission decision that casts doubt on that approach. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) owes the House an apology because he spoke of hidden tax concessions and, despite very careful scrutiny by the Commission, there is no evidence whatever of that.
    Sir Hal Miller: I thank my hon. amd learned Friend the Minister for his generous tribute to the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I should like to be associated with that. Will he include in any response to the European Commission the fact that Rover had accumulated an overhang of £1·4 billion under the Varley-Marshall guarantee and had a further £1 billion investment programme? Had it remained in the public sector, there would thus have been potential for almost £2·5 billion in aid, which would have stuck a great deal more in the EEC craw than the minor sums that we are discussing.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. He might also like to address his mind to two other matters. First, what was done has safeguarded about 190,000 jobs. Secondly, when Rover Group was in public ownership it gobbled up £3·5 billion which could otherwise have been more profitably used.
    Mr. Leighton: Although the Minister's Department is called the Department of Trade and Industry, does he agree that Britain is not allowed to have a trade policy because it is decided in Brussels? In view of what happened to Rover Group, it seems that we are not allowed to have an independent industrial policy either. Does the Minister agree that Sir Leon Brittan is now more powerful than he was when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Do not the Minister's civil servants tell him every day, "Minister, you cannot do this, that or the other because Brussels will not allow it", and is not that what irked the previous Secretary of State and made him rather vexed?
    Mr. Hogg: First, it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not here on 28 June 1990 when he might have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Secondly, I understood that Labour was pretending to be a European party, but Labour Back Benchers are showing that they have an extreme dislike of the European Community. It would be interesting to know which represents the proper view in the Labour party.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that people in the west midlands are heartily sick and tired of all the accusations being levelled at Rover Group and British Aerospace? Car workers in the west midlands are anxious to get on with making the cars that are necessary for our economic improvement. In view of what the European Commission may say, will my hon. and learned Friend go ahead and tell it that negotiations between the

    985
    companies and the Inland Revenue were entirely their own affair and that the benefits, if any, which might accrue from those negotiations can be set against the enormous amount of investment by British Aerospace and Rover Group in ever more credible products for the market?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I suspect that his constituents were also interested in the express finding by the Commission that a sale price of £150 million was correct and reasonable. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has alleged from time to time that that was an undervaluation.
    Mr. Gordon Brown indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head because I have his quotes. It is time that he apologised for being so misleading.
    Mr. Henderson: Before the Minister gets too carried away, will he confirm that he expects to have to give a full, written report to the Commission about the tax concessions?
    Mr. Hogg: The Commission has made it plain that Rover Group and British Aerospace should be treated like any other taxpayer. That is what we have always proposed to do.

    Buy British Campaign
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received in favour of a "buy British" campaign.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): My Department has received a number of such representations. We recognise the advantages of purchasing British products when they are competitive in design, quality and price.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will be visiting my constituency of Basildon next Wednesday to launch the "buy British goods from Basildon" campaign? Will he join me in congratulating local businesses on their initiative? Does he agree that the success that I am sure the campaign will enjoy will make a valuable contribution to Britain's balance of payments?
    Mr. Forth: I am sure that the sense of delight and honour is shared equally between Basildon and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I am sure that everyone is looking forward to the visit. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has made the important point that it is right that individual areas such as his constituency should take the initiative in ensuring that local companies buy from each other wherever that is possible and justifiable. That will stimulate the local economy and the use of British goods by the British industrial sector. All of that will assist the recovery of Britain's claim in that sector, which we all want.
    Mr. James Lamond: Has the Minister recently taken the opportunity to shop in C and A, British Home Stores or Littlewoods, and has he tried to find anything British among their stocks of shirts, underwear and suits? Is he aware that it is difficult to buy British, even if one wants to
    986
    do so? With the possible exception of Marks and Spencer, almost every multiple store makes it easy for our competitors to bring foreign textiles into Britain.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I can speak only for myself, and I stand before the House in my British-made suit—
    Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am glad to hear that good news.
    Mr. Forth: It is for each individual to exercise consumer choice and decide whether to buy British goods. If more of us did that, all retail outlets would have to reconsider their sales policies to meet our requirements, but it must be driven by the consumer.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that although "buy British" is a well-intentioned campaign, it might be better to advocate "sell British" because the quality is best and the price most competitive? People should not be forced to buy something that is not the best. No doubt my hon. Friend made his judgment on his smart suit because it was the best and had the most competitive price.
    Mr. Forth: It is worth recording that more than 90 per cent. of the goods and services bought by the Government are from United Kingdom sources. That shows that it is possible, both at the public level and in private purchasing, to strike a balance between value and cost and patriotism. Those ideals are quite consistent and not in contradiction.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister acknowledge that the policies that the Government have pursued have brought about the worst manufacturing trade deficit in history? Will he assure the House that the change of Secretary of State will result in new policies at the Department of Trade and Industry which will set us back on the road to success?
    Mr. Forth: There is no reason why that should be so. I have every confidence that the new Secretary of State will wish to pursue the excellent policies of his predecessors, and so he should. It is well known to all hon. Members—except, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman—that the Department of Trade and Industry, under successive Secretaries of State, has created an economic and industrial climate in which British industry can fight back against an increasingly competitive world trading position and, indeed, improve Britain's trading position. It is only against the background of our taxation policies, our industrial relations policies and our concentration on improvement of management that we can do that. I am confident that the future will lead us further in that direction.

    European Single Market
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the measures so far agreed for the creation of the single European market have yet to be implemented by the United Kingdom, and what is the comparable figure for other member states.
    Mr. Lilley: The United Kingdom, with Denmark, has the best record of implementing single market measures. Of the 95 measures that should by now be in force, only 13 remain to be implemented in the United Kingdom. That figure is twice as good as the average for other member

    987
    states. The country with the next best record to that of the United Kingdom is the Federal Republic of Germany. I am arranging for a full list to be printed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his promotion, and I wish him well. I thank him for those figures. Do not they show that we are true and honest leaders in the creation of a single European market? Does he agree that Labour would sell its soul and that of the nation over Europe—this time for a few deutschmarks, but usually for a lot less?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his remarks. The United Kingdom was very much the first and strongest supporter of the single European market, has been consistent in implementing its measures, and is the most effective in enforcing them. We continue to take a lead in ensuring that the single European market is carried through to a successful completion. We know that the Opposition's hearts are not in it because they do not support the underlying philosophy of the single market.
    Mr. Beith: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. Does he believe that the European Commission should be extremely active in promoting adherence to the single European market in all member countries and in bringing to book any country that fails fully to co-operate, or if the Commission does so, will the Secretary of State accuse it of bullying and interference in the affairs of sovereign states?
    Mr. Lilley: I believe that member countries should implement measures to which they have agreed. However, I am in favour of the minimum of government at all levels.
    Mr. Wells: I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his new appointment. Does he agree that implementation in Europe ought to be followed by enforcement, and that that can be effective only if all the people of a country in which directives are implemented have been consulted as part of the approval process of their national Government and of the Council of Ministers? Does not that provide a clue to the way in which we can help other European countries more quickly to incorporate the directives into their own legislation and to implement them?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important and valuable point. It has always been a tradition in this country that laws are passed after consultation and discussion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—and we want to see the maximum consultation and discussion about European as well as domestic measures as they pass through the House.
    Mr. Caborn: Does the Secretary of State agree or disagree with the view of his predecessor that economic and monetary union will be a disaster—yes or no?
    Mr. Lilley: As I told the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), I entirely support the Government's policy on that issue and had a hand in formulating it. One Friday morning a little while ago, I made a speech elaborating my views in an interesting debate initiated by a Labour Member who does not share the views of the Opposition Front Bench and in which we watched the divisions in the Labour party open very wide.
    Following is the information

    Comparable figures for other member slates are

    Number

    Denmark

    13

    Federal Republic of Germany

    15

    France

    21

    Ireland

    23

    Spain

    26

    Netherlands

    27

    Luxembourg

    30

    Belgium

    32

    Greece

    35

    Portugal

    44

    Italy

    55

    East-West Trade
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings he has had with his counterparts in the countries of eastern Europe in the past six months to discuss east-west trade.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): During the past six months, Department of Trade and Industry Ministers have met their trade or industry counterparts from the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland, as well as other Ministers from Bulgaria and Romania. I myself have held meetings in London with Ministers from Czechoslovakia, the USSR and Hungary, and have visited East Germany, Romania and Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that the fact that the previous Secretary of State was caught in a time warp and expressed extreme chauvinist views did nothing to enable him to encourage trade with eastern Europe, particularly with the German Democratic Republic? Does the hon. Gentleman further agree that the recent increase in premiums by the ECGD has not helped? Will he reconsider those premium levels, particularly as they affect trade with the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made several successful visits to countries in eastern and central Europe, accompanied by business men who were very grateful for the help that he gave in presenting their case in those countries as a source of potential business. The evidence abounds. Joint ventures are increasing, and there is a growth in trade with countries in eastern and central Europe. The time warp is with the Opposition. They are the ones who want policies that failed in east and central Europe. They want to foist back on the British people interventionism, expensive subsidies and sweeteners, at the taxpayers' expense, which would not be successful. [Interruption.] Yes, I use the word "sweeteners". That is exactly what the Labour party wants, at the expense of the British taxpayer, and it would do great damage.
    The Export Credits Guarantee Department makes short-term credits available, on various terms, to all the eastern and central European markets. The implementation of the EMS will be reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome the efforts that have been made by successive Department of Trade and Industry Ministers

    989
    to promote east-west trade. Can my hon. Friend give some examples of joint ventures that, so far, have been successful? That is one way, together with equity participation, in which this country could benefit more from trade with eastern and central European countries.
    Mr. Redwood: Joint ventures span several industries and activities. There are 60 in Poland and 48 in Hungary, by United Kingdom companies that are known to the Department. There may be others. For example, there is a well-known joint venture in railway equipment in Hungary, which is very successful. A British pub is being established in Hungary. A range of consumer and engineering industries will, I am sure, make a great contribution to United Kingdom economic activity in those countries.

    EC Industry Ministers
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which meetings of the European Community's Industry Ministers he has not attended in the past year.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have attended each of the Industry Council meetings during the past year, with the exception of the 28 May 1990 meeting, which was attended by Sir David Hannay, the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Communities.
    Mr. Steinberg: This question was directed at the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I venture to ask whether the new Secretary of State will give an undertaking not to treat those vital meetings in Europe with the contempt shown by his predecessor. Does the Minister share the views of his predecessor on Europe—that Germany is trying to take over the whole of Europe?
    Mr. Hogg: I can suppose only that the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I made the point that I attended all the Industry Council meetings, bar one, during the past year. For completeness of information, may I observe that I attended all five of the Research Council meetings, for which I am also responsible?
    Mr. Kirkhope: In his busy schedule, will my hon. and learned Friend have time to consider one of the latest of the Labour party's policy documents, "Looking to the Future", which I understand is in its first edition? It calls for high spending and interventionist policies. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that those are the very policies that would pull our industry down and leave us looking completely naked whenever we met European Industry Ministers?
    Mr. Hogg: Anybody who has subjected the Labour party's policies to analysis knows that they would result in very much higher taxation, greatly increased public expenditure and a great escalation in the rate of inflation.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful to the whole House if hon. Members asked questions of the Secretary of State and his Ministers instead of asking them to agree with their views.

    Electronic Equipment
    Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of electronic equipment sold in the United Kingdom comes from overseas.
    Mr. Forth: The latest available figures show that 71 per cent. of electronic and information technology equipment sold in the United Kingdom is imported. This figure includes all such equipment, including components. No information is available on finished electronic equipment alone.
    Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. However, what steps is he taking, together with his EEC counterparts, to encourage and develop the component manufacturing industries in Britain and the rest of the EEC, given the large proportion of components of finished electronic equipment that originate from outside Britain and the EEC?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his analysis that that is a problem we all share. When I say "we" I mean all OECD countries because, with the exception of Japan, we all have a trade deficit in information technology. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the good news is that the United Kingdom has a large trade surplus with the rest of the Community countries—£900 million last year—in this category of equipment. Therefore, we are positive and optimistic, as we are entitled to be. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends persist, as they seem to, in looking on the gloomy and pessimistic side, downgrading the performance of British industry, they must answer for that. We like to recognise success when it occurs.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend tell the House on what grounds GEC and Siemens have recently been released from many of the undertakings that they gave less than a year ago in the context of their takeover of Plessey?
    Mr. Forth: Regrettably, I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question because it is not part of my responsibility. I can assure him that we shall look carefully at his point and I shall ask my colleagues to give him an answer as quickly as possible.

    Rover Group
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the net benefit to the taxpayer of the sale of Rover to British Aerospace; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The sale of Rover Group for the best available price brought considerable benefits for taxpayers. It relieved them of responsibility for a company which had swallowed up £3·5 billion in the past and which carried the contingent liability of the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances. That stood at £1·6 billion in March 1988 and was set to rise significantly over the corporate plan period. The deal also safeguarded over 190,000 jobs, mainly in the west midlands.
    Mr. Nellist: What is the chance of the new Secretary of State taking a leaf out of Hercules' book and cleaning out this particular Augean stable, the smell of which has ripened substantially in the past week with the revelation

    991
    that eight secret meetings took place between his Department, British Aerospace and the Inland Revenue between March and July 1988 and that £411 million in secret tax concessions was offered as a further sweetener to British Aerospace? What hold does British Aerospace have over his Department, or does the Minister intend to deny that those discussions took place?
    Mr. Hogg: This is a continuing effort on behalf of the Labour party to impose on British Aerospace substantially increased burdens. The Commission has reviewed all those matters and reached a considered view. One of the findings was that £150 million was a fair and reasonable price. It also reviewed the tax questions. The time has come for the Labour party to tell the House whether it accepts the Commission's findings. If it does, it must eat an awful lot of humble pie.
    Mr. Oppenheim: If there was a hidden subsidy, surely one might expect the Opposition to approve of it, bearing in mind the fact that they are in favour of industrial subsidies and that they gave the British car industry billions of pounds. Is their sudden distaste for subsidies a genuine change of heart, showing that they have embraced the free market, or is it the usual mixture of hypocrisy and opportunism?
    Mr. Hogg: Unquestionably the latter.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: So that there is no misunderstanding on the matter, will the Minister confirm that he knows that the Commission is not yet satisfied about the tax arrangements governing that deal? Will he further confirm that he knows that it is demanding a written report on the arrangements that are made, and when the report is done, will he agree to place it in the Library so that everyone can see it?
    Mr. Hogg: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have made it absolutely plain to the House that it has always been our intention to ensure that British Aerospace and Rover Group are treated in the same way as any other taxpayer. The Commission is simply seeking an assurance to that effect. The hon. Gentleman has some answering and apologising to do. Why does he persist in alleging undervaluation when he knows perfectly well that the Commission found that it was a fair and reasonable price?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harry Greenway. Question 10. [Interruption.] Order.
    Mr. Cryer: It is the only way we can get in.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going very slowly at the moment.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
    Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is Question Time for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Will we hear from him again?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Hogg: Terrible bleats are coming from the Opposition. I fancy that they do not like being knocked about.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives from the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the performance of British manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters. Manufacturing industry is stronger today than at any time in the past. Output, investment, productivity and exports were all at record levels in 1989 and have risen yet further this year.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that exports were up 55 per cent. in volume in 1989 compared with 1981? Do not those figures reflect the efficiency of British industry and the effectiveness of Government policy? Do not they also give the lie to the constant bleating of the Labour party that manufacturing industry is doing less well than it is?
    Mr. Hogg: The figures given by my hon. Friend are wholly right, as are his conclusions, but the figures are even better than he suggested. As he will know, in the three months to May this year, exports of manufactures, excluding oil and erratics, were 14 per cent. higher in volume terms than in the same period last year.
    Mr. Hoyle: What representations has the Minister received from the CBI about the effect of high interest rates on industry? Will he put on record the fact that although our exports may have grown, imports have grown more rapidly and that by the end of the year we shall have a record deficit in our balance of trade? Is not that a failure by the Government?
    Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman would know if he studied these things, the CBI is bullish about the prospects of the British economy. It is concerned about the high levels of inflation that it enjoyed under a Labour Government, which it would certainly enjoy under a future Labour Government were there ever to be one, and it is firmly behind Government policy to use interest rates as a mechanism for reducing inflationary pressures.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the increasing number of small companies that are going into receivership, partially due to high interest rates being used as the sole weapon against inflation? Does he consider that that further damages our manufacturing base?
    Mr. Hogg: A dynamic economy implies that businesses both start and end. I am happy to say that the net increase in businesses has been high. Between the end of 1981 and the end of 1988, business starts exceeded stops by 238,000 or, using the current figures based on VAT registration, 1,600 more new companies start each week than close.
    Ms. Quin: Will the Minister confirm that between 1979 and 1987 the annual growth of exports was lower in Britain than in any other European country? Is he prepared to meet industrialists and to discuss further the concerns that they expressed to the Department at the recent conference on short-termism because they were worried about the future of manufacturing in this country?
    Mr. Hogg: It is always a pleasure to talk to industrialists and indeed to anyone else who cares to talk to me or my right hon. Friend. I do not understand why the Labour party continues to poor-mouth industry. Why does not the hon. Lady concentrate on economic growth, which between 1981 and 1989 increased at an average of 3·2 per cent., while in a similar period in West Germany it increased by 2·2 per cent. only and in France by 2·1 per cent. only. Labour should concentrate on the main facts, I say.

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department spent in 1989–90, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product; and what information he has on the comparable figure for the Japanese Ministry of International Trade.
    Mr. Lilley: Expenditure by the DTI last year was one quarter per cent. of GDP whereas general expenditure by Japan's Ministry of International Trade proportionate to GDP was one third lower, even though its responsibilities are wider.
    Mr. Franks: May I add my voice to those welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new office of state? Do not the figures that he has just given give the lie to the frequent claims by the Opposition and the academics so beloved of the Opposition that the Government do not do sufficient to help British industry? Will he reaffirm the Government's principle that the best way to assist British industry is to leave it to get on with its business unfettered by bureaucrats?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is highly significant that the only evidence that the Opposition can adduce to support their policies is the claim that a distant and rather inscrutable economy is run on the lines that they advocate. On closer inspection, the evidence refutes that, as does the experience of Labour Governments.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Japanese Government are clever and sophisticated in their handling of industry, and no one in his right mind could accuse the British Government of that? Does he realise that in one city in Japan there are 86 research clubs that are organised by the Ministry of International Trade in Japan, and that that cost the Ministry nothing more than the paper to call the meetings? That is an example of co-operation and leadership between Government and industry which costs nothing and which the British Government should follow.
    Mr. Lilley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, unlike the Opposition Front Bench, is in favour of a low level of Government expenditure. Japan spends a lower proportion of its GDP on public expenditure than Britain and most European countries; it has a lower level of tax and fewer nationalised industries. As a result of its free enterprise economy, it has harnessed the great skills of the Japanese people very successfully. We have released the energies of the British people by employing the same free market methods.
    Mr. David Shaw: Has my right hon. Friend been able to compare the Japanese Government's policies for industry
    994
    with the proposals in the Labour party's new policy document and the British Government's policies? Does not he consider that the policies of the British Government and of the Japanese Government, in promoting privatisation, competition and free enterprise, are far more successful?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our policies and those of the Japanese Government have much in common. They are flatly contrary to the socialist policies still advocated by the Opposition, although in a new language and in a new guise. I note that Opposition Members do not seek to object to the fact that their policies remain socialistic in their latest policy document.

    Kingfisher/Dixon Takeover Report
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation he estimates his Department paying in the wake of the early release of the Kingfisher/Dixon takeover report.
    Mr. Redwood: I shall continue to consider claims received before the end of this month for losses incurred on the morning of 23 May by those buying Dixon shares, selling Kingfisher shares or dealing in traded options in those securities. I will then be able to estimate more accurately the final cost. Payments will be on the basis of one half of the differences between the price at which the shares or options were bought or sold on the morning of 23 May, and the prices ruling when trading was resumed shortly after 1 pm. I shall take into account corresponding gains from selling Dixons shares or buying Kingfisher shares, or from hedging positions in the options market. The Government have already apologised for that unfortunate event.
    Mr. Marshall: In view of the continuing enormous cost to the taxpayer as a result of the repeated incompetence of his Department, will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that the change of leadership in the DTI will result in no more blunders over City matters? What action has he taken to prevent that from happening again?
    Mr. Redwood: The estimate of the maximum possible cost of the error is around £120,000, but I hope that when I see the final claims, it will be lower than that. The House must understand that the calculations are difficult and we cannot be entirely sure of the final outcome. Of course, it is a worrying sum of money and we have apologised for the mistake. I resent the general inference of the hon. Gentleman's question. A great deal of good regulation is performed by our insurance branch and by the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory organisations. The hon. Gentleman should remember that most of the important regulation of City investment businesses has been given by the House, through the Secretary of State, to the SIB and SROs and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his slur on them. With regard to conduct in my Department, there was an inquiry into that and the necessary steps were taken.

    Post Office Counters
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce plans to privatise the Post Office counters service.
    Mr. Forth: We have taken no decision to privatise Post Office Counters Ltd. The Post Office has a network of some 20,700 post offices, of which some 19,400 are already operated by self-employed agents.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he draw on the experience of many other countries, including, increasingly, several countries in eastern Europe, which are trying as widely as possible to break up the monopoly of the sale of Government services, Government-supplied goods and Government licences? Does he agree that the further introduction of competition in that area can only benefit the consumer of those services?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend knows that we are constantly looking for ways in which we can introduce competition in many areas, to the benefit of the consumer. I am sure that he will also recognise that our Post Office is among the best in the world, because of the level of service that it provides, because it operates at a profit and because its tariff is one of the best, certainly in western Europe. My hon. Friend will agree with me on reflection that we must ensure that we always strike the right balance in those matters so that the consumer and the taxpayer gain the maximum benefit.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can it conceivably be true that the Minister has a possibility of promotion to the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Forth: That question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I hope that he does not ask her.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend do something to encourage the Post Office to tell us exactly what is happening in the service? A post office in my constituency has been under threat for 18 months, initially of closure, but now apparently of being placed on an agency basis and another post office is under a cloud. We want a more effective post office system with a broader range of services, whether on an agency basis or a Crown basis. What we do not want is confusion.
    Mr. Forth: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I am surprised and disappointed at what he said. I hope that he will take the opportunity, if he has not done so already, although I am sure that he has, to take up the matter vigorously with the chairman of the Post Office, who is always prepared to consider such matters. I hope equally that my hon. Friend will recognise that the Post Office is constantly striving to achieve the best level of service together with profitability and the minimum burden on the taxpayer. A lot has been achieved in that direction. If my hon. Friend studies the annual report and accounts of the Post Office, which were published this very morning, he will see a healthy picture.

    Financial Institutions
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has last made of the effectiveness of self-regulation of the financial institutions.
    Mr. Redwood: I am generally happy with the arrangements approved by the House in legislation put through in the past 10 years to strengthen the regulatory
    996
    structures in a variety of City areas. The House has passed the Financial Services Act 1986, the Companies Acts of 1985 and 1989, the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and the insider dealing legislation of 1981. There is a big new system led by the SIB and the SROs in the City.
    Mr. McKay: Does the Minister accept that self-regulation has led to a confused regulatory structure? Will he consult the new Secretary of State and take steps to avert any future collapses such as British and Commonwealth Holdings and Dunsdale Securities by changing the former Secretary of State's disastrous policies and by introducing a fair, effective and independent regulatory body?
    Mr. Redwood: The regulatory bodies are already fair and independent. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw that slur on the work of many fine regulators and regulatory bodies in the City. It is also misleading to call it a self-regulatory system. The system was set up under statute, with very clear powers to the regulator, and with a practitioner involvement. The point of having practitioner involvement is that we need people involved in regulation who know the business world, who get the right sort of rumours about what is going on, who know about the products, and who can help the professional regulators, who are independent and fair-minded and are paid to be so by the regulatory bodies.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is continuing public disquiet and bewilderment at the fact that no action yet appears to have been taken following the report of his Department's inspectors on the Harrods case? Does he recall that, when the previous Secretary of State spoke to the House on that report, he referred many aspects to the financial regulatory bodies? When will we have a decision from those bodies about issues such as the Harrods bank and the merchant bank that advised the Fayeds throughout?
    Mr. Redwood: The bank is not a matter for me or for my Department. The House of Fraser matter is sub judice, as my hon. Friend knows. There is nothing that I can add to the comments that were made to the House by the previous Secretary of State. In many other respects there has been strong follow-up action when problems have arisen, and the Government's policy is to follow up whenever there is a reasonable chance of successfully doing so.

    Departmental Structure
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the future structure of his Department.
    Mr. Lilley: I am proud to have been given responsibility for this great Department of state. I plan to consolidate recent changes in the Department's structure, building on the fine traditions that the DTI and its precursor Departments have established over two centuries in helping markets work and promoting enterprise.
    Mr. Haynes: This Minister has had an easy ride in the Treasury. He has now got a difficult job as Secretary of State for the DTI. His predecessor made a bloomer—he really did—on restructuring, when he said that the best thing to do would be to close down the Department. It is

    997
    no wonder he has gone. The Secretary of State has to sort out the problems of industry and of the deficit. If he does not sort them out, he will land in the river outside in a concrete suit.
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. I know that he is a star on public service television from coast to coast in the United States. I therefore take his warnings and recommendations very seriously indeed. I shall do all in my power to avoid being immersed in concrete.

    Exporters (Assistance)
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what resources have been provided to date to assist small firms to study the potential of new overseas markets under his Department's export marketing research scheme.
    Mr. Redwood: Since the inception of the export marketing research scheme in 1969 some £25 million has been expended in grants. Since 9 May 1990, firms have been eligible for support only if they have fewer than 200 employees. Details of the size of firms using the scheme before then are not available.
    Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the scheme will be immensely beneficial to dozens of small firms in the Stroud valleys in my constituency? Will he ensure that the scheme gets the maximum publicity?
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the scheme. He does much good work with businesses in his constituency. I am delighted to hear that they are taking advantage of the scheme. Question Time is another opportunity to publicise an extremely helpful scheme.

    Ravenscraig Steelworks
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will arrange to meet representatives of the Ravenscraig steelworkers to discuss the future of the plant.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: No, Sir. Representatives of the Ravenscraig work force have already met my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Canavan: Now that we have a new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, can we expect a new attitude towards Scottish steelworkers, who were treated with
    998
    absolute contempt by the previous Secretary of State, who ironically stood by and watched Bob Scholey invest £100 million in Germany rather than in Scotland? In view of British Steel's failure to justify the closure of the hot strip mill and the resultant threat to the Ravenscraig plant, will the Department of Trade and Industry intervene now and tell Scholey that Ravenscraig must be retained in its entirety, in the interests of the Scottish economy and the British steel industry?
    Mr. Hogg: The Labour party is in no position to make such requests. Indeed, as far as I understand it, there is no difference in this respect between the policy of the Government and that of the Labour party. As my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pointed out on 20 June, the Labour party appears not to have the slightest intention of wanting to rescue Ravenscraig, to take the power to issue directives to British Steel or to offer it subsidies. If that is the position, there is really no difference between us. Of course, there is another possibility—that the Labour party wishes to nationalise British Steel, in which case, why does not it tell us so?

    Civil Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what ways his Department is able to assist with the development of Britain's civil aerospace industry.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My Department provides financial support for pre-competitive research and demonstration projects and, funds major development programmes in the United Kingdom civil aircraft industry. It also provides non-financial support for the industry in a variety of ways, for example, by working for open markets in international trade.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concerns that are presently felt in west Lancashire about the cut in expenditure on military aircraft projects. He will also be aware of the efforts that my hon. Friends and I from west Lancashire are making to help to win new civil business for British Aerospace. What help can we expect from his Department in those endeavours?
    Mr. Hogg: I always listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says and to what is said on this important matter by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who is in his place. They have a major contribution to make to the future of the British aircraft industry and I look forward to detailed discussions with them.

Community Care
Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Secretary Clarke.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after the statement.
Mr. Hayes: It relates to the statement, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: How can it be related to the statement when we have not heard it yet?
Mr. Hayes: It is, Mr. Speaker. We have a statement on community care and a debate on community care. I suspect that both are exactly the same—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I suspect that both are exactly the same. So that the maximum number of hon. Members might be called, may I suggest that supplementary questions on the statement should be short? That was my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: That is a helpful suggestion. As we have a statement and a debate, in fairness to the House, I shall allow the statement to go on for about half an hour—depending, of course, on the length of the statement. I now call upon—
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago you had to suspend the House because of the disruption caused by the Secretary of State for Health making a statement and taking up time on an Opposition Supply day. He is now doing exactly the same again. He is cutting into the time of a Supply day by making a statement on exactly the subject that we shall be debating. Opposition parties have no rights to fair play in this House apart from your protection, Mr. Speaker. May I ask what you can do to a Minister who persists in doing this time and time again?
Mr. Speaker: In view of what happened the other day, I have made it my business to find out whether there has been agreement that this statement should be made. I understand that there has.
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's policies for improving care in the community for elderly, disabled, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people. A similar approach is being taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. Their plans will be announced separately in written answers today.
Our policies are aimed at improving social care services by ensuring that they are properly tailored to the needs of individual people. This requires a clear, locally determined set of priorities, and effective collaboration between public, private and voluntary agencies. Our proposals are linked to changes in the financial arrangements for people needing public support in residential care and nursing homes. Local authorities will take over a new responsibility to assess the individual needs of people and to meet the costs of residential or domiciliary care for the particular person in need.
As we have already said, the Government recognise that the local authorities will need adequate resources to enable them to discharge their new responsibilities. The Government will transfer to the local authorities the
1000
resources they would otherwise have provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes. I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the totality of those policies, which have received a wide measure of support.
It has always been clear that the new policies represent a substantial new responsibility for local authorities. Before we implement the new proposals in full, the Government must be satisfied that local authorities can sensibly take on the new duties in a way that is fair both to the people who require services and to their local taxpayers.
Since I announced the Government's proposals last July it has become overwhelmingly clear that many local authorities are not managing their services and their spending so that they deliver good quality services effectively within reasonable spending limits. In many cases—[Interruption.]—as even Opposition Members must have noticed—local authorities have imposed excessive levels of community charge on their residents.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This statement has been foreshadowed in the press. The whole House is anxious to hear what the Secretary of State has to say.
Mr. Clarke: In those circumstances it is only sensible for any additional new burdens on local government in 1991–92 to be kept to an absolute minimum. Local authorities have made it clear that the changes that we propose in community care would lead to many authorities increasing their expenditure and their levels of community charge. This would place a further unacceptable burden on charge payers.
The Government have therefore decided that it would not be right to implement all the new proposals for care in the community simultaneously on 1 April next year. Instead, implementation will go ahead on a phased timetable so that local authorities have longer to come to terms with the need to discharge their duties efficiently and at a cost which their community charge payers can afford.
I intend that as far as possible, the momentum of preparation for the new policy that has already been achieved should be maintained. Therefore, in phase 1, from 1 April next year, I propose to introduce the new inspection units within local authorities, and new complaints procedures. Next year, development work will continue on the new planning arrangements, assessment and case management procedures, and the realignment of commissioning and providing responsibilities within social services departments.
In phase 2, from 1 April 1992, I intend to implement the new planning arrangements for local authorities and health authorities and to continue with the remaining development work. The new system, including the new benefit arrangements, will be fully implemented from 1 April 1993.
The cost of phase 1 of the proposals in 1991–92 has been taken into account in the figures for the local authority settlement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expects to announce shortly. Help through special income support payments will continue to be available to people in private or voluntary residential and nursing homes until phase 3 of the revised

1001
programme is implemented. The White Paper proposals on preservation of benefit rights for people already in homes will also be implemented from April 1993.
Three other important developments will also be implemented straight away from 1 April 1991. First, the new specific grant in support of services for the mentally ill will start from next April. I am confident that the grant will encourage closer co-operation between health and local authorities. It will ensure that in future local authorities give higher priority to services for this group. The grant next year will be paid at the rate of 70 per cent. and will support total expenditure of £30 million.
Secondly, the new specific grant for local authority funding of voluntary bodies which provide services for drugs and alcohol misusers, which the House voted to include in the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 three weeks ago, will commence in 1991. It will be paid at the same rate a s the mental illness specific grant and support expenditure of £2 million. Like the grant for mentall illness services, this will promote the development of more services for a group which has often been afforded low priority.
Thirdly, the specific grant for training of social services staff will be increased to support expenditure of £35·5 million in 1991–92. That is £7·5 million more than in the current financial year. That will enable us to extend the support at present available to those working with the elderly and children to new groups of staff working with mentally ill, mentally handicapped and physically disabled people. It will also enable us to increase our support for post-qualification training. Together, the expenditure supported by those three grants amounts to about £70 million. That has been taken into account in the 1991 settlement for local authority spending, details of which my right hon. Friend expects to announce shortly.
The new policies for care in the community have been almost universally welcomed and they will undoubtedly be put into effect. We are proceeding on a phased basis because of the problems posed by excessive levels of community charge. I hope that everyone will take advantage of the extra time to ensure that they will be even better prepared for successful implementation over the next three years.
Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State recognise that his statement today will be almost universally greeted with anger for its neglect of the most vulnerable people in our community and its contempt for the broken promises it leaves behind? There will also be contempt for the cowardice with which he attempts to palm off the blame on to local authorities.
Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that nobody who works with elderly or handicapped people will be fooled by his efforts to scapegoat the very local authorities that have been working flat out to implement his plans? Does he not know that the local authority associations have furnished his Department with reams of detailed papers on how much it would cost to set up the assessment systems that he wants, to plug the shortfall on DSS payments that he has left behind and to improve the help in the community for which he has asked?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that none of his officials has ever challenged one of those figures? Which of those estimates is wrong and which one, in his judgment, is not reasonable? If he cannot get the resources from the
1002
Treasury, why does he not just put into care in the community the hundreds of millions of pounds he is pouring into his other plans to commercialise the NHS?
What will happen to the old people trapped in homes that charge more than the DSS will pay? Has the Secretary of State forgotten that the remedy proposed by his Government was for the DSS to pay the price of contracts placed by local authorities? Now, no contracts will be placed by local authorities until April 1993. How many elderly people will be put out on the streets by home owners who have given up waiting for the Government to honour their commitments? To those elderly people it will not be the local authorities that are unacceptable—it will be the Government.
Does not the Secretary of State appreciate the irony of his making this statement on the very day that the Prime Minister is billed to make a major statement on the family? How will he explain to more than 1 million carers of elderly parents or handicapped children that, for another two years, the DSS will pay to put granny into a home, but will not pay to provide for help in the carers' homes? Does he not realise the danger that those carers will regard the chatter about the party of the family as so much cant? What instructions will the Secretary of State for Health give hospital managers about how to respond to his own delay on the care in the community proposals? Now that he has put them off for two years, will he put off for two years the flood of closures of geriatric wards around the country?
The House has today heard a shameful statement which breaks a commitment that the Secretary of State has repeatedly made to the House. In a more honourable period in the history of the House, the statement would have ended with his resignation. Will he accept that we are grateful to him for his statement for one reason: he has removed all doubt as to the priority the Government attach to elderly and disabled people—they come at the bottom of the Treasury's spending commitments. I promise the Secretary of State that we shall ensure that that message is understood by all elderly or disabled people who need care in the community, and by everyone who cares for them.
Mr. Clarke: Every time this subject is raised in the House, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) rises to his feet and puts forward with great vigour some opinion or other. I say "some opinion or other" because he has spun like a top on the whole subject ever since we produced the White Paper. He has attacked the policy; he has supported the policy; he has said that we are going too fast; he has said that we are going too slow. When we produced the White Paper he attacked it as "Thatcherism's last hurrah"; today he defends it and criticises me because I am phasing in the introduction of our policy for improving services to the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. He supports the policy vigorously, telling me to go faster. That is because the Labour party has no policy whatever to improve services to these disadvantaged groups.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman tosses out words about the expenditure figures that might be involved. Last week, he was reported as saying that local authorities will require £1,500 million more next year for personal social services policies—a 40 per cent. increase. He gave no explanation of where that money was going to come from. I do not believe for a moment that he had the authority of his

1003
shadow Treasury colleagues to put that view forward. What annoyed me and would annoy other people was his total indifference to charge payers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. The hon. Gentleman is wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question about figures.
The hon. Gentleman was wrong when he gave the reasons for the postponement. The reason for postponement is to protect the charge payer against the costs of proceeding with the policy so quickly when it will be implemented by people who are as irresponsible about public spending as the hon. Gentleman.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the position of people in homes. The present system will continue for the next two years. The Government are already spending more than £1 billion, through income support, to support people living in residential homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has uplifted the contribution from income support to such homes, and he is reviewing the system again, with the assistance of a Price Waterhouse inquiry into costs.
The Government have put unprecedented sums of money into the care of elderly, mentally ill, mentally handicapped and disabled people in private homes, and in public and private sector community care. We intend to continue to do so. My statement today is a common-sense way to proceed with that policy in the light of irresponsible behaviour by largely socialist local authorities, up and down the country, who cannot keep their polices within reasonable costs.
Sir David Price: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept from the many Conservative Members with some experience of care in the community that his announcement today that the Government now accept that the new enhanced care in the community policy requires phasing means that they are at last facing reality? Will he accept that the need out there is vast, and that neither side of the House—
Mr. William O'Brien: When did the Tories realise?
Sir David Price: Many years ago, and I have practised it for the past 26 years. Neither side of the House has the funds or the authority to commit the necessary funds to the problem—we have been raising expectations unrealistically.
What will be the new formula for care in the community within the total grant support formula for local authorities to make it possible to make progress? Making progress is the most that any of us can realistically expect to do.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Social Services Select Committee which only yesterday commended a more phased approach to the policy, and said that it had always had doubts about our proceeding at the pace originally proposed.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the enormous extent of demand which can be met by improved care in the community policies. We have to ensure that the resources and the arrangements for management are put in place properly to meet priority needs, within the ability of the
1004
charge payer and the taxpayer to afford them. We have been giving those resources. Local authority personal social services spending is up 47 per cent. in real terms during the lifetime of this Government. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our record. We have to ensure that our new improved policies are put in place in a sensible and paced way.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that those private and voluntary bodies that are lethargic or have never taken the Government's programme seriously have nothing to fear from his statement, but those bodies that are anxious to provide community care as the Government think they should, that have shown entrepreneurial skills and already have projects up and running, because the Government gave a commitment on when they could compete for contracts, are left in a no man's land? I give an example: the Vincent Harkness day care centre in Birkenhead is paying £100,000 a year out of its funds because it believed the Government's word. Will an announcement be made about extra funds so that those bodies—private and voluntary—that believed the Government and have projects up and running will not be left stranded and, in the end, bankrupted?
Mr. Clarke: I do not know the voluntary body to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but voluntary bodies that are opening day centres for various groups of clients usually look to income support for most of their income. Most accept that income support cannot meet the entire cost, and they expect to top up the amount with either their charitable funds or funds from the local authority.
The income support arrangements will continue. Those voluntary bodies that rely on income support will get it for two years until the new system is introduced. A body that at the moment has a day care centre up and running without income support must be relying on local authority grant, and a local authority that makes that provision out of aggregate Exchequer grant will continue to do so. No money is flowing to any voluntary body today under the new community care proposals. I have announced a phased timetable which will enable that money to flow in due course when the local authorities can manage the policy sensibly.
Miss Emma Nicholson: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to community care and the phased introduction, which is sensible and timely. I particularly welcome his funding for the mentally ill and his specific assurance that this will bring the care of the mentally ill into higher profile in the public eye and among those who serve them, Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that this will give the lie to those who stated that the introduction of the community charge would ensure that services to the mentally ill would dwindle and vanish? He has given that assurance and ensured that the mentally ill will be properly cared for, in a way that will certainly never happen under a Labour Government.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There has been speculation in advance of today's statement to the effect that community care for mentally ill people was threatened by the postponement. That is not the case. We recognise the urgent need to develop the community side of services for mentally ill people and to help local

1005
authorities to give it much higher priority in their plans. We are going ahead with the new specific grant. The expenditure that it supports—£30 million in the first year—is almost double local authority spending on residential personal social services for the mentally ill which, according to the last available figure, was £32 million.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the timing of this afternoon's announcement has more to do with the timing of the next election than anything else? Does he accept that the misery which is being imposed for another two or three years on the millions of people who require care must be added to the list of casualties that are a direct result of the introduction of the community charge—
Mr. Bob Cryer: Poll tax.
Mr. Kirkwood: —or poll tax? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that community care is already in operation in many constituencies? Is he aware also that, if he does not provide the money over the next two years, it will have to be found by reducing existing services?
Mr. Clarke: The policy was proceeding with a general welcome—once the Opposition decided that they had nothing to put in its place and were going to support it —until we reached the problem with the community charge. The hon Gentleman is certainly not the last to say that we have a problem with the overall level of the community charge. It is producing unacceptable burdens on some taxpayers in those local authorities where the level is excessive.
Any hon. Member who proposes seriously to address the worries of his or her constituents about the community charge should look to next year when we are implementing the Children Act 1989 and the Food Safety Act 1990, which are an important part of my Department's responsibilities, and the national curriculum, which is a new responsibility for local authorities. There is nothing wrong with the charge, but there is a great deal wrong with the level of charge that has been imposed in many places. It is common sense not to add to that list of responsibilities next year and to phase in policies such as this one, with enormous implications, in order to ensure that they are introduced as local authorities become better able to deliver their duties while paying proper regard to the ability of their electors to pay for them.
Mr. Roger Sims: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that there is bound to be a sense of disillusionment among directors of social services at his announcement, which will also demoralise social workers who have been busy preparing to implement his proposals in April in acordance with the assurances that he and the Government have given until recently. Were the directors of social services and the local authority associations consulted about the implications of the delay in implementing the proposals? If so, what was their reaction? Will my right hon. and learned Friend think again about the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that some community care schemes have been put forward and are on the point of being put into operation in anticipation of local authority funding from next April? Will they be funded from additional resources, or is there a danger of their withering on the vine?
Mr. Clarke: I expect that those who have been working hard in health authorities and local authorities to prepare the new plans will be disappointed. When my hon. Friend gets a chance to study the phasing that I have announced, I hope that he will see that we have done our best to ensure that momentum is maintained and that rapid progress is made on the complaints and inspection procedure next year. If community care plans are ready now, there is no reason why they cannot be implemented without a statutory duty. Undoubtedly, the pace will tend to slow and we shall have to ensure that momentum is maintained.
Of course I am aware of the views of local authorities. Most of the social services authorities felt that they were ready to go ahead and wanted to do so. The Association of District Councils was the only local authority association that thought that we should postpone. The phasing that we have announced will revive some of the people who are disappointed. It follows closely the phasing suggested in the report published yesterday by the Select Committee on Social Services.
As I told the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the statement will not lead to any reduction in funding for voluntary bodies from any source that is providing it at the moment. We are postponing the transfer from my right hon. Friend's budget to local authorities, and therefore postponing the introduction of the full new policy until 1993. Any increase in expenditure by local authorities next year will follow the pattern set out in the statement that my right hon. Friend will soon make about the local authority spending settlement and the overall level of the average Exchequer grant. Before this change of policy, there was a rapid increase in expenditure on personal social services and a rapid expansion of services. There is no reason why that cannot continue within the resources available, subject to what my right hon. Friend announces tomorrow.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Secretary of State seen the well-argued statement issued today by the Association of Directors of Social Services, making it quite clear that local authorities are both ready and able fully to proceed next April? Is he aware that, by April 1993, six years will have elapsed since Sir Roy Griffiths was commissioned to report on community care? Is not that disgraceful? Is not it also disgraceful that crucial sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, more especially sections 1, 2, and 3, still await implementation four years after they became law?
Mr. Clarke: The directors of social services continue to assure us that from a management point of view they are ready to deliver the new services. The right hon. Gentleman's own party has calmly said that they need £1·5 billion to do so. That is a 40 per cent. increase in their personal social services budgets, a large part of which, I assume, is expected to come from the community charge payer. For the reasons that I have given, that is not acceptable. Local authority spending has increased by 25 per cent. in the last two years alone. We can phase the introduction of community care and continue the rapid progress that has been made in expanding the services provided by local authorities, which have a good record.
Dame Jill Knight: Is not there a marked difference between the way that my right hon. and learned Friend is wrestling with the severe

1007
difficulties of finding the necessary cash, and the Opposition's attitude, which appears to be that there is simply no limit to the cash available?
In his statement, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that there would be £7·5 million additional funding for training of social workers dealing with, among others, the elderly. Is he aware that many Conservative Members remain anxious about the plight of the elderly in nursing homes? Can he assure us that our concern will be borne in mind because, if the elderly are thrown out of their nursing homes, will they not have to go into geriatric beds in national health service hospitals?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her opening remarks. The Opposition's attitude is quite clear—they support our policies in full and they cannot understand why we do not go ahead and implement them and put up the community charge to pay for them. That is a summation of their policy.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern for those in residential care and our constant problem in getting the level of income support right. That is being wrestled with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. He is obtaining further information about the cost of providing a good level of care in residential homes. He has heard my hon. Friend's remarks and he will have to make a judgment about the uprating next year.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's recognition of some of the aspects of the Select Committee's report. Will he undertake to follow the rest of its advice? When will there be an announcement about Northern Ireland? I welcome the presence of a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office. Is not Northern Ireland part of the community? As there is no community charge in Northern Ireland, will the community care policy be implemented, or is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that it will be tailor-made for individuals simply another short cut—as Belfast people say, "see more suits"?
Mr. Clarke: I shall study the remainder of the Select Committee's report with care and respond in due course. I thought that I should draw attention to the fact that, on this rare occasion, I had rather more support than I expected in the Select Committee's report. I have discussed the position of Northern Ireland with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I know that he intends to make a statement. I think that he will follow a similar process to mine.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that carers are saving the nation more than £20 billion a year and that a large number of them are quite literally killing themselves by their caring efforts? Will he give special consideration to additional resources for respite arrangements, because if we do not give a great many of those people help, and quite quickly, many of them will collapse and that will cost the state even more?
Mr. Clarke: There is already a flow of additional resources into personal social services. I have already said that, overall, local government spending has risen by 25 per cent. during the past two years. In fact, spending on personal social services tends to rise twice as fast as
1008
spending on the generality of local authority services. There is no reason why local authorities should suddenly reverse that trend.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about the position of carers. Beyond anything provided by the statutory bodies, it is the families and the friends who carry the main burden of coping with the problems of the elderly and the disabled. Since we took office, the number of home helps has risen by 25 per cent., the number of adult training places for the mentally handicapped has risen by 25 per cent., and there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of day centre places for the mentally ill. We intend to maintain that progress, phasing in an even better policy of assessing people for care and delivering it.
Mr. John Home Robertson: What would the Secretary of State say to patients and their families at the East Fortune geriatric hospital in my constituency, which is threatened with closure in anticipation of further care in the community? If the hospital closure goes ahead, what will happen to those patients who have to wait for two years before suitable accommodation is made available for them in the community?
Mr. Clarke: We are steadily moving away from long-term, long-stay provision in hospital wards. This country probably has finer services for elderly people than can be found anywhere in the world. Modern rehabilitation services have enabled us greatly to reduce the number of long-stay geriatric wards. Those patients are discharged either into residential care or into community care, and alternatives are provided. My ministerial colleagues and I do not approve closures in England unless we are satisfied that adequate and better services are available in place for the patients.
The same policy is followed by my right hon. and hon. Friends in Scotland. I am told by the Minister responsible for health in Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) that no decision has yet been reached on the East Fortune hospital, and I am sure that he will approach a decision on the same basis as I would with my hon. Friends.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who has such a deep knowledge of these matters, that it is far better to phase in proposals than to rush helter-skelter before the arrangements are properly ready. We should wait until they can be implemented without an intolerable burden on charge payers.
I welcome the specific grant for support services for the mentally ill. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the elderly people in residential homes will not face a hiatus because of the change in the arrangements that he has made to preserve their funding? That is absolutely crucial.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful that my hon. Friend accepts that it is sensible to proceed at the pace I propose. I am glad that she welcomes the increased provision for mentally ill people. The policy is totally new, because that specific grant—which will support almost double the expenditure that local authorities had previously—will be released to the local authorities by the health authorities, when the two have got together, to produce proper plans for community care of patients who either have been in hospital or might otherwise be in hospital. That is as

1009
important to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who has large mental hospitals near her constituency, as it is to many others.
I agree that it is important to provide residential care provision for people in homes. It has filled an enormous gap in recent years. We have problems in getting the level of income support right. The transition from the present arrangements to the new arrangements will take place in 1993. We have to ensure that nobody slips in between when that changeover is made.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is the Secretary of State not aware that, if the implementation of community care will put a large burden on poll tax payers, that is entirely because his Government intend to refuse adequate central funding? Is he not also aware that, whether implementation is in 1991, 1992 or 1993, it will require large resources? Is he suggesting that delay will enable local authorities to make that provision using buttons instead of the resources that his Department should supply?
Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady does not understand the position of her own party—or perhaps I do not. Labour is not urging on the Government—as the hon. Lady appears to do—that central Government should pay all those costs. The Leader of the Opposition's answer is, "Bung up the community charge—that is how it should be paid for." I do not believe that that is acceptable.
If the hon. Lady believes that Labour's record might be better than ours on central Government financing, I can only say that it certainly was not when Labour was in power. The Government have vastly increased provisions for personal social services, which went up by only about 2·5 per cent. a year in real terms when Labour was in power. That is far below the level of growth in services since a Conservative Government came to power.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that anyone who attacks his extremely sensible decision to phase in these proposals is paying warm tribute to the wisdom of his policies? Unless the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) gives full support to the Government in the coming debate, he will be setting a level of inconsistency that is breathtaking, even by the standards of the Labour party.
Mr. Clarke: Like my hon. Friend, I wait with bated breath. The line today appears to be that the Government have a magnificent policy, the best policy ever devised for elderly, disabled, mentally handicapped and mentally ill people. The hon. Gentleman cannot understand why we do not introduce it tomorrow and just let the community charge wind up, wherever it might be. Our sensible, phased approach will commend itself both to those who look after disadvantaged people in society and to those who face the community charge bill, which has to be in line with increased local government expenditure.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Government's policies represent a complete sell-out in terms of community care. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made excuses about the poll tax and phasing, but they do not apply to Scotland. Given that 1·2 million Scots are in need of community care, and that 250,000 of them have severe care needs, why is the Secretary of State for Scotland not here to make a statement? Why is there this
1010
bitty, piecemeal approach to community care? The whole House wants community care, but the Government have clearly failed to deliver it.
Mr. Clarke: The Opposition have chosen this subject for debate today, a Supply day. I brought forward the statement from tomorrow because it seemed to be pointless to have a community care debate if nobody knew what we were doing and reliance had to be placed on newspaper reports. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales had followed me, we should not have had much of a Supply day.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is announcing the details of his proposals today. I understand that in the near future he will be making a statement on the Floor of the House about the community charge. All related matters can be examined then.
The community charge is not an excuse. If we had followed what is urged upon us by the hon. Member for Livingston, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would have found his community charge payers allying themselves with the Labour party for having pressed the Government to drive it up so high.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is an important statement. Because of its importance, I have allowed questions upon it to continue for rather longer than I originally stated. However, there is to be a debate on care in the community. There is also a ten-minute rule motion. I propose to call three hon. Members from each side, then we shall move on to the ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his measured approach is greatly to be welcomed? Some would wish that the same had applied to the health proposals. Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that his decision to ring-fence the mentally ill budget is equally to be welcomed? He referred to the need for momentum in preparing for community care and for individual needs to be taken into consideration. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that, in my part of the country, individual assessment has not been carried out and that there is a great need for it, to ensure that we know which individuals should come under community care and which should come under health care? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that that work is done in good time for implementation in 1993?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and I agree about the timing of the change, although I realise that he has reservations about other aspects. I strongly agree with him that there is a lot of work to be done in the next two years. Local authorities need to improve their collaboration with the health authorities. There is nothing to stop either of them producing community care plans showing how they intend to co-operate when they are ready.
We need to have a good training programme to ensure that people are able to handle personal assessment which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, needs to be done properly by those who are responsible for it. Therefore I join him in believing that the next two years could be used to great

1011
advantage to maintain momentum and to ensure that when the policy is introduced in 1993 it works better than it might otherwise have done.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does not the Secretary of State realise that some constituencies face very great problems, particularly the St. Helens area which is part of the St. Helens district health authority? Rainhill hospital in that area has been proposed for closure and it has been offered for sale to the public at large before the patients have even left it. The best part of 1,200 people will have to be decanted into the community.
In view of the phasing in of the community care proposals, could not special arrangements be made for areas such as St. Helens, so that where a problem already exists, the needs of those who have already been decanted and of those who would have been taken into long-stay hospitals lead to special facilities and grants being provided, so that they can be cared for during the next two years? It is not fair to sell off such institutions and leave nothing in their place. I remind the Secretary of State that we have the lowest number of geriatric beds per head of population anywhere on Merseyside, and we need help now.
Mr. Clarke: It can be a good, caring policy to sell off a hospital ahead of its final closure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] If the Opposition had ever got to power recently, they would have been faced with the problem that old and decrepit Victorian hospitals cannot be closed and alternative facilities provided if we have to wait for the sale price. If there is a sale date some years ahead, one can advance some of the money, provide better care for the patients and residents and then proceed with the closure and recover the money already expended. That is a proper way of going on.
We have introduced a generous new capital loans scheme to meet the same problem. Areas with particular problems can borrow money out of our capital allocations which they use to provide better facilities to replace the old rundown ones. They can repay the loan when they are able to sell the redundant buildings.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in deploring the irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in talking about grannies on the street and old people being thrown out of their homes? Does he agree that, given that there is a review of costs in progress and that income support will be reviewed regularly between now and 1993, the only thing likely to result in grannies being ejected from their homes is the scaremongering and deliberate spread of misinformation that we have heard from the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Livingston is never knowingly undersold. He works up such fiery rhetoric on every occasion. Sometimes he flatly contradicts the position he has taken on previous occasions and, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, he sometimes causes alarm and damage.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On 25 June, when the Secretary of State obviously knew what the levels of poll tax would be in England and Wales, he wrote to Mencap to say that he had not been convinced by the
1012
arguments for delay and was convinced that he and his colleagues would be arguing for resources for community care. What has happened since that time to make him change his mind?
Mr. Clarke: I am always in listening mode when developing policy. I pay most attention to those who are complaining about the excessive levels of community charge they are facing. It is also the case that organisations such as Mencap share the views of many others that it would be advantageous to phase in the policy. Once the dust has settled—I do not think that the hon. Member for Livingston will raise much of it—he will find that most people working in this area will accept that the policy can be improved by phasing it in.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the two-year delay will place an additional burden on income support? Can he give an assurance to those who live in Sussex and other parts of the south of England where income support is insufficient already, that it will be increased sufficiently to make up the difference?
Mr. Clarke: The new grants I have announced will be an increased burden for the general taxpayer. My statement included announcements of increased expenditure to be taken account of in local authority settlements. I accept that this is likely to lead to an increase in income support, but we cannot anticipate exactly how much. The care element of that income support will be transferred to local authorities at whatever level it has reached in April 1993.
I agree with my hon. Friend that an important issue to be addressed over the next two years, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, is reviewing the levels of income support to ensure that they reflect changes in cost, about which more information is being sought. This is always a difficult matter. No Government have ever claimed that income support can always meet the full charges, let alone the full cost, of every residential care home.
Mr. David Young: Apart from lacking resources, my local authority was ready in every way for the implementation of the policy and it had not anticipated the prevarication of the Secretary of State. We are concerned not about apportioning blame but about the fact that many old people may find their lives shortened because of the hiatus that has been created. I trust that no hon. Member on either side of the House is in favour of that sort of involuntary euthanasia. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pay attention to the patients he has now put in an impossible position? They are often the most disadvantaged in the community.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's reference to involuntary euthanasia, or however he described it, is breathtaking. I have announced increased provision for care in the community and three new specific grants totalling £70 million; I have not announced a reduction in service or provision. I accept that the hon. Gentleman's local authority may have been in a position to go ahead. I have no idea what view it would have taken on how much it would spend or how much its community charge payers would be asked to meet. Many people in Bolton will appreciate the need to get the new system under control and to get the community charge properly managed before

1013
we go ahead with the full policy. To suggest that I have announced something that will kill old people is to take political rhetoric to absurd extremes.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice of one point of order from a Front-Bench spokesman, but before taking it, may I repeat that I am not responsible for the timing of statements, although I understand that there was an agreement on this one? Today is an Opposition day, and some hon. Members who have been rising will be called in that debate; others will be remembered.
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the circumstances, I intend to be extremely brief.
The Secretary of State for Health has made a statement dealing with the position in England and Wales. I presume that Scotland again is being treated by the Secretary of State for Scotland as something of an afterthought to be fobbed off with a written answer.
I understand that in Scotland, too, financial confusion about the poll tax is the root cause of the Government's retreat. The position in Scotland, whatever it may be elsewhere, is that local authorities are willing and ready to go and organised and determined. I know from personal contact today that the announcement that has been made will be a bitter disappointment. Scots will want to know why the most vulnerable in our society will, in effect, be victims of the Government's own poll tax blunders.
There is no obvious opportunity, despite what the Secretary of State for Health has said, to question the Secretary of State for Scotland between now and when the House rises. A statement will be made by the Scottish Office on overall head totals of the revenue support grant settlement, but that will not enable us to consider in detail the policy behind community care. I simply want, through you, Mr. Speaker, to express my disappointment and dismay that a major matter of policy is being passed without an opportunity for scrutiny on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Barry Jones: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Wales has proffered not an oral statement to the House but a wretched written answer on the important matter of care in the community.
I seek your guidance, Sir, because, besides not making a statement to the House, the Secretary of State for Wales has attacked the local authorities of Wales, and he has used an unjust and disgraceful means to do so.
Wales has a higher proportion of disabled people than other areas of Britain because so many of our people worked in our coal mines, foundries and steelworks. Disabled and elderly people and carers have been treated shabbily. I ask how you, Sir, may bring the Secretary of State for Wales to the House to make an important statement on the most vulnerable members of our community.
Mr. William O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take it, but this is Opposition time.
Mr. O'Brien: I am aware of that, but not one hon. Member from the Yorkshire region was called. There are many chronically sick and disabled people in Yorkshire. We should have been given an opportunity to make our point.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that there are many disappointed hon. Members, and I regret that the hon. Gentleman is one of them. As I have already said, I am not responsible for the timing of statements or of the Opposition day. I must do my best to ensure a fair balance. I have already said that some hon. Members who have not been called will be called in the coming debate. It would have been unfair to call them on the statement as well.
The matter raised by the Front-Bench spokesmen is not a matter for me. I have allowed complaints to be made and they have been heard by the Government. There will be other opportunities before we rise, such as the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and the summer Adjournment motion.

Abolition of Fox-Hunting
4.24 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the hunting of foxes with hounds illegal.
Given the depth of feeling on the subject, I am quite surprised that this appears to be the first time such a Bill has been attempted since the last war.
In my lapel is a badge depicting a badger. I wear it to remind me of the Protection of Badger Setts Bill which was introduced through the ten-minute Bill procedure. That Bill aimed to protect badgers' homes against the activities of those subhuman perverts who gain pleasure from baiting badgers with dogs. Because of a stroke of fortune and some deft footwork on my part, the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading and was debated fully in Committee. There were no representatives of the badger baiters on the Standing Committee, but there were Members of Parliament who represented the interests of fox hunters. Because of the fragile nature of the procedure that I am trying again to adopt today, I was forced to make a number of significant concessions. I shall not rehearse the arguments and the concessions, but they turned out to be a vain attempt on my part and on the part of the supporters of the Bill to buy off the opposition of the fox hunters.
We failed to satisfy the hunters because they demanded an absolute right to interfere with a badger sett in pursuit of their so-called sport. The end result was that the fox hunters killed the badger setts Bill and in doing so probably condemned many more badgers to death at the hands of those sick characters who bait badgers.
In Committee I was accused of using the badger setts Bill as part of a strategy to deal with fox hunting. I denied that then, and I deny it here in the House this afternoon. I said in Committee that I would approach fox hunting head on at an appropriate time and I am trying to do that. That is why I am seeking leave to introduce a Bill to make the hunting of foxes with hounds illegal.
Fox hunting was memorably described by Oscar Wilde as,
"the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable.".
Perhaps the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who is a prominent hunter, is the exception that proves the rule. He is certainly not unspeakable and, although a fox might be uneatable, the carcass of the hon. Member for Crawley would provide many a jolly banquet.
The great majority of people in Britain oppose fox hunting. It is not an issue of town versus country as it is often caricatured by supporters of fox hunting. In a 1987 Gallup poll based on a large sample, 68 per cent. of people canvassed said that they would support laws forbidding fox hunting. I might add that 73 per cent. of people supported the banning of stag hunting, which was the subject of another ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), and, in the same poll, 72 per cent. supported an end to hare coursing. None of those barbaric and cruel activities have been banned, precisely because of the behind-the-scenes pull of the hunting lobby. It is significant in the House, but it is behind the scenes. I believe that on a free vote, the House would be able to end all such activities with a massive majority.
1016
I remind the House that the Labour party promised to do just that in our 1987 election manifesto. Unfortunately, we lost the election; we shall win the next one. This afternoon, I am not authorised to commit the Labour party to such a promise. I only wish that I were, but, knowing the opinions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the feelings in the Labour party, I feel quite certain that the same undertaking to end all forms of organised hunting with hounds will be repeated by the Labour party at the next general election. If only small furry creatures had the vote, Labour would never be out of office.
I confess that I do not understand the psychology of those who derive pleasure from hunting small terrified creatures to death. The hon. Member for Crawley, to whom I referred earlier, is an affable sort of fellow. I can not understand why affable fellows like him can do that sort of thing. There is a great gap in understanding.
Mr. Dave Nellist: He is a fool.
Mr. Banks: I would not describe the hon. Member for Crawley in such a disgraceful fashion. However, there is a gap between us which I cannot bridge.
The great Samuel Johnson wrote:
"It is very strange, and very melancholy, that the paucity of human pleasures should persuade us ever to call hunting one of them."
People who go fox hunting actually say that they enjoy it.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Mr. Johnson could never have got on a horse.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) says that hunters enjoy riding horses. I can understand that. I enjoy that pleasure myself from time to time when I go donkey riding on the sands at Blackpool at party conference time. However, for the life of me I cannot understand how hunting small furry creatures adds to the pleasure of riding through the countryside on the back of a magnificent horse.
For hon. Members who do not know the details, fox hunting starts in November with hunts usually twice a week. Hunters tell us, and I hear this so often, that they are quite glad when the fox gets away. If that is the case, they still do a great deal to ensure that it does not get away. All the escape routes around the earth are blocked and that includes badger setts which brings us back to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech.
The hounds flush out a fox and the entire hideous circus which accompanies the fox hunt sets off in pursuit. The fox is not a natural prey species and it has therefore not evolved physically for prolonged pursuit. It naturally soon becomes exhausted. One small terrified animal is pursued by a pack of hounds plus a bunch of red-coated wallies on horseback and a column of ghouls in motor vehicles. That hardly seems like an even match to me. After an hour of so, not surprisingly the fox is exhausted and is either savaged to death by the hounds or, if it is very unlucky, upon finding an unblocked subterranean refuge, it falls victim to the terrier and spade brigade which follows every hunt.
Because fox hunters face a mounting barrage of opposition in the House and elsewhere, they know that they have no moral standing. There is a moral bankruptcy to their arguments. Therefore they are resorting to spurious arguments and cite conservation as a defence for their so-called sport. For example, we hear the accusation

1017
made about foxes that they kill livestock and are pests. Many supporters of fox hunting make that claim. The fox is a carnivorous predator and a scavenger. That is precisely how nature made it. However, the great majority of foxes live largely on beetles, frogs, rabbits, wild birds and carrion and they are the biggest destroyers of rats and mice.
Although foxes do not constitute a pest, if they were pests surely far more efficient and humane methods would be available to trap or shoot them if that were necessary. Of the estimated 300,000 foxes killed each year, fox hunting accounts for about 7,500 adult foxes and cub hunting for a further 8,500. That is hardly a major contribution to fox control even if such controls were needed.
All the attempts at rationalisation by the fox hunters will not hide the unpleasant fact that they are indulging in a primitive blood lust. That is what fox hunting is all about. It also causes much damage to the countryside and hunts are often resented by rural residents. So much for the town versus country argument.
William Cowper described fox hunting as:
"Detested sport,
That owes its pleasure to another's pain."
I believe that the days are now surely numbered for that detested sport. I seek the leave of the House to introduce my Bill in the certain knowledge that substantive legislation is not now far off. It is the turn of the fox hunters to be hunted and I suggest that they will not enjoy the experience.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Steve Norris, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. James Lamond.

Abolition of Fox-Hunting

  ABOLITION OF FOX-HUNTING
  Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to make the hunting of foxes with hounds illegal; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
  Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has introduced has received a unanimous First Reading and that not a single voice was raised in opposition to it, may we suspend the normal procedures and practice of the House and immediately proceed to Second Reading, Third Reading, and all stages to ensure that it is passed this afternoon?
  Mr. Speaker: As far as I know, the gill-has not even been printed yet. The hon. Gentleman has had leave to bring it in.

Opposition Day
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Community Care
  [Relevant reports of the Social Services Committee: second report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Future funding of Private and Voluntary Residential Care (House of Commons Paper No. 257); third report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Funding for local authorities (House of Commons Paper No. 277); fifth report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Carers (House of Commons Paper No.410); sixth report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Choice for Service Users (House of Commons Paper No. 444); eighth report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Planning and Co-operation (House of Commons Paper 580-I) and the Government's reply to the second report of Session 1989–90 (Cm. 1100).]
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of the late start, I appeal not only to Back-Bench Members, whom I hope will limit their contributions to 10 minutes, although I have no authority to impose that rule, but also to Front-Bench Members to have some consideration for those who are waiting to speak.
  4.35 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
  That this House recalls the repeated assurances of the Secretary of State for Health that provisions to strengthen the local authority role in community care would take effect in April 1991 and that adequate resources would be transferred through the revenue support grant to support the new responsibilities of local authorities; records its concern at the statement last week by the Leader of the House that implementation now depends on the availability of resources; is aware of the desperate need of growing numbers of elderly and disabled people in the community for more help in their home and of the carers who look after them for more support; notes that the solution adopted by Her Majesty's Government to meet the shortfall in Department of Social Security payments for claimants in private residential care depends on local authority contracts being in place next April; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to proceed with implementation of the full community care programme in April 1991 and to ensure adequate funding to enable local authorities to improve on the social service support for elderly and disabled citizens in the community.
  I anticipate that some objection will be taken to the motion.
  It is now almost four years since the Audit Commission began the present chain of reform in community care, with a report that recommended to the House:
  "If nothing changes the outlook is bleak."
  At that time in 1986, fewer than 700,000 people in Britain were over 85. It is now more than two years since Sir Roy Griffiths presented to the Department of Health his report entitled "Community Care", with a sub-title that now reads rather ironically, "Agenda for Action". Sir Roy Griffiths recommended:
  "Merely to tinker with the present system would not address the central issues."
  It took Ministers in the Department of Health longer to respond to Sir Roy Griffiths's report than it took him to write it. Nevertheless, last autumn the Secretary of State

  1019
  presented a White Paper to the House. In that White Paper the Secretary of State observed that progress on community care
  "has been slower than the Government would like."
  Today, after his announcement to the House, we are left with the conclusion that progress is to be even slower than the Government promised. We have now to wait until April 1993 for the central changes that were recommended by Sir Roy Griffiths in 1988.
  By April 1993 almost 1 million people in Britain will be over 85. During the seven years that it has taken the Government to get their act together since the publication of the Audit Commission report, the number of people over 85 will have increased by more than one third. Every day of delay brings social service departments across Britain another 30 elderly people who need whole-body bathing. That is the urgency of the problem and the urgency of the human need that has to be measured against the timetable that was announced by the Secretary of State today.
  It is only three weeks since the Secretary of State wrote to the coalition of community care campaigners on 25 June. The Secretary of State said:
  "I am not at the moment convinced by the arguments made for delay."
  Plainly a moment is a long time in politics. Is the Secretary of State really convinced by those arguments now? Should we perhaps send round Dominic Lawson to inquire into his private thoughts after lunch? If he is convinced, when was he convinced, and what was it that convinced him? The Secretary of State has told the House that he has been convinced by what he referred to in a reply to one of my hon. Friends as the problem of the poll tax, which, it would appear, we are to believe the Secretary of State has noticed only since 25 June.
  The Secretary of State cannot get away with pretending—as he has pretended so far this afternoon—that the problem of the poll tax has been invented by the local authorities, as if they thought it up. The local authorities had the poll tax thought up for them by the Government. The Government imposed the poll tax on the local authorities. The Government chose the poll tax deliberately because they wanted to impose the most painful and unpopular tax that they could think up to stop local authorities spending money.
  The problem with the poll tax is that if local authorities are stopped spending money, they are also stopped improving their local services. I predict that the Secretary of State for Health will be only the first of many Ministers who will have to come to the House and admit that the real price of the poll tax is worse public services.
  In the light of the Secretary of State's statement, I must ask, whatever happened to local accountability? Whatever happened to the principle that the poll tax would enhance the accountability of local authorities to their electors, thus making it possible for the Government to take a more relaxed view of local authority expenditure?
  Mr. Thomason, the chair of the Association of District Councils, has put a figure on the impact of the community care programme on the poll tax. He has priced it at 15 per poll tax payer. It seems perfectly rational and reasonable to ask local electors to choose whether they are prepared to pay an additional £15 a year so that the old people in their community can be properly looked after and so that
  1020
  they themselves, when they are old, can be looked after properly. If local electors are prepared to make that choice, what possible logic is there in the Government saying that they will deny the electors the opportunity of making that choice?
  There is a gaping hole in the logic that the Secretary of State advanced to the House this afternoon—that delay is necessary because of problems with the poll tax. Local authorities will have to add the cost of community care on to the poll tax only if they do not get the resources to pay for community care from central Government. The Secretary of State always denied that this would happen. In my 16 years as a Member of this House and in 11 years shadowing the Government, I have never been involved in debating an issue on which Ministers were so generous with their promises of resources. Only three weeks ago, when we were debating the Lords amendments, the Minister for Health assured the House:
  "we have always said that adequate resources will be available".—[Official Report, 27 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 440.]
  Indeed, she had said that—I am glad to receive her agreement on that point—as did Lord Henley and Baronness Hooper in another place. Indeed, so did the Secretary of State because his letter of 25 June continued:
  "On the issue of resources, Virginia Bottomley and I have constantly reiterated our commitment to ensuring that resources will be adequate. I repeat that assurance now.
  I hope this is reassuring."
  It is perhaps unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not add to that sentence the phrase "for the moment" that he used earlier in the letter, and conclude, "I hope this is reassuring for the moment."
  What happened after 25 June? What happened to render inoperable the assurance in the letter of 25 June and the assurance that the Minister gave the House on 27 June? It is not that the Government were suddenly struck by the problem of the poll tax and noticed that it was high in many local authority areas. No—the Department of Health had a meeting with the Treasury, and when the Treasury saw the size of the cheques that it was supposed to sign, it bounced the Secretary of State.
  When we last debated the matter three weeks ago, it was in connection with the Lords amendment relating to ring-fencing the grants for community care. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that our case for ring-fencing was that it would force Ministers out into the open. It would oblige them to come clean about how much or how little they were prepared to put on the table to pay for community care. If ever there was a case for ring-fencing, that case has been made by the shameful and shifty way in which those Ministers are now sliding out of the commitments that are only three weeks old.
  Against that landscape of speeches strewn with broken promises, we are now asked to believe that this roll of bounced cheques cannot find the resources to improve the provision of social services before the general election, but that once polling day is out of the way the Government will buckle down and find the resources. Anyone who is capable of falling for that one really forfeits his right to the franchise—
  Mr. Peter Thurnham rose—
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Here he is.
  Mr. Cook: Yes, indeed, here he is. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on this occasion, but I am conscious of the strictures of Mr. Speaker, so this must be the last time that I give way.
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking Ministers to come clean, so will he come clean and say how much a future Labour Government would put on the table? If there is a total of £24 billion-worth of unpaid voluntary care, will a Labour Government pick up the whole of that bill, half of it or a quarter? Will the hon. Gentleman now come clean and give us a figure?
  Mr. Cook: No party could commit itself to replicating the £24 billion-worth of effort that is made by informal carers in our community. Indeed, I have not met a carer who has asked the Government to take over the entirety of the effort made by those informal carers. They have asked for a reasonable degree of support from the state for the efforts that they make. That £24 billion-worth of effort on their part is likely to fall through the floor unless we provide the respite care, training, help and relief that they need. That is what the hon. Gentleman's Government are proposing to postpone for two years.
  Mr. Thurnham: That is no answer.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, it is the answer.
  Mr. Cook: What is now clear is that the Government never intended to transfer to the local authorities any resources other than the money that is at present spent by the Department of Social Security. The big problem with that is that the money now spent by the DSS is not adequate for it to do even the job that it purports to fulfil.
  The people who will not forget today's statement are those who will be reminded of it every month for the next two years when they receive a bill that they cannot pay for their residential private care. Many people will not be able to pay those bills even when they are stripped of the £10·05 that they receive for personal allowances; and when, as a result of surrendering those personal allowances, people cannot buy toothpaste, postage stamps or a newspaper, they still will not be able to pay the bill for the home.
  It is all the more remarkable that the Secretary of State has allowed himself to be convinced on this issue because this is the one issue on which the Government have been defeated since the last general election. That defeat in March forced Ministers to come up with a lifeline for those people in homes where the DSS charge does not meet the charge of the home. That lifeline is section 9 of the Social Security Act 1990. It received Royal Assent on Friday, but became a dead letter this Wednesday. That section enables the Department of Social Security from next April to track local authority contracts with private homes and thereby reflect the real charges in the real world. There will now be no local authority contracts next April. There will not be any until April 1993.
  However, April 1993 will be too late for the people who cannot pay their bills this month. The average length of residence in a nursing home is less than three years. Most of the residents who need support now will be dead before April 1993. It will be too late for the relatives who are seeing their savings disappear, because those savings will have vanished before April 1993. The average shortfall in meeting nursing home charges is currently £60 per week. By April 1993, that will mean an accumulated bill of
  1022
  £7,000. April 1993 will also be too late for many proprietors, an increasing number of whom will solve the problem by clearing out the residents who are dependent on the DSS to pay the bill.
  April 1993 will also be too late for many charities. This morning I received a letter from the Anchor housing association for the elderly which provides residential care for 1,300 elderly people. This year, Anchor has made a loss of over £500,000 as a result of the failure of the DSS to match what Anchor charges, even on its non-profit making basis. Anchor can bear that loss this year. It cannot bear that same loss in each of the next two years. It said to me:
  "We will not force any residents on the DSS level … to leave but we will have to ration the number of people without private means and paying only the DSS rate … to say .50 per cent. of all new residents we house. As a charity this is a strategy of last resort but we may have no choice".
  It is perverse that the House is making charities unable to afford to accept people supported by DSS payments, the poorest people in our community.
  Today's statement makes a mockery of the vote that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and I forced in the House last March. We forced the Government to recognise the problem to which they are shutting their minds once again.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the solution given to us a few months ago was that there would be some immediate relief —which has been provided—and further reviews and that, in the light of the reforms, the Government would consider whether assessment procedures were adequate? Does he agree that the independent inquiry is absolutely necessary before we know which costs are reasonable? Does he accept that there is no doom and gloom in the statement today but only a responsible fulfilment of that promise?
  Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Lady that the reason why she and several of her hon. Friends voted with the Opposition in March was precisely that they did not trust the language "annual review of the charges". She referred to the Price Waterhouse independent inquiry. If Conservative Members say that the inquiry will solve the problem of coming up with a new national recommended rate, and, to take the area represented by the Minister of State, if that rate is set at a level to solve the problem in Surrey, the inquiry will have to recommend a new national rate which will be wildly extravagant in other areas. It will cost the Treasury vastly more to solve the problem than it would if the Government implemented the changes in April next year and allowed their preferred method to be introduced
  The other people who will pay the price for the delay are elderly people who are in not residential but community care and the carers who cannot put off caring for those people for another two years and cannot wait until help is at hand. Already, some of their organisations have expressed their views on the prospect of delay. The director of the Carers National Association said:
  "Our members feel angry, cheated and betrayed … The Government has demonstrated that when it comes to us or the poll tax, we are not priority, because they know we cannot stop doing what we are doing."
  Rather extraordinarily, in replying to a question on the statement, the Secretary of State said that Mencap would welcome the phasing that he had announced. I have before

  1023
  me a letter of 11 July addressed to him. I do not know whether it has yet percolated through to his inner office. It says:
  "The promise of care in the community has been the lifeline for these parents and carers. Now this promise is not to be honoured because of Government fears that the estimated costs of implementing community care reforms would add 30p per week to poll tax bills … And so for less than the price of a cup of tea a week, community care is to be sold down the river."
  It does not seem to me that Mencap welcomes the phasing that has been announced to the House today.
  The language of both the organisations to which I referred may be more intemperate than the Secretary of State's. They may lack the cultivated urbanity of the Secretary of State. That is because they have to talk directly with their members, who wake every morning to the task of constant nursing care if, indeed, they slept through the night. Such people include a couple described by the Spastics Society in a circular which it sent to several hon. Members, but which appears to have missed the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who until the last election was director of the Spastics Society. In that letter the society described a couple in their 60s who care for their 40–year-old son who has cerebral palsy and very challenging behaviour. He cannot walk; he needs constant care; he cannot bathe himself; he constantly soils himself. The father has recently undergone heart surgery, the mother is being treated for cancer. It is doubtful whether they will last the two years until the care in the community package is implemented. The letter says:
  "Both parents … are desperate for a break, but have not been able to obtain any respite care for their son for over 5 years. His mother says she has got to the point where she has contemplated drowning him because the situation seems so hopeless."
  I believe that that couple deserve hope. They deserve it before 1993. The Opposition will vote tonight to restore that hope to them.
  4.55 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'continues to support the Government's policy towards care in the community as set out in the White Paper, Caring for People, as an effective means of securing and delivering services on behalf of those people in need of social care; and endorses the approach towards implementation which the Government has adopted.'
  We all echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) towards the end of his speech about the need to give added support to all those who care for elderly, disabled, mentally ill or mentally handicapped people.
  This is a most unusual debate. As I said in my answers on the statement, we are no longer debating the merits of the Government's policy proposals. The Opposition have decided to give them their wholehearted support. They press us to implement the proposals at the pace which we originally intended and which, indeed, was my intention when the Bill was taken through the House.
  So the House accepts that the Government's policies for care in the community set us on a path which is likely to lead us to enhance the support that we give both to people who suffer a disability of some kind and to those who care for a member of their family or a friend who is
  1024
  in need. What divides us is that the Opposition have decided that it is right to go ahead in 1991 despite all the reasons that we have given of cost, difficulty of preparation and the impact of the community charge.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me when I was driven to the conclusion that we should examine the timetable on which we were proceeding. It was in the aftermath of the local authorities' announcements of their community charge levels. My constituents and those of most hon. Members were surprised and taken aback by the level of the community charge. That above all worried them. We all appreciate that, in the light of those community charge levels, we must take stock of the pace at which we can allow local government expenditure to continue to rise, the extent to which the pace of progress in many desirable policies must be matched with the ability of the local taxpayer to afford it, and the pace at which we continue to put new burdens and responsibilities on local authorities.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a second.
  In general, the first reaction of my hon. Friends was to accept, although with great disappointment in many cases, the common sense of what we propose. I feel sure that the common sense will be apparent to many in local government and to many community charge payers throughout the country when they put it in the context of all the other increases in local government spending and other new duties on local councils.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Tony Worthington rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I give way to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), because he sought to intervene earlier.
  Mr. Nellist: The Secretary of State has just repeated a point that he made in his statement. He said that the local authorities are not ready for the new responsibilities. Is he aware that, on Monday, I received a letter from the director of social services in Coventry, saying that, if Coventry were given Government resources, it would be ready? Is he further aware of a survey by the Association of Directors of Social Services which showed that 95 out of 96 directors of social services said that, given the resources, they would be ready by April 1991? Is not the only problem not the local authorities but the fact that central Government funding is not available? That is what is needed to give carers and those who would benefit from care in the community the necessary support without adding to the intolerable burden of the poll tax.
  Mr. Clarke: I accept that the overwhelming majority of directors of social services felt that they were ready to implement the new policies. I have no basis on which to challenge that. I accept that most of the voluntary organisations were ready to go ahead, and I correct what I said about Mencap earlier, when I was in error. I misunderstood the cue that I thought I was being given by the question. I now clearly recall that Mencap wanted to go ahead, and Sir Brian Rix, with whom I have had many conversations about this policy over the years, made some angry statements when he first heard of the speculation about delay.

  1025
  I understand the disappointment, because one fact on which both sides of the House agree is that we look forward to the day when we can move from the present income support arrangements to the transfer of resources and the development of steadily improved care in the community. We are improving it now, with ever-growing levels of local authority spending, but there is a need to phase the introduction of all the new duties and responsibilities for local authorities. Many people, including Select Committee members, feel that there is a good management and social policy reason for moving forward more steadily than either the directors of social services or Ministers were first inclined to accept.
  Mr. Frank Field rose—
  Mr. Worthington rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I want to give a short speech; I cannot give way all the time. I have just answered one intervention and if I immediately give way again, I shall not get on. I shall give way but not too often, otherwise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will quite correctly pull me up.
  Let us put in context the pace at which we are increasing spending and services. Total local government spending has gone up by 25 per cent. in the past two years alone. That is the background to the present problem in local authority financing. As I said, personal social services spending by local authorities tends to go up about twice as fast as the generality of their expenditure. Personal social services current spending in local authorities in real terms has gone up 21 per cent. between 1984–85 and 1989–90—nearly double the increases for all local authority expenditure, which was 11 per cent.
  During the Government's period of office, local authority personal social services expenditure on community care has risen 34 per cent. in real terms. That rise is flowing through into all kinds of increased provision of service, including 25 per cent. more home helps and meal services for the disabled up by 13 per cent. Such increases will presumably continue, and I have no doubt that there will be increased resources in future.
  My announcement today is not an announcement of any reduction in resources. Tomorrow's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the totality of aggregate Exchequer grant to local authorities will no doubt determine the pace of events for spending next year. It is wrong to say that it is the policy of any political party that all social services expenditure will be met out of central taxation, not local taxation.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: No one has said that.
  Mr. Clarke: In his intervention a moment ago, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East implied that the expenditure would not affect the community charge payer, and the only problem was that central Government would not put in all the money. No party is offering to put all the money in. The way in which we are transferring responsibility to local authorities means that they will eventually decide how much is spent on the policy in the light of whatever grant they receive from central Government. The community charge will be determined by the difference between the standard spending assessment established by the Government of the day and the level of spending on which they choose to embark.
  1026
  I think that the hon. Member for Livingston said that the community charge would go up by only £15—but no one knows what the figure will be. That is his assessment, based on one set of local authority figures, of the amount by which the charge is likely to go up, in the first year alone, for care in the community policies. We all know that assessments of local authority spending are notoriously difficult to make. We also know that authorities such as Lancashire, Suffolk and Derbyshire are inclined to take no notice of such assessments, and are free to put the community charge level wherever they want.
  Given that we all share the same concern for disadvantaged people, I submit that it is impossible for us to turn a deaf ear to the concerns of charge payers, many of whom are not well off. It is not right for the hon. Member for Livingston to say that another £15 next year for one policy alone should blithely be assumed as acceptable. I am not sure whether it is an accurate figure for the hon. Gentleman to put forward—
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I am about to refer to the hon. Gentleman, so I shall definitely give way when I have finished my point.
  Earlier, I referred to the hon. Gentleman's reported comments about the likely level of expenditure next year if our proposals were implemented without phasing. I admit that the press cutting that I have is from the Morning Star, but the hon. Gentleman was also quoted in other newspapers. In the Morning Star he is quoted as saying:
  "Local councils will need an extra £1·5 billion over the next three years if they are to take over responsibility for the elderly and mentally ill from next April."
  The hon. Gentleman then quoted figures showing that the report was a little inconsistent. The figure to which he referred was for one year. He was solemnly suggesting that £1·5 billion should be added to personal social services expenditure—an increase of 40 per cent.—in one year. He has not explained—he did not do so to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) when he intervened—how much of that would come from the taxpayer and by how much the community charge would go up in local authorities across the country if we followed his advice.
  People caring for the disabled and elderly would find themselves at the receiving end of excessive community charge levels if we recklessly continued on the basis of the figures suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cook: I shall put two points to the Secretary of State. First, as he quotes those figures, may I point out that he does not need to read the Morning Star to obtain them; he can merely summon his own officials, who have those figures in copious detail in the document submitted to them by the settlement working group which negotiates with the local authority associations. Those figures show that local authorities put the estimate of care in the community at £829 million in the coming year—£400 million of which would come from the transfer of DSS money.
  I repeat the question that I put to the Secretary of State at the end of his statement, to which he did not reply in his supplementary, and which he has had a long time to think about. Will he confirm that at no stage since those figures were submitted almost two months ago have his officials

  1027
  queried a single one of the estimates? If he does not regard those estimates as acceptable, with which figure does he disagree and which one does he find excessive?
  Secondly, I shall correct the record before the figure of £15 enters history as my invention. The figure of £15 came from Mr. Thomason, chair of the Association of District Councils who, until the Secretary of State addressed the House, I had believed was a member of the Conservative party.
  I shall repeat the other question that I posed to the Secretary of State: if the figure is £15 or more, why does he have to make the decision about how much should go on the poll tax of every authority in Britain? Why, on the principle of local accountability about which we have heard so much from the Government, cannot the Government leave that to be resolved by the local electorate?
  Mr. Clarke: My officials in the Government have never accepted as bound to be paid out the estimates that the hon. Gentleman is defending. I know that they are the local authority estimates—that is why I know that they are for one year, not three years, as he was reported as having said in the newspaper. It is a one-year increase, which he, as a shadow Minister, is extraordinarily accepting at face value and endorsing. He is telling the House that we should go ahead, which will cost another £1·5 billion. The implication of what he said is clearly that that money should be found.
  As I said, £1,500 million is presumably the local authorities' best estimate of the amount by which they intend to increase their spending on personal social services alone. It is a total guestimate. We do not know where it will be spent, but the history of local government spending leads most of us to suspect that the figure is as likely to be an underestimate as an overestimate. We have no idea where the local authorities, in current hands and under current control, intend the money to go.
  If the hon. Gentleman were ever a member of a Government, he would know that this is the process that we have been going through in discussing the consequences of this year's community charge levels. He takes a blinkered view. We are talking about personal social services, and he cheerily says that, next year alone, an extra £1·5 billion must go on personal social services expenditure by local government. As I said in my response to questions, next year local authorities are taking on new duties under the Children Act 1989 and the Food Safety Act 1990, and they have important new duties in relation to education.
  The totality of that expenditure and the community charge will be a crushing burden on taxpayers throughout the country. It is no good the hon. Member for Livingston talking about accountability. I certainly have been using the language of accountability when arguing about the level of community charge in my county, as have most of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The Opposition refute any idea of local authority accountability for this. They are in favour of high spending and high taxation by local government. They face the difficulty that they have no idea in what form the bill should be presented to local taxpayers. They do not have
  1028
  a tax of their own, and they have no idea how this immense burden to the taxpayer—paying for burgeoning local government—will be parcelled up and shared out.
  The hon. Member for Livingston is one of those who refuses to pay his local tax: he is a refusenick on the community charge. For that reason, I can only describe his attitude as cavalier and irresponsible when he attacks us for a policy that he supports and cheerily says that we should underwrite a bill which is fairly uncertain but is perhaps of the order of an extra £1·5 billion. The combination of his support of our policy and his criticism of its pace and his belief that we should simply go ahead without regard for any of the other consequences is quite incredible to the electorate and totally irresponsible on the part of the Labour party.
  Mr. Worthington: On the issue of accountability, whether rightly or wrongly, the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that, after one year of the poll tax, the local authorities in Scotland are now accountable. That is one excuse for not introducing the policy; the lack of readiness of social work departments is said to be another, but they want to go ahead. As the Secretary of State believes that local authorities are now accountable, and as local authorities want to go ahead, why can we have the poll tax but not community care a year ahead?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East made it clear that he wishes to go ahead. When he produces a hugely increased community charge bill for his electors, he will say that the reason is that not enough central Government money has been put in.
  The hon. Member for Livingston adopts the same approach, and appears to be promising vast amounts of central Government money next year for personal social services alone. We all know that the hon. Member for Livingston has no authority from his Front-Bench colleagues to promise that money. I do not believe for one moment that the Labour party would put that sum of money in, or anything like it.
  The hon. Gentleman sees that there is a debate, sees a way to attack, his beard bristles in that engaging way, and up he gets to say that £1·5 billion is needed next year by local authorities for one small part of the policy area for which he has shadow responsibility. That is not a sensible way to proceed, and it is no way to demonstrate real care and concern for the client groups which are looking for continued development of policy along the lines that we have already seen, and for the evolution of that policy into a proper policy for care in the community.
  I repeat what I said when I replied to questions on my statement: my announcement today did not contain any reductions in resources. There is no announcement of any cuts in social services provision. No one is withdrawing the entitlement to income support of those in residential care homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is looking at the basis on which we must adjust income support in the next few years, until we are able to introduce the policy in full.
  The hon. Member for Livingston talks about how my right hon. Friend might resolve some of the problems to do with a proper level of income support. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) has been harrying the Government to improve the present arrangements and has succeeded in getting the level up. We have increased expenditure on that front by £145

  1029
  million, as a result of our defeat in the House, when we added £45 million. We also have the Price Waterhouse study on costs.
  We can also go in for local variations. Sections of the Social Security Act 1990 pave the way for local variations based on local authority policy in future, but we do not have to wait for section 9. My right hon. Friend can already consider what evidence exists to justify a local variation system, but, as he has often explained, it is extremely difficult to get an effective local variation system in place. We are proceeding with a pattern of services in which I expect to see continued development and growth of support for all these disadvantaged groups, better preparation for and advantage taken of the time for the introduction of the new policy, and then the change to care in the community in 1993.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State is saying that nothing has changed as a result of the statement today. The point that I made about the statement was that a large number of organisations believed that the Government's word was their bond, and they have acted upon that. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Social Security has now told the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the answer that he gave was incorrect: people in day care facilities do not get help from income support.
  A number of organisations which the Government, given their rhetoric, ought to applaud—those which have got up and shown entrepreneurial skills—believed that the Government were going to bring in the proposal by next year and have put their money where the Government's mouth is. They have got projects not merely on the drawing board but up and running, but they now face closure unless the Government come up with new money for them.
  The Government believe in targeting. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that he will go away and try to seek resources which can be targeted on the projects which are running because the Government said that the scheme would start next year?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree that I said, first, that I did not know of the particular voluntary body in Birkenhead. Then I picked up on the hon. Gentleman's sedentary remark—
  Mr. Frank Field: They are all over the country.
  Mr. Clarke: They are not all over the country. The hon. Gentleman must allow me to answer his intervention. If centres provide only day facilities and have no residents, they cannot obtain income support and cannot have been expecting to do so in future—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will not allow me to reply. He makes a case which frankly does not stand up, and he is trying to sustain it during my answer. We are not withdrawing any funds at the moment. If people are planning projects—
  Mr. Field: The Government promised to pay.
  Mr. Clarke: There was no such promise. That is total nonsense—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must allow me to reply.
  If a flow of funds is going to a voluntary body of any kind at the moment, I have not said anything that will end that. If a body was anticipating a flow of money next year, presumably it was anticipating a decision to be taken by the local authority, which it has not yet taken, which it cannot have yet taken and which was not backed by any
  1030
  promise made by the Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman made a bad point and is trying to barrack me throughout the answer. There has been no withdrawal of funds and no promise of funds next year. The hon. Gentleman has merely described a body which, no doubt with worthy intentions, has anticipated a decision by the local authority next year to give it added support. It is ridiculous to suggest that the country is full of people banking on some promise that we made to pay, because no such promise was made—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) must not sustain this constant barracking from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Field: Some people believed the Government's word.
  Mr. Clarke: It would be a ridiculous method of debating if both sides regarded themselves as entitled to speak at the same time throughout the debate.
  No money has been withdrawn from any voluntary body. No plans have been drawn up for expenditure by any local authority next year. If the voluntary body was expecting expenditure by the local authority next year, it must look to the local authority to meet it. I do not accept the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point. Hon. Members say that nothing has changed—[Interruption.] If hon. Members decide that it is as well to conduct this debate among themselves, it is because they are reduced to making a case against the phasing which they cannot sustain, and they are doing so in an absurd fashion.
  Various things have changed. We have announced additional resources for the care of the mentally ill, the beginnings of a specific grant for voluntary bodies giving help to people suffering from alcohol abuse and drug abuse, and greatly enhanced grants for training. Our announcement is a substantial advance for mentally ill people. The expenditure that we propose to support by the new specific grant is almost double existing expenditure by local authorities on residential care. We have given this specific grant because history shows that local authorities tend to give a low priority to mentally ill people compared with other groups that they are accustomed to supporting through social services.
  We believe that there should be much closer collaboration between health authorities and local authorities providing for mentally ill people. We are therefore introducing, at a generous level, a specific grant which will oblige them to collaborate to unlock the resources which they will then spend on improving the community end of care for mentally ill people.
  On alcohol and drug abuse, I acknowledge that the amount of spending that will be supported in the first year by the new specific grant is quite small—£2 million—but we were contemplating the new specific grant coming in to replace the income support income that voluntary bodies usually have. As there is no transfer of income support but also no ending of income support, income support revenue will still go to the voluntary bodies until the changeover in 1993. The £2 million which we now propose in support is in addition to existing expenditure. It will be new money. It is a benchmark for that specific grant, which will obviously have to be enlarged significantly in 1993 once the income support revenue for the voluntary bodies comes to an end.

  1031
  I shall leave the issue of training to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who will speak at the end of the debate. The increased expenditure on the training of social workers which we have announced will mean a significant increase in the training activity of local authorities. That is an important part of how we must use the next three years. I expect local authorities to continue to expand and develop personal social services of all kinds over the next year or two, taking account of available resources and the ability of their local taxpayers to afford the pace of advance.
  I believe that the collaboration between health authorities, local authorities and voluntary bodies in preparing for the new policy will continue. We shall see them getting closer and taking advantage of the work that they have already done. If they follow the phased steps which I have announced, the momentum will be maintained in the policy, and in 1993 we will see a much improved policy of care in the community for all the disadvantaged groups whom the House wishes to help.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Jack Ashley: I never thought that I would hear the Secretary of State make a disingenuous speech, but we have just heard a disingenuous speech and a disingenuous statement. I am surprised at his attempt to make out that the proposed changes will improve provision for disabled people and their carers. He must know that that will not happen. In fact, it will do the opposite.
  The Secretary of State had the brass nerve to say that he was annoyed at the response by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his policies. Disabled people and their carers feel more than annoyed. My hon. Friend used the words "angry, cheated and betrayed"—not his words or my words, but the words of the Carers National Association. That is how disabled people and their carers feel. They feel let down by the Government. The Secretary of State made out that there were wonderful improvements and craftily implied that there would be a small, marginal improvement because funds for the mentally ill were ring-fenced and the rest of it, conveniently omitting to say that all the other funds for which we asked will not be ring-fenced. This delay means putting back schemes that many local authorities have already drawn up.
  The announcement by the Secretary of State is a serious setback for disabled people and their carers. He is a skilful debater, but no amount of rationalising can obscure the fact that the Government have let disabled people down badly. We all know that the poll tax has backfired on the Tory Government. Instead of blaming local authorities, the electorate is blaming the Government, rightly, for the poll tax. To win votes—which is what this manoeuvre is all about—the improvements put in hand by local authorities are being deferred. The poll tax—the Government's baby—is the real reason for deferring important schemes.
  Disabled people have become the sacrificial victims of the poll tax. That is a simple equation. I do not know how the Secretary of State sees that political morality, but it is appalling to conduct the affairs of state in such a way that the rights and interests of severely disabled people and their carers are sacrificed. The Opposition would not do
  1032
  that, nor would some Conservative Back Benchers who are waiting to speak—their priorities would be to put disabled people and their carers first.
  Mr. Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ashley: I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes to speak.
  Under this Government, disabled people have gone to the bottom of the queue. Community care reform means a higher poll tax because the Government plan to hand over responsibility without sufficient cash. Despite all the manoeuvring by the Secretary of State, that is the bottom line of the debate. There is inadequate central funding for community care. We cannot blame things on the poll tax or on town halls; it is the Government's responsibility and their failure. That is what the debate is all about. The Secretary of State, seasoned debater though he is, cannot get round that basic fact, and that is why the public and disabled people will blame the Government. The Government cannot circumvent that reality. It is ironic that community care charges were introduced, not because of the plight of disabled people or of their carers but because of the rising costs of claims for income support for people in residential homes. I do not believe that anyone will dispute that. It is doubly ironic that cash considerations are forcing this decision. That is the reason for this damaging delay. We are coming full circle.
  The Secretary of State says one thing about his projects, plans and policies; but clear, eloquent statements are being made by not only my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, whose speech I admired, but organisations representing disabled people that are working at the coal face as it were, and know at first hand how people are suffering. I think that I can claim that all of them—I am open to challenge—are appalled at the Government's actions. I do not see how any responsible Minister can find a hint of evidence to support the Government. I should not say to the people who are working with crippled, blind, deaf, spastic or mentally handicapped people that they are wrong. They unanimously condemn the Government. [Interruption.] It does not matter what the Government Whip says to the Secretary of State. All organisations representing disabled people are saying that. I shall sit down if I am challenged on that point and the Minister or the Whip can name one organisation that backs the Government, but I see that I need not give way.
  If the changes are delayed, will the guidance still be published in September and will health authorities still be required to commit funds for community care projects? Delay is bound to mean that people in hard-pressed local authorities and the national health service will simply turn their attention to other matters. Like Ministers, they are busy people and delay means that they will carry out bypass operations and other projects that are dear to the hearts of voters. As a result of the Secretary of State's announcement, thousands of disabled people will be pushed aside. I regret that.
  The care problems of disabled people cannot be solved overnight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, we have waited six years for changes and now they have been put further back. The Government's failure is politically embarrassing for the Secretary of State, but to many disabled people and their carers the proposals are not simply an embarrassment, but a disaster. Ministers should be ashamed of themselves.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: I have not spoken in the House before about community care but I have a special interest in it. For the first three years of its life I was a legal commissioner with the Mental Health Act Commission and during that time I played a small part in the drafting of those parts of the biennial report and the code of practice dealing specifically with community care for the mentally ill.
  I support the Secretary of State's proposals. Even if he had not spoken about the community charge, I should have urged a transitional introduction of community care in the way that he suggested. One of my reasons is that during my time with the commission we were concerned, especially in the early days, about demands from the progressive wing—the psychiatrists, psychologists and some Opposition Members who are active in these matters—to put pressure on the authorities to empty the mental hospitals and return freedoms and rights to the patients. They thought that that could be done only by emptying our hospitals and making people go back into the community, whether ready or not. In the first year or two it was part of our task to bring quite clearly to the minds of those concerned that that was not necessarily always appropriate and that the proper provisions were not available on the ground to deal with the problem.
  The community, in the sense of us all and not just those concerned with mental health or disabled people, is not ready to accept many people into the community and to treat them with the sympathy and understanding that they deserve. I regret to say that then and even now there are clear signs that the education of the public in such matters is not sufficiently developed.
  During our discussions we met many people from the social services departments of local authorities. I pay tribute to many of them, especially directors, who were keen to play a much greater role in community care, not only for the mentally ill but more generally for other groups. Their keenness to do so did not hide the fact that they were often ill-equipped to provide the necessary facilities. Opposition Members may think that I am about to mention resources, which of course play a part. We did not conclude that the majority of the problems stemmed from lack of resources. Many of them stemmed from the fact that organisations, the number of people who had been trained to the right level in mental health care, and the number of approved social workers in place were quite inadequate. Sometimes in their keenness to be of help, social services directors ran away with the idea that they could manage when they could not. That is why I welcome in our proposals the assistance with greater training of those who in due course will carry out community care.
  The people whom I have mentioned were in a great hurry and were not well equipped. As a result of the work carried out by the commission and other interested people, the progress towards community care for the mentally ill was slowed—I do not use the word delayed—so that we could take account of the needs. It is right to apply the same concept to other areas of community care. That is why I welcome the proposals.
  Little has been said about the great work that is being carried out by other people who are interested and work in community care. Not only district health authorities, local authorities and the Government are concerned, because voluntary and charitable organisations are keen to accept
  1034
  responsibility in an area in which they have a great deal of expertise. I should be sorry to see that expertise lost. I have already mentioned the community as a whole. Of course, we need more education and more help. People in families with someone who is disabled in some way will appreciate the extra resources which, whether the Opposition like it or not, have been provided by the Government for greater community care.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: They are provided by local authorities.
  Mr. Kirkhope: No, by the Government.
  My mother-in-law recently broke her hip and has just left hospital. I can speak highly of the assistance that she received from the voluntary sector and from the local authority social services department. She is grateful for that assistance and many other elderly and disabled people have good reason to be grateful for what they receive. However, it is a matter not just of gratitude but of our responsibility to such people. Plainly, the Government accept that responsibility in the implementation of the community care proposals and they are ready and willing to discharge it.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). I do not know how he can justify his conclusion because, although large sums of money are involved—we should not treat large sums lightly—those sums demonstrate beyond peradventure that out in the community there is an existing unmeasured and unmet need. The Government propose to postpone the resources required to meet that need which inevitably will mean that they will be ignoring the need during the period of postponement. None of us should ever forget that.
  The Secretary of State's statement was deeply disappointing. The Government's decision and the reason for it have obvious political overtones and implications. However, I wish to concentrate on the implications of the delay for the management of the implementation of community care, which already has a sorry history. The original Griffiths study commenced more than 10 years ago. Community care was marched to the top of the agenda and the professions geared themselves to face the consequences of fundamental change in the new approach to community care. That was welcome then and continues to be welcome now on all sides.
  A long time afterwards, in spring 1988, the Griffiths consultation paper was published. Community care was again marched up and then down the hill. Then there was a long and worrying hiatus between 1988 and 1989, and finally in the winter of 1989 the White Paper was published. Expectations were again raised and people were led to believe that that was the final version of the scheme that the Government would implement. Like the proverbial grand old Duke of York, the Secretary of State has once again marched everyone back down the hill with today's announcement.
  Whether the Secretary of State thinks that community care is good, bad or indifferent, his approach is a totally stupid way to govern. Local authorities and care professionals do not know whether they are coming or going. It is quite disingenuous for the Secretary of State to

  1035
  say that his announcement will change nothing. Whether he likes it or not, people have sensibly been making professional arrangements to take advantage of the scheme in April 1991. Now, all those plans have crumbled into dust in their hands. The Secretary of State may say that it is merely phasing-in, but in fact it is a two-year or more delay. That is significant in the time scale that we are discussing, especially bearing in mind the few years that some elderly people live in residential homes before they die. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a severe and fundamental change.
  The Government have not taken into account the real costs of such a sudden change of direction. My local authority has, quite properly, made painful sacrifices in an attempt to use its present resources to anticipate the changes and so meet the previous target date of April 1991. That work has now been wasted; it will have to be set aside and begun again in two years. The delay will mean that a great deal of work, such as case management pilot projects and assessment procedures, in which my local authority has engaged diligently and thoroughly, has now gone out of the window. That is a shame because the results of that work and what could have been achieved by April 1991, had the Government allowed the policy to proceed, were encouraging.
  Irrespective of what we think of "Working for Patients", "Providing Better Health" and "Caring for People", which embrace the health board changes, and whatever we think of the general practitioner contract changes, which embrace a systematic survey of the health needs of the elderly, they could have been introduced and administered much better as an integrated package. My local social work authority has found that general practitioners in rural areas are now referring greater numbers of elderly people who require occupational therapy. It could cope with that much more easily if it had the advantage of the care in the community package that was due to be implemented next April. It now has to go back to the drawing board to find a way to meet that additional demand on resources, without the initial assistance that was expected from the implementation of the package. If I had longer, I could illustrate the confusion and the disruption that will be caused, and I am sure that other hon. Members could do the same.
  There is another problem to which the Government have paid no attention. Although the changes are not so fundamental in Scotland, the changes to the child care services law in England and Wales will be imposed on local authorities in Scotland not, as the Secretary of State said, in April, but in two or three years' time. The social work department in my constituency will have to cope with the fundamental changes in community care at the same time as trying to cope with the changes in child care services. That works against the Government's argument in favour of delaying the policy.
  I can cite a case similar to that cited by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). It is a Borders region authority problem. It has inherited a home that was recently closed by a religious order. It is situated in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), and it was closed for valid reasons. However, the local authority now has to cater for another 54 people. It was in the
  1036
  process of setting up a community care package for all those people between now and April 1991, and it does not know what the dickens it can do now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has delayed the care in the community policy. I am sure that the local authority will, in the end, make sensible and proper provision, but it will now have to be at the expense of existing services.
  The key to community care is the importance of the individual assessment, which measures individual needs. We cannot have the real benefit of community care until the Government properly fund and support that part of the community care package. I accept that large sums of money are involved, but the way to unlock funds for community care is to give local authorities a single budget and the flexibility to provide the domiciliary support to take people out of institutions. That would generate money that is currently locked up in inappropriate care in institutions. The Secretary of State cannot say that no changes have been made to his plans because the crucial key that will open the door to the resources needed and to treatment in the community has been thrown away and lost for another two years. That is deeply worrying and the right hon. and learned Gentleman deserves all the criticism that he has received from hon. Members.
  I welcome the earmarked fund that the right hon. and learned Gentleman announced this afternoon. It is a positive step in dealing with mental illness. Can it be deployed in providing residential care for the demented elderly? I refer to not just the frail elderly, but to those who are demented and require a much higher and more consistent package of care. They need higher staff ratios and must be cared for in residential establishments. It would help if residential accommodation for the demented elderly could be paid for under the scheme.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I can confirm that psychiatric services would be included.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that small mercy. I should also like to know when the Price Waterhouse report will be published, as that will be important.
  Community care has been organised since the mid–1980s, and that is to be welcomed. However, I say with all the sincerity that I can muster that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement today will simply shave off from existing services the money that local authorities need to provide community care now. That is not in anyone's interests and it will mean misery for a large number of our most vulnerable citizens. It is another direct consequence of the hated poll tax, which should have never reached the statute book and which, I hope, will be withdrawn at an early stage.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am always pleased to participate in any debate in which the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) also participates. He and I have devoted many years and a great deal of time to the quality of life and the interests of the most vulnerable groups in society. However, on this occasion I have not reached the same conclusion as he did about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's statement. In fact, in a quiet way I warmly endorse the phasing in of community care. My right hon. and

  1037
  learned Friend knows that, over the years, I have warned that we have been proceeding at too fast a rate and that many people would suffer as a result.
  I wish to pick up one or two points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I refer him to the Select Committee's report on community care, "Planning and Co-operation". The report states:
  "We call upon the Government to ensure that, in the event of a delay"—
  or the phasing in that was announced this afternoon—
  "sufficient money is allocated to local authorities to enable them to purchase services from those new community care projects which have been set up this year in the expectation that their costs would be met by local authorities in the coming year … If there is to be a delay, we recommend"
  that the Department of Health requires
  "that local authorities use the intervening period to prepare joint health and social services community care plans for their area."
  That is still lacking, and I do not think that it could have been achieved if the policy had been implemented, as originally planned, on 1 April 1991.
  The report also recommended that sufficient money be allocated
  "to train staff in assessment and case management."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and I know from our work on the Select Committee that there are inadequate numbers of people yet able to undertake that task. It also recommended that sufficient money be made available
  "to put in place workable collaborative structures with health authorities and other local authority departments such as housing departments and with voluntary organisations; and to draw up contractual agreements with statutory bodies and with voluntary organisations."
  I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend will study with great care not only that report but the other reports on community care recently published by the Select Committee. I do not think that all is doom, as has been prophesied by one or two hon. Members during the debate.
  I wish briefly to mention the Select Committee's report, Session 1984–85, on community care for the adult mentally handicapped and mentally ill. The Committee pointed out that the policy of community care
  "means more than reducing the number of hospital beds".
  The report went on that it means instead
  "the creation of a whole variety of alternative facilities, supportive services for people and their families who have little contact with statutory services…and the redeployment of thousands of staff and the switch of capital resources."
  Perhaps it is also appropriate to quote the 1986 Audit Commission report, to which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred. It pointed out that the reduction in NHS provision for the mentally ill had run ahead of the build-up of community services. The commission also highlighted geographical variations in standards, the need for bridging finance, the organisational confusion between statutory agencies, and inadequate service staffing.
  For all those reasons—and many are still relevant today—I warmly support my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to phase in community care. That will produce a better community care policy, improved facilities, and more understanding.
  The 1985–86 report of the Social Services Select Committee on the prison medical service expressed grave concern about the number of discharged mentally ill patients who ended up in prison because of the failure of community care and the lack of hospital beds for
  1038
  psychiatric cases. Prison is not the place for individuals who have offended because of mental illness. Community care is not a panacea for all the evils that are with us today, and it should never be considered as such. It is the approach of management that can pay real dividends for the patient. In too many cases, it is based on a pecuniary policy introduced by health authorities to save on the cost of long-stay psychiatric and geriatric facilities.
  In my own constituency, the people of Macclesfield have been raped and pillaged by the avaricious activities of Mersey regional health authority and its aggressive bulldog of a chairman, Sir Donald Wilson. The birthright of the people of Macclesfield has been stolen from under their very noses by a politically appointed, unelected manager who too often has appeared more interested in achieving capital receipts than in providing health care and services for my constituents.
  The Macclesfield infirmary branch, which houses a geriatric ward, was closed down and sold for £3·5 million to Sainsbury to build a superstore. The Mary Dendy hospital has been sold off to Messrs. Barratt for houses, so that the mentally handicapped do not now have the same range of facilities that they did when that hospital existed. Part of Parkside hospital for the mentally ill in my constituency—a fantastic area of peace and tranquility in the heart of Macclesfield—has been sold off to McAlpine for houses against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the people of my constituency. I say that with some regret, but I am concerned about what is happening to the facilities for vulnerable people in my constituency.
  I have served for many years on the Social Services Select Committee, and my experience has been that in too many cases health authorities have discharged too many patients, too soon—and for the wrong reasons into a community that is unprepared, unwilling, and, in some cases, unable to accept them.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Winterton: No, I shall not give way, because I have a lot to say. I feel deeply on this subject, and I want to call on my experience and knowledge gained in recent years.
  Why do not we follow the example of the Dutch? I recently led the Select Committee on a valuable visit to Denmark and to the Netherlands. We visited a large community for mentally handicapped people in Noordwijk, which is close to Amsterdam. That village community has 1,000 mentally handicapped residents—850 of whom live on the main site and 150 in group homes nearby. A small number of them are severely handicapped. Residents live not in the old conventional Victorian hospital which is so typical and which we say that we need to get rid of, but in about 30 houses around a large site, each containing about 25 residents. They live in proper apartments of between eight and nine people. The site is well landscaped and contains a swimming pool, horticultural plots, a supermarket where residents pay for their goods by Giro bank card, a hairdresser, a clothes store, and a new activity centre with impressive education and recreational facilities. It also includes hydrotherapy and—dare I use this word in the House—a "snoozlroom", which is amazing in aiding the rehabilitation and calm of some of the mentally handicapped who require that sort of treatment.

  1039
  That village community has its own doctor, dentist and physiotherapy service. There are also nurses' homes on the site and a creche for the children of the staff. There are more than 1,000 staff. Not all are full time, but 650 are nursing staff. There is a nurse training school as well.
  That village community is using the fantastic facilities that exist and is not selling them off for houses or other forms of development. It is using them for the progressive treatment of mentally handicapped people. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) also visited that community, and he was as impressed as I was with the facilities. I am concerned for the future—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Winterton: I shall give way to my right hon. and learned Friend uniquely.
  Mr. Clarke: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to put in a word for Sir Donald Wilson, whom he described as raping and pillaging Macclesfield. He must realise that the 19th century large mental hospitals are being sold to produce money for capital investment in a successful region. Mersey is developing its policies for the mentally ill and will do so with the aid of the new grant. It is one of the most successful regions in the country in reducing its waiting list for non-urgent operations, and it has recorded many other achievements. Will my hon. Friend moderate his language and his attacks on one of our most successful health authorities?
  Mr. Winterton: I will not alter a single word of my comments about the actions of Mersey regional health authority in my constituency. I am fully supported by an overwhelming number of my constituents, including those who deal with the vulnerable groups of mentally handicapped people and others.
  My concern for the future—and I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend is still present to hear this—is heightened by his somewhat unfortunate action in refusing to ring-fence local authority funds for all community care, to prevent that provision being chipped away at, siphoned off or downright plundered to boost budgets to provide more high-profile and electorally advantageous services.
  Is it correct that my right hon. and learned Friend will be meeting only about 70 per cent. of the costs to local authorities of looking after mentally ill people who are discharged from hospital? If that is the case, it is a fraud. He owes it to these people to advance 100 per cent. of the cost. I am delighted that the resources for the mentally ill have been ring-fenced, but the amount given is important and should represent 100 per cent. of the cost.
  We are gambling with the welfare and lives of the weakest and the most vulnerable people whose care is our responsibility. We cannot and must not turn a blind eye to the fact that we have failed so far to ensure that we have put in place the appropriate infrastructure and support that is necessary if that policy is even to stand a chance of working.
  A group of people who include the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, and other members of the Select Committee, are deeply concerned about the carers. They are a vital part of the success of community care. Of the 6 million carers in Great Britain, 3.7 million carry the main
  1040
  caring responsibility; 1.4 million devote at least 20 hours a week to caring, with more than half of them spending at least 50 hours a week on their caring duties. That staggering resource should be nurtured and supported in a planned, proper and systematic manner. I may well rile my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) when I say that its continuation and extension cannot and must not in future be left to chance. If community care is to work, positive steps must be taken to ensure that local authority social services departments are obliged to make it a prime objective to bring together and disseminate information about the statutory and voluntary services in their areas that would be of assistance to carers and their dependants.
  Furthermore, local authorities must consult carers and their representatives regularly about their community care plans; high priority must be given to developing domiciliary support services for carers; greater resources must be made available for training; many more respite facilities must also be made available. Failing that, many of these carers will collapse. Those whom they look after will then automatically become the responsibility of the social services departments.
  This is a critical debate. Sadly, party politics and political sparring have formed far too large a part of it. We are seeking to do our best for these most vulnerable groups. Through my work on the Select Committee and elsewhere, I shall continue to seek to represent their best interests and improve their quality of life, come hell or high water, come pressure from Government Whips, come pressure from any other source. I believe that the House has a duty to safeguard the future of these people.
  6.1 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Before the debate began I was extremely angry both about the community charge and about the lack of implementation of care in the community. I did not think that I could be angrier, but the laughter of the Secretary of State and of other Conservative Members when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described what was happening to the health service in his constituency has made me angrier than ever. So has the statement that the Secretary of State made today.
  One thing that his statement has made clear to us is that one of the purposes of the so-called community charge is to destroy all sense of community and to turn the most vulnerable sections of society against one another. The Secretary of State said that people must be protected from having too great a burden of community charge laid upon them and that therefore the implementation of the provisions relating to care in the community must be delayed. However, it is the poorest and the most overcrowded families who suffer the most from this unfair tax. They have to pay far more than those who live in big, spacious properties.
  It is these same poor people who have to pick up the pieces of the shattered welfare state that is under attack by the Government. They have to do the extra unpaid work of caring for people in the community. They have no assistance. The result of more and more cuts is that they receive less and less help. If he was really concerned about their problems, the Secretary of State could relieve their burden by abolishing the community charge.

  1041
  There is a hospital for the mentally ill in my constituency. Proposals are afoot to close St. Clement's hospital and sell the land and buildings. The Secretary of State says that he never allows such a hospital to be sold off without ensuring that even better provision is made for the mentally ill patients in the community. I hope that he will do that when the closure of St. Clement's is considered.
  There is no provision for severely mentally ill and severely disabled people in the community. If the Secretary of State's Department always makes sure that there is good provision for these people in the community when hospitals are closed, how does he explain the fact that people are living on the streets in cardboard boxes? Mentally ill patients are being discharged from hospitals every day, their possessions in a plastic bag, and given a list of hostels where they can look for accommodation, even though everybody knows that those hostels are already full. They therefore end up on the streets, and their condition gets worse and worse.
  If the community charge is cut, due to cuts in public expenditure, that will lead to more money in the pockets of the rich, but public expenditure cuts will lead to misery, uncertainty and suffering for the most disadvantaged people. After a lifetime of work, when they become old, frail, sick or disabled, having been squeezed dry in order to profit others, little provision is to be made for them. They are thrown on the scrap heap. They are told, "Wait a few years; you can go swing your hook in the meantime."
  I have tried to discover the scale of the problem in Tower Hamlets. In particular, I have tried to find out how many young severely disabled people need care in the community, and what it will cost. I have received no answers during the last three months, although I know personally of six cases. Two of them are severely disabled young men, paralysed from the neck down as a result of injuries in rugby matches.
  I digress in order to say that something ought to be done about the rules of that dangerous game. Protective clothing should be worn, similar to that which is worn by those who play American football. That might prevent terrible accidents, leading to total paralysis and the ruin of young men's lives. Those injuries are not uncommon. When my son was a young boy, I spent endless time in the accident and emergency department of my local hospital because of injuries that he and his friends suffered in rugby games.
  There are four young disabled people in Charles Key lodge who would like to live in the community with support. There is a frail elderly lady whose husband can no longer look after her on his own, and other people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. All those people, as well as mentally ill and handicapped patients, will be very expensive to look after. Rehabilitation programmes in national health service hospitals need to be funded to enable them to prepare for life in the community. However, money for that purpose has not been provided. We need central funding that is ring-fenced so that they can be properly looked after in the community.
  From the cases that I have examined, it seems that one of the problems is the demarcation line between the national health service and social services. That applies to both funding and the work that is done. If someone is paralysed and needs a catheter and help for bowel functions, the question is whether that is to be regarded as medical help or dealt with by a carer who has been trained
  1042
  just for that purpose. That question has not been answered. It has resulted in help for individuals who are waiting for release from hospital being delayed.
  I have referred before to the case of Corporal Bill Blackburn, but I have been unable to talk about him for more than a few seconds. His case graphically illustrates what is happening but what should not be happening. Corporal Bill Blackburn was injured three years ago in a rugby accident. He is tetraplegic and paralysed from the neck down. That young man, who is not yet 30, was admitted to the Odstock spinal injuries unit near Salisbury three years ago. Two years ago, he was admitted to the Queen Elizabeth military hospital on the premise that he would soon be able to live in a specially adapted flat that we had obtained for him in the area where his mother lives, on the Isle of Dogs. We used pressure to obtain that flat for him.
  A dispute arose over who would be responsible for funding his care in the community. The health authority offered a district nurse, but the service could not guarantee that he would be taken out of bed before 11 am. He was also told that he would have to be put back in bed before 7 pm. That is no life for a young man. He rejected that proposal and asked whether alternative arrangements could be made, with three carers taking it in turns to look after him. While a number of case conferences took place, Corporal Blackburn got on with his rehabilitation programme. In April 1989 he went to New York, where he won medals in sports for the disabled.
  He says that he does not want or need sympathy—that all he wants to do is to get on with his life. He has waited for three years to get into his flat so that he can again live a full life. However, the conflict between the NHS and the local authority social services continues.
  He was given a discharge date of November 1989, but it was not kept because of the disputes over money and who should do which job. After pressure from me, the director of social services went to the military hospital to see Bill Blackburn and promised him that he would definitely be discharged by the end of January 1990. Because it was the director of social services who made that promise, Bill spent money on a washing machine and fitting his flat with blinds. He really believed that this time he would be discharged. It was not to be. I have a letter from the social services department which says that, if the Government cannot be made to understand the problems for local authorities of funding these cases, which cost perhaps upwards of £30,000 a year, some even double that, the legislation will be meaningless.
  The local authority says that it cannot find the money to look after Bill Blackburn without a financial contribution from the health authority. The health authority said that the health service contribution has to be in relation to the provision of health care skills and that it does not accept that it is a district health authority responsibility to contribute directly towards Mr. Blackburn's social care needs.
  It requires the judgment of Solomon to decide which are social care needs and which are health care needs. It gives the local authority an opportunity to yo-yo backwards and forwards and continue arguing, while Bill Blackburn is still in the military hospital. The Secretary of State's statement today just adds to that yo-yo effect.
  Bill told me recently that he hides his head when the consultant goes around the hospital because he knows that he will be asked whether there is any news from Tower

  1043
  Hamlets council. There is no news. He knows that the bed has been needed for years to help the rehabilitation of others who have had accidents or who are severely disabled. He does not want to settle for life in an institution, and why should he have to do so when he is a young man? It would not be right and proper for him. Surely the proposals for care in the community should be able to be used to help someone like Bill live a full life, yet they are not working.
  The Secretary of State and his team must suffer either from a lack of imagination or from a lack of conscience when they can come here and blandly make proposals which will postpone help for all such people. Perhaps they do not realise the heartbreak involved. I challenge the Secretary of State to go down to the Queen Elizabeth military hospital to see Bill Blackburn and explain his policies and tell Bill when he will be able to use his flat on the Isle of Dogs.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Bow and Popular (Ms. Gordon) is calling for extra spending but she seems to forget how relatively low the level of spending was when the Labour party was last in power. In 1979 spending on community care services was just over £1 billion. The latest figure is well over £3 billion—an increase of 68 per cent. in real terms over eight years. She should bear that in mind.
  Ms. Gordon: The hon. Gentleman must realise that many hospital wards and beds have been closed since then and there is far more need for care in the community than there was when the hospital service was more full and efficient.
  Mr. Thurnham: More hospitals closed under the previous Labour Government than under this Government.
  The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said that he thought that people with disabilities would be disappointed with the Government. I think that they will be disappointed with the Opposition. I would have thought that we could have had a full-day's debate on something as important as care in the community and I am disappointed that it is only a half-day debate. The Opposition's motion calls upon Her Majesty's Government to "ensure adequate funding". When I asked the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—I am grateful that he gave way to me—about what level of funding the Labour party would provide if it were in power, he was not able to give me an answer. I should like to take him to the kiosk at the side of the Chamber and buy him a tin of humbugs because that is what it is. The motion calls on the Government to provide funding, but the Opposition cannot provide an answer when asked about their proposals.
  People with disabilities will be disappointed that the Opposition have not come forward with proper policies. However, we can see their difficulty. The Leader of the Opposition has gone on record as saying that 15 out of 16 working taxpayers would not pay anything extra if his party were in power. I understand that the hon. Member for Livingston will not pay his community charge. Therefore, there would be no resources to put into extra
  1044
  community care. That is why the hon. Member for Livingston cannot provide an answer and why he has to talk in vague terms about adequate funding. All he could say was that he would want to provide a reasonable amount. The Government have increased spending on community care substantially. We have done more than the Labour party is offering to do.
  The Government are right to phase in community care because it would be wrong to go for a big-bang approach. The chief executive of Bolton local authority has sent me a fax saying that Bolton is willing and ready to take on implementation of the Act, provided there is the necessary financial support. However, it has overspent on the budget for Network homes by about £500,000. The cost of providing for those in Network homes is far too high. The figures I have show an average cost per resident of about £22,000 a year. In a voluntary home a few miles away with what I believe to be a higher standard of care, the cost is £12,000 a year. The existing resources are not being used efficiently. Before calling for extra resources we must see that existing resources are used more efficiently. I call on the Government to issue strict guidelines to local authorities to use the phasing-in period to involve voluntary groups much more fully.
  I received a letter today from Fidelity Simpson, the parliamentary adviser to the Spinal Injuries Association. She said:
  "The delay gives local authorities ample opportunity to fully consult with organisations of disabled people in their area and we urge the Government to stress this in their guidance on planning. The Social Services Inspectorate Report on the Disabled Persons Act issued in January 1990 highlights how 'service developments for physically disabled people are often given a lower priority than service developments for other groups of service users.' It goes on to recommend that 'social services authorities should progress the direct involvement of disabled people in the strategic and operational planning of services at elected member and officer levels'."
  That is excellent. It shows that one voluntary group sees this time as an opportunity to become more involved. I call on both Bolton local authority and other local authorities to involve voluntary groups to a much greater extent.
  The Bolton Handicap Action Group has set up a charitable trust and wants to play a part. It should be helped to do so. If voluntary groups have not had enough help in the past, they should be given more help to organise themselves to provide a service which can be done much more efficiently and effectively than by local authorities which are riddled with high overheads and restrictive practices and are concerned far more with bureaucracy than providing care for individuals.
  In my constituency there is a severely disabled young man by the name of Paul Hargreaves. He desperately wants more care. His mother has told me repeatedly that she cannot go on any longer. However, the local authority has failed to provide care for him. It has to reconsider its priorities and provide help where it is needed. If necessary, we should look carefully at the proposals to allow local authorities to give cash for care. We were not able to secure an amendment on that the other day, but we should devolve packages of care whereby people in need can have money to buy in care services far more efficiently than they could be provided by local authorities. I call on local authorities to use this phasing-in time to improve the standard of care and the way in which they organise it.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The idea of care in the community is one to which all hon. Members subscribe. People who need not remain hospitalised in long-term institutions must be given the opportunity to live independently in the community.
  We can all agree at least on that point, but what separates the Opposition from the Government is the context in which we place the idea of care in the community. For us, it must be pursued for its own sake. It represents a substantial and qualitative leap forward for thousands of citizens who do not receive the quality of care that should be theirs of right. The Opposition regard care in the community as an end in itself, albeit one with massive resource implications for the Government and the taxpayer. The Government regard it not as an end but as a means to an end that has little to do with improving the quality of services for people in need, as a means of cutting the cost of the national health service and as a cheaper alternative to other options.
  The Government further regard care in the community as a means by which the private sector can be allowed inside the national health service to pick off, one by one, the nice little earners that they have identified. I do not doubt for a minute that the Government's friends in the private sector will be able to provide private care under the new community care proposals, but in the main they will put profit first and patients second. Despite the rhetoric of Conservative Members, that is a fundamental reality which they will not be able to overcome. They cannot deny that the Government are promoting the private sector through their care in the community policies.
  I consulted the excellent magazine Labour Research for 1987, which showed that there were 100,000 elderly and mentally and physically handicapped people in private nursing and residential homes in the United Kingdom. Yesterday, I telephoned the Library to ask how the statistics had changed in the intervening period. It told me that in March 1989, according to the review of private health care, there were not 100,000 but 231,800 elderly, chronically sick and physically disabled people in private nursing and residential homes. That figure does not include mentally handicapped people, so it is actually even higher. Hon. Members know from constituency experience that since March 1989 the number of private residential and nursing homes has mushroomed further. The intention of the Government is to encourage the private sector to provide for mentally and physically handicapped and elderly people.
  The reality is that thousands of the most vulnerable people in our community are being shipped out of the national health service, which has looked after them for most of their lives, and handed to private providers, the motivation of most of whom is to make money from their predicament. Does not the realisation that that is happening send a shiver of apprehension down the spines of those Conservative Members who still have a conscience? If it does not, it should be doing precisely that.
  Mr. Raison rose—
  Mr. McAllion: The right hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me—I do not have time to give way.
  A report was recently issued by the director of social work on Tayside regional council. It questions the ethics of the Government's encouragement of health boards to use
  1046
  private contractors and to make an alternative provision for the chronically sick and elderly in their hospitals. He writes:
  "Given the vulnerability of the client groups affected by these arrangements, the question of whether they can give informed consent to these changes must be in doubt, and questions have been raised about whether the quality of care they will receive will be equal to that available in a hospital environment. This latter issue was raised recently when general practitioners in one Scottish Region objected to providing services free of charge to the many nursing home residents who previously had received medical and nursing care in Health Service hospitals."
  Surely the report is right to question the ethics of a deal struck between the Government, health boards and private contractors—a deal that is essentially about money —the consequence of which is to transfer vulnerable patients into potentially exposed circumstances in which the quality of care that they receive can be significantly reduced. Does not it give hon. Members pause for thought that we have just passed legislation that makes it much more likely that many more vulnerable people will be transferred into such potentially exposed circumstances?
  One of the most revealing documents on the Government's attitude to care in the community is the recent Scottish Office consultation paper on specific grants for mental illness. The basic concept behind it is good: first, that the current level of community-based services for people with mental illnesses is far too low; and, secondly, that something must be done to improve those services. No one would argue with that, but on reading into the document a different picture emerges. Page 1 states:
  "The policy aim is twofold: to reduce the numbers of mentally ill people requiring admission to hospital … and to enable mentally ill people to leave hospital."
  Page 2, under the heading,
  "types of project eligible for assistance",
  states that the
  "main criterion for judging applications"
  is the
  "extent to which the proposed project could assist in providing for, or supporting community living … and in so doing help to reduce the need for hospital admissions or facilitate the discharge of persons from hospital."
  It would appear that the true purpose behind the provision of specific grants on mentall illness is simply to empty hospitals. The director of social work in Tayside region described it as placing
  "excessive emphasis on hospital discharge programmes."
  I can understand the Government's reasons for introducing care in the community. It reduces costs in the health service, transfers the financial burden from the Government to local authorities and, possibly more important, reduces the requirement for beds in psychiatric hospitals, particularly those located in prime development sites, thereby making it easier for the Government to sell them and to acquire a capital receipt.
  Has that anything to do with helping mentally ill people? Are they a priority in the Government's policies? The answer to those questions must be a resounding no. If they had been a priority, the Government would have adopted a different approach. First, they would have assessed the need for community-based services. Secondly, they would have targeted resources to increase annually the level of such services that could be provided. Thirdly, they would have geared hospital discharge programmes to the community-based services that are available for those leaving hospitals.

  1047
  The fact that the Government have made a priority of the hospital discharge programmes and geared funding to maximise the emptying of those hospitals reveals the true nature of their commitment to care in the community. They put buildings, costs, revenue and profits before people who depend on services.
  This afternoon, the Secretary of State made the absurd suggestion that local authorities had not prepared plans to implement the care in the community proposals, which excused the delays that he announced. That is sheer nonsense. The plans that have been made by councils are ready for implementation. I have three lengthy reports from Tayside regional council on the plans that it has developed to implement it. Its convenor of social work, Councillor Jim Mudie, who is the convenor of the social work committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, was quoted this morning in the Scottish press as saying that councils in Scotland are ready and willing to meet the Government's original deadline of 1 April next year. What is lacking is the Government's resolution to make available the resources that would make it possible to keep to their timetable. They realise that if they do not provide the resources to proceed in April 1991 it will have an impact on poll tax levels in a general election year.
  Ultimately, that means that the Government have decided their priorities. They had to choose between implementing their care in the community policies and backing off and trying to save their political skins in an election year. The fact that they chose the latter speaks much of the Government's attitude over the past three or four years and explains why they will not be the Government after the next general election.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: As a wholehearted supporter of the Government's policy on community care, I was disappointed to learn that we cannot go ahead on 1 April 1991 in the way intended. I found most offensive the rather unpleasant way in which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was suggesting that elderly, frail and disabled people will be decanted into the streets. That is simply not true; it will not happen. I find it deeply offensive that the old and the frail should be cynically manipulated and used as a political football.
  Sir Roy Griffiths, the author of the splendid report which led to the legislation, said a few weeks ago:
  "There is a serious situation out there which needs tackling."
  He said that if there was a delay, he
  "would like to see a lot of justification".
  I agree wholeheartedly.
  I was pleased to learn that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team will not be postponing their excellent proposals, but will be phasing them in sensibly. I and many professionals in the caring community were concerned that the proposals would be put on ice. There were worrying reports in the newspapers that the delay would save the community charge payer £15 a year, or 30p a week. If that had been the reason for the decision, it would have been immoral nonsense.
  Sir Roy Griffiths stressed the need for justification and said that there will never be precisely enough money for
  1048
  community care. It is an untapped resource. The Select Committee said that carers save the community £24 billion a year. We owe them a debt, and they will not be forgotten.
  It is quite sensible and proper that local authorities do not implement the proposals with a big bang, because the Government would be held hostage by left-wing authorities—[Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but left-wing authorities would not cut their women's units, their gay units, their police monitoring units or their civic newspapers; they would cut care in the community. They would bring in the television cameras to show elderly people being thrown out of homes to gain some political advantage.
  Mr. Allen McKay: What about ring fencing?
  Mr. Hayes: I have always supported ring fencing, as has Sir Roy Griffiths.
  I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has met his road to Damascus today as he announced a new specific grant to support services for the mentally ill to ensure a higher priority for those services; a new, specific grant for the funding of voluntary bodies providing services for drug and alcohol misusers who were given low priority in the past; a new specific grant of £35·5 million for training social services staff; more support for those working with the elderly, children, the mentally handicapped and the physically disabled; and more support for post-qualification training courses.
  It is a welcome change of policy, which could be called creeping ring fencing. The Government clearly appreciate that, as we are about to spend £800 million or £1 billion of taxpayers' and charge payers' money, we must ensure that it is properly spent.
  The House has agreed to legislation suggesting that we should be kind to small, terrified, furry animals, so I shall be particularly kind to the hon. Member for Livingston. He suggested that disabled people would be severely disadvantaged. Has he forgotten my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security's 20–point plan specifically to help the disabled? Has he forgotten the carers' premium? Admittedly it is only £10, but it is a start and recognition of the valuable work that they do. Are we totally to ignore the Government's record on the abolition of the invalidity trap and the increase in public expenditure on social services of something like 37 per cent. in real terms since 1979? We would be foolish to forget all that.
  I regret the cynical manipulation by the Opposition of the elderly and those most at risk. I stress that the decision that had to be made will not be a cheap decision or a soft option. I refer my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to one of the most important parts of the Griffiths report —that which deals with residential care and nursing homes and the difficulties that many people face. A few weeks ago we had a debate about the many people on income support who are out of pocket by £40 a week in residential care and by up to £80 a week for nursing care. That is totally unsatisfactory, but between now and 1993 local authorities will gradually move people from voluntary homes to other homes, resulting in the Department of Social Security picking up an extremely large bill. Unless the Government set their mind to that problem, they will face an even larger bill.

  1049
  I regret that that decision had to be made, but the justification shows that unfortunately it was absolutely necessary.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: In a couple of minutes, before the Front-Bench spokesmen wind up the debate, I should like to pick up one point which has not been mentioned in the debate. In addition to the Government's concern about the politics of the poll tax, there is a more sinister reason behind the Secretary of State's announcement that the proposals are being deferred.
  The Government have caved in to extensive lobbying from the private care sector. Those involved in private care are deeply alarmed that the assessment of individual cases may well result in the redirection of individuals away from private institutional care. They realise that the legislation will well and truly put the brakes on the private care bonanza under the present Government, in which vast numbers of businesses have made a huge amount of money out of people's need for care. That has not been mentioned so far in the debate.
  The Secretary of State spoke about new money for local authorities, but we should examine the gross misuse of existing resources through the income support system. We know that vast numbers of people unnecessarily end up in private institutional care without any assessment whatsoever. They are placed there to serve the interests of the private care business. The Government have announced that the legislation will be deferred for two or three years, but it should be stressed that a huge amount of public money will continue to be grossly misused and wasted on institutional care instead of preventive care.
  It is important to note that the Association of County Councils' briefing paper states:
  "It will cost at least as much to continue with the existing system as to move to the new community care regime."
  Conservative-controlled councils have also said that. If we look at the matter from a financial point of view, deferral makes no sense. The continuation of open-ended income support payments for institutional care, whether or not people need it, is absolute nonsense and a gross misuse of public money.
  Public resources are being misdirected towards private institutional care businesses at the expense of genuine community care which should be directed towards keeping people in their own homes. We should consider the human cost of deferral: by his statement today, the Secretary of State is imprisoning in institutional care people who do not need that care, and he is doing so at huge public cost. Vast numbers of people in institutional care are getting deeper into debt as a result of inadequate income support payments, and that will continue over the next few years.
  Has the Secretary of State discussed with the Secretary of State for Social Security what deferral means in terms of public expenditure on social security payments? The Government's actions make no sense. It is clear that there is a need for a Minister for community care—something that the Labour party proposes—who does not consider one narrow interest of one Department, but who considers the roles of all the Departments across the board and also considers the needs of people in the community rather than in institutional care.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: In this all too brief debate in Labour party time, a number of interesting and important points have been made. There were many disappointments, the most important of which was the statement which the Secretary of State made earlier and his defence of it during this debate. I also found it disappointing—this is the first community care debate that I can recall in which I must say this—that every Conservative Member found it necessary to support everything that the Secretary of State did. One assumes that someone must have whispered the date of the general election in their ears because there can be little other justification for the Secretary of State's pathetic performance this afternoon.
  The Secretary of State reduced the role of Minister into a spectator sport. I hope that Conservative Members will not regard "spectator" as too offensive a word. However, that is a clear description of his role. Instead of fighting for his Department and for the objectives that he set, he has surrendered completely and care in the community in Britain is all the poorer for that.
  The Secretary of State would not upset the Hush Puppies of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Indeed, we almost expect the Chief Secretary to enter the Chamber any minute to pat the Secretary of State on the head. He would be one of the few people who would do that. If it was the intention of Conservative Members to improve the Secretary of State's image, they should be aware that his relationship with carers is similar to that between the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the British-German friendship society.
  As my colleagues have said, we are dealing with promises that were made clearly by the Government not just in the White Paper or in response to the Griffiths report, which the Secretary of State failed to mention, but as recently as 24 June. The Secretary of State quoted figures like confetti today, but he did not give us his figures, his thinking or his reasons for one of the most spectacular U-turns in the history of social services.
  The Secretary of State lambasted the local authorities, but ignored the assistance that they have given to his Department time after time. He referred to the figure of £1·5 billion, but conveniently overlooked several things: the fact that the local authorities' quotation was £1·02 billion; that they were bearing in mind that their estimate of £826 million for community care included £500 million in the social security budget which the Secretary of State had told us until today would be transferred to the local authorities in any case. No one would welcome the gross exaggeration about the local authority figures which the Secretary of State put before the House today.
  In this retreat, it is clear that the real reason behind the Government's thinking is that they have created a monster in the shape of the poll tax. There should be no doubt, if the Government's previous rhetoric must be believed, that they have panicked in the face of an approaching general election and the vulnerable in our community, the physically disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and their carers will have to pay for that panic.
  The Secretary of State said that he has thought about these matters and that he is worried about the community charge. Where did this sudden proposal for phasing-in come from? Why did not it appear in the White Paper or

  1051
  in earlier statements to the House? Why did the Secretary of State not once in Committee tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that things would be phased in like this or that we would have a timetable? Why did he not once say that the Government were going to disown Sir Roy Griffiths's main recommendation? That is what the Secretary of State's statement today really means.
  Conservative Members have said that they welcome the delay and postponement. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) could quote only one local voluntary organisation. I repeat the challenge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley): can the Secretary of State tell us of one voluntary organisation—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Spastics Society, the Care in the Community Scottish group and many others—that would support the delay? The opposite is the case. Voluntary organisations have made their views known to hon. Members and they will be as shocked as Opposition Members at the Secretary of State's announcement this afternoon.
  The Secretary of State referred to the need for co-ordination between the national health service and local authorities. In the light of his statement this afternoon, the morale of GPs and that in local authorities, in the health service and social services and social work departments must be at a new low. None of that is good news for co-operation and nothing that we have heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon is good for the patient.
  The provisions relating to community care were the only part of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill that anyone wanted. The Government have rushed ahead with the parts that no one wants and now tell us that they are going to delay the implementation of the small features of the Bill that were practicable. The deputy Prime Minister told us that the implementation would take place according to the availability of resources. We have heard that before. We heard it in connection with the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, and if the Government really believe what they say about the consumer, choice and representation and if they are really listening to 6.5 million disabled people and their carers, they would have implemented all the provisions of that Act by now. Who can believe the Government's intentions when they refer to 1993 with regard to community care when the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 has been on the statute book for four years and not all its provisions have been implemented?
  Conservative Members accused my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and others of exaggerating the problems of the elderly and of income support and the care gap in private residential homes. If they do not think that there is a problem now, they should listen carefully to the directors of social services. I cannot understand why they think that there is no problem now. We saw on television just the other night some of the problems that already exist. The directors of social services are warning hon. Members that people will increasingly go to their surgeries because of the demographic time bomb
  1052
  and because of the problem of income support. We know that the elderly are already suffering because of the lack of planning. Conservative Members ignore that at their peril.
  This all too brief debate has failed to consider in the detail that we would wish the Government's real strategy for community care. The Prime Minister seems to believe in seminars to study characteristics. Why does not she call a seminar to study the real characteristics of the elderly, the disabled, people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and their carers? Why does not she consider how they can be properly supported in their own homes? The Prime Minister lectures us, today of all days, when we have had such a pathetic response to the problems of community care within our society. Nothing could be more devastating to millions of families than the Government's proposals for community care.
  In that spirit, I invite hon. Members to support the motion. I invite the British public in due course not just to dismiss a Secretary of State who can produce such lethargic proposals but to throw out with him the Government who have made such lethargy possible.
  6.51 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Let me make it quite clear that we are not discussing abandoning the policy of community care or of cancelling the policy of community care; we are discussing carrying forward our policies in a practical, sensible and responsible manner. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it only too clear that next April we shall begin with the new provision for the mentally ill. Many hon. Members have referred to the importance of proper community care provision for the mentally ill.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) and the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) referred to the need for the mentally ill to have proper provision made for them when they are established in the community. We are not satisfied that sufficient work on that matter has already been undertaken by local authorities. Local authority expenditure on the mentally ill amounts to about 3 per cent. Nor are we satisfied that the proper provision that the public need to satisfy them as well as those who need care has been arranged. That is why the specific grant allowing spending of £30 million will be established from next April, thus ensuring—this should satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—that no individual will leave a long-term mental hospital without a proper care package and without a named individual being responsible for his or her care as he or she goes out into the community.
  Again, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that we intend to make headway with particular assistance for those who suffer from drug or alcohol misuse, thus ensuring that resources are provided for the voluntary sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) referred to the importance of the voluntary sector. It has done excellent pioneering work, and headway will most certainly be made.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the importance of carers, and the White Paper and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 particularly refer to the importance of carers. We are funding caring organisations to the tune of about £100,000 this year. They are deeply involved in our consultation on guidance and

  1053
  the implementation of their important work. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) asked when the guidance will be made available. I give him the clear assurance that the guidance will be available in the autumn. As he will know, we have already issued draft guidance on plans, assessment, inspection and several other matters. We have been consulting widely with local authorities, and that guidance will further inform our plans as we take forward the important work.
  Many hon. Members have rightly and properly drawn attention to the very great change that we are seeking to create. We know full well that health authorities and family health service authorities are busy taking on their new responsibilities, thereby putting them in a good position to provide for the health care of their resident populations. District health authorities, family health services authorities and general practitioners, through the new contract, can be active partners in the provision of care in the community.
  The Select Committee, in its most recent report, suggested, perhaps with some justification, that the tight timetable means that it will be difficult for local authorities to implement care in the community policies to the standards that we all would want. That allows a further period for local authorities, voluntary organisations and the private sector to implement, to carry forward, to consult and to co-ordinate, so that in April 1993, when they take on the full responsibility—when the social security money is transferred to local authorities, when there is no longer the safety valve of social security payments to provide for those who need residential care—they will be able properly and effectively to undertake their responsibilities.
  We in the Department, the social services inspectorate and local authorities have a great deal of work to undertake in the two years. We shall be continuing our training and seminars. We shall be issuing a newsletter on implementation to make sure that we can continue to develop and promote further the momentum of an important policy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the amount of money to be available for training local authorities will increase to about 25 per cent. next year. Training money will be available not only for the elderly and for children but for the mentally ill, the physically disabled and the mentally handicapped. I hope that my hon. Friends will believe that this is not a cancellation or an end to the policy. This is a moment so that we can spend more time actually preparing and ensuring that we make the headway that we should properly and rightly make. It will be hard work. We need to ensure that all the necessary steps are taken.
  Several hon. Members referred to the provision of social security payments. As was well said by my right hon. and learned Friend, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has set up a study. There have already been extra resources to the degree of £145 million to provide additional assistance to the likes of Florence Smith and others about whom we heard during the detailed debate earlier in the year.
  Care in the community policy will take time to implement fully and effectively. Over the past 10 years—[Interruption.] Over the past 11 years we have seen dramatic advances. We have seen a phenomenal increase in provision in terms of adult training centres for the mentally handicapped–11,000 more places, which is a 25 per cent. increase. We have seen a great increase in the
  1054
  number of day centre places for the mentally ill–30 per cent. more; another 1,500 places. We have seen a tremendous increase in the number of social workers—I may need to declare a vested interest. There are 5,000 more social workers—an extra 23 per cent. There are an extra 12,000 more home helps—25 per cent. more and, again, many more community psychiatric nurses. We have seen a dramatic increase in personal social services spending to the degree of 47 per cent.
  That is the record of a Government who have been investing in the community and developing community care services. We believe in the policy. We now have the legislation on the statute book. We believe that there are urgent tasks to be undertaken. We believe in quality. We believe in safeguarding the interests of the frail and the vulnerable. That is why the complaints procedures and the inspection units will go ahead from next April, together with the other specific grants in areas of special and important need, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.
  It is essential that nobody should for a moment forget the challenge that is ahead of us—to ensure that over the next decade we can achieve these community care policies. I urge hon. Members most sincerely and strongly to reject the motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 335.

  Division No. 301]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Coleman, Donald

  Alton, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Donald

  Corbett, Robin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Crowther, Stan

  Ashton, Joe

  Cryer, Bob

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beckett, Margaret

  Darling, Alistair

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Dixon, Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Doran, Frank

  Blair, Tony

  Douglas, Dick

  Blunkett, David

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Boateng, Paul

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Boyes, Roland

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Keith

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Buckley, George J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flannery, Martin

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Derek

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Foulkes, George

  Carr, Michael

  Fraser, John

  Cartwright, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Galloway, George

  Clay, Bob

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Clelland, David

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  1055

  George, Bruce

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morley, Elliot

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mullin, Chris

  Gould, Bryan

  Murphy, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Nellist, Dave

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grocott, Bruce

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hardy, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Patchett, Terry

  Haynes, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Pike, Peter L.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Henderson, Doug

  Prescott, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Randall, Stuart

  Home Robertson, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Reid, Dr John

  Howells, Geraint

  Richardson, Jo

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Robertson, George

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Illsley, Eric

  Salmond, Alex

  Janner, Greville

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kennedy, Charles

  Sillars, Jim

  Kilfedder, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Lambie, David

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

  Lamond, James

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Snape, Peter

  Leighton, Ron

  Soley, Clive

  Lewis, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Litherland, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Stott, Roger

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Strang, Gavin

  McAllion, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McCartney, Ian

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Turner, Dennis

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Vaz, Keith

  McKelvey, William

  Wallace, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Walley, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Madden, Max

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Marek, Dr John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Martlew, Eric

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Maxton, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Meacher, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Meale, Alan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Michael, Alun

  Worthington, Tony

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Mr. John McAllion and

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashby, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amess, David

  Atkins, Robert

  Amos, Alan

  Atkinson, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  1056

  Baldry, Tony

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forman, Nigel

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Franks, Cecil

  Benyon, W.

  Freeman, Roger

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gale, Roger

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gardiner, George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gow, Ian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Gregory, Conal

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grist, Ian

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

  Ground, Patrick

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grylls, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hague, William

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, John

  Butcher, John

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

  Butler, Chris

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Cash, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hill, James

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

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Holt, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Curry, David

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Irvine, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Janman, Tim

  Dicks, Terry

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Eggar, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Evennett, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Fallen, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Favell, Tony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knowles, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knox, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  1057

  Lang, Ian

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Latham, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Mudd, David

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Needham, Richard

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Lord, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Page, Richard

  McCrindle, Robert

  Paice, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Maclean, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Pawsey, James

  Madel, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Mans, Keith

  Portillo, Michael

  Maples, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Marland, Paul

  Price, Sir David

  Marlow, Tony

  Raffan, Keith

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Redwood, John

  Mates, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Mellor, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Rost, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Rowe, Andrew

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Ryder, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Moate, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Shelton, Sir William

  1058

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trippier, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Squire, Robin

  Waller, Gary

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Ward, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Steen, Anthony

  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

  Wilkinson, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wilshire, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thorne, Neil

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Alastair Goodland and

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  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. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House continues to support the Government's policy towards care in the community as set out in the White Paper, Caring for People, as an effective means of securing and delivering services on behalf of those people in need of social care; and endorses the approach towards implementation which the Government had adopted.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
Lords amendments further considered.
7.15 pm
Mr. Alex Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I shall take points of order in a moment. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind the House that this debate started on 25 June this year. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was called, started to move the Lords amendments and, most unusually, if he will allow me to say so, was interrupted before he uttered more than half a sentence. That was for a good reason—the Chair had to deal with points of order. So I shall, of course, take points of order. When we have disposed of the points of order the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will have the Floor, if he wishes to catch my eye.
Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. You will observe that on the Order Paper there is a notice of motion in the name of the Prime Minister. Before we begin what some of us have regarded for over two years as an important debate, it would be helpful if you could clarify the procedure. You will notice that the motion says that
"at this day's sitting, the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour."
That motion has been tabled in the name of the Prime Minister, despite the fact that this is a private Bill. We are worried about this and we seek your assistance.
It would appear that the motion is not what one would call a timetable motion. As First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, could you explain how the Prime Minister has become involved in this private business? We are probably about to have what could be called an endurance test, never mind a timetable motion, in the sense that the debate could continue after 10 o'clock. As this is private business, some of us are puzzled about how the Prime Minister, the Private Bill Office, and the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means have become involved in making the debate some sort of endurance test in which whoever survives the longest will win. I suggest that that is hardly the way to do business in the House. My hon. Friends and, I presume, some Conservative Members would like to know what the procedure is and how it was arrived at before we kick off the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can certainly clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. As he rightly assessed, the motion is tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. It has nothing to do with the Chairman of Ways and Means. That means that at 10 o'clock, or an appropriate moment after 10 o'clock, the Whip will move the motion if he so desires. The House will come to a decision on that forthwith. If it decides in favour of the motion, the debate will be allowed to continue until any hour. I hope that I have clarified the procedure for the whole House. It is perfectly normal procedure, to which we are well accustomed in the House.
Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that in several
1060
debates we discussed whether this is a hybrid Bill. The Chair has always ruled that it is not, and that it has proceeded in the correct manner. Will you suspend the House to enable your good self to have a look at "Erskine May" for guidance? It states that you have the power to rule that it is a hybrid Bill. As there is ample evidence of Government involvement in the Bill, I ask you to consult the Clerk and "Erskine May" and to rule that it is a hybrid Bill. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, suspended the House for 10 minutes, I could furnish that evidence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the whole House, will recall that that matter has been raised on a number of occasions during the Bill's passage, and there have been several rulings stating that the Bill is not hybrid, and is perfectly in order. I have nothing to add to the numerous rulings that have been given in the past.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I brought two matters to the Speaker's attention earlier today and said that, if a ruling had not been given before 7 pm, I would raise them again at the commencement of this business. My first point of order involves clause 3 and their Lordships' amendments relating to it. I submitted papers showing that the Bill's drafting, as subject to the Lords amendments, was wrong and that it would be a simple matter involving the loss of no more than six months for the Bill to return to the House of Lords for that defect to be put right.
My second point of order arose under clause 18, and was briefly drawn to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during our earlier discussions—the EC directive 85/337. In view of the almost certain challenge, which cannot possibly be in the interests of the Bill's promoter, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether there are proper channels within private Bill procedures whereby a roll-over could be agreed so that the Bill would comply with the directive. That procedure was confirmed by the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure on 20 July 1988. That review was reaffirmed by the then Leader of the House on 20 April last year.
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule on those two points of order?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does it relate to the same point?
Mr. Skinner: Yes. Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may help you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This matter has been to the Speaker's Counsel. What happened, in a nutshell, was that the Bill was not amended in this House and went to the House of Lords. A series of amendments was passed in the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the House of Lords which we shall debate later today. The amendment to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) referred was to change "85" to "85E". That sounds insignificant to the layman and hon. Members, but it involves the compulsory purchase of people's property. The reference "85E" relates to one of the mining codes used in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923. The Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, which was used for the

1061
Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, contains no such thing as "85E". It contains sections from 77 to 85, but no others.
In the other place, one of the advisers decided to make the Bill workable by using the 1923 Act, which includes sections 77 to 85, and 78A, 79A, 79B and 85A to E. He has added them on, but used the wrong Act. The result is that representations have been made to Speaker's Counsel. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may know him, but I have not met him before.
I have correspondence in which Speaker's Counsel says that there is an argument about the Bill. He uses words—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am listening with interest to what he says, but I am sure that he realises that it would be inappropriate to attempt to quote an alleged view of an official of the House.
Mr. Skinner: It is not alleged: I am going to read it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that it would be unfair to do that.
Mr. Skinner: It is in the public domain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Everything that he and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) have said so far will be perfectly in order in the debates on Lords amendments, but they are not matters for the Chair or points of order for me.
Mr. Skinner: Let me get this straight. We are talking about hon. Members in the House being gagged and stopped from using information which if it is not declared to the public at large will result in people losing their property rights. The matter arises from legal representations that have been made by British Coal, and others with an interest in the matter, obtaining rights to excavate minerals. Where the Bill refers to "section 78" of the 1845 Act, as amended by the 1923 Act, the wrong Act has been used, and representations have been made about that.
I shall quote exactly what Speaker's Counsel has said because it is germane to what we shall discuss—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This matter will be perfectly legitimate when we debate the Lords amendments. The hon. Gentleman has risen on a point of order, and I am not clear what the point of order for the Chair is.
Mr. Skinner: It is clear: are we going to pass an Act here that has been amended at a late stage, about which Speaker's Counsel declares, in answer to Paul Thompson:
"If it were possible at this stage to make more precise the drafting of that part of clause 3(2)(b) I should not hesitate to recommend that it be done."
It can be done—we have merely to send the Bill back to the House of Lords—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair during the debate, he can make that point, but it is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order, one of which continues one aspect of the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If we did not make a decision about the issue raised by my
1062
hon. Friend, in the knowledge that the Bill is defective, we should be doing Parliament and the law a profound disservice. Occasionally, Parliament makes mistakes in legislation, but they are invariably found after a Bill has become law. For Parliament deliberately to approve a statute in the knowledge that it is defective would be a precedent that I hope no hon. Member would support. I hope that that point can be considered in the next few minutes before we embark on the debate on the amendments, when the pass may have been sold.
I shall make my second point of order briefly and, I hope, allow people time to consider the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. It refers to clause 3(1) and clause 3(2)(b), which both contain the words "the railway". There may be an error, if not in the first "the", in the second "the", which appears in clause 3(2)(b). It seems that we are deeming something to be "the railway" when we should deem it to be "a railway". That point is not as substantial as the major point of my hon. Friend, but it suggests another small reason why their Lordships should reconsider the issue. If their Lordships were given that opportunity, it might allow a proper environmental assessment to be carried out that would be consistent with the policies of both Government and Opposition, and of Europe, to which the Government and the Opposition owe some obligation.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Of course, I shall take points of order, but I repeat that we are already well launched into the debate. It would be better if we debated matters relating to the amendments after we have heard from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, rather than discussing them as points of order. They are perfectly legitimate issues to raise in the debate on the Lords amendments, when we get to it.
Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand your position and I certainly would not want to challenge it, but a defective amendment has been made in another place which does not legally fit the statute that we are attempting to pass. That would never have happened if amendments to the Bill had been proposed in this place, as hon. Members tabling amendments would have been advised by the Clerks, who do a first class job, on whether to proceed. It seems extraordinary that we are expected to accept a defective amendment, which, if it is carried, will mean defective legislation emerging from this House, which is supposed to legislate for the country—without any redress except a vote against other amendments which may be perfectly in order. That is an incredible thing for hon. Members to be asked to do. Under the circumstances, I ask that the sitting be suspended until you can be advised whether it is correct for us to go ahead and deliberately pass defective legislation.
Several Hon. Members rose—
7.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the other points of order are on the same matter, it might be tidier if I took them all together.
Mr. John Cummings: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you arrange to bring

1063
either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General to the House to give an appraisal of the points made by my hon. Friends tonight?
Mr. Michael Welsh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are the amendments in order or are they defective?
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point of order?
Mr. Cryer: No, it is different.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that I can add on these points of order to what I have already said. All these matters can be raised in the debate, as hon. Members know. I was doubtful whether the debate on the amendments would be so wide-ranging. It is evident to me that these points of order are legitimate points to make in the debate. The House will recall that when we last discussed the matter there was a clear ruling from the Chair that, if the House so desired, it would be possible to vote separately on each Lords amendment. I hope that that is of some assistance to the House.
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ever since the Bill came to the House there has been an awful smell. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said and now the stink is even worse. There has been interference and support from the Government, from the Prime Minister down. I remember several occasions when Ministers were whipped in here to vote for a private Bill. It is a shocking state of affairs, and you should listen seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to what hon. Members on both sides of the House are saying about whether it is right, proper and within the rules to debate the Bill before these matters are sorted out.
It is obvious that there is a problem with the Lords amendments and that is our argument. The smell in the House stinks something awful, and we want it cleared up. We are not happy with what is happening. I am not challenging your ruling, but at the same time I do not accept it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that I can add to what I have already said. The sooner that we get on to the debate, the more likely it is that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), if he catches the eye of the Chair, will be able to develop his argument.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will appreciate that the first Lords amendment alters clause 3 and substitutes 85E for 85. It refers to the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.
On a previous occasion, when we debated the Ade1phi Estate Bill, a question arose about old Acts being made available. Subsequent to that discussion in the House, when it was reasonably pointed out that old Acts registered and stored in the Library are delicate and should be handled with great care, not fumbled about on the Benches here, the promoters of the Bill provided an extract from the relevant legislation.
I have been to the Vote Office and no extracts of the 1845 Act have been made available. There is a copy of the
1064
Act in the Library, and it is old and delicate. We should take care of such documents and call upon the promoters to provide adequate information.
Moreover, Standing Order No. 34 on private business states:
"In the case of a railway, tramsway or tramroad bill and of a bill relating to any waterway, road, bridge, tunnel, ferry, harbour, dock or pier, a copy of the deposited plan, section and book of reference (if any)"
should be provided. Perhaps "book or reference" has a defined meaning relating to some specific engineering detail, but we believe that under Standing Order No. 34 a book of reference must perforce relate to the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, because that is a point of reference for the amendments. Therefore, we should not proceed unless and until the promoters are prepared to provide extracts which I think they should do as a matter of course for every private Bill when we have to refer to ancient Acts. If they do not, we shall be running to the Library; the staff will let the Acts out with great reluctance and it is probable that damage will occur to priceless documents. It would be a good precedent to follow, and I suspect that it would broaden Standing Order No. 34 for private business, which would mean that promoters will be required to provide the information and that "book of reference" will include previous Acts.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. He made a similar point of order on 25 June, which has given me the opportunity to look into it. He has largely answered his own point. He said that the onus should be on the promoters. That may be an argument on which hon. Members have strong views. It is not a matter for the Chair. It is the job of the House to ensure that the Bill and the amendments to it are available in the Vote Office. That is in accordance with our usual practice, and the Bill and the amendments are so available.
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that my constituency is probably more affected by this Bill than any other? Yet for two long years I have tried to make a speech on the Bill and have never once been called. I understand the enthusiasm of some of my hon. Friends who have worked in the industry, but I ask you not to accept a closure motion after two hours when all that we have had have been points of order, and when some of us have been trying to make speeches, have voted on every occasion but have never been lucky enough to catch your eye.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as that is an exceedingly helpful point of order. Given his long experience, long service and the esteem in which he is held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I hope that his hon. Friends will now desist from their points of order so that I can call the hon. Gentleman to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that there has been considerable concern about motives and about Government involvement in the Bill. The House is now being told that the Bill is acknowledged to be technically defective by Mr. Knorpel, Counsel to the Speaker. He acknowledged that, at this stage, it can be put right only in the House of Lords.

1065
Would you consider suspending the sitting so that Counsel to Mr. Speaker can be consulted on whether the defective amendments should be rejected to give the House of Lords the opportunity to make them technically correct?
Given the deep-felt anxiety of the Opposition and people who are affected by this proposition, there is a danger that the Officers of the House and Counsel to Mr. Speaker will eventually be seen as parties to a Government fiddle. That is damaging and dangerous to the reputation of Officers of the House and to the House as a whole. I should be grateful if you would seriously consider suspending the sitting so that Counsel to Mr. Speaker can be consulted.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the House will not drag Counsel to Mr. Speaker—an official of the House—into the debate. We are dealing with Lords amendments only. If hon. Members feel that they can make remarks in order on the Lords amendments, so be it. I hope that we shall quickly proceed to discuss those amendments.
Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not a matter of dragging the reputation of Counsel to Mr. Speaker before the House. He has been asked to advise and he has advised, in writing, that the Bill is defective and that the House cannot put right those defects. The House of Commons produces enough defective legislation unknowingly, and it would be preposterous to produce it knowingly, given the view of Counsel to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member feels that way, the sooner we get on to the Lords amendments so that these matters can be discussed, the better.
Mr. Andy Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) to cast aspersions on the voting record of hon. Members on the Bill? The Bill would have been killed off on Second Reading if more than 49 Labour Members had stayed to vote.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the points of order that hon. Members wish to raise, but I hope that I have not already dealt with them. I remind hon. Members of the heartfelt plea of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to have an opportunity to speak in the debate.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you consider suspending the sitting until we get an assurance from the Government? In the latter part of the sittings of the Committee on the Bill, its Chairman, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), said:
"Before the Committee came to make a formal decision on, first, the amendment proposed by the British Coal Corporation and, secondly, the Preamble itself, we agreed that if the bill were allowed to proceed, this would be subject to conditions … which … were agreed to unanimously."
One such condition was that the Bill's promoters should leave figures in the Library, to be checked from time to time. The Committee agreed:
"that the issues raised before it were sufficiently important that they justified making this Special Report to the House, to draw the attention of … the Government to what we believe would be the potentially disastrous effects of large-scale coal
1066
imports. In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the indigenous coal-mining industry."
The Committee made a special report.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: My difficulty is that the hon. Member is not putting a point of order to the Chair. He is putting a point which could be legitimate and in order when we come to the Lords amendments. I have not yet heard a point of order for the Chair.
7.45 pm
Mr. Lofthouse: My point of order for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that you should consider suspending the sitting until the Government have given the assurance demanded by the Committee. At no time has that assurance been given. The Lords amendments should not be debated until the Government have given the assurance that the Committee demanded in its special report.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member makes my point for me. If we debate the Lords amendments, we may get answers to these points, which are legitimate matters to raise in the debate on the Lords amendments.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is not an issue that can be dealt with by coming to the substance of the Bill and voting. My hon. Friend drew attention to the special responsibility of Mr. Speaker for private legislation. As the House knows, private legislation goes through a different procedure. It must be examined by Mr. Speaker, who gives his certificate, and for that purpose he is advised by his Counsel. My hon. Friend said that the House should have available to it the opinion of Counsel to Mr. Speaker—my hon. Friend has read it, so it is obviously not a confidential document.
As I understand it, when the Bill was introduced, Mr. Speaker gave his decision, which had to be accepted. The Bill then went to the House of Lords which has made amendments. Counsel to Mr. Speaker is dissatisfied, on legal grounds, with the formulation of the amendments. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you act for Mr. Speaker in his absence by chairing the House, but only Mr. Speaker can deal with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. Counsel to Mr. Speaker said that the Bill had come back from the Lords technically defective. We may have different views about the merits of the Bill, but that is a matter for debate. In those circumstances, only Mr. Speaker can rule on the extent to which he takes in to account the views of Counsel, who has warned the House that the Bill is defective, since when Mr. Speaker has not given his judgment on the matter. The issue is the juridical role of the Speaker.
The problem cannot be disposed of simply by voting for or against leaving out section 85 and inserting section 85E. There is a wholly reasonable proposal on how to proceed, and I have known this to happen during my years here. When a matter of substance arises, Mr. Speaker should be invited to give it his attention, in which case consideration of the Bill is postponed. I personally do not think that the debate on this Bill could be postponed for 10 minutes or so while the matter was considered. Mr. Speaker would have to give his considered attention, with the advice of the Clerks, to the advice that he had received from his

1067
Counsel. If Mr. Speaker believed that his Counsel had identified a defect in a Bill that had come from another place, he would have to make a new ruling.
These are not political points. They are matters for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am inviting you, with great respect, to say that the points made have sufficient substance to merit the matter being referred to Mr. Speaker and that further consideration of the Bill should be deferred until that has been done.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the right hon. Member has raised the issue in that manner, because I can readily clarify it. Mr. Speaker has, of course, considered the Lords amendments with considerable care. I assure the House that he is satisfied that there is nothing out of order in them; the Lords amendments which are on the amendment paper for discussion this evening are in order.
Mr. Benn: I am grateful for that assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is the first time that we have heard it. Surely if Mr. Speaker disagrees with his Counsel, which he is perfectly entitled to do, the House is entitled to know the reasons for that disagreement. Surely, in the event of such recommendations by his Counsel, Mr. Speaker would be required to issue a new certificate to the effect that the Bill remains a private one within the provisions of the Standing Orders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That depends on the interpretation of the words and, of course, Mr. Speaker is given advice on these matters. He is quite clear that our proceedings are in order and that the Lords amendments should be considered. That is plain and there is nothing further that I can add. We have had a good run on points of order. I have allowed every hon. Member who rose at the start of them to raise his point of order and I have dealt with them. To echo the point of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, it would be much more sensible to get on with the debate in which we may get some enlightenment on these points.
Mr. Eric Illsley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to know whether the Bill as it stands and the amendments should be sent back to the Committee. You will recall that originally the Bill came to the House together with the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. Both Bills were to be considered together but they were eventually separated. Both went into Committee but only the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was continued. I understand that the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill was dropped because of the poor quality of drafting. It appears that the technical drafting in this Bill is also poor. Will you rule whether the Bill should be referred back to the Committee so that it can consider whether the Bill should be dropped?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not possible to move back. We are dealing with Lords amendments and the sooner we get on with them the better.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have ruled that the matters that have been raised in points of order can be discussed during the debate on the amendments. You told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that clauses 77 to 85 of the Railways Clauses
1068
Consolidation Act 1845, which are matters for dispute, left it open to us to discuss whether the original 1845 Act was being referred to or whether it was that Act as subsequently amended. The additions are much wider in the first case than in the second.
I raised a point of order on 25 June which is reported at column 83 of the Official Report. I asked whether we would take the amendments one by one, not just in terms of votes but in terms of their being moved and dealt with. I was told that it would be appropriate to raise that matter later. It would be appropriate for us now to discuss the amendments separately, because your earlier ruling to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover showed that a wide debate may be possible on the first amendment, or at least on the first two, applying to these ports.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other hon. Members. If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard for 25 June he will see that the House decided when we started the debate that all the Lords amendments would be taken together. That is the normal procedure for Lords amendments to private Bills. However, the Chair said that separate Divisions on the amendments would be permitted. There is nothing further that I can add. The ruling was made clear on 25 June and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), with his long experience in the House, will remember how helpful he was in that regard.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since then we have had a range of points of order which revealed new problems, and we have had a ruling which reveals that discussions in connection with amendments Nos. 1 and 2 can be wide. Because of those changed circumstances, is not it appropriate to readjust the position because we have had barely half a sentence from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) who moved the amendment?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are rapidly approaching the time when we can have another half a sentence from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. We have had a good run on these points of order. It is my job to protect not only this debate but the other business before the House.

Clause 3
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3

  INCORPORATION OF GENERAL ENACTMENTS
  Lords amendment: In page 3, line 10, leave out '85' and insert '85E'.
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25 June], That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The House will recall that I moved the amendment on 25 June. The purpose of clause 3 is to apply to the work sought to be constructed the provisions of two clauses Acts that were enacted in the 19th century. Those Acts contain model clauses that could be incorporated into private Bills, thereby avoiding the need to set out such provisions in full in individual private Acts.
  One of the motives for that was to reduce the length of private Acts with consequent savings in time and money,

  1069
  not only for the promoters of private Bills but for Parliament, which no longer had to take time to study identical clauses time after time.
  I listened carefully to the points of order. For many years it has been the practice of Associated British Ports to incorporate inter alia sections 77 to 85E of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Section 77 provides that when buying land for the carrying out of works, promoters such as Associated British Ports are not entitled to the minerals except those that it is necessary to remove for the construction of the works. The company may not work minerals unless they are expressly purchased in addition to the land.
  Hon. Members have spoken about sections 78 to 85E, which is headed "Minerals under railways". Those sections contain a code under which ABP would be entitled to prevent the owners of any minerals lying under or near the works from endangering the stability of the works by extracting any such minerals. Should Associated British Ports exercise that right, the code provides for it to compensate mine and royalty owners who are affected. That code was inserted in the 1845 Act by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923, to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred in his point of order. That replaced a more restrictive code set out in sections 78 to 85 of the 1845 Act as originally enacted. It would still be possible to incorporate the previous code but ABP has never done so.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brown: My next sentence may help my hon. Friend.
  When the Bill was drafted, the letter E was not included, but it is the view of the House of Lords, which the promoters are prepared to accept, that it should be added, otherwise the latter part of the code in sections 85A to 85E inclusive would be omitted and those sections, which allow for variation of the code by agreement and which contain various drafting and procedural provisions, are necessary to facilitate implementation of the code. They also confer valuable protection on mine owners, in particular a release from all common law obligations for support for the land on which the works stand.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Unless I have defective hearing, I have not heard my hon. Friend utter the word railway. He has studiously avoided using the word, although everything that he has said has referred to railways. Will he explain to the House how on earth by any stretch of the imagination the port can be described as a railway, which is what is dealt with in the clause?
  Mr. Brown: If what my hon. Friend says is the case, every Act of Parliament that has been enacted with the provision that we are seeking to write into the Bill by way of the Lords amendment is similarly defective. I can reassure my hon. Friend. The promoters of the Bill and their parliamentary agents advise me that section 15 of the 1923 Act referred to railway companies because it was amending a railway code. I do not think that my hon. Friend's observation has anything to do with the Lords amendment.
  There is little doubt on the matter among those who have advised Mr. Speaker—and there have been references
  1070
  to Speaker's Counsel. I have a copy of the letter to which the hon. Member for Bolsover referred. The hon. Gentleman did not cite the following sentence:
  "I cannot, however, imagine that a court or arbitrator, reading its provisions and those affecting 78 to 85 together, would have any difficulty in perceiving and giving effect to its intentions."
  8 pm
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman cited legislation and codes that were originally drawn up for railway matters, which was common in the 19th century when railways were being built. He then moved on to the question of mineral rights. The railway legislation was passed before the rights to the ownership of coal were nationalised by the Conservative Government during the war. Long before the pits were nationalised, the coal royalties were taken over by the Government. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is inviting the House to agree to a broader interpretation than even the promoters wanted, by adding 85E in such a way as to give Associated British Ports the right compulsorily to take over the mineral rights to any coal that is discovered under its workings.
  Those coal royalties belong to the Government of the day, so that raises, once again, the question whether it is a hybrid Bill—but I shall not pursue that now. On what basis does the hon. Gentleman justify the Lords proposal? Since the legislation that he cited came into force, the control of the rights to coal found under the earth passed to the Government of the day, and that has been the positon for more than 50 years.
  Mr. Brown: I do not think that much of what the right hon. Gentleman said is relevant. I am introducing the amendments because the other place requested that they be made. When the Bill first came before the House, it was not felt that the amendments were necessary. However, I have a duty to lay the Lords amendments before the House. It is for the House to accept or reject them. The House is free to reject them for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman.
  As the Lords Chairman and his colleagues have requested that the promoters insert the amendments in the Bill, I and the promoters felt that it was only right to place them before the House. However, the House is free not to accept them—
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Brown: I must make progress and I want to deal—
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I earlier raised a point of order about the promoters not providing information, and you rightly said that it was a matter for the promoters because our Standing Orders are defective in that respect. Serious points have been raised, and it is outside the conventions of the House for the hon. Member who represents the promoters not even to give an explanation of why the promoters have so lamentably failed to make information readily available.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If we allow the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) to continue, the hopes nourished by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may well be satisfied.
  Mr. Brown: Other minor and technical amendments need to be made, again at the request of the other place.

  1071
  They equity relate to clause 18. Since the Bill was deposited in November 1987, the general law has been changed by a new general development order, the order of 1987 having been replaced by that of 1988. It will be appreciated that references to a piece of general legislation that has now been revoked would be incorrect when replacement legislation is in force.
  The amendments are beneficial to the opponents of the Bill. They constitute a minor piece of technical drafting relating to clause 18. I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Ashton: I remind the House that this is a transport Bill as well as a coal Bill. I intend to confine my remarks to the transport aspect because, over many months, my hon. Friends have dealt in great detail with the important coal aspects. They have done a magnificent job in pointing out the effects on the economy in areas such as my constituency.
  Bassetlaw has three power stations—Cottam, West Burton and High Marnham. There should have been a fourth—West Burton B. It has four pits—Manton, Harworth, Welbeck and Bevercotes. The Bill will have a devastating effect on my constituency. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has never told the House what will happen to the coal after it is unloaded at the port. He has never explained how thousands of tonnes of coal per day will get to the power stations in my constituency.
  Those power stations were first planned in 1947 after a very bad winter, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I are probably old enough to remember. Manny Shinwell was the fuel Minister at the time, and he was followed by Harold Wilson. A proper plan was laid down, with a railway line rather like a roundabout running through a string of 20 different pits, 24 hours a day, 360 days of the year. The coal was fed into different wagons from a hopper and it was then trundled along through the surrounding fields. One reason why the power stations were sited in my constituency was the River Trent and the surrounding flat countryside.
  That was a first-class example of planning by a Labour Government—something that the nation has not enjoyed since. It was highly efficient and effective, despite what was said at the time about the much-maligned nationalised industries. The hon. Gentleman wants to put in its place an unplanned, private enterprise scheme that is designed to suck in cheap coal from South Africa, Bolivia, China, Colombia or Poland, simply to make a massive profit without worrying about the environment or the consequences on our constituencies.
  The hon. Gentleman has not told his constituents what will happen when 20,000 tonnes of coal a day must be offloaded at Immingham, so I shall tell them. The hon. Gentleman has not thought out that problem. It means 500 lorries a day, each weighing about 38 tonnes, carrying the 20,000 tonnes of coal needed to run just the power stations in my constituency. Some 500 lorries will have to leave Immingham right around the clock. People living on that lorry route will find that the value of their houses will fall by half, and they should blame the hon. Gentleman for that when they vote at the next general election.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been to Immingham recently. The docks
  1072
  are connected to the A180, which is a massive dual carriageway provided by the Department of Transport. I do not think that there are any houses near it. The lorries will go straight from the docks on to the A180, a road that I opened in 1983.
  Mr. Ashton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because it gives me the opportunity to tell him that lorry drivers please themselves. I have experienced that with the A1 in my constituency. A bypass was built to protect the very pretty village of Blyth, which used to win the competition for the best kept village in Nottinghamshire. What happened? One thousand three hundred lorries a day still go through that village every time that the traffic piles up. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is not listening, but I wish that he would. He will find that the 500 lorries travelling to and from the port will also pile up as a result of an accident or some other form of blockage on the motorway.
  When that happens, the drivers will take a short cut. They are all on bonuses and have to complete two or three trips a day. They will take short cuts through villages, calling in at the local pub for their sandwiches or for a packet of fags. They will park at night two miles outside the docks because they have arrived too early and their load is not ready to be collected until 7 o'clock in the morning. Drivers will say, "We'll nip into Immingham, have a pint, park the lorry in the street, and sleep in the back." Then they will start their lorries up at four in the morning under Mrs. Brown's window so that they can be at the front of the queue at the docks.
  Any right hon. or hon. Member who represents a coal mining constituency can tell the hon. Gentleman about the complaints that are received from people living near the coal mines. After moving into a modern house, they discover that the klaxon horns sound at 1 o'clock in the morning and that they can hear the Tannoys. They can also hear the warning horns fitted to lorries that sound whenever they reverse, which is done for safety reasons. Our constituents lose sleep all the time, and they protested when it was suggested that pits would go on to seven-day working. They are continually having their environment destroyed. If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes imagines that there will be a merry-go-round of lorries coming down the motorway and going straight to the power stations, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. I hope that his constituents will ask him serious, probing questions about the Bill's effects on Immingham.
  I shall tell the hon. Gentleman more about the areas on my patch. I mentioned Blyth, and Cuckney is another. Such villages have no pavements or street lamps. One woman pushing a pram had to dive into a hedge when a lorry came thundering round the corner.
  Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the noise under Mrs. Brown's window and the sound made by reversing trucks, but I fail to relate them to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman is making a wonderful Second Reading speech, but perhaps we may have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how far one is allowed to wander off the subject of the amendments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was beginning to grow just a little anxious myself. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made the point that he was unable to speak at

  1073
  earlier stages of the Bill, and as a consequence I have allowed him to make a fairly long preamble. However, I am sure that he will now relate his remarks directly to the amendments.
  Mr. Ashton: The Bill makes reference to railways, and I am making the point that no railway is attached to the proposed port. One young woman and her baby were killed in my constituency when they were crushed by a lorry against a wall. Even a horse being led down a lane was killed by a lorry. That is the kind of situation that arises when no railway is available. The Bill is a total planning shambles. It is the equivalent of saying that if all the tube stations in London were closed down and everyone could ride free on the buses, that would be fine. It would not. The city could not function. The same applies to the port.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes talks about lorries coming off the A180, but it does not lead to the power stations, which are in a remote rural area near the River Trent. The road that serves them is probably no wider than the gap between the two Front Benches. Lorries have to travel through villages in my constituency such as Walkington, Beckingham and Misterton. During the miners' strike, when there were problems with the railways and freight had to go on the roads, millions of pounds worth of damage was done because the roads were not designed to carry that amount of weight.
  Nottinghamshire county council ran into serious trouble. Because of the poll tax—I am not digressing, but this is an important point—that county council no longer receives rates from the power stations because the Government get that money instead. My constituents have to put up with all the environmental problems caused by lorries, acid rain, steam, coal and noise. They receive no compensation in the form of a rebate on their poll tax as they did with the rates. The Bill will impose a further monstrous 500 lorries a day, carrying 20,000 tonnes of coal, pouring through constituencies.
  8.15 pm
  I do not believe that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has thought through the Bill and its impact on the environment of his constituency. Three months before the previous election, probably to save the seat of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—he may laugh now —the Government promised another power station, West Burton B. We all supported it because building and running it would have created thousands of jobs. I accepted that it would worsen the environment in my constituency, but some of my hon. Friends have suffered worse pit closures even than I have and grievous unemployment, so we were happy to accept the building of that new power station. We do not object to industrial development. I might even say that imported coal could help the building of a new power station. Even so, my constituents want to retain the existing coal mines and power stations, and not run the power stations on foreign coal.
  The amendments give the promoters of the Bill the power to do virtually anything that they like. Once they have created the project for massive profit, there will be no cost to them for the wear and tear on the roads, or for the loss of value by half of houses on the route, even in Immingham. Nor will they have to meet the miners' redundancy pay or suffer through the loss of rate rebates.
  1074
  I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is conning his own constituents into supporting the Bill. I shall not make the allegation that the hon. Gentleman is getting paid because if he was getting paid, I am sure that he would stand up and tell the House. He has not done so, but if it is found out later that he is getting paid, that will be a contempt of the House and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take the appropriate action.
  I shall make one promise to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. There is no way that the port can be built before the next general election. If the promoters sitting in the Box watching us have spent money on anything except drawings, they have been very foolish. The next Labour Government will stop the project. If a Labour Government are returned at the next general election, the port will not be built. We may have to pay compensation for the drawings and planning that the promoters have already completed—but if they mix one bag of cement ready to start work on constructing the port, they are idiots. The port will not go ahead. No one is in favour of it—neither Conservative Members who know the Nottinghamshire area nor my own right hon. and hon. Friends. The project is designed only to make a massive profit for friends of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, and his constituents will decide that for themselves at the next general election.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: In order to understand our objections to the Bill and to the Lords amendments, I will precis the contents of clause 3. Subsection (1) states that the Act will incorporate

  "(a) sections 30 to 44 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 …

  (b) sections 77 to 85 of that Act".

  and:
  "For the purposes of the said sections 30 to 44 of the Act of 1845, as so incorporated"—
  and I tried to make this point clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—
  "the works shall be deemed to be a railway and, for the purpose of section 78 of the said Act of 1845 (as amended by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 in so Far as it relates to the works".
  Clause 3 and the Lords amendments try to write into the Bill the 1845 Act as amended by the 1923 legislation—or at least that is what the Lords think they have done. That is why I raised a point of order earlier.
  The clause and the amendments seek to establish what mining code will apply and whether it has been properly chosen. In doing so, ABP assumes that it is a railway company. I submit that ABP is patently not a railway company and that the works that it intends to carry out are not railway works. However, the amendments that we are asked to approve deem them to be railway works. If we accepted the amendments, we should assume that their Lordships made the right decision in adopting the 1923 code. The courts are likely to take a different view.
  It is odd, therefore, that the House should be debating the Bill. I believe that the promoters are storing up trouble for themselves. If they were to be challenged in the courts, they would be faced with enormous financial costs. It would take only six months to send the Bill back to the other place to get it right. There would still be arguments about whether it was right, but at least if it left this place in six months time as an Act of Parliament it would go out

  1075
  clean. By their obstinacy the promoters are storing up for themselves many difficulties that they could avoid if they were willing to wait for six months.
  Under the 1845 Act there are two mining codes—the original code and the one that was revised in 1923. I understand that if a private Bill incorporates sections 77 to 85 of the 1845 Act it is the original code that is incorporated, unless either the promoters are a railway company—in which case the 1923 Act automatically applies—or they draft the Bill in such a special way as to make it clear that they have chosen to incorporate, for good reasons or bad, the 1923 code.
  Reference was made earlier to counsel's opinion. We believe that the drafting of the Bill is wrong. The Lords amendments undoubtedly seek to demonstrate the promoters' intention to incorporate the 1923 code rather than the original 1845 code, since they introduced clause 85E which is found only in the later version. When the Bill left this place it was clear that the promoters assumed that the original code would apply. The Lords amendments are, therefore, incompatible with the original intention of this House. Since they are incompatible, we believe that they make clause 3, as amended, unworkable.
  Before the Bill left the Commons it incorporated sections 77 to 85 of the old Act. It provided that the works were to be deemed a railway, that there should be an area of protection and that the area of protection should be various distances in metres. Of the four different provisions, the first two are incorporated in the original code. That is simply because of the references to sections 77 to 85 of the 1845 Act. If ABP was really a railway company—again I say that it is not—reference to the 1923 code would be automatic and there would be no problem. However, as I submit that ABP is not a railway company, there is confusion—hence the justification of the points of order earlier.
  The third provision uses the expression "area of protection". That expression is appropriate only in the context of the 1923 code. The fourth provision does not prescribe an area of protection. It prescribes various distances in metres. That brings us back to the 1845 code in which the equivalent of an area of protection was defined simply by reference to the distance from a railway—whether it be 40 yards, or a special distance, as laid down in whatever Bill was before Parliament at the time.
  Whatever the promoters' objectives may be, at best, having read all the papers that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has struggled through today, as have I, save only their anxiety to get the Bill, defective or otherwise, on to the statute book, it is difficult to know quite what they are trying to achieve.
  When the Bill left the Commons it was clearly unsatisfactory but, strangely enough, I am advised that, in the form that it left the Commons, it was workable because the assumption was that the original 1845 code would apply and that the reference to the 1923 Act was simply an error. If, however, the drafting intended to incorporate the new code, the provision is unworkable because the area of protection is defined by distances. That is unworkable in the context of the development of a port on the Humber.
  There are good grounds, therefore, for doing the promoters a favour and rejecting the Lords amendments. Rejection would give them time to look at the matter
  1076
  again. Thereby we might save the port authority a lot of money. We ought to provide the House of Lords with an opportunity to proffer alternative amendments to correct the drafting of clause 3, on the basis of either the old code or the new. If the Lords amendments are accepted, the inevitable consequence will be that the Bill will be passed with clause 3 in an unsatisfactory and defective form.
  The Lords amendments to clause 18 effectively read part II and schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1988 into the Bill. If that were strictly a planning matter, the road restrictions would apply. Those are the road restrictions that the hon. and very patient Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to in his speech. By choosing the route of a ports Bill, all the constraints to which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred will be circumvented unless we write constraints into the Bill. Those constraints are missing. Again, that is why we have raised so many points of order.
  In opposing the amendments, I say to the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who may have an opportunity, with the leave of the House, to speak again, that that will not block the development at Immingham. I am given to understand that the promoters do not need the Bill in its present form. I am told that the promoters could still take the route of an order under the Harbours Act and that they might succeed in about a year. That might be cheaper than the route they have chosen to go down tonight.
  The clause was out of date when it left this place many months ago. This is planning permission by means of a private Bill. Many would suggest that that, too, is out of date. The promoters' amendment seeks to correct an imperfection in the planning laws. We submit that they should have gone further by also correcting the anomaly of obtaining, through the Bill, planning permission in advance without an environmental assessment, having been undertaken. Therefore, we should defer this stage of the Bill, pending receipt of an environmental assessment, or at least we should make deemed planning permission conditional upon and subject to an environmental assessment. That is the minimum duty that we owe to everyone in the region who may be affected.
  The EEC directive, referred to in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—directive 85/337—requires environmental impact assessments for trading ports unless a member state Government have adopted certain alternative exemption procedures. That is not the case with this Bill. The Bill will not mean that the project is exempted from the requirements of the assessment. That does not seem to have been taken on board by the promoters. That would be the case only where an environmental impact assessment is built into the Bill. The directive has effect in the United Kingdom and, as such, could be used by an adversely affected party to challenge in the English courts the legality of the authorisation of the project under this Bill.
  8.30 pm
  Those who would immediately have cause to object would include Nottinghamshire county council, which had many problems a few years ago with coal lorries on its minor roads, the coalfield communities in Yorkshire and, dare I say it, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Immediately the Bill is given Royal Assent a whole range of people will have grounds for taking the ports authority to the courts. I am

  1077
  advised that the action would be for judicial review of the Act or a declaration that the consents contained in the Act were invalid, being in contravention of Community law. That is not a route I would recommend the promoters to take.
  There is a risk of infringement proceedings under article 169 of the EEC treaty which requires a member state to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that before consent is given projects likely to have significant effect on the environment by virtue, among other things, of their nature, size and location are made subject to assessment with regard to their effects. The risk is obvious.
  With those comments on the clauses and the amendments to them, I believe that there are good grounds for rejecting them all.
  Mr. SkinnerThe hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is aware of the consequences of the Bill. It is sad that only a handful of Conservative Members were present to listen to and digest what he had to say. If there were any justice in this place, the Bill would be thrown out. We could say that on political grounds every day of the week and we would be right. On this occasion we are not talking about a political issue although the Bill does have political overtones. I will try to put in layman's language the points expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South.
  A Bill went unamended from the House of Commons to the House of Lords mainly because the Tories on the Committee in the House of Commons refused to allow any amendments to be carried. Many attempts were made by the couple of people representing the views of Opposition Members but they were all defeated by the casting vote of the Chainnan. One would have thought that one or two amendments would be carried on a private Bill, but they were not because the Chairman and his colleagues thought that they were political in content.
  In the House of Lords a couple of lawyers examined the Bill. I am certain that their changes have not been made because of any political motive. They see that clause 3(2)(b) says that the 1845 mining code is being used. Anybody can see that. There are two codes that are usually used—the 1845 and the updated 1923. The 1923 code usually refers to railways. The lawyers find that the 1845 code is not applicable to other parts of the Bill. Somebody in the House of Lords spotted that and said that in order to make the Bill more compatible in law, clause 85E would have to be inserted. It looked insignificant to me until I started reading it last night. I have spent about 10 hours on it since then. I missed Question Time trying to get genned up on the issue. I did that because this is a scandal. A Bill will be passed by Parliament tonight even though it is defective. We know that and we have heard a Tory Member say the same. He has seen a lawyer who has pointed out its defects.
  We know—I read it out—that in correspondence the Speaker's Counsel has also said that it is defective. I have the correspondence and it is now written in Hansard and is in the public domain. He is saying, "Okay, the Bill is defective but it will have to be settled in court." That means that ports having their property taken away—either Immingham or one of the other ports—will have to go to court and spend money in order to win their case. Some people would say, "I haven't got the money and I daren't risk going to court." It would cost a lot of money and I hope that it will cost the promoters a lot of money. We
  1078
  should not get that far. We should kill the Bill here and now. When the Speaker's Counsel says that a Bill is defective, something should be done.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Skinner: I want to try to finish my explanation. I do not need interventions, even if I were to be here all night.
  I want to try to fathom out and explain to my colleagues why the 1845 code is used. It is because Associated British Ports is not a railway and it does not want to be trapped by that code. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South also referred to that. Generally speaking, the 1923 mining code referred to railways.
  Very few Tory Members have studied the Bill. Even the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) does not understand the Bill. He is just the paymaster. There is no doubt that the 1845 code was used because Associated British Ports is not a railway. However, the House of Lords realised that in order to make it compatible in law, clause 85E would have to be added. In the 1845 Act there is no section 85E. That is the clincher. When we see 85E we know that the 1923 Act is being used because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) pointed out in a previous debate, that Act contains the additional sections 85A to 85E. By inserting the reference to the 1923 code they have made the rest of the Bill unworkable. That is what the correspondence from the Speaker's Counsel is all about. Solicitors have written and said, "Look here, the House of Lords has amended the Bill but it has made a mess of it and it is invalid."
  Anybody with any sense would take back the Bill. Sadly, this is not a true private Bill. At the witching hour hordes of Tories who have not listened to one word of the debate, not even the words of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South who explained it in a similar way to me, will march through the Lobby. There will be shop stewards on the door telling them which way to go—they call them Whips. The Government will be involved. They will say, "That is not true. A handful of Tories will vote against it." There is no question but that there will be bouncers on the door to get the Bill through.
  Why do I suspect that the promoters have changed from using the 1845 Act to the 1923 Act? It is all about saving money, as I discovered when I was discussing the Bill with the legal people. They were looking at it blandly—in a legal fashion—but I said, "There must be something more than words; there must be brass." They said, "We are not sure where that is." I said, "I will find it", and I have. Clause 3(2)(b) refers to distances, but another refers to areas of protection, and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South briefly referred to that.
  Areas of protection work like a map, and the company can operate only within a clearly defined area of protection. It starts from point A and goes to point B and anybody can say, "The area of protection is as described." The clause refers to metres:
  "For the purposes of the said sections 77 to 85 of the Act of 1845, as so incorporated, the works shall be deemed to be the railway"—
  we now know that it is not a railway but a port—
  "and, for the purpose of section 78 of the said Act of 1845 (as amended by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923) in so far as it relates to the works, the area of protection shall, as regards mines and minerals lying within 172·21 metres of the surface of the ground, be 121·92 metres and, as regards mines and minerals lying at a greater depth than

  1079
  172·21 metres below the said surface, the area of protection shall be increased by 18·3 metres for every 30·48 metres or part thereof."
  What does that mean?
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Tell us.
  Mr. Skinner: I will. It means that under the 1845 Act there is a half-depth equation, so that for every metre or yard that one goes down into the earth there must be half on the top. If a firm is into saving money, and to stop any prospective mineral excavator later on, it wants a bigger surface area than otherwise obtains. The promoters used the Act that is based on two thirds rather than a half because it protects a greater area around the port.
  That is where the money comes in; that is the reason why they have done it; and that is the reason why they have got into a mess. They said at the beginning, "Let us save a lot more money. Let us not use the old Act, which was based on half depth, but one based on a bigger area because by doing that we can protect our property to a greater extent." Therefore, they used one Act for one purpose but another Act for another purpose and made a mess of the Bill. That is why it should have been thrown out.
  The promoters are saying that they want the benefits of the 1845 Act and of the 1923 Act—when it suits them—but that they do not care if it messes up the Act of Parliament in between because they can sort that out when they get into court. They want their cake and to eat it.
  We should throw ou1t these amendments. Before you came in, Madam Deputy Speaker, we tried to explain to Mr. Deputy Speaker that the Bill was faulty and that it should not proceed. That was why there were many points of order. If we cannot prevent it from proceeding, we must try to defeat it. The sad thing is that if we do not, the amendments will be carried, with the net result that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament and some poor sod will get his fingers burnt. We should make every possible attempt to defeat it.
  One of the reasons why I am so convinced that the promoters used the 1845 Act is in the briefing from Associated British Ports, which was sent to hon. Members. That is where it gives the game away. Paragraph 3 says:
  "The amendments to be considered were made by the Unopposed Committee in the Second House. No substantial change is effected by these amendments, which in Clause 3 adds sections 85A to 85E of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 to the provisions of that Act incorporated with the Bill, and in Clause 18 substitutes the new general development order".
  That relates to the amendments on planning.
  8.45 pm
  Even in the hand-out the promoters were still talking about the 1845 Act. They were not talking about the 1923 Act and never have been. That is why letters were sent by petitioners against the Bill, including British Coal, to Mr. Speaker's Counsel. I shall read out what he said. Mr. Deputy Speaker did not like it, but it should be written into Hansard exactly what he said:
  "Thank you for your letter of 16th July with a copy of your letter to Sherwoods of the 13th. I can see no room for doubt that in referring to Sections 77 to 85 of the Act of 1845 the Bill as originally introduced had the effect of incorporating Section 77, as originally enacted, and Sections 77 to 85, as substituted by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 and since amended. The Lords amendments made
  1080
  no change in that respect but had the effect of incorporating also sections 85A to 85E. That change appears to me to be one advantageous to your clients. I cannot therefore agree that the Lords amendments have made the Bill's provisions worse in any respect. With your observation Number 3, I do respectfully agree"—
  this is Mr. Speaker's Counsel saying to a solicitor of British Coal, "I agree with your observation that the Bill is defective"—
  "that Clause 3(2)(b), although it follows the precedent set by section 3(2)(b) of your firm's Associated British Port Bill (Hull)"
  —my hon. Friends will recall that that was blocked but it eventually went through—
  "it is too elliptically expressed in its specification of distances and should have been drafted so as to mesh in more precisely with section 78(5)."
  Mr. Speaker's Counsel is saying that it does not mesh in. I do not know how much strength that has in legal terms, but if he is saying that a Bill that is going on the statute book does not mesh in—his words are,
  "it is too elliptically expressed in its specification of distances and should have been drafted so as to mesh in more precisely with section 78(5)"—
  that is devastating.
  We are told in every textbook on the British constitution that the House of Commons passes Bills, which go to the House of Lords, which crosses the t's and dots the i's and it comes out perfect. That is what we are told. We know that it does not happen often. Generally speaking, that is because no one has spotted it. Members of Parliament do not spot it, Mr. Speaker does not spot it. Speaker's Counsel does not spot it, the House of Lords does not spot it and nor does the counsel in the House of Lords, so the Bill reaches the statute book. Then people say, "Have you heard about the Bill that Ridley introduced? It is wrong." That has happened four times. Many times we have told the Government, "We told you so", but we have done it tongue in cheek. Had we known we should have said so at the time. But this time we have spotted it and so has someone in the legal profession outside this place.
  In eastern Europe, they have used the model of the mother of Parliaments left, right and centre as it is supposed to be the best ever. I can imagine people trotting across to Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, and saying, "We have a model at Westminster. We do things properly. Not only do we pass legislation in the House of Commons, but another gang in the other place makes sure that it is perfect, except when it is a private Bill that will make money." It is a scandal that people will make money out of the Bill when people in the House, including Mr. Speaker's Counsel, know that it is defective.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman began by quoting from a letter, but he failed to quote the next sentence which reads:
  "I cannot, however, imagine that a court or arbitrator, reading its provisions and those of section 78(5) together would have any difficulty in perceiving and giving effect to its intention."
  Mr. SkinnerI had not quite reached that, but there was another paragraph after that. Being a typical, run-of-the-mill Speaker's Counsel who will back every horse in the race, because he is not sure—we have consulted lawyers and we know the score—he stated in the next paragraph:
  "If it were possible at this stage to make more precise the drafting of that part of clause 3(2)(b), I should not hesitate to recommend that it be done."

  1081
  Mr. Speaker's Counsel, having backed a couple of horses, then, being a legal man and knowing that there might be some trouble later and someone might make some money in court, covers his back and sums up by saying:
  "I should not hesitate to recommend that it be done."
  Mr. Michael Brown: What about the next sentence?
  Mr. Skinner: The next sentence states:
  "The provisions in question, however, were in the Bill as sent from this House to the Lords and their construction, and amendments to the Lords amendments cannot therefore be offered to improve the drafting in this respect."
  We know that. He is saying that we cannot amend the Lords amendments. Mr. Speaker's Counsel is saying that if we could amend the Lords amendments they should be amended, but the constitution of this place does not allow that. However, it allows us to send the Bill back. Why is it not going back? We know that if it were sent back there is just half a chance that much more time would be available for people to realise that the Bill is riddled with inaccuracies and faults and that it would finally get buried. More people would read Hansard and see that the number of Tories voting for the Bill has fallen proportionately in the past three years. The majority was only 18 last time and there is half a chance that another handful might say, "That has done it for me. I shall not vote for a defective Bill." If they were here tonight, they would have joined the hon. Member for Nottingham, South in making sure that the Bill was defeated.
  That is it in a nutshell. I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware of what is going on. A company is trying to bludgeon the Bill through so that it can make money by bringing in laundered coal from South Africa to send it to Bassetlaw and other places. Those people are not bothered about the people who live in the villages, because they themselves will not be living in villages in Bassetlaw. They are interested only in lining their pockets. They pushed the Bill through the House of Commons without allowing any votes; they sent it to the Lords where someone found a defect and tried to amend it, but having been amended, it is worse than it was before. It ends up with Mr. Speaker's Counsel who says, in so many words, "I cannot recommend this as being a bona fide Bill."
  Every single one of us should redouble our efforts to ensure that this faulty Bill is defeated. Not only will we save many people a lot of heartache, but we shall also make sure that that filthy gang of promoters and the people running Associated British Ports are defeated because they are trying to con the British Parliament. Because most Tory Members of Parliament are missing, they do not understand that they will march through the Lobby tonight to allow a defective piece of legislation on to the statute book.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: Like many hon. Members, I believe that the Lords amendments are flawed and should not be approved tonight—I refer particularly to clause 18, page 9, lines 6 to 14—because there has been a total disregard of existing British legislation and, more so, that of the European Commission.
  As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall confine my reasoning to why the House should not approve the amendment to clause 18, page 9, line 8. The amendment relates to the replacement of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. The 1988 order was made in October 1988 before the
  1082
  Private Bill Committee in the House began its hearing. If that Committee had known then that the amendment were needed it should have been included in the Bill and the House given a proper opportunity to debate its implications for the principles behind the Bill.
  It would have been most inappropriate to approve the amendment to clause 18, which concerns the terms on which the planning permission for the project is to be granted, unless the requirements of the EC directive 85/337 on environmental assessment have been complied with. Even the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place accepted that there was some doubt about whether there was an exemption for the private Bill procedure. The directive sets up the duty and it is for Parliament to ensure that the parliamentary procedures are not inconsistent with the EC directive.
  Complaints have been made to the European Commission, and rightly so, concerning the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the Immingham project. I believe that it would be a grave discourtesy to the Commission for Parliament to pre-empt the outcome of the discussions on the complaint between the Government and the Commission by approving the Lords amendment tonight. Such a discourtesy might mean that the Commission would believe it necessary to take legal action and bring this House into ridicule. The basis of litigation would be that the directive had not been complied with. Therefore, it would be pointless for the House to pass the Bill when the powers in it would turn Immingham into a competitor with Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp; and we should not forget the damage that would occur to the Nottinghamshire coal industry and to jobs. Those discussions could be struck down or even suspended as happened in the recent Spanish trawler case.
  9 pm
  I contend that the directive should have been taken into account by the Private Bill Committee which could then have considered the environmental effects on the communities in those counties of large numbers of lorries carrying coal to the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire power stations. The Committee's report was in error in agreeing with the promoters that local highway authorities are "under no such obligation." The special report from the other place confuses the issue by stating that local highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles by road. They do not and, what is more, local authorities in counties affected by the Bill maintain that they do not have such powers.
  The briefest statistics relating to the proposed Humber port should start alarm bells ringing in all the communities that will be affected by heavy lorry movements. Ten million tonnes of imported coal means 1 million journeys—half a million to the port for collection and half a million to the receiving power stations. Humberside and Nottinghamshire had a foretaste of that nightmare to come during the 1984–85 coal industry dispute when roads and villages suffered badly with all damage repair being paid for either by the ratepayers or individuals. That may be accepted in a national emergency, but it is totally unacceptable on a permanent basis for decades to come.
  I have a final plea for my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I ask him to seek from the promoters of the Bill an undertaking that coal

  1083
  imported through the proposed terminal at Immingham will be transported to power stations only by rail and barge. Only then will the communities facing the threat of coal lorries through their villages be able to rest peacefully in their beds. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes if he will give that undertaking. In the absence of that undertaking, I ask the House to reject the amendment until EC directive 85/337 is complied with.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 157.

  Division No. 302]

  [9.02 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Amess, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gorst, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gow, Ian

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Grist, Ian

  Benyon, W.

  Hague, William

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hannam, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Harris, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hayward, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hill, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bright, Graham

  Holt, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

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

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Butcher, John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Butler, Chris

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Butterfill, John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jack, Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Janman, Tim

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Colvin, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dover, Den

  Knox, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Durant, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Favell, Tony

  Lilley, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Maclean, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mans, Keith

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maples, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Marlow, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  French, Douglas

  Mates, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Miller, Sir Hal

  1084

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Squire, Robin

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Paice, James

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Trippier, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walden, George

  Portillo, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Ward, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rathbone, Tim

  Watts, John

  Redwood, John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Wilshire, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wolfson, Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Mr. Michael Brown and

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Toby Jessel.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Alton, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dobson, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Douglas, Dick

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Beith, A. J.

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bell, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

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

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blair, Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blunkett, David

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

  Bradley, Keith

  Flannery, Martin

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foster, Derek

  Buckley, George J.

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  George, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Carr, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clay, Bob

  Hardy, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Haynes, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Geraint

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hoyle, Doug

  1085

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Janner, Greville

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Richardson, Jo

  Kilfedder, James

  Robertson, George

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lamond, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leighton, Ron

  Salmond, Alex

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Litherland, Robert

  Short, Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Snape, Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Madden, Max

  Stott, Roger

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Strang, Gavin

  Marek, Dr John

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Vaz, Keith

  Meacher, Michael

  Walley, Joan

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Michael, Alun

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wilson, Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Murphy, Paul

  Mr. Michael Welsh and

  Nellist, Dave

  Mr. Terry Patchett.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment: In page 3, line 19 leave out "85" and insert "85E" —[Mr.Michael Brown.]
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 155.

  Division No. 303]

  [9.14 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bellingham, Henry

  Churchill, Mr

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Benyon, W.

  Colvin, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Conway, Derek

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Durant, Tony

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bright, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

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

  Favell, Tony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Butcher, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Butler, Chris

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butterfill, John

  Franks, Cecil

  1086

  Freeman, Roger

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Gale, Roger

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gardiner, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Morris, Steve

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Gorst, John

  Paice, James

  Gow, Ian

  Patnick, Irvine

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Grist, Ian

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hague, William

  Portillo, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hannam, John

  Price, Sir David

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Redwood, John

  Harris, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hayward, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Sims, Roger

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Irvine, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Janman, Tim

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sumberg, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Key, Robert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thorne, Neil

  Knapman, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knox, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Lang, Ian

  Tracey, Richard

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Trippier, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lightbown, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Walden, George

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Ward, John

  Maclean, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Madel, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mans, Keith

  Watts, John

  Maples, John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Wilshire, David

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Wolfson, Mark

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Toby Jessel and

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Mr. James Hill.

  Moss, Malcolm

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  Allen, Graham

  Beith, A. J.

  Alton, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Blair, Tony

  Barron, Kevin

  Blunkett, David

  Beckett, Margaret

  Bradley, Keith

  1087

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Lambie, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lamond, James

  Buckley, George J.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Caborn, Richard

  Leighton, Ron

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Litherland, Robert

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Carr, Michael

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McCartney, Ian

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McFall, John

  Clay, Bob

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Clelland, David

  McWilliam, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Madden, Max

  Coleman, Donald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cousins, Jim

  Marek, Dr John

  Crowther, Stan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cummings, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Meacher, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Meale, Alan

  Darling, Alistair

  Michael, Alun

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dewar, Donald

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dixon, Don

  Morley, Elliot

  Dobson, Frank

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Doran, Frank

  Mullin, Chris

  Douglas, Dick

  Murphy, Paul

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Nellist, Dave

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Pike, Peter L.

  Eadie, Alexander

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Eastham, Ken

  Prescott, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Fatchett, Derek

  Quin, Ms Joyce

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

  Redmond, Martin

  Flannery, Martin

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Flynn, Paul

  Reid, Dr John

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Richardson, Jo

  Foster, Derek

  Robertson, George

  Foulkes, George

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Fraser, John

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Rowlands, Ted

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Salmond, Alex

  George, Bruce

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Short, Clare

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Snape, Peter

  Grocott, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hardy, Peter

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Haynes, Frank

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Stott, Roger

  Hinchliffe, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Straw, Jack

  Hood, Jimmy

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Turner, Dennis

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Walley, Joan

  Hoyle, Doug

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Illsley, Eric

  Janner, Greville

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Mr. Terry Patchett and

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Mr. Michael Welsh.

  Kilfedder, James

Clause 18

  PLANNING PERMISSION
  Lords amendment: In page 9, line 6, leave out "Class XII" and insert "Part 11".—[Mr.Michael Brown.]
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 150.

  Division No. 304]

  [9.28 pm

  AYES

  Arbuthnot, James

  Harris, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Atkinson, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bendall, Vivian

  Holt, Richard

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Benyon, W.

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

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Janman, Tim

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Brazier, Julian

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Bright, Graham

  Key, Robert

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Knapman, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lang, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Butler, Chris

  Lightbown, David

  Butterfill, John

  Lilley, Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Mans, Keith

  Churchill, Mr

  Maples, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Marlow, Tony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Colvin, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Conway, Derek

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Cran, James

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Moate, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Den

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dunn, Bob

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Durant, Tony

  Neale, Gerrard

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Norris, Steve

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Forman, Nigel

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Paice, James

  Franks, Cecil

  Patnick, Irvine

  Freeman, Roger

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Gale, Roger

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gardiner, George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Portillo, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Price, Sir David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Redwood, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Gow, Ian

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Gregory, Conal

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hague, William

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hannam, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Sims, Roger

  1089

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Sumberg, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thorne, Neil

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Toby Jessell and

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. James Hill.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Allen, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Alton, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Hardy, Peter

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Barron, Kevin

  Haynes, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Beggs, Roy

  Henderson, Doug

  Beith, A. J.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Hood, Jimmy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Blair, Tony

  Hoyle, Doug

  Blunkett, David

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Buckley, George J.

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Caborn, Richard

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kilfedder, James

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lambie, David

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Leighton, Ron

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Carr, Michael

  Litherland, Robert

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clay, Bob

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McCartney, Ian

  Coleman, Donald

  McFall, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cousins, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Madden, Max

  Cummings, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marek, Dr John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Darling, Alistair

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Doran, Frank

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Douglas, Dick

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Murphy, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Nellist, Dave

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

  Pike, Peter L.

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Flynn, Paul

  Prescott, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foster, Derek

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Foulkes, George

  Redmond, Martin

  Fraser, John

  Reid, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Richardson, Jo

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  George, Bruce

  Rowlands, Ted

  1090

  Ruddock, Joan

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

  Salmond, Alex

  Turner, Dennis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Walley, Joan

  Short, Clare

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Snape, Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. Terry Patchett and

  Straw, Jack

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment: In page 9, line 7, leave out "XII in" and insert "A in Part 11 of" and leave out "1" and insert "2".—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 157.

  Division No. 305]

  [9.42 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Atkinson, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gale, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardiner, George

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Benyon, W.

  Gill, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Boswell, Tim

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grist, Ian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hague, William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bright, Graham

  Hanley, Jeremy

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

  Hannam, John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Harris, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burns, Simon

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butcher, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Butler, Chris

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butterfill, John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hill, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Churchill, Mr

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Irvine, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Devlin, Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Durant, Tony

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Key, Robert

  Favell, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Knapman, Roger

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  1091

  Lang, Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lightbown, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Maclean, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Madel, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Sims, Roger

  Maples, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mates, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Moate, Roger

  Sumberg, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thorne, Neil

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tracey, Richard

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Ward, John

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Watts, John

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Ray

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Wilshire, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Portillo, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wood, Timothy

  Price, Sir David

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Toby Jessel and

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Miss Ann Widdecombe.

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Blunkett, David

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Keith

  Alton, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Ashton, Joe

  Buckley, George J.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beckett, Margaret

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beggs, Roy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Beith, A. J.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Bell, Stuart

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Carr, Michael

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

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Blair, Tony

  Clay, Bob

  1092

  Clelland, David

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Coleman, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McFall, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cousins, Jim

  McKelvey, William

  Crowther, Stan

  McWilliam, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Madden, Max

  Cummings, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marek, Dr John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Darling, Alistair

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Doran, Frank

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Douglas, Dick

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Mullin, Chris

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Nellist, Dave

  Fatchett, Derek

  Pike, Peter L.

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

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Flannery, Martin

  Prescott, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Foster, Derek

  Redmond, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Reid, Dr John

  Fraser, John

  Richardson, Jo

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Galloway, George

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Ruddock, Joan

  George, Bruce

  Salmond, Alex

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Short, Clare

  Gordon, Mildred

  Skinner, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Hardy, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Haynes, Frank

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Stott, Roger

  Hood, Jimmy

  Strang, Gavin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Straw, Jack

  Howells, Geraint

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Turner, Dennis

  Hoyle, Doug

  Walley, Joan

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Kilfedder, James

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Lambie, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lamond, James

  Worthington, Tony

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Litherland, Robert

  Mr. Terry Patchett and

  Livingstone, Ken

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Students (Housing Benefit)
  Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. These regulations should be withdrawn because they are technically flawed and defective. It is centred around the allocation of access funds and the moneys will be disbursed under section 100 —[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to engage my attention and that of the House, and he deserves to be heard.
  Mr. Meacher: As I have said, the regulation is centred around the access fund and the moneys will be disbursed under section 100 of the Education Act 1944 and section 73 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1945. No regulations have been produced by the Government under those sections. How can the House reach a decision before it has sight of the regulations which will determine how the access funds are to be distributed?
  It may be that the Government do not intend to produce any such regulations. That would be worse still. Either way, it would be an abuse of Parliament for the regulations to be voted through tonight when they are technically flawed and deny the House the information on which to reach a proper decision. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, use your good offices with the Minister to see that the regulations are withdrawn until they are properly drafted?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. In the view of the Chair, the regulations are perfectly in order. That is a matter for debate, and I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about it.
  9.56 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
  The contents of the regulations have already been the subject of much debate in the Chamber and in another place. Only last week the House reiterated its support for the Government's policy of withdrawing students' entitlement to housing benefit. However, hon. Members will know that the regulations do not simply remove students' entitlement to housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit: they define those vulnerable groups of students who will retain entitlement to housing benefit and income support—with one exception, which I shall come to later. They also provide for the treatment of top-up loans and payments from the access funds in the income-related benefits.
  The regulations providing for this apply not only to students who retain entitlement to income support and housing benefit but to the partners of students who will continue to have access to benefits as now, including income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and family credit. The regulations also provide for the new rate of student rent deduction and allowances for the next academic year.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister explain how the difficult regulations affecting community
  1094
  charge benefit for Scottish students in their fourth year at universities will apply? This is a difficulty that has been raised with the Department.
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman might care to raise that matter later in the debate. I want to set out what the regulations are designed to achieve. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to deliver his remarks.
  Two weeks ago the Government took what I believe was a helpful—
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should there not be a Scottish Office Education Minister present for this debate? It may be unreasonable to ask the Minister to be aware of the details of Scottish education, but a Scottish Office Minister should be present.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to determine which Minister moves regulations.
  Mr. Scott: Whatever worries the hon. Gentleman may have about Scottish students, I made the point during our debate recently that, in the last academic year—it will almost certainly be the same in the coming academic year—a record number of students in England and Wales applied for places in higher education. The same applies in Scotland. If the difficulties were so great, it is unlikely that we would have such a record both north and south of the border.
  Some two weeks ago we took what I hope was the helpful, if unusual, step of placing in the Library proof copies of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on the draft regulations so that hon. Members could study them and use them in our discussions. The Committee's report was published with the regulations. Hon. Members will therefore have had ample opportunity to examine its findings and will be aware that, far from the Committee denouncing the Government's proposals, as recent press reports may have led us to believe, most of them have been accepted by a majority of its members.
  It is fair to say that much support was expressed in last week's debate for the general principle that students should be funded by the education maintenance system and not by social security benefits. That is the crux of our policy, as enshrined in the regulations. It was never intended that students should resort to the benefits system to the extent that they do. As I said last week, that was an unplanned outcome of developments in social security in recent years.
  Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that applications for advanced education show a substantial increase this year, even though students are well aware of the changes proposed? Is he further aware that, for the forthcoming academic year, student support will be increased by about 25 per cent.? That includes the student loan of £420, which is interest-free.
  Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend outlines points which were made strongly in last week's debate and which underline this evening's debate. Were everybody terrified about the prospect of student loans being the main thrust of support for students, I do not believe that record numbers of people would be applying for higher education.

  1095
  In essence, I said last week—I reinforce it without apology tonight—that the objectives of social security policy are not the same as those for educational maintenance policy. The needs and expenditure patterns of students are not necessarily typical of the population as a whole. They have particular needs and are supported for a particular purpose—further, higher and postgraduate education. Through the education system, they will have access to a range of resources, including grants and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, top-up loans. In addition, access funds will be available to assist students who experience financial difficulties.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: When will details of the access funds be available?
  Mr. Scott: The details of the access funds for further, undergraduate and postgraduate education have been announced.
  Mr. Smith: I hoped that it was obvious that I meant the details for students who, if the regulations are passed and their social security is withdrawn, will be in hardship—some in dire hardship. They cannot know, because the figures have not been announced for the allocations to institutions or the details of how those institutions will act as mini-local social security departments.
  Mr. Scott: We are still some way away from the beginning of the academic year. The access funds will be distributed to the institutions concerned, but the thrust of the policy for their use is not that they should be unduly prescriptive but that there should be the maximum flexibility, so that those administering them at the institutions concerned can recognise hardship in individual cases and respond through them. That is the thrust of the policy, and it is right that it should be so handled.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the access funds have doubled from some £15 million to £30 million? Does he agree that that substantial sum will go a considerable way to alleviating student hardship?
  Mr. Scott: I very much accept and welcome my hon. Friend's point. As he said, not only have funds been increased, but my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science have said that they will carefully monitor their adequacy.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important to monitor the effects on disabled students? I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has gone a long way in that direction, but will he keep a careful eye on the access of disabled students to universities?
  Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend will recognise that, wearing my other hat as the Minister with responsibilities for disabled people, I am particularly concerned about the needs of disabled students. They are recognised in the underlying system, but I am sure that education institutions will take particular care to monitor the effects of the changes on disabled students.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: If it is no longer any part of the social security system to support students, why is it any part of an education institution to judge hardship?
  Mr. Scott: In a sense the hon. Gentleman has put his finger exactly on the point. It is much easier for the institutions of higher and further education to assess what amounts to hardship in the student population than it is for the social security system across the country, which is addressing an entirely different client group. That must be absolutely manifest. I said last week, and I underline today, that I believe that it is much better and will be more flexible and sensitive to the needs of students for education institutions rather than the social security system to do that, however much admiration I have for the social security system that I play a modest part in administering.
  In the context of the range of resources that I was outlining, the Government are proposing to withdraw students' entitlement to income support, housing benefit and unemployment benefit. As I have argued in the past few minutes as well as last week, the alternative provisions available through the education system will provide adequate resources for students to live on. We accept that some students will have financial needs beyond the level provided by the grant and loan. That is why we have been exploring the role of the access funds in meeting any residual hardship. However, I do not believe that it is necessary for the generality of students to fall back on the social security system.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can we have just a few facts? When the Minister talks about the generality of students, what figures are available to the Department of Education and Science or to his own Department about the number of students from the lower income groups? There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that great universities such as Edinburgh are not getting the students from relatively low income groups which they would have expected a decade ago. I have no reason to believe that the experience of Edinburgh university is any different from that of a number of other great universities.
  Mr. Scott: Surveys are carried out by the Universities Central Council on Admissions and other bodies into the social backgrounds and income levels of students.
  Ms. Clare Short: It is clear that young people from low-income backgrounds are under-represented in higher education.
  Mr. Scott: Despite the usual sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), we survey these matters. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science are concerned that entry into further and higher education represents a broad spectrum of income and social background. That monitoring and surveying will continue. However, I repeat what I have said at least twice already: we have record applications in England, Wales and Scotland that are not confined to those from the higher income groups. I am satisfied with that.
  I imagine that a number of those who have intervened will want to make their own speeches. As this is a limited debate, I should hate to talk out the motion.

  1097
  I imagine that the House will be somewhat relieved to hear that I do not intend to go through each of the regulations in detail, but I should like to describe some of their main features.
  Regulations 2 and 3 relate to community charge benefit and family credit respectively. They deal entirely with the way in which top-up loans and payments from the access funds are to be treated in the calculation of these benefits. I should perhaps remind the House that registered students are entitled to a special relief and have to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. Subsequently, they are not entitled to claim community charge benefit. These regulations are needed to ensure that these payments are taken into account when claims are made by a non-student partner of a registered student. Similarly, single students cannot normally claim family credit because they cannot satisfy the requirement to be in employment for at least 24 hours a week. The provisions of regulation 3 are required to cover claims from families where one of the partners is a student and the other parent is in work and satisfies the 24–hour condition.
  The rules for the treatment of top-up loans and access fund payments similarly apply to housing benefit and income support and are covered by regulations 4(9) and 5(7). Essentially, top-up loans will be apportioned as a weekly amount for the full year. Existing regulations mean that the maximum amount of loan available to the student will be assumed even where the student has chosen to take up a lower amount of loan or no loan at all. However, we also propose that the weekly amounts of loan will attract a disregard of £10, and that means that the vast majority of students will enjoy the full value of their top-up loan in the first year of the new scheme. I believe that that responds positively to the recommendation made by the Social Security Advisory Committee.
  However, the disregard will apply only for so long as the recipient remains a student. I hope that the House would agree with that. If a student leaves a course before its conclusion, the actual value of any loan taken out will be taken into account in assessing benefit entitlement for the remainder of the academic year covered by that loan.
  Our intention, which we clearly stated in our response to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and in our letter consulting the local authority associations, was that the disregard on top-up loan income should be subjected to the overriding disregard of £10 on all unearned income within the income—related benefits. That would mean that a student in receipt of a top-up loan and other income attracting a disregard would only benefit from a total disregard of £10 on the whole of his income.
  However, I must confess that the regulations as currently drafted do not achieve that intention. This omission came to light only after the draft regulations were laid before Parliament. We therefore intend to correct the position at the earliest opportunity by including the necessary amendments in the separate regulation to cover the concession on deaf students which I announced last week and which we will be laying before Parliament shortly.
  Mr. Meacher: The Minister is asking us to pass the regulations, which presumably have received careful scrutiny by parliamentary draftsmen and by legal opinion. If he is now saying that they are defective—I will suggest further reasons why they are defective and should be
  1098
  withdrawn—should he not take them away and bring them back to the House only when they have been correctly drafted?
  Mr. Scott: It is fairly typical of the hon. Gentleman to go over the top in responding to what is a modest error in the regulations. We will shortly have another opportunity to implement the concession on deaf students. I am sure that it is right that we should make that modest amendment at that time.
  The regulations before us tonight also specify that payments for hardship, made from the access funds, are not to be treated in the same way as the grant.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask for the opinion of the Chair on the following point: is it proper that the House should be asked to pass a verdict—that is what we are being asked to do tonight—on legislation when we hear from the mouth of the proposer of that legislation from the Dispatch Box that it is apparently defective? This is entirely new. If it is considered defective by the parliamentary draftsmen, is it not an insult to the House to bring it before us?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I attempted to deal with that point of order at the beginning of the debate. It is a matter for debate, not a matter for the Chair. It is the responsibility of the Government, and for the Minister to answer those points in the debate.
  Mr. Scott: We all know that regulations affecting social security matters are complex. However, it was right for me this evening to acknowledge that there had been a small error in the regulations and to explain how, having an early opportunity before us, we intend to correct it.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: When?
  Mr. Scott: I said, shortly.
  Mr. Douglas: We need to know when, especially as some Scottish universities and institutions will commence their academic sessions in September.
  Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when we debated these matters last week. I made it absolutely clear then that everything would be in place in good time for the new academic year, not just in England and Wales but in Scotland. They will be in place ready for institutions and authorities to be able to make the necessary arrangements. I give the hon. Gentleman that clear undertaking.
  I began to explain that payments for hardship made from access funds are not to be treated in the same way as the grant. The payments are discretionary, and it is intended therefore that they be treated in the same way as voluntary payments. That means that regular payments will attract a disregard of £10, and one-off lump sum payments will fall to be treated as capital. In practice, however, we do not expect benefit recipients to be a priority group for the receipt of access fund payments.
  The regulations relating to the treatment of income provide for the annual increase in the element of the student grant allowed for books and equipment. The allowance for those items is disregarded in calculating a student's grant income.
  Regulation 4 deals with housing benefit. That regulation excludes full-time students from eligibility, on the basis that they are deemed not liable for housing costs.

  1099
  However, the regulations also provide for a partner of a student to be treated as liable for rent. That measure ensures that the partners of students will have access to housing benefit, even when the student is in fact the tenant.
  Hon. Members will wish to note that the majority of the Social Security Advisory Committee members have accepted the Government's proposal to remove students' entitlement to housing benefit.
  Ms. Short: I am sure that, whatever the differences between us, the Minister would not wish to mislead the House. The majority of the committee accepted removal on condition that there was a fall-back right for the Government to give people a grant in the summer if they would otherwise be in distress. The Government have not accepted that condition, so the majority of the committee do not support the Government.
  Mr. Scott: I have considered the committee's recommendations with some care. I do not think that it took account of the availability of access funds when hardship existed or of the ability of local education authorities to give grants to students during the long vacation specifically if they were experiencing hardship.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made was that the Minister was possibly misleading the House. He is now attempting to cover himself by saying what the social security commissioner should have said. He has not told the House what the Social Security Advisory Committee actually said.
  Mr. Scott: The Social Security Advisory Committee is just that—an advisory committee. The Government and Ministers have a responsibility to listen to its advice and to assess it against the reality of the situation and the totality of help that is available to students in the circumstances. That is why the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the response by my right hon. Friend have been published with the regulations.
  No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have a chance later to make those points, and I shall seek to respond to them. I am not in the least attempting to deceive the House. I am stating the situation as it is and what resources are available to students in response to the situation in which they are removed from entitlement to housing benefit.
  Regulation 4(6), as well as excluding students from housing benefit, sets out those categories of students who will retain entitlement. Those categories also apply to income support and include lone parents, disabled students, pensioner students, student couples with dependent children and students under 19 in further education.
  We had intended that the definition of a disabled student—for benefit purposes—should be on the basis of those who meet the criteria for the disability premium, together with a transitional provision to ensure that those disabled students who had previously received income support as students on the basis of their disability should remain eligible for income support and housing benefit. That transitional provision will also apply to those who received income support as disabled students while in relevant education up to the age of 19.
  1100
  Hon. Members will be aware that we now propose to extend the definition of a disabled student to include students who are eligible for the local education authority disabled students allowance by reason of deafness. However, as I implied, it is first necessary to consult the local authority associations on the proposal. It is for that reason that we have decided to introduce this measure by a separate set of regulations which will be laid before Parliament at the earliest opportunity. The regulations will be drafted to embrace students who are excluded from receiving actual payment of the disabled students allowance on grounds of parental means, and also students who fall within the discretionary award arrangements and who receive an award akin to the DSA, by reason of deafness.
  Finally, the regulations relating to housing benefit provide for the annual increase in the student rent deduction. This takes account of the uprated element in the student grant for accommodation costs.
  Regulation 5 excludes most students from entitlement to income support on the basis that they are not available for work during the period of study. The regulations redefine the period of study to include the long vacations falling within the student's course, but not the long vacation following the student's final year. Similarly, regulation 6, dealing with unemployment benefit, prevents students from being treated as available for work for any day on which they are a student.
  The Government believe that students have made a conscious decision to follow a course of study and are not therefore unemployed in the normal sense of the word. Nor can it be said that students following a full-time course are in any sense available for full-time work. Unemployment benefit is intended to provide financial support for people who face the unforeseen contingency of unemployment, not those who have opted out of the full-time labour market. Similarly, income support, other than for those in vulnerable groups not required to be available for work, is intended to assist only those people who are available for, and actively seeking, full-time work.
  Currently students are ineligible for these two benefits during term time and the short vacations. We are now making extra resources available through the education system to ensure that students have sufficient alternative support for the long vacation.
  Doubtless Opposition Members will remind me that the Social Security Advisory Committee is opposed to the Government's policy on unemployment benefit. It argues that, if the contribution condition is met, unemployment benefit should be paid.—[Interruption.] Well, I shall put what I hope is an equally reasonable response to that argument.
  Full-time students do not meet the necessary conditions of entitlement. I do not accept that students are unemployed in the same way as other claimants. Moreover—as I am sure the House will recognise—an adequate contribution record alone has never been sufficient justification for receiving unemployment benefit. There have always been additional conditions to be satisfied. In a previous report, the committee did not adopt its current line on the contributory principle. In 1986, it accepted that unemployment benefit should not be paid to students in the short vacations since educational provision covered those periods. To pay unemployment benefit, the committee accepted, would be to duplicate provision for

  1101
  personal maintenance. The Government believe that this argument remains a compelling one, and thus reject the committee's finding in its current report.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister agree that one problem is that the provisions seem to open the way dramatically to changing the position of part-time seasonal workers? It could be argued that, although they are in a different position from students, they have deliberately opted into that way of life. Many people in my constituency have seasonal employment.
  Mr. Scott: This is a debate about students, not seasonal workers. We have made certain adjustments to the way in which seasonal workers are treated for unemployment benefit. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt find other opportunities to raise that subject. However, tonight we are discussing student maintenance and whether they may be maintained through the education maintenance system or through the social security system.
  Before I leave this issue, I draw the House's attention to the fact that the majority on the Social Security Advisory Committee accepted the Government's proposal to remove students' underlying entitlement to income support—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ladywood would like me to give way, I shall of course do so.
  Ms. Short: By a majority of 8:6, the committee agreed on certain conditions. The Government have not met them, so the committee is not with the Government.
  Mr. Scott: I have spoken about the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We do not have to accept every word and condition that it puts forward. The broad thrust of the committee's recommendations was in agreement with what the Government are doing. Anyone who knows about the social security system will recognise that it would not be logical for us to say that students are not entitled to unemployment benefit but are entitled to income support. Broadly the same conditions apply to the receipt of both benefits.
  Of course, a safety net is necessary in these circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is establishing the access funds, about which we had some exchange of views earlier, to assist students in financial difficulties. As I said earlier in response to an intervention, local education authorities have the discretion to award vacation hardship allowances during the long vacations. Those can be worth more than £50 a week to the student. The costs to the education authority are fully reimbursed. In those circumstances, we do not believe that there is a case for retaining a social security safety net. The existence of such an arrangement could only provide an incentive for the access fund administrators and local education authorities to withdraw from their responsibilities. Our policies are clearly set out and they are that students should be maintained by the education maintenance system. We believe that both the access funds and the LEAs are up to the task.
  I should like to explain one other provision. Although the regulations are intended to come into force on 1 September, many students will still be on their long vacation at that time. It would obviously not be right tc take benefit away from students before they were in a position to call on the new support arrangements—loans
  1102
  and access funds—which will be open to them. Regulation 7 specifically addresses that point: no students will have their benefit entitlement withdrawn this year until they resume their course of study.
  The regulations give effect to the Government's proposals on student entitlement to benefits. The issues that they raise have been debated only recently in this House and at length in another place. I am pleased to present them, and I commend them to the House.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raised with you at the outset of the debate the point that the regulations are technically flawed and should be withdrawn. You advised me that that was a matter not for the Chair but for the House. Therefore, I seek the wider agreement of the House that these defective regulations should be withdrawn and brought back only when they have been rectified. They are defective because in large measure they deal with the distribution of the access funds. The Minister spent a fair amount of time talking about the access funds. They are to be distributed under section 100 of the Education Act 1944 and section 73 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1945, yet the regulations under those sections that will govern the distribution of access funds have not been made available.
  I repeat my question. How can Parliament reach a proper judgment on the regulations until it has prior knowledge of how they will be carried through? That is exactly the point made earlier in an intervention in the Minister's speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). The Minister simply did not seem to understand the thrust of the question. It is a very serious question, and I hope that the House understands it. The Minister has already been arrogant. He admitted that the drafting of the regulations was defective but did not even apologise for it. He simply said loftily that he would correct the error at some future date.
  If the Minister admits that the drafting is defective, and if there is considerably more serious defective drafting such as I suggested, will he consider that the right course is to withdraw the regulations and redraft them so that the House can consider proper regulations? Perhaps the Minister might like to answer that question. I am not asking a rhetorical question, but asking the Minister whether he will do so.
  Mr. Scott: I have no intention of withdrawing the regulations. I shall make the modest amendment when we lay the regulation about deaf students before the House.
  Mr. Meacher: I am not merely making a point about deaf students. I am asking how the House can reach a decision about access funds, which are at the centre of this debate, when hon. Members have no idea how they will be distributed to relieve hardship.
  Mr. Scott: There is no question of the regulations being withdrawn. The access funds will be distributed to the institutions from the three different funds, and it will be up to the institutions to administer them flexibly and sympathetically, according to students' needs. It has never been intended that the access funds should be controlled by regulation.
  Mr. Meacher: That is exactly what I suspected. It is an important point, which the Minister had not previously admitted. I am glad to have it out of his own mouth.
  The statement that the Secretary of State is required to make to the Social Security Advisory Committee says at page 3, paragraph 14:
  "Although some central guidance will be given on the administration of the Funds, it is not the Government's intention to fetter the discretion of institutions in determining how the Funds are used."
  That is exactly the point—either the guidance is significant, in which case Parliament has a right to prior sight of it before it is asked to pass this legislation, or it is so insignificant as not to fetter the discretion of institutions, in which case Parliament should not pass the regulations if they give such blanket and untrammelled financial powers to the Secretary of State.
  It is a serious point because within the past month Parliament has already been admonished by the courts for its carelessness in nodding through—I think the judge's phrase was "Homer nodded", which refers to Parliament, rather than Homer—such vague and open-ended powers to the Secretary of State. That was Mr. Justice Purchas' complaint about the unfettered powers voted to the Secretary of State over the administration of the social fund. However, one month later, we are being asked to do exactly the same again. That is why I ask every hon. Member who cares about the rule of law and having a check on the powers of the Executive—[Laughter.] I know that it causes great mirth to Ministers, but it is a serious matter. If Parliament is to exercise proper control over the Executive, it must reject the regulations until they have been redrafted so that they are genuinely accountable to the House—which at present they are not.
  A further absurdity about the regulations, if they are not amended, is that if access funds provided under sections 100 or 73 are to be excluded from income taken into account under the regulations relating to income support or family credit, that requires specific regulations. If the Government do not propose to make such regulations under those sections, which is what the Minister said, access funds will be taken into account and will diminish student benefits. It is wholly unacceptable that Parliament should be asked to pass the regulations tonight when the crassly defective drafting leaves open such perverse consequences.
  I make no apology for the time that I have spent talking about whether Parliament should pass the regulations, but I am obliged to speak briefly on the issue of substance. I shall immediately disabuse the Minister of a canard that he continues to peddle—he did so again tonight. The issue is not whether students should continue to be supported in part by the social security system. The Opposition accept, as do the National Union of Students and others, that social security benfits are not the ideal means of student financial support. The issue is whether the proposed alternative form of support is adequate, and in our view it patently is not.
  The Government's whole case is that the average benefit received by students is about £315 a year, while the student loan is £420, so the average student will be better off. That argument is flawed on at least three counts. First, the research was undertaken by an organisation called Research Services Limited in May 1987, and is now more than three years old, so the figures are badly out of date. Secondly, it is an average figure, which fails to take
  1104
  account of huge urban and regional variations in cost. Private rents for students vary between £25 a week outside London, £45 a week in greater London and £60 in inner London. The beauty of housing benefit is that it is what the Government are always looking for—a targeted benefit. It alone takes into account these huge variations, while the Minister is deliberately switching to a scheme that does not.
  Thirdly—by far the most important point—the figure is simply wrong. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, in its evidence to the Social Security Advisory Committee, said that in the south-east a student stands to lose £560 in housing benefit during the academic year. We may accept some leeway in the precision of that figure. But the Government's figure of £315 is not merely low, it is ridiculous, and it is absurd that the Government base their whole case on that.
  The Government say that access funds will be set up to meet hardship. The Minister repeated it tonight. The total of access funds for undergraduates will be only £14 million, which works out at the equivalent of only £27 per student. Such sums clearly cannot even begin to compensate for the shortfall through loss of benefit. That is the key point which the Minister has simply failed to address. It is perfectly clear that a significant number of students will suffer serious hardship if the regulations go through. However much the Minister tried to wriggle when my hon. Friends were pressing him, that is contrary to the strongly stated intentions not merely of a minority of the SSAC, but of the united committee.
  Since the Minister was so unwilling to state the view of the whole committee, let me now mention it to the House. The SSAC said:
  "We believe unanimously that there must be a safety net which ensures that students are not left destitute".
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East raised the issue with the Minister a week ago, he gave this interesting response:
  "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."—[Official Report, 9 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 102.]
  He said much the same again tonight. Tonight we want to know what guidance will be sent to local education authorities to encourage them to exercise this role and, more importantly, what funding will be made available to local education authorities to meet this hardship, and what guarantee can the Minister now give the House that all students will be catered for. Until he can answer those questions, I submit that his solicitude on this matter is not worth more than a pinch of salt.
  Finally, for postgraduates the Government have clearly established a link between the provision of loans and the loss of benefits. On those grounds, we strongly contend that extension of the loss of benefits to those who are not eligible to loans—postgraduates—is outside the scope and intentions of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, and there is no other provision or primary legislation on which to base this sweeping disentitlement. That is another clear legislative reason why these regulations should be rejected.
  It is not enough for the Minister to say, as he has, that the DES recently announced a £400 increase in postgraduate support. The current studentship awards were set in place in October 1989; no increase is planned

  1105
  until April 1991. With inflation touching 10 per cent., the £400 represents not an increase in resources over the 18 months but a reduction for postgraduates.
  These regulations will cause severe hardship for a large number of students. They will remove postgraduates from entitlement to housing benefit, without offering them loans
  1106
  in replacement. They will narrow the whole basis of recruitment to higher education in the next generation, particularly among working-class students—a point that the Minister carefully omitted.
  I call on the House to reject the regulations.
  10.40 pm
  Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) began by accusing my right hon. Friend the Minister of arrogance. Front-Bench spokesmen may well occasionally display some intellectual superiority, but no one could accuse my right hon. Friend of arrogance. It would be difficult to find a more courteous, patient or sympathetic Minister.
  This debate is similar to the one that we held about a week ago on the Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill. Indeed, I heard the expression "Homer nodded" last week: Homer has been wheeled out again and has nodded again tonight. There is actually a common theme running through last week's and this week's debates: does it make sense to focus student support on one Department or two? It was clear from the Opposition interventions in my right hon. Friend's speech, and from the contribution of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, that there is a strong case for having one Minister in charge of student support. Many interventions in the Minister's speech were about the education system, not about social security. The sooner we can put a stop to debates in which social security Ministers have to answer questions about education issues the better.
  Each time the Opposition are confronted by the principle of focusing support on the DES they say that they agree with it; but when confronted with the consequences of that principle they refuse to jump. They always vote to retain the present system. They claim to prefer it because they say that the Government will not be generous to students under the new regime—so they prefer to stay with the regime they know.
  Now, if the Government were minded to be mean to students, they could be so perfectly well under the present regime, but under the new one another £100 million will be available for students. Against that background, it is wholly illogical to adopt the attitude that the Opposition have adopted. Yet tonight I suspect that the Opposition will vote against the consequences of a principle that they have readily accepted.
  If the Opposition are sincere, instead of harking back to the present system, they should seek reassurances on the sort of issues raised in this debate. Are the access funds adequate? The Government have already shown flexibility on that. They have already shown a willingness to increase the funds when it is argued that they need to be more generous. I have no doubt that if they are confronted with future evidence that the access funds are inadequate, pressure will be brought to bear by both sides of the House to ensure that the new system is flexible, generous and meets the purposes for which it was constructed.
  Mr. Worthington: On what principle was the amount of money in the access funds calculated?
  Sir George Young: I do not know. What I do know is that the amount has been increased in response to representations from educational interests to the effect that they are inadequate.
  Mr. Pawsey: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the access funds have increased from £15 million to £30 million? If the Government are so mean with student support, how come there are 200,000 more students in higher education now than under the last Labour Government?
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend provides eloquent force for my argument. The premise on which the Opposition's case is founded—that the Government are minded to be ungenerous to students—does not stand up to the available evidence. If access funds are deemed to be ungenerous, there will be pressure to increase them.
  Basically, the regulations continue the disengagement of mainstream students from the social security system, but there is a residual entitlement to benefit if a student has a partner. If a student is a tenant but shares accommodation with a partner, the partner can apply for housing benefit. That is a sensible, but perhaps overgenerous, regime. What assurances can be given that this provision will not be abused by students claiming that their accommodation in a university town is shared by a partner, with the partner getting housing benefit in circumstances that may not have initially been intended by those who drafted the regulations? I am sure that there will be a straightforward response—
  Ms. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating sheet inspection?
  Sir George Young: —to avoid "abuse", which is a better word, of the system.
  The disregards are generous. If a student with a partner receives a loan, the loan does not affect the partner's entitlement to benefit up to the limit of £10, which covers the existing student loan. That is a welcome regime. As my right hon. Friend the Minister explained, regular payments will have a disregard of £10, but one-off lump sum payments will be treated as capital. Where there is a benefit claim, whether the payment is regular or is a one-off lump sum obviously matters. It is advantageous for it to be treated as a one-off lump sum payment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain how recipients of benefit will have those payments defined, either as regular payments or as one-off lump sums.
  The Opposition are wholly inconsistent tonight, as last week, in conceding the principle but failing to accept the logical and welcome consequence of the principle by supporting the regulations.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: The regulations pose the wrong question in relation to the student population. I shall pay particular regard to Scotland, and I declare an interest in that I am a member of the court of Stirling university. The purpose of the regulations is to reallocate resources between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Social Security. It is understandable that, in the interests of good housekeeping, the Government want support for students to come within the vote of the Department of Education and Science.
  Like other Ministers, the Minister pleads in aid the increased numbers coming forward to receive the "benefits" of higher, or tertiary—a dreadful word—education. That is not the point. I shall speak not for England, Wales and Northern Ireland but for Scotland. To make headway in becoming a leading industrial nation, we cannot possibly be satisfied with the numbers coming forward. That is a basic consideration. Do the regulations

  1109
  and the general thrust of Government policy make it easier or harder for the broad mass of young people from, say, the age of 17 to enhance their educational potential? They will make it harder, although it will be easier for those whose parents have a reasonable income. Such parents will persuade their children to seek a loan because in theory it is a good option, when inflation is allowed for, at zero interest. Parents who practise good housekeeping in their own interests, although it may not be in the interests of the nation, will persuade their offspring to take a loan.
  Matters are different for young people from working-class families, which is another term that I dislike although I do not abjure it because I know the class to which I belong. Such young people do not have a cushy background and will look at the figures. We have talked generally about student loans, but many hon. Members spend £50 or more on one dinner and that is more than a student receives to keep himself for a week. [Interruption.] All right, let us say that that is the amount that some hon. Members could spend on two dinners. I cannot speak for people in another place, but my comparison is reasonably fair. The onerous nature of the grant loan provision will deter many students from continuing further education.
  A few weeks ago I went to Glasgow with some people whom one might loosely call rectors—to use the old Scottish term—of Scottish universities, to see Mr. Harrison of the Student Loans Company plc. The Minister suggested that we might go to Edinburgh. I hope that all hon. Members know that there is a difference between Glasgow and Edinburgh and that it is not just in relation to football teams. In the Student Loans Company plc the Government are erecting a massive debt collecting agency. Eventually, teams of snoopers will be employed to collect the debts that will arise if students are forced into loans.
  Our nation—I am talking about Scotland—has been living on its intellectual capital for the last 20 to 25 years. Fundamental research in our universities is decreasing at a time when it should be increasing. Now universities are to be forced to undertake the onerous task of assessing hardship. There are eight Scottish universities. Will there be eight criteria for hardship? What criteria will Ministers lay down or what guidance will they give to universities? Will those institutions have to think up schemes for themselves? That is no way to administer the public purse.
  Will students be willing to saddle themselves with financial difficulties or will they be attracted abroad to carry out postgraduate work or fundamental research? That is the cost-benefit analysis that the nation must make. The thrust of the Government's policy is to tidy up matters between Departments. That may look good in bureaucratic terms, but it is entirely wrong for the long-term cost benefit of the nation.
  I am speaking for Scotland. If there were a Scottish Parliament, it would place a high priority on education and it would tell the Scottish people that they had to pay for it. They would recognise their responsibility to attract more people into further education because of the underlying support for it.
  I must be careful not to bore the House with my personal background. I left school at 14, but I have been a student all my life. I took my last degree part time at the London School of Economics in 1986. I accepted the challenge that we should not just talk about students, but should actually find out what they are like. I must beware of giving a random sample of one, but when I went to the LSE it was packed not with British, but with foreign
  1110
  students. It was full of Americans. We are forcing our universities to attract students from overseas so that they can pay their way.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The overseas students obviously regard our universities as good value.
  Mr. Douglas: I accept that our universities are good value, but they have to bid to a central bureaucracy on the basis of their good housekeeping. That is the quasi-market structure that the Government are trying to introduce.
  The thrust of the regulations and their priorities are wrong. The Government are deterring people from working-class backgrounds from going on to higher education, so that their gifts can be used for the benefit of the nation. I am not suggesting that students should live lin the lap of luxury, but onerous burdens are being placed upon them.
  I shall give another example from my direct experience at Stirling. There is a proposal to put up the rents for accommodation. We are asking the students—and for reasons that I will not go into now I am resisting this—to enhance the accommodation for disabled students. It involves the paltry sum of £60,000. The university wants to expand, but constraints are being imposed on it albeit by its short historical experience.
  To constrain universities and students is to the long-term detriment of the nation. I ask the Government not to be parsimonious and not to think of the well-heeled student or his well-heeled parents. We should be attracting into education those who do not have financial help from their parents.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I, too, only recently left full-time undergraduate life. I reinforce what has been said about the experience of undergraduates who, in many universities and colleges, are absolutely dependent upon some form of benefit. That is a reflection of, for example, the housing costs in the surrounding areas, and there is little that can be done about that.
  The impact of the regulations and the removing of the benefits will be dramatic, at least for some universities and for some students. The Government's action fails to recognise the reality of life, at least for some students. Nor does it address the position of postgraduate students. The Minister's replies on that subject were inadequate.
  It is ironic that this debate immediately precedes one on the assisted places scheme. There is a sharp contrast between the Government's attitude to the provision of basic maintenance for ordinary students on difficult courses throughout the country and their willingness to push ahead with pet schemes to support tiny numbers of privileged young people under the assisted places scheme.
  The regulations, which will remove students' entitlement to housing benefit and income support, have met with rejection from several bodies. It should hardly suprise the Government that they have been rejected by the National Union of Students or even, these days, by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The Minister's response to the criticisms of the Social Security Advisory Committee was not only weak but deliberately misinterpreted its observations. It is extraordinary to find the Government using in their support a report that is damning of their actions, as is that of the SSAC.

  1111
  It is all very well to argue that the committee would have been in favour of the Government's proposals if they were to be implemented in a different way, but the fact remains that the SSAC is against them as they stand. Nothing that the Minister said responded adequately to the SSAC's criticisms.
  The Government are failing to make available sufficient alternative finance to meet the students' needs. I am not among those who believe that—
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: In just a moment, but I have little time.
  I do not accept that it is preferable to operate a system whereby all students receive the same amount, but which incorporates a tiny safety net—as is suggested. A scheme tied to the real cost of being a student in certain areas would be advantageous. The Liberal Democrats would move towards a common scheme, whereby the benefits system would be used to meet the differing needs of students throughout the country.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) does not intend to repeat the point that he made earlier.
  Mr. Pawsey: The alternative finance to which the hon. Gentleman referred already exists in the form of the £420 interest-free student loan. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that student support in the United Kingdom continues to offer the highest benefits in the western world? If the Government were as cavalier as has been implied, there would not be 200,000 more students in advanced education today than when Labour was in office.
  Mr. Taylor: By comparison with other countries, we are not devoting sufficient resources to higher and further education. Nor are we turning out the numbers that we should. The Government are culpable of a paucity of provision that they should be embarrassed to have mentioned in such debates. The theory that the loan scheme will broadly compensate students for the loss of housing and social security benefits ignores the fact that in many parts of the country many of them will be substantially worse off—even if one does not allow for the fact that there are to be no increases in student grant with the introduction of the loan system.
  The Government, together with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, appear to be ignoring graduate students, as they will not be eligible for student loans. It is extraordinary to find the Government introducing a system that will deprive graduate students of a large measure of the support that they currently receive. It is inappropriate that we should be debating this matter. The Government are abusing their powers, but that question will have to be dealt with elsewhere rather than here. One might be forgiven for wondering whether the Government care about the adequacy of the provisions. The increased grants for postgraduate students do not allow sufficiently for inflation. That is quite separate from the loss of benefit.
  The Minister has totally failed to answer the Social Security Advisory Committee's criticisms. It pointed out correctly that if a student has made the relevant contribution and meets the usual criteria, there is no obvious reason why his unemployment benefit should be withdrawn. I referred earlier to seasonal workers; there are
  1112
  many of them in my constituency. To reverse the position, if the long break for students were in the winter instead of the summer, they would be in an almost identical position to that of seasonal workers. It would equally be possible to argue that they were deliberately going to an area where they knew that they would be out of work for a time. I hope that the Government are not suggesting that benefit should be withdrawn from them. The reason why those people are eligible for help is that they need help. However, the Minister seems to be completely uninterested in that fact.
  The SSAC also said that it believed unanimously that there should be a safety net to ensure that students are not left destitute, and that they should receive income support. The Government say that the access funds provide the answer to that criticism. Unless, however, much more money is provided, I do not believe that the access funds, when compared with the benefit support that is being withdrawn, can be considered in any sense to be adequate. Even after it has been uprated, the amount works out at only £116 for each postgraduate and £27 for each first-degree or other higher education student. However, the average student outside London gets £6·23 a week and a London student £14·38 a week under the present benefit arrangements. This is, therefore, a considerable cut in student support.
  The Social Security Advisory Committee also said that it is impossible to judge at this stage whether the amount being put into the access funds is adequate. The Government's commitment to ensuring that the access funds are administered fairly and properly is revealed to be wholly lacking, since no guidelines have been provided to the institutions that administer them. Social Security Ministers are responding to the debate. They know well that under the social security arrangements one treats individuals who are in the same circumstances in the same way. That is one of the most important principles of any support system.
  The Government appear to be creating a system under which no student can be sure of his treatment by any institution. He can be virtually certain that an entirely different set of rules would apply in another institution. It is a complete and utter mess that people will be entitled to support not on the basis of what they need but purely on the basis of what the Government have allowed to a particular institution and what it feels on a particular day and at a particular time about that individual. That is a disgraceful way in which to operate a system of support and it is disgraceful that the House is being asked to agree to it.
  11.8 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: The order is the final part of the Government's package in their move from student grants to student loans. We are removing the right of students to claim unemployment benefit—for which they paid—housing benefit and income support. It means that some students' standard of living will be below that laid down in social security legislation.
  We have heard that the regulations are defective. The Minister says to us, "I am putting something that is totally defective before you, but we expect you to vote it through and we shall put it right later." That says something about the Government's respect for the House of Commons.

  1113
  The regulations provide that those who have to pay rent are not deemed to be paying rent and that those who are available and looking for work are deemed not to be available for and looking for work. That is what we are talking about.
  The move from student grants and the availability of means-tested benefits for those who need them to student loans is deeply mistaken. It is a backward move. Compared with other countries, Britain is backward educationally. It is no good for Conservative Members to say that the numbers in higher education in Britain are increasing when we are starting from way behind and the number is increasing less rapidly than in other countries. Even South Korea has more of its young people in higher education than Britain. That is an enormous cost to the life opportunities of talented people who are not being given the chance to participate in higher education and is massively damaging to the future of Britain's economy. We are failing to nurture the talent of our people and thus slipping ever backwards relatively in our economic performance.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Short: No, I will not give way.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The hon. Lady is factually incorrect.
  Ms. Short: I am not factually incorrect.
  The Minister for Social Security has perhaps some excuse—he is not an education Minister—for pretending to the House that there is not low participation in higher education among people from low-income backgrounds.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Ms. Short: The statistics show that if one comes from a family with a manual background the chances of participating in higher education are very low. I am sure that the Minister knows that.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Ms. Short: We are massively wasting the talent of many people from low-income backgrounds—
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Ms. Short: I have made it clear that I do not intend to give way, but the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) is harassing me. Time is short. He is disrupting the limited remarks that I have time to make and I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can make them.
  As I said, we are wasting the talent of people from low-income backgrounds and this move will make things fundamentally worse.
  The Government's excuse for the move is that students should not be supported by the social security system. That is uncontentious across the House. But it is a big fib. If one wants to remove students from the social security system, one gives them grants that leave them above the means-tested standards. The Government are removing their eligibility for means-tested benefits so that some of them will fall to a level of income lower than those who live on means-tested benefits.
  The present system is that we have means-tested grants backed by access to unemployment benefit if it has been
  1114
  paid for and housing benefit and income support if they are needed. It is an efficient system in that the money is targeted and goes to those in need. People who are not in need are not eligible for means-tested benefits and those who do well as a result of their higher education and earn a higher income will pay back through the tax system. We are moving to a system that will penalise people on low incomes.
  Less than 20 per cent. of students claim income support in the summer vacation. To be eligible for income support they have to be available for and actively seeking work. Under this Government those tests have been made harder and harder. This provision will penalise students who come from areas of the country where there is high unemployment. Only 11·5 per cent. of all students claim housing benefit and 2 per cent. claim housing benefit in the summer. They are the students who do not have another home to go to. Those are the groups that will be penalised by the move that we are making tonight.
  It is ideology run mad. The lunacy is that it will be less equitable and efficient and will cost more. Those who already have more will be better off under the new scheme and those with least will be worse off. That is what the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) did not understand. The Government are making available more money but are distributing it in such a way that the poorest will have less than they have now. Those are the facts of this new, ridiculous structure, which will cost more but be less equitable and efficient. The principle of the Thatcher years is that for those who have more, more will be given, but for those who have less, it will be taken away. That is how the regulations will apply to students.
  The Government recognise that the regulations will create hardship for students from low-income households and therefore have introduced access funds—they tell us to prevent hardship. The funds will be distributed by the Government to education institutions on the basis of a formula about which we know nothing which will then distribute them to people in need. The Minister tells us that universities and polytechnics know which of their students are in need. That is not true. When a student goes to a university or polytechnic he or she does not fill out forms on income but participates in education. Being aware of the quality of a student's work tells one nothing of his or her income or maintenance means. It is an inefficient way of getting money to those in need. The Minister has not answered the point, but the legality of this move is questionable. Given that he will not answer the point, it is likely to be contested in the courts.
  The Minister misled the House—I am surprised that he did so—about the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which was set up to replace the previous committee and to make it more favourable to the Government's social security policy. Officials appointed to it by the Government were split eight to six. The majority said that they were willing to accept the removal of housing benefit, but only on one condition. They were worried that some students would become destitute—their word, not mine—because of the provisions of the scheme. They expressed an overriding concern about that and recommended that the Government should follow the principle that they adopted for 16 and 17–year-olds and that to avoid hardship the Secretary of State for Social Security should have discretion to authorise payment of income support for a limited period during the summer vacation.

  1115
  The Government refused to accept that recommendation and therefore have the support of no member of that committee. It was wrong of the Minister to call the committee in aid when the Government are not complying with its recommendations.
  As the committee said, the effect of the regulations is that destitute students will be running round our cities in the summer. Another badge of the Thatcher years is the many young homeless and destitute people in our cities. In future, highly talented qualified young people who are studying will be destitute in our cities.
  The proof that the Government's claim that the purpose of the regulations is to avoid students being dependent on the social security system is a big fib are their provisions for postgraduate students, who will not have access to loans and will be deprived of the right to claim housing benefit. They will simply be worse off. The Government are increasing their grants by less than inflation and taking the extra money from the pool available for postgraduate students. We shall have fewer postgraduates in the future than we have at present.
  I am the first member of my family to have had a university education. I received that education because full grants were available. When I was 17 years old and was getting 2s. 6d. pocket money, I would not have contemplated the loan that is envisaged. I now know that I could have paid it back, but at that time I would not have dared. The effect of the regulations is that future generations of people like me will not have access to higher education. That is what the Government are doing tonight.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. Scott: The regulations cover several provisions across five separate benefits. I shall seek, in as co-ordinated and orderly a manner as possible, to respond to the points that have been made.
  Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a courtesy that the Minister should ask the permission of the House to speak a second time?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Minister does not need the leave of the House on this occasion. He moved a motion.
  Mr. Scott: I try to take advice on those matters and I thought for one moment that the hon. Gentleman had caught me out. I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Much of this evening's debate, not least the opening speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), has circulated round the issue of the adequacy of and the reasons for the access funds. I want to address that issue at the outset.
  In response to an intervention, I said that the regulations do not in any sense relate to the distribution of the access funds. They give effect to withdrawal of benefit entitlement from most full-time students except those in vulnerable groups and the treatment of income of those in vulnerable groups who will retain entitlement. I repeat what I said: there will be no regulations covering the payment of access funds. They will be operated by the Secretary of State for Education and Science under powers in the Education Act 1944.
  Mr. Meacher: The point about there being no regulations covering the access funds is that large sums of taxpayers' money will be handed over for the unfettered discretion of education institutions. We have no idea how that money is to be used, how it will be allocated, how many will get it and how much they will get. I submit that it is improper for the Government to ask Parliament to pass legislation as open ended as that. The courts will disagree with such legislation as they have disagreed with previous legislation.
  Mr. Scott: In a sense that is surprising. I seem to remember being urged by the Opposition on more than one occasion to further enhance the resources available to the independent living fund, which provides substantial sums of taxpayers' money to be distributed at the unfettered discretion of the trustees of the fund in order to meet need. Perhaps what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander according to the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Flexibility and funds distributed by people with particular expertise in and sympathy for the needs of individual groups of people in need of help is not a principle against which I would argue. The hon. Member for Oldham, West can pick and choose the issues to which he wants to apply that principle. I believe firmly in it.
  Mr. Douglas: Will each institution of higher or further education devise its own criteria? Is that what we are being asked to support? Surely the Minister's colleagues will tell him that that cannot be right and that guidance will be given by the Department of Education and Science.
  Mr. Scott: I shall try to address the various points that have already been raised, and how the access funds should be administered is one of them. I have just made the point that they will be operated under the powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Science under the Education Act 1944.
  Allocations have already been made to the funding councils and their allocations to individual colleges will be announced in the next few weeks. There was some criticism that that was all a bit late in the day. The 1989 student number data upon which the allocations will be based will not be available to those in the DES administering the access funds until later this month. The beginning of August is therefore the earliest date by which allocations can be notified to colleges. However, I believe that that still gives them adequate time before the beginning of the next academic year to make their dispositions.
  Mr. Worthington: The Scottish colleges of further education to which the regulations apply start in the middle of August.
  Mr. Scott: Even so, they will have a number of weeks at least in which to make their dispositions. In practice, I estimate that it will be some weeks before students come forward and ask for help from the access funds. They will have their loans and top-up grants. The access funds are, as it were, a residual—
  Mr. Worthington: Is the Minister aware that the student loans scheme does not apply to Scottish FE colleges?
  Mr. Scott: Of course, I understand that. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making a general point about further education within Scotland. I believe that the access funds will be better administered by each individual education institution. Institutions will be given guidance,

  1117
  but that guidance will be largely in terms of accounting procedures and how the institutions account for the money that they get from the funding councils. They will be much more finely tuned to the needs of individuals.[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to pause for just a moment. I cannot believe that the existence of access funds will not become more well known in institutions of further education.
  I anticipate that the National Union of Students, if no other body, will make it well known that access funds are in existence. It will he in the interest of institutions themselves also to make it known that such funds are available. They will get to know the students, and will be much better equipped to meet and assess the needs of individual students than the social security system could possibly be. The funds will be much better focused on students' needs than the generality of social security claimants could ever be. Higher education institutions will be much better informed.
  There are some advantages of that system compared with the other system. For example, no student who is living in hall in any university or institution of higher education can claim housing benefit at the moment. However, a student who is in hall might be eligible for help from the access funds if he runs into particular hardship, That will certainly be an advantage of the new system.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science have already said that they intend to monitor carefully the operation of the access funds and to make sure that they are adequate to meet students' needs in the new circumstances. For example, they will reflect different rent levels in different parts of the country. That will be an important flexibility for the funds. They will become well known among students and among those who are responsible for administering them. The institutions will be able to administer them in a much more flexible manner than we possibly could through the social security system.
  There is no disincentive, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West alleged, for local education authorities to make hardship payments. They are fully reimbursed by the Department of Education and Science for any payments that they make. There is no disincentive whatever for them to make special hardship payments. The payments are made entirely at the discretion of local education authorities in order to prevent hardship.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) raised several points. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) alleged that students might pretend to cohabit to get housing benefit under the new scheme. It is, of course, up to local authorities to satisfy themselves that the conditions for entitlement to benefit are being met. If both partners are students, they would not be entitled to housing benefit unless they had dependent children, otherwise one partner must not be a student. Although I am sensitive to my hon. Friend's point—we are always conscious of the need to protect public funds—I do not see that that need be a major problem.
  My hon. Friend mentioned that he saw the disregards within the present system as very generous. I certainly agree with that—they are generous. They are best targeted on those who need help most. He asked also how we would check whether the payments made from the access funds
  1118
  were regular or lump sum payments. I see no difficulty about that. Already within the income-related benefits system charitable payments can be assessed, whether they are regular or lump sum payments. Exactly the same criteria will apply in the new system of access funds as apply to charitable funds already.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West was critical of the Government because of the percentage of students in higher education, and implied that we are performing less well than other countries. The number of 18–year-olds in higher education has steadily risen since the Government came to office. When they came to office, 11 per cent. of 18–year-olds were going into higher education. By 1990 the figure had risen to 15 per cent. We estimate that, by the end of the decade, the figure will be up to 23 per cent. When we came to office in 1979, we pledged that, by 1990, we would have achieved 1 million students in higher education. We achieved that by 1988, and the figure is still rising. As I have said, this year we have a record number of students in higher education and next year it looks as if the figures will be even better. A lot of distorted statistics have been pushed backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House this evening, but the fact is that this country's percentage of the 18–year-old cohort who graduate is one of the highest in the world—
  Ms. Short: Nonsense:
  Mr. Scott: It is absolutely true, beyond peradventure. The percentage of the 18–year-old cohort who graduate is higher in this country than anywhere else in the world.
  Ms. Short: Nonsense.
  Mr. Scott: That is perfectly true.
  I am delighted that the provisions make special arrangements for disabled students. As the Minister for disabled people I have a particular interest in them. The fact that the basic disability allowance for students has been increased from £765 to £1,000 per year and that new allowances have been introduced to help them with the cost of helpers and special equipment—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 141.

  Division No. 306]

  [11.31 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Amos, Alan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Ashby, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Atkinson, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baldry, Tony

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Burns, Simon

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Burt, Alistair

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Butcher, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  1119

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jackson, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Cash, William

  Jessel, Toby

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Chope, Christopher

  Key, Robert

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Knapman, Roger

  Colvin, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Conway, Derek

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Knowles, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lang, Ian

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lawrence, Ivan

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

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Day, Stephen

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Devlin, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Lilley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dover, Den

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Eggar, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Maclean, David

  Evennett, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Favell, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mans, Keith

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Marland, Paul

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Marlow, Tony

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mates, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Freeman, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  French, Douglas

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  Mellor, David

  Gale, Roger

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gardiner, George

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mills, Iain

  Gill, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moate, Roger

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gorst, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Gow, Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Needham, Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gregory, Conal

  Neubert, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Grylls, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Hague, William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Page, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Paice, James

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Harris, David

  Pawsey, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hayward, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Raffan, Keith

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Holt, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Redwood, John

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

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Ryder, Richard

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hunter, Andrew

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Irvine, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jack, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  1120

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Sims, Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waller, Gary

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Ward, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Steen, Anthony

  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

  Wilkinson, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wilshire, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Yeo, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thorne, Neil

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Thurnham, Peter

  NOES

  Alton, David

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Flannery, Martin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Foster, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Fyfe, Maria

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Galloway, George

  Beggs, Roy

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Beith, A. J.

  George, Bruce

  Bell, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hardy, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Boyes, Roland

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Howells, Geraint

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Carr, Michael

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clay, Bob

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clelland, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lamond, James

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Crowther, Stan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cryer, Bob

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  McAllion, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McFall, John

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dewar, Donald

  McKelvey, William

  Dixon, Don

  McWilliam, John

  Doran, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Douglas, Dick

  Maginnis, Ken

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  1121

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Snape, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morley, Elliot

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Paul

  Strang, Gavin

  Nellist, Dave

  Straw, Jack

  O'Brien, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

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

  Patchett, Terry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Turner, Dennis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Walley, Joan

  Prescott, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Redmond, Martin

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Richardson, Jo

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Robertson, George

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Short, Clare

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Robert Wareing.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

  Assisted Places
  11.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I beg to move,
  That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.
  I would like to describe briefly to the House the regulations governing the administration of the assisted places scheme. The draft regulations before us provide for certain small amendments to the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989, which were consolidated last year.
  The assisted places scheme was established for the purpose of widening the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families. As the House knows, it provides their parents with assistance towards—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will move out of the Chamber as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Howarth: The APS provides parents with assistance towards the fees at certain independent schools. The assistance is on a sliding scale based on parental income and the principal changes embodied in the amending regulations are concerned with the annual revision of those scales.
  Regulation 1 of the draft regulations deals with citation, commencement, application and interpretation. The regulations would come into force on 21 August 1990, subject to the approval of both Houses.
  Regulation 2 of the draft regulations provides for grant-maintained schools within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988 to be included in the definition of "publicly maintained schools" referred to in regulation 19(2) of the principal regulations. That amendment is necessary because, under the principal regulations, participating schools must ensure that at least 60 per cent. of their assisted pupils attended state schools immediately before taking up their assisted place and for this purpose we must make the amendment to the regulations to include grant-maintained schools in the definition of state schools.
  Regulation 3 of the draft regulations updates the 1989 regulations. Its effect is to discount reductions from total income allowed on payments for medical insurance made by parents aged 60 or over.
  Regulation 4 sets out the income scale used for assessing parents' contributions towards fees. That has been uprated to take account of movements in the retail prices index. The threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised from £7,584 to £8,200.
  The provisions and amendments I have just described are necessary technicalities and would ensure the continued smooth running of the assisted places scheme. Opposition Members consistently demonstrate hostility to the assisted places scheme. It may therefore be helpful to the House if I explain why we have this scheme, and why we, and a great many people in the country, value it very much. Our reasons are that we are interested in encouraging high standards in education, wherever they

  1123
  are to be found; and we want parents, particularly those on lower incomes, to be able to choose the education they think best for their children, regardless of income.
  It is those very features of choice and independence that the Labour party apparently finds so offensive. Our best independent schools—many of them former grammar schools that were driven out of the maintained sector by the destructive dogma of the Labour party—see no inconsistency between independence and service to the community. The assisted places scheme, which the Conservative Government introduced in 1981, has enabled many of them to keep faith with their traditions and offer the prospect of an excellent academic education for children who are suited to it, regardless of their social or economic background. But schooling is not just about achieving good examination passes; schools in the APS take an admirable pride in preparing their pupils in every way to make a full and valuable contribution to society. All in all, they provide educational opportunities of a quality that should not be restricted only to those who can afford to pay for them.
  Let me stress, to anticipate one of the favourite debating points of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), that I am not saying or implying that there are not maintained schools that provide excellent education—of course, there are many. But we want those first-rate schools in the independent sector to be accessible to pupils whose parents are unable to pay the fees.
  These are not just abstract concepts—the assisted places scheme is about helping real, individual children. I should like to tell the House about some assisted place holders who have done exceptionally well, notwithstanding early disadvantages.
  Do Opposition Members resent the success of the Bristol girl who gained four grade A passes at A-level and is now studying veterinary science at Cambridge? I am sure that her father, a window cleaner, is rightly proud and glad that the APS has given his daughter such a launch. And so is the bus driver from Blackburn whose son also achieved four grade A passes at A-level and is reading biochemistry at Oxford. Does the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) really intend to deny such opportunities to his own constituents? If an assisted place gave those parents the opportunity for their child to be educated according to their wishes, do he and his hon. Friends begrudge them that?
  Then there are the twins from Wandsworth, who both gained three grade A passes and one grade B at A-level and have gone on to study mathematics at Oxford.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for cataloguing a few excellent examples. Will he draw to the attention of the House those Opposition Members who send their sons and daughters to schools on the assisted places scheme, as that would elucidate matters considerably?
  Mr. Howarth: Tempting though it is to respond to my hon. Friend's invitation, perhaps at this time of night I should refrain from such an indulgence. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point of general principle, and it is something that should bring blushes to Opposition Front-Bench Members. I have argued for the scheme in
  1124
  terms of parental choice, but I might also justify it in terms of pupil choice. I am assured by the headmaster of Wolverhampton grammar school, a very distinguished school in the assisted places scheme, that it is not uncommon for 11–year-olds to identify, of their own initiative, the grammar school as the school that they wish to attend. Mr. Patrick Hutton, the headmaster, told me of the case of one young boy from Wolverhampton who did just this. His parents had separated, and his mother was facing great difficulties. He went on to achieve 4 As at A-level and is now reading modern languages at Leeds. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) will at least be relieved to know that the young man turned down Cambridge because he thought it too middle class.
  I could tell hon. Members of many more deserving cases—there are more than 27,000 of them throughout the country—but there are other important matters which I must briefly cover.
  Opposition Members for ever complain of the cost of the assisted places scheme, but if they must insist on measuring the value of education exclusively in material terms, I am sure that the twins from Wandsworth whom I mentioned will repay to society many times over the investment in their assisted places. The truth of the matter is this: in 1988–89, the average cost to the taxpayer of each assisted pupil was £2,121. The average cost of a secondary school pupil in the maintained sector was £1,985, which is a difference of only £136. But in considering even this small difference we have to take account of the fact that sixth-form education is about 60 per cent. more expensive than education for 11 to 16–year-olds. Whether or not we can conclude that that makes the assisted places scheme cheaper per capita to the taxpayer than maintained secondary provision, there is no question but that it is an extremely close-run thing.
  Mr. Jack Straw: Why is it that the Secretary of State, in the past two months, has given me a figure of more than £2,400 for the average cost of a place on the assisted places scheme, and that that is the figure that the Independent Schools Information Service independently quotes?
  Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentlman had listened carefully to what I said he would have realised that I was referring to the year 1988–89. That should satisfy him.
  Another spectre raised by Opposition Members is that the assisted places scheme creams off and impoverishes the maintained sector. Again, the case of Wolverhampton grammar school is instructive. On a basis of 18 comprehensive schools in Wolverhampton, and 171 assisted pupils at Wolverhampton grammar school, on average about two pupils a year have been diverted from each comprehensive. Two pupils a year is hardly robbing a school of a crucial intake. It is absurd to claim that the existence of the assisted places scheme is prejudicial to the academic standards of maintained schools.
  What the APS scheme does, and this is its great strength, is to give a genuine extension of choice and opportunity. I need hardly say that all of the schools in the scheme have been carefully selected on the basis of their proven records of academic achievement. The same criteria are also applied to any new schools entering the scheme. The breadth and quality of the curricula they offer are in every case of high quality. And so are their records of success in public examinations.

  1125
  Last summer 89 per cent. of A-level entries by APS pupils resulted in passes, and of these nearly 25 per cent. achieved grade As and nearly 23 per cent. achieved grade Bs. In addition, 87 per cent. of GCSE pupils in the scheme resulted in grades A to C.
  Throughout the nine years of its existence the assisted places scheme has been a major success. Predictably, therefore, Opposition Members want to abolish it. I wish they could find the courage to acknowledge that, so far from removing a source of inequality and striking a blow against privilege, abolition of the APS would serve only to worsen social divisions of class and race and culture which the APS is working significantly to diminish. Without the APS, access to independent education, and to some of the finest schools in the country, would be open only to those who could afford to pay. So perhaps the hon. Member for Durham. North-West will explain later how she would further the cause of an egalitarian society by limiting choice to the affluent.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: It is interesting to hear of the success of APS pupils in exams. That was one of the main reasons for introducing the scheme. Has any progress been made in broadening the IQ range of pupils accepted for the scheme; indeed, do the Government have any plans thus to broaden it?
  Mr. Howarth: It is for the schools to set their entrance exams and establish their own principles of selection. A number of schools are anxious to broaden the range of their social intake and are prepared to be flexible about their academic requirements. Schools in the scheme are well seized of my hon. Friend's point.
  I wonder what Opposition Members would have to offer the children of this country if they were to abolish this excellent scheme. The difficulty of the hon. Member for Blackburn—one of his difficulties—is that he does not have an education policy. Moreover, he feels, very uncomfortably, the hot breath of the Socialist Education Association at the back of his neck. It does not make it any more pleasant for him that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was rather a success at its conference. So the hon. Gentleman makes his pledges of abolition and destruction. Beyond that he offers nothing more than vague and completely unconvincing commitments to spend more money than we would on our other policies that they have said they will not reverse. I would put it to the hon. Member for Blackburn that the interests of children from poorer families are of rather more permanent importance than the hon. Gentleman's beleaguered career in the Labour party.
  Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East): I have been impressed by hearing of the academic performance of some of these youngsters. It very much resembles the performance of youngsters in the good grammar schools of Northern Ireland. In view of the success of these distinguished youngsters, does the Minister have any plans to increase the number of places on the scheme?
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed. I am pleased to tell the House that we are committed to increasing the number of assisted places to 35,000 by the mid–1990s. We are strongly on course to meet that target—
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I have been impressed by the Minister's enthusiasm on this subject. He referred at least three times to "the country" in his speech.
  1126
  Now that he intends to extend the programme, will he extend it to the nation, rather than to what he considers to be the country?
  Mr. Howarth: I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's eagerness that his constituents should benefit from the scheme, but that he must pursue with the Northern Ireland Office. I certainly note what he has said, however.
  Our response to the success of the APS is as predictable as the Opposition's desire to abolish it. We are building on it so that parents in every part of the country will have access to the opportunities that it offers. Last year we added 52 new schools to the scheme. From this September, 17 more excellent schools in areas in which there was previously little provision under the scheme—including the north-east, the area from which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West comes—will open their doors for the first time to assisted place holders. A number of existing schools will be allocated increased quotas to enable them to meet the demand that they are experiencing for extra places.
  The assisted places scheme is flourishing. It is working to the detriment of no one and to the great benefit of many. For all the reasons I have given, I commend the draft regulations to the House.
  12 midnight
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: In opposing the draft regulations, I should like to congratulate the Minister on what I think is his first full speech from the Dispatch Box. It is good to hear him in full flow, and not just at Question Time.
  In opposing the regulations last year, I outlined the research which demonstrated that the assisted places scheme has totally failed to meet the Government's objectives. I shall not go through that research in detail this year, although many of the contradictions were clear in the Minister's speech.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Armstrong: I shall not give way. It is not in the interests of anyone to conduct the debate as though it were taking place in a bar room. I certainly did not learn to do things that way at my state school.
  The assisted places scheme has created needless divisions in society. To use the word "choice" in this context is a questionable use of the English language. Perhaps the Government need to go back and learn what some words mean.
  The Government have been slow to learn. Everyone—even, in the past week, the Secretary of State—has conceded that we need, and this nation demands, an effective performance for all our children from the education system. People may have thought that education opportunities for all were a socialist aspiration—they never were, of course—but they cannot be that. Education is now a pressing necessity as we see the thwarting of not only the opportunities of individual children but the opportunities of our nation to cornpete effectively with our European neighbours. Despite that, the Government continue on a course which is unsuccessful but which gives the message, "We know what is good and we want 1 per cent. of the nation to benefit from it."

  1127
  The scheme was meant for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and the Minister outlined the history. I hope that he has read some of the research into the scheme. I hope that he has read "The State and Private Education: An Evaluation of the Assisted Places Scheme", which was published in the past year. An interesting review of the book in The Times Higher Educational Supplement was written by the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who wrote the book?"] The book was written by Professors Tony Edwards, John Fitz and Geoff Whitty and it was funded by the Government through the Science and Engineering Research Council.
  The review was written by the Minister who was responsible for guiding the Education Bill through the House in 1980. He said:
  "Certainly ministers, including myself, have claimed in the annual debate on the scheme in Parliament that the sons and daughters of bus and lorry drivers, miners, butchers, recent immigrants and one-parent families, for example,"—
  he missed window cleaners—
  "have through the scheme received a first-class education they would not otherwise have attained and this has been to the good of the country and to the pupils.
  The authors, however, put a new light on this. Only 10 per cent of assisted-place pupils have fathers who are manual workers and 50 per cent are employed in service industries."
  Does 10 per cent. meet the Government's objective? The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) then says:
  "Even more significantly, 68 per cent of mothers and 51 per cent of fathers of such pupils attended either private or selective education."
  The right hon. Gentleman also deals in the article with the issue raised by the Minister about what happens to the local comprehensive. He asks whether the scheme has damaged the academic standards of such schools. He reminds us, as did the Minister, that only 1 per cent. of pupils occupy assisted places, which are unevenly scattered. The right hon. Member also said:
  "I suspect, however, that the aspirant assisted-place parents with their educational backgrounds would not have sent their children to inner-city sink comprehensives, but they would have been wise enough to shop around and get them into better comprehensives with higher academic achievements. Thus if there is any damage it must be to the better … comprehensive schools."
  That is a former committed Minister recognising that the scheme has failed.
  The scheme was also designed to provide choice and support effort in local communities. I have a letter relating to the trustees of the Harpur Trust in Bedford.
  Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The convention of the House is that if an hon. Member intends to quote or refer to another hon. Member, that person be so advised. Has that convention been observed in this case?
  Ms. Armstrong: I sent a note to the right hon. Member for Brent, North and he was also informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when he was quoted at Question Time.
  Dr. John Reid: When the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was informed about my hon. Friend's comments on his review and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn
  1128
  (Mr. Straw), did he say that my hon. Friends in any way inaccurately reflected his view as a former Minister and headmaster?
  Ms. Armstrong: I have not spoken to the right hon. Member for Brent, North and would not want to assume anything of the sort. I am quoting what he wrote for The Times Higher Educational Supplement.
  The scheme is frustrating voluntary and charitable effort. There is a voluntary scheme that supports poor people who want to get their children into Bedford school. The terms of the bursary for the assisted places scheme have been issued for this year. They say that a parent earning £39,500 per annum who has one child at Bedford school be helped with fees. Parents with two children can receive help when their income is £41,800. With three children the annual earnings figure is £47,300.
  Today people are talking about supporting the family. Perhaps we have a new definition of the family in poverty. The people that I have mentioned are certainly well-paid window cleaners. To use the rationale of choice to try, unsuccessfully, to legitimise such a policy is nonsense. What choice is there for parents in Doncaster, Calderdale, or North Tyneside? The Government have said that too much is being spent on the children of such people, but they are prepared to pay an average of £500 more per child on the assisted places scheme. What choice is that? What choice is there for parents who are limited by what the Government are prepared to allow their local authorities to spend on their children? The scheme does not meet the Government's objectives as they were originally outlined—
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I refer the hon. Lady to choice a little nearer to home. She may not be aware that children in her constituency can obtain assisted places at Yarm and Durham schools. Is she prepared to go back to her constituency and say that those children should not be allowed such places and instead should be sent to the local comprehensive school?
  Ms. Armstrong: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's information is more up to date than mine. My information is that Durham county does not support any assisted places. However, the hon. Gentleman may be right. We intend to phase out the assisted places scheme, but we will not penalise any child who is already participating in it. We are determined that all children, whatever their backgrounds, will have the very best opportunity. It is not only in their interests to ensure that our commitment and investment in education meets that aspiration; it is in all our interests.
  I shall complete my quotation of what the right hon. Member for Brent, North said in his review:
  "One criticism of the assisted-places scheme not mentioned in this book is that it took up too much time and effort of the Conservative Party … the assisted-places scheme could have taken the party down a side alley. Is this now being repeated with the city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools or even local financial management? A careful reading of this book has caused me to have this very worrying thought."
  I invite the Minister to read the book. The Opposition have learnt, even if the Government have not, that the scheme meets no one's educational objectives, not even the Government's. Perhaps they should learn some of the political lessons that the right hon. Member for Brent,

  1129
  North has learnt. I invite my hon. Friends to oppose the regulations and to ensure that we have a Government who will fight for every child.
  12.12 am
  Mr. Conal Gregory: The House should consider this important matter with due consideration, especially as some 4,000 places in England are available to brighter pupils with limited financial assistance. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot raise the sum that he is considering. The fact that 4,000 places in good independent schools are not taken up shows that a small advertising campaign would greatly assist those pupils to whom my hon. Friend so rightly referred.
  I wish to concentrate my remarks on the north-east. It is clear that there has been a good take-up of places in Yorkshire—for example, Batley grammar, Bradford grammar, Bradford girls grammar, Harrogate college and schools of that ilk. We would all be proud to send our children to schools of such quality. I am proud that in or near to my constituency children have the opportunity to attend St. Peter's in York, England's oldest school, and Pocklington near York.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will advise us how we can ensure that all children in the north-east appreciate the possibilities of a brighter and wider education in the independent sector. The latest figures available show that 70 per cent. of places had been taken up in the north-east, but that leaves a yawning gap of opportunity which I hope will be filled at the earliest opportunity.
  In 1988–89—the latest year for which figures are available—the average cost of a place was £2,591, but there are certain differences that should not act as a disincentive. The fact that 52 per cent. of pupils on assisted places secured either A or B grade A-levels compared with 45 per cent. across the sector is another reason pupils of good academic ability should have their names put forward.
  Mr. Devlin: I declare an interest as a governor of Yarm private school in my constituency, which operates the assisted places scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that the scheme's real importance is that, like direct grant, it gives the talented child from whatever background the opportunity to maximise his lifetime opportunities? Is not it surprising that the scheme is opposed by Opposition Members when there are many among them who benefited from the direct grant scheme in the past? In only the last week we saw a marvellous example of how it can assist the very best to get to the top in society, because my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was himself a direct grant boy at Dulwich college.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a salient and relevant point. It would do right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House much credit if they acknowledged the benefits of education through the independent sector and the opportunities that many young people have been given by the assisted places scheme, rather than constantly denigrate it and argue that we should go for the lowest common denominator.
  1130
  Opposition Members should accept the truth of that, and not deny the advantages of such an education to those who follow them.
  This issue merits a full-scale debate. The Opposition are obviously rattled, knowing that they are on very slippery ground. I commend the regulations to the House, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address in particular the difficulties of the north-east and the opportunities that are available there. I hope also that a leaflet can be produced explaining to parents the financial aspects of the scheme, because the calculations based on relevant earnings are difficult to understand and require the help of a local bursar.
  12.18 am
  Mr. Martin Flannery: You will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have Ulster behind me. But the people in front of me—
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: You mean, the Liberals.
  Mr. Flannery: Conservative Members are in high good humour tonight, but I hope that they will listen to my comments about the assisted places scheme.
  The entire British education system is in urgent need of assistance. Last week, a group of Sheffield schools sent a delegation to Whitehall in the hope of seeing a Minister. They did not manage that, but I believe that they saw a civil servant instead. They came down to tell us that they were short of teachers, that their schools were crumbling and that there was a lack of morale among teachers.
  The speed with which the so-called reforms are being pushed forward is having a parlous effect on schools. They cannot possibly keep pace with them. On top of all that is the assisted places scheme. The children of Conservative Members are being educated privately, whereas we are trying to cater for the needs of the vast majority of children. Money is short because the Government are deliberately keeping it short. They provide expensive education for their children and cheap education for ours. On top of that, the Government have the effrontery to say that we are being naughty when we attack what they are doing.
  If we examine what the Government mean by choice in the case of the assisted places scheme, or anything else, we have to ask ourselves—since they have private education and have created the city technology colleges—what choice ordinary children have in the schools on which so little money is spent. The city technology colleges are to be paid for by industry. Their pupils are hand picked. Are assisted places available in those colleges for ordinary children? The assisted places scheme is a piece of gross effrontery. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are being siphoned off to provide private education for the children of Conservative supporters. It is done under the guise of helping poor children, but the Government know that that is a piece of gross effrontery.
  I have in my hand the Government's document that deals with the scheme. It began in 1984–85 and £22 million was spent on it in the first year. In 1985–86 another £30 million was spent on it. In 1986–87, £38 million, in 1987–88, £46 million, in 1988–89, £51 million and in 1989–90, £59 million was spent on the scheme. Up to today, that has taken £246 million out of the state education system. In the next three years, £62 million will be taken out of it in the

  1131
  first year, £60 million in the second and £70 million in the third. That amounts to another £192 million. Taken together, £438 million has been taken away from state education. In addition, the city technology colleges have taken £52 million this year. During the next three years they will take £135 million. The grand total that is being taken away from state education is £635 million.
  The Government ask us to support that proposal tonight. No Conservative Member has referred to those figures. The cost to the state education system is absolutely staggering, especially when one remembers all the difficulties that Her Majesty's inspectors of education have highlighted. That money would buy books and materials for all our children. The Government claim that they are providing choice for our children. However, they are pouring all that money into a private education system that caters for their children and they are shoring it up by that means. They do it under the guise of catering for our children.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the figures that he quoted, a large number of teachers who were trained at public expense and who are much needed in schools such as those in Tower Hamlets are being used to ensure that the classes of the privileged minority are kept small?
  Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why Conservative Members are keeping so quiet. They know that in their report Her Majesty's inspectors point out that a third of our children get what they call a raw deal. They are taking money from the state system and giving it to the private system, which is already wealthy beyond measure. It is a bribe to Tory supporters and a handful of others. It is money taken from our children who are being starved of funds in the state system. They glory in it. It is all part of a merciless attack on the state system, which the Tories loathe and never use. It is the same with the national health service, which they also do not use and are starving of funds—[Interruption.] No amount of shouting at me will help. They know that I have a habit of telling them uncomfortable truths.
  While this measure is being discussed late at night, the state system is under attack and, according to what the Tories have said recently, the comprehensive schools will be next. However, they have gone over the top. The people have seen it for the dogma that it is and they are extremely angry at the state of the education system and the fact that the Tories are siphoning off money. Those angry people will be coming to see all of us before long because there is not enough money to teach our children. Local management of schools is adding to the list of schools without teachers. That is the position in which we have been placed by the assisted places scheme, city technology colleges and the siphoning off of money that should go to our children.
  12.26 am
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Despite the lateness of the hour, the sort of ideological claptrap that we have just heard should not go unanswered. I am slightly surprised at the Labour party's depth of opposition. Basically, this is an egalitarian measure. It provides opportunities for people who would not otherwise be able
  1132
  to afford them to take advantage of a private education. For that reason it is scarcely surprising that it is popular. When it was introduced in 1981 only 7,000 people took advantage of it, but by this year the figure will have increased to 27,000 and just under one third of those will get their education entirely free. A large proportion of the others who take advantage of the scheme will pay relatively little for what would remain an unobtainable privilege if such a scheme did not exist.
  I should have thought that it was a good sign that 294 private schools—there will be 16 more this year—were prepared to offer places to people who otherwise would be unable to afford them. I should have thought that that would make them less exclusive, widen the social spectrum of those able to go there and increase opportunities for people who otherwise would not have them.
  Although the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) talked about cost, I believe that the basic reason for the Labour party's opposition to the assisted places scheme is purely ideological. In 1976 the Labour party signed the United Nations covenant on economic, social and cultural rights which says:
  "The State Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by public authorities".
  However, if we look behind that, we see that that is a human right upon which the Labour party frowns. It is a human right which it would prefer nobody to take up. It wants every child in the country to go to comprehensive schools in the state sector and to have little choice and no opportunity to go to private schools.
  The Labour party is suspicious of choice, variety, high standards and selection. It opposes grammar schools. It opposed and effectively demolished the direct grant schools. It opposes grant-maintained schools which are popular with parents. It opposes CTCs despite the fact that the CTC in Solihull is seven times over-subscribed as it is so popular with parents. In Birmingham it opposed the concept of open enrolment within the state system. In other words, it believes that children should attend the school that the local authority thinks they should attend. It opposes the private sector because it wants to end charitable status and has the idiotic idea that by so doing it will help children who would otherwise be unable to attend private schools. In short, whether it is parental choice, selection on merit or high standards, its Pavlovian reaction makes Pavlov's dog look reasonably rational.
  The Labour party tries to dress up its arguments as being rational. The first argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hillsborough was cost. He said that the £61 million a year that is being spent for 27,000 pupils on the assisted places scheme, at an average of £2,300 per pupil, would not be available for the private sector, but as a headmaster of a participating school said recently, that is a gross cost. The cost to the state of sending a pupil to a school in the maintained sector is not incurred if he attends a private school under the assisted places scheme.
  As there is evidence that parents contribute to the cost of their children's education under the assisted places scheme, and as schools, especially boarding establishments, also contribute to the cost of children's education under the assisted education scheme, the most intelligent way of looking at it is that the scheme offers the state an

  1133
  opportunity to provide an education that would normally cost £4,000 or £5,000 for a net average cost of £2,200. That is a good deal for the taxpayer.
  The other point which has not been mentioned so far but which is put forward by opponents of the scheme is that it draws bright children away from the state sector. The effect is far too diffuse to affect individual schools. No one has said to me, "Our school is being affected by children taking up the assisted places scheme." Although this idea seems antipathetic to the Labour party, I thought that schools were meant to be run for pupils rather than for schools.
  Labour Members fall back on their ideas of egalitarianism—the lowest common denominator. Irrespective of the examples that the Minister gave tonight, of the academic quality of the results achieved by pupils on assisted places in private schools and of the fact that the scheme broadens the number of people who attend private schools and therefore the social spectrum, all that they can say is that if not everybody can attend them nobody should do so.
  Mr. Pawsey: The politics of envy.
  Mr. Coombs: Exactly. If that is not the politics of envy, malice and means-spiritedness in the extreme, I do not know what is.
  The scheme speaks for opportunity and high standards and it does not damage the stage system. As The Observer said in 1988—this is the most up-to-date article on the assisted places scheme, which shows how accepted it has become in the education establishment—
  "The Assisted Places Scheme has confounded its critics by providing art opportunity for low income parents to opt for an academic education."
  The scheme has made private education more accessible. I hope that the 7,000 places on it will be taken up and that it will be expanded in the future. I shall be delighted to support it in the Lobby tonight.
  12.34 am
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I would not describe the regulations as egalitarian. I would describe them as nauseating—like the contributions that have been made in this debate which have attacked and derided the quality of education in our state schools. Conservative Members have told us how wonderful private, fee-paying schools are and that that is where high academic standards are to be achieved. They tell us that we are mean-minded to say that the very few should not have access to those academic centres of excellence.
  Speaking as a parent who has a child in the state education system, I want all children to have access to the highest quality of education as a right to prepare them with the tools to contribute to our society. Extraordinary points have been made in this debate. On the one hand, we were told that the scheme is helping to break down the inequalities in our education system. On the other hand, we were told that only a few have access to the scheme. The very presence of the scheme widens the inequalities and opportunities between those who attend the state sector and those who attend private fee-paying schools.
  It is all about buying privilege for the few. I totally reject the establishment of an education system that operates, as some hon. Members have suggested, on the lowest common denominator. I would not want the lowest
  1134
  common denominator education for my son; I want the very best that the education system can offer him as his right to build his future.
  The Government are two faced about education. Avon county council has been poll tax-capped and the Government tell us that Avon is overspending by £57 million a year. However, it costs £1,898 a year to educate a pupil in a comprehensive school in Avon. I looked at the many private fee-paying schools in Avon to get an idea of the system that we are being told is egalitarian in which privilege and rights are bought in our society.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying about equality and egalitarianism. Does she recall the time when we had an enforced system of comprehensive schools in London? Where catchment areas were drawn by local authorities, the determinant of entry to a school was not ability or religious background; it was whether one's parents could afford to buy a house in the catchment area of one school as opposed to another. Tonight the Labour party might like to make it plain that given the opportunity Labour would require all schools to be organised along comprehensive lines, with 11 to 16 schools and tertiary colleges serving them. Nothing else would exist. Will the hon. Lady come clean on that point?
  Ms. Primarolo: I had the privilege of attending an excellent comprehensive school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). It had excellent academic achievements. It was an excellent example of how well-resourced comprehensive education operates. It is a tragedy that, in several ways, the education system in which my son now finds himself is worse than the education system in which I was at his age. Schools are In worse condition, resources are declining, and insecurities are worse as a result of 10 years of this Government.
  To quote at random, at Monkton Combe school, Bath, a day fee-paying school, annual fees are £5,625. At Clifton college, Bristol, a day fee-paying school, annual fees are £5,820. At Colston's school, Bristol, annual fees are £3,555 per year. That is much more than is being spent on my son's education. That is wrong. There should be no distinction. All bright children should have the right to go to schools that stretch their abilities. All children should have the right to go to properly resourced schools. On the Minister's own figures, the average cost of an assisted place is higher than the cost of educating a child in the state sector.
  People talk about academic education, good exam passes, preparing pupils to take an active role in society, equal opportunities of quality, and the benefits of education. All our children have a right to access to all those things—not the odd one or two children who get through on the assisted places scheme. Let us make no mistake. The schemes are being expanded because there are not enough pupils to keep schools going because of the drop in the population, thereby taking children out of our state system.
  Bright children will do well whether they are in private schools or state schools. It is appalling that the House should say that a tiny proportion of our children should have the right to additional resources, to the detriment of the rest of the children in this country. Avon county council has been poll tax-capped. The Government have told it to cut expenditure and have then given more money to state-assisted places. That is obscene.

  1135
  The Government have been exposed for what they really are. They favour privilege for the few at the cost of the rest of us. If we are to have a lecture on egalitarianism, perhaps we should start with basics, not buying privilege.
  12.42 am
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I cannot possibly agree with or follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who would restrict entry to independent schools to those who earn £30,000 or £40,000 a year or more. That cannot be right, because the assisted places scheme has been successful. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) say that the scheme was a failure and was not working. Having taught young people on the assisted places scheme, I can say that it is a success for the vast majority of those young people. The Government should be proud of that scheme, along with the other ideas that they have brought forward to provide variety and choice in education.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to the money that is going into the assisted places scheme. He said that that money is lost to the state system and to our young people. It is an insult to the 172 young people who are going through Norwich high school on the assisted places scheme. They would not like to be told that the money that is being spent on them is a waste. These arguments are total nonsense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] As my hon. Friends are reminding me, the assisted places scheme is basically a good, successful scheme. After all, it is good not only for the boys and girls who attend schools that use the scheme, but, from my experience, I know that it is good for the schools themselves. They benefit in many ways from that intake of pupils.
  I have not heard one argument from the Opposition to convince me that my personal experience of the scheme is mistaken in any way. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they have the support of my hon. Friends and of the overwhelming majority of parents in this country. The Opposition's arguments are total nonsense and the sooner we recognise that, the better.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I have listened with some interest to the speeches of Conservative Members. Two appalling comments stood out which are, unfortunately, indicative of the attitudes behind the Government's creation of the assisted places scheme. One Conservative Member said that the scheme provided an academic education. The publicly run schools in my area of Cornwall have a high reputation and the teachers whom I visit would be most insulted if anybody suggested that they provided anything less than an academic education. There is no such distinction. It is wrong for any hon. Member to suggest that those who work in the state system are providing anything less than that which is provided in the private system. There may be more money in the private system and the ability to select more highly, but it is absolutely wrong to suggest that the teachers in the state system are not providing an academic education to the
  1136
  best of their abilities, that they are not doing the best for their pupils and that they are not tailoring the education to their needs.
  Worse, however, was the earlier suggestion of another Conservative Member that, by arguing against the assisted places scheme, the Labour party was arguing for the lowest common denominator. No argument in favour of the state system and about whether resources should be used on assisted places suggests that the target is the lowest common denominator. Nor does anything that happens in the state system point to the lowest common denominator. All the teachers to whom I speak or with whom I work and visit in my part of the country—I know that this is true in other areas—are looking to the highest common denominator, to do the best for all their pupils and to tailor the education that they provide to the needs of their pupils. To suggest that the state system is about the lowest common denominator is redolent of insults about everything that takes place there. Such suggestions should not be made by any side of the debate.
  Mr. James Lamond: If the public sector of education is the lowest common denominator, that is an indictment of the Government who have been responsible for administering and running it for the last 10 years.
  Mr. Taylor: That is absolutely right. That is precisely the point to which I was coming.
  The attitudes that we have heard from Conservative Members and the system of the assisted places scheme itself are both elitist and defeatist. The system is elitist because it seems to suggest that we can give the best education only to a few for whom extra resources are provided, which are diverted into the private sector. Therefore, by definition, the scheme is limited in the opportunities that it can provide because it cannot provide those opportunities to the vast majority.
  The system is defeatist because it also seems to suggest that—no matter what—public policy has to direct what resources there are to those whom Conservative Members believe are the best pupils and to the private sector because it is impossible—they believe—to provide that best education through the state sector. That defeatism is not right. I should not argue against what the Government are doing if I believed that it was right. I believe that it is possible to provide the best education for all pupils from all backgrounds in the state system.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: So that we can see whether there is any connection between the philosophy of liberalism and the title of the hon. Gentleman's party, will he tell us whether he believes that there should be any assisted places scheme, direct-grant schools in the form of grant-maintained schools or any other form of education that is not in the hands of the state?
  Mr. TaylorWe need diversity and I have never argued otherwise. However, directing extra resources to, by definition, a limited number of pupils to send them into a system that most people will never be able to enjoy is not the best use of the limited resources available to the Department of Education and Science. That is why we are against the assisted places scheme.
  The argument in favour of the assisted places scheme falls down in its own rationale. We are told that it is intended for pupils who are bright but would not

  1137
  otherwise have the opportunity to attend an independent school. Yet within the state system there is plenty of evidence that, if there is a group that does not do well, it is not the brightest pupils nor, indeed, the least bright. It is the middle range of pupils, if any, that suffers. The resources should be directed at them.
  The argument in favour of the scheme is also based on the assumption that bright children will receive a better education in the independent system than in the state system. Several individual cases were referred to earlier. We were told that one child was the daughter of a bus driver and another was the son of a window cleaner. I have rarely heard anything so patronising in this Chamber. There is simply no evidence to suggest that those who come from a background where their parents work as window cleaners or bus drivers will necessarily fail in a state school. The implications behind those statements absolutely appal me. It is simply a fallacy.
  The most important factor in whether such pupils fail is the support that they receive from their parents, the quality of the education offered by individual teachers, irrespective of the type of school in which the teacher works, and the motivation and ability of the pupils. We are all aware of many examples of pupils who go to schools which do not have a good reputation for achieving high academic results—often because the pupils who attend it do not have the support to which I referred—yet overcome their difficulties and do well.
  Many people whom I know have achieved extraordinarily good results—grade A in all the exams that they have taken throughout their careers at schools in the state sector which have no special reputation for academic results but which, when a bright pupil comes along, can offer the necessary support.
  The fundamental issue addressed by teachers and others in schools which I visit in my work as a constituency Member of Parliament is the overall size of the cake. They stress the need for more text books, more resources in schools, and more teachers to offer the greater flexibility and support for the individual pupil that the private sector can offer, precisely because it is more expensive. It is the withdrawal of those extra resources and their placement in the assisted places scheme and, therefore, in a private sector that is already over-resourced that is so appalling and makes the whole scheme wrong.
  I do not believe that Conservative Members have said anything to justify the scheme. Rather they have justified the assumption that is built on prejudice. It reflects that prejudice and will continue to do so.
  12.54 am
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I want to recount my experience in education so that the House understands that I do not speak from what the Opposition might describe as a privileged background.
  I went to a state comprehensive school and taught in the state sector for 10 years. I was a member of the Inner London education authority and, before I entered the House, I was an education officer for a local education authority. All my experience has been gained in the state education sector and, therefore, I speak with some knowledge about the state education system.
  As I have listened to the debate I have been depressed by the total lack of thought that Opposition Members have given to the principles of education and freedom of
  1138
  choice. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), a representative of the Liberal party, spoke about taking freedom of choice away from parents. That party has come a long way from the Liberal party of the 19th century which believed in choice and diversity. It believed in the rights of parents to exercise choice. The hon. Gentleman should consider the book on liberty written by John Stuart Mill which contained the famous statement that it would be a grave mistake on the part of the state if all or a large part of education was concentrated in its hands. We have come a long way since then.
  It is important that our education system should offer as many different forms of teaching and opportunities as possible from which parents can choose. It is only through diversity and competition that educational standards increase. If the state and local education authorities had complete control of all schools, if no one was allowed to send their child to a school outside local education authority control and teachers had to work in local education authority schools, there would be no impetus to provide competition and increased standards. There would be no other benchmark by which to judge those schools. It is therefore important that we should have such diversity. There are extremely good schools in the state system, but they will not maintain their excellence if no one else is allowed to provide education outside the state system.
  I deplore the attitude of the Labour party. Opposition Members have had the opportunity of grammar school and public school education. They have been able to exercise such choice, but now they are seeking to pull up the ladder behind them. They tell working-class, ordinary people that they may not have that same choice. Look at the direct grant grammar school boys on the Opposition Benches who want to ensure that no one else can exercise choice in education. It is vital that we do not pull up the ladder of opportunity. People must have choice in our education system.
  It is a fallacy to pretend that, because everyone cannot enjoy freedom, no one should. That is like the old socialist argument that, because everyone cannot dine at the Ritz, no one should. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) spoke about withdrawing choice from education. Not everyone can own his own home, but does that mean that we should all live in council houses? Not everyone can afford a car, but does that mean that no one should own a car? That is the logic of the Opposition's argument.
  Ms. Gordon: The hon. Gentleman asks whether the fact that everyone cannot own his home means that no one should. It does not, but it means that no one should be homeless. Equally, if all children cannot have a privileged education, they should at least have a teacher. Privilege should not mean that some children are in smaller classes while others have no teacher.
  Mr. Bennett: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady, but that is not what the Labour party is advocating. It argues that no one should have choice outside the state education system. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West has not argued that because not everyone has equal opportunity, no one should have any opportunity—she believes that no one should have any choice.
  It was interesting that when the hon. Member for Durham, North-West intervened in the speech of the hon.

  1139
  Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) she implied that she believed in the direction of labour, and that teachers should not be allowed to teach in private schools because they had been taught and trained in the state sector.
  It is interesting to finish on that point because it shows that Labour Members do not think through what they say. Their policies imply that they would have to create a police state in this country. If the Labour party took to its logical conclusion its policy that nobody should be educated or teach outside the state sector, it would have to create a police state to stop those schools moving to southern Ireland, France and other countries. It would have to introduce laws to stop parents sending their children abroad. If it wishes to do that it will have to set up an edifice of controls and regulations to prevent people from trying to get round the rules by taking their children abroad. Labour Members should think through what they are saying before they decide to take away choice, variety and diversity.
  I believe in this small measure, which gives working-class people an opportunity to have a choice in their education, and I support what the Government are doing.
  1.2 am
  Ms. Armstrong: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak again.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) should not lecture other people when he does not follow his own lessons. No one is saying that people in this country cannot have a choice, and there is much choice within the state sector. We are saying that taxpayers' money should not be used to subsidise a division in education which means that the Government can say that they are content with buying for 1 per cent. what they consider to be the best. Even if they want to get away with that in terms of their ideology, this country cannot afford it. We must get the best for every child.
  I invite the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) to look again at the research. I judge the scheme according to the criteria that the Government set out. It is against those criteria—
  Mr. Dunn rose—
  Ms. Armstrong: I shall not give way because I am responding to a point raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, North.
  In response to the criteria set down by the Government, the scheme has failed. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman should have a look at that.
  Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Armstrong: Certainly—now that I have answered the hon. Member for Norwich, North, I happily give way to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).
  Mr. Dunn: I thought for a moment that I was going to be ignored.
  Will the hon. Lady confirm and place on record that I can go back to the people of Dartford and tell them tonight that the Labour party's policies would lead to the closure in Dartford of the grammar schools, the city technology college, the grant-maintained school, the
  1140
  organisation of all secondary schools along comprehensive lines with a range of schools for 11 to 16–year-olds being served by tertiary colleges, and the total elimination of the Church schools?
  Ms. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has a vivid imagination. To save the time of the House, I will send him our policy review so that he can read it for himself. I want to be straight with the hon. Gentleman and if I were to answer him fully, I would take some time, which I do not have.
  People are saying that the Government's policy is popular, but, in that case, why are 6,000 places—not 4,000, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said—unfilled?
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) for pointing out the effect of the measures on many places.
  I shall finish, not with another quote from the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), although that is tempting, but with a quote from people in the independent sector who have assessed the effect of the assisted places scheme on that sector. They know that the main effect on that sector is to subsidise it. David Woodhead, director of the Independent Schools Information Service, has said that if the removal of the assisted places scheme were to go ahead
  "there would be a lot of worried schools."
  The bursar of St. Mary's college in Crosby said:
  "Schools that have not made some form of provision to back up the assisted places scheme if it was withdrawn could be rather exposed."
  Judith Sichy, director of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, said that it was impossible to say quite how much schools would lose if charitable status was abolished, but it would be a "blow" and would lead to fee increases for parents. That is the fear of Conservative Members—that the independent school sector, or much of it, would collapse because it would lose the public subsidy.
  Let us use that public subsidy to good effect for the children of our country who need such support, so that we can ensure that they are able to take the country forward to an effective economy and an effective future. If we do that for all our children, no one will need to argue for any assisted places.
  1.7 am
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I was grateful to the hon. Lady for the kind words that she spoke at the beginning of her speech, but then I was disappointed, because I had hoped that the Labour party, in the process of its policy review, would have given some fresh thought to this issue, which we have debated many times in the past. Yet it seems to ignore the realities before it.
  For example, the hon. Lady disputed—
  Mr. Straw: We were of two minds on what to do about the assisted places scheme until we read the review by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). It was his view that this experiment had been such a failure that led to our decision to phase the scheme out.
  Mr. Howarth: Again, I would have hoped that the Labour party would muster its own intellectual resources to think up an education policy, but it has not.
  The hon. Lady ignored the fact that there is choice. In her own area there is a choice; in county Durham children

  1141
  may go to Barnard Castle school within the scheme, and with the extension of the scheme there will be a new opportunity for children to go to assisted places at King's School in north Tyneside, to which the hon. Lady also referred. The hon. Lady, like the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), said that her purpose was to ensure that excellent education was available for all. We can all agree upon that.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South then spoilt it by making it clear that she believes, not in equality of opportunity but in equality of outcome. She developed a curious, and indeed interesting, theory, which might have its attractions, that an equal sum should be made available from public resources for all children. I am not sure whether she was beginning to argue for a voucher scheme and whether that is more evidence of the influence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) on the thinking of the Labour party. Really her idea was a travesty of my right hon. Friend's thinking. All hon. Members know that my right hon. Friend has always been a great champion of freedom and of choice.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for the support that he expressed for the assisted places scheme. He raised some serious and practical points. He asked, as did the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, about the lack of complete take-up of assisted places in some schools. It is inevitable that there will be some schools where there are not applications for all the places, just as there are many other schools that are over-subscribed under the scheme. We have a system of negotiation to transfer the surplus quota of places from the under-subscribed schools to the fully subscribed schools, and we are working on a more flexible and quickly responsive scheme of pooling to enable us to deal with that problem.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of publicity. The principal responsibility for publicising the scheme rests with the schools. I pay tribute to the effort that so many of the schools in the scheme make to ensure that young people and their parents are aware of the available opportunities. That will be part of a much wider culture, because under the local management of schools, and with open enrolment, all schools will have to seek to make themselves attractive to the parents and children whom it is their responsibility to serve.
  My hon. Friend the Member for York asked whether we provide leaflets: we certainly do. They explain how the scheme works and how families can benefit from it. I hope that more local education authorities will recognise their responsibility to make known the existence of scheme schools in their area. Equally, I look to primary heads to ensure that children who could appropriately go on to a school in the scheme know about it.
  Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for York asked about the north-east. I am pleased to say that, as part of the extension of the scheme this September, no fewer than six new schools will be admitted to the scheme in the north-east, and there will be three additional places in the Yarn school of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) is a governor. He made a powerful speech in which he reminded us of the disappointing record of the last Labour Government, who destroyed the direct grant scheme. Their commitment to destroy this scheme is a dreary return to that kind of prejudice.
  1142
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) spoke up doughtily for Sheffield, as he always does. He was right to do so, just as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) rightly spoke up for Tower Hamlets. I recognise the educational difficulties that those local authorities and parents, children and teachers in their areas face. Of course we shall do what we can to help. I met a deputation led by the leader of the Sheffield LEA recently, and I have fully absorbed his concerns. Only this afternoon, I saw the director of education in Tower Hamlets, and I pay tribute to her remarkable efforts to improve the quality of the service in that area.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough became rather old-fashioned when he got to the bit about the assisted places scheme. The cost of the scheme in the financial year 1989–80 was less than half of 1 per cent. of total public expenditure on schools. The hon. Gentleman has got he issue out of proportion. Since we came to office we have increased real spending by more than 40 per cent. per child. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) mentioned expenditure on books and equipment. That, too, is up by 28 per cent.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) for the refreshing good sense they brought to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest recited a gloomy catalogue of the destructive pledges of the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North spoke with legitimate pride of his experience of teaching in one of the great schools in the scheme—Manchester grammar—and about Norwich high school.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) brought to the debate the benefit of his authority as one who has great depth of experience of working in the maintained sector. He talked a great deal of good sense.
  I must take issue with the hon. Member for Truro, who wrongly extracted from the remarks of Conservative Members the inference that there had been some disparagement of the maintained schools, merely because we believe that the APS widens choice and gives the parents of less well-off children the opportunity to send their offspring to some of the best schools in the country. There are many extremely good maintained schools. We must cherish excellence wherever it is found—and support it. I look forward to meeting a deputation from Cornwall next week and I shall do what I can to ensure that the teachers of Cornwall, to whom I pay tribute, have every opportunity to continue to serve their pupils.
  I commend the draft regulations to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 89.

  Division No. 307]

  [1.14 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Amess, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Amos, Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ashby, David

  Bowis, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Atkinson, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bright, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  1143

  Burns, Simon

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Burt, Alistair

  Knowles, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Lang, Ian

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lightbown, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cash, William

  Lord, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chope, Christopher

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

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

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Maclean, David

  Colvin, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Mans, Keith

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Marland, Paul

  Cran, James

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

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

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Day, Stephen

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Devlin, Tim

  Mellor, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Dover, Den

  Mills, Iain

  Dunn, Bob

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Durant, Tony

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Evennett, David

  Moate, Roger

  Favell, Tony

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Neubert, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Freeman, Roger

  Norris, Steve

  French, Douglas

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard

  Gardiner, George

  Paice, James

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gill, Christopher

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Pawsey, James

  Gorst, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gow, Ian

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Raffan, Keith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Gregory, Conal

  Rathbone, Tim

  Ground, Patrick

  Redwood, John

  Hague, William

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

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

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Harris, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hayes, Jerry

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hayward, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shelton, Sir William

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

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shersby, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Irvine, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jack, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jackson, Robert

  Steen, Anthony

  Janman, Tim

  Stern, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Stevens, Lewis

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Summerson, Hugo

  Key, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Knapman, Roger

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  1144

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thorne, Neil

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Thurnham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilkinson, John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Walden, George

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waller, Gary

  Ward, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Watts, John

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Armstrong, Hilary

  McAllion, John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Beggs, Roy

  McFall, John

  Beith, A. J.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  McKelvey, William

  Bradley, Keith

  McWilliam, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Carr, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Clay, Bob

  Michael, Alun

  Clelland, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mullin, Chris

  Cousins, Jim

  Murphy, Paul

  Cryer, Bob

  Nellist, Dave

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Darling, Alistair

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

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

  Redmond, Martin

  Dewar, Donald

  Reid, Dr John

  Dixon, Don

  Richardson, Jo

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Robertson, George

  Eastham, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Short, Clare

  Fatchett, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Flannery, Martin

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Foster, Derek

  Spearing, Nigel

  Galloway, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  George, Bruce

  Straw, Jack

  Gordon, Mildred

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hardy, Peter

  Turner, Dennis

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Walley, Joan

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Kennedy, Charles

  Worthington, Tony

  Lamond, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Terry

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robert Rhodes James be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Mr. Graham Bright be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Mr. David Simpson
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  1.25 am
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I wish to express my delight at obtaining this Adjournment debate, although it is diminished by my regret at having to raise the issue in such a public way. I recognise that raising this case in the House will inevitably arouse memories, anger and anguish among those concerned in the incident three years ago.
  I wish that we—myself, Mr. David Simpson and his solicitor and his barrister—had been able to convince the Home Office and the Minister, through private correspondence, of the need to pay Mr. Simpson compensation for the three months that he spent in prison for a crime that he did not commit.
  I do not think that there is any disagreement between me and the Minister about the background to the case. There was a fatal road accident in April 1987, and there is no doubt that Mr. Simpson was subsequently charged with causing death by reckless driving. Throughout, Mr. Simpson protested that he was the pillion rider and not the driver rider of the motor cycle involved.
  The Minister will know that Mr. Simpson was on bail for about 14 months until he appeared in Leicester Crown court on 1 to 3 August 1988. He was convicted on a majority verdict and received a 12–month term of imprisonment. However, in the light of further evidence his conviction was quashed at the Court of Appeal on 11 November 1988. After some three months in prison, that innocent man was finally vindicated.
  I must emphasise that Mr. Simpson was extremely lucky that two new witnesses came forward to support his case. It was fortuitous that they did so before the appeal was heard. They had seen a report in the 10 August 1988 edition of Motor Cycle News and realised that there had been a miscarriage of justice. At the time of the accident, the two witnesses had been living in Leicester, but had subsequently moved to Cornwall and so were not familiar with what had happened; neither had they seen reports of the court case in the Leicester Mercury, the local evening newspaper.
  When the witnesses saw the report in Motor Cycle News, they realised that it was their duty and responsibility to come forward and support Mr. Simpson's case. In the absence of those new witnesses, there would have been a distinct possibility that an innocent man would have had to serve the remainder of his sentence.
  In the light of that background—and I bear no animosity towards the Minister—I wish to emphasise that I deeply resent and regret that the fact that he included the following sentence in a letter to me on 13 November 1989: I quote from the third page of the Home Office letter and the words of the Minister, or perhaps of his civil servant:
  "The new witnesses, although apparently known to a friend of Mr. Simpson, did not appear until three days before the appeal hearing—some 18 months after the incident."
  I am not sure what was meant by those words, but I draw from them two inferences that I find deeply offensive. The first is that Mr. Simpson should or could have been aware of the existence of those witnesses at the time of his trial, and that some fault therefore lies on his shoulders for not bringing them forward then. The second is that those
  1146
  witnesses were somehow sprung on the Court of Appeal at the last moment. If I am wrong in drawing those inferences, I shall be delighted to hear the Minister say that they do not represent his point of view.
  The barrister who defended Mr. Simpson is convinced that the original conviction was a miscarriage of justice. The Minister will have read a letter from Mr. Gaskell to the Home Office dated 12 February 1990, in which he wrote:
  "Normally, as counsel, I do not concern myself with questions about whether a defendant actually did or did not commit the crimes alleged. But as the evidence in the trial unfolded, it became clear that this was a wholly exceptional case. Sometimes juries do get it wrong: they did here. The conviction was, in my view, plainly wrong. Accordingly, Mr. Simpson spent 3 months in prison for a crime he did not commit."
  It will come as no surprise to the Minister that the effects of the incident on Mr. Simpson and his family were devastating. I will quote his own words. He explains that in the pre-trial period he was bailed for 14 months,
  "during which time the mental stress of having the case `hanging over me' was unbearable and had already affected a four-year relationship with my common law wife. At this time she left me."
  The relationship between Mr. Simpson and his common law wife broke down as a direct consequence of the pre-trial stress. His elderly parents suffered great mental stress, ending with their both being treated with medication by their doctor. Mr. Simpson's relationship with his two children, then aged 19 and 20, also suffered during the pre-trial period as a consequence of the stress, irritability and depression that Mr. Simpson felt.
  Mr. Simpson continued to protest his innocence throughout this time in prison. He writes:
  "My total bewilderment at my predicament, constantly protesting my innocence, led me to suggest to the prison doctor the drastic action of a hunger strike. I was told I would be put in a hospital wing in a padded cell if I suggested such a thing again."
  Perhaps that was the natural reaction of an innocent man, trying to show the authorities that he was prepared to go to any lengths to protest his innocence. He goes on:
  "While sharing a small, cramped cell with two other prisoners, one of the inmates threatened to hang himself with a sheet, whilst another inmate close by was threatened with rape, and a brutal attack ensued. Those are just two examples of the awful atrocities I encountered on a daily basis."
  That further illustrates the ordeal that this innocent man had to endure throughout his three months in prison.
  After this innocent man's conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal some 18 months ago, he was released, but he is still trying to draw the threads of his life together. I quote him again:
  "To this day I feel I have been mentally scarred by these events. It has left me feeling confused, persecuted and unable to trust. Family and close friends have commented continuously about my changed personality. I have been unable to form a close relationship since my release. I am constantly depressed, increasingly bitter by the complete injustice of this ordeal. This is despite the fact that I have endeavoured to build a new life for myself, completing a year's Fine Arts Course and gaining a place on a BA (Hons) Degree course. Despite my efforts throughout the last 18 months I have suffered severe financial loss due to this case, my parents (who are both pensioners) have also suffered financially due to this case. I am still in the process of paying off debts incurred while I was in prison. The constant refusals to pay any amount of compensation for this ordeal, even after my innocence was exonerated by the high court, is still creating mental pressures and fuelling the bitterness I feel.
  I am picking up the pieces of my life. I would like very much to put this dreadful experience behind me. Not only for

  1147
  myself, but for my family and supportive friends who have all suffered because of my constant determination to see justice be done. My worst fear is that this experience could happen again to an innocent man."
  I recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as I know that both you and the Minister will—that no amount of money can remove these mental scars. Only the passage of time will remove them from the forefront of Mr. Simpson's mind. No decision by the Government or the Minister can remove those scars. However, I hope that the manner in which I have dealt with Mr. Simpson's case—I have not castigated the Minister personally—will lead to recognition of the fact that an injustice was done and that there was a miscarriage of justice. I hope, therefore, that some compensation will be made for the time that Mr. Simpson spent in prison.
  1.37 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I begin by saying two things to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). First, I appreciate the measured way in which he has pursued this case on behalf of his constituent. Furthermore, I appreciate the reasoned and reasonable way in which he has put the case, both in correspondence and in the House tonight. It was in the best traditions of the House. No constituent who found himself in this or in any other unfortunate circumstance could wish for anyone more assiduous as his Member of Parliament than the hon. Member for Leicester, South in taking his case to the highest quarters. The hon. Gentleman's constituent must be fully aware of the way in which his case has been advanced by his Member of Parliament.
  It is unnecessary for me to go in great detail into the facts of the case. There is no dispute about the facts of the trial and the appeal, as it unfolded. Before I deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, the House might find it helpful if I outline briefly the criteria to be applied when considering applications for the payment of compensation in cases of wrongful conviction such as this. It is important to get the facts in front of us.
  Compensation may be payable under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or, where that does not apply, it may take the form of an ex-gratia payment. Under the terms of section 133 of the 1988 Act compensation may be payable where a person convicted of a criminal offence has that conviction quashed by an appeal made to the court of appeal, either "out of time" or following a reference by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, or by means of a free pardon on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I remember the debates on section 133 of the 1988 Act when I took the Bill through the Standing Committee.
  There is an ex gratia scheme, because those cases which do not meet the criteria of section 133 are considered in the light of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the then Home Secretary, on 29 November 1985. Such ex gratia cases are now confined to those cases where people have spent a period in custody but where a conviction is quashed by the Court of Appeal following an "in time" appeal or to persons
  1148
  charged and where proceedings were later terminated, possibly because of some alleged misconduct by the proper authorities.
  The criteria to be applied in these cases are as follows. First, the detention must have resulted from serious default by a member of the police force or of some other public authority or, if there is no evidence of such a default, there must be exceptional circumstances that justify compensation. Quite often, after due process in the Court of Appeal, a conviction is overturned without any allegation of serious default by a member of the police force or any other public authority. Therefore, it is important to realise that, in many cases, quite properly, compensation is not paid because there has been no such default.
  An example of exceptional circumstances would be the appearance of facts at the trial or on appeal that completely exonerate the accused person. Compensation will not normally be payable in cases where persons have been acquitted at trial or subsequently on appeal because the prosecution were unable to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the specific charges brought. That bears repeating. According to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, compensation will not normally be payable in cases where persons have been acquitted at trial or subsequently on appeal because the prosecution were unable to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the specific charges brought. Such an occurrence would be the failure of a witness to attend, therefore preventing the prosecution proceeding with the case.
  Requests for compensation are usually made by letter from the claimant or his solicitors. The facts of the case are first considered to decide whether it falls under the statutory scheme, the ex gratia scheme or neither. Such applications often require further inquiries to be made, for example of the police, before a decision can be reached. The question of eligibility for the payment of compensation is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, entirely a matter for determination by the Home Secretary of the day.
  It has been important to rehearse these facts because those who are concerned, such as Mr. Simpson and his family, should know the facts that underlie our system of compensation.
  I now turn to the claim for compensation, which was advanced so powerfully by the hon. Member for Leicester, South on behalf of Mr. Simpson. On 5 May 1989, Mr. Simpson's solicitors applied for compensation for the three months that their client had been detained in custody. That is common ground between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
  Following that application, detailed inquiries were made of the Leicestershire constabulary, which investigated the accident. As Mr. Simpson's appeal had been in time, his claim did not meet the requirements of the statutory compensation scheme under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The only possibility available to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was to consider it under the terms of the exgratia scheme.
  In Mr. Simpson's case, there was no question of serious default by the police in bringing the charge of causing death by reckless driving against him. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on that. I see him indicating assent. The charge against Mr. Simpson was brought on the basis

  1149
  of evidence from witnesses of his position on the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The evidence of a forensic scientist cast doubt on the suggestion that the rider had been thrown from the motor cycle while it was moving. That evidence was presented to the jury which, in the light of its majority decision, must have accepted it, although none of us will know what went on in the jury room.
  The two new witnesses presented on appeal questioned that evidence but did not make themselves known to the police prior to the trial—it strikes me as peculiar that they did not do so—hence the sentence that the hon. Gentleman said that he resented. I do not think that there is any reason for resentment. It is peculiar, but sometimes there are peculiar circumstances in criminal cases that are hard to understand. I find it hard to understand why they did not come forward earlier. Linden Arnold's comment —he was one of the two new witnesses that the police did not ask them to make statements is understandable from the police's point of view because they were unaware of those witnesses when they conducted their investigation. The police behaved properly in the pre-trial period.
  The witnesses were, however, known to a friend of Mr. Simpson's before the trial. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to suggest that the police were at serious fault in charging Mr. Simpson or that the conviction was wrongful on the basis of the evidence available at the trial. The new evidence produced by the two witnesses three days before the Court of Appeal hearing questioned the safety of the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial. However, from the information available to me, it would appear that their evidence contained several discrepancies, compared with the earlier evidence given by the police officers. Some conflict about who was driving the motor cycle remains unresolved.
  On the information available, Mr. Simpson's case does not appear to my right hon. and learned Friend to meet the criteria required to establish a claim for an exceptional payment of compensation under the terms of the ex gratia scheme. His application was refused accordingly.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I am grateful to the Minister for the measured way in which he is replying to the debate. Again, he has made the inferences to which I referred about the
  1150
  two new witnesses, but the fact of the matter is that the Court of Appeal accepted their evidence. That new information led it to quash the original conviction as being unsound and unsafe.
  I appreciate that that leads to discussion and argument about the way in which the police conducted the original inquiry and I have my doubts about that. However., I deliberately did not raise that issue this evening because I did not want to cloud the specific injustice that had been done to Mr. Simpson with wider allegations about the original investigation.
  Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Let us just rehearse briefly the representations that he has made since he first wrote on 26 September 1989 to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, who is now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
  Then and on previous occasions Mr. Simpson's case has been given the most careful and detailed consideration and that consideration underpinned the letter that I wrote on 3 November 1989, which contained the offensive sentence, informing the hon. Gentleman that the case was not one in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would feel justified in authorising any ex-gratia payment of compensation from public funds.
  I reconsidered Mr. Simpson's case with officials on two further occasions following the hon. Gentleman's letters of 11 December 1989 and 23 February 1990 to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. As the hon. Gentleman knows from my letters to him of 15 January and 2 May, we could find no grounds to justify departing from our earlier decision.
  I listened with careful interest to what the hon. Gentleman said tonight on behalf of Mr. Simpson, but I do not think that any new matters of consideration have been put before the House. In the light of that, I must inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that I do not think that it will be possible for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to change his earlier decision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the average waiting time between an appeal to the social security commissioners and a commissioner's decision being made.

  The Attorney-General
  The average waiting time from receipt of the appeal in the commissioner's office to notification of the commissioner's decision in 1989 was 404 working days.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Attorney-General how many social security commissioners' decisions were made in each of the last five years; how many oral hearings occurred in each of the last five years; and what percentage of commissioners' decisions are reported.

  The Attorney-General
  The answer in each category for each of the last five years is listed in the tables.

  England, Wales and Scotland Number of social security commissioners' decisions in each of the past five years

  Location

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  England and Wales

  n/a

  1,839

  1,894

  12,136

  1,909

  Scotland

  486

  334

  407

  660

  1703

  1 Revised figures.

  n/a=Not available.

  Number of cases heard by social security commissioners in each of the past five years

  Location

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Lodon

  n/a

  519

  572

  1346

  287

  Cardiff

  n/a

  6

  42

  56

  37

  Liverpool2

  nil

  nil

  nil

  53

  54

  Leeds3

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  39

  Edinburgh

  51

  64

  68

  63

  77

  1 Revised figures.

  2 No hearings before 1988.

  3 No hearings before 1989.

  n/a = Not available.

  Percentage of commissioners' decisions reported in the past five years

  Percentage

  1985

  n/a

  1986

  2·5

  1987

  1·9

  1988

  1·5

  1989

  1·8

  n/a=Not available.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Attorney-General how many social security commissioners there are; how they are appointed; and what salaries or fees they are paid.

  The Attorney-General
  There are 12 full-time social security commissioners in England and Wales and three in 548
  Scotland. They are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor from among persons who are barristers, advocates or solicitors of not less than 10 years standing. Commissioners are paid an annual salary of £51,000. The chief commissioner is paid £56,000.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and to publish the annual report of the Serious Fraud Office for the year 1989–90.

  The Attorney-General
  The report has today been laid before Parliament. I have caused a copy of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Managers
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training managers have not yet signed the new contract from each of the(a) private, (b) local authority and (c) voluntary sectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available information shows that 35 private sector, 11 local authority and six voluntary sector training managers have not yet signed new employment training contracts. A number of these will relate to contracts agreed in principle but awaiting final signatures.

  Social Fund
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of provision per trainee for (i) employment training trainees and (ii) comparable trainees funded by the European social fund.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average Exchequer cost per person on employment training is about £106 per week, including the trainee's allowance. Information is not available on comparable average costs of trainees on European social fund funded courses.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training managers have(a) withdrawn from the scheme or (b) reduced the number of trainees they take, with the introduction of the new contract, from each of the (i) private, (ii) local authority and (iii) voluntary sectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available information shows that nine private sector, three local authority and four voluntary sector training managers have withdrawn from employment training following the introduction of new contracts. Information about those training managers who have reduced the number of their trainees is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made by the European Community Commission in preparing directives arising out of the principles of the social charter; and if he has received any guidance from the Commission on whether the directives are to be considered by majority vote.
  549
  Mr. Eggar
  The European Commission has published four draft directives from its social action programme; one concerns asbestos, and three concern part-time and temporary work. The Commission's proposal is that the draft directive on asbestos and two of the draft directives on part time and temporary work, should be decided by qualified majority voting.

  I understand that the Commission is well advanced in drafting a number of other directives. We do not yet know how many of these are likely to be proposed for qualified majority voting.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the current level of expenses paid to those on employment training schemes.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received no representations on the current level of expenses paid to those on employment training schemes.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the development of youth training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  New youth training is a major step forward. It offers the promise of a level-2 qualification or more for every trainee who can achieve it. It offers flexible design and duration of training and wider eligibility. It will provide improved help for those with special training needs and those seeking employment after training.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to improve the quality of the initial assessment of trainees on employment training courses.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A number of initiatives are continuing to develop and improve the quality of initial assessment of trainees seeking training within employment training.

  Tourist Attractions (wheelchair Access)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline his Department's policy on wheelchair access for the disabled to major tourist attractions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department concurs with the findings and recommendations of the "Tourism for All" report, which was published last year by the English tourist board. The national tourist boards, in collaboration with the holiday care service, are currently taking forward those recommendations, which are designed to improve access for people with special needs to the whole range of tourist facilities.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have been created.

  Mr. Eggar
  Twenty training and enterprise councils have signed operational contracts. A further 57 TECs are in their development stage and preparing their corporate and business plans.
  550
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the companies and organisations represented on training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  Twenty TECs have now signed operational contracts and I will arrange for a list of board members for these TECs together with their companies/organisations to be placed in the House of Commons Library as soon as possible.

  Government Training Schemes
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trainers were involved with Government training schemes on(a) 18 June 1979 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Telephone Chatlines
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that jobs with chatline companies are not advertised in Government jobcentres if they carry bonus incentives to keep callers talking for long spells.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Employment Service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

  Training Centre, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what alternative provision he will make for the accommodation of the employee rehabilitation centre, Western avenue, Cardiff, after 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 13 July 1990]: Plans for the alternative provision for the accommodation of the employment rehabilitation centre, Western avenue, Cardiff, after 1993 have yet to be made. The South Glamorgan committee for the employment of disabled people will be consulted in drawing up any such plans.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has undertaken regarding the future provision and location of services provided by the employee rehabilitation centre, Western avenue, Cardiff.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 13 July 1990]: In the consultative document on employment and training for people with disabilities published by my Department on 29 June, my right hon. and learned Friend invited comments on plans for developing employment rehabilitation provision. The document has been sent to over 1,400 individuals and organisations including the South Glamorgan advisory committee for the employment of disabled people. Consultations about the future provision and location of services specifically provided by the employment rehabilitation centre in Cardiff have not yet commenced.

PRIME MINISTER

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will publish a White Paper making an economic assessment of the effect of joining the ERM of the European monetary system at the current rate of exchange.

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty's Government have no plans to publish such a White Paper. Participation in the exchange rate mechanism will help to reinforce counter-inflationary policy.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Surendra Paul
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information Her Majesty's high commissioner to India has in relation to a warning given in advance to the Assam state police about the murder of Mr. Surendra Paul.

  Mr. Maude
  The British high commission has no information about any such warning.

  EC (Irish Presidency)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the period of the Irish presidency of the European Community.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made to the House on 28 June by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28 June at columns 489–90.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries in each of the past five years to which Her Majesty's Government have made representations over human rights violations.

  Mr. Maude
  In the last five years we have made representations to the Governments of many countries, both bilaterally and with our EC partners. The precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be received; what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The diplomatic and aid wings together have so far received 35 requests for subject access, all from present or former members of staff: this figure is in line with forecasts of likely numbers of applications. We do not 552
  propose to change the arrangements for charges set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member on 30 October 1987, Official Report, column 478.

  Albania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Albania concerning the refugees that are seeking to leave the country.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On behalf of the whole Community, the ambassadors of the four member states represented in Tirana called on the Albanian Minister of Foreign Affairs on 7 July. They delivered an agreed statement urging the Albanian Government to ensure that the safety of the refugees, to refrain from reprisals against their families, to allow them to receive such assistance as necessary and to guarantee their departure from Albania.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for establishing new links with the Albanian Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following the apparent thaw in early 1990 in Albania's attitude towards the outside world we renewed on 20 April our 1980 offer to establish diplomatic relations without pre-conditions.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Indonesian Foreign Minister.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no immediate plans for a meeting with the Foreign Minister though he hopes one will be possible before long.

  North and South Korea
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made with regard to the opening of the border between North and South Korea.

  Mr. Maude
  None. We have consistently supported all realistic initiatives which might lead to peace on the Korean peninsula. We welcome the resumption of official contacts on 3 July. How these contacts might be expanded must be left to discussion between North and South Korea.

  Liberia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had in the previous 12 months with the Liberian Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. Her Majesty's ambassador in Monrovia however has regular contacts with members of the Liberian Government.

  Kenya
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Kenya for the
  553
  release of political prisoners and the establishment of multi-party democracy there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave to the honourable Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 17 July,Official Report, column 496.

  China
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many diplomatic contacts and at what levels, have taken place with Chinese diplomatic representatives over the past month.

  Mr. Maude
  Regular contacts on a variety of subjects have been maintained between the two Governments through channels up to and including the Chinese ambassador in London and the British chargé d'affaires in Peking.

  Visas
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which European countries visitors to the United Kingdom are required to have visas; and what plans he has for removing these restrictions on a country-by-country basis.

  Mr. Maude
  Visitors to the United Kingdom from the following European countries require visas:

  Albania

  Bulgaria

  Czechoslovakia

  Hungary

  Poland

  Romania

  Soviet Union

  Turkey

  We have no plans to abolish visas for Turkey, which were only recently imposed—in June 1989. We welcome the moves towards greater democracy and the freer movement of people in eastern Europe. We are examining our visa policies towards these countries on a case-by-case basis, in the light of developments, and keeping in touch with our European Community partners.

  Ivory
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Hong Kong Government will comply in full with the CITES ban on all commercial trade in ivory when the six-month reservation is withdrawn on 18 July.

  Mr. Maude
  The Hong Kong Government have already enacted legislation to implement the CITES ban on international commercial trade in ivory. The legislation will come into effect when our reservation is withdrawn on 18 July 1990. A potential loophole in the legislation which might have enabled tourists to export ivory as souvenirs up to a weight of 5 kg has been closed. Hong Kong legislation now fully reflects the CITES convention.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the reason for the delay in issuing advice to school governors about their responsibilities 554
  under the Data Protection Act; whether his Department has any plans to indemnify or compensate any school governor prosecuted under the Act; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Preparation of guidance is well under way, but proving to be more complex than expected. The Data Protection Registrar is aware of the position and will be consulted in the course of its preparation.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be received; what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not collected by the Department. The subject access fee for external requests is £8, which is below the maximum set in central guidance. Current and previous employees are not charged.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the issue of parents of first-year pupils, or children due to become first-year pupils at the start of the next school year, being disenfranchised from ballots on opting out due to the fact that the procedure was initiated in the period shortly before their children became formally registered at the school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has received a number of letters on this subject. Guidance is contained in the Department's booklet "School Governors: How to become a Grant-Maintained School", which was sent last year to every school eligible to apply for GM status. It advises governors and parents to think carefully about the timing of actions they take.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals are being considered for amendments to the Education Reform Act in order to make it easier for schools to opt out; whether the introduction of a procedure to opt back into local education authority control, on the same basis as that to opt out, is under consideration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This September there will be 44 GM schools with a total of 30,000 pupils. That means the number of GM schools has more than doubled in 12 months. That is an impressive measure of the strength of interest among parents and governors in becoming grant maintained. My right hon. Friend will be keeping a careful watch to ensure that LEAs do not abuse their position when dealing with individual schools; and will be ready to take further action should it prove to be necessary.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much his Department's booklet "Grant-Maintained Schools: Questions Parents Ask" cost to produce and distribute.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The cost of printing the booklets and of posting an initial distribution to all schools eligible to apply for grant-maintained status was £32,275.
  555
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the introduction of a standard wording for parents' petitions requiring the governing body of schools to organise a ballot on whether or not the school should opt out of local education authority control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received one letter on this subject. Guidance on the wording of parental petitions was given in the booklet "School Governors: How to Become a Grant-maintained School", which was sent last year to every school eligible to apply for GM status. Paragraph 11 of the booklet said:"The wording of the petition should make it clear that it is to require the governing body of the school, in accordance with Section 60 of the Education Reform Act, to hold a ballot of parents on the question of whether the school should apply to the Secretary of State for grant-maintained status".

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the organisations referred to in his Department's booklet "School Governors: How to become a Grant-Maintained School" as sources of information on the subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Officials in the Department have received two letters on this subject.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities and local authority associations concerning his Department's booklet "Grant-Maintained Schools: Questions Parents Ask".

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There has been correspondence between the Association of County Councils and the Department about the booklet. My right hon. Friend has not received representations from individual local authorities about the booklet.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received a copy of the booklet published by Local Schools Information called "Grant-Maintained Schools: Questions Parents Ask"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has seen a copy of the booklet. The booklet suggests that grant-maintained schools could be isolated, but the facts point the other way. GM schools are working together constructively, sharing experiences and co-operating in joint ventures. The booklet also suggests that an application for GM status would be a leap in the dark. Yet the first GM schools have welcomed their new status and are already making full use of their greater freedom and responsibilities.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines he has issued in respect of the arrangements he would expect a governing body to make in order to enable parents of a school where opting out was being considered to have an informed debate about the options available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Guidance on this point is contained in the Department's booklet "School Governors: How to become a Grant-Maintained School", which was sent to all schools eligible to apply for GM status last year. Paragraph 21 of the booklet says 556
  "That debate [for and against grant-maintained status for a particular school] will have to take place locally … and will no doubt be well under way before the ballot is actually held. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he expects such debate, and any ballot on grant-maintained status or its procedures to be properly conducted: if this proves not to be the case, he may require the ballot to be held again."
  In addition a letter was sent from the Department to every local education authority in February 1989 about the responsibilities of LEAs during ballots on grant-maintained status. The letter made clear the Secretary of State's intention that parents, governors and school staff should be able to consider the option of grant-maintained status without fear of intimidation or harassment.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many appeals under section 8(6) of the Education Act 1981 he is currently considering; how mnay of those appeals concern hearing-impaired children; and how many have been under consideration for 12 months or more.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering 48 appeals under section 8(6) of the Education Act 1981, four of which concern hearing-impaired children. Of these 48 appeals, 22 have been under consideration for 12 months or more. Appeals are complex and involve the consideration of a large number of documents and representations. The Department has recently revised its procedures in order to minimise the time taken to reach decisions on individual cases but has to balance the need for speed with the need for thorough and careful consideration of the details of each case. My right hon. Friend must ensure that, in line with the rules of natural justice, each party has the chance to present his or her version of the facts and be able to comment on the other's version. This process can involve several lengthy exchanges between parents, the Department and the LEA.

  Reading Standards
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many 10-year-old children in state schools in England and Wales were recorded as experiencing reading difficulties in the school sessions(a) 1979–80 and (b) 1989–90.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Such national data do not exist currently, although the national curriculum assessment arrangements will in due course provide information about the reading levels of pupils at seven, 11, 14 and 16.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the companies that have been contracted to build each of the city technology colleges so far designated.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information that the hon. Member requested is listed below:

  Company

  Kingshurst phase 1

  Miller Construction

  phase 2

  Wimpey

  Djanogly, Nottingham

  Norwest Holst

  Macmillan College, Teesside

  Wimpey

  Bradford

  Miller Construction

  557

  Company

  Tyneside

  John Laing Construction Ltd.

  Leigh, Dartford

  Crispin Borst

  Harris, Croydon

  Walter Lawrence (City and Southern)

  Britschool

  Wallis Ltd.

  Bacons

  Woolf Construction

  City technology college

  Sponsor

  Amount £ million

  Kingshurst

  Hanson Industries

  1·00

  Djanogly, Nottingham

  Mr· Harry Djanogly

  1·10

  Macmillan College, Teesside

  BAT Industries

  1·00

  Bradford

  The Dixons Group plc

  1·10

  Emmanuel College, Gateshead

  The Reg Vardy Foundation

  1·00

  Sylvan

  The Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust

  1·25

  Leigh, Dartford

  Mr.G.N.Leigh

  1·00

  Britschool

  The British Record Industry Trust

  1·10

  Bacons

  Southwark Diocesan Board of Education

  1·50

  Haberdashers' Aske's, New Cross

  The Robert Aske Charity

  3·20

  Corby

  Mr.H.de Capell Brooke

  1·10

  Derby

  The Landau Foundation

  1·15

  Telford

  The Mercers' Company

  1·00

  Tarmac plc

  1·00

  Wandsworth

  ADT

  1·00

  In addition, a further 80 companies/individuals have pledged over £9 million to the programme as a whole. Discussions are continuing with other prospective sponsors, and I am confident that these talks will provide further sponsorship.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Political Parties (Funding)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the introduction of state funding for political parties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Passport Offices
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days have been lost through sickness at each of the passport offices in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is shown in the table for the financial year 1989–90 and for the period 1 April to 8 July 1990.
  558
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the individual companies that have agreed to sponsor city technology colleges, indicating in each case the amount of money promised.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The principle sponsors of the city technology colleges announced to date are as follows:

  Total days lost April 1989–March 1990

  Total days lost 1 April 1990–8 July1990

  London

  3,538

  828

  Liverpool

  5,749

  1,399

  Peterborough

  2,997

  918

  Newport

  3,782

  1,140

  Glasgow

  4,876

  1,305

  Belfast

  347

  199

  Passport Office, London
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to make the passport office waiting room in Petty France more congenial.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A comprehensive refurbishment of the passport office waiting room in Petty France is now almost complete. The work has included redecoration and the replacement of floor covering, seating and lighting. Improved toilet facilities and other amenities have also been provided, and consideration is being given to some pictorial displays.

  Child Care
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the ministerial group on women's issues, 1989 and 1990 five-point plans on child care.
  559
  Mr. John Patten
  In April 1989 the ministerial group on women's issues discussed and agreed the following five-point plan designed to encourage the development of a range of high-quality child care options:

  1. to amend the then Children Bill so as to improve the registration and enforcement arrangements for day nurseries, child minders and playgroups;

  2. to encourage the providers of child care and employers to consider the need for a voluntary accreditation scheme, which would provide information about the availability of child care facilities and guarantee the quality of the provision;

  3. to issue guidance to local education authorities and school governors in England, encouraging the use of school premises for after school and holiday play schemes;

  4. to give further support to the voluntary sector through pump-priming of projects and encouragement of partnerships between employers and the voluntary sector;

  5. to give further encouragement to employers to use the tax reliefs available to provide child care facilities.

  Having implemented the April 1989 plan, the group approved a follow-up programme of action in February 1990:

  1. to issue new guidelines and regulations to local authorities on day care services for children under eight years, as part of the implementation of the Children Act 1989;

  2. the Department of Health to work with local authorities to help them improve their practice on the registration of day care services;

  3. to encourage the development of information services on child care for both parents and employers;

  4. to continue to encourage employers to become involved in providing help with child care for their staff;

  5. to continue to set an example to employers, by developing a range of flexible working patterns and child care facilities to assist civil servants who choose to combine paid work and family responsibility.

  Domestic Fires
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is planned by the Government to reduce the risk to human life caused by fires in domestic property.

  Population1 of adult male sentenced prisoners in local and training prisons in England and Wales on 31 December 1989: by Prison Service region and security category of prisoner.

  Prison Service Region

  2A

  B

  C

  D

  Not recorded

  Total population

  Midland

  62

  422

  3,284

  1,126

  413

  5,307

  North

  209

  1,859

  4,242

  1,361

  1,218

  8,889

  South East

  125

  1,947

  3,820

  1,445

  2,136

  9,473

  South West

  65

  861

  2,151

  866

  838

  4,781

  All regions

  461

  5,089

  13,497

  4,798

  4,605

  28,450

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Including prisoners provisionally placed in category A.

  Pregnant Prisoners
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women who have been known to be pregnant have been sentenced to prison in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 May 1990, c. 142]: I regret that incorrect information was contained in that answer. The reply should have read as follows:

  The information requested is not available. However, the annual reports on the work of the prison service record the number of pregnant females temporarily removed to outside hospitals for delivery and returning to establishments afterwards. The figures are:
  560
  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Department regards fire prevention publicity and education as an important element in helping to reduce and minimise the risk to human life in domestic fires. Our proposals for fire prevention activity were described in the reply I gave to a Question from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 11 June at column 17. In addition, a mobile information unit for the elderly on fire prevention and fire safety will be used to tour major urban retail market areas. A television filler film dealing with fire safety for young children will be produced later this year.

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of complaints received by the Police Complaints Authority originating from Newham in the last two years; and how many(a) were investigated and (b) are being investigated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: We have no such information. Under the provisions of part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, there are matters for the Police Complaints Authority and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I understand from the commissioner that this information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A, category B, and category C inmates were serving their sentence in each prison region in England and Wales for the latest date available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: The latest information readily available centrally is given in the table.

  Numbers

  1988–89

  63

  1987–88

  75

  1986–87

  62

  1985–86

  71

  1984–85

  170

  1983

  70

  1982

  51

  1981

  74

  1980

  75

  1979

  74

  1 Covers 15-month period.

  Additionally, there were eight deliveries within prison service establishments between 1 January 1979 and 31 March 1989:
  561

  Numbers

  1988–89

  2

  1987–88

  1

  1985–86

  1

  1984–85

  1

  1983

  1

  1982

  1

  1979

  1

  Child Emigrants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about child emigrants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 July at columns 209–10.

ENVIRONMENT

  Owner-occupation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of owner-occupation in Britain and in each European Community country.

  Mr. Chope
  The available information is as follows:

  Percentage of owner-occupied housing

  Year

  Belgium

  61

  1981

  Denmark

  56

  1987

  France

  51

  1984

  Germany

  41

  1985

  Greece

  72

  1982

  Ireland

  76

  1981

  Italy

  64

  1986

  Luxembourg

  60

  1982

  Netherlands

  44

  1985

  Portugal

  56

  1981

  Spain

  76

  1980

  Corresponding estimates for Great Britain are 58 per cent. for 1982 and 66 per cent. for 1989. Figures for the various countries are not all compiled on a comparable basis and should be interpreted with caution.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available figure for homelessness; and what the figure was in 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 27 June,Official Report column 276.

  Housing (Young People)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has undertaken of the availability of affordable housing for young people.

  Mr. Micheal Spicer
  Various projects in my Department's research programme bear on aspects of availability and affordability.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the director of the Ramblers Association to discuss rights of way in the countryside.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside last met representatives of the Ramblers Association, including the director, on 8 February, when they had a useful and productive discussion on a wide range of access issues.

  Beaches
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the present standard of cleanliness of the beaches in Britain.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1989 a total of 76 per cent. of our bathing waters met the standards set in the EEC bathing water directive compared with only 51 per cent. in 1986. Over the next 10 years, around £2.9 billion will be invested to bring all of our bathing waters up to standard and to treat all significant discharges of sewage.

  Common Land
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to come to a decision on common land before the summer recess.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend still hopes to make an announcement soon on the Government's intentions on common land legislation but cannot commit himself to do so before the summer recess.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 so as to make it an offence to remove, without consent, any item of historical or archaeological interest from the site of a scheduled ancient monument; and if he will consider less formal measures relating to finds made on an unscheduled site.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to amend the 1979 Act when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. He is also considering the most appropriate measures for finds made on unscheduled sites.

  Wetlands Conservation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 25 June,Official Report, column 39, he will raise at the special session of the United Nations Environmental Programme the problem of wetlands conservation as a priority evolving environmental issue, in relation to Halvergate marshes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I see no need to raise the subject of wetlands conservation at the UNEP governing council since such issues were recently discussed in some depth at the fourth conference of the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance in Montreux, Switzerland.
  563
  Since 1987 Halvergate marshes have been afforded the protection provided by designation of the Broads as an environmentally sensitive area under article 19 of EC regulation 797/85. In 1989 a substantial proportion of the marshes was given additional protection by inclusion in the second tier of the ESA scheme, which imposes more restrictions on operations by participating farmers.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table listing all buildings which are protected by grades I and II status.

  Mr. Trippier
  Local planning authorities hold copies of the lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest in their areas and are required to make them available for public inspection free of charge. A complete set of lists is similarly available for inspection at the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, Fortress house, Savile row, London W1. Since there are now over 435,000 listed buildings in England, with the lists being constantly added to or amended, the hon. Member will understand that publication of a single table listing all such buildings is not a practical proposition.

  Quarry Dust Emissions
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those statutory functions presently discharged by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in respect of quarry dust emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Health and Safety (Emissions to the Atmosphere) Regulations 1983 prescribes certain classes of mineral works as requiring registration under section 9 of the Alkali Works etc. Regulation Act 1906. In these cases, the operator of the process must make an application to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Health and Safety (Emissions to the Atmosphere) Regulations 1989 for a registration. The regulations provide for the advertising of the application and for both it and any subsequent registration granted to be available on a public register maintained by the relevant local authority. These registrations are granted, on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment, by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Before granting a registration, the operator of the process must, by virtue of section 5(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 demonstrate that he is using best practicable means for preventing the emission into the atmosphere from the premises of noxious or offensive substances and for rendering harmless and inoffensive such substances as may be so emitted.

  Part I of the 1974 Act also provides the necessary powers for the appointment by the Secretary of State of inspectors and inspection of registered processes. It also provides for the serving of improvement notices where operators are failing to comply with the terms of their registration and for subsequent legal action for failure to comply with the terms of such a notice. The pursuit of formal legal remedies would normally only be undertaken when discussions between the operator and the inspectorate had failed to secure the necessary improvements.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the National Rivers Authority to discuss progress on implementing anti-pollution measures.

  Mr. Trippier
  I met the chairman of the National Rivers Authority on 9 July to discuss a range of issues relating to the water environment. Since then I have announced that an additional £11 million will be made available to the authority this financial year, if required, over and above the £93 million grant-in-aid already agreed. This decision will enable the authority to continue its planned capital programme and to carry out its pollution control and other functions, in line with the Government's commitment to maintaining the quality of the water environment.

  Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid by the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation in redundancy payments to the general manager, the estates officer (Warrington), and heads of the architecture, marketing, landscaping and interior design departments.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: In accordance with its contractual obligations Warrington and Runcorn development corporation made the following redundancy payments:

  £

  General Manager

  78,955

  Chief Architect and Planner

  44,433

  Sales Manager

  32,354

  Marketing Manager

  25,248

  Chief Landscape Architect

  34,390

  The estates officer (Warrington) did not receive a redundancy payment. The development corporation did not have an interior design department.

  Recycling
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities that have made written submissions on the subject of recycling credits; and if he will make those submissions available to the public on request.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The information requested is given in the table. The submissions cannot be made available without the agreement of the individual authorities concerned since they were not sought on the basis that they would be published.

  Avon

  Woodspring DC

  Bedfordshire

  Mid-Bedfordshire DC

  Berkshire

  Berkshire CC

  Wokingham DC

  Corporation of Slough

  Buckinghamshire

  Buckinghamshire CC

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridgeshire CC

  East Cambridgeshire DC

  565
  Cheshire

  Congleton BC

  Cleveland

  Cleveland CC

  Middlesbrough BC

  Clwyd

  Alyn & Deeside DC

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  Borough of Rhuddlan

  Cornwall

  Borough of Restormel

  Cumbria

  South Lakeland DC

  Devon

  Devon CC

  Teignbridge DC

  Durham

  Durham CC

  Dyfed

  Ceredigion DC

  Borough of Dinefwr

  East Sussex

  East Sussex CC

  Wealden DC

  Essex

  Essex CC

  Brentwood DC

  Rochford DC

  Colchester BC

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucester CC

  Tewkesbury BC

  Greater London

  London Waste Regulation Authority

  North London Waste Authority

  West London Waste Authority

  City of London

  Barking and Dagenham LBC

  Barnet LBC

  Bromley LBC

  Croydon LBC

  Hackney LBC

  Harrow LBC

  Kingston-upon-Thames LBC

  Richmond-upon-Thames LBC

  Sutton LBC

  City of Westminster

  Greater Manchester

  Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority

  Trafford MBC

  Gwent

  Borough of Blaenau Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy BC

  Hampshire

  Hampshire CC

  Eastleigh BC

  Rushmoor BC

  Basingstoke and Dean BC

  Test Valley BC

  City of Portsmouth

  Hereford and Worcester

  City of Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Borough of Watford

  City and District of St. Albans

  566
  Humberside

  Humberside CC

  Borough of Beverley

  Isle of Wight

  Isle of Wight CC

  Kent

  Tonbridge and Malling BC

  Swale BC

  Maidstone BC

  Lancashire

  Lancashire CC

  Preston BC

  Burnley BC

  South Ribble BC

  Leicestershire

  Harborough DC

  Melton BC

  Lincolnshire

  South Holland DC

  Merseyside

  Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority

  Norfolk

  Norfolk CC

  North Norfolk DC

  Norwich City

  Northumberland

  Berwick-upon-Tweed BC

  North Yorkshire

  North Yorkshire CC

  Nottinghamshire

  Nottinghamshire CC

  Newark and Sherwood DC

  City of Nottingham

  Mansfield DC

  Oxfordshire

  Oxfordshire CC

  Cherwell DC

  City of Oxford

  Shropshire

  North Shropshire DC

  Somerset

  West Somerset DC

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley MBC

  Staffordshire

  Newcastle-under-Lyme BC

  South Stafford DC

  City of Stoke-on-Trent

  Surrey

  Borough of Epsom and Ewell

  Spelthorne BC

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead MBC

  South Tyneside MBC

  Borough of Sunderland

  Warwickshire

  Warwickshire CC

  North Warwicks BC

  Rugby BC

  West Glamorgan

  Neath BC

  567
  West Sussex

  West Sussex CC

  Mid-Sussex DC

  Arun DC

  West Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire Waste Management

  Wiltshire

  West Wiltshire DC

  European Football Competitions
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the text of the memoranda sent to the European Football Association by the Minister for Sport recommending the return of English clubs to European football.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]:I am arranging for copies of my letter to the president of UEFA and the report which accompanied it to be placed in the Library of the House. As the report indicates, the information contained in annexes A and B was provided by the police to the Home Office. The information in annex C was provided by the Italian authorities.

  River Mersey (Waste Discharges)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in encouraging industries which discharge waste into the River Mersey to establish treatment facilities.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: Encouraging the proper discharge of waste into the Mersey by private industry is a key aim of the Government's Mersey Basin campaign. The campaign is making good progress and many of the known major dischargers have programmes of remedial work and effluent management plans. As an example my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside opened the third and final phase of an effluent treatment programme at Bridgewater Paper Company in Ellesmere Port on 2 July. At the national level the National Rivers Authority is already the regulatory body and watchdog to safeguard water resources; and the Environmental Protection Bill when enacted will provide for continuing improvements in emission standards as techniques and technology improve.

  River Mersey (Oil Spillage)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the oil spillage on the River Mersey on 12 July.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the financial help he will be awarding to Wirral council following the clean-up operation of oil which leaked from a Kuwait Petroleum Company tanker on 12 July;

  (2) if, following the major spillage of oil from a Kuwait Petroleum Company tanker, he will set up an inquiry to consider the question of responsibility and compensation.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: On Thursday 12 July, an estimated 30 tonnes or so of Kuwaiti crude oil was spilled into the River Mersey at the
  568
  Tranmere oil terminal of Shell Ltd. during tank cleaning operations on the United Kingdom registered MV Tonbridge owned by the Kuwaiti Oil Tanker Company. The marine pollution control unit—MPCU—of the Department of Transport were informed immediately and carried out an aerial reconnaissance of the scene. Under the terms of the Mersey oil spill plan, Mersey and Cheshire fire brigades directed operations to contain the spill and Wirral borough council prepared to carry out a beach cleaning operation using equipment made available by MPCU and on the basis of advice provided by an MPCU expert at the scene. Shell UK Ltd. also commissioned oil recovery and containment operations by specialists from the commercial oil spill service centre at Southampton. Other relevant agencies such as the Nature Conservancy Council and National Rivers Authority were informed and advised on remedial action as appropriate.

  As a result of this action, some oil has been recovered and the remainder widely dispersed, partly as a result of wind and tides. By the weekend, only small quantities were being deposited on the shoreline mainly in the Rock Ferry area close to the tanker terminal on the south bank of the river. Remaining slicks of oil in the river contained mainly a light sheen which was expected to disperse rapidly. No significant impact on areas of importance to wildlife has been reported. The clean-up operations have been scaled down and I applaud the rapid response of all the parties concerned to minimise the impact of this incident.

  Meeting the costs of the clean up operation is a matter for the vessel owners and insurers under the 1969 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage. Liability for this accident has been accepted by the Kuwaiti Oil Tanker Company and the clean-up action taken has been approved by the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation. It is for local authorities and other parties seeking to recover costs to submit claims accordingly.

  Housing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to reverse the fall in dwellings started in Great Britain between May 1989 and May 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: My right hon. Friend's responsibilities extend only to England. We have nearly doubled public expenditure provision for the Housing Corporation, and enabled housing associations to use private finance; this will make possible a near-doubling of their output over the next three years. Output of dwellings by private builders is determined by the market; there has been a temporary downturn in response to tight monetary policy, which is the only way to get on top of inflation.

  City Grants
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria his Department uses for awarding city grants within the private sector.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The criteria used in awarding city grants to the private sector are set out in section two of my Department's city grant guidance notes, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the methods used by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to monitor the disposal of radioactive waste; and what is the current level of monitoring staff in post and the number at the same date in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: Details of methods used for monitoring radioactivity in the environment including those employed by HMIP, are contained in the following HMSO publications which are available in the Library:

  1. "Sampling and Measurement of Radionuclides in the Environment". (Details of the HMIP monitoring programme are shown in the Appendix headed "Establishment F" on page 119).

  2. "Monitoring of Radioactivity in the UK Environment".

  3. "The Assurance of Quality in Environmental Radionuclide Analyses".

  Available information on professional staffing levels in HMIP and prior to that in HM radiochemical inspectorate over the past three years is contained in the Department's management information system returns—MINIS 8–10 —also available in the Library. The MINIS 11 report covering 1989–90 will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his latest estimates of the numbers of people who have been exempted from the poll tax for each category of exempt persons.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: Estimates of numbers of exempt persons were published in the Population Report (England) laid before the House on 11 January 1990. I shall publish further estimates when data are available from local authority returns.

  Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the guidance notes being prepared by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for part A and B processes of the Environment Protection Bill are comprehensive in respect of what constitutes excessive cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: These notes will not address what constitutes excessive cost. A draft of the guidance setting out the Government's interpretation of the concept of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—BATNEEC—was placed in the Library on 26 April 1990.

  Tenants' Incentive Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authorities are participating in the tenants' incentive scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list, for each local authority participating in the tenants' incentive scheme (a) the amount offered to tenants, (b) how many council houses have been vacated and (c) the total number of tenants applying to take part in the scheme; and if he will make a statement;
  570
  (3) what plans he has to increase the participation rate in the tenants' incentive scheme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 June 1990, c. 639]: The table sets out details of 89 local authorities which have been given approval to operate cash incentive schemes in 1990–91, the maximum expenditure to be incurred, and the grants to be made available to households. Details of vacancies created by these schemes and of grant applications will be supplied to my Department by the local authorities concerned at the end of the year.

  Cash incentive schemes can be very valuable in helping existing tenants to move into homes of their own while releasing vacancies for reletting to homeless families. The Department encourages local authorities whose areas would benefit from a cash incentive scheme to bring forward proposals for approval. Once a scheme has been approved, details are published by the local authority and tenants are invited to make applications for grant.

  Local authority cash incentive schemes approved 1990–91 89 schemes; maximum expenditure £41.6 million; maximum number of vacancies 2,700

  Local authority

  Maximum expenditure 1990–91 £

  Maximum number of households assisted

  Maximum grant for each household £

  London

  Barnet

  600,000

  30

  20,000

  Brent

  1·8 million

  150

  13,000

  Bromley

  1·5 million

  120

  13,000

  Camden

  200,000

  20

  20,000

  Croydon

  500,000

  33

  22,000

  Ealing

  2·2 million

  140

  25,000

  Enfield

  1 million

  55

  20,000

  Hackney

  1 million

  50

  20,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  540,000

  30

  18,000

  Haringey

  1·5 million

  100

  20,000

  Harrow

  1 million

  50

  25,000

  Havering

  150,000

  10

  16,000

  Hillingdon

  2·25 million

  150

  15,000

  Hounslow

  150,000

  20

  15,000

  Islington

  1 million

  50

  25,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  750,000

  70

  13,000

  Lambeth

  400,000

  25

  20,000

  Lewisham

  1 million

  70

  15,000

  Merton

  2 million

  140

  15,000

  Redbridge

  3·92 million

  140

  28,000

  Richmond

  300,000

  30

  15,000

  Southwark

  300,000

  34

  10,000

  Wandsworth

  1·95 million

  100

  22,000

  Westminster

  2 million

  100

  20,000

  Eastern

  Aylesbury Vale

  400,000

  20

  20,000

  Harlow

  150,000

  15

  10,000

  Huntingdon

  150,000

  12

  13,000

  Luton

  200,000

  15

  13,000

  Maldon

  100,000

  8

  12,500

  Peterborough

  100,000

  20

  5,000

  Rochford

  100,000

  9

  11,250

  South Bucks

  40,000

  4

  11,000

  St· Albans

  150,000

  6

  25,000

  Watford

  200,000

  15

  13,500

  East Midlands

  Charnwood

  100,000

  10

  10,000

  East Northants

  102,000

  17

  6,000

  South Kesteven

  500,000

  62

  8,000

  South East

  Adur

  100,000

  10

  10,000

  571

  Local authority

  Maximum expenditure 1990–91 £

  Maximum number of households assisted

  Maximum grant for each household £

  Arun

  50,000

  5

  10,000

  Basingstoke and Deane

  250,000

  10

  25,000

  Brighton

  301,500

  15

  20,000

  Canterbury

  300,000

  15

  22,500

  Cherwell

  300,000

  25

  12,500

  Dover

  220,000

  10

  22,000

  East Hampshire

  100,000

  10

  10,000

  Elmbridge

  240,000

  12

  20,000

  Fareham

  107,475

  5

  21,495

  Gillingham

  70,000

  5

  15,000

  Gravesham

  100,000

  10

  10,000

  Hart

  200,000

  8

  25,000

  Hastings

  200,000

  20

  10,000

  Havant

  150,000

  10

  15,000

  Horsham

  250,000

  14

  17,000

  Hove

  500,000

  50

  10,000

  Lewes

  250,000

  25

  10,000

  Maidstone

  500,000

  20

  25,000

  New Forest

  250,000

  15

  17,000

  Oxford

  500,000

  33

  15,000

  Portsmouth

  1,000,000

  50

  20,000

  Reading

  300,000

  15

  20,000

  Reigate and Banstead

  300,000

  15

  20,000

  Rother

  400,000

  17

  23,000

  Runnymede

  100,000

  8

  14,000

  Rushmoor

  100,000

  14

  8,000

  Shepway

  200,000

  9

  21,600

  Slough

  500,000

  38

  13,000

  Southampton

  200,000

  14

  15,000

  Spelthorne

  200,000

  8

  24,000

  Tandridge

  252,000

  20

  12,000

  Test Valley

  100,000

  10

  10,000

  Ton bridge and Malling

  500,000

  20

  25,000

  Tunbridge Wells

  250,000

  11

  24,000

  Vale of White Horse

  150,000

  10

  15,000

  Wealden

  200,000

  10

  20,000

  West Oxfordshire

  100,000

  5

  20,000

  Woking

  135,000

  10

  13,500

  Worthing

  240,000

  16

  15,000

  South west

  Exeter

  50,000

  5

  10,000

  Kennet

  100,000

  10

  10,000

  Purbeck

  75,000

  10

  10,000

  Mendip

  120,000

  12

  10,000

  North Cornwall

  45,000

  6

  7,500

  Poole

  50,000

  7

  7,500

  Salisbury

  100,000

  10

  10,000

  South Somerset

  100,000

  10

  10,000

  Taunton Deane

  200,000

  20

  10,000

  Teignbridge

  7,500

  1

  7,500

  West Midlands

  Stafford

  300,000

  40

  10,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Hambleton

  100,000

  12

  10,000

HEALTH

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what income the agreement between his Department and Porton International Ltd. involving the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research has generated in each full year of its existence.
  572
  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no agreements between the Department and Porton International plc but there are various agreements between the public health laboratory service board and companies in the Porton International group concerning the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, one of which is an agreement on distributorship and marketing of certain products. The amount of income directly generated by this agreement cannot be separately identified, but total receipts from companies in the Porton International group are as follows:

  Year ending

  £

  March

  1985

  6,300

  1986

  165,644

  1987

  824,525

  1988

  1,404,613

  1989

  1,647,370

  1990

  2,719,150

  Total

  6,767,602

  Porton international
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account he will be taking in considering the bid from Porton International Ltd for the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, Porton of any previous advice offered by his Department to companies in the Porton International group about the centre.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We will naturally bear in mind the content of earlier discussions.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings have been held between representatives of the Department and representatives of Porton products Ltd or Porton International Ltd since January 1984; and whether any of these meetings were attended by Ministers in the Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There have been a number of meetings between representatives of the Department and representatives of Porton International plc and its associated companies since January 1984. Ministers were present when appropriate.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects a new fermentation unit to be installed at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research; and what has been the cause of the delay in its installation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The arrangements for the installation of a new fermentation unit at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research depend primarily on the centre's future functions and ownership. Until these matters are determined, it would not be sensible to proceed with the installation of a new unit.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central of 5 July,Official Report, column 672, on current licences held by the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, now many of the licences are covered by the right of marketing and distributorship agreement between Porton Products and the public health laboratory service.
  573
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]:Eighteen of the licences relate directly to products or procedures in the distributorship and marketing agreement.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what valuations of plant, equipment, collections and good will have been carried out at, or on behalf of, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research; and on what dates.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]:A valuation of the land, buildings, plant and fixed equipment at the

  In-patient cases treated1, Northern Region Health Authority, 1982 and 1988–89

  Change

  Health Authority

  1982

  1988–89

  Number

  Per cent.

  Hartlepool

  14,539

  18,857

  4,318

  30

  North Tees

  21,082

  23,833

  2,751

  13

  South Tees

  40,552

  55,464

  14,912

  37

  East Cumbria

  20,618

  25,764

  5,146

  25

  South Cumbria

  17,313

  22,483

  5,170

  30

  West Cumbria

  13,572

  15,682

  2,110

  16

  Darlington

  14,987

  18,858

  3,871

  26

  Durham

  15,825

  18,991

  3,166

  20

  North West Durham

  12,216

  12,603

  387

  3

  South West Durham

  14,127

  17,620

  3,493

  25

  Northumberland

  24,973

  28,433

  3,460

  14

  Gateshead

  18,336

  20,685

  2,349

  13

  Newcastle

  72,968

  92,094

  19,126

  26

  North Tyneside

  14,842

  20,387

  5,545

  37

  South Tyneside

  14,558

  17,604

  3,046

  21

  Sunderland

  45,559

  51,675

  6,116

  13

  Northern RHA

  376,067

  461,033

  84,966

  23

  Source: SH3 return 1982 SH3a return 1988–89

  1 Discharges and Deaths.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many outbreaks of salmonella have occurred in national health service hospitals in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The provisional totals for 1989 and to the week ending 13 July 1990 for reports to the public health laboratory service communicable disease surveillance centre of outbreaks of salmonellosis in national health service hospitals in England and Wales are nine and three respectively. Totals for previous years for comparison are 1986=19; 1987=11; 1988=11.

  Finished consultant episodes (ordinary admissions and day cases) and treatment rates for ICD 290 to National Health Service Hospitals and Units, in England, during 1988–89

  Aged less than 45

  Aged 45 to 64

  Aged 65 to 74

  Aged 75 to 84

  Aged over 85

  Total

  Males

  Hospital episodes

  100

  1,000

  4,000

  9,100

  3,200

  17,400

  Population (Millions)

  15·18

  5·03

  1·87

  0·94

  0·17

  23·19

  Rate (per 1,000)

  0·01

  0·20

  2·13

  9·69

  19·08

  0·75

  Females

  Hospital episodes

  100

  1,000

  4,800

  15,100

  10,300

  31,300

  Population (Millions)

  14·72

  5·14

  2·34

  1·64

  0·51

  24·35

  Rate (per 1,000)

  0·01

  0·19

  2·05

  9·23

  20·17

  1·29

  574
  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research was completed on 14 March 1990. A valuation of other equipment is currently in hand.

  In-patients
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of in-patients treated in(a) 1982 and (b) 1988–89 for all the district health authorities in the northern region, giving the percentage change in each case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of(a) men and (b) women who are suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other dementia who are aged (a) under 40 years, (b) 50 to 60 years, (c) 60 to 70 years, (d) 70 to 80 years, (e) 80 to 90 years and (f) over 90 years; and what proportion that figure is per 1,000 of the population in each band.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The only information available centrally is the number of hospital episodes. The table shows estimated number of finished consultant episodes— ordinary and day case—in National Health Service hospitals and units in England, for the 1988–89 financial year where the diagnosis was senile and presenile dementia —ICD 290—and the corresponding rates per 1,000 population.
  575
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the mental illness specific grant, respite care and Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is the Government's policy that all people suffering from mental illness, including Alzheimer's disease and similar dementias, should benefit from an appropriate range of services, including respite care. The Government will introduce a specific grant to social services authorities from 1 April 1991 to encourage them to increase the level of social care available to this group of clients.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methodology is used to assess the incidence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are not aware of any studies to assess the incidence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia.

  Bracken
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter of 22 May, POH 3/2342/31, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what has been the response to the recommendation made by his Department's independent advisory committee on the carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment for long-term research into bracken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has commissioned research to study the possible transmission of carcinogens from bracken into the human food chain. It is hoped that the results of the study will be available next year. The Department of the Environment is funding research into the distribution, growth and spread of bracken in the United Kingdom.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to him on the adequacy of interpreter services provided by local authorities for people with disabilities who are unable to speak English and, in particular, for those who have additional communication handicaps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Comprehensive information about interpreter services provided by individual local authorities is not held centrally, but it is unlikely that interpreters are appointed solely to help disabled people. A number of local authorities have interpreter and translator posts, to deal with a wide range of business, funded under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. Departmental guidance encourages social services departments to consider the use of professional interpreters where appropriate and the departmentally-funded race equality unit compiled a list last year of some 30 translation and interpretation units run or funded by local authorities. People with additional communication problems tend to look for help to health authorities, a few of which have appointed either multilingual staff to work with speech therapists or speech therapists who themselves speak other languages.

  World Health Organisation Food Agency
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the circulars issued by the World Health Organisation food agency in Geneva since 1983; and what action has been taken on the basis of each one by his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The World Health Organisation has no single agency with sole responsibility for food. However, through a variety of routes the World Health Organisation issues advice and information from time to time on matters related to food. In each case this is carefully considered, in the light of specialist scientific opinion, for its implications for food and food safety policy in this country.

  Etidronate
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there are any plans to license prescription of the drug Etidronate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Product licences for Sodium Etidronate were granted in 1987 for use in the treatment of Pagets disease and hypercalcaemia.

  Welfare Milk Scheme
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the implementation of the revised welfare milk scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has kept the effects of the amendments to the welfare milk reimbursement scheme under constant review since their implementation in January. My noble Friend Baroness Hooper has been in correspondence with the main organisations in the dairy and retail trade and has met representatives of the milk marketing boards and the Dairy Trade Federation—DTF. Departmental officials have also had a number of meetings with the DTF branches of the National Dairymen's Association and other interested bodies.

  Arrangements to share the cost of discounted reimbursement prices are already in operation between most processors and distributors. Similar arrangements between processors and producers have yet to be agreed between the Dairy Trade Federations and the milk marketing boards. The boards have indicated that the effect of the Welfare Food (Amendment) Regulations January 1990, can be taken into account under the established joint committee procedure for negotiating changes in the board's selling price.

  Most recently, the Dairy Trade Federation made formal proposals to the Department for future discounted reimbursement arrangements for welfare milk supplies. We have now authorised negotiations to proceed on the basis of these proposals. The first meeting took place this week.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table for each of the district health authorities in England showing the cost of administrative and clerical staff as a proportion of net revenue expenditure, respectively, for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.
  577
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: Information derived from the 1988–89 annual accounts of district health authorities in England has been placed in the Library.

  The administrative and clerical staff group within the national health service covers a diversity of grades including catering, laundry and other managers and certain ambulance officers as well as administrative, clerical and secretarial staff as such. A number of hospital staff are employed at local levels on clerical and secretarial grades but in fact provide essential support in various departments and without them patient treatment cannot effectively take place. Some such staff work in direct support of clinicians and as ward clerks, releasing qualified staff to carry out tasks for which they are trained.

  Private Patients (Bad Debts)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, for each district health authority, regional health authority and special health authority, the amount written off in respect of bad debts from(a) private in-patients and (b) private out-patients for the latest available year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 14 June 1990]: The information requested derived from the 1988–89 annual accounts—the latest available—of regional and district health authorities in England together with those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals has been placed in the Library. Sums written off in a particular financial year may include amounts due from earlier years.

  We expect health authorities to take all reasonable action to collect their debts. For 1988–89 the total sums written off in respect of private patient debts—£575,819 in-patients and £157,206 out-patients—represented approximately 1 per cent. of the equivalent income figures —£62,422,151 and £14,473,125 net of sums written off— for that year and which represented a valuable resource for the health authorities concerned.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about progress on the proposed amendments to the Food Hygiene Regulations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have today laid before Parliament the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990—S.I. 1431. These will introduce for the first time a system of temperature controls throughout the food chain, and especially during storage, distribution and retail sale in order to minimise the opportunity for growth of pathogenic micro-organisms such as listeria and salmonella. There will be a phased implementation of the provisions to allow all businesses time to ensure that their refrigeration equipment can keep food at the required temperatures.

  Basildon and Thurrock DHA1

  Year

  Average daily number of available hospital beds2

  Discharges and deaths2

  Hospital nursing and midwifery staff (WTE)3

  Hospital medical and dental consultants (WTE)4

  Administration and clerical staff (WTE)

  1960

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1966

  2,360

  14,930

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1970

  2,430

  19,010

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  578
  From 1 April 1991 all foods covered by the Regulations must be kept at or below 8 deg. Centigrade. The foods concerned include all ready prepared meals, soft cheeses, cooked meats, pates and prepared salads.

  From 1 April 1993, the foods which are most at risk of contamination with listeria must be kept at or below 5 deg. Centigrade. These foods include soft cheeses, pates and other prepared foods which are to be eaten without further cooking.

  From 1 April 1992, small delivery vehicles—less than 7.5 tonnes gross weight—will be required to deliver foods in the controlled categories within the 8 deg. Centigrade limit but the regulations as laid will exempt small delivery vehicles making local deliveries from complying with the 5 deg. Centigrade requirement. This provision will be kept under review as the technology develops which would allow small delivery vehicles to comply.

  In all cases there is a 2 deg. Centigrade tolerance to the specified temperatures to allow for the defrost cycle or for the temporary breakdown of the equipment. movement of the food or a step in processing.

  There are exemptions from these temperature provisions for example for canned food and dehydrated foods. Freshly prepared foods do not have to comply with the temperature requirements for limited periods of time.

  The regulations also require foods which are to be served hot to be kept at or above 63 deg. Centigrade.

  The regulations contain detailed provisions. so that everyone affected will know what is required of them, including manufacturers, retailers, caterers, distributors and enforcement officers, the Department of Health is consulting on guidelines for that purpose. These will give details of the foods which are subject to the temperature controls and suggest ways of monitoring refrigeration equipment to ensure that the temperatures are being met. Copies of the draft guidelines will be made available in the Library of the House.

  The temperature control provisions introduced by these regulations are a further step forward in ensuring the safety of our food. They are the first statutory temperature controls for most food businesses. We intend to keep their operation and effectiveness under review in the light of experience and any related European Community measures subsequently introduced.

  Hospitals
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of(a) hospital beds, (b) nurses, (c) consultants and (d) all administrative staff in the national health service hospitals in (i) England and (ii) the Basildon and Thurrock health authority or its predecessor for each of the years 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [pursuant to the reply, 6 July 1990, c. 710–12]: I regret that one of the tables published contained an error. The corrected table for Basildon and Thurrock DHA is as follows:
  579

  Year

  Average daily number of available hospital beds2

  Discharges and deaths2

  Hospital nursing and midwifery staff (WTE)3

  Hospital medical and dental consultants (WTE)4

  Administration and clerical staff (WTE)

  1975

  1,860

  22,920

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  1,880

  29,450

  51,820

  n/a

  5310

  1985

  1,950

  33,300

  2,140

  n/a

  490

  1988

  1,720

  33,710

  1,970

  n/a

  520

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest ten (10).

  2 For years 1966 and 1970 the data is for Tilbury and South East Essex and South Ockenden hospital management committee.

  3 There was a change in nurses' working hours in 1980–81 from 40 to 37.5 hours per week. This has not been taken account of in the calculations.

  4 Figures are not available as consultant's contracts ae not directly held by non-teaching district health authorities.

  5 Due to reorganisation of district boundaries in 1982, 1980 district data is not directly comparable to later years.

  n/a = not available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Offences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give separately for magistrates courts and Crown courts for(a) 1988 and (b) for 1989 the number of cases involving non-scheduled offences in which pleas of not guilty were entered; in how many of these cases verdicts of not guilty were returned; and in how many of these cases trial was by jury.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: (a) Figures for 1988 are:

  Magistrates courts

  Crown courts

  Plea: Not guilty

  4,696

  188

  Verdict: Not guilty

  3,209

  91

  (b) Figures for 1989 are:

  Magistrates courts

  Crown courts

  Plea: Not guilty

  4,006

  144

  Verdict: Not guilty

  3,072

  91

  All Crown court cases involving non-scheduled offences where not guilty pleas were entered were tried by

  Sentenced male prison population, 28 December 1989

  Ages

  Sentence group

  Less than 18 years

  18 to under 25 years

  25 to under 30 years

  30 to under 40 years

  40 to under 50 years

  50 to under 60 years

  60 years plus

  Total

  Up to 3 months

  Scheduled

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Non-scheduled

  0

  12

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  18

  3 to 6 months

  Scheduled

  0

  5

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  9

  Non-scheduled

  5

  16

  7

  7

  6

  0

  0

  41

  6 to 12 months

  Scheduled

  1

  7

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Non-scheduled

  3

  43

  14

  15

  5

  1

  1

  82

  12 to 18 months

  Scheduled

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Non-scheduled

  1

  8

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  15

  18 months to 4 years

  Scheduled

  1

  101

  34

  26

  4

  0

  0

  166

  Non-scheduled

  3

  30

  20

  22

  14

  4

  1

  94

  580
  jury. Figures for magistrates courts include all offences with a plea of not guilty and therefore include a small number of 'terrorist-type' offences.

  Prison Population
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the size of the prison population in Northern Ireland at the end of 1989, divided into terrorist-type offenders and other offenders categorised by sex in the groups: under 18 years old, 18 to 25 years, 25 to 30 years, 30 to 40 years, 40 to 50 years, 50 to 60 years and over 60 years; and if he will give a breakdown of the length of sentence being served by each age group under the headings (i) up to three months, (ii) over three months and up to six months, (iii) over six months and under 12 months, (iv) over 12 months and under 18 months, (v) over 18 months and up to four years, (vi) over four years and up to eight years, (vii) over eight years, and (viii) life.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: The size of the prison population at 28 December 1989 was 1,371, including 16 female prisoners.

  The statistical tables detail the breakdown by sex and age. Statistical information is given for scheduled and non-scheduled offences, information on terrorist-type offenders is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
  581

  Ages

  Sentence group

  Less than 18 years

  18 to under 25 years

  25 to under 30 years

  30 to under 40 years

  40 to under 50 years

  50 to under 60 years

  60 years plus

  Total

  4 to 8 years

  Scheduled

  0

  64

  56

  46

  8

  1

  1

  176

  Non-scheduled

  0

  11

  12

  20

  10

  2

  2

  57

  Over 8 years

  Scheduled

  0

  51

  85

  91

  16

  4

  0

  247

  Non-scheduled

  2

  5

  7

  11

  8

  3

  1

  37

  Life

  Scheduled

  0

  24

  46

  252

  68

  12

  3

  405

  Non-scheduled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Total

  16

  378

  292

  498

  142

  29

  10

  1,365

  Sentenced female prison population, 28 December 1989

  Ages

  18-Under 25

  25-Under 30

  30-Under 40

  40-Under 50

  50-Under 60

  Total

  Sentence Group

  Up to 3 months

  Non-Scheduled

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3–6 Months

  Scheduled

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  6–12 Months

  Non-Scheduled

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  3

  18 Months–4 Years

  Scheduled

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4–8 Years

  Scheduled

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Over 8 Years

  Scheduled

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Life

  Scheduled

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  6

  Total

  3

  6

  4

  2

  1

  16

  Notes:

  1. Age refers to age of prisoner on 28 December 1989.

  2. Includes YOC prisoners.

  3. Life includes those detained at pleasure of the Secretary of State.

  4. Includes fine defaulters and civil prisoners.

  School Closures
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools in Northern Ireland of less than 50 pupils closed in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d) 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The information requested is as follows:-

  Number

  1975

  16

  1980

  10

  1985

  10

  1989

  2

  Our policy remains to support the rationalisation of small schools since this is in the best educational interests of pupils. However, in considering proposals for rationalisation we take into account the likely effects on local communities, particularly in isolated areas.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list in the Official Report those firms and employers which are registered with the
  582
  Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each district council in the county of Tyrone; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each district council in the county of Fermanagh; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees;

  (3) if he will list in the Official Report, those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each district council in County Londonderry; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees;

  (4) if he will list in the Official Report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each district council in County Down; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees;

  (5) if he will list in the Official Report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission for each district council in County Antrim; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees;

  (6) if he will list in the Official Report those firms and employers which are registered with the Northern Ireland

  583
  Fair Employment Commission for each district council in the county of Armagh; and if he will indicate for each such firm and employer the number of employees.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. I am advised, however, that the Fair Employment Commission has provided all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament with a draft of its alphabetical register of concerns indicating the number of employees in each concern.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the Fair Employment Commission to release information on community composition from individual monitoring returns from employers.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The commission has not yet announced its intentions in relation to releasing such information.

  ACE Project (Londonderry)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the ACE project sponsored by the Inner City Trust in Londonderry falls within the Northern Ireland fair employment legislation.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: As a sponsor under the Action for Community Employment programme the Inner City Trust, Londonderry is the employer of ACE workers. Consequently the trust's ACE project falls within the Fair Employment (NI) Acts 1976 and 1989.

  Housing (Repairs and Improvements)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of(a) repair and (b) improvement grant applications (i) approved and (ii) refused by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, in each district council area in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The matters raised are for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Information on the individual grant types or of approvals and refusals of grant in district council areas is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Employment Training
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received a report by Camden training centre on long-term savings in the social security budgets arising from their training provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have not, as yet, received a copy of the report.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research has been done on the savings for social security budgets arising from the employment training and other Government training schemes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The monitoring of the employment training and of other Government training 584
  schemes, including all aspects of expenditure on them, is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Independent Living foundation grants were made to people(a) under 75 years and (b) 75 years or over in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to his answer on 4 July,Official Report, column 607, what increases in national insurance contribution rates would be needed to pay for a basic retirement pension of £58.65 for a single person and £94.05 for a couple if the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund were reintroduced at the same rate as in 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There would be no increase needed in national insurance contributions were the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund to be reintroduced at its 1979 level. However a supplement at that level is equivalent to, for example, nearly 5p in the pound on basic rate income tax in 1990–91.

TRANSPORT

  Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from trading standards officers on the need for further legislation to tackle unroadworthy vehicles.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from trading standards officers on the need for further legislation to tackle unroadworthy vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  Trading standards officers want us to strengthen that part of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which makes it an offence to sell unroadworthy vehicles. We agree and propose to amend the Act at the earliest legislative opportunity.

  They have also asked for powers to inspect used cars on dealers' premises. This requires special expertise and we have pointed out that these powers are already available to authorised examiners including examiners from the vehicle inspectorate. The vehicle inspectorate is keen to respond to any requests from individual trading standards officers.

  M2 Motorway
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about proposals for widening the M2 motorway; and when consideration will be given to making it three lanes each way as far as Faversham.

  Mr. Atkins
  The scheme to widen the M2 between junctions 1 and 3 was extended earlier this year to include the section between junctions 3 and 4. In the light of this the programme for the whole scheme is being reviewed.
  585
  Meanwhile my Department's consultants are continuing to investigate possible options for carrying out proposed widening.

  My Department has no plans at present to widen the M2 beyond junction 4 to Faversham but the need to do so will be kept under review.

  Newport Docks (Traffic Controls)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety implications of Associated British Ports' intermittent discontinuing of traffic controls on Newport docks and the River Usk estuary.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The operation from Newport pierhead of a radio information service for vessels is a matter for Associated British Ports. I understand that this information service is at present operated for 24 hours a day on weekdays, and also at the weekend whenever vessels are using Newport docks. During the periods of operation the service is available at the request of Newport harbour commissioners also to vessels using the River Usk. Vessels are in any event obliged to comply with the Collision Regulations as modified by harbour byelaws relating to navigation within the area of the relevant harbour authority.

  Car Telephones
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he 1 as on regulations prevailing in other European Community countries to restrict the use of car telephones by drivers of moving vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  I deplore the use of hand-held telephones by drivers while their vehicle is moving. A survey conducted last year by the European Commission found that no member country had specific legislation controlling the use of in-car telephones. Like the United Kingdom, our European partners found that their general offences of driving without proper control or attention gave police adequate powers for dealing with irresponsible drivers.

  A249 (Improvements)
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest forecast for the programme for the improvement of the A249 from the M2 to the Kingsferry bridge.

  Mr. Atkins
  Draft proposals for the Iwade bypass— Bobbing-Kingsferry—were published in March. They will need to be considered at a public inquiry—we hope towards the end of the year. Thereafter, the programme will depend on the progress that can be made with the statutory procedures, but subject to that I hope it will be possible to start work in 1993 for completion by about 1995. The present programme for the improvement of the adjoining section of A249 between the A2 and M2 is about six months behind that for the Iwade bypass.

  DVLC (Information)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list(a) the persons or types of persons that may obtain names and addresses from Driver and Vehicle
  586
  Licensing Centre files in Swansea and (b) the number of disclosures of names and addresses that they have received over the last year; what action his Department takes if it discovers that a recipient of information should not have received the name and address; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  (a) Regulation 15 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971 requires the Secretary of State to provide, free of charge from the vehicle register, names and addresses of vehicle keepers to the police and to local authorities for use in connection with an offence. This information must also be made available to those who can show "reasonable cause" for their inquiry—generally matters relating directly to the use of the vehicle—and pay the prescribed fee.

  Information from the drivers' register at DVLC is provided to the driver, a third party who has the driver's consent, the police, other law enforcement agencies and others registered for disclosure under the Data Protection Act 1984. Names and addresses alone are rarely disclosed.

  (b) In the financial year 1989–90, there were about 13 million disclosures from the vehicles register and about 1.3 million from the drivers register. A complete breakdown is not readily available but the tables attached show an estimated breakdown of disclosures from both the vehicles and drivers registers.

  Name and address disclosures—Financial year 1989–90

  Number

  VEHICLES REGISTER

  Inquiries by tape interchange

  Metropolitan Police Central Ticket Office

  1,687,789

  Police, Ticket Offices, Local Authorities

  3,493,634

  Vehicle Manufacturers' Safety Recalls

  6,031,531

  Manual inquiries

  Police

  166,263

  Local Authorities and Government Departments

  1,385,469

  Public/insurance companies and finance houses

  252,696

  TOTAL

  13,017,382

  DRIVERS REGISTER

  Police and Courts

  1,000,000

  Internal DVLC enquiries which, inter alia, are used to provide information to drivers, third parties (with the driver's consent) and other Government Departments including Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue

  295,000

  Other parts of the Department of Transport and the statutory licensing authorities in the traffic areas

  40,000

  TOTAL

  1,335,000

  If the Department discovers that there has been an invalid disclosure of information the action it takes depends on the circumstances of the case. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind perhaps he will let me have details.

  Rear Seat Belts
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the rear of cars; and what are the latest figures for deaths of, and serious injuries to, unrestrained rear seat passengers.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1988, a total of 307 rear seat passengers who were unrestrained or not reported as having been
  587
  restrained were killed and 3,756 seriously injured. Research shows that some two-thirds of these casualties could have been saved if all rear seat passengers wore seat belts.

  Mandatory wearing by children was introduced in September 1989. Now that the majority of cars have rear belts fitted, the time is approaching when it would be reasonable to consider the introduction of mandatory wearing by adults.

  Newbury Bypass
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is now able to give the likely route for the Newbury bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following a public inquiry between June and November 1988 into the draft proposals for a bypass of the A34 at Newbury, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment are announcing their joint decision tomorrow. I have arranged for my hon. Friend to receive a copy of the decision which is being sent to all those who submitted objections and representations to the draft proposals and to those who attended or were represented at the inquiries.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be received; what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Between 11 November 1987 and 1 July 1990 the Department received 18,145 subject access inquiries, of which 18,122 were inquiries made of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's 86 million driver and vehicle licence records held there on computer; 303,400 transactions are handled each day at the Agency. No prior estimate had been made of the number of subject access inquiries. We have no plans to reconsider the levels of fees charged.

  London Underground
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of station staff on London Underground by category, for each of the years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter which falls within the day-to-day management responsibility of London Underground Limited.

  Congestion (London)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what immediate steps his Department will be taking to alleviate London's congestion problems;

  (2) if he will make a statement on London's congestion problems.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are determined to ensure that London has the transport system it needs to remain a pre-eminent financial and business centre.
  588
  The number of people commuting to work in central London has increased over the last eight years, reflecting the success of the Government's overall economic policies and the transformation of Docklands. This has sharply increased demand for rail and underground services. There has been a slight increase in road traffic.

  To meet this demand, we have backed a £2.2 billion programme of investment by London Transport over the next three years—nearly double in real terms investment for the last three years.

  British Rail plan to invest £1.2 billion in their Network SouthEast sector over the next three years, a 30 per cent. increase in real terms over the previous three years.

  It is not our policy to make it easier for commuters to drive to work in central London. Our priorities for the road system are to improve the north circular road and provide better access to east London and dock lands, to tackle accident blackspots and bottlenecks, to support more effective parking controls and to get traffic out of environmentally sensitive areas. This work is estimated to cost nearly £3 billion over the next 10 years.

  We shall shortly be consulting on detailed proposals for priority routes and other measures to enable traffic in London to flow more freely and safely. Particular attention will be given to measures to make bus travel more attractive.

  M40
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details in the Official Report of the problems which have arisen on the unopened section of the M40 motorway between Gaydon and Banbury, whose financial responsibility the rectification of these problems will be; whether rectification of the problems will delay the opening of this particular section of the motorway; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have identified a problem of heave in the lime stabilised capping layer at some location on the M40 Banbury IV contract under construction between Gaydon and Banbury. Investigations are being carried out into the cause and extent of the problem. Financial responsibility for any necessary remedial works will be for determination under the contract in the light of the ongoing investigations. Any remedial works which may be necessary are not expected to delay the opening, of the scheme.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the per capita level of industrial investment in 1989 in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the comparable figures for West Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Following are the relevant data:

  Industrial1 investment in 1989 $ per capita

  United Kingdom

  1,987

  United States

  2,057

  Germany

  2,474

  France

  2,096

  589

  Industrial1 investment in 1989 $ per capita

  Italy

  2—

  Netherlands

  2—

  1 Defined as private non-residential investment.

  2 Not available.

  Sources: OECD Quarterly National Accounts.

  OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  CSO Economic Trends.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of trade in(a) the first quarter of 1990 and (b) the first quarter of 1979.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of trade in(a) the first quarter of 1990 and (b) the first quarter of 1979.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of trade in(a) the first quarter of 1990 and (b) the first quarter of 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information may be found in table A3 of the Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics and its 1989 mid-year supplement available from the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library.

  Earnings
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many taxpayers he estimates earned more than £18,200 and less than £23,705 in 1989–90; and how much revenue his Department derived from taxing this band;

  (2) how many taxpayers he estimates earned between (a) £16,000 and £17,000, (b) L17,000 and £18,200 and (c) £20,000 and £23,705 in 1989–90; and how much revenue his Department derived from taxing each band.

  Mr. Ryder
  Estimates for 1990–91 are as follows:

  Earnings from employment, 1990–91

  Numbers of taxpayers1 with:

  Earnings band £ pa

  earnings in the band thousands

  earnings above the band thousands

  Liability to income tax on earnings in the band2 £ billion

  £16,001–£17,000

  800

  4,050

  1·1

  £17,001–£18,200

  750

  3,300

  1·1

  £18,201–£20,000

  600

  2,700

  1·3

  £20,001–£23,705

  1,150

  1,550

  1·8

  1 Taxpayers aged under 65, husbands and wives counted separately.

  2 Treated earnings as the lowest slice of income.

  The estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Taxation
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will restore immediately the tax incentive for ship owners placing new orders.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans to do so. The present capital 590
  allowances regime is already more generous for ships than commercial depreciation. Ships have an economic life of 15–20 years, but for tax purposes they can be substantially written off within eight years.

  Shipping
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will take steps to provide the British shipping industry with assistance equal to that provided by other nations for their tonnage.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no present plans to do so. Many of the countries who assist shipping have rates of corporation tax which are higher than the United Kingdom's.

  Mortgage Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the median mortgage qualifying for MIRAS and the current annual cost of servicing it.

  Mr. Ryder
  In 1990–91 the estimated median outstanding mortgage is £25,500. At an interest rate of 15.3 per cent. The interest payment net of basic rate tax relief on an endowment mortgage of this size would amount to £2,926 per year.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of mortgage finance raised each year since 1979 on the security of dwellings for purposes other than buying that dwelling.

  Mr. Ryder
  Full information is not available in the form requested. However, information for 1985 and subsequent years on net advances by building societies secured on residential property is published by the Central Statistical Office in Financial Statistics, June 1990, table 6.9. Information on building society advances secured on dwellings is also contained in Table 7 of the annual report of the Building Societies' Commission for 1987–88 and corresponding tables in previous reports of the commission and the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. Corresponding information is not published for banks and other mortgage lenders.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his target for privatisation proceeds in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Treasury has this morning sold 68 million ordinary shares in British Gas plc, realising a total of £149,727,500.

  Of those 68 million shares, 54 million Ordinary Shares were sold to SG Warburg and Co, Ltd. at a price of 219.75p per share. This price was the result of a competitive tender amongst selected market makers, and represented the highest unconditional bid in that tender. Separately, 14 million ordinary shares were sold to British Gas Employee Shares Trustees Ltd. at a price of 221.875p per share. Stamp duty/stamp duty reserve tax will be paid by the purchasers.

  Under the terms of the 1986 British Gas offer for sale the Government retained a number of shares to meet bonus share entitlements. The bonus shares issue took place in January 1990. The shares sold today represented

  591
  that part of those originally retained which proved surplus to requirements. The Government stated, in the prospectus for the 1986 Offer, that it would sell any surplus shares.

  The Treasury consulted British Gas plc prior to the sale. The Treasury was advised on this sale by NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy continues to hold a special share in British Gas. His Department also retains a small number of ordinary shares in order to meet any unresolved bonus share entitlements.

  The almost £150 million raised by this sale will contribute to the £5 billion target for privatisation proceeds this year.

WALES

  GCSE Examinations
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, in rank order, the percentage of all pupils gaining a GCSE pass A to C in(a) mathematics, (b) English, (c) a modern European language and (d) Welsh for each education authority.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the percentages of all pupils in schools gaining GCSE grades A to C in the given subjects is contained in the tables.

  In order to avoid double counting of pupils sitting more than one foreign language examination the percentages of those taking French and German are given separately.

  Percentage of pupils gaining GCSE grade A to C in English, Summer 19891

  Welsh counties

  Percentage of pupils

  Dyfed

  44·0

  South Glamorgan

  39·7

  Powys

  38·7

  Gwynedd

  36·2

  West Glamorgan

  35·4

  Gwent

  34·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  34·0

  Clwyd

  29·3

  1 As a proportion of pupils in all schools.

  Source: Welsh Joint Education Committee. In the summer examinations of 1989, the WJEC accounted for 95 per cent. of GCSE examinations sat by pupils in Welsh centres.

  Percentage of pupils gaining GCSE grade A to C in mathematics, Summer 19891

  Welsh counties

  Percentage of pupils

  Clwyd

  35·8

  South Glamorgan

  35·0

  Powys

  33·3

  West Glamorgan

  32·3

  Dyfed

  31·3

  Gwent

  30·8

  Gwynedd

  28·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  28·5

  1 As a proportion of pupils in all schools.

  Source: Welsh Joint Education Committee. In the summer examinations of 1989, the WJEC accounted for 95 per cent. of GCSE examinations sat by pupils in Welsh centres.
  592

  Percentage of pupils gaining GCSE grades A to C in French, Summer 19891

  Welsh counties

  Percentage of pupils

  Gwent

  16·6

  Dyfed

  15·4

  South Glamorgan

  15·0

  Powys

  14·2

  Clwyd

  12·1

  Gwynedd

  11·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  9·0

  West Glamorgan

  5·7

  1 As a proportion of pupils in all schools.

  Source: Welsh Joint Education Committee. In the summer examinations of 1989, the WJEC accounted for 95 per cent. of GCSE examinations sat by pupils in Welsh centres.

  Percentage of pupils gaining GCSE grades A to C in German, Summer 19891

  Welsh counties

  Percentage of pupils

  South Glamorgan

  4·7

  Gwent

  4·5

  Dyfed

  3·4

  Powys

  3·3

  Clwyd

  2·6

  Gwynedd

  2·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·6

  West Glamorgan

  1·3

  1 As a proportion of pupils in all schools.

  Source: Welsh Joint Education Committee. In the summer examinations of 1989, the WJEC accounted for 95 per cent. of GCSE examinations sat by pupils in Welsh centres.

  Percentage of pupils gaining GCSE grades A to C in Welsh as a first language, Summer 19891

  Welsh counties

  Percentage of pupils

  Gwynedd

  15·3

  Dyfed

  7·5

  Clwyd

  2·0

  Powys

  1·9

  South Glamorgan

  1·9

  West Glamorgan

  1·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·5

  Gwent

  —

  1 As a proportion of pupils in all schools.

  Source: Welsh Joint Education Committee. In the summer examinations of 1989, the WJEC accounted for 95 per cent. of GCSE examinations sat by pupils in Welsh centres.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each family practitioner committee in Wales the budget his Department has allocated to it for the current financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  About 90 per cent. of the financial provision for family practitioner services is not cash limited and not subject to allocation. However, each family practitioner committee is responsible for managing two separate cash allocations. Each has an allocation to meet their current revenue administration costs. A further cash allocation has been delegated to FPCs towards the costs of practice staff employed, and premises improvements undertaken, by general medical practitioners.

  The cash limits issued to FPCs at the outset of this financial year are detailed in the tables.
  593

  Table 1

  Family practitioner committee administration revenue allocation

  Family practitioner committee

  Cash allocation (net) £"000

  Clwyd

  769

  Dyfed

  695

  Gwent

  871

  Gwynedd

  579

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,013

  Powys

  402

  South Glamorgan

  990

  West Glamorgan

  689

  Table 2

  Practice premises and staff allocation

  Family practitioner committee

  Cash allocation £"000

  Clwyd

  2,323

  Dyfed

  3,541

  Gwent

  3,614

  Gwynedd

  2,218

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,833

  Powys

  1,532

  South Glamorgan

  3,492

  West Glamorgan

  2,413

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be received; what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has received two requests for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act. It did not attempt to estimate the number of requests which might be received, and at present there are no plans to reconsider the level of subject access fees.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to require health authorities in Wales to provide full information and to consult local communities on(a) planning of services and (b) financial planning on an annual basis.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The Community Health Council Regulations 1985—SI 1985 No. 304—require health authorities to consult community health councils on any substantial development of, or variation in, the services provided in the district. In addition, the regulations require health authorities to provide such information about the planning and operation of health services in the district as a CHC may reasonably need in order to carry out its duties.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the individuals and bodies which have commented on his proposal to reduce the number of community health councils in Wales; and how many were for a reduction and how many against a reduction.

  Mr. Grist
  The table lists the individuals and bodies who responded to the consultation paper "Review of 594
  Community Health Councils in Wales". Of those who expressed an opinion on the matter, 184 were against the proposed reduction in the number of community health councils and 14 were in favour.

  League of Friends of St. David's Hospital

  St. Davids Foundation

  Ynys Mon Muscular Dystrophy

  Soroptomist International of Dolgellau and District

  National Old Age Pensioners Association of Wales

  Soroptimist International—Aberystwyth and District

  Age Concern Wales

  Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme—Isle of Anglesey

  Brecon Hospital League of Friends

  Little Aston Womens Institute

  Gwynedd Drugs Council

  Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)—South Wales

  League of Friends of the West Wales General Hospital

  Brecknock Association for the Welfare of the Blind

  Health Visitors Association

  The Board of Mission Church in Wales Centre

  League of Friends of the Barry Hospitals

  The Schizophrenia Association of Great Britain

  Age Concern—Clwyd

  League of Hospital Friends, Conwy and Groesynyd

  Ynys Mon Volunteer Bureau

  MIND—Rhymney Valley and District Association

  Mid Glamorgan Association of Voluntary Organisations

  Age Concern—West Glamorgan

  Morgannwg Hospital League of Friends

  Raynauds Association Trust

  Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Llangynwyd Old Age Pensioners Association

  MIND—North Wales Development Project

  Wales Council for the Blind

  Gwynedd Voluntary Services

  Gwynedd Society for the Disabled

  MENCAP—Llanelli and District

  Neath Hospital Society of Friends

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  Preseli-Pembrokeshire District Council

  Connahs Quay Town Council

  West Glamorgan County Council

  North Wales Association of Town Councils

  Meirionnydd District Council

  Mid Glamorgan County Council

  Alyn and Deeside District Council

  Newport Borough Council

  Ceredigion District Council

  Chepstow Town Council

  Buckley Town Council

  Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council

  Dyfed County Council

  Llansanffraid-Glan Conwy Community Council

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  Gwent County Council

  Llangattock Community Council

  Lliw Valley Borough Council

  Gwernaffield Community Council

  Swansea City Council

  Delyn Borough Council

  Amlwch Town Council

  Llanrwst Town Council

  Powys County Council

  Chirk Town Council

  Islwyn Borough Council

  Llanfynydd Community Council

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Arfon Borough Council

  Penarth Town Council

  Neath Borough Council

  Llangynidr Community Council

  Cyngor Dosbarth Dwyfor

  Rhymney Valley District Council

  Holyhead Town Council

  Penyffordd Community Council

  Argoed Community Council

  Saltney Town Council

  Taff Ely Borough Council

  Shotton Town Council

  595

  Hawarden Community Council

  Vale of Grwyney Council

  Powys Association of Town and Community Councils

  Llandough Community Council

  Rhosllannerchrugog Community Council

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  Holywell Town Council

  Bronllys Community Council

  Torfaen Borough Council

  Croesyceiliog and Llanyrafon Community Council

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Gwynedd County Council

  Llangybi Community Council

  New Radnor Community Council

  St. Athen Community Council

  Radnorshire Borough Council

  Dolgellau Town Council

  Llantwit Major Town Council

  Rhoose Community Council

  Gwynedd County Council

  Isle of Anglesey Borough Council

  Barry Town Council

  Broughton and Bretton Community Council

  Old Radnor Community Council

  Carmarthen District Council

  City of Bangor Council

  Pontypool Community Council

  Llanelli Borough Council

  St. Harmon Community Council

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  Ogwr Borough Council

  South Glamorgan County Council

  Beaumaris Town Council

  Wales Association of Community and Town Councils

  Rhondda Borough Council

  The Council of Welsh Districts

  Ffestiniog Town Council

  Gwent County Council

  Newport Borough Council

  Caerwent Community Council

  Caldicot Town Council

  Chepstow Town Council

  Cwmbran Community Council

  Llanvaches Community Council

  Michaelston-Y-Fedw Community Council

  Raglan Community Council

  Llangefni Town Council

  National Association of Local Councils

  Tawe Uchaf Community Council

  Ystradgynlais Community Council

  Bro Machno Council

  Mathern Community Council

  West Glamorgan Family Practitioner Committee

  Powys Family Practitioner Committee

  Clwyd Family Practitioner Committee

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority

  South Glamorgan Family Practitioner Committee

  Gwynedd Health Authority

  Dyfed Family Practitioner Committee

  Gwent Family Practitioner Committee

  Mid Glamorgan Family Practitioner Committee

  Gwent Health Authority

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  Clwyd Health Authority

  Mid Glamorgan Health Authority

  West Glamorgan Health Authority

  Powys Health Authority

  Clwyd South Community Health Council

  Arfon/Dwyfor Community Health Council

  Joint Committee of Mid Glamorgan Community Health Councils

  North Gwent Community Health Council

  Brecknock and Radnor Community Health Council

  Aberconwy Community Health Council

  Pembrokeshire Community Health Council

  Clwyd North Community Health Council

  Llanelli/Dinefwr Community Health Council

  Cardiff Community Health Council

  596

  Carmarthen/Dinefwr Community Health Council

  Neath and Port Talbot Community Health Council

  Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales

  Ceredigion Community Health Council

  South Gwent Community Health Council

  Vale of Glamorgan Community Health Council

  Swansea and Lliw Valley Community Health Council

  Ynys Mon Community Health Council

  Meirionnydd Community Health Council

  Association of Welsh Community Health Councils

  Montgomery Community Health Council

  Ms. Susan Murray, New Radnor, Powys

  Councillor June Stanton, Swansea

  Mr. R. J. Dean, Brecon, Powys

  Mr. A. Challoner, Bodelwyddan, Clwyd

  British Medical Association—Welsh Office

  Mr. R. Davies, Caernarfon, Gwynedd

  Councillor H. Pearce-Geary, Colwyn Bay, Clwyd

  Mr. R. John, Cardiff, South Glamorgan

  Diocese of Llandaff Council for Social Responsibility

  Royal College of Nursing—Welsh Board

  Welsh Nursing, Midwifery Committee

  Clwyd Federation of the Parent-Teacher Association

  Llandough Women's Institute

  Vale of Glamorgan Social and Democratic Party

  Albert Road Methodist Church and Community Centre, Penarth

  National Health Service Retirement Fellowship

  T & GWU Retired Members Association

  Welsh Hospitals and Health Services Association

  Gwent College of Higher Education

  The Methodist Church, Newport Gwent Circuit

  Isle of Anglesey Federation of Women's Institutes

  Cardiff and District Cooperative Party

  Cardiff Labour Women's Council

  Blackwood and District Trades Council

  Liaison Committee of Royal Colleges and Faculties in Wales

  Bishop of St. Asaph

  Vale of Glamorgan Trades Union Council

  Conway Liberal Democratic Party

  Welsh Consumer Council

  Llandrindod Hospital League of Friends

  Llandaff Society—The Civil Trust for Wales

  Cardiff South and Penarth Constituency Labour Party

  Mr. C. Fawcett, Penmaenmawr, Gwynedd

  Mr. O. P. Galpin, Llandudno, Gwynedd

  Pensioners Voice—Llandudno

  Llandudno Hospital League of Friends

  Glyndwr District Council

  Association of District Councils—Clwyd and Gwynedd Branch

  Miss K. Smith, Llandudno Junction, Gwynedd

  North Wales Society for the Blind

  Henryd Community Council

  Llandudno Town Council

  Islwyn Labour Party

  Mrs. B. N. Craven, Llandudno, Gwynedd

  Mr. Keith Raffan MP

  Mr. Dafydd Wigley MP

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones MP

  Mr. Ted Rowlands MP

  Mr. Barry Jones MP

  Mr. Alex Carlile QC MP

  Mr. Joe Wilson MP

  Mr. Martin Jones MP

  Dr. John Marek MP

  Mr. Wyn Griffiths MP

  Mr. Richard Livesey MP

  Mr. Alun Michael JP MP

  Myodil
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement setting out the history of the use of Myodil in hospitals in Wales, the symptoms that have arisen for some patients, the steps taken by the national
  597
  health service in Wales to tackle and alleviate such problems and his latest assessment of continuing problems for individuals and families in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my letter of 27 April, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, to which there is nothing I can usefully add.

  Older Housing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sum of money his Department is to make available for environmental landscaping in areas of older housing in Wales(a) in the present financial year and (b) in the 1991–92 financial year; and whether such sums are included in his Department's budget for the renewal areas scheme.

  Mr. Grist
  Environmental works promoted by local authorities in general improvement areas and housing action areas have attracted exchequer support of £274,375 in the current financial year. In addition, credit approvals of £26 million have been made available for enveloping and group repair schemes both in the statutory action areas and in the new renewal areas. A further £1 million is available to supplement financial commitments made by local authorities on particular activities in renewal areas. It is not at this stage possible to anticipate the level of resources which may be available in future years.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been provided to each local authority in Wales in order to develop the renewal areas scheme for older housing in Wales(a) so far this financial year and (b) prior to April; and for what purposes this money was provided.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 17 July 1990.

  Community Care
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the implementation in Wales of the proposals in the White Paper, "Caring for People".

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government are committed to the policies set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" which are designed to improve social care and related health services by ensuring that they are properly targeted to meet the needs of individual people. Nonetheless, in the light of the disappointing failure of many local authorities to budget for reasonable increases in expenditure, it would be unwise, and contrary to the interests of community chargepayers, to implement all the proposals of "Caring for People" simultaneously on 1 April 1991.

  Our wholehearted commitment to the implementation of the proposals in the White Paper will be maintained through a programme of phased implementation, the full details of which will be discussed with the social services and health authorities and other interests in Wales, within the following framework.

  We have well established and widely respected all-Wales strategies to secure the development of new patterns of services for people with mental handicaps and mental illnesses. We have already announced record levels of additional expenditure in support of those developments. Under the mental handicap strategy, grants from
  598
  the Welsh Office will total £26.1 million in the current year, an increase of some £7.5 million compared with 1989–90. Under the mental illness strategy we are making available additional grant of over £2 million, on top of recurrent specific allocations for this purpose made since 1978–79 of over £13 million. These strategies will continue.

  To combat drug misuse, we have made available £1.6 million this year to local statutory and voluntary agencies and £350,000 for the central prevention campaign and for needle and syringe exchange schemes. We are providing £150,000 of additional revenue this year for local projects to combat alcohol misuse. These initiatives will be maintained and will continue to support prevention, treatment and rehabilitation in residential and non-residential settings.

  We have also already announced expenditure of some £300,000 this year and next to support demonstration projects in each county on the development of assessment and case management for individuals in need of care. In addition, my Department is making available £163,000 under a support programme for management development and post-qualifying training in personal social services. We are reviewing with the local authorities and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work how this can be strengthened in the light of policy developments including the "Caring for People" White Paper.

  As announced in the White Paper, from 1 April 1991 carefully targeted grants will be available to encourage the development of more flexible forms of domiciliary care for elderly people and those with physical or sensory disabilities. These will replace the current range of grants that the Welsh Office makes available for these and related purposes under the elderly initiative, the urban programme and the joint finance arrangements. Details will be announced shortly.

  Also from next April, we propose that social services authorities will be required to establish the new inspection units and complaints procedures. Development work will continue on the new planning arrangements, assessment and case management procedures, and the realignment of commissioning and providing responsibilities within social services departments.

  From 1 April 1992 we intend to implement the new planning arrangements and to continue with the remaining development work.

  From 1 April 1993 we intend to introduce generally the new arrangements for assessment and case management, together with the changes in the financial arrangements for people needing public support for care. These will require the social services authorities to meet the costs of care whether in people's own homes or in residential care and nursing homes, where they decide that such care would be appropriate, and will involve the transfer of the relevant resources from the social security programme. Also from 1 April 1993 the tests of resources and personal allowances for people in local authority and independently run homes will be brought into line, and the White Paper proposals on preservation of benefit rights for people already in homes will be implemented.

  Magnificent strides have been made over recent years by local agencies working with the Welsh Office on our existing strategies and initiatives, and in development work since the publication of the White Paper, to ensure a coherent framework and arrangements on the ground for the delivery of quality health and social care for those in

  599
  need. That work will continue and be enhanced under the phased programme for development which I have outlined. I am confident that the local and health authorities and other interests in Wales, including representatives of the voluntary and private sectors and of users and carers, will continue to work closely with the Welsh Office to ensure its successful implementation.

  Toxic Waste Disposal
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to respond to the Welsh Affairs Committee's report "Toxic Waste Disposal in Wales", published on 28 March.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am pleased to announce that the response has been published today.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Fees Office
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what was the total cost of running the Fees Office for the last three years for which figures are available, indicating separately staff salaries and use of 3 Dean's yard.

  Mr. Beith
  It is not possible to separate the costs of running the Fees Office from the Administration Department of which it is a constituent part. Expenditure in respect of the Administration Department made from sub-head A5 of the House of Commons administration vote in each of the years in question was as follows:

  Salary etc. costs £

  General administration expenses1 £

  1987–88

  1,259,350·40

  21,083·67

  1988–89

  1,420,115·92

  29,593·47

  1989–90

  1,571,996·78

  59,527·02

  1 Excluding premium for Members' group personal accident insurance.

  Payments in respect of common services, for example, telephones, are made from other sub-heads of the vote and these costs cannot be apportioned between users.

  Expenditure in respect of rent, fuel utilities and maintenance of No. 3 Dean's yard, which also accommodates Members and their staff was £320,000 in 1987–88, £380,000 in 1988–89 and £360,000 in 1989–90. Costs related to the Fees Office cannot be separately identified.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Merit Awards
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, further to his reply of 5 July to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing),Official Report, column 1131, what consideration he has now given to the provision of merit awards for right hon. and hon. Members.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have no plans to implement a scheme of merit awards for Members, but the hon.600
  Member's interesting suggestion poses the question of how the parameters of such a scheme would be defined and who would decide whether or not a Member qualified for such an award. It has been suggested that quality of performance is in inverse proportion to quantity.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Contracts (Value-for-money Inquiries)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that no contractual relationship exists between Messrs Biwaters and any firms of consultants Her Majesty's Government have employed on value-for-money inquiries, checks or audits on contracts assisted by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At the time of commissioning the value-for-money checks on the two ODA-supported projects in which Biwater is involved, there were no contractual relationships between Biwater and either the firms or the individual specialist carrying out the VFM checks.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what value-for-money inquiry or checks have been carried out by which consultants acting for Her Majesty's Government on contracts between Thailand and Biwaters which have been assisted by the Overseas Development Administration;

  (2) which firm or firms have been contracted to carry out the value-for-money inquiry audit or check required by the Overseas Development Adminstration on the British bid for the Green E'Sarn irrigation and forestry project in Thailand.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No firm offers of aid have been made in support of contracts between Biwaters and the Government of Thailand. Her Majesty's Government have been approached for concessional finance for the Green E'Sarn programme. We have indicated to the Government of Thailand our readiness in principle to consider this. Commercial negotiations have not reached the stage where a value for money investigation will be required.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date Sir William Halcrow and Partners were employed by Her Majesty's Government to carry out a value-for-money inquiry into contracts between Biwaters and Malaysia which received assistance from the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The value-for-money inquiry was commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry on 2 December 1985.

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to alleviate the debt burden on sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Houston economic summit reaffirmed the international debt strategy under which
  601
  Governments provide financial assistance to those indebted countries who are pursuing agreed programmes of economic reform. This assistance is available through the IMF and World bank, bilateral donors such as the United Kingdom, and the rescheduling of official debts in the Paris Club. The United Kingdom has taken the lead in developing additional measures for the poorest countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, whose debt is mainly owned to official creditors. These measures include the cancellation of old aid debts, and the rescheduling of other official debt on concessional terms.

  For middle-income countries, mostly in Latin America, whose debt is mainly owed to commercial banks, these banks are increasingly ready to allow a measure of debt reduction in the financing packages which they negotiate with these countries. A further incentive for such voluntary market-based debt reduction has been provided by last year's decision of the IMF and World bank to allow some of their resources to be used in support of such deals.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table listing gross British bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa from 1979 to 1989, in constant 1989 prices.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information is as follows:

  Gross bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa

  £ thousands

  Year

  Current prices

  Constant (1989) prices

  1979

  214,572

  441,869

  1980

  243,894

  420,176

  1981

  245,789

  380,189

  1982

  234,760

  337,407

  1983

  225,899

  308,311

  1984

  249,808

  325,849

  1985

  294,217

  363,305

  1986

  267,816

  320,025

  1987

  294,588

  334,837

  1988

  400,351

  427,367

  11989

  496,202

  496,202

  1 Provisional.

SCOTLAND

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all bathing beaches nominated by each of the river purification boards and the number and location of those which were subsequently approved as designated beaches by his Department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The full list of bathing waters nominated by the river purification boards in 1985 is as follows:

  Highland RPB

  Nairn

  Dornoch South

  Little Sand (Gairloch)

  Embo

  Burghead Bay

  Gairloch

  Gruinard South

  Thurso

  Dunnet Bay/Murkle Bay, Thurso

  Trinkie South Head, Wick

  Sinclair's Bay, Wick

  Brora

  Fortrose/Rosemarkie

  Morar/Traigh, Mallaig

  Back of Keppock/Bunacaimb, Arisaig

  Sango Bay/Balnakeil Bay, Durness

  Sangobeg, Durness

  Mellon Udrigle, Gruinard Bay

  Achnahaird Bay, Achiltibuie

  Clachtoll/Stoer, Lochinver

  Achmelvich, Lochinver

  Glenbrittle, Skye

  Farr Bay/Torrisdale Bay, Bettyhill

  Coldbackie, Tongue Bay

  Freswick Bay, John o'Groats

  Golspie

  Scourie

  Applecross

  Sand/Laide, Gruinard Bay

  Sandside Bay, Reay

  Loth, Crackaig, East Sutherland

  Portmahomack

  Melvich, Sutherland

  Talmine, Sutherland

  Hopeman

  Drumbeg, Lochinver

  Clashnessie Bay, Lochinver

  Strathy Bay

  Mellangaun, Loch Ewe

  Sanna Bay, Ardnamurchan

  Sheigra, Kinlochbervie

  Invernaver, North Sutherland

  Armadale Bay, North Sutherland

  Balintore/Shandwick

  Cromarty

  Ullapool

  North East RPB

  Lossiemouth West and East

  Strathlene, Buckie

  Findochty

  Cullen

  Fraserburgh

  Banff Links

  Sandend

  Cruden Bay

  Ugie Mouth and Craigewan Sands, Peterhead

  Sandyends, Banff

  New Aberdour

  Lido, Peterhead

  Balmedie

  Newburgh Sands

  Aberdeen Beach

  St. Cyrus

  604
  Tay RPB

  St. Andrews, East and West

  Arbroath

  Carnoustie

  Montrose

  Monifieth

  Broughty Ferry

  Kinshaldy (Tentsmuir)

  Cambo (Kingsbarns)

  Lunan Bay

  Balcomie Links (Crail)

  St. Cyrus

  Forth RPB

  Gosford Sands

  Kinghorn (Pettycur)

  Gullane Bay

  Aberdour (Silver sands)

  North Berwick

  Elie/Earisferry

  Yellowcraigs

  Crail (Roome Bay)

  Portobello

  Whitesands Bay

  Largo Bay

  Tweed RPB

  Pease Bay

  St. Abbs/Coldingham

  Eyemouth

  Solway RBP

  Sandyhills

  Mossyard and Cardoness

  Brighouse Bay

  Carrick and Sandgreen

  Killantringan Bay

  Ardwell Bay

  Port Logan Bay

  Monrieth Bay

  Luce Bay Sands

  Southerness

  Clyde RPB

  Ayr (South,

  Prestwick

  Largs (North)

  Troon (South)

  Maidens

  Barassie

  Troon (North)

  Irvine/Gailes

  Girvan

  Lunderston Bay

  Largs (South)

  Croy

  Saltcoats

  Milport

  Helensburgh

  Doonfoot

  Rothesay

  Stevenston

  Butlins (Ayr)

  Brodick

  Ganavan (Oban)

  Seamill—West Kilbride

  Fairlie

  Machrihanish

  Dunure

  Portenvoss

  Turnberry

  The list of waters which were subsequently identified for the purposes of the bathing waters directive is as follows:

  Nairn (East Bench)

  Cullen

  Fraserburgh

  Aberdeen

  Montrose

  605

  Arbroath

  Carnoustie

  St. Andrews (West Sands)

  Kinghorn (Pettycur)

  Aberdour (Silversands)

  Gullane

  Yellowcraigs

  North Berwick (Milsey Bay)

  Dunbar (Belhaven Bay)

  Pease Bay

  Sandyhills

  Girvan

  Turnberry

  Ayr (South Beach)

  Prestwick

  Troon (South Beach)

  Irvine/Gailes (New Town)

  Saltcoats/Ardrossan (South Beach)

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that non-designated bathing beaches are monitored regularly and conform to the coliform bacteria standards of the European Community bathing water directive applied to designated bathing beaches.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for implementation of the bathing waters directive in Scotland (76/160/EEC) and therefore for ensuring that Scottish waters identified in terms of the directive are monitored regularly. Monitoring of non-identified waters is carried out by the river purification authorities as part of their statutory responsibilities to control aquatic pollution. Such monitoring is generally in line with that required by the directive for identified waters. Results of monitoring are published in the annual reports of the river purification boards, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of designated bathing beaches in Scotland which met the recommended guideline standards as well as the minimum mandatory standards for coliform bacteria set by the European Community bathing water directive.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1989, Cullen and Pease bay met the guideline (G) and mandatory (I) quality requirements specified in the bathing waters directive (76/160/EEC) for total coliforms. Pease bay met the G and I quality requirements for faecal coliforms.
  606
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department informed the European Commission of the results of the monitoring carried out by river purification boards in 1989 which showed the number of bathing waters which conformed to the mandatory standards for coliform bacteria set by the European Community bathing water directive.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scotland's bathing water monitoring results for 1989 were reported to the European Commission by the office of the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Communities on 8 February 1990, along with the results for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what criteria are applied in deciding which bathing beaches are designated; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to extend the number of designated bathing beaches in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for identifying Scottish bathing waters in terms of directive 76/160/EC lies with the Secretary of State for Scotland. The directive defines bathing waters as fresh or sea water where(a) bathing is explicitly authorised or (b) bathing is not prohibited, and is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers. The list of 23 bathing waters currently identified in Scotland was drawn up from nominations made by the river purification boards after consultation with district councils and was finalised following discussion with the European Commission.

  There are no plans at present to amend the current list. The position is, however, kept under review and any future amendments would be made by my right hon. and learned Friend taking account of, amongst others, the following objective criteria suggested for this purpose by the European Commission:

  (1) facilities for access to the beach

  (2) sanitary equipment

  (3) facilities for changing

  (4) parking space for cars

  (5) lifeguards on the beach

  (6) first aid service

  (7) kiosks and shops (mobile shops)

  (8) water sports facilities (boats, surfing, swimming lessons)

  Sewage Outfalls
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the numbers, percentages and locations of long sea sewage outfalls; and what are the quantities of treated and untreated sewage discharged at each location;

  (2) if he will list the numbers, percentages and locations of sewage outfalls which discharge at or above the low water mark; and what are the quantities of treated and untreated sewage discharged at each location.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are approximately 800 local authority sewage outfalls in Scotland which discharge directly to estuaries or coastal waters. The detail sought is too lengthy for inclusion in the Official Report. A summary is, however, contained in the technical report "Sewage Works and Discharges Archive Report 1987" produced by the Scottish Development Department, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures showing the total quantities of treated and untreated sewage discharged into the sea off the Scottish coast.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1985, the latest year for which published information is available, approximately 755,000 cu m per day of sewage was discharged to Scottish estuarine and coastal waters. Of this, around 290,000 cu m per day was untreated and around 146,000 cu m per day received preliminary treatment. The balance received at least primary treatment.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers he has to enforce stricter emission standards for car exhausts; and whether he intends to use them.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The enforcement of emission standards is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Plans for reductions of emissions are contained in the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport on 8 June 1990, at column 722.

  Lochinver Harbour
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision he has now reached about the financing of the planned improvement works at Lochinver harbour.

  Mr. Lang
  This is a major and expensive project, the detail of which my Department is still considering. I or my noble Friend will write to the hon. Member when a decision is taken. I hope that will be very soon.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations took place with Shetland islands council and Orkney islands council prior to the announcement of reductions in youth training funding for 1990–91 and the introduction of the new youth training contracts.

  Mr. Lang
  There has been a regular on-going dialogue between officials of the Training Agency and officials of 608
  Shetland islands council and Orkney islands council. In the period from January to May 1990 this included formal and informal consultations between officials about youth training funding for 1990–91 and the introduction of the new youth training contract.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many off-sales licensees lost their licences or had their licences temporarily suspended in connection with the sale of alcohol to persons under age in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children appeared before children's panels in each of the past five years in connection with under-age drinking.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Reading Standards
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many 10–year-old children in Scottish state schools were recorded as experiencing reading difficulties in the school sessions(a) 1979–80 and (b) 1989–90.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available.

  Nurses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that central records are kept detailing the numbers of state registered nurses who, on completion of their training, find employment within national health service hospitals, in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The cost of compiling meaningful figures could not be justified as student nurses on completion of their training often find employment outwith the area of the health board in which they have trained.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to increase facilities for the profoundly mentally handicapped in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The provision of facilities for the care and support of mentally handicapped people in the community is the responsibility of local authorities. Since 1980 the total number of day centre places has increased from 5,096 to 7,242 (provisional) and the number of residential places from 1,093 to 1878 (provisional). Separate figures on the limited amount of provision made specifically for persons who are profoundly handicapped are not available centrally.

  It is for local authorities to seek to expand provision as necessary in this and other areas of their responsibilities in accordance with the resources available to them. The proposals in the White Paper "Caring for People" indicate the need to work for an increasing proportion of facilities and other services in the community.

  Casualty Departments
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that staffing levels within casualty departments in national health service hospitals in Scotland are increased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A variety of factors must be taken into account in determining appropriate staffing levels. The Government encourage health boards to ensure that staffing levels in all hospital departments including accident and emergency departments are established through the application of structured assessment methods.

  Birch Point
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in his investigations into the reasons for the movement of dumped materials outwith the Birch Point explosives disposal ground in the Firth of Clyde.

  Mr. Lang
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland fisheries research vessel Clupea was diverted from her programmed duties to undertake an underwater survey in and around the Birch Point disposal ground between 14 and 18 May 1990. As investigation of the dumping operations and fishing activity at the site has also been undertaken.

  Following consultations with the various regulatory bodies and other interested parties, including local fishermen's representatives, a report of the investigation and the findings of the survey is being finalised this week. The report will be published before the parliamentary recess and copies of the published report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The initial investigation has confirmed that a further, closer survey of the dump site is needed. This will be undertaken by DAFS from 21 July to 5 August inclusive. In order for the survey to proceed all fishing activity in the area concerned will be prohibited for the duration of the survey. An order to this effect has been made under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 and the fishermen have been advised.

  Further guidance for fishermen in the Clyde area on what to do if explosive material is encountered in fishing gear is also in preparation in the light of the investigation and will be issued directly.

  Community Care
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the implementation of the community care policies set out in the White Paper, "Caring for People".

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to advise islands and regional councils of the level of funding likely to be made available to them for 1991–92 for the implementation of their community care responsibilities under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Rifkind
  We are fully committed to the policies set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" which are designed to improve social care services for vulnerable people. However, we have decided that it has become 610
  necessary to phase in the proposals in the White Paper. This is to allow a fuller preparation for the major shift in financial responsibility and the organisational changes required and in particular to allow local authorities time to accommodate the change without any need to impose an excessive burden on their community charge payers. The arrangements for Scotland will be as follows.

  On 1 April 1991 I will introduce the requirements for local authorities to set up the new arm's length inspection units for residential homes and the new complaints procedures. I will also introduce the new specific grant to accelerate the development of community services for people with a mental illness. The development of better services in the community for this group in particular is an important objective of our community care policy. In the first year I propose grant at 70 per cent. in relation to total costs of £3 million in order to provide increased community services for the mentally ill. We are already providing grants under existing powers for voluntary bodies providing services in the important field of drug and alcohol abuse and this will continue.

  Local authorities and health boards have already made a valuable start on the planning and development work required for community care and I would want this momentum to be maintained. I would also want authorities to continue with the important task of staff training, which the new course on community care at Dundee university is designed to meet. This will lead to the next phase of implementation on 1 April 1992 when I intend to implement the new community care planning arrangements. Development work will continue in 1992 and the final phase will be the implementation of the new income support and housing benefit arrangements on 1 April 1993 together with preservation of benefit rights for people already in homes at that date. Until then the present income support payments for those in private and voluntary residential and nursing homes will continue.

  I will have regard to the financial implications of these proposals in announcing the local authority settlement, which I intend to announce next week.

  The changes set out in the White Paper involve a substantial and complex task for local authorities. I am sure that phasing in the arrangements give more time to all concerned—local authorities, health boards, the voluntary and private sectors—to co-operate in preparation. It will enable the process to be more effectively managed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will provide separate details of landings of cod from area VIIa by east coast Scottish, west coast Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish vessels, in length bands, for the months of June 1990 and June 1989, indicating within each category the numbers of vessels and tonnages landed;

  (2) whether he will provide separate details of landings of other area VII species by Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish vessels, in length bands, for the months of June 1990 and June 1989, indicating within each category the numbers of vessels and tonnages landed;
  611
  (3) how many vessels declaring catches in area VII in June were spotted by the Royal Navy or by the fisheries inspection service in area VII; and how many of these vessels were witnessed fishing in areas IV and VI;

  (4) whether he will provide a breakdown of the landings in area VII for all species during the month of June by the respective producer organisations and the non-sectors.

  Mr. Curry
  I regret that it would be too expensive to give a detailed response to the questions posed by the hon. Member. I will however make a general statement about the alleged misreporting of cod in the Irish sea and off the west coast of Ireland.

  The non-sector's quota of cod in the Irish sea for 1990 is 1,858 tonnes. Approximately half of this quota was apparently taken by Scottish vessels and landed into Scotland during June and early July. In addition, landings into Scotland of cod reported as taken from the west of Ireland (areas VIIb and VIIc), have shown a marked increase in the second half of June. The Irish sea cod fishery has had to be closed to the non-sector as its quota for the year has already been exhausted.

  The industry has stated its view that some Scottish vessels have been misreporting fish caught in the North sea or off the west coast of Scotland as coming from the Irish sea or off the west coast of Ireland, and has asked that catches should be reallocated from the latter to the former areas.

  Fisheries Department accept that the circumstantial evidence points to some misreporting having taken place. The Irish sea cod fishery is traditionally a spring and winter fishery and high catches in summer are unusual. The pattern of landings this year is very different from past experience. Moreover the rate of uptake by the non-sector has not been paralleled by the sector. However, Departments cannot act to penalise a particular group of vessels or to compensate Irish sea fishermen affected on the basis of rumour or circumstantial evidence; they can act only following successful prosecution of offenders. Departments are examining all fishing documents and, if they can secure hard evidence of misreporting, they will prosecute.

  In the meantime, Departments are looking ugently at ways of limiting misreporting in future, and hope to be able to set up a system later this year. I know that the industry has in the past rejected tougher enforcement measures in view of their cost and inconvenience, but if it is serious about limiting misreporting, I hope that it will now accept the need for firm action.

  If a system to limit misreporting can be established quickly, Departments will try to obtain more quota from another member state with the aim of reopening the Irish sea cod fishery to the non-sector later this year. However, such a swap would depend on the successful identification of another United Kingdom stock to offer in exchange.

  Pesticides
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy in respect of the safety in respect to foodstuffs of the products alachlor, aldicarb and pyrethrin, and aflatoxin: and if he will make a statement.
  612
  Mr. Maclean
  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is currently reviewing alachlor and aldicarb. The pyrethrins are included in the routine review programme.

  Aflatoxin is a naturally occurring food contaminant; the Food Advisory Committee is considering the statutory limit which should be set for nuts and nut products.

  EC Grants
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list the recipients in the United Kingdom who have received grants from the European Community to the value of £8 million.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom has been awarded grants of £9.2 million by the European Commission under regulation 355/77 for 43 projects designed to improve the marketing and processing of agricultural and fisheries produce. A further £300,000 has been awarded for five projects to improve fishing port facilities.

  Full details on these grants were issued in a press release on 6 July 1990. A copy was lodged in the Library of the House at that time and sent to Members directly concerned including my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body).

  Organic Fruit and Vegetables
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to reduce dependency on imports to satisfy demand for organically produced fruit and vegetables.

  Mr. Curry
  I am keen that British farmers should claim as large a share as possible of the small but growing market for organic produce. The hon. Member will know from the answer that he received to an earlier question, on 16 January, at column 215, that the Department already offers a wider range of support for organic production.

  Hens
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to implement the recommendations of the draft of the European convention published by the Council of Europe in 1971 in respect of minimum space requirements for hens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no such plans. This draft has been overtaken by the final convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, published in 1976, and the recommendation made under it on 21 November for laying hens.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has conducted any research to establish how much space a caged hen requires in order to perform all her natural functions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There has been much research into the space requirements of laying hens both in this country and in other member states of the European Community. This work is continuing. During the review of the battery hens directive, we will be pressing the Commission to take account of this research which indicates that a significant increase in the minimum space allowance for caged birds is required.
  613
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek to bring poultry within the provisions of the Protection of Birds Act 1954; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The provisions of this Act have been superseded by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Provisions for laying hens kept in battery cages are covered by Community law. It is my intention that all laying hens should be so covered. The battery hens directive requires the Commission to report on all systems of keeping laying hens by the end of 1992 and to bring forward appropriate proposals.

  Protection of Farm Animals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to implement the 1976 convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, in respect of poultry, pigs, and veal calves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The specific recommendations made under the convention with respect to poultry and pigs have been implemented in this country by means of the appropriate codes of recommendations for the welfare of livestock. There is as yet no recommendation for veal calves but our ban on the traditional veal crate came into force at the beginning of this year.

  Yucca Plant
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the use of products of the yucca plant on livestock farms.

  Mr. Curry
  Our technical advisers inform us that yucca extract is used in animal feed as a natural flavour enhancer. It is also reported to have a beneficial effect on protein utilisation. When included in feed it has the effect of deodorising slurry.

  Bees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the health of bees in maintained.

  Mr. Curry
  The Importation of Bees Order 1980 prohibits imports of honey bees except under licence from countries of high bee health status. In addition Ministry bees officers inspect colonies in this country which have a history of disease or where disease is suspected. From 1992 the European Community Commission has proposed that national bee health measures should be replaced by European Community controls. Discussions are at an early stage and we shall continue to press for the best possible safeguards.

  Field Drainage Grants
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid by way of field drainage grants for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Curry
  Grant paid on field drainage in England under the main capital grant schemes for the years 1981 to 1989 inclusive was as shown in the table:
  614

  Year

  £ million

  1981

  17·8

  1982

  28·7

  1983

  29·2

  1984

  32·0

  1985

  18·1

  1986

  9·5

  1987

  3·7

  1988

  2·5

  1989

  2·0

  Source:

  MAFF statistics.

  Livestock Holdings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many field officers there are currently in the state veterinary service to inspect livestock holdings and to advise on animal welfare matters.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently 259.5 veterinary officers in the state veterinary service whose duties include animal welfare.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific welfare inspections are made by state veterinary officers during October and November of each year to ensure that the killing of mink and arctic fox on fur farms is humane.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ten welfare visits to fur farms were made during October and November last year. These were carried out to check on welfare standards generally and were not specifically directed to slaughter methods.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fur farms received animal welfare inspections by state veterinary officers in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  The total number of welfare inspections of fur farms undertaken by state veterinary officers in each of these years was:

  Year

  Inspections

  1987

  25

  1988

  18

  1989

  18

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink farms are sited within(a) 10, (b) 20, (c) 30, (d) 40 and (e) 50 miles of environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not possible to answer this without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Registered Holdings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many registered holdings in England are eligible for less-favoured area payments.

  Mr. Curry
  All 21,500 holdings in the LFA are eligible for enhanced rates of investment grant. A total of 14,400 claims for payment of HLCAs were submitted in 1989.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make Farm Animal Welfare Council publications available to hon. Members through the form entitled "Demand for HMSO non-Parliamentary Publications".

  Mr. Gummer
  This is already the case.

  Implementation Committee
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the national implementation committee; what is its remit; and if he will list the members and their qualifications.

  Mr. Gummer
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Implementation Advisory Committee. As announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) during the report stage of the Food Safety Bill on 7 June at column 893, its terms of reference are"To advise Departments on draft codes of practice to be issued for consultation under Section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990, covering the execution and enforcement of the Act and regulations and orders made under it."

  The members of the committee are:

  Mr. C. Cockbill

  Food Standards Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Mr. M. Corbally

  Principal Environmental Health Officer, Institution of Environmental Health Officers

  Mr. E. Davison

  Capital Grants and Animal Health and Food Standards Division, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Mr. M. Dimambro

  City Environmental Health Officer, Cambridge

  Mr. H. Farrand

  Director Environmental Services, Coventry

  Mr. B. Curtis

  Environmental Health Officer, Department of Health

  Mr. B. Kelly

  Director of Environmental Health, Glasgow

  Mr. D. Lord

  Public Analyst, Lancashire

  Miss L. Neville-Rolfe

  Food Legislation Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Mr. J. Parker

  Environmental Health and Food Safety Division, Department of Health

  Mr. E. Ramsden

  Director Environmental Services, Swansea

  Mr. D. Walker

  Deputy Chief Trading Standards Officer, Shropshire

  Mr. B. Williams

  Chief Trading Standards Officer, Gloucester

  Mr. R. Wright

  Director Consumer and Environmental Services, Barnsley

  Extensification Schemes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why Morvern and Ardnamurchan are excluded from the areas eligible to participate in the pilot extensification schemes for beef and sheep.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The pilot extensification schemes are being limited to areas served by the Borders and Highland area offices of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. Morvern and Ardnamurchan, although within the Highland region, are covered by a different area office.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what overall reduction in Royal Air Force flying hours resulted from changes in navigator training syllabuses in each of the last three years; and what impact this has had on the amount of low flying conducted by the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what areas of the United Kingdom are specifically designated for nap of the earth flying by Army helicopters.

  Mr. Neubert
  No areas of the United Kingdom are specifically designated for nap of the earth flying by Army helicopters; such flights arc conducted in designated low-flying areas in accordance with the relevant military regulations.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air misses have occurred between two military aircraft in low-flying area 7 in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of air misses between two military aircraft in low-flying area 7 in each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  0

  1980

  1

  1981

  0

  1982

  2

  1983

  1

  1984

  1

  1985

  0

  1986

  1

  1987

  0

  1988

  0

  1989

  0

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if pilots booking into and out of low flying areas are permitted any leeway in meeting their booked entry and exit times.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes, in most cases.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if United States air force pilots certified to fly at 300 ft are permitted to fly at 250 ft in the United Kingdom low-flying system without additional low level stepdown training.
  617
  Mr. Neubert
  United States air force pilots who need to train at 250 ft in the United Kingdom low-flying system are trained as necessary to certify them to fly at under 300 ft.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date that part of the Glamorgan transit area in the vicinity of Usk was abolished; what was the specific reason for its abolition; and if he will list the parliamentary constituencies over which low flying is newly permitted, or within which the area available for low flying is extended, as a result of this measure.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to release detailed information on flying restrictions in individual areas. As part of the continuous monitoring of the United Kingdom low-flying system, however, a programme of reviews of avoidance areas is carried out and changes made when necessary, reflecting changes on the ground, and aimed at spreading low flying more evenly and enhancing flight safety, while at the same time reducing, where possible, the disturbance to those on the ground.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations concerning the height at which low-flying aircraft should cross coastlines in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 12 June 1990 at column 139.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to permit automatic terrain-following radar flying in areas of the United Kingdom other than the highlands restricted area.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 20 July 1989 at column 317.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas of the United Kingdom which have newly been made available for military low flying since 1979; and if he will specify the date on which each area was made available.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret that the information requested could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria used by the military low flying management group in determining which special rules zones or special rules areas around civil airports should be designated as avoidance areas for military low flying and which should not.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 20 July 1989 at column 317.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if pilots are permitted to make bookings into low-flying areas by radio, while airborne.

  Mr. Neubert
  Pilots are not generally permitted to book into low-flying areas by radio whilst airborne.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations concerning overflight by low-flying military aircraft of assemblies of large numbers of people.
  618
  Mr. Neubert
  Aircrew are generally instructed to avoid overflying such assemblies at low level.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what level in his Department approval must be sought for low-flying by jet aircraft between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am; what records are kept of such applications for approval, and decisions thereon; what criteria are used to grant or refuse permission for such flying; and if permission for such flying activity has ever been refused.

  Mr. Neubert
  The level at which approval is given and the records kept will depend on the activity concerned. Every effort is made to keep such flying to the minimum necessary to meet essential training requirements and permission is refused if this condition is not met.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the stipulated vertical and horizontal distances by which military aircraft are required to avoid sites notified under the civil aircraft notification procedure.

  Mr. Neubert
  The avoidance criteria adopted will depend on the type of aircraft, its conspicuity and its indicated air speed.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce one-way flow control of low-flying aircraft in the Bwlch Llyn Bach valley between Minffordd and Cross Foxes.

  Mr. Neubert
  A one-way flow control system already exists in the Bwlch Llyn Bach valley.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any Royal Air Force stations in Britain are permitted to operate their own aircraft in local low-flying areas without notifying RAF West Drayton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  For certain low flying areas, the functions of the tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton in respect of either all or part of the low-flying activity in these areas are delegated to a local centre, which may be an RAF station.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are in force concerning the transit of large formations of aircraft through choke points in the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  Large formations of aircraft are instructed to avoid flying through recognised choke points in the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are in force to ensure that locations which are in use as simulated targets for toss or dive attack are not selected as simulated targets for level pass attacks.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what date the minimum vertical separation from cloud for visual flying operations in the United Kingdom low-flying system was reduced from 1,000 ft. to 500 ft.

  Mr. Neubert
  The present rules for vertical separation from cloud were introduced in June 1982.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum number of aircraft permitted to
  619
  operate at low level at any one time in the hilly areas of the Lake District; to what parts of low-flying area 17, this applies; and if he will list any changes made to this maximum number since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  No more than 20 aircraft (excluding helicopters) are permitted to book into low-flying area 17 at any one time during the period 07.00 to 18.00 local time Monday to Friday. No changes have been made to this figure since its introduction in 1987.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those range danger areas within which military aircraft are permitted to descend below 250 ft minimum separation distance during the run-in to a simulated target; and if he will list the minimum permitted height in each case.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 28 July 1989, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the measures taken to ensure that the regulations of the United Kingdom low-flying system are properly understood, briefed, and adhered to by United Kingdom-based United States air force air crews.

  Mr. Neubert
  No. I am satisfied that United Kingdom-based United States air force air crews, like their Royal Air Force counterparts, are made fully aware of the relevant regulations and of the importance of adhering to them.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations concerning emergency climb-outs from low level when below controlled or regulated airspace; and what records are kept of resulting unauthorised penetrations of such airspace by military aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  Air crew are instructed to report any unauthorised penetrations of regulated or controlled airspace that may occur during climb-out from the United Kingdom low-flying system but very few occur. Separate statistics for such incidents are not maintained.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum period of notice required by RAF West Drayton of pilots intending to book into a low-flying area.

  Mr. Neubert
  There is no specified period of notice but advance bookings must be confirmed on the day of the flight.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations concerning the maximum number of aircraft in a formation in the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of aircraft in a tactical formation at low level is determined by aircraft role and the type of exercise being carried out. However, formations do not normally consist of more than eight aircraft.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas of the United Kingdom where attacks on simulated targets are prohibited.
  620
  Mr. Neubert
  No. All aspects of sorties, including simulated attacks, must however be planned in accordance with the general regulations applying to the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the standard radius of lateral avoidance for avoidance sites marked on low flying charts and listed in the United Kingdom military low-flying handbook.

  Mr. Neubert
  Avoidance criteria adopted in any case will depend on the site concerned.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if towns and villages which carry low-flying avoidance status, other than those located within avoidance areas, are marked as sites to be avoided on the printed low flying charts supplied to pilots.

  Mr. Neubert
  All significant built-up areas, whether or not carrying formal avoidance status, are marked on low-flying charts.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the areas of the United Kingdom that are designated as data link areas for United States Air Force training with the GBU-15 missile system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is classified.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations concerning inverted flying at low level.

  Mr. Neubert
  I am not aware of any regulations which specifically refer to inverted flying at low level.

  Inspectorate of Air Safety
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States Air Force officers have served in exchange postings at the Royal Air Force inspectorate of air safety in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Air Force records show that no USAF officers have served on exchange postings with the RAF inspectorate of flight safety in the last 10 years.

  lasers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the areas of the United Kingdom where the use of aircraft-borne laser designators, rangers or markers is permitted; what regulations govern their use; and what changes have been made in these regulations since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following ranges in the United Kingdom are cleared for use by aircraft-borne laser designators, rangers or markers: RAF Tain, RAF Cowden, RAF Rosehearty, RAF Donna Nook, RAF Holbeach, RAF Pembrey Sands, RAF Jurby Head, RAF Wainfleet, the Royal Navy ranges at Cape Wrath and Garvie Island, the Army range at Otterburn and the MOD(PE) ranges at West Freugh and Larkhill.

  A number of joint and single-service publications, together with air weapons range orders, cover the use of laser designators, rangers and markers at ranges in the United Kingdom. These regulations are regularly updated.

  Norton Air Force Base, California
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force officers served in exchange postings at the directorate of aerospace safety, United States force inspection and safety centre, Norton air force base, California, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Air Force records show that no officers have served in exchange postings with the directorate of aerospace safety at the United States force inspection and safety centre, Norton air force base, California in the last 10 years.

  MOD Hospitals
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by country and region the Ministry of Defence hospitals in the United Kingdom which had consultant obstetric and/or general practitioner maternity beds in 1980, 1985 or the most recent year for which figures are available and give the numbers of beds of each type in each hospital and in each year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Of the eight service hospitals in the United Kingdom, four have consultant-led obstetric units. There are no general practitioner maternity beds in United Kingdom service hospitals.

  The statistical historical information on available bed numbers for 1980 and 1985 relates only to the overall number of beds for each hospital and is not broken into specialties. The details of the current allocation of service hospital beds to obstetrics, based on 1989 figures, are shown in brackets:

  NHS region and hospital

  Number of beds

  Obstetric beds

  1980

  1985

  1989

  1989

  South West Thames

  Cambridge Military Hospital, Aldershot (Army)

  1220+65

  256

  265

  (66)

  East Anglia

  The Princess of Wales Royal Air Force Hospital Ely

  142

  174

  176

  (22)

  Wessex

  Princess Alexandra Royal Air Force Hospital Wroughton

  170

  154

  182

  (16)

  Oxford

  Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Hospital Halton

  280

  271

  231

  (10)

  1 The 65 bed Louise Margaret Maternity Hospital Aldershot was amalgamated into the CMH Aldershot in 1984.

  Army Costs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total annual cost of(a) the regiments listed in his reply of 14 June, Official Report, column 326, in total and (b) the British Army as a whole.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A figure for the total cost of the regiments and corps listed in my reply to the hon. Gentleman of 14 June is not held in the form requested and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. The 622
  Ministry of Defence does not plan or account for its expenditure on a service basis and a figure giving the cost of the Army as a whole could, again, be obtained only with disproportionate effort. However, tables 2.2 and 2.3 in volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" provided information concerning the cost of key elements of the British Army.

  Surplus Materials (Destruction)
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by item and value, surplus stocks of clothing and other non-armament and weapon materials currently or recently ordered to be destroyed rather than offered for public sale.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of the fight against terrorism all surplus clothing with the exception of non-camouflage foul weather gear and footwear is now mutilated and sold as rags. Annual receipts are about £50,000. We estimate that the market value of the clothing before mutilation would be about £700,000 per annum.

  In compliance with health and safety and control of pollution legislation the majority of hazardous materials are also destroyed, although under guidelines specified by the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities some materials classed as hazardous are sold.

  It would not be possible to give the detailed information requested without disproportionate cost.

  Radar Installation (Pembrokeshire)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received since 1 June about the allegations of a causal relationship between certain forms of cancer and exposure to magnetic fields and any implications for the siting of an over-the-horizon radar installation at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 69, if he will give details of the proposed safety exclusion zone for the over-the-horizon radar installation at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, including security fencing, lighting and staffing costs.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Our current plans are that the proposed safety exclusion zone should be delineated by a wire-mesh fence, about 4 ft high, at a distance of about 1,100 ft to the front and sides of the transmitter aerials. It will be prominently signed in both Welsh and English, and will be contained well within the MOD boundary of the site. There are no plans to illuminate it. I regret that the costs of maintaining the safety exclusion zone and fence cannot be isolated from the estimated costs of maintaining the installation as a whole.

  Frigates
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he is having with other NATO countries about a replacement frigate programme.

  Mr. Neubert
  Discussions are proceeding at official level with France to determine the potential for collaboration. We plan to broaden these discussions to include those other nations that are members of the family of anti-missile systems programme, currently Italy and Spain, should they wish to do so.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given in his "Options for Change" review to the amount of low flying carried out by Royal Air Force fast jets.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given in his "Options for Change" review to the amount of low flying carried out by RAF fast jets.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The amount of low-flying training carried out by the RAF will continue to reflect operational requirements.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  House Buyers (Protection)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to protect house buyers from misleading property descriptions following his review of the Trade Descriptions Act.

  Mr. Forth
  As I indicated to the House in a written answer on 19 April, it is the Government's intention to proceed with a package of measures in this area, including the amendment of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to apply its provisions to descriptions of real property. My Department consulted widely on a review of the 1968 Act as a whole, and are now considering the responses.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to protect house buyers from misleading property descriptions following his review of the Trade Descriptions Act.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to protect housebuyers from misleading property descriptions, following his review of the Trade Description Act.

  Mr. Forth
  As I indicated to the House in a written answer on 19 April, it is the Government's intention to proceed with a package of measures in this area, including the amendment of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to apply its provisions to descriptions of real property. My Department recently consulted widely on a review of the 1968 Act as a whole, and consultees were asked to comment particularly on the range of characteristics of such property which should be included in its scope. The responses are currently being studied.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the steel industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor last met the chairman of British Steel on 5 June.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of steel production in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of Ravenscraig.
  624
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of Ravenscraig.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor met the chairman of British Steel on 5 June. He has no plans at present for a further meeting.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of steel production in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor met the chairman of British Steel on 5 June. He has no plans at present for a further meeting.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of steel production in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor met the chairman of British Steel on 5 June. He has no plans at present for a further meeting.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has met the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss the future of the steel industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor last met the chairman of British Steel on 5 June.

  Business Grants, West Midlands
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of his Department's grants to businesses in the west midlands to date in the current year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Up to the end of June, my Department had made payments of grant to businesses in the west midlands of £15.84 million, mainly in the form of regional selective assistance, support to research and development and assisted consultancy under the enterprise initiative.

  CBI
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Confederation of British Industry to discuss levels of economic growth.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Confederation of British Industry to discuss levels of manufacturing investment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to meet the secretary
  625
  general of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the expansion of British exports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a range of issues relevant to business.

  Girobank
  Mr. Galloway
  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. Bidwell
  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 given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 2 July at column 427.

  Environmentally Friendly Goods
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take action to prevent firms misrepresenting goods as environmentally friendly.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take action to prevent firms misrepresenting goods as environmentally friendly.

  Mr. Forth
  On 9 January in response to a question on environmental labelling, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said that we would be looking at the possibility of a code of practice on environmental claims and of amending the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. My Department went to consultation on 10 January inviting the views of consultees on the most appropriate measures which might be taken to control environmental claims.

  The representations received during the consultations are still under consideration.

  Unsafe Garden Equipment
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider measures to protect consumers from unsafe garden tools and machinery.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider measures to protect consumers from unsafe garden tools and machinery.

  Mr. Forth
  The existing Consumer Protection Act 1987 already provides a general duty on suppliers to ensure that products, including garden tools and machinery, are safe. Where these products are electrically powered, they would also be subject to the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989 which implement the EC Low Voltage Directive, covering the basic safety requirements of electrical equipment traded throughout the European Community. In addition, the EC Machinery Safety Directive, which provides more detailed requirements on the guarding and safety of all mechanised equipment, will be implemented into United Kingdom legislation by the end of 1991, coming into force on 31 December 1992.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policy changes he intends to make as a result of the Office of Fair Trading report on timeshare.

  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.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives he is taking to encourage trade with eastern Europe.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any new proposals to develop trade between the United Kingdom and the countries of eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any new proposals to develop trade between the United Kingdom and the countries of eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to encourage exports to east European countries; whether he plans any increase in his Department's activity in this sphere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any new proposals to develop trade between the United Kingdom and the countries of eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is taking active measures to develop commercial opportunities in east Europe through direct contact with east European trade authorities, data dissemination and publicity.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's predecessor last week headed a trade mission to Czechoslovakia and then travelled on to Hungary for top level meetings. In recent months, I and DTI Ministerial colleagues have led parties of businessmen to these countries as well as to the USSR, Poland, Romania and the GDR. We have also received several incoming delegations and been in close touch with the FCO about the use of their know-how fund for eastern Europe.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total number of public houses in the United Kingdom of each of the six major brewing companies.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total number of public houses in the United Kingdom of each of the six major brewing companies.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total number of public houses in the United Kingdom of each of the six major brewing companies.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total number of public houses in the United Kingdom of each of the six major brewing companies.
  627
  Mr. Redwood
  At the end of 1988, according to the MMC, the figures were:

  Number

  Allied Breweries Limited

  6,678

  Bass plc

  7,190

  Courage Limited

  5,002

  Grant Metropolitan plc

  6,419

  Scottish and Newcastle Breweries plc

  2,287

  Whitbread and Company plc

  6,483

  Under the Supply of Beer Orders by November 1992 brewers owning more than 2,000 pubs must release from ties at least 50 per cent. of those in excess of 2,000. The Director General of Fair Trading will be monitoring progress towards this requirement.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received from(a) tenants of national brewers, (b) small independent brewers and (c) others since I May regarding the operation of the new system giving tenants greater freedom to buy products outside the tie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 1 May I have received three representations on behalf of tenants of national brewers, one letter on behalf of small independent brewers, and five letters from others, of which four were from or on behalf of a large brewer.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the investigations currently being conducted by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the investigations currently being conducted by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the investigations currently being conducted by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on 10 July at column 138.

  Kingfisher/Dixon Takeover Report
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation he estimates his Department paying in the wake of the early release of the Kingfisher/Dixon takeover report.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation he estimates his Department paying in the wake of the early release of the Kingfisher/Dixon takeover report.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will continue to consider claims received before the end of this month for losses incurred on the morning of 23 May by those buying Dixons shares, selling Kingfisher shares or dealing in traded options. I will then be able to estimate more accurately the cost. Payments will be on the basis of one half of the differences between the price at which the shares or options were bought or sold on Wednesday morning 23 May, and the 628
  prices ruling when trading was resumed shortly after 1 pm. I will take into account corresponding gains from selling Dixons shares or buying Kingfisher shares, or from hedging positions in the options market.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the proportion of total European single market trade which will be British-originated in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Given the changes which will follow he completion of the single European market, I cannot make a useful estimate of the proportion of total single European market trade which will be British-originated in 1992. The United Kingdom's share of EC trade was 8.9 per cent. in 1973, the year of our accession. It has risen to 13.1 per cent. in 1983 and stood at 11.4 per cent. in 1988. These figures assume current membership of the EC at each date.

  Footwear and Textile Industries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the current state of the footwear and textile industries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Both industries continue to experience mixed fortunes with varying performance in different product areas. I am pleased to note, however, that exports of footwear reached record levels in volume terms in the 12 months to March 1990, with exports of 25 million pairs of footwear, an increase of over 10 per cent. in volume and 12 per cent. in value terms. Exports of textiles and clothing products also rose by 14 per cent. by volume and 18 per cent. by value between the first quarters of 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet his European counterparts to discuss the textile industry.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet his European counterparts to discuss the textile industry.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet his European counterparts to discuss the textile industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to meet his EC colleagues on several occasions during the course of this year to discuss progress in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, which cover the future of trade in textiles and clothing.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current state of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade textiles talks on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The chairman of the GATT negotiating group on textiles and clothing has produced a chairman's report for consideration by the trade negotiations committee in Geneva next week. This is designed to take into account various negotiating positions and therefore contains a significant number of alternative options. Many of these differences of view are unlikely to be resolved until
  629
  nearer the end of the negotiations in December, but the European Community will continue to press for a progressive phaseout of the MFA over a transitional period and on the basis of strengthened GATT rules and disciplines.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of imports of footwear from the far east.

  Mr. Redwood
  Figures for the first four months of the year show an increase of 5 per cent. in imports of footwear from the far east compared with the same period in 1989. The footwear industry, as my hon. Friend is aware, has been seeking action by the European Community to restrict imports from Korea and Taiwan. In regulation 1735/90 published on 27 June the European Commission introduced prior surveillance of most footwear imports from these sources. The Regulation also refers to undertakings by Korea and Taiwan to limit their exports to traditional trade flows within specified quantitative limits. The licensing system will provide early warning of the level of imports.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to ensure that no unilateral concessions will be made by the European Economic Community without agreement by the other countries on strengthening of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules and disciplines in relation to the multi-fibre arrangement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The European Community, with United Kingdom support, is continuing to press strongly for the liberalisation of trade in textiles to be accompanied by the strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines and the opening of producer markets. The Community will need to take a view before the end of the Round on the acceptability of the likely final package. In the meantime the Community needs to play an active part in shaping the framework agreement on trade in textiles and the Government will work to ensure that any proposals put forward properly reflect United Kingdom and Community interests.

  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from the textile and clothing industries about barriers to United Kingdom exports; if he will pursue the reduction of such barriers in the Uruguay round negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers in my Department frequently receive representations from the textile industry about foreign barriers to United Kingdom exports, both directly and through hon. Members. It is one of the EC's main aims in the Uruguay round to achieve a reduction by all parties in their tariff and non-tariff barriers and we are pursuing this vigorously in the negotiations.

  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet his counterparts from other European Community countries to discuss trade in textiles and clothing; if he will take steps to ensure that integration of this trade into the normal rules of the general agreement on tariffs and trade takes place only on the basis of strengthened rules and disciplines; and if he will press for a transition period for such integration 630
  sufficiently long to demonstrate the effectiveness of these strengthened rules and disciplines in removing distorted conditions of trade.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to meet his EC colleagues on several occasions during this year to discuss progress in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. The EC, while committed to returning trade in textiles and clothing to GATT rules, is continuing with United Kingdom support to press strongly for this liberalisation to be accompanied by the strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines. The idea of a transitional period for returning textiles trade to GATT is accepted in the negotiations. Its length has yet to be determined and in any discussions the United Kingdom will have regard to the arrangements for strengthening rules and disciplines as well as the need to ensure that the benefits of liberalisation are not unduly delayed.

  Electronic Equipment
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in the past three months about the export of electronic equipment.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in the past three months about the export of electronic equipment.

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials have had frequent contact with Trade Associations and companies in the electronic equipment sector during the past three months and a number of representations have been received. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on individual licensing matters.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of electronic equipment sold in the United Kingdom comes from overseas.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) earlier today.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of trading standards officers to discuss consumer matters.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of trading standards officers to discuss consumer matters.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of trading standards officers to discuss consumer matters.

  Mr. Forth
  I met representatives of local authority trading standards officers on three occasions in 1989 to discuss consumer matters and my officials have frequent meetings with trading standards officers.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from trading standards officers on the safety of retail goods.
  631
  Mr. Forth
  In the course of discussions and correspondence with trading standards officers, I have received representations on a wide range of subjects relating to product safety.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to set up a body to oversee manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no plans to set up a body to oversee manufacturing industry.

  Credit Union Movement
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department has taken to encourage the growth of the credit union movement in inner city areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department has taken to encourage the growth of the credit union movement in inner city areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department has taken to encourage the growth of the credit union movement in inner city areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department has not taken any action to support credit unions in the inner cities.

  National Enterprise Board
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the National Enterprise Board cost in(a) 1975, (b) 1979 and (c) 1989; and whether he will make a statement about its future.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the National Enterprise Board cost in(a) 1975, (b) 1979 and (c) 1989; and whether he will make a statement about its future.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the National Enterprise Board cost in(a) 1975, (b) 1979 and (c) 1989; and whether he will make a statement about its future.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The National Enterprise Board was formed in late 1975 and there are therefore no figures for this year. In 1979 the net cost to the Exchequer was £222.4 million made up of £253.8 million of public dividend capital, subsequently repaid, repayment of loans and interest totalling £30.6 million and £0.8 million of taxes paid. In 1989 the Board remitted £1.3 million in taxes and £2 million in dividends to Her Majesty's Government.

  Since 1981 the board has, with the National Research Development Corporation, operated as the British Technology Group. The Government consider that it would be appropriate for the British Technology Group to be transferred to the private sector when suitable arrangements can be made.

  Independent Financial Advisers
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received about the draft European community rules on capital adequacy of independent financial advisers.
  632
  Mr. Redwood
  I have received a number of representations from organisations and firms in the independent financial intermediaries sector about capital adequacy requirements, including the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, the British Insurance and Investment Brokers Association, the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, the Life Insurance Association, and IFA Promotion Ltd. These representations have been helpful in clarifying their members' concerns that the proposed EC Capital Adequacy Directive may impose inappropriate minimum capital requirements. I share this concern. The United Kingdom will continue to press for capital requirements to be related to risk, and for levels of initial capital that do not act as barriers to market entry.

  NRDC
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the National Research and Development Corporation cost in(a) 1975, (b) 1979 and (c) 1989; and whether he will make a statement about its future.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the National Research and Development Corporation cost in(a) 1975, (b) 1979 and (c) 1989; and whether he will make a statement about its future.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The National Research Development Corporation does not represent a cost to the Exchequer. In 1975 the Corporation remitted £3.9 million to Her Majesty's Government; in 1979, £9.4 million and in 1989 £9.6 million.

  Since 1981 the corporation has, with the National Enterprise Board, operated as the British Technology Group. The Government consider that it would be appropriate for the British Technology Group to be transferred to the private sector when suitable arrangements can be made.

  Short-termism
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to make any proposals to control the short-termism in British industry.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to make any proposals to counter short-termism in British industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  Like my right hon. predecessor, to whom. I pay tribute, I recognise the importance of this. Companies' ability to invest for the long term is a function of their profitability. The profitability of British industry has returned of late to the highest levels for 20 years and business investment has reached record levels.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he expects to meet the European Commission to discuss the sale of the Rover Group.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he expects to meet the European Commission to discuss the sale of the Rover Group.
  633
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to visit the Rover Group.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will examine the records of previous privatisations to determine whether any arrangements similar to those recently vetoed by the European Economic Community in the case of the sale of Rover to British Aerospace have been made in relation to any other company.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The National Audit Office investigates all significant privatisations and decides whether it is necessary to report to the Public Accounts Committee as it did in the case of the Rover Group.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to respond to the European Community's recent communication on the sale of the Rover Group.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).

  Fibre Optics
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies have been made of the cost of creating a national fibre optic network.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies have been conducted of the cost of creating a national fibre optic network.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the cost of creating a national fibre optic network.

  Mr. Forth
  The study by the PA Consulting Group, "Evolution of the United Kingdom Communications Infrastructure" (HMSO 1988), which was commissioned by my Department, contains estimates comparing the costs of development of the communications infrastructure under various scenarios. The report includes an estimate that over the period 1991–2010 the creation and maintenance of a national fibre optic grid would cost approximately £82 billion, compared to £61 billion for a network that might be expected to result from a continuation of what the study describes as the current system of lightly regulated competition.

  EC Industry Ministers
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which meetings of the European Community's Industry Ministers he has not attended in the past year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have attended each of the Industry Council meetings during the last year, with the exception of the 28 May 1990 meeting, which was attended by Sir David Hannay, the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Communities.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to establish any new bodies to oversee industry.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to set up any new official bodies to oversee British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Hogg
  I have no plans to establish any new bodies to oversee industry.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to establish any new bodies to oversee industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no plans to establish any new bodies to oversee industry.

  Link Projects
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in the setting up of Link projects in the current financial year.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in the setting up of Link projects in the current financial year.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in the setting up of Link projects in the current financial year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the beginning of the current financial year 10 more Link projects have been announced, bringing the total number of active projects to 65. In addition by 29 May 1990 another 12 projects were through all stages of technical approval, bringing the total number of projects having gained technical approval to 57, and a further 50 full proposals are at the technical approval stage. There are many more projects in the pipeline.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Allan Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new proposals to encourage British industry to take further measures to protect the environment.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new proposals to encourage British industry to take further measures to protect the environment.

  Mr. Forth
  I shall continue to encourage British industry to respond positively to the challenges and opportunities presented by environmental issues. My Department's environmental unit offers advice, and where appropriate assistance, on such issues including the development of improved environmental technology, waste management and recycling. It also keeps fully abreast of the impact of all environmental issues on business efficiency and competitiveness and contributes accordingly to the development of environmental policy and regulation.

  Transputers
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for export licences for transputers have been refused in the past six months.
  635
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for export licences for transputers have been refused in the past six months.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for export licences for transputers have been refused in the past six months.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for export licences for transputers have been refused in the past six months.

  Mr. Redwood
  A licence is required to export transputers to any destination under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, as amended. An export licence has been refused for transputers during the last six months and several export licence applications have been withdrawn.

  Airline Competition
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet Sir Leon Brittan to discuss promoting competition in the provision of European air services.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I will meet Sir Leon Brittan as and when necessary for discussion of a wide range of topics.

  Post Office
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Post Office to discuss the quality of postal services.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to meet the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his regional policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government remain committed to an effective regional policy and will continue to make the necessary resources available.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to introduce new regional policies.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce new regional policies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to introduce new regional policies. The Government remain committed to an effective regional policy and will continue to make the necessary resources available.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response his Department has given to the European Commission's recent request for details of the additional policy instruments and financial support to be made available to local authorities to ensure that the RECHAR allocation can be fully utilised.
  636
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No such request has been received.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of local authorities to discuss progress with RECHAR; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Officials of my own and other Departments have been in close touch with local authorities and other local interests in the preparation first of the United Kingdom's list of proposed areas to be included in RECHAR and now of the operational programmes for the areas selected by the European Commission. During the course of my regional visits I have also met local authority representatives and RECHAR has been one of several issues raised by them. I have made representations to the European Commission about areas it has not selected and will do so in regard to programmes as may be necessary.

  Dunsdale Securities
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the regulatory system since the collapse of Dunsdale Securities.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the regulatory system since the collapse of Dunsdale Securities.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the regulatory system since the collapse of Dunsdale Securities.

  Mr. Redwood
  I receive a considerable number of representations on a variety of topics relating to the regulation of financial services. The volume and type of representations have not changed since the collapse of Dunsdale Securities. We consider very carefully those which relate to the scope or framework of the regulatory system or to the powers under the Financial Services Act which the Government retain. Those which relate to matters which are the responsibility of the SIB or another regulatory authority are passed to the appropriate body.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the audited returns of Dunsdale Securities submitted to his Department between 1983 and 1988 included a source and application of funds statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: accounts filed at Companies House by Dunsdale Securities Ltd. for the years 1984 to 1988 include a source and application of funds statement; the accounts for 1983 do not.

  Cars (Clocking)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the most recent estimate by his Department of the number of cars which are clocked.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the most recent estimate by his Department of the number of cars which are clocked.
  637
  Mr. Forth
  My Department does not produce such estimates.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current value of the Government's shareholding in British Telecom.

  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current value of the Government's shareholding in British Telecom.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current value of the Government's shareholding in British Telecom.

  Mr. Forth
  HM Government currently hold 2,941 million ordinary shares in British Telecommunications plc. The shareholding has a value of some £8,900 million at current market prices.

  TUC
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the general secretary of the Trade Union Congress to discuss the performance of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress at present. However, Ministers and officials of my Department has frequent contacts with other bodies, where the TUC is represented, on a wide range of business matters.

  Insurance
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, under the relevant European Community directives, British insurance companies will be able to canvas for life insurance and for the insuring of cars, houses and other items of individual property insurance within the European Economic Community after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  There is already freedom of establishment for insurance within the European Community, and United Kingdom insurers established in other member states may advertise there on the same basis as local insurers. The Commission's aim which we strongly support, is also to achieve full freedom for companies to sell insurance on a service basis. The Commission have therefore announced their intention of proposing two further directives, one for life and one for non-life insurance, which will allow insurers to advertise and sell their products anywhere in the Community either on a services basis or from a local branch, on the basis of a single authorisation from their home state supervisor. These directives are however unlikely to come into force until after 1992.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making towards the establishment of a free market for the sale by British companies of(a) general insurance and (b) life assurance products within the European Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  As regards general insurance, three single market directives came into force on 1 July and a638
  common position on a fourth (on motor insurance services) was agreed at the internal Market Council on 20 June. The most important of these directives, on Non-Life Insurance Services, established freedom to sell most forms of commercial insurance across frontiers in the Community.

  As regards life assurance, a common position was adopted on 29 June on the draft life assurance services directive, which will allow the sale of life insurance across frontiers in cases where the policyholder has taken the initiative in seeking insurance, either directly or through a broker, from a company in another member state.

  These directives are important steps towards a free market, but many restrictions remain. I therefore strongly support the announced intention of the Commission to produce two further directives, one each on general insurance and life assurance. These will allow insurers to advertise and sell their products anywhere in the Community, either on a services basis or from a local branch, on the basis of a single authorisation from their home state supervisor.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to publish the names of the companies that have notified him of their intention to take control of insurance companies; when he expects to announce the decision he reaches on whether they are fit and proper to take such control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Department's consideration of cases under section 61 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 which deals with changes of control of insurance companies is confined entirely to the regulatory issue of whether the proposed controller is fit and proper. In order to form a view on that question, the Department considers all relevant information, much of which is confidential. It would be inappropriate for the Department to disclose that the procedures had been launched or to reveal the stage which they had reached.

  Where a change of control involves a public bid, it would be normal for any necessary regulatory consent to be a condition of the offer, and for that fact to be disclosed when a firm intention to make an offer is announced, and in the offer document. If the course taken by the regulatory procedures gave rise to price-sensitive information, it would be for the bidder to disclose the relevant facts. The Department must concentrate on its task of judging fit and properness under the law; the bidder or target company on any legal or other requirements which may apply to them to make available all necessary information.

  Provided that all the necessary regulatory consents are available, the market should determine the outcome of a proposed takeover.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the expenditure of his Department in 1989; and what is the planned expenditure for the current year, in real terms.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the expenditure of his Department in 1989; and what is the planned expenditure for the current year, in real terms.
  639
  Mr. Forth
  The expenditure of my Department in 1989–90 was £1,275.9 million. The planned expenditure for 1990–91 is £1,088.0 million at 1989–90 prices.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department spent in 1989–90 expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product; and what was the comparable figure for the Japanese Ministry for International Trade.

  Mr. Lilley
  Expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry last year was 0.24 per cent. of gross domestic product whereas general expenditure by Japan's Ministry of International Trade was equivalent to only 0.17 per cent. of Japanese gross domestic product even though its responsibilities are wider.

  ECGD
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding the trade sale of the Insurance Services Group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  A number of representations and expressions of interest have been received. However, this issue is a matter of commercial confidence. No decisions have yet been taken on the question of ownership.

  Libya
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the major category of goods exported to Libya; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Machinery and transport equipment (SITC section 7) accounted for 56 per cent. of all United Kingdom visible exports to Libya in 1989.

  Consumer Guarantees Bill
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has received on the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has received on the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 17 May 1990 at column 459. Since then my Department has received a number of further representations about the Consumer Guarantees Bill, from both individuals and various organisations. It would not be appropriate to give details of those representations without the permission of the individuals and organisations concerned.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to reduce the number of staff in his Department.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to reduce the number of staff in his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  Manpower projection for my Department to 1992–93 were set out in chapter 4 of the public 640
  expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1004) published in January 1990. These envisaged a fall in total manpower from 11,933 in 1990–91 to 11,876 in 1992–93. The then Secretary of State subsequently announced, in his written reply of 21 February, a reduction of some 100–150 posts as a result of the reorganisation of the Department's "market" divisions. Final figures for 1991–92 and projections for future years will be settled later this year following the conclusion of the current Public Expenditure Survey round.

  Grants to Industry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total cost of grants in aid to industry in the last financial year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The whole of my Department's programme expenditure is aimed at encouraging wealth creation by British industry and commerce, partly through the provision of grants and services to the private sector.

  Grants paid direct to private sector firms in 1989–90 totalled some £520 millions net of relevant receipts. They included regional development grants, regional enterprise grants, selective assistance, support for the aerospace and shipbuilding industries and support for research and development.

  In addition, my Department spent some £105 millions on export promotion and consultancy initiatives, which provide services direct to the private sector.

  Departmental Structure
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the future structure of his Department.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am proud to have been given responsibility for this great Department of State. I plan to consolidate recent changes in the Department's structure, building on the fine traditions which the DTI and its precursor Departments have established over two centuries in helping markets work and promoting enterprise.

  Trade with Europe
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet his European counterparts to discuss Britain's trade with the rest of Europe.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet his European counterparts to discuss Britain's trade with the rest of Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ministers meet their European counterparts on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues of common interest.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding access for British exporters to the Taiwanese market.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department receives frequent representations from individual companies and trade associations about the few remaining obstacles to access to the Taiwanese market for British exporters.
  641
  The most frequent complaints have been about protectionist duties on Scotch whisky, about the favour shown to United States suppliers for public sector projects, and about the difference between the exhaust emission standards applied to domestic and imported vehicles.

  The authorities in Taiwan are well aware of United Kingdom concerns. Her Majesty's Government themselves have no formal dealings with the authorities there but the British Overseas Trade Board's area advisory group for Taiwan, the Anglo-Taiwan Trade Committee, takes every opportunity to draw our concerns on these matters to their attention, both in Taipei and London.

  Money Advice Funding Working Party
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has received on implementing the recommendations of the Money Advice Funding Working Party.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received no such representations. The Money Advice Funding Working Party, under the chairmanship of Lord Ezra, did not make any specific recommendations addressed to Government. I have however welcomed the report, in particular its main conclusion, that the private sector could and should make a greater contribution to the funding of money advice.

  Exhibition, Kiev
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effects of the British exhibition in Kiev in terms of the promotion of United Kingdom trade and exports.

  Mr. Redwood
  British exports to the Soviet Union are up 35 per cent. so far this year but we believe this largely reflects orders taken some 18 months to two years ago. Given that such time lags are normal in trade with the Soviet Union, it would obviously be premature to assess the effects of last month's British trade exhibition in Kiev.

  The trade exhibition was part of a month-long British presence in Kiev comprising more than 25 different events, the centrepiece being an FCO exhibition depicting life in modern Britain. More than 40 British companies took part in the trade exhibition and accompanying seminar programme, which ran from 4–14 June and demonstrated British expertise in areas of major potential for business in the Ukraine.

  I can assure my hon. Friend that the trade exhibition, like the British month as a whole was a considerable success. Participating companies were delighted with the attention which they received from business visitors and I am confident that they will follow this up vigorously to convert these leads into the basis for increased economic co-operation, including British exports to the Soviet Union.

  Exporters (Assistance)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new proposals to help British exporters.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department offers a wide range of advice and support to assist United Kingdom exporters which many firms make use of. We continue to monitor the performance and relevance of our services to ensure they fully meet the needs of our customers.
  642
  The continuing growth of the volume of our exports, reflecting the strong position of United Kingdom industry, is encouraging.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new proposals to help British exporters.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department offers a wide range of advice and support to assist United Kingdom exporters which many firms make use of. We continue to monitor the performance and relevance of our services to ensure they fully meet the needs of our customers.

  The continuing growth of the volume of our exports, reflecting the strong position of United Kingdom industry, is encouraging.

  Hallmarking
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that the British system of hallmarking is safeguarded when legislation to harmonise hallmarking is introduced.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that the British system of hallmarking is safeguarded when legislation to harmonise hallmarking is introduced.

  Mr. Forth
  The EC Commission has recently indicated that it intends to put forward proposals on the control and marking of precious metals. We shall seek to maintain an adequate level of protection for the consumer in the United Kingdom in discussion on any proposals which are put forward.

  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to ensure the continued mandatory hallmarking of silver cutlery made in Britain following the creation of the single European market.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The European Community Commission has recently indicated that it intends to put forward proposals on the control and marking of precious metals. We shall seek to maintain an adequate level of protection for the consumer in the United Kingdom in discussions on any proposals which are put forward.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The future of the United Kingdom's shipbuilding industry depends on its ability to win orders in the face of international competition. Substantial support is provided by the Government to assist the industry to return to normal competitive conditions.

  Innovation Advisory Board
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about the report entitled, "Innovation: City Attitudes and Practices" by the Innovation Advisory Board of his Department.
  643
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The report "Innovation: City Attitudes and Practices" was prepared by the Innovation Advisory Board as a discussion paper for the conference on innovation and short-termism held in London on 25 June. The proceedings of that conference are due to be published shortly.

  I understand that the Innovation Advisory Board is considering follow-up action from the conference and I am at present awaiting its recommendations.

  Investment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on short-termism in British finance and industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  Like my right hon. predecessor, to whom I pay tribute, I recognise the importance of this issue. Companies' ability to invest in the long term is a function of their profitability. The profitability of British industry has returned of late to the highest levels for 20 years and business investment has consequently reached record levels.

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the individual amounts contributed by accountancy firms criticised by the inspectors towards the establishment and running of the Financial Reporting Council.

  Mr. Redwood
  The financial contribution of the accountancy profession to the Financial Reporting Council is made by the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies and the source of the funding is a matter for the bodies constituting that committee.

  British Airways
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he received any communication from the Commission of the European Community as a result of the visit by its officials to the offices of the chairman and chief executive of British Airways when they examined their private papers and personal bank statements.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. It is not usual for the Commission to report on visits made in the course of competition investigations.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there was any communication between the Commission of the European Community and his Deprtment before officials of the Commission carried out a search of the offices of the chairman and chief executive of British Airways to examine their private papers and personal bank statements.

  Mr. Lilley
  In accordance with usual practice, the Commission notified the Office of Fair Trading in advance about the proposed visit to British Airways on 23–24 February, which had already been arranged with the company, and an official from the office accompanied the Commission officials on the visit. So far as we can establish, no personal bank accounts were examined nor were other private papers called for.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be received; what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has records of three subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act, all received over the period since November 1987. No prior estimates were made on expected applications.

  In view of the small number of requests and the absence of complaints there are no plans to review the subject access fee. The Department does not charge staff for access to their records.

  Chinese Bicycles
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the ratio is of Chinese bicycles imported into the European Community to the level envisaged under present generalised system of preferences rules; and what proportion of these imports enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no fixed limits on imports of Chinese bicycles under the generalised system of preferences at the present time.

  Full details of Community imports of Chinese bicycles under the GSP for the first half of 1990 are not yet available from the European Commission. My Department will write to my hon. Friend with this information as soon as it becomes available.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will press for a review of(a) general systems of preference status of Chinese bicycle imports and (b) China's undeveloped nation status for trading purposes.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans at present to seek a review of the status of Chinese bicycle imports within the EC, or China's current status as a beneficiary under the GSP. My Department will, however, continue to monitor the situation regarding the imports of Chinese bicycles.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to formulate his response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of the inquiry at which Mr. Nigel Harris of the AUEW, Mr. Alan Harris, Mr. Bill Menzies and the hon. Member for Linlithgow gave evidence.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State will formulate his response when he receives the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is expected by 3 August.

  Import Penetration (EC)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish a table showing the latest figure for import penetration from the European Economic Community as a percentage of home demand on the same basis as in table 15.10 of the Monthly Digest of Statistics; and if he will add the figures for 1970 and 1979 on a broadly comparable basis.
  645
  Mr. Redwood
  My Department does not make regular estimates of import penetration ratios for particular groups of trading partners. However, estimates broadly comparable to those published in the Monthly Digest of Statistics are as follows:

  EC imports as a proportion of home demand (manufacturing)

  Percentage

  1970

  5

  1979

  12

  1988

  19

  Computers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of United Kingdom exports of computers consists of re-exports.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the United Kingdom content of United Kingdom exports of computers in 1973, 1979, 1985 and the latest year for which an estimate is feasible.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on which to base a reliable estimate is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has completed his review of the computer industry; and whether he intends to publish his findings.

  Mr. Forth
  A voluntary exercise has been undertaken to collect figures for the "balance of trade" in electronic and IT goods of some of the larger IT companies in the United Kingdom. The results will be published soon.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Civil Aviation Authority will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The report is published today. In contrast to its more wide-ranging 1983 report, the commission was asked to focus its attention particularly on the authority's arrangement for managing its investment programme and for identifying and implementing improvements in efficiency.

  The commission found that the authority was not pursuing a course of conduct which operated against the public interest.

  The commission recognised the authority's achievement in maintaining its excellent safety record in the face of the marked growth of air traffic in recent years. While disappointed that the authority had initially been slow to implement the recommendations of its 1983 report, the commission found that the new management team appointed from 1986 onwards was now tackling the
  646
  authority's problems. For example, an extensive investment programme is under way and there had been a market recent improvement in the authority's record of project control.

  The commission made a number of recommendations, giving particular priority to:

  (a) the implementation of effective corporate manpower planning, in particular to address the shortage of air traffic control officers;

  (b) the use of corporate planning to illustrate trends in performance;

  (c) implementation of improvements in project management to the authority's suggested time-scale;

  (d) greater transparency in and explanation of charges.

  The authority will be producing a preliminary response to the commission's findings within three to four months, in the light of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement.

  Company Registers
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for introducing regulations under section 143 of the Companies Act 1989 on the inspection and copying of company registers; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department issued a consultative document today on the issues to be covered by regulations under section 143.

  A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Further copies are available from my Department by telephoning 071–215 3093 or writing to DTI, room G07, 10–18 Victoria street, London, SW1 H 0NN.

  The deadline for comments is 14 September 1990.

  Industry Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what matters will be discussed at the European Community Industry Council to be held on 21 September.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: At the moment, no agenda has been formally agreed for the 21 September meeting of the Industry Council.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to attend the European Community Industry Council proposed for 21 September.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: At the moment, it is my intention to attend the 21 September meeting of the Industry Council.

  Companies Act Investigations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1980 the number of reports under the Companies Acts completed, the number published after completion and the cost of such investigations, showing separately the costs of those reports published from the costs of reports not published.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: Following is the information:
  647

  Completed reports

  Published final reports

  Published interim reports

  Unpublished final reports

  Unpublished interim reports

  1980

  14

  4

  2

  8

  0

  Costs £000

  575

  3575

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  10

  6

  0

  3

  1

  Costs £000

  1,218

  1,218

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Costs £000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  3

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Costs £000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Costs £000

  1149

  —

  149

  —

  —

  1985

  5

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Costs £000

  1400

  —

  —

  400

  —

  1986

  5

  0

  1

  4

  0

  Costs £000

  1184

  —

  —

  1184

  —

  1987

  7

  3

  0

  4

  0

  Costs £000

  3,153

  21,259

  —

  31,894

  —

  1988

  7

  4

  0

  1

  2

  Costs £000

  41,875

  41,875

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  7

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Costs £000

  41,588

  1,088

  —

  3500

  —

  1990

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Costs £000

  11,243

  —

  —

  1,243

  —

  Notes:

  1Costs of investigations to interim report stage are not readily available.

  2The cost of investigations by Departmental officers and in one case by outside inspectors is not readily available. The number of reports completed each year for which cost of investigations are available is shown in brackets after the cost.

  3The decision whether to publish 13 of the unpublished reports completed since 1985 remains under consideration.

  4Reports were not necessarily published in the same year they were completed.

  Financial Institutions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss the other self-regulatory organisations.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss a range of topics concerning the regulation of financial services as frequently as is necessary. No date has been fixed for the next meeting of this sort.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the persons who have conducted investigations on his behalf under the Financial Services Acts.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The following individuals have either been authorised under section 106 or appointed as inspectors under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 by the Secretary of State to carry out investigations:

  B. R. Addison FCA

  D. Anton FCA

  M. Austin-Smith

  B. R. Bacon

  J. M. Barney FCA

  R. M. Beales

  J. M. Beckett

  D. M. Blair

  J. A. Blair-Gould

  M. Boohan FCA

  D. Botterill FCA

  D. R. Brailsford

  A. Bray FCA

  M. Bromley-Martin

  Sir Henry Brooke

  M. J. Burton

  A. H. F. Campbell FCA

  K. S. Carmichael CBE FCA

  D. Caruth

  648

  R. L. Crocombe

  P. Crozier

  C. J. Dent

  M. J. Deveson

  Dr. A. Evans QC

  His Honour Judge Fabyan Evans

  M. O. Feltham

  G. Flather QC

  J. A. Gardner

  D. Gorick

  M. R. A. Haan FCA

  A. D. Harverd FCA

  Miss H. Helbron QC

  P. L. Heslop QC

  W. M. Hoffman FCA

  O. M. Holmes FCA

  G. Hulbert FCA

  A. H. Isaacs

  A. Issard-Davies

  P. Jennings

  M. Kalisher QC

  J. B. Katto

  B. A. Kemp FCA

  G. N. Kennedy

  T. G. R. Lawrence FCA

  M. H. Lawson

  G. S. Lawson Rogers

  R. P. G. Lewis FCA

  J. Lindsay QC

  N. R. Lyle

  M. McIver

  R. H. MacIntyre FCA

  D. J. MacLeod FCA

  J. Mann

  Mrs. B. J. L. Mills QC

  J. C. Morton FCA

  A. Muir

  T. Nash

  T. W. Owen

  Professor J. Percy FCA

  D. Perry

  N. Purnell QC

  A. C. Rapazzini FCA

  E. E. Ray CBE FCA

  A. S. Ridler FCA

  D. V. Robertson FCA

  P. Rook

  J. Scannell

  649

  P. D. J. Scott QC

  P. R. Siddons MA FCA

  The Hon. Justice Simpson

  S. M. Solley QC

  Mrs. L. J. Stern

  P. J. Stilling FCA

  A. Sutton FCA

  J. Thompson

  R. T. Turner FCA

  R. C. Turton

  Miss J. H. Ungar

  S. P. Waller

  M. Wheeler FCA

  R. P. Wilkinson

  P. G. B. Willsher

  B. L. Worth FCA

  I. P. Yeatman

  R. G. A. Youard

  L. D. Ziman

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the ministerial meetings with officials of (1) the Securities and Investments Board, (2) the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, (3) the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, (4) the Securities Association and (5) the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: During the past year I have met officials from the Securities and Investments Board on five occasions; from the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association five times; from the Securities Association three times; from the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation twice and from the investment Management Regulatory Organisation once. Over the same period my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State met officials from the Securities and Investments Board and the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association each on one occasion, and the Securities Association twice.

  European Community countries" exports to Vietnam 1986–1989

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Value

  Percentage

  Value

  Percentage

  Value

  Percentage

  Value

  Percentage

  OECD total1

  312·00

  312·00

  372·00

  346·00

  France2

  34·33

  (11·0)

  37·3

  (12·0)

  51·73

  (13·9)

  91·78

  (26·5)

  Germany

  9·48

  (3·0)

  13·43

  (4·3)

  16·22

  (4·4)

  14·99

  (4·3)

  Netherlands

  3·46

  (1·1)

  7·87

  (2·5)

  11·24

  (3·0)

  9·04

  (2·6)

  Spain

  0·31

  (0·1)

  0·05

  (0·0)

  4·48

  (1·2)

  7·67

  (2·2)

  United Kingdom

  1·88

  (0·6)

  4·25

  (1·4)

  3·94

  (1·1)

  6·72

  (1·9)

  Italy

  5·15

  (1·7)

  11·64

  (3·7)

  11·47

  (3·1)

  5·05

  (1·5)

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1·66

  (0·5)

  3·44

  (1·1)

  1·82

  (0·5)

  2·02

  (0·6)

  Denmark

  0·79

  (0·3)

  0·36

  (0·1)

  3·58

  (1·0)

  1·27

  (0·4)

  Portugal

  —

  (0·0)

  0·05

  (0·0)

  0·13

  (0·0)

  —

  (0·0)

  Greece

  —

  (0·0)

  0·06

  (0·0)

  —

  (0·0)

  —

  (0·0)

  Ireland

  0·07

  (0·0)

  0·04

  (0·0)

  0·01

  (0·0)

  —

  (0·0)

  1 Value in USS million·

  2 Provisional figure·

  Note: Countries listed in order of 1989 market share.

  Source: OECD Series A

  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what cover the Export Credits Guarantee Department gives to British companies wishing to trade with Vietnam; what information he has on export credits provided by other European Community states; and if he will make a statement

  Mr Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: Cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department is

  Bankruptcies
  Mr Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies entered into receivership in each year since 1980; and what information he has on the number of such cases in which the previous annual audit statement was unqualified

  Mr· Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The number of companies in Great Britain notified to Companies House as entering receivership since 1980 were:

  Number

  1980

  1,498

  1981

  1,741

  1982

  2,949

  1983

  3,063

  1984

  2,322

  1985

  2,130

  1986

  2,141

  1987

  1,466

  1988

  2,037

  1989

  1,841

  No information is available on the number of receivership cases where the previous annual audit statement was unqualified.

  Vietnam
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many British companies trade with Vietnam; and what information he has on the position in other European Community member states.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]:The DTI does not maintain a comprehensive list of individual British or EC companies which trade with Vietnam. The table compares the United Kingdom's share of exports from OECD countries to Vietnam with those of the rest of the European Community.

  available for short-term business subject to payment being made on terms of cash against documents out of an irrevocable letter of credit confirmed before shipment by a bank in the United Kingdom. Some other member states provide similar support.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support Her Majesty's Government gives to British companies wishing to trade with Vietnam.
  651
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: Financial support from Her Majesty's Government for British companies wishing to trade with Vietnam is limited to short-term (180 days) export credit cover available from the Export Credits Guarantee Department on the basis of payment made on terms of cash against documents out of an irrevocable letter of credit confirmed before shipment by a bank in the United Kingdom. The resumption of medium and long-term cover, withdrawn in 1982 following repayment defaults, will be reviewed when
  652
  Vietnam has negotiated a debt rescheduling arrangement with the IMF. This policy is broadly in line with other European export credit agencies.

  Through the BOTB, the DTI continues to offer a wide range of services to assist United Kingdom companies trading with Vietnam including general market information, briefing seminars and financial support for companies visiting Vietnam as part of DTI-sponsored trade missions or exhibitions.

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

Baroness Castle of Blackburn
The Right Honourable Barbara Anne Castle, having been created Baroness Castle of Blackburn, of Ibstone in the County of Buckinghamshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Serota and the Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell Lord Hamilton of Dalzell—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Bird Conservation: Exe Estuary
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to designate the Exe estuary as a special protection area under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I cannot forecast when the Exe estuary will be designated as a special protection area. As is the case with a number of sites currently being considered by the Government, officials are undertaking a wide range of essential consultations with other government departments to ensure that any apparent problems or conflicts are closely examined, together with the scientific evidence put forward.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, which is similar to the one which I was given by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in April. Since the designation of the Exe estuary has not been objected to, can the noble Lord tell us what conflicts or problems in the inter-departmental consultations have made it impossible to declare designation three months after April?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware of any conflicts but I am aware that the consultations have not yet been completed, which is what I said in my original Answer.
Lore Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that 188 sites have been designated or may be designated as special protection areas? Will we have to wait for the Government to get their act together and for the departments to consult on 188 occasions? Will the Minister do his best to speed up the process?
Lord Hesketh: Well, my Lords, the noble Lord has been very reserved. I believe that there are 218 sites to be precise. I remind the House that protection is already provided through SSSIs. The SSSI programme is now more than 90 per cent. complete and some 5,300 sites have already been designated.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for correcting my figures which came from a source other than the Government. Are we being told that all outside bodies have been consulted and are in agreement, that there are no objections and that it is just a question of government departments consulting with one another? Is that what the Minister is saying?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was referring to the Exe estuary and not to the entire 218 sites, where I am sure at one point or another there may be some problems.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although these sites are protected as SSSIs, the value of an international designation is that it allows formal consultation between other countries and an exchange of experience and expertise? That is important not only in terms of learning from other countries but in offering our expertise to them. Is it not, therefore, a matter of some urgency that we get on with this designation and indeed with all the others?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness is well aware that we have always felt that the primary defence was the SSSI. Over recent years a great deal of work has been done in order to achieve it. As the SSSI programme, for want of a better word, is completed, we shall be able to move faster on other fronts.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the fact that human beings have probably 70 years to consider all these matters, whereas birds have considerably less time?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope very much that I have 70 years to consider SSSIs. In saying that, I fully appreciate my noble friend's point.

Turkey: Human Rights Obligations
2.54 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking together with the European Community, the Council of Europe and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to end the state of emergency in eleven provinces of eastern Turkey and to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights and the conventions against torture.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, a state of emergency was introduced in south-east Turkey in April following an upsurge of terrorist activity. We hope that it will be possible to lift it quickly. In the interval, Turkey is aware of our expectation that she should abide by the human rights conventions to which she is a party.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is it not a fact that there is compelling evidence of widespread and possibly systematic use of torture, of deportations and of the existence of death squads? Do not these matters make a mockery of signing international conventions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in regard to torture, Turkey is a member of the United Nations conventions against torture. We look to her to abide by her obligations. There are, as the noble Lord said, still worrying reports but the Turkish authorities emphasise their determination to crack down on abuses. The Turkish courts have investigated police and army officers and in several cases found them guilty of mistreating villagers.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, against the background of Turkey's appalling record on human rights, will the noble Lord confirm that there is no question whatsoever that the Government would support Turkey's entry into the European Community?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is not a question for us alone. The Council of Ministers, when considering the Commission's opinion, will take into account all relevant factors, including Turkey's human rights record.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in parts of Turkey political dissidents are frequently arrested, detained for a few days, beaten up, tortured and then released without charge as a deterrent to their political activity? Does he share my judgment that Turkey has probably the worst human rights record of any European country now, with the possible exception of Albania? Since Turkey is our ally should we not urgently try to do something about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we regard this as an important issue. Turkey has made progress in recent years. It is essential that she respects and abides by the terms of international human rights agreements of which she is a signatory. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister most recently discussed this issue with the Turkish president during their meeting at Gallipoli on 25th April, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with the Turkish Under-Secretary on 20th June. The Turkish Government have reaffirmed their determination to solve the remaining problems but the ultimate test must be their performance, not their statements of intent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it was not a matter for the Government as to whether Turkey should be allowed membership of the EC. But is it not a fact that the admittance of new members needs a unanimous decision? Therefore, could not the Government veto the admission of Turkey to the EC if they so wished?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I said in fact that it was not a question for us alone. It is a question for the Council of Ministers when considering the Commission's opinion. We shall also take into account Turkey's human rights record.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister not admit that the decision of an independent nation is for that nation alone?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sorry but I did not catch the first part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I asked whether the Minister might not admit that the decision of an independent nation is for that nation alone.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, has the Minister received any information from humanitarian agencies or NGOs about the plight of the Kurdish refugees from Iraq in the Turkish camps? How much humanitarian aid is being sent to those camps?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have received reports of Iraqi Kurds deported by Turkey to Iran. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has no reason to believe that they have been ill-treated since they arrived in Iran. The noble Baroness asked about aid to the camps. We have contributed substantially to the various projects in hand.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the human rights committee of the Council of Europe has constantly considered this problem? It monitors the situation almost on a monthly basis and continues to discuss with the Turkish Government the difficulties which constantly arise.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that that is correct. The Council of Europe is looking into these matters.

Cambodia: Peace Efforts
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to promote a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Cambodia.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the British Government are closely involved in efforts to bring about a comprehensive political settlement in Cambodia, notably through meetings of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The Five held their latest meeting in Paris on 16th and 17th July, and made further progress in elaborating the elements of a settlement. They have agreed to accelerate their work and to meet again in New York on 27th and 28th August.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, does he agree that there is a real danger that the Khmer Rouge will seize power unless urgent action is taken? Therefore, can he be a little more specific about what progress has been made in the UN Security Council's current session? Further, will he confirm—or will he deny—the recent news which was released only this morning that the United States will no longer recognise the Khmer Rouge-dominated coalition's right to occupy Cambodia's seat at the UN? If this report is correct, will Her Majesty's Government follow suit?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that recent reports of Khmer Rouge advances have been worrying. As regards the progress made at the latest meeting of the Permanent Five members—not the UN Security Council—in Paris yesterday and the day before, the Five came within close reach of a detailed

859
agreement, first, on peace-keeping and military arrangements to guarantee the cease-fire, withdrawal of foreign forces, cessation of arms supplies and regrouping of Cambodian forces; and, secondly, on the composition, the powers and the functions of the Supreme National Council. The next step will be to deal with the three other remaining issues: namely, guarantees of free and fair elections under the United Nations auspices; guarantees of fundamental human rights; and guarantees for independent sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia. The Five have committed themselves to early agreement on those three outstanding matters and the August meeting will tackle them.
As regards the United States position, the US Government as recently as 9th July said that they regularly review their Cambodia policy in the light of changing circumstances. In regard to the UN seat, we and our European Community partners have already said that we shall have to review the situation in the autumn. We very much hope that by then events will enable the Supreme National Council to take up that seat.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister realise that Her Majesty's Government's efforts to ensure that the Khmer Rouge does not return to power in Cambodia will have the support of all civilised people in view of the appalling atrocities that were carried out in that country when they were last in power? I have met personally many victims. Is he aware that we shall back any efforts that the Government make in this direction?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. In our capacity as a member of the Permanent Five of the United Nations, we have been working very hard in this respect over the past few months. The latest meeting was the fifth of such meetings.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the news which was released from Paris this morning that Mr James Baker, following a meeting with Mr Eduard Shevardnadze, has announced a major shift in American policy? I refer—as has the noble Baroness—to the report that they intend to seek the removal of the Khmer Rouge from the United Nations seat, and also that they are now prepared to start discussing the Cambodian situation with the Vietnamese. This is a major shift in policy which was only made known this morning at about 11 o'clock.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords; I am aware of that announcement. I have already answered the first part of the noble Lord's question regarding the United Nations seat. It is clearly extremely welcome news that the Americans are proposing to talk to the Vietnamese on the Cambodian situation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Lord be more specific about our position in the matter? Is it not the case that the report (which seems to be reliable) indicates that the United States of
860
America definitely supports the Khmer Rouge occupancy of the UN seat? Are we in exactly the same position?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we have already made it clear that in the autumn we shall need to review our stand regarding the Cambodian seat at the United Nations. We do not wish the Khmer Rouge to continue to occupy that seat. Obviously, we would rather that the peace process makes advances and that the Supreme National Council will be formed in time to occupy that seat.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I understand from what the Minister said that the five permanent members of the Security Council have now agreed on the composition of the Supreme National Council. The House will know—and I am sure the Minister will agree—that this is crucial to a settlement. However, can he tell us what part the Khmer Rouge is to play in the Supreme National Council?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Five have agreed on the composition, powers and functions of the Supreme National Council. It will be up to the Cambodian parties to decide who should be part of the council. The important aspect to bear in mind as regards the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot is the fact that the members must be acceptable to each other.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I support what many noble Lords have said. However, is it not the case that the announcement made by the American Secretary of State is to the effect that they have changed their policy radically, and that they are challenging the Khmer Rouge's position as the Cambodian representative in the United Nations? Therefore, can we take it from the Minister that Her Majesty's Government support this policy without equivocation? Further, will he give us an assurance that his department will be in touch with the American State Department in order to ensure how to go forward in order to get rid of the Khmer Rouge's representative in the United Nations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall certainly be discussing this matter with the Americans at the earliest opportunity. As has been said, this news has only recently been released. We regard it as welcome news.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when we debated this issue in the House every speaker was anxious about the fact that supporters of Pol Pot were creeping back into power? Is he aware that this development was recognised most by the Australian Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? Therefore, can he say whether we are in close contact with the Australians, who have taken the lead in the matter? I hope that they can count on the support of this country and of the Government.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords; we keep closely in touch with Senator Evans on the matter. It was his proposal in the first place that the United Nations should play a more significant role in a transitional authority for Cambodia. That is exactly what the five permanent members have been discussing over the past few months.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to the Thai Government who, by allowing arms to reach the Khmer Rouge and acting as host to them in camps on the Cambodian border, are playing a crucial role in prolonging the conflict? Can he say how that government defends this position now that the Vietnamese have withdrawn their forces from Cambodia?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we keep in touch with the Thai Government and other ASEAN countries which are closely involved in the matter. However, it is the Chinese who have been supplying arms to the Khmer Rouge. They are a member of the Permanent Five group. The fact that they are taking part in the discussions among the five permanent members is an encouraging sign.

British Visa Applications: Moscow and Warsaw
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to ease congestion at the British consulates in Moscow and Warsaw and to improve conditions for those applying for British visas.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have asked both the Soviet and the Polish Governments to assist in finding alternative accommodation for our entry clearance operations in Moscow and Warsaw. In the meantime, we have taken all possible steps, including the use of extra temporary accommodation in Moscow and local modifications to our offices, to reduce the inconvenience to those applying for British visas.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. However, is he aware that individual Russians are now usually able to visit this country on a non-official basis for the first time since 1914? Does he agree that this is a tremendous step forward in relations between the Soviet Union and this country and that it would be a terrible shame if that was spoilt by a lack of resources, a lack of accommodation or any other bureaucratic problem?
Will he further agree that this is a two-edged sword and that in reply, as a reciprocal step, there may well be—and, indeed there are—delays imposed upon British citizens applying for Polish and Soviet visas? Will he do all that he can to remedy the situation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are, as I said in my original Answer, doing as much as we can to improve the situation in Moscow. Applications, which are welcome, as my noble friend said, have risen considerably. In 1988, 15,800 visas were granted; last year the number was 27,900; and in the first five months of this year it was 15,500. My noble friend will therefore see the scale of the problem. As I have said, we are trying to obtain better accommodation but it is not easy. Moscow is unfortunately still a bureaucratic place. We have increased our staff in Moscow by one
862
United Kingdom-based officer and four on summer relief. We are also trying to recruit more locally engaged staff.
Lord Rea: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government intend to open a consulate in Leningrad, which has a great deal of contact with Britain? Is the Minister aware that 14 other nations have consulates there? Is it true, as I have been told as patron of the Britain/USSR Medical Exchange Programme, that no member of the consular staff in Moscow speaks Russian? Do the Government intend to remedy that position?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not believe that there are any present plans to open a consulate in Leningrad. We might well welcome the chance to do so. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord a reply about the language knowledge of consular staff in Moscow.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there would be a great deal of pleasure if we could speed up the issuing of visas in Warsaw and other Polish cities? In the meantime, could we do something to increase the number of Polish students allowed into this country as we do not seem able to recruit British students to pick fruit and carry out other harvest duties?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is there not a possibility of increasing beyond 2,000 the number of Polish students who came here last year to undertake those functions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are allowing more young seasonal agricultural workers from Poland this year. We increased the number this year from 2,500 to 4,000. I gather that that is extremely popular with the Poles. We increased the staff of the visa issuing section in Warsaw from four last year to eight. We have provided five extra summer relief staff from March to September. We have 16 locally engaged staff. Our problem there is finding better accommodation. We are still wrestling with the bureaucracy in Warsaw to try to do so.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the recent Manchester Olympic Festival, of which I was a director, a huge Russian connection was made and that therefore a large number of visas were required for artistes, curators and other Soviet citizens? Since they were invariably forthcoming, in our diplomatic staff in Moscow there must be a considerable range of expertise, hard work and good will upon which future plans can be made.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the compliment that he has paid to our staff in Moscow. I have recently visited the embassy in Moscow. Not merely the visa issuing staff but the entire staff work in extremely cramped conditions. That is why over the longer term we are negotiating with the Russians for a new embassy.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, how long does it take from the original application to the granting of a visa in Moscow and Warsaw?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, most applications for visit visas are issued on the same day in both Moscow and Warsaw. The problem is that applicants have to queue for some time before they can put in their applications.

Business
3.14 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hooper will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on community care that is to be made in another place.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
British Railways Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Business of the House
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the end of the Session.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will be disturbed by the Motion moved by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. It is of course true that his Motion is in order but, nevertheless, it is unusual, and it is due to the Government's insistence on overloading the legislative programme.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we have reached the position where, day by day, the Committee stage of a variety of heavy, controversial Bills, is taken without regard not merely for noble Lords responsible for the Bill on the government side but for those on these Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross-Benches. It lays a heavy burden upon noble Lords. It cannot be repeated too often—it is not a matter to be taken lightly—that noble Lords are overworked due to the Government's insistence on overloading the legislative programme and, if I may say so, the incompetent way in which they deal with the legislation.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I therefore make a protest. The words of the Motion are:
864
"That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the end of the Session".
We do not yet know when the end of the Session will be. It would be more appropriate and more courteous to the House if the noble Lord's Motion read that,
"(No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the Recess".
That would at least give the House time to consider the implications of the Motion.
I shall say no more at this stage because I have spoken on this issue at this time of the year for the past four or five years. I again register my protest about the way in which legislation is being dealt with by the Government. The country is beginning to realise that as well. The country realises that there is far too much legislation—more legislation than can be digested by the courts, dealt with by the draftsmen and properly explained by noble Lords opposite. Having registered my protest, I give notice that I shall raise the matter again if necessary.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also express our regret at the fact that the Government have decided to suspend the Standing Order. It is not merely a matter of overloading Members of the House with work, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said; it also means that it is impossible for the House to do its job properly.
If there is a reason to bring up a matter a third time before Third Reading, as is often the case, if two stages are taken on the same day adequate preparation cannot be made and we are therefore unable to carry out the proper revising job that we are here to do. It is once again evidence of the way in which the Government increasingly steamroller both Houses of Parliament.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may say in defence of my noble friends on the Front Bench that I remember my noble friend Lord Denham making the same speech as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, at a time when some of his friends were on the Treasury Bench. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has always made it because she has always been on the Liberal Benches. It is a complaint made by all Oppositions at all times. Governments put on "po-faces" and say that they are terribly sorry, they have pushed business slightly. The Opposition make strong arguments about it being a constitutional outrage and I suspect that if the hereditary principle continues, my son, grandson and great-grandson will hear the same story. There is nothing new about it, so let us not get upheaved, let us allow the Government to get their business through.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the point made by the noble Earl is not valid. This Government were elected on the basis that they would put through Parliament much less legislation and bring forward considerably fewer Bills. The point raised by my noble friend from the Front Bench, supported by the noble Baroness, is valid.
Because of the weight of government business we have to take important Bills and hold important discussions on a Friday. For example, as I understand

865
it, we shall have a discussion on the economy this Friday now that we have received the Finance Bill. It is my view that discussions of that kind on important Bills ought not to be on a Friday when many Members of the House cannot be present. I therefore hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will take that fact on board as well as the points raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is quite right; he has raised this point on several occasions. However, the fact that it has been repeated several times does not necessarily give it a strong base. I suggest that the House ought to carry out a little self-discipline on this issue.
It is perfectly true that the hours we keep are unreasonable compared with what they used to be. It is perfectly true that we spend many more hours than we need in order to carry out our job properly. However it is also true that in the 16 years during which I have been in your Lordships' House there has been a grave deterioration in debates, with noble Lords repeating the same point again and again. That is what takes up time and necessitates extra hours. I was used to that in another place because one knows perfectly well that people there wish to impress their constituents. If a good point is made, they repeat it in the hope that the local paper will report it as their idea in the first place. We do not have that. There is no need for us to take that into consideration.
I have always had the understanding about the Second Chamber that once a point has been made it is known that it will be recorded and is on the record to be dealt with. There is no need to do what we have done in the past year and the year before that—repeat the same point over and over again.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take seriously the point raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as well as other noble Lords. Before I reply, perhaps I may make one point. It is right to remember at the end of a long summer that this House operates by agreement. In that regard we must be unique among legislative chambers around the world. As Leader of the House, therefore, I am the first to recognise that the House relies on the way in which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip and his Front Bench represent the constitutional position of the Opposition in seeing that the House is able to run smoothly.
In that context I wish to give two replies. The first concerns the bona fides of my moving this Motion. The brief I have in front of me—if the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will forgive me saying so—is contrary to his accusation that although in order this is unusual. It says that at this time of year it is usual for us to take the step of suspending Standing Order 44 in order to take more than one stage of a Bill in one day. In case noble Lords opposite think that I am trying to put a cloak over what I am doing, I make it clear that the two Bills which I, as Leader of the House, have in
866
mind are the Finance Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill. We normally move this Motion because of those two Bills at this time of the year.
In addition, while on this occasion I move the Motion to take effect until the end of the Session, I give a personal undertaking to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that no Bill will be put down for more than one stage on any one day without agreement through the usual channels.
There has been a general feeling during this exchange by all noble Lords that nonetheless the House is being worked too hard. I am delighted that the House has put on record how very hard it works. Once again representing the House as a whole, I believe that to be absolutely true. However, I gently say to your Lordships that this year we intend to rise on Thursday 26th July. I like to think that that is reasonable and I hope that we shall now move towards rising on that date.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill
3.28 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert:
("(v) furthering the social development of such rural areas outwith the area of operations of Highlands and Islands Enterprise as defined in section 21 of this Act which the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instruments may from time to time designate; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed the Motion on the Business of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that much was repeated in the Chamber. I make no excuse for occasionally repeating points. We do that on this side in the hope that we shall perhaps convert or at least convince people outside and educate them as to what the Government are doing.
The amendment is slightly different from previous amendments on the subject. It deals with the social remit of Scottish Enterprise. That body has not been given a social remit which would allow the local enterprise companies to adopt a more comprehensive approach to development needs in rural areas. We believe that Scottish Enterprise itself should have a duty to ensure that local enterprise companies so far as possible address the problems of the more fragile rural communities. It is important that the services provided by the local enterprise companies are both relevant and accessible in these rural areas. Whether or not Scottish Enterprise is given a duty to monitor the activities of local enterprise companies in the more fragile rural communities, there will be a need to provide a policy framework for the local enterprise companies on matters concerning rural development.
Obviously Scottish Enterprise itself would need to oversee local enterprise in this field. Such guidance

867
could be provided, as I think I said at the previous stage of the Bill, by the rural development unit of the present Scottish Development Agency.
The EC regional policy already recognises that areas outwith the Highland area, as we define it, need special help. I mentioned earlier Dumfries and Galloway as two such areas. I have a certain hope in reintroducing this amendment because the Minister will note that the vote on this issue was rather closer than usual at 4 p.m. in your Lordships' House. I trust that the Minister has examined the Division lists and observed the wide range of noble Lords throughout the Chamber who supported the amendment. I hope that he has had discussions with his colleagues in the Scottish Office about whether he can give a rather more helpful reply on the subject than last time. He will note that the amendment stands not only in my name but also in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Selkirk. Therefore, it represents a cross-section of noble Lords. There is a Cross-Bencher and a Member of the Minister's own party supporting the amendment. I hope that that fact will give the amendment added weight and that the Minister will give us some hope as regards our provision. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I must confess that I am a little curious about this amendment after having heard the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, explain it. The various items which are referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill cover a whole range of different matters. They deal with the economy, employment, skills for self-employment, industrial efficiency and the improvement of the environment. Surely it is the case that each of those elements, in an individual way and in a collective way, forms part of the social development of rural areas which the noble Lord has referred to. I would argue that it is only through the success of these individual elements and through the success of their coming together that the social development which the noble Lord seeks in his amendment comes about.
That situation already exists as regards the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That was certainly the case in the short term when I had direct responsibility for that body. What the noble Lord and others who support this amendment are trying to do is in a sense almost tautological. What they are trying to achieve already exists. That is precisely why the various elements in the clause are set out as they are.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on the amendment which stands in his name, my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that we should not worry because the social element already exists. I am worried about that as an argument because the Highlands and Islands are given special advantages, which I fully support and understand. However, other areas in Scotland are not granted the benefits which are generally given to the Highlands and Islands.
868
In Committee the Minister said that there were areas akin—I think that was the word he used—to the fragile areas in the Highlands and Islands which deserved support in the same way as the Highlands and Islands. We are not trying to make this provision applicable to the whole of Scotland. However, we seek to allow the special advantages that are given to the Highlands and Islands to be given also to those areas—this point is different to the point raised in Committee—which the Secretary of State for Scotland recognises as fragile areas which demand special treatment. We are only asking for special benefits for those areas where the Secretary of State deems it appropriate to grant special benefits. I repeat we are not asking for special benefits for the whole of Scotland. There will be few areas which deserve such benefits, but they will arise. It will be a great pity if those areas cannot be treated in the same way as the Highlands and Islands.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is a peculiar situation here. In one half of the Bill the word "social" occurs, whereas in the other half it does not. "Social" is an extremely difficult word to define. It means absolutely nothing until one puts a noun next to it. Then one can understand that the word, as it comes from the Latin, simply means friendly. The word "friendly" is a nice word, but it means nothing until one puts it next to another word.
The point that is at issue here is why the word "social" occurs in one part of the Bill but not in the other. There must be some reason for that. This position reminds me of Humpty-Dumpty, who declared that when he used a word it meant just what he chose it to mean, and no more and no less. I daresay that the Secretary of State has a precise method of defining the word "social" when it is applied to a factory, for example. After all, our factories are based on social development. They seek to raise social standards. In that sense the word "social" is perfectly well understood. However, is that concept excluded because it does not somehow apply to the south of Scotland? Will the Minister tell us why there is this division in the Bill? It does not make sense as it stands.
The word "social" can mean practically anything one wants it to mean. I have even found a reference in a dictionary to a "social war". If we are saying that no social development is required in Glasgow, I must beg to differ. There are other towns in the south of Scotland where social development is also desirable. I do not think that my noble friend will confirm that that is the case, but he must know to some extent that that is the case. I believe it is rather pretentious to divide the two parts of Scotland in this way. They should have roughly the same standards. I hope my noble friend would agree to that.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Glenarthur who put this amendment in its proper context. The amendment is not necessary because the Bill already takes care of what the amendment seeks to do. However, as one of those who lives in the area covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, I take great

869
exception to this amendment. What the noble Earl, Lord Perth, seeks to do, whether he intends to or not, is to dilute the benefits offered to those who are trying to develop creations in the Highlands and Islands by offering the same kind of advantages to the central belt.
Over the years the Highlands and Islands have suffered from being the poor relation to the central belt of Scotland. In the days when Scotland achieved great things, that greatness did not come to the Highlands and Islands. There is no doubt about that. In Scotland's great days of heavy industry, the Highlands and Islands, the north east of Scotland and the Aberdeen area—the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will be only too well aware of this—did not benefit to any great degree. Now that we have obtained something by courtesy of that great Scot, the late Lord Ross of Marnock, whose creation the Highlands and Islands Development Board was, there are people trying to dilute the benefits which exist in the Highlands and Islands. I pay tribute to the late Lord Ross of Marnock. I hope that my noble friend the Minister of State will have nothing to do with this amendment and will make sure that it goes no further.
If all this determination to achieve equality in this way had existed, particularly on the part of the Opposition, when the Labour Government of the mid-1970s created the Scottish Development Agency, they would have included this measure in that legislation. However, they saw no necessity to include it then. The situation in Scotland is infinitely better now than it was in the mid-1970s. Therefore there is even less of an argument for including it now. I advise my noble friend to have nothing to do with the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, made the comments he did. There is no question of diluting any powers of the Highlands board. It is rather a matter of a slight extension of those powers. I do not believe that anything will be taken away from the noble Lord in his fastness up there near Inverness.
The noble Lord mentioned the Aberdeen area and the north east of Scotland. All that this amendment and previous amendments have tried to do is to allow the Government to extend the support which they give to the Highlands to areas which are similar to the Highlands and have the same problems. We have been supported by the Minister who has said that his native heath, the Borders, has areas like that. We have them in Aberdeenshire, we have them in the glens of Angus and in Perthshire. I see no reason why it should not be extended. We have the amendment that could do the trick.
On the last occasion the Minister himself admitted that the SDA's environmental work in Glasgow had a strong social flavour. Why should he not do so in this case? I am sure that he will. After all, he is quite sensible. Good arguments have been produced from
870
this side of the House and, so far, rather poor ones from his own Back Benches. I trust and hope that he will accept the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said by reminding him of the deliberations which he and I and other noble Lords have had in Sub-Committee D of your Lordships' European Communities Committee where we have been looking at how to enhance the quality of life in rural areas within the Community, and that includes Scotland. The conclusion that we have come to, which your Lordships will read when the report is published, is that the quality of life in rural areas can be improved by improving the economy. One has to make sure that there are jobs and that there is training for jobs. That is what the Scottish Development Agency has done and that is what Scottish Enterprise will do.
As my noble friend the Minister of State explained very clearly at the previous stage, the additional assistance that is needed in the Highlands and Islands area is of a particular kind because of its extreme remoteness and therefore extreme fragility. I am sure that my noble friend will reiterate what he said about the word "social" for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Selkirk who raised that point. In my view the amendment is not only unnecessary but wrong.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, one of the great advantages of the Highlands and Islands board area is that it is a very clearly defined one. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. He mentioned Aberdeenshire and Dumfriesshire. He left out the poverty-stricken area of East Lothian, and I deeply resent that.
Once one starts extending an area, in legislative terms, one finds oneself in very considerable trouble. The amendment seeks to extend the furthering of social development to such rural areas, and where that ends nobody knows. I heard my noble friend Lord Selkirk refer to the social problems of the city of Glasgow—Sauchiehall Street is hardly a rural area; not, at least, when I knew it last.
The Highlands and Islands area, which used to be known as the crofting counties, has always been, as it should be, a special area deserving special attention. It has always received special attention, and very rightly so. Although there have been understandable attempts to draw the borderline further south, borderlines are always unsatisfactory, be they geographical or financial. I say that with deep sincerity because for the last 30 years my own farm has been the first farm outside the difficult areas. I have looked over the fence and seen my neighbours getting the subsidies that were denied me. I remember when I was in the Scottish Office and responsible for these matters that I suggested to my officials that it might be possible to alter the line. I received a pretty cold response.
I hope that my noble friend will resist this attractive but, I believe, quite illogical amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment, for a couple of rather negative reasons. Both touch on the point which the

871
noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made; namely, that it is very difficult to define the word "social". For example, I recall that when I was chairman of the Hydro Board and operated, in part, under the dictate of what was known as the social clause, it was very difficult to initiate and implement policy with that type of emphasis because the permanent officials could always explain to the board why such a policy would be impossible within the terms of the social remit. Indeed, the laying of submarine cables to the outer islands only became a pressing reality when the EC made substantial funds available to the Hydro Board. That is another story, but it touches upon current political events.
I believe that the noble Lord can accept the amendment because it will not make all that much difference.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Goold: My Lords, like other noble Lords on this side of the House who have spoken, I believe that the general functions as stated in the Bill will help to promote business and enterprise in Scotland and that rural areas will share in those benefits. There are adequate alternative facilities and bodies, public and private, available to deal with social developments. Far better that Scottish Enterprise should be unfettered by any specific obligation which this unnecessary amendment might impose and be allowed to concentrate on the development of Scotland's economy, training, competitiveness, etc. From the success of that work great social benefits will accrue to both rural and urban areas. I believe that we should oppose the amendment.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I am grateful for the short but very succinct debate on the amendment. I am mindful of the advice offered from all sides of the House, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that whatever I say will not make very much difference.
As I indicated during consideration of the Bill in Committee, Scottish Enterprise will be primarily an engine of economic development, with training and environmental functions as well because those relate closely to that economic development role, as my noble friend Lord Goold said. However, on reading in Hansard our debate on 3rd July I think that some noble Lords may have been under the impression that Scottish Enterprise will be unable to participate in projects with any social content whatever. That is not the position. So long as a project has any economic benefit—for example, in improving the local economy or developing local skills—Scottish Enterprise can and will assist in relation to that element. It is only if there is no economic benefit whatever in view that Scottish Enterprise would be unable to participate.
My noble friend Baroness Carnegy of Lour quite rightly pointed out at Committee stage that the Scottish Development Agency has done a good deal of work within its economic development and environmental improvement remit which has also had a tremendously beneficial social effect.
872
Perhaps I may mention one or two examples—from rural areas, not from Glasgow which is a separate issue, although no one should say that the Scottish Development Agency and the Government have done nothing for Glasgow. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, does not infer that, but I should like to put the record straight for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. We have done a tremendous amount, for example, through GEAR.
Perhaps I may give two examples from rural areas. The agency is contributing £245,000 to the conversion of derelict land to provide playing fields at Langholm in Annandale. In Perthshire, the agency is assisting environmental improvement works in Birnham Village Centre to the tune of £41,000, and it is contributing £300,000 to the redevelopment of Aberfeldy Square and Rie-Achan car park in Pitlochry under its reclamation role. All those projects in their various ways will have self-evident social benefits for the local communities concerned, alongside the economic aspect which justified the SDA contribution.
Through the PRIDE scheme—the Programme for Rural Initiatives and Developments, with a budget of £5 million for the three years 1988 to 1990—the SDA is helping the private sector to initiate proposals in rural areas.
I am confident that this approach will continue under Scottish Enterprise, and in particular that the needs of rural areas will continue to be met under Scottish Enterprise within the terms of the Bill as it stands now.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned the SDA's rural unit and asked whether it was under threat. I am sure that it will continue to be important to have a source of expertise in rural issues within the central organisation. It will be for the board of Scottish Enterprise to determine its own staffing structure. I do not see that that is a problem regarding the noble Lord's immediate concern.
The local economic audits which the prospective local enterprise companies are now carrying out will provide a specific opportunity for the special needs and opportunities presented by these areas to be highlighted. In due course that will be reflected in the operating plan of each local enterprise company.
Already we are seeing the benefits of these economic audits. Only yesterday a new scheme was launched in Dundee, as a direct consequence of the local survey, which combines employment training with a job guarantee from local employers to successful trainees. I was particularly pleased that Campbell Christie at the STUC warmly endorsed this scheme. It is very good to see the major new flexibilities now available within employment training already used to such good effect.
Mention has been made of the Highlands board, for which I am responsible. Let me put in context the social remit of the Highlands board. At the moment around 2 per cent. of the board's expenditure goes on social development—mostly, as my noble friends said, in the form of community action grants. These give

873
financial assistance towards the cost of projects which meet social needs and contribute to social development. I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to Lord Ross, who foresaw the outcome when he put through the Bill in 1965.
We wish to see that social remit for the Highlands and Islands enterprise area continue. We do not wish to have that changed. But we remain of the view that there is no part of lowland Scotland where the economic and social elements are so closely interwoven as to be inseparable in the way that they are in some parts of the Highlands and Islands.
I apologise for speaking at length on this matter but it is important. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Selkirk that we are implementing straight from the 1975 Act (which the Labour Government put through in respect to the SDA) and the 1965 Act (which Lord Ross put through in the Labour Administration with regard to the Highlands and Islands). Those two Acts are replicated in this Act so far as concerns the social remit.
In conclusion I wish to convince noble Lords that the Government too attach great importance to Scottish Enterprise playing a full role in rural areas. But we consider that a specific social remit is not necessary, for the reasons I have stated. I hope that from that full explanation noble Lords will understand the Government's point of view.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure that the reaction from the Benches behind the Minister justifies our having put down this amendment. I do not want to rehearse the arguments but, to say the least, there was a great deal of confusion as to whether or not this provision was included. There were arguments as to whether it could be read into the Bill, or whether the Highlands and Islands were so distinct that it became quite a separate matter and therefore should not be mentioned in the Bill.
I was slightly more reassured when the Minister confirmed that the rural development unit was almost certain to continue. I and the other signatories to the amendment stressed that the Secretary of State would be the person to make a decision on whether certain areas would be given a specific social remit. We were well aware that there could be instances in which incoming industry would perhaps not be willing to settle unless there were some infrastructure development by Scottish Enterprise. We were talking about relatively small sums of money which could perhaps bring in a great deal more money.
I did not expect that this amendment would incite nine speakers to intervene. That illustrates its great importance. Scottish Enterprise must pay some heed to the social aspects of any work that they do. I hope that that is so because the people who previously built up Scottish industry showed little interest in the social aspects. I hope that Scottish Enterprise in the lowland areas will pay attention to that side.
Unless the other signatories to the amendment—the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Selkirk—wish to
874
do otherwise, I suggest that the reply of the Minister has been sufficient to allow us to withdraw the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Community Care
3.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the Government's policies for improving care in the community for elderly, disabled, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people. A similar approach is being taken by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. Their plans will be announced in Written Answers in another place today.
The Statement is as follows:
"Our policies are aimed at improving social care services by ensuring that they are properly tailored to the needs of individual people. This requires a clear, locally determined, set of priorities, and effective collaboration between public, private and voluntary agencies. Our proposals are linked to changes in the financial arrangements for people needing public support in residential care and nursing homes. Local authorities will take over a new responsibility to assess the individual needs of people and meet the costs of residential or domiciliary care for the particular person in need.
"As we have already said, the Government recognises that the local authorities would need adequate resources to enable them to discharge their new responsibilities. The Government will transfer to the local authorities the resources which it would otherwise have provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes.
"I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the totality of those policies, which have received a very wide measure of support.
"It has always been clear that the new policies represent a substantial new responsibility for local authorities. Before we implement the new proposals in full the Government must be satisfied that local authorities can sensibly take on the new duties in a way that is both fair to the people who require services and fair to their local taxpayers.
"Since I announced the Government's proposals last July it has become overwhelmingly clear that many local authorities are not managing their services and their spending so that they deliver good quality services effectively within reasonable spending limits. In many cases, local authorities have imposed excessive levels of community charge on their residents.
"In these circumstances, it is only sensible for any additional new burdens on local government in

875
1991–92 to be kept to an absolute minimum. Local authorities have made it clear that the changes we propose in community care would lead to many authorities increasing their expenditure and their levels of community charge. This would place a further unacceptable burden on charge payers.
"The Government has therefore decided that it would not be right to implement all the new proposals for care in the community simultaneously on 1st April next year. Implementation will instead go ahead on a phased timetable so that local authorities have longer to come to terms with the need to discharge their duties efficiently and at a cost which their community charge payers can afford.
"I intend that, as far as possible, the momentum of preparation for the new policy which has already been achieved should be maintained.
"In phase 1, from 1st April next year, I propose to introduce the new inspection units within local authorities and new complaints procedures. Next year development work will continue on the new planning arrangements, assessment and case management procedures, and the realignment of commissioning and providing responsibilities within social services departments.
"In phase 2, from 1st April 1992, I intend to implement the new planning arrangements for local authorities and health authorities and to continue with the remaining development work.
"The new system, including the new benefit arrangements, will be fully implemented from 1st April 1993.
"The cost of phase 1 of these proposals in 1991–92 has been taken into account in the figures for the local authority settlement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expects to announce shortly.
"Help through special income support payments will continue to be available to people in private or voluntary residential and nursing homes until phase 3 of the revised programme is implemented. The White Paper proposals on preservation of benefit rights for people already in homes will also be implemented from April 1993.
"There are also three other important developments which will be implemented straight away from 1st April 1991. First, the new specific grant in support of services for mentally ill people will start from next April. I am confident that this grant will encourage closer co-operation between health and local authorities. It will ensure that local authorities will in future give higher priority to services for this group. The grant next year will be paid at the rate of 70 per cent. and will support total expenditure of £30 million.
"Secondly, the new specific grant for local authority funding of voluntary bodies providing services for drug and alcohol misusers which the House voted to include in the National Health Service and Community Care Act three weeks ago will commence in 1991. It will be paid at the same
876
rate as the mental illness specific grant and support expenditure of £2 million. Like the grant for mental illness services, this will promote the development of more services for a group which has often been afforded low priority.
"Thirdly, the specific grant for training of social services staff will be increased to support expenditure of £35·5 million in 1991–92. That is £7·5 million more than in the current financial year. This will enable us to extend the support at present available to those working with the elderly and children to new groups of staff working with mentally ill, mentally handicapped and physically disabled people. It will also enable us to increase our support for post-qualification training.
"Together, the expenditure supported by these three grants amounts to about £70 million. This has been taken into account in the 1991 settlement for local authority spending details of which my right honourable friend expects to announce shortly.
"The new policies for care in the community have been almost universally welcomed and they will undoubtedly be put into effect. We are proceeding on a phased basis because of the problems posed by excessive levels of community charge. I hope that everyone will take advantage of the extra time to ensure that they will be even better prepared for successful implementation over the next three years."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Baroness for reading the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. But I am afraid that this is the extent of the thanks that I can give her.
What we have heard is a deplorable Statement. I believe that it is a betrayal of commitments made time and again in this House and in another place. I do not blame the noble Baroness; it is the people for whom she works who are responsible.
It is the first cut in the public expenditure round which is now concentrating the minds of Ministers. We understand that the economic situation is far worse than they had anticipated. It always is. The inflation rate has not yet peaked. There is no pot of gold. I was not present at the Prime Minister's end of term meeting here last night but somehow or other I seem to have got the message.
Just a short time before that meeting the Tory-dominated Social Services Select Committee said that it was disappointed but not surprised by the Government's decision to go slow in implementing the Act, which completed its passage through this House only on 28th June. It was disappointed because those who will suffer are the elderly and the disabled, and, as I said on Monday last, their 6 million carers—the most vulnerable in our society. They have no priority from this uncaring Government.
It was not surprised because even the Conservative members of that committee knew what the

877
Government's priorities were. The voting powers of the victims of this betrayal are not very powerful or well organised, but they are easily identified because they are all likely to be poor. They are the first victims of the Star Chamber approach. They are not the higher paid workers, the top executives and managers, who have done very well, thank you, out of this Government. It is not even the costly, controversial and extremely unpopular health service reforms which the Secretary of State is determined to rush through before the next election, so determined are the Government to start the process of undermining the National Health Service before the next election.
My first question is this. Is the situation that the Government are prepared to put an extra £2 billion into a poll tax rescue operation for electoral reasons but are not prepared to provide the £0.5 billion needed to fund the community care programme? Why can they not postpone the £¼ million needed, plus the 4,000 extra administrators, for the NHS reorganisation, which virtually no one wants? Is the Minister prepared for the onslaught from her noble friends behind her?
I sought with some success, as it seemed to me, to smoke those Members out in an amendment that I tabled on 25th June. Having proposed that some of those measures should be postponed for a year, there was great anger from the other side of the Chamber. The noble Baroness Lady Gardner of Parkes, said:
"There should be no delay now that the Bill has reached this point and people are geared up".
The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said,
"We want to start the implementation as soon as we can so long as we do not rush it unduly".
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said,
"There is in these matters a momentum … expectations are now going ahead sharply".
There were some very strong feelings; but we were all satisfied when the Minister said:
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said only last week in another place:
'It remains the Government's intention that the changes will get underway this coming year, as from April 1991'.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also taken every opportunity to make that clear. Therefore, I am happy to be in the position of being able to support both of them".—[Official Report, 25/6/90; cols. 1345–9.]
She is not in that position now because both of them have changed their views. She continued in col. 1350:
"We believe that April 1991 remains practicable as a major milestone in taking our plans forward".
No one could say that the little that they will do in April is anything like a milestone forward.
I give some credit to my noble friend Lord Carter. When moving an amendment as far back as 8th May, he said:
"The purpose of this clause is to make it a duty for local authorities to draw up their community care plans for 1991, when the Bill has received Royal Assent, laying a requirement on the Secretary of State to assure himself that sufficient funding is available to meet the needs detailed in the plans".—[Official Report, 8/5/90; col. 1264.]
878
What has happened to that aim? As a result of that amendment the Government were defeated, admittedly by only one vote. But it was a decision of your Lordships' House.
We won that amendment, and as soon as it was overturned in another place, it was clear that full implementation of the Government's plans were doomed. The writing was on the wall. We have seen what happened. We put down a Question on Monday and there was no Statement from the Minister.
Perhaps I may put a few points on behalf of the local authorities, which are deeply concerned. First, the Government's reassurances have been taken at face value by local authorities, which have not only begun internal restructuring and investment in training, information systems and new staff but have also engaged in detailed discussions with users of services and voluntary organisations, as I know from personal experience. Delays such as those announced in another place this afternoon cause major disappointments and scepticism, if not cynicism, about the Government's intentions.
Secondly, failure to implement on 1st April 1991 poses severe problems for the social security system. Under the Social Security Act the Secretary of State has the power to vary the rates in respect of people who are in residential care homes before 1st April 1991. In doing so he will take into account information provided by local authorities with respect to the amount which they have agreed to pay for the provision of accommodation in relevant premises.
Thirdly, if the reforms in both sections are not carried out in parallel there will be real problems for local authorities in working with the National Health Service. Fourthly, the implementation of the community care reforms in 1991 would have given social service departments a measure of protection. Deferment to 1993 may weaken the defences of the personal social services. If the reforms are delayed it is likely that we shall see a significant reduction of activity in 1991. That would be a poor and demoralising run-in for 1993.
Why is it that the Government have suddenly decided that the local authorities are not ready for the changes when on every occasion that the subject has been raised from this side of the House they have assured us that they are ready? What has changed during the last two weeks since I raised the matter from these Benches with the Minister? It appears to me absurd that the Government can suddenly, and as it appears without consultation, announce that local authorities are not ready.
What consultation was there with the local authorities? They are the bodies required to carry out the Act which took three laborious months to go through your Lordships' House? Am I right that there was no consultation with the local authority associations? Am I right that, having heard suggestions that the proposals should be delayed, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities wrote to the Prime Minister asking for a meeting but she rejected that? I recognise the fact that the Prime Minister has

879
had what dear Harold Macmillan called "some little local difficulties". However, what priority do the Government give to the people affected by this part of the Act?
It is known that Members on all sides of the House gave their broad support to this part of the Act but not the NHS part. We should have been delighted if the Secretary of State in another place and the Minister in this House had said that the Government were postponing the implementation of the NHS part of the Bill. But no—they have decided that they will postpone the bulk of the Act relating to the most vulnerable in our society. We have heard an utterly deplorable Statement read by the Minister on behalf of her right honourable friend.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, courtesy and convention require that I should thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. If courtesy and convention did not require that it would be impossible so to do. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I find the Statement totally deplorable. The Carers' National Association represents people who are deeply affected by the changes. It has been overwhelmed with telephone calls from anxious and angry people who no longer know what will happen. They feel totally betrayed because they were led to believe that at last, after the delays following the publication of the Griffiths Report and the endless lobbying, there would be an effective community care programme.
Despite the soft-soaping at the beginning of the Statement it is plain that the Government are short of money and that they have decided to cut the amount available for people requiring community care. A great deal of money will be required for the changes to the National Health Service. However, surely if there had to be an economy and a delay they should have been in relation to the National Health Service changes because we know that in many parts of the country people are not ready for them.
We understand that many local authorities, however, are well advanced with their plans for community care. A great deal of work, thought, money and time has been invested. What are they now to do during the two years in which they must hold back from the implementation of the plans which they had begun to formulate? The people who must bear the burden are the old, the ill and the infirm. We are glad that to some extent the provisions relating to the mentally handicapped are being covered. However, they are only a small proportion of the total number of people affected by the changes. What will happen to them? Are they to stay on in the institutions? Are the people looking after them to manage as best they can? What do the Government propose that they should do now that the changes, which have been planned and embarked upon, are to be delayed?
If there must be a delay can it be used to some good effect? Can the measures for assessment begin because that will be of the greatest importance? Can proper consultations be carried out with the carers and their representatives? If that is done the issues will be well understood as will the problems that they must face. In the additional time that is now, unfortunately,
880
available plans can be introduced which will be better than those discussed during the Bill's passage through this House.
The delay will cause great hardship. I should like a clear explanation from the Minister on the paragraph which states:
"Help through special income support payments will continue to be available to people in private or voluntary residential and nursing homes until phase 3 of the revised programme is implemented".
Does that mean that all the money will now be available? People had to leave the institutions because neither they nor their families could provide the additional money. If the money is not available it will mean that people will leave residential accommodation and be forced back into their families although the services that were supposed to support those families in looking after the patient will no longer be available. As a result of the cut in finances the additional services will not be provided and the burden placed on the families will be extremely acute. Can the Minister assure the House that no one will be forced out of residential accommodation because their families cannot pay the additional charges made by the institutions? That would bring some relief.
Although little can be done about community care, can we have an assurance that during the interval at least respite care will be introduced? That more than anything else is needed by carers looking after the old, the infirm and the ill. It is no exaggeration to say that they need a respite if they are not to be driven out of their minds and endanger their physical health by looking after people without a break and without the additional services. Since the publication of the Griffiths Report two or three years ago they believed that those services would be provided. I hope that the Government can provide reassurance on those issues.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful that courtesy and convention have prevailed on this occasion. I wish to say immediately that without doubt the changes will get under way next April, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said and as I said on Monday. The policy has not changed, only the timetable. Without doubt, there is a recognised need to reduce the burden on local and health authorities, both of which have a substantial programme for 1991–92, as the Statement maintained.
I fully agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is very important to maintain the momentum and to use the extra time in a positive way to prepare for the full implementation in 1993. Therefore, we expect that collaboration between health and local authorities on planning community care services should begin now if it has not already done so.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was rather selective in his quotations from the report of the Social Services Select Committee in another place. He mentioned that one comment of the committee was that it was disappointed but not surprised. I remind the noble Lord that the committee also said:

881
"We are concerned that the attempt to introduce at the same time as the National Health Service reforms a whole new structure for services provided by local authorities and health authorities and very different sets of relationships between the many different units involved may not have been sufficiently thought through. The Government may simply be demanding more of managers in the health and social services than they can deliver within the tight timetable set for implementation of the two policies".
A number of questions were raised but I should like to emphasise the burden on local authorities when many policies are implemented next year. After all, we have always maintained that we must look at the details of our community care policy in the light of general public expenditure and, indeed, in the light of the burden on local authorities. They have to consider the new financial arrangements which are still settling down. For example, they have to implement the requirements of the Children Act and the Food Safety Act. It is very important to bear that in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked what had changed. The reason for change was explained very clearly in the Statement made by my right honourable friend which I repeated.
As to the adequacy of income support, the structure of the present system of income support is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. However, I remind your Lordships that the Government are already making an enormous contribution to the independent care sector estimated at over £1,000 million in 1989–90. The limits were increased in April at a cost of £100 million and are being further increased next month at an extra cost of £45 million for this year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering how he should carry out future upratings of the income support limits and has undertaken to make a thorough assessment of the position and to look carefully at both the levels and the structure of the income support limits. He has commissioned a special survey of the costs in homes to help him to do that. That fact was announced by my noble friend Lord Henley to your Lordships a few days ago.
As to carers—a point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—again our policy has not changed. The key objective of the Government's proposals for community care remains, as we have already said, to ensure that service providers make practical support for carers a high priority. We expect that local authorities will continue to do that.
The noble Baroness referred specifically to assessments. They are now intended to be phased in on 1st April 1992 and must take account of the wishes of the individual and his or her carer and of the carer's ability to continue to provide care.
Expenditure as a whole on carers and the disabled has risen from £1.7 million in 1979 to £7.2 million, an increase of 89 per cent. in real terms. Spending on attendance allowance and invalid care allowance alone has risen from £205 million in 1979–80 to £1,081 million in 1987–88. We continue to work with the main
882
carers' groups in that respect and we anticipate fully that in the intervening period before full implementation considerable work will be carried out.
I believe that the best way to avoid hardships and exacerbation of any inadequacies is to have the new policy taken forward in a measured way with which all authorities can cope. It still represents a most challenging timetable and we hope that those authorities which are advanced will continue to be pioneers in the field. I must emphasise that this timetable does not prevent any local authority from continuing to pursue policies. In the past we have been able to say that the rate of increase in spending on personal social services—it was one of the arguments used against the ring-fencing amendment—has increased in real terms by 47 per cent. in recent years. We believe that those local authorities which are well advanced will continue to make progress. We are deferring the imposition of duties in that respect on all local authorities and I believe that those local authorities which are not as well advanced will be most grateful for the additional time given to them to introduce the reforms in an effective way.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in consultation with the local authority associations?
4.27 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that anyone of a cynical disposition might be somewhat amused to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, waxing with such apparent indignation against the partial deferment of proposals of which when they were before this House he was such a bitter critic?
Noble Lords: No, no.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have not been critical of the community care proposals. From these Benches we have merely tried to give some strength to them, to give some consultation to them and to ensure that they took place.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has helped me because he has now admitted that he was extremely critical on those three headings which he has just enunciated. Despite those criticisms which he has just confirmed on at least three grounds, he now seeks to make a degree of party capital out of the partial deferment of some of them. Any of us who had the misfortune to listen to the noble Lord's intervention a few moments ago will realise that that is a perfectly fair comment on his observations.
As my noble friend is aware, the noble Lord did not attempt to criticise the substance of the Statement, which was that, as these measures are so very important—and particularly important to the people who will benefit from them—it is essential that they should start off right, and nothing could be worse for all concerned, particularly for the beneficiaries, than for the measures to start in an administrative muddle in the case of certain local authorities which are simply not prepared for them.
Lord Ennals: Whose muddle?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, from a sedentary position, interjects another irrelevancy. There would be a muddle if the local authorities concerned were not prepared for them.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. I understand that there has been no request from the local authority associations and no indication that they are not ready. They are all anxious to proceed and there has been no consultation with them—so I understand, although the Minister did not reply—before an announcement is suddenly made to the House that the whole plans have been suspended over a three-year period.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong again. The whole plans have not been suspended; only some parts have been suspended. That shows the noble Lord's capacity for exaggeration.
No one said that the local authorities had asked for deferment. It is the Government's responsibility to be sure, before launching an important scheme, that the bodies to which the administration will be entrusted are capable of undertaking it and are ready to undertake it. Nothing could be more irresponsible than, in pursuit perhaps of short-term popularity, introducing an important scheme and then seeing it go wrong because those responsible for undertaking it were not ready so to do. That, I understand, is the essence of the Government's policy on the matter, a policy to which most people who are deeply concerned that these wise and sensible measures shall come into effect properly, must attach great importance.
As I understand my noble friend's Statement, those parts of the policy that can be implemented on 1st April 1991 will be so implemented, but, in order to make sure that the rest of the policy is effectively implemented, it is necessary to defer full implementation for a further year. I am surprised that anyone, particularly someone with experience of administration in social security, should seriously contest that point of view. Is my noble friend aware that most people will think that the Government have acted sensibly—
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No, my Lords. Most people will think that the Government have acted sensibly and responsibly. I hope that they will not allow themselves to be pushed off their policy by a synthetic outcry.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, what question is the noble Lord asking the noble Baroness about the Statement?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to answer my noble friend's question and to confirm that the Government are behaving sensibly and responsibly in making this phased and measured implementation. I am not surprised that my noble friend thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was against some of the amendments as the noble Lord introduced an
884
amendment to delay the implementation of the community care proposals which, he argued at the time, was simply to smoke out some kind of answer.
In relation to the question of consultation over delay, I confirm that the reason for the phasing is local authorities' inability to control expenditure, not their unwillingness to go ahead. We consulted the local authority associations over resources and their estimates would have been insupportable by many charge payers. Resources are not being cut or reduced. The support systems remain as now with increased available resources. Local authority expenditure is rising rapidly, even after allowing for new responsibilities. There is a need for a period of stability to enable improved local accountability to take effect, so it is not an opportune time for an additional major burden to be placed on local authorities.
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, if we are all fairly short with our questions, there may be time for everyone. It would be well if the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, put his question now.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I shall be brief. The jibe of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not apply to Cross-Benchers' attitude to this piece of legislation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No indeed, my Lords.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I rise simply to ask one question and to say that millions of the most vulnerable members of society will learn of the main decisions with sadness and incredulity. They will simply not understand the Government's explanation. They certainly will not understand the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which was rather different from that of the Government.
In particular, those people will not understand that the Government can evidently have failed to carry out the not very sophisticated arithmetical calculations that would be involved before they drove the legislation through. Noble Lords will recall that the pressure was on us until the very last day of the legislative process. Nor will they understand that the Government are now ready—for what they evidently assume to be their electoral advantage, although that is by no means certain—to abandon commitments and promises given during the passage of the legislation, in order to avoid an increase in the poll tax. It is another sad commentary on that miserable tax and another sad day for this country.
The only question that I want to ask is very short. The noble Baroness said that it was still open to local authorities that wished to proceed with the provisions in the legislation to do so, but where will the money come from? One of the main ingredients was that the local authorities were to be given the funds from the social security budget. Does she mean that those who want are in some way to be given that financial help?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said previously, there is nothing to stop those authorities that are well advanced from going ahead with plans, assessment and any other developments to improve community

885
care. Even at present, certain local authorities are well advanced in those systems. Although the money will not be channelled through the local authorities until 1993, as is proposed in the Act, it will nevertheless still be in the system under the current arrangements for payment for those needs and services.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, one of the encouraging aspects of the Statement was that the special grant for the mentally ill will be payable from 1st April next. Will my noble friend expand on what that covers, particularly whether it will be restricted to what might be called pump priming of projects, or whether it can be spent on community care and aid for carers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to hear my noble friend taking a constructive and positive attitude to the Statement and rightly focusing on the specific grant for mental illness.
The move towards community care that is already under way in that area has raised a number of concerns, which have been expressed in several quarters, that mentally ill people are at risk of ending up destitute, homeless or in prison. For example, it has been estimated that between 30 and 50 per cent. of the people sleeping out on the streets of central London each night are mentally ill. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place announced last Thursday specific plans to help those people. There is little doubt that many of them have been in contact with psychiatric services at some time in the past, but have lost touch. Progress is therefore being made in that field.
In recognising the urgent need for improvement in the present arrangements, we are making the specific grant from 1st April 1991. The cornerstone of the policy is for systematic arrangements to be in place for assessing the health care and social support needs of each patient before he or she leaves hospital, and for ensuring that his or her needs are properly met when living in the community. Allied to the care programme approach is the important question of local authority resources available for social care for mentally ill people being treated in the community.
In contrast to other areas of social service expenditure, to which I have referred, that has tended to be the poor relation with perhaps only some 3 per cent. of social service department expenditure going on the mentally ill; yet it is critical in making substantial progress towards developing effective community services which will include an improvement of and an increase in social care facilities for seriously mentally ill people.
For that reason we propose to introduce the specific grant referred to in the Statement to stimulate new activities to provide services for people whose mental illness is so severe that they are being treated by the specialist psychiatric services or would clearly benefit from those services. The new grant will be a powerful incentive to effective joint planning as it will be payable directly to local authorities from the Department of Health on the receipt of jointly agreed
886
plans for the development of social care between social service authorities and district health authorities.
That is an example of the way that the Government are addressing the need for consultation between authorities and encouraging co-operation. Furthermore, we intend shortly to issue final guidance on the specific grant which obviously follows from the draft guidance which has already been issued.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I do not intend to make a statement but to ask a question. The noble Baroness will remember that during the passage of the Bill a great deal was made of guidance and what would appear in that guidance. A letter then went out asking for contributions to this consultation process by 10th August 1990 and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will remember that she asked me whether I would like to contribute to that consultation process. Is that consultation process going ahead or will anything that we have sent in simply gather dust on the shelves of the department, meaning that we can spare our breath until later in the year?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the draft guidance is out and it is planned that, on schedule, the consultation process will take place so that final guidance will be issued in the autumn. Those local authorities which are prepared, or intend, to carry on in advance of the timetable, which is quite permissible, will be able to do so in accordance with the guidance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as a member of a local authority, may I say how much the Minister's Statement will cause very great distress to local authorities who have invested thousands of hours and thousands of pounds in planning community care? There will also be very great distress to Members of this House some of whom, like myself, have recently arrived but who nonetheless have spent many hours taking part in and listening to debates on this subject. Above all, there will be real distress to the patients and carers who were expecting to see some relief in the immediate future.
Your Lordships and the local authorities can wait, but the people who cannot wait are the patients and carers themselves. For many of them a year may be too late. Is it not the case that what we are hearing from the Minister today is not a problem about local authorities and their inability to implement community care, but instead a statement about the problem that the Government face when local authorities pick up the consequences of the Government-imposed poll tax?
Does not the Minister agree that the consequences of the poll tax and the unacceptably high figures that exist—and they are unacceptably high figures, particularly to the poorer members of the community—are largely attributable to three factors? First, in the RSG statement in this House and in another place inflation was provided for at only 4 per cent. instead of 8 per cent. Secondly, is it not a fact that adequate funding was not made available for the new duties imposed on local authorities? Thirdly, is it not also the

887
case that adequate funding was not made available for the cost of implementing the poll tax which has cost four times as much to administrate as did the rates? Does not the Minister agree that those three factors alone largely and, indeed, substantially account for the difference between the target figures of local government and the out-turn figure of local authorities' poll tax? As a result, I suggest to the Minister that local authorities are being "fingered" for the foreseeable problems and consequences of the poll tax for which the Government should have made adequate provision.
Does not the Minister further agree that it is not too late to remedy the situation if she were to accept the following? First, if the RSG were to be properly funded, as Ministers agreed, to provide for community care and if the other place had accepted an amendment (which had support from all sides of this House) for ring-fencing there would have been little or no effect on the level of poll tax. If Ministers were worried about the implications of ring-fencing for local authorities that could have been met by introducing a sunset clause so that after three years that money could have come into the general RSG fund. In other words, had the Government taken on board full funding of community care on the one hand and ring-fencing on the other, this problem would not have a risen.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can answer the three questions that the noble Baroness specifically directed at me by saying no, no and no. In regard to her questions on the rate support grant, I regret that she will have to wait for the Statement expected shortly from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The reason for our decision, I emphasise again, is not in any way to change our policy on the new community care approach, only the timetable. We do not believe that all local authorities could or would keep their community charge at a reasonable level. We have noted that local authority spending is rising rapidly. Therefore, I again emphasise that the best way to avoid hardship or any inadequacies in the implementation of these proposals is to introduce them in the measured way now proposed.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am in some difficulty because throughout the discussions on the Bill I made two points. First, I said that community care would be expensive and that money would be required for community care. Secondly, I said that the whole project should be monitored so that we would know how much money was required. From the point of view of directors of social services I feel that without the money the new proposals cannot be implemented properly. It would appear that the only answer is to choose certain projects for implementation with the money that is available.
I ask my noble friend two questions. First, can the local authorities go forward with parts of the Bill that do not have resource implications? Secondly, there are parts of the Bill which, if implemented, would be cost effective and therefore cut expenditure for local authorities. I refer particularly to respite care.
888
Without respite care people will have to go into hospital or homes. I refer to private homes, which my noble friend mentioned. Would it be possible, therefore, to consider which areas, if implemented, would in the long run be cost-saving for the local authorities and for the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the Statement said, the Government recognize that local authorities will need adequate resources. I confirm to my noble friend that local authorities can go forward with all parts of the Bill if they are able to, including respite care. Indeed, in some areas such care is already available.
4.49 p.m.
Earl Ferrets: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene because I realise that your Lordships are concerned about this subject. However, the Companion to Standing Orders states that discussion on a Statement should not exceed 20 minutes. That was a recommendation by the Procedure Committee which was accepted by your Lordships and is now part of Standing Orders. We have now had 20 minutes.
For clarification perhaps I may add that the Companion to Standing Orders points out that,
"although brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are allowed, such statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".
Possibly we have slipped a little in that respect and have denied other noble Lords the opportunity to ask questions.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Deputy Leader of the House will know that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, took almost five minutes of the time available and did not ask a single question. In one of her answers the Minister took over two minutes. It was another statement. I believe that we should have a few more minutes.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise the problem. The House is master of its own affairs. The regulations say that 20 minutes is the limit and that has been agreed. It is not for me specifically to allow that time to be extended when the House agreed that that is the limit. I made an intervention earlier and suggested that Members make their questions as short as possible. However, your Lordships are in charge of your own affairs.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to seem oppressive to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. We have taken 20 minutes with this matter and Standing Orders state that 20 minutes is available. I fear that if we start exceeding that time it will occur on other occasions.

Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Winding up and dissolution of new town development corporations]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 27, line 11, at end insert:
("(3) In granting consent as provided in subsection (2) above, but also in respect of the period from the date of commencement of this section and during the wind-up period the Secretary of State shall secure that each tenant of any house owned by a development corporation, if that house may be transferred or disposed of to a new landlord, shall have the right to choose that the landlord shall be one of the following bodies namely, a Housing Association, a Housing Corporation, the District Council in which the new town is situated, Scottish Homes or such other body as may be approved for that purpose by Scottish Homes provided that the landord chosen by the tenant is willing to accept that tenant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government have clearly stated that they will consider the transfer of houses to district councils at the wind-up of the new towns. However, we believe that tenants require to be informed exactly what the position will be. As well as considering district councils, the Government should accept them as transfer options for tenants if that is the express wish of the tenants. This amendment is worded so that the preferred choice of the tenant is paramount.
The Government cannot dispute the validity of the tenants' express wishes. The Minister will be well aware that recent surveys clearly demonstrate the wishes of new town tenants and have shown conclusively that the majority of such tenants wish to have the choice of transferring their tenancies to the appropriate district council. The latest survey results demonstrate very clearly that tenants' awareness of the Government's housing proposals is high. That awareness has increased considerably since 1989.
Furthermore, that increased awareness has resulted in an increased proportion of tenants wishing to choose their district councils both now and at the wind-up. During Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that the Government would consider district councils as an option at wind-up. The Minister is very well aware that we want the Government to go further and agree to district councils becoming a definite option at the wind-up. That is the purpose and intention of this amendment.
It is important to remember that tenants transferring to district councils even at the wind-up will still retain the right to choice. Therefore, at a later date they can opt for an alternative landlord. The wording of the defence put forward by the Minister for tenants not having a choice until the actual wind-up—though other tenants would have—has caused us considerable worry. There is the question of where the local authority new town houses are. At the end of the day they may be the worst stock of new town houses—that is to say, those built earlier or during a period when money was tighter than at other times. It is important that local authorities as well as the tenants should have some rights in this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Carmichael on this amendment.
890
When a similar amendment was discussed at Committee stage the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said (Official Report, 3rd July, col. 2067):
"I said that the commitment of the Government to the White Paper is absolute, and we shall carry through the whole operation of wind-up regarding housing in accordance with what is written in the White Paper".
The Minister was good enough to send me a copy of the White Paper. I turned to it to see what the commitment was. Page 10, paragraph 5.9 says: It would appear that current policies of extending housing choices is supported by the survey findings. Clearly there is a need for tenants to become more fully informed of all the options before final decisions are taken. The sole and automatic transfer of development corporation housing to district councils would run directly counter to the expressed wishes of a significant number of tenants and close off options for those who have yet to make up their minds.
Paragraph 5.10 says: At wind-up the development corporations' role as landlords will cease to exist. Choices, therefore, have to be made at that time. The position in each town will be carefully considered once an order for dissolution has been made. Formal consultations will be held with the development corporations, district councils, and representative tenant groups to review the position and to determine to what extent transfers might take place be it to housing associations, co-operatives, district councils, private or other landlords. Those tenants who have not transferred to other landlords will be transferred to Scottish Homes at wind-up with a view to pursuing further diversification with the small, residual number of houses.
In the previous discussion the Minister referred to the blue pamphlet which had been sent to all tenants in new town houses. I looked to see to what extent that so-called informative leaflet carried out what was stated in the White Paper. On the first page, under the heading The Choice is Yours, it is stated that tenants can normally buy their homes "probably" at a discount. It is to be noted that it says "probably" with a discount and not "certainly" with a discount, as it is with local authorities. It further says: You may be able to change landlords to a housing association, a housing co-operative and approved landlords.
There is no reference there to the district council. On the next page under the heading "During wind-up", the blue pamphlet states:
"Among the options the Government will consider will be transfers to housing associations, housing co-operatives, district councils and other landlords".
The succeeding pages tell the tenants what is available to them. Concerning alternative landlords, some information is given about housing associations and housing co-operatives. The next page deals with other landlords. There is reference made to other bodies which may include the staff of the development corporation. There is again no reference to district councils.
So any tenant reading that document in even the most careful manner will not be made immediately aware that he has, among the options available, the

891
opportunity to choose to go to the district council. On reading the document, a tenant may think that the only organisation which has the right to consider going to the district councils is the Government. That is among the options that they will consider, but, on the face of it, it is not available to the tenant.
That is the position concerning the leaflet. I have referred already to col. 2067 of the Official Report of 3rd July. I shall now refer to another part of the same column. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, was speaking about Amendment No. 18 when he said:
"As I understand it, the noble Lord's amendment is to transfer the whole of the development corporation housing to the local authority. As I understand it, that is the amendment with which we are now dealing".
That was a total misunderstanding of the amendment because the amendment included district councils as one of the bodies to which the houses should be made available. In order that the Minister does not fall into the same error the amendment this time very carefully uses the words which the Government used in their White Paper. The amendment says that, if the house may be transferred or disposed of to a new landlord, the tenant,
"shall have the right to choose that the landlord shall be one of the following bodies namely, a Housing Association, a Housing Corporation, the District Council in which the new town is situated, Scottish Homes or such other body as may be approved for that purpose by Scottish Homes provided that the landlord chosen by the tenant is willing to accept that tenant".
I suggest to the Minister that there is nothing in this amendment which is other than what was stated in the Government's White Paper. I cannot see how the Minister could possibly again decline to accept the amendment. If the Government are not prepared to put this in the Bill it will leave in the minds of many people the suspicion that they have no intention of giving any more houses to a district council than they can possibly help.
The Minister is a reasonable person. I have no doubt that he has given assurances in the past, although the exchanges on the Statement perhaps make us a little wary of what Ministers say at one time compared with another. I am certain that what he says in this connection is what he definitely believes is the Government's intention and what he believes will happen. But some funny things are going on in the Scottish Office at the present time. I should hate to think that the present Minister of State will not be the Minister of State after the reshuffle next week. Some funny statements have been made by Mrs. Thatcher's ambassador at Stirling. He has increasingly been talking as though he were already a member of the Cabinet instead of an Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office. If after the reshuffle the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is still Minister of State for Scotland, he can be assured that that choice will be preferred by noble Lords on this side of the House as well.
5 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for raising this matter. The amendment, which I notice has been changed, seeks to give tenants the right to choose a new
892
landlord from a prescribed list and requires that they be given the right to choose from the date of commencement of this section. We had this debate before. I freely admit to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that, in regard to his second quotation from Hansard, I was perhaps misreading the amendment moved at that time. It required that tenants be given the right to choose from the date of commencement of the section.
On the question of when tenants will be asked for their views, the recent SLANT survey confirmed that tenants felt the most appropriate time for this was towards the end of the winding-up period. It should be remembered that, for Irvine, that is the better part of a decade away.
On the issue of choice, as we have said so often before, we are concerned to allow tenants to make decisions in the interim which are consistent with the Government's housing policy objectives set out in the White Paper; namely, increasing home ownership and widening choice in the rented sector. I do not wish to make party political points in this respect but all parties can at times get things wrong. Indeed, Lord Ross, whom we praised from this Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon, got it wrong when he said that further tasks in Scotland in respect of housing were not going to be done in the private sector.
That is totally wrong, as the evidence clearly shows. Almost two-thirds of the corporation's stock in Cumbernauld new town is now owned. That is a real achievement. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is also interested in this matter. I can tell him that in East Kilbride approximately 13,500 houses out of a total stock of 24,500 have been sold to owner-occupiers.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that a considerable part of that took place while I was chairman of East Kilbride Development Corporation.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord makes my point for me. I am delighted that he, among others in his party, now realises that home ownership is important, and the right to buy legislation in Scotland is proving to be successful.
Neither of those objectives—increasing home ownership and widening choice in the rented sector—will be met by now allowing transfers to the district council. During our deliberation in Committee on Amendment No. 17 I invited the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to accept the sincerity and constancy of the Government's and the development corporation's position on the issue of consultation. I further said that we take the consultation process seriously, especially as regards the homes of various tenants. The noble Lord's amendment today takes us back over that ground in due course to the strength of our commitment to consultation and the heed we shall take of tenants' views.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asked me during that debate whether the Government's commitment to take into account what tenants wanted necessarily meant acceptance of what tenants wished. My commitment then was clear. I quote:

893
"The Government will of course take into account what tenants want".—[Official Report, 3/7/90; col. 2066.]
That commitment would seem fully to meet the terms of this amendment. It is an honourable commitment to consultation at the appropriate stage in the wind-up process with representative tenants' groups. It is a commitment which was made in the White Paper and which I am happy to give again today.
Various points were made during this short debate. I was asked whether the amendment is consistent with the White Paper. No; the White Paper and the tenants themselves see the end of wind-up as the time for such a decision. The amendment tries to make the choice available now. I have already dealt with that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned eligibility for right to buy discounts. There is no statutory difference in eligibility for discounts between tenants of district councils and tenants of development corporations. The leaflet takes account of exemptions to right to buy caused by tenancy factors—for example, the length of the tenancy or where the house itself is exempt because it was built to meet the needs of the disabled. That is why that phrase is used in the pamphlet.
I have now covered the ground a second time. The commitment which I gave on the first occasion stands. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister said that we had been over this ground before. He is quite correct. However, there is one difference, and that difference is also the reason for the earlier amendment being withdrawn and the new amendment being submitted. The difference is that we now have the pamphlet, which shows, as my noble friend Lord Hughes pointed out with great clarity, an apparent change of mind by the Government. The one thing that was excluded from the pamphlet but which was in the White Paper was the local authority.
I am sure that we shall not get much further on this point. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Hughes about the desirability of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, remaining as Minister of State, although in purely electoral terms it would suit us if there were a slightly different reshuffle at the Scottish Office. Instead of winning three seats we would probably win five, if what my noble friend Lord Hughes fears worst came to pass.
The noble Lord referred to the private sector solving housing problems. One of our basic objections to the sale of local authority houses was that the local authority did not get the money to plough back into housing. It received only part of the money. However, I realise that in this instance we shall not get much further. Nevertheless, I think that this will cause considerable disquiet in the new towns; that is, not just in Irvine, which is a long way off, but also in East Kilbride and Cumbernauld which are likely to be wound up much earlier. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Broadcasting Bill
5.10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
(LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.)
[Amendment No. 108 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 15 [Application for Channel 3 licences]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 12, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 35.
The noble Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 121, 124, 134, 137, 141, 143, 153, 158, 160, 162, 184, 191, 204, 211, 268, 272, 273, 275, 276, 279, 282, 283, 293, 303, 304 and 306, all of which are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
These amendments remove the concept of performance bonds, or a security requirement, from the Bill and replace it with a termination penalty. The purpose of the performance bond was to provide a strong financial incentive on licensees not to renege on their programme promises or to walk away from their commitments. However, from discussions with the IBA and financial institutions it became clear that the performance bonds would be unnecessarily complicated to administer; and, more importantly, that they could prove to be an unnecessary financial burden to licensees, particularly new entrants, and might therefore be counter-productive to their original purpose.
Consequently, we have concluded that the performance bond or security requirement on Channels 3 and 5 and national radio licensees should be removed from the Bill. We still feel, however, that it is necessary for there to be a strong disincentive to prevent licensees from walking away from their commitments. Therefore, we have made provision for a termination penalty, which has the function of penalising licensees who fail to provide a service or provide a wholly inadequate service and have their licence revoked. The penalty will, like the bond, apply to Channels 3 and 5 national radio licensees, and will amount to 7 per cent. of the qualifying revenue of a licensee for its actual or estimated last complete accounting period. That was the amount at which the performance bond would have been set. It represents a substantial penalty, but we consider it necessary to act as a sufficient disincentive.
The performance bond was also to be used to ensure that licensees kept to their programme promises. Failure to do so could have resulted in the loss of part of the performance bond. However, we have now amended the Bill in such a way that any

895
failure in connection with programme promises attracts the full range of sanctions listed in Clauses 35 to 37, including the possibility of imposing financial penalties of up to 3 per cent. of qualifying revenue for the first offence and 5 per cent. of revenue for a second or subsequent similar offence.
In essence, these amendments act as the necessary sword of Damocles to ensure that a licensee sticks to its programme promises, without the adverse effects which might have resulted from the concept of performance bonds. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: It has been clear for some time that both the City and the broadcasting industry were very unhappy about what I can only call a rather ill thought out proposal for an up-front performance bond and the suggestions that companies should insure against the confiscation of all or part of the bond. I believe that it is a heavy-handed measure calculated to dissuade all but the very rich companies from applying for a licence. We have already seen falling standards and large-scale redundancies in the commercial television sector since the publication of the White Paper where it was first proposed. It displays a lack of trust in the ITC, the broadcasting industry and the Government's other regulatory arrangements. Further, it risks weakening the position of a company which is already in financial difficulties.
If a licensee is having problems meeting its contract terms, the main reason is likely to be lack of funds. The performance bond would have required any potential contingency funds to be tied up. Moreover, at the precise time at which the company might need to call on its reserves it would be at risk of losing them. I do not believe that that is a recipe for stability or confidence. It is more a guarantee of disaster.
A retrospective financial penalty would be easier to finance. The performance bond would have deterred some applicants from making a bid. The amount of money put into the security payment would have diverted even more funds from programming. That would have been an extremely bad result of this legislation and would have made the situation even worse. For those reasons, we on these Benches believe that the proposed financial penalty appears to be a better alternative.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: We on these Benches agree both with the Minister and with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. We believe that the proposals for this termination fine are altogether better than the original proposal for a performance bond. Therefore, I shall not waste the time of the Committee by delving into the details of the matter. I have one question to ask. Where will the money from the fines go? I believe that it was originally proposed in relation to the performance bonds that such money ought to go into the Consolidated Fund.
In my view, there would be great merit if, in what I hope is the unlikely event that these terminal fines have to be imposed in terms of the revocation of a licence, the money received were to go to the ITC. If a licence has to be revoked, there will be a period of time, or a vacuum, during which the ITC will need to
896
take some steps to ensure the continuation of some kind of Channel 3 broadcast services in the region concerned. Therefore, it would be appropriate if the resources from the fines which arose from such revocation were available to the ITC so as to help it make the necessary arrangements.
Viscount Ullswater: I should like to express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her welcome for these new proposals. However, I must repeat that they were introduced as a result of ongoing discussions with the IBA. This is the situation at which we have arrived.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked where the funds would go if the penalty was imposed. I understand his concern that the money could be used by the ITC. However, I must tell him that such fines would go into the Consolidated Fund.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am disappointed by the Minister's last response though I am not surprised by it. Perhaps I may give notice that we may wish to return to this point on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 12, line 37, leave out ("in pursuance of section 19(1) (b)").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment sets out to replace the cash-bid system with a three-stage process involving public consultation designed to ensure that the ITC selects the company which it believes will offer the highest quality product. The amendment is crucial because it addresses the core of the Bill; that is to say, the auction system which—even with the improvements made by the Government in another place—will still outweigh quality and public service considerations and still rest on the cash-bid basis.
The amendment proposes that licences should be awarded more openly without the risk of manipulation that the auction system involves. It also seeks to ensure accountability and flexibility in the award of licences in relation to viewers' needs and interests, as the White Paper lays down, by insisting, first, that quality, commercial competence and viability are the criteria for the shortlisting of applications; secondly, that there is a period for public consultation to assess local response to applications (applicants should be allowed to modify their proposals in the light of the consultations); and, thirdly, that the ITC will then award licences to the company that has put forward the best proposals in terms of quality, commercial viability and responsiveness to consumer demand in the local area.
The financial elements of the bids will include a fee as set out in Clause 4(1)(b); a set annual charge based on an appropriate proportion of ITC administrative costs; and a levy, as set out in Clause 19, based on a percentage of net advertising revenue, which will go to the Treasury. The levy system could operate on the market forces formula where the Treasury sets the level and accepts a variable amount according to the vagaries of the market or be negotiable annually to ensure a bedrock income for the Treasury and obviate

897
the risk of reduced quality standards if advertising revenue falls. We must be prepared for a situation where advertising revenue may fall from time to time.
As I understand it, the Minister in another place was attracted to an associated amendment instructing the ITC to conduct public consultation exercises about the new licences and to publish details of how it intended to carry them out. I hope that we shall discuss that point later.
At present, the existing range and quality of the independent sector identifies individual examples of first-rate ITV programmes. We have been aware of that, and we believe that the amendment deals with the Bill's central problem far better than the Bill does at present. The existing range and quality of ITV programmes has been a direct result of the regulatory structure imposed through Parliament and the IBA. Private sector enterprise in any industry normally puts profits above any or most other considerations. Privately owned television stations could vastly increase their profitability by putting less money into original programmes and sticking to known formulae (imported programmes) and concentrating on majority audiences, and by avoiding the commercially contentious and experimental. By paring budgets to produce programmes of the minimum quality acceptable, a comparatively small outlay could return a healthy profit. That that has not happened is a tribute not just to the commitment of the ITV companies to pursue diversity and quality objectives but to the legislative framework which obliges them to put profit back into programmes.
Those obligations will have little justification if they do not help to fulfil audience demand. The idea has been that until now viewers and radio listeners have not been receiving what they want—hence the need for the changes—but that is not borne out by any contemporary research. A study in 1985 by the London Business School showed that despite substantially more entertainment programming it occupied only 55 per cent. of viewing time compared with 43 per cent. for more demanding programmes. That is a good average. Under the present regulatory system there is a demand for a variety of programmes: education and information as well as entertainment.
The virtual disappearance of more serious programming from commercial networks not subject to regulation has also been shown in research commissioned by the Peacock Committee and carried out by the American professor, Jay Blumler, and the Leeds Centre for Broadcasting. That showed over three or four days the virtual disappearance of more serious broadcasting. Current affairs and documentary programmes were absent from Italy's Channel 5, Australia's Channel 10 and most of the American commercial networks. News was shown but otherwise the programmes comprised adventure series, soaps, advertisements and repeat old films.
The ITV companies in the United Kingdom had a markedly similar diversity of programmes to those of the BBC, despite the fact that they derive all their revenue from advertising. The regulatory structure in
898
which our present system is set has been proved to be what viewers and listeners want. Our proposal ensures that Channel 3 licences are allocated on a quality rather than a purely financial basis. It includes a new element of openness and public consultation which reflects some criticisms that were made of the old IBA system of franchise allocation as being too closed and secretive. It ensures a proper financial contribution to the Exchequer, based on advertising revenue, while avoiding large cash bids which merely divert scarce resources away from investment in programming. In short, it shows that if we put quality first we can still have commercially viable stations and programmes. It is amazing, and a comment on what is thought of the Bill, that nearly 50 organisations of all types—religious, voluntary and professional, including the Voice of the Listener, which really reflects the voice of the listener—have joined together to protest about so many aspects of the Bill. The organisations have done so from the point of view of TV viewers and listeners to radio.
Paragraph 1.2 of the White Paper states:
"The Government places the viewer and listener at the centre of broadcasting policy".
Later in the paragraph we read that government changes mean that the
"single biggest advantage will be to give the viewer and listener a greater choice and greater say".
My friends and I feel that with the present auction system, in spite of the changes to the quality threshold, it is still not good enough that the centre core of the Bill is that money will be the most important feature, at the cost of the quality of our television for the future. Only the people will suffer in what they see and hear. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I join the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in supporting the amendment, and I shall speak to the associated amendments. The new Clause 119 stands in our names, Amendment No. 144 deals with the levy. I ought to give notice, even though it is on the Marshalled List, that to be consistent with the proposals we put forward, we have in mind speaking against Clause 17 standing part of the Bill. We shall reach that stage later tonight.
As the noble Baroness said, in some ways these amendments are at the heart of the Bill. This is one of the most important discussions that we shall have during the Committee stage. The amendments go right to the core of what the Government propose, they have in mind what remains an auction system in which a cash bid for a regional commercial television licence will in most cases outweigh quality and public service considerations associated with the licence.
For our part, as the noble Baroness said, we seek to persuade the Government even at this late stage of the merits of an alternative system that is not directly opposed in principle to what the Government propose. We believe that it would offer better safeguards of the public interest.
For nine years I was at the IBA and in the chair for eight. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and I went

899
through the last franchise round and I recognise that I am regarded here as a bit of a dinosaur, defending the status quo of the dear old IBA. I know that I am getting into my political anecdotage, but I do not believe that in this case the charge is fair. The Committee will excuse me if I defend myself against it because it is relevant to the arguments associated with the amendment.
After the last franchise round during which I took the chair and took the consequences, I had squeezed out of me at one of these endless broadcasting conferences a cri de coeur that there must be a better way of looking after the allocation of important commercial television franchises. That has hung round my neck ever since. The Government have come up with a different way in the Bill; but in my view it is not better. The better way that I had in mind—which was rather overtaken by the debate that arose following the Government's appointment of the Peacock Committee—started, as the noble Baroness said, where broadcasting policy should start. That is with a judgment as to where lie the best interests of serving the viewer and listener rather than starting—as the Government do in the Bill—with the marketplace. Then one has to have a structure to ensure that commercial television companies put quality and service to the viewer first.
In my view, if a company served the public in its region well then I saw no reason why its contract should not be rolled on after rigorous scrutiny. I thought that the interests of the viewer would be better served by a company with a known good track record than a series of hopeful promises from an untried competitor. Equally, it goes without saying that if a company did not come up to the standard, the contract should be exposed to public bidding and competition when it came to an end. A company whose programme makers served the viewers well should not necessarily have shareholders who enjoyed the tenancy of a scarce national resource in perpetuity. I go over that old ground because I hope that it indicates a certain degree of overlap between the views I sought to carry forward at the IBA during my period of office and the views now expressed by the Government, even though we started from exactly opposite ends. That has produced some adverse consequences to which I wish to return.
The Committee should be aware that the debate on the Broadcasting Bill has gone on for a long time. The Government have been extremely accommodating; we all appreciate that. However, there is a danger of the Government's reasonableness blinding us to the fact that, with their preoccupation with competition, they are changing the culture of commercial television in this country in a way that is contrary to the interests of viewers and listeners.
I notice that Mr. Anthony Smith, now President of Magdalen College, Oxford, and a former director of the British Film Institute, said the other day in a pamphlet he produced in regard to the commercial television world:
"Energy is now devoted not to … new [ideas] of programme-making but to deal-making."
900
I am conscious that the independent producers were one of the exciting new developments in the British broadcasting scene brought forward under the auspices of the IBA through Channel 4. When they started they were bubbling over with creative energy, and many exciting activities were going on. However, those producers are now struggling with the financial and management problems of the average small and medium sized business.
The other day, the Royal Television Society held its annual Fleming lecture to which it invites a distinguished speaker. This year it invited the President of CBS Broadcasting from the United States, Mr. Howard Springer. In his lecture he talked of the "free market Utopians" in the Government with what he called their "freedom fantasy". From his experience of the American tradition in commercial television and broadcasting he made the point that the Government seemed determined to push us down the American road. He said:
"Market forces do not necessarily produce quality".
For these reasons, we press the amendment and the associated ideas. I recognise that the Government have tried to modify the market purity of their original ideas. We have had a welcome example of that in the retreat from the performance bond. They have strengthened the concept of a quality hurdle that all applicants will have to pass before they can get on to the final shortlist to bid for the contract.
Perhaps even more important, they have inserted provisions into the Bill to which we shall come later about the ITC having the right in exceptional circumstances to accept any other than the original highest bid. However, the difficulty is that if in politics one starts with a strong, radical principle, however wrong-headed, then the search for a compromise can become embarrassing. Perhaps I may say to the Government that it is revealing. The proposals in this part of the Bill go right to the heart of what is wrong and remains wrong despite all the improvements that have been made. Tory philosophy, if I may put it that way, reveals itself in broadcasting in the following way. In the eyes of the Government, it is only in exceptional circumstances, which are well hedged round in the Bill, that quality should be given priority over price. That is our persisting reason for opposing this central theme of the Bill.
Lord Morris: If the noble Lord is correct when he suggests that the market place does not contribute to and may even detract from quality, who is to pay for quality?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Even under the Government's system, quality will continue to be paid for in the way in which commercial television has always been sustained in this country; namely, through selling advertising time. I do not believe that will change under the Bill. However, what will change are the grounds on which the commission which is chosen by the Government will select licensees. If one selects licensees on the basis of the highest monetary bid, with the best will in the world and with the greatest good faith in the world, people who bid for a

901
television contract for the first time will always be tempted to overbid. I can state that to be a fact from my own personal experience.
If such bids are accepted—under the rules they can only not be accepted in a small minority of exceptional circumstances—they will result in a deterioration in programme quality. That is the point that my noble friend Lady Birk made. That is our argument.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I wish to support this amendment and those that follow it which are in the same tone. I do that with some hesitation when there are so many Members of the Committee around me who are experts in this field. However, I feel that it should be appreciated right across the Committee that there is a deep concern among many thoughtful people in this country of all political parties and persuasions that the best in British broadcasting should be preserved as we move into the new era. I believe that the amendments that we are discussing, and particularly Amendment No. 119, help to achieve that. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 119 states:
"The primary considerations when awarding licences shall be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes appropriate to the area to be served, and the extent to which the applicant has shown himself willing to respond to public comment on his original application".
I feel that that matter is critical.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, talked about Tory philosophy. The feeling which I get from people who would claim to be in the great traditional mould of Conservatism is, in some cases, grave doubt as regards applying financial considerations and market forces to the granting of licences in this way. They are anxious that the best in British television should be preserved. Therefore, I should have thought support for these amendments would be felt right across the Committee.
I agree with those who have said that we should be grateful because in this Bill the Government have listened to many of the representations which have been made. I think back to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Second Reading when he introduced the Bill to us. I agree that concessions have been made which have been a great relief to many people who care about the quality of broadcasting in Britain in the years ahead. However, I am bound also to agree with those people who say that the Government have not gone far enough because the market and financial considerations are still too dominant. What should concern us most profoundly is that we do not go down the slippery slope towards the American broadcasting system. Many of us who have experienced that system are appalled at what market considerations can do to broadcasting. Is that what we want to see in this country? If there is any way in which these considerations can be strengthened so that quality broadcasting can be maintained in the years ahead, I for one would vote strongly in favour of it.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I wish to speak briefly in favour of the amendment. There are two points which are sometimes confused. One is the point about overbidding. If companies have overbid, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, they will have to make up their money by cheap programming. That programming will be of a low quality. However, there is a further point. It may be said that if viewers and listeners are as keen on quality programmes as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, the market will look after them. They will demand quality programmes and such programmes will be made. However, one must remember that advertisers generally assume that people's taste is low. They will on the whole take up advertising space only where they believe that the great British public will watch it.
Earlier, in the course of this long debate we heard the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, distinguish between what he regarded as solid and virtuous programmes, such as educational programmes, and the programmes that he regarded as agreeable and which he believed people really wanted to watch. That distinction goes right to the heart of this amendment. We should think in terms of programmes that are of high quality, not because they are educational programmes but because they have a new and imaginative content. People undoubtedly want those programmes, even if advertisers do not believe that is the case. As we have heard, there is an enormous demand for programmes that are educational in this very wide sense. They open people's eyes, for example, to environmental issues all over the world and to a number of other social issues that people are genuinely interested in. People learn as they watch or as they listen. The trouble is partly that these programmes are expensive so overbidding will cut down on their numbers, and partly that advertisers may be unwilling to believe that people want such programmes. I know that it is difficult for the Government to change course at this point, but I also feel that we in this Committee should make it clear how uneasy we are as regards market forces being given full power over our future television.
Lord Ardwick: Perhaps it may be convenient if I say a few brief words about Amendment No. 278 which contains a new clause which constitutes an adaptation to national radio. I shall also speak on the principles of Amendment No. 119 which is included in the group of amendments we are discussing and which seeks to replace the cash bid system with a three-stage process involving public consultation. I hope the Committee will forgive the repetition. We also want radio licences to be awarded in an open manner, free from any charge of manipulation. We are thinking of the listeners' needs and interests by making it essential for a company that gets on a short list to show that it can provide quality, viability and competence. There should also be tests to show what people think about an applicant's proposals. Time must be given to companies to change their proposals in response to that. The number one consideration in awarding a licence should be an applicant's ability to provide a

903
diverse range of quality programmes and in particular to respond well to the public comment on his application.
Earl Ferrers: I should say to get the record straight that with Amendment No. 110 we are also speaking to Amendments Nos. 118, 119, 120, 123, 138, 139, 142, 144, 157, 159, 161, 269 to 271, 278, 280 and 284. That helps to get rid of quite a lot of the amendments on the Marshalled List. They all refer to the same principle.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, carefully explained her system for granting licences. It is an alternative to what the Government propose in the Bill. She said that it would remove the manipulation that the auction system involved. I was not quite certain what she meant by that because I do not believe that there will be any manipulation. I understand her reasons for putting forward the suggestion, and she will not mind if I say that I do not agree with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, recognised—and I am grateful to him for doing so—that the Government had, as he put it, modified market purity. That is because we are anxious to get the system right.
The right reverend Prelate said that we do not want our television to become like television in the United States. I do not see that there is anything in the proposals that we have put forward or in the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that would encourage our television system to become like that of the United States. They concern merely a system of allocating licences.
The amendments are designed to remove the concept of competitive tender from the Bill and replace it with a Government-determined price for Channels 3 and 5 and national commercial radio licences. In other words, the Government have to determine the price. We find the amendments contrary to what we believe would be the best way to proceed, for three principal reasons.
First, the absence of any cash bid for licences removes any market test of its true value. Secondly, it would recreate the existing unsatisfactory system for determining the allocation of licences by requiring the ITC or the Radio Authority to make fine judgements on the quality of programming offered by applicants who were prepared to pay the fixed licence price. Thirdly, we do not believe that the Government should determine the price of licences. The combination of market-based cash bids and ITC or Radio Authority-determined percentages of revenue will be more sensitive in arriving at the true value of licences than simply imposing a revenue levy.
I could not advise the Committee to accept the key proposals in the new clauses proposed in Amendments Nos. 119 and 278 that applicants should be allowed, and indeed encouraged, to modify their original applications in the light of public comment. We do not believe that such a process could establish the truly representative public perception of the programme promises. In any event, it is most unlikely that any public reaction of that nature would produce a clear consensus. We believe that applicants should stand or fall by their original intentions and plans. Cosmetic
904
modifications in order possibly to curry favour with the ITC or Radio Authority and thereby alter their bids would further delay and complicate an already complex and lengthy process. It would also almost certainly mean that their financial bids would have to be adjusted.
We see the role of public consultation as assisting the Independent Television Commission to determine whether an applicant had crossed the quality threshold but not as a means of influencing the applicant's proposals. Here I turn to the right reverend Prelate and say that anyone who bids for a licence first has to cross the quality threshold. Therefore the quality deterioration that the right reverend Prelate fears need not come about because all applicants would have had to pass that quality threshold.
We believe that competitive tender is the fairest and most transparent way of allocating licences for commercial television, licences which after all are in relatively short supply and for which there will be several contenders. We accept that licences for Channels 3 and 5 should be awarded not just on the basis of the money bid in the tender but also on the basis of the quality of the service being offered. Hence our proposal that applicants for those licences must first pass a substantial quality threshold before being eligible to bid.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to cash bids altering the quality of programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that only rarely is quality given precedence over market forces. That is an exaggeration because they all have to pass the quality threshold and it is only then that market forces come into play. The quality threshold sets out a requirement for news, high-quality programmes, regional programmes, children's and religious programmes and programmes catering for a wide variety of different interests. That is a pretty formidable hurdle and is designed to ensure that only those applicants who can surmount it will have their bids considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that they would overbid, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said that if they overbid quality would suffer. If quality suffers applicants would infringe the terms of their licences. Clause 16(1) (b) requires the ITC to ensure that the applicant can maintain the promised quality of service throughout the licence period. If an applicant were seriously to overbid, his business plan put forward under Clause 15 would be unlikely to be regarded by the ITC as demonstrating his ability to sustain that service. The ITC could therefore conclude that the applicant had not passed the quality threshold.
The alternative approach, which requires the ITC to select the best applicant in terms of the range and quality of his programming, has a number of drawbacks. That is the system that the noble Baroness suggested. It would require the Independent Television Commission objectively to rank the quality of applicants' bids, taking into account a whole range of considerations, in order to determine which was best. That would be the responsibility of the ITC. It is

905
one thing for the ITC to judge whether applicants have crossed the quality threshold but it is quite another for it to decide which is the best. That would involve fine judgments about relative quality differences, which might be quite small, in various applicants' proposals. It would place great responsibility on the ITC and it would not differ significantly from the system which has operated hitherto and which has been widely criticised as arbitrary and opaque.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said that he did not want to seem like a dinosaur, defending the existing practices of the IBA. In referring to the fact that when the IBA had to operate precisely that system he said that there must be a better way. He also said that that had hung round his neck. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, had not mentioned it I was going to tug the necklace to remind him of it. There is a different way and we believe that our proposal achieves it. The amendments which the noble Baroness put forward would take us back to the old process, which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, admits is not the best.
I doubt whether any universally accepted definition of quality could be determined. People's tastes and interests differ and they are likely therefore to perceive differently various programme promises made by applicants.
The approach that we have adopted, which involves the quality threshold, is designed to ensure that only those applicants who are capable of providing a high-quality service are eligible to bid for a licence. Thereafter there is no need to make further fine distinctions on the relative quality of the applicants' proposals. The successful applicants should be, as they say, on a level playing field for bidding purposes. In the normal course of events the highest bidder should win. However, we accept—again market purity has been adjusted, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will be glad about that—that there may be exceptional circumstances, which could include circumstances in which the quality of programming offered by one applicant was exceptionally higher than the quality offered by the applicant who offered the highest cash bid, in which it would be justifiable for the ITC to award the licence to a lower bidder. Our proposal to give the ITC discretion in exceptional circumstances to accept a lower bid is now a fact.
Perhaps I may say a few words specifically on Amendment No. 278, with which the Government have a number of difficulties. The Government have already questioned the desirability of writing in a quality threshold for national radio which could have the effect of preventing it from developing at all. The requirement for a diverse range of quality programmes could also operate against the degree of audience targeting likely to be necessary if the three new services are to be viable.
The power to allow applicants to modify their applications would slow down the licensing procedure and would be hard to square with the competitive
906
tendering procedure to which the Government attach great importance. That does not mean that the Government are hostile to the principle of public consultation. Indeed, under Clause 93(6) the authority is required to publish the name and proposals of each applicant as soon as practicable after the closing date for applications.
I tried to explain this matter in some detail because it is of considerable importance. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was quite correct to say that it goes to the heart of the Bill. I simply re-emphasise that it is a method of allocating the licences. I do not believe that the anxieties about quality of programmes are relevant here. All those applicants would have passed the quality threshold. Having passed the quality threshold, one then asks whether it is for the ITC to say which of the four, five, six or seven successful applicants is to be given the cherry; or is to to go to those who give the highest bid? We think that it should be the latter.
6 p.m.
Baroness Birk: Perhaps I may first apologise to the Committee because I did not explain that I was speaking to numerous amendments. I thank the Minister for having put that right and for putting them in context.
I find it difficult to square the Minister's remarks with what I believe will be the result of the Government's plans. I also cannot agree with what he said about the objective and the way in which our amendment would work. First, the ITC would have to work to specific criteria, which would include matters not only of quality but also of commercial viability. There would also have to be consultation. I pointed out when I moved the amendment that the issue of consultation was strongly supported (so I thought) by the Minister in another place. The criteria that we propose are specific. They also deal with the issue of "more openness".
I do not understand the Minister when he says that our proposal would be a much more complicated—I think that he meant less efficient—way of proceeding than are the Government's plans. In fact what the ITC is to do is carefully laid out and it is so much better than having just the "exceptional circumstances" concept. It will be far more difficult to carry out if there are exceptional circumstances than if there were the straightforward proposition which we put before the Committee this afternoon.
Whatever the Minister said, the fundamental proposition of the Bill as it stands at the moment is entirely money oriented. It is no good trying to pretend that that is not so. The Government have put forward what I would call a rather crude quality threshold. The threshold in the amendment is much more sophisticated.
We should not leave this matter and accept what the Government have proposed without considering all the evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who has tremendous experience in this area—his recent experience on the ground in running the IBA—gave the example of someone who came over

907
from America to lecture. There is a mass of evidence of that kind. The evidence which I put before the Committee in a very shortened form consists of totally responsible research. It has shown that when regulation goes out of the window, quality too goes out. There is no structure to retain it. That is why, as the research to which I pointed showed, the inclination of audiences and the way in which they were satisfied by ITV reflected the type of programmes which were in quality very similar to those of the BBC. Once all that slips and goes, programmes will go downhill in quality.
I know that the Minister meant what he said. He was very sincere when he said that he did not believe that that need happen. The trouble is that all the evidence shows that it has happened, does happen and will happen. It seems to me that this is our last opportunity to try to produce a workable, sensible and very much better plan for dealing with the future of our broadcasting industry. We must do our job as a revising Chamber. This amendment will not rock the Government's plan completely. The Minister pointed to the different alternatives and said that it was another way to try to bring about a change in the broadcasting industry for the future without losing—what in the Bill as it stands is lost—all the benefit that we have had in the past.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily but I wish to follow up one or two points from the noble Earl's speech and endorse what the noble Baroness just said. There is evidence of the risks when one allows money rather than judgment about quality to determine decisions on the shape of broadcasting. Australia is a prime illustration. It is true that the situation in Australia is different in a number of ways from that in this country. Nevertheless, Australia let money have its head and paid a bitter price in terms of the quality of Australian broadcasting.
Two points to which I wish to draw attention arise from the noble Earl's remarks. I do not want to appear grudging about the significant amendments in the direction of quality, exceptional circumstances and other provisions that the Government have inserted into the Bill. They are genuinely welcome. The Bill is very different from when it started its course in another place. But certain problems arise from the Government's very willingness to make concessions.
The fact is that the ITC—the successor body to the IBA—will have a very difficult and delicate task on its hands. The Government's original intention was, if I may put it in my original phrase, to have a market pure arrangement; namely, by allowing the highest bid to reign supreme one had a clear system compared with what was called the opaqueness of the former system.
However, one is now in a situation in which the ITC will have to make a judgment about the initial quality of all the applicants which will not be very dissimilar from the judgment that the IBA made in the past. It will have one difficult additional element of quality to judge which will be new: it will have to judge the quality of money as well as the quality of the
908
programme ideas. That will be some safeguard against the fear of allowing over-bidding to undermine the subsequent programme operation. Having done that, in a minority of cases (but they will be very important cases) it will need to decide whether it wishes to apply the provisions for exceptional circumstances. That will involve exactly the kind of subjective judgment—that is the way in which it has always been put—about the best company to which to give the licence.
Perhaps I may say that I have every confidence in what will be the new ITC and its members. The chairman, George Russell, is an extremely able chairman. But the Committee should ponder on some of the difficulties. I cannot help a certain wry feeling about the matter raised in the amendment, which I support, with regard to making more public consultation arrangements.
It has been a complaint over recent years that the IBA made all its critical decisions behind closed doors. That was true. It was also true that the decision was not justiciable in any serious way once it had been taken. I believe that the criticism that the system was arbitrary has force. However, the new proposals will not deal with that criticism.
With regard to general public consultation, in the last round the IBA went to tremendous trouble to engage in very wide-ranging consultation. My noble friend may not be fully aware exactly how far it went on the previous occasion. It held hundreds of public meetings. The larger meetings at the end of the process were chaired and supervised by members of the board of the IBA. It conducted extremely careful opinion research in various areas. It went into wide-ranging consultation with local authorities and others. That aspect was totally open.
However, the final decisions were very private indeed. As I understand it, the final decisions under these proposals will be private. The decision on who passes the Becher's Brook of the quality hurdle will be taken behind closed doors. The even more sensitive decision as to which of the minority of applicants might qualify for the exceptional circumstances decision will be taken behind closed doors.
At the end of the day the decisions of the ITC may be more open to judicial review than was the case under the previous Broadcasting Act; I am not sure. But I cannot resist pointing out that the proposed process will still give undue dominance to the money element. Much of the remainder will involve the judgmental decision-making that the Government so much objected to when they started the Bill on its original course.
Baroness Birk: I commend the amendment.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 110) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kearton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawrence, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Chorley, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Meston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

[Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gregson, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Walpole, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Walston, L.

Hooson, L.

Warnock, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Coleraine, L.

Allerton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Annan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Arran, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Cox, B.

Balfour, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Beloff, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elles, B.

Brentford, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Elton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Erroll, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Fortescue E.

Caithness, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Caldecote, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Greenway, L.

910

Grimthorpe, L.

Orkney, E.

Halsbury, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pender, L.

Hemphill, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

Quinton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hives, L.

Reay, L.

Holderness, L.

Rees, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hooper, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Howe, E.

Seebohm, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Joseph, L.

Shannon, E.

Killearn, L.

Stockton, E.

Kimball, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Manton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Margadale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Marsh, L.

Suffield, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Milverton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Trumpington, B.

Morris, L.

Tryon, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Munster, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Nelson, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Norrie, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 13, line 2, after ("the") insert ("programming and other").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 110A is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 125, 126 and 131. I wish to speak to the group of amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Lord Plowden and Lord Norrie, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and myself. The amendments have the support of more than 90 national voluntary organisations which have come together to campaign for the interests of people with whom they work for the future of broadcasting.
Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 will guarantee that viewers are offered a more diverse range of programmes. They make it an obligation for Channel 3 companies to include in their schedules documentaries on national and international issues, programmes with an educational purpose and social action programmes. Despite changes made to the Bill in another place when the quality threshold was raised—and we welcome that—the current wording still does not ensure that viewers will in future be offered a diversity of programmes designed to meet a wide range of interests. The ITC may well put such a diverse range in its illustrative guidelines but it will have little power to ensure that Channel 3 companies include a full and balanced range. It will have even less power to

911
ensure that the range is maintained over what could be the next 20 years during which a company holds the franchise.
People use television not only for entertainment but as an important source of information. As London Business School research has shown, UK viewers watch factual programmes for one-third of their viewing time. In particular, television plays a key role in enabling people to inform themselves on environmental issues and the problems facing those people in other parts of the world. Among recent notable examples on ITV have been Adrian Cowell's coverage of the fate of the Amazon rain forests and Charles Stewart's study of life in an Ethiopian village during the famine. There is no doubt that the growing awareness of, interest in and concern for environmental problems worldwide among all ages and classes of people during the past few years have been due to the excellent television programmes made available.
The Minister may well say that the existing obligations include news and current affairs on national and international issues. But broadcasters define current affairs programming as covering issues of current concern. On the other hand, documentaries deal with issues not so prominently before the public and in greater depth. They occupy a less fixed place in the schedules and involve much longer production times—typically, four months in the case of international filming.
On all channels, including ITV, more time is given to documentaries than to current affairs. They cover substantially different issues and a wide range of topics; for example, wildlife, arts and culture, adventure, development in human rights, science and history. They cover substantially different parts of the world from news and current affairs. The view of the world provided by documentaries is essential for a more rounded understanding, allowing greater empathy with the people portrayed. Documentaries are an essential complement to the picture given by news and current affairs, which, as new research published this week shows, are dominated by reports on conflict situations, disasters and terrorism.
ITV makes an important contribution to the coverage of international issues. It reaches large audiences and for many people television is the only source of information on such matters. ITV's coverage is greater than that of BBC 1. It reaches large audiences, different from Channel 4 and also somewhat different from the BBC. For that reason it is important to have those programmes on Channel 3, which is likely to remain the most popular channel for some time to come.
The Minister may well say that BBC and Channel 4 have that remit. But we wish to enable people who do not usually tune in to BBC and Channel 4 and who happen on such programmes, as it were, by accident to become interested and involved. Amendment No. 131 is proposed to ensure that such programmes are not broadcast late at night or early in the morning. It ensures diversity during the main viewing times and is a crucial complement to programme specifications in Clause 16.
I turn to the educational purpose. At a time when, compared with West Germany, France, Japan and Korea, our backwardness in educational training is being widely recognised, it is essential that educational programmes should be disseminated to a wide audience through television. Sadly the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, is ill and unable to be present. He was to have spoken on adult education and literacy programmes. Lady Plowden is actively involved in ALBSU, the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit, which has used TV as a highly successful means of introducing the illiterate and the innumerate to courses which have transformed their lives. Commercial TV, regionally organised, has a decade of experience of collaboration with adult and continuing education.
This year a depressing survey carried out by the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education showed that, while 41 per cent. of social classes A and B had studied during the past three years, only 16 per cent. of the unskilled and semi-skilled had done so. Of course, there is the increasing number of elderly people needing stimulus to develop new interests. Many of them are isolated or housebound.
I wish to mention a programme produced last autumn for Granada's "This Morning" by Thames TV. It aimed to encourage women to return to work by presenting a series of optimistic portraits of women who had taken up work, education or training after a career break, usually to raise a family. After each programme the presenters offered viewers a free copy of the New Start pack. A total of 3,250 copies were requested and dispatched. With the existing demographic trend we shall desperately need women in the workplace, and we can see how invaluable such a programme is for both individuals and the country.
As regards social action—I am not enamoured of the phrase but it appears to be generally used and understood so I shall use it—in my Second Reading speech I mentioned the "Somewhere to Run" programme about runaway children, watched last year by 9 million people. Thousands rang the help line provided and watched the associated documentaries during the following weeks. Yorkshire TV makes available short slots and helps 80 voluntary organisations with programming expertise and resources to produce community service announcements either publicising their services or asking for volunteers. A twice weekly programme entitled "Help Yourself" offers help and advice on health and welfare benefits and practical advice for the unemployed, the elderly and the disabled. The successful health campaign was that concerned with AIDS.
Community education officers, appointed for the first time in 1980 when the IBA included them as a requirement, have an obligation to make and encourage arrangements for publications and/or telephone help lines to answer local needs. Age Concern has written in strong support of Amendment No. 126, as has Community Service Volunteers. It states that since the mid-1970s social action broadcasting has enabled ordinary people to act from

913
the awareness that they have gained of social issues from programmes such as "Cathy Come Home", "Find a Family" and the 1987 AIDS Campaign.
For all those reasons I hope that Members of the Committee will support the amendments. I have received a massive amount of correspondence—and I am sure that that applies to most Members of the Committee—and it appears that there is great anxiety and enormously strong feeling that these words must be written into the Bill ensuring that there is no deterioration under the new lighter-touch regime. Having stressed active citizenship, it is an irony that the Government are prepared to jeopardise the most powerful way in which people can be made aware and, thus, practically follow up their anxiety. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie: In supporting Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 and 131, which also stand in my name, I should like to voice my anxiety about the future of documentary and social action programmes, particularly those relating to environmental issues. I am anxious also that the full range of programming is to be shown at reasonable times.
Documentaries on environmental issues have been crucial in making the public aware of the need for action. Anglia's "Survival" series has focused powerfully our attention on endangered species. Granada's "Disappearing World" has underlined the threat faced by many tribal peoples in remote locations. Central's award-winning "Viewpoint" series has played a key role in alerting us to the urgent problems of global warming. Programmes of that kind will be vulnerable not just on ITV but also on BBC, which will be forced to compete.
Members of the Committee will recall from our debates on Wednesday 9th July that the duty placed on independent television companies in the 1981 Act to educate, inform and entertain, is not to be reproduced here. Therefore, it is even more important that the quality threshold which we are debating in this clause should reflect the range of programmes which the market may not of itself have any incentive to provide but which are vital to maintain the standard of broadcasting.
ITV documentaries can attract audiences of up to 8 million, but even that is not enough to guarantee their inclusion in the future Channel 3 schedules throughout the 1990s. ITV documentaries also receive very high audience appreciation ratings. We should not ignore those important facts if we are serious about developing a system which truly gives viewers the programmes which they want to watch.
Those programmes are vulnerable. Television documentaries such as those on species facing extinction are expensive to make. They need to be filmed on location. Prior research has to be undertaken over considerable periods of time. The programmes do not necessarily attract the same audience ratings as cheaper quiz or chat shows.
The Government recognise that news and current affairs programmes are in exactly that position. That
914
is why this clause provides a quality threshold requirement so that that kind of programme can be shown. Surely documentaries should be treated in the same way.
My real anxiety is that Channel 3 will be forced to cut costs in order to compete for audiences—not just with the BBC but also with Channels 4 and 5, satellite stations and cable services. Documentaries on social action programmes could be among the first casualties.
Turning to social action programmes on environmental issues, I can offer the Committee first-hand experience. I speak as the president of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, a voluntary organisation which recruits thousands of volunteers for environmental projects of every kind. Like many other voluntary organisations, BTCV uses the broadcast media to recruit volunteers, to raise public awareness of the environmental problems which they seek to tackle and to make sure that environmental issues are a central part of our educational curricula. It is the need for those three kinds of programme which these amendments address.
Perhaps I may give one of countless examples of programmes, so vital to the work of BTCV, which have come to be called "social action broadcasting". During the past two years, in the run up to National Tree Week and in the aftermath of the tragic 1987 storms, BTCV ran the Million Tree Campaign. To recruit volunteers, make appeals for donations and to seek the assistance of the business community it used the Thames television "Help" programme, a bulletin board for charities and voluntary organisations seeking help and offering services. Also, it was able to use many national and community radio stations.
Social action broadcasting and educational programmes are often expensive. Written materials are often produced in association with such programmes to be sent to viewers who order them. Telephone services are provided through which requests for written materials, donations or offers of help are received. The costs of such ancillary services—so vital for voluntary organisations—are met for the most part by the broadcasters.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to look favourably on these amendments. I hope that he will not simply say that we are trying to put into the Bill matters which the Government envisage would be in the explanatory guidelines. My fear is that guidelines will have no more power to stem the commercial tide than King Canute.
The Government have already seen that children's and religious programmes need to be protected against the commercial pressures which could squeeze them from our screens, and they are in the quality threshold in this clause. These amendments seek to preserve ITV's important range of factual programming which, together with the BBC's coverage, contributes to the high reputation of British television.
In supporting Amendment No. 131, perhaps I may emphasise that the time of day and the day of the week

915
on which programmes are shown is important. The legislation should direct licence holders to ensure that programmes are shown at appropriate times.
In commenting on Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, I stress the need for programmes which seek to stimulate public awareness, to assist in education and which will offer people the chance through voluntary work or donations, to be involved in their community and in protecting the environment. Clearly, programmes which seek to do that are useless if shown at the hours when those who might wish to benefit from them will be at work or asleep. Again, children's programmes are of no value if shown at 10 o'clock in the morning. Without the amendment, an applicant might well fulfil the letter of the quality threshold by showing current affairs, children's and religious programmes at inappropriate hours of the day in order to allow more commercially lucrative programmes to be shown during peak time. My honourable friend in another place, Mr David Mellor, promised that the quality threshold was to be a "Becher's Brook'. Unless something like this amendment is passed, I believe that this promise cannot be honoured. I commend these important amendments to the Committee.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I speak to Amendment No. 128 which is grouped with the amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, have spoken. I regard this amendment as necessary if we are to get the system in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, "as right as we can". That is the objective of all Members of the Committee speaking in and attending this debate.
The amendment is necessary because—and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred to this important fact—the Bill removes by omission the public service obligation on the IBA and which no longer applies to the ITC, and because it removes also, in large measure, the monitoring and scheduling role which the old IBA shouldered.
Secondly, it is necessary because the emphasis on commercial pressure which the Bill embodies, and to which my noble friend Lord Thomson referred when speaking earlier, will mean that companies will be expected to subject large, valuable audiences to advertising. Those two elements of this Bill must be countered.
Thirdly, they are made more apparent because, as has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, programmes of this kind are extremely expensive. In France deregulation was followed by an almost complete obliteration of all documentary programmes from the screen and the screen was filled with soaps and quiz shows. We should not regard this country as somehow immune from the effects of deregulation. We have seen that, almost everywhere, it produces the same consequences. I cannot understand why people believe that this country alone is immune to those effects. I suggest that it is not, and that deregulation will be followed in this country by the consequences which have followed deregulation elsewhere. We must guard against that; and that is one of the purposes of these amendments.
916
I shall not go over ground that has already been covered. We do not want social action and access programmes such as "Open Door" and "Comment", documentaries on famine in Africa, deforestation and its consequences, or programmes on alcoholism and AIDS swept from our screen. Nor do we want those programmes made subject to subscription television, which is the worst kind of way to deliver public service programmes to the people to whom they should be delivered.
The arts are in danger under the system. They are very expensive and often extremely risky. You try to widen people's horizons and to give people opportunities to see, appreciate and enjoy things that they have not enjoyed before. You try to increase their range of appreciation and their critical awareness.
I have referred before to one of the most remarkable changes which has occurred in this country since the war and which has been described as the musical revolution. This country had been almost a desert with regard to music for many centuries, but, since the 1930s, it has suddenly become a highly musical country. More classical music is available in London than in any other capital city in the world. One of the reasons for that has been the Third Programme which opened up classical music to people who had never thought they liked it and who thought that it was simply for old highbrows and intellectuals. They suddenly found that they loved and enjoyed it. That is something that public service broadcasting has done which I doubt whether deregulated broadcasting would have done. This we must protect.
That situation applies not only to music, but to programmes on the Trollope books, I Claudius or Brideshead. The effect of those programmes is not only that people enjoy them, but that they are introduced to and go and read the books of Trollope, Waugh and Robert Graves. That is a positive and important educational, entertainment and informational function which we must protect. We should remember that everyone is a minority in some aspect. There is not a great majority. Almost everyone has a minority taste. We should bear that point in mind.
I have no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has been told to say, or really believes, that it is safe to leave matters to the BBC or Channel 4. I do not believe that that is true. Channel 4 now has to earn its own advertising and the advertising pressures on it will be fairly substantial. The BBC's licence fee is eroded every year by inflation and by 1996, when the charter comes up for renewal, the BBC will be sorely strapped for money. Whereas in the past the BBC set standards to which commercial television conformed, the Government have changed the rules of the game and made money the criterion. I suspect that the standards will be set by people pursuing advertisers and that, to retain its audience, the BBC may have to conform. That is what I fear.
It is for those reasons that I think the amendment to which I speak is important. The ground covered by my amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady

917
David, is similar. I shall not press my amendment to the vote, but I shall certainly support the noble Baroness if she wishes to press her amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: This is not a subject in which I move with any expertise or familiarity, but I am glad to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David. I put my name down to a selection of the amendments. Like her, I have some qualms about the phrase "social action programmes", but it is not easy to think of an alternative and it seems to be well understood. I have received a number of representations about their value, including those from Age Concern and the Spastics Society.
The case for the amendments has been so well put that there is clearly no need for me to go over it again. Instead, while I have been sitting here, I have been thinking of the arguments that might be advanced against a case which seems so strong. It might be said that Channel 3 would have to function in a much tighter financial environment with increased competition, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, and that it would be unfair to burden it with yet more obligations extending to programme categories which are not all that attractive commercially.
However, if the obligations are clear from the beginning of the bidding process, that will be reflected in the percentage of advertising revenue set by the ITC and in the bidding companies' cash bid. All the companies will be in exactly the same position. I decline to use the phrase "level playing field". It could have the effect of slightly reducing the amount that the Treasury will receive from the franchise auction, but I hope that it will not be suggested that it is essential to wring out the last penny if it might be to the detriment of quality and diversity to do so. I do not believe that things have yet come to that pass and, so far as I can make out, the Government have not so far suggested that they have.
Again, if it is argued that the BBC channels could carry the factual programmes, I share the view that there is a risk that, if Channel 3 starts to drop certain types of programme, that could well have a knock-on effect on the BBC. As we are constantly reminded, experience in some other countries is not all that encouraging.
If it is argued that too long a list of obligations would reduce flexibility and make even more vulnerable those categories that are left out, I should answer that there is already in the Bill a list of obligatory categories and that the addition of the types and categories provided for in the amendments of the noble Baroness would cover the main forms of factual viewing and avoid giving the regrettable impression that those programmes might be dispensable.
The amendments do not suggest that there should be any quota or strict definition and the ITV companies would still have a great deal of flexibility. However, I agree that the future profile of Channel 3, with its broad programme obligations, must be spelt
918
out in the legislation. It is then—but only then—right to leave the detail of programming within those broad categories to the ITC and the system of illustrative guidelines.
In that context, the record of the ITV companies hitherto has been good, but, as has been pointed out, with the disappearance of the duty of the IBA to provide television which informs and educates, I support the view that it is right to have in the Bill that further strengthening of the quality threshold to be passed by those applying for a Channel 3 licence.
Lord Richard: I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I have listened to this part of the debate and apologise for not having been here since the start this afternoon.
The point that strikes me overwhelmingly is how one can provide diversity of television programming within the existing structure. The structure proposed by the Government is not one that I particularly like; indeed, I have strong views against it. However, accepting the values of the structure that we shall have, the issue is, how can we make the best of it?
I wish to make only three main points. First, it is undoubtedly true that most British people derive their knowledge of foreign affairs and international issues from television. They do not get it from the newspapers but tend to get it from the box. Television has enormous power to raise people's awareness. It influences attitudes and, indeed, can move people to the most extraordinary heights of action on international issues in which, at first sight, one would have thought the British people would not be too interested.
It is worth pondering for a moment that with the present system there is, after all, an overall obligation on all the terrestrial channels that television should inform and educate. Over the past decade, in particular, the British public have enjoyed in-depth coverage of global issues through current affairs reports and documentaries on both ITV and BBC, as well as the specialist coverages on BBC 2 and Channel 4. Can anyone doubt that that coverage and those programmes have dramatically heightened British awareness of international issues? Can anyone doubt that they have led to greater popular involvement in environmental and green issues and, indeed, with overseas development work?
The second point that I make is that programmes on international affairs are relatively expensive to produce. I am told by those who know more about these matters than I do that they cost approximately twice the domestic equivalent as soon as overseas filming is involved. Such programmes generally attract large but not massive audiences. If they are shown by ITV at peak times there are around 4 million to 8 million viewers.
The danger, unless these amendments are carried, is that in the new competitive environment laid out in the Bill programme costs and audience sizes—after all, for the man with the money those figures determine the advertising revenue that programmes attract—will become the prime factors in Channel 3 scheduling.

919
Inevitably, that means that much factual programming on international issues will be under threat unless there are clear obligations on the new franchises written into this legislation.
As I see it, the dangers are threefold. First, news and current affairs on domestic and international issues are protected, but it is only news that is stipulated to be scheduled at peak times. The strong possibility is that other factual programming will be "ghetto-ised" into late night slots with greatly reduced audience reach. Secondly, there is no requirement at all for documentaries. In the past decade they have probably played the most important single role in helping the public to understand global issues. However, documentaries involve lengthy research. They allow a more detailed and in depth examination of the issues. They cover different topics to those covered by news and current affairs programmes. It is often the documentaries that have set the agenda on crucial global issues in the past few years. The two programmes mentioned by my noble friend when she moved the amendment come to my mind also—the Ethiopian famine and the Amazon rain forests.
Thirdly, in the present structure proposed by the Government there is no requirement for programming with an educational purpose. Many existing international documentaries are clearly educational not only in their purpose but in their effect. They are made with clearly defined educational objectives, and pre-showing promotion and off-air educational support is often provided.
My final point is this. The ITC's ability to set illustrative guidelines is an important step forward to ensure a degree of diversity of programme content on Channel 3. Of course I accept that. However, the inclusion of documentaries in guidelines is clearly much weaker than inclusion on the face of the Bill. There is already debate about the ITC having little power in practice to arrest the slippage and even the dropping of less profitable programme categories. My fear is that unless the Bill is amended as proposed by my noble friend, Channel 3's peak coverage of international issues will be more limited and much less effective. I cannot believe that even the Government would claim that that is increasing diversity of television viewing.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: May I add a few brief words in support of Amendment No. 125 and the word "documentaries". I hope that I can persuade my noble friend Lord Ferrers to give the amendment his most careful consideration. What I have to say is based on personal experience and fact.
I have mentioned on previous occasions that I retired as chairman of Anglia Television two years ago, but I take a keen interest in its "Survival" wildlife and environment programmes, to which previous speakers have kindly referred. I started the programme 30 years ago and natural history programmes on television have now become enormously popular. The last programme to be shown, about one month ago at 9 o'clock in the evening, was about crocodiles. I believe that it had over 12 million viewers and almost won its time slot
920
for that evening. The programme was seventh in the top 100 programmes for that week, along with "Coronation Street", and so on, at the top, and beating by a long way the World Cup coverage, game shows, and the rest.
That was not always the case. When "Survival" started it had to fight its way onto the network. It then had a great struggle for years to stay on the network. The point I make to my noble friend Lord Ferrers is that the support of the IBA during the first decade was absolutely crucial. The IBA referred constantly to "this gem" or "jewel in the crown" of ITV because it was a special and specialised programme. It was mentioned so frequently by the IBA and in its reports that no network company would have dared to refuse to take it.
However, it was not popular majority programming in those early days before the new generation of schoolchildren who join natural history clubs, learn biology, and so on, became the majority. Of course, natural history and environment programmes are now well established.
The importance of the reference to documentaries is that other minority subjects, not yet popularly appreciated and understood, will be coming along in exactly the same way as "Survival" did on ITV in its early days. Such new programmes will not have the IBA support. It is absolutely vital to have a commitment to take documentaries of that nature. I feel confident, based on my 30 years' experience in ITV, that such programmes will not find a place at reasonable broadcasting times, or even find a place on the network, but will simply be squeezed out unless there is a requirement in the Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may put this question to him. "Survival" was outstanding and deserved to get to the top of the pops—as indeed it did—but did that programme need legislation? Was it by statute?
Lord Buxton of Alsa: I think I gave the answer that the IBA had the power, the muscle and the authority to force the programme on and to keep it on. My noble friend is right to recall that, I believe about 20 years ago, the world was stunned when "Survival" beat "Top of the Pops", and that was in the days when we had only two channels. With my accustomed modesty I remember saying at the time that it only proved that over half the population would rather watch anything than "Top of the Pops".
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I may be naive but I should have thought that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and those grouped with it, would find an echo in the breast of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he replies. After all, the proposals are a modest extension of what is already written into the Bill, as can be seen in subsection (2)(a), on page 14, where protection is given to news and current affairs programmes of high quality dealing with both national and international matters. These amendments propose that the protection should be extended to documentaries and social action programmes.

921
The point I make is wide, in a sense. As we know, immense changes are taking place on the European scene at present. The media has a vital role to play in every European country on the shape of our societies in the years ahead. That is particularly so whether Europe becomes a kind of rich man's club, fenced around and ignoring the problems of the third world, which, as we all know, are immense, or whether Europe in the years ahead, reinforced by public opinion, has an outward-looking aspect. In the request for some protection to be given to documentaries and encouragement for the making of expensive documentaries—and they are expensive as has been so expertly explained—the various aid charities which are in the field such as Christian Aid, the Catholic charity, CAFOD, Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund and others, are deeply concerned that we should have the kind of documentary programmes which are presenting to the British public in the years ahead true facts about the situation of the world in which we live.
As we all know, it is a uncomfortable situation. There are certain events such as the Ethiopian earthquake and the famine or other such disasters which will encourage great public generosity. It is very much more difficult to achieve the level of public education to explain what has created the lopsided world in which we live. It is much more difficult to get the level of public education that will influence public policy. It is vital that the media plays its part in that and that documentaries and social action programmes are given some protection.
I believe that this measure is supported on all sides of the Committee from the echoes that I have heard and particularly from the comments of the last speaker. I hope that the Minister will respond appropriately.
7 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I wish to make a few remarks from the Front Bench on this side of the Committee in support of these amendments. I am sure that the Minister recognises that there have been overwhelmingly strong arguments coming from all parts of the Chamber in favour of these amendments. The warning that came from the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, was a serious one concerning the future of the programmes that are covered by these amendments. What he said about the part played by the IBA in the promotion of such programmes was also of great significance.
Perhaps I may now turn to the coverage of global issues. The third world and environment broadcasting project speaks on behalf of 50 agencies that are working in the field of development and education. It has repeatedly pointed out and underlined that most British people derive their knowledge of environmental and global issues from television. That has been said on many occasions during this debate.
I wish to give a specific example. In about 1987 a seven-part series called "A Battle for the Planet" was made by the International Broadcasting Trust and it
922
was shown on Channel 4. One of the episodes dealt with reafforestation. It covered the work of a development agency which I founded and of which I am the president. It is called SOS SAHEL-UK. We know from our experience how very interested the British people are in trees. We know that from the support that we receive and the highly knowledgeable letters that we continue to receive from members of the public.
The first three programmes in the series were shown at the high peak time of 7.30 on Sunday evening. There was a great response; many letters and telephone calls were received by Channel 4 referring to the interest shown in the series. However, the time for the second part of the series was changed to 4.30 p.m. on Sunday. The response fell quite dramatically. There were few letters and fewer telephone calls. That shows that the amendment, which refers to documentaries of this kind being shown at a time when people are most likely to watch the programmes, is of great importance.
The most recent film "The March" came as a result of a steady stream of documentaries produced on environmental and third world issues. It may not have been made had it not been for all the documentaries. In Europe the number of people viewing "The March" was as high as for any film made in recent times.
My second point concerns social action broadcasting. As the broadcasting consortium has explained, the voluntary organisations use television for all kinds of purposes. They use them to raise all kinds of social issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, telephoned me this morning to say how much she supported these amendments and how sorry she was not to be able to be here this afternoon to speak in their favour.
As my noble friend Lord Richard said, in a competitive, commercial environment, documentaries, continuing education and social action programmes may be lost because they are seen to be costly to produce and unattractive to advertisers. These programmes are wanted by the public. They should be available on mainstream terrestrial channels, including Channel 3. A suitable proportion should be shown at peak viewing times. I strongly support these amendments.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I add my wholehearted support to Amendments Nos. 125, 126 and 131. Only the latter amendment bears my name. I tried to put my name to all three but the list of supporters was already full. The case has already been made compellingly and comprehensively by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and others. I wish to narrow things down from worldwide environmental issues to the specific field of disability. It is important to safeguard the quality and diversity of programmes for people with disabilities. It is essential that their interests are still catered for in mainstream programmes, including current affairs programmes, and documentaries. In addition, programmes that specialise in disability issues should not be relegated solely to off-peak times.

923
We seem to be stuck with the terrible phrase, "social action programming". That is a good example of how people who have disabilities can be helped. TVS's programme "Action" played a large part in the launch of "Face to Face", which is a counselling service in Surrey run by parents of disabled children for parents of disabled children. It is a valuable counselling and support service for the early days when one first discovers that one's child is disabled. Because the programme was on television it reached a much wider audience and helped many more people than just parents living in Surrey.
I wish to expand for a moment on what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said about programmes on AIDS. The scheduling of these programmes is very important for the impact that they may have. In 1987–88 there was a major health education campaign which focused on HIV and AIDS. I believe that the noble Baroness mentioned it. In order to offer immediate information and support after these programmes a help line was set up which answered thousands of calls from those with little knowledge of AIDS and its implications. That developed into the national AIDS help line, which still operates. It takes calls 24 hours a day. It is necessary to include documentary programmes for educational purposes and social action programmes in the positive program me requirements. I support the amendments most warmly and they need to be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Willis: I warmly support these amendments for several reasons. I began my career as a writer of documentaries. I cannot claim that the first documentary I wrote was a social action programme because it was called "How to Look After Your Bren Gun". That was when I was with the army's bureau of current affairs. I had my first experience of how powerful television can be in the early 1950s. I wrote a documentary programme called "The Pattern of Marriage". It dealt with how young people meet, get on, get married, the problems they meet, why they separate and why they divorce. I based it on a considerable amount of research in the divorce courts and elsewhere. We made six programmes. It was my first experience of the power of television. We received hundreds of letters from people all over the country. The Marriage Guidance Council experienced an increase in its customers of around 300 per cent. The whole thing was a marvellous social exercise.
During the debate a great deal of emphasis has been put on educating people about global problems. In the years since I wrote "The Pattern of Marriage" there has been a tremendous response in television to domestic problems and to the problems of living in this country. I hope that I do not sound too much like a proud father when I say that for many years my son produced the programme "First Tuesday" which pioneered many issues concerning Britain.
The weakness at the heart of the Bill is that at the end of the day everything comes down to money. One can set up all the hurdles one likes in terms of quality and say that companies will not get the franchise unless they can satisfy the quality hurdles, but there
924
will be so much pressure from satellite, cable and everything else for the available advertising that, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, standards will fall. They must, because there is not enough advertising to go round. We already have cable and we have satellite coming from the sky with dozens of channels. The Government are blithely saying that we shall have a Channel 5 too and that it should have a piece of the cake. There is not enough cake. That is why it is so important that these amendments should be supported. We should have safeguards in the Bill so that the quality that has distinguished British television for so long is not lost. One of the great jewels in our crown has been our documentaries. I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Annan: At this stage in our proceedings we should be trying to achieve balance between two ways of looking at broadcasting. I voted with the Government on the previous amendment because it seemed to me that the movers of the amendment had not really tried to face up to the problem to which the Government have been facing up.
The problem expresses itself in the enormous disparity between the salaries and wages that the BBC can afford to pay and those which Independent Television can afford to pay. Why can the commercial companies afford to pay so much more under the present IBA system? It is of course because they can tolerate any amount of Spanish practices by the ACTT and they can afford to pay to their staff all kinds of differentials which the BBC cannot afford to pay. They can do so because they can pass on the cost to the advertisers by keeping the advertising rates as high as they possibly can be kept.
Earl Russell: May I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the phrase "Spanish practices"? It is an unfriendly phrase to a friendly nation; and moreover I believe it is incorrect.
Lord Annan: If the noble Earl prefers, let me describe it in this way—chicanery of the most arrogant and intolerable kind, in which crews which went abroad would immediately stop work and demand higher wages in order that they should be able to have a meal at the rate which Michelin showed that a one-star restaurant could have. On Friday evening all work would stop until it had been agreed that not merely time and a half should be paid but two and a half times the rate should be paid for work on Saturday and three and a half times the rate for work on Sunday.
Lord Willis: Will the noble Lord make it clear that he is talking about the past, not the present?
Lord Annan: I am sorry but I must tell the noble Lord that he cannot just take that line. The Government were faced with this situation. They knew perfectly well that the only way they could ameliorate it was by introducing competition into the whole business of the way in which the commercial companies work.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Can the noble Lord make it clear that he is not talking about the amendment?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Annan: If I were not interrupted so often by Members of the Committee, I would be able to address myself to the amendment. The Government have tried to take a stand on the matter in order to reduce advertising costs. Those costs have hitherto been passed on to British business.
Having sacrificed in the Temples of Beelzebub and Mammon, I shall now turn and be willing to burn incense at the Temple of the Muses, of which the high priestess is the noble Baroness, Lady David. I support the amendments because we need this kind of balance in broadcasting. We need the kind of competitive initiatives which the Government are trying to introduce. But we also need the safeguards which have been addressed with such eloquence by Members of the Committee this evening. It could not have been better expressed than by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, why the arts and an intellectual content in broadcasting were so essential. As for the question of documentaries, the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, is a great expert in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has his own experience.
I shall not argue that case further. I shall merely say that we need to preserve balance in the Bill. This is the way in which one can balance what so many Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber thought were the deplorable effects of the amendment passed some half an hour or so ago.
Baroness Blackstone: Like the right reverend Prelate, I very much hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendments as no new issue of principle is entailed. I fear that he may respond by saying that there will be illustrative guidelines. An unfortunate aspect of the Bill is that the ITC will not have the powers that the IBA had to ensure the broad range of high quality programmes that we have become used to. Illustrative guidelines are simply not enough.
As many Members of the Committee have already said, television is an enormously important source of information. Many people rely on it as their main source of information about social, environmental and economic conditions in different countries of the world as well as in our own. They are a way of helping people who cannot afford to travel or who read relatively little to have a much better informed and less parochial view of the world. Many people watch these programmes and enjoy them as well as learn from them, because they are scheduled to follow popular programmes. That is why it is so important that they should be part of the mainstream programming on independent television.
It is especially important with regard to young people. We know that children watch a great deal of television. It is essential that they do not have a diet of soaps, of game shows and of sport, with a little news thrown in. They should be able to watch programmes which broaden their understanding of the world and increase their knowledge of important issues. Documentaries can give a longer-term perspective which is vital to the understanding of such issues.
926
These programmes ought not to be confined to BBC and Channel 4. There are people who do not turn very much to those channels but largely confine their watching to independent channels. Both the BBC and Channel 4 want competition in relation to educational programmes and documentaries. The Government claim that they are in favour of competition. Perhaps the noble Earl will say whether he favours competition in this respect; and if not, why not?
The commercial pressures will be very great with respect to the increased numbers of channels. The longer lead times and high costs of these programmes make it most important to write on the face of the Bill a requirement to cover them. As many noble Lords said, that principle has been accepted in regard to news, current affairs, children's and religious programmes. Therefore, there should be no objection to having an obligation to provide documentary and educational programmes. Teachers in schools and in post-school institutions will be bitterly disappointed if that does not happen. They make much use of such programmes in their work with children, with young people and, indeed, with students. Many of them fear that the effects of deregulation which have been seen in other countries will take place here in respect of our young people.
These amendments will allow plenty of flexibility for the television companies. I hope that they will be accepted in the interests of maximising the educational value of television.
Earl Ferrers: We have had a most interesting debate on this subject and one in which noble Lords have clearly shown their concern about what should be done to preserve the programmes which we all know and like. I was especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for saying that he understood the Government's philosophy on the matter and for the fact that he voted for us on the last occasion. I am most appreciative of that. However, when he said that he had been supping with Beelzebub and Mammon I was not quite so sure that that was particularly complimentary. I thought that Beelzebub was a devil. He then went on to say that he was going to sup with the Muses and support this amendment. I should point out to him that he would have been supping a good deal sooner with his noble friends, other than the Muses, had Members of the Committee not been so interested in this particular amendment.
Perhaps I may refer first to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I should like to start with a point of detail in order to get it, if I may say so, out of the spotlight. The amendment is unnecessary. As it stands, the Bill makes clear that the applicants' proposals for providing the service specified in Clause 16(2) or (3) must comply with all the requirements; that is, both programming and other requirements. Therefore, as I said, the amendment is not necessary.
I shall turn now to deal with the main substance of the debate. Members of the Committee put forward very strong arguments, all of which were concerned with standards, the maintenance of quality and the desire for us not to lose the programmes which we like,

927
know and respect. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the need for educational programmes.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester hoped that this concern would receive an echo in my breast. Of course it does. Indeed, there is nothing between us on these matters. We all want to see standards kept up. We all want to keep the variety of programmes which has been so successful, and we all want these programmes to continue. I refer to programmes which feature art, culture and natural history. My noble friend Lord Buxton referred to that aspect and outlined the programmes produced by Anglia Television. We know only too well the great success that Anglia has had with its natural history programmes.
However, we are considering what should be in the Bill. So far as concerns the programming requirements, the general pattern of broadcasting legislation since the inception of Independent Television has been to lay down in primary legislation very broad statements about the programme range, the quality and the standards and to allow the broadcasting authorities or the regulatory bodies to interpret and define them in practical terms. The Bill as it stands, and which noble Lords seek to amend, is drafted in the same tradition as in the past. The amendments would, therefore, reverse the tradition by specifying a variety of types of programme which would have to be shown on Channels 3 and 5.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in a characteristically ungenerous and, I thought, niggardly way, said that I would say what I was told to say, as if I were a puppet on a string. I should point out to him that I do not normally say what I am told to say. However, I am the very lucky recipient of advice which I try to transmit to noble Lords in the best way I can if I think that it is good. One thing that I was told not to say is something which I shall say to the noble Lord. As usual, he is misconceived over the amendment. He said that he does not want the social action, the arts and all other such programmes to be swept away. As regards the very programmes he does not want to be swept away, there is in fact no obligation under the present law for these to be transmitted.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Earl must recognise that omitting the public service phrase,
"to inform, educate and entertain",
from the Bill means that the programmes to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred may well not appear.
Earl Ferrers: Let us just consider the matter for a moment. There is no specific statutory obligation on ITV companies at present to include any social action programmes, although it is likely that the IBA encourages the ITV companies to do so in order to fulfil the public service remit. We see no reason why Channels 3 and 5 should positively be required to provide educational progammes when these must be provided on the other three terrestrial channels; namely, BBC 1, BBC 2 and Channel 4. However, the
928
general diversity and high quality requirements, together with the requirement for news and current affairs programmes, should ensure an educational element in some Channel 3 and Channel 5 programmes.
Perhaps we should recall just what are the requirements which have to be met. Those wishing to be Channel 3 or 5 licence holders will have to satisfy the Independent Television Commission on many points. They will have to satisfy the commission that they will give a sufficient amount of time in their services to news and current affairs programmes of high quality and that they will give a sufficient amount of time to other programmes of high quality. In the case of Channel 3, they will have to satisfy the commission that there will be a sufficient range of regional programmes, including high quality regional news, a suitable proportion of which will be made in the licence area; that they will give a sufficient amount of time in their services to children's and religious programmes; that their planned programmes, when taken as a whole, are calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests; that a proper proportion of the matter included in the programmes will be of European origin; and that for each year not less than 25 per cent. of the total amount of time is allocated to the broadcasting of independent productions. Those are the kind of quality standards which the proposed licence holder will have to meet before he is in a position to be considered as a contender.
The requirement for high quality current affairs programmes in Clause 16(2) (a) is bound to mean that some documentaries will be broadcast. In addition, arts and science programmes will almost certainly continue to be broadcast as part of the general diversity requirement. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent those social action programmes—I agree with the noble Baroness that that is a terrible expression—continuing on Channel 3 and the licensees building up or maintaining the kinds of link with local organisations which the ITV companies have established.
There does not seem to be much between us on the basic philosophy of the matter. However, we see no need for a statutory requirement for those programmes where there has been no such requirement in the past. Social action broadcasting should not disappear; indeed, there will be many more outlets and opportunities for such programmes.
There will be no specific requirement for social action broadcasting in the Bill. However, there is no specific requirement for such programming under the current legislation. There will be nothing to stop ITC licensees or the BBC from undertaking social action broadcasting or from maintaining the kind of partnership with voluntary bodies which has been built up over the years. The extent to which they put on such programmes will reflect audience demand and other factors.
Noble Lords have said that there is a great demand for such programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that he had never received so many letters saying

929
that the proposal was a good one. Where there is that demand, it will be met. In a multi-channel environment it no longer makes sense to have a regulatory body laying down who shall be required to show such programmes, and when. Last year, for instance, commercial radio raised over £3 million for charity. It mounted a range of local initiatives covering areas such as drugs and AIDS prevention, helping the elderly and promoting training in the local arts. That is all highly commendable.
Our legislative proposals will not preclude public authority funding for such ventures under the new regime. The IBA is already preparing to give radio a start under existing legislation and it is set for major expansion during the 1990s.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, agreed that it will be a great improvement that the ITC will be required under Clause 15(2) to issue an illustrative guide setting out the broad range of programme types which it would expect to see included in the Channel 3 service in order for the proposed service to satisfy the quality threshold set out in Clause 16(2) or (3). The IBA has indicated that the ITC will be likely to include in that illustrative guide the full range of programme streams which are currently available. In practice, I have no doubt that a Channel 3 licensee would choose to offer that full range of programming. We believe that it should be for the licensee, not the legislator, to determine the precise programme mix on Channel 3.
My noble friend Lord Norrie was worried about scheduling, as were some other noble Lords. We do not believe that the ITC, as a regulatory body, should be required to adopt a programme scheduling role in respect of any of its licensees. Neither should the licensee himself be under a statutory duty concerning the scheduling of his programmes. We consider the Channel 3 licensees themselves should be responsible for scheduling their own programmes. We have made an exception in the case of news because a comprehensive high quality news service requires bulletins throughout the day and in peak periods; but in general we see no reason why the programme pattern on Channel 3 should be significantly different from that on ITV at present.
The presumption behind the moves for ITC scheduling is that quality programmes will be shunted into the early hours of the morning. That does not stand up. I do not believe that that will happen. Quality and popularity are not mutually exclusive. Channel 3 licensees will want to recoup their investment in expensive quality programmes by showing them at times when most viewers are likely to watch them.
I return to the point that I made at the beginning: there is nothing between any of us in our desire to maintain standards and have such programmes. The only question is whether we put the requirement onto the face of the Bill. I suggest that it is for the regulatory body rather than the legislators to decide what should be in the licence. I hope therefore, for those reasons, that the noble Baroness will think that the position as it is in the Bill is the better one.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I am unconvinced by what the Minister has said. I am amazed that he has made the speech that he has. Many of the arguments that he advanced have been rebutted. Not one soul has spoken against the amendment. I have had support from all sides of the Committee. I am surprised at the Minister's reply because the Government have already added religious and children's broadcasting to the list. The Minister said repeatedly that we shall have the same sort of programmes as before. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the 1981 Act provides for television and local sound broadcasting services as a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment.
I am afraid that I despair of educating the Minister. I thought that the case had been made clear, and that he would take the proposal away and look at it. After the answer I have received I can do nothing but divide the Committee. I should add that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he would not move his amendment. It is my amendment upon which we are dividing.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness one question. I pointed out to her that the first amendment in her name is unnecessary. Is that the one upon which she wishes to divide?
Baroness David: I am dividing on the group of amendments. If the Minister does not care for Amendment No.110A, if it is carried, he can change it at the next stage of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, she cannot divide on a group of amendments. She can divide on each amendment as we go through them.
Baroness David: I understood—it happened previously when I moved a group of amendments—that if the amendment upon which we are voting is carried, I move the other amendments when we come to them and they are carried automatically. I am glad that the Minister agrees with that.
7.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.110A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 64.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Airedale, L.

Carter, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chorley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Annan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Aylestone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Birk, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Birkett, L.

David, B.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blease, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ennals, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bottomley, L.

Falkender, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Falkland. V.

931

Foot, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Gallacher, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Galpern, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

[Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Greenway, L.

Nicol, B.

Gregson, L.

Norrie, L.

Grey, E.

Ogmore, L.

Halsbury, E.

Oram, L.

Hampton, L.

Parry, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Richard, L.

Hughes, L.

Rochester, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Russell, E.

Jay, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Jeger, B.

Seebohm, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Southwark, Bp.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Tordoff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Warnock, B.

Longford, E.

White, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Willis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bethell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blakenham, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Milverton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Morris, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Caithness, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Pender, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Reay, L.

Coleraine, L.

Rochdale, V.

Colwyn, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Stockton, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Strange, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Elles, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Suffield, L.

Elton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ferrers, E.

Teviot, L.

Fortescue, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Hives, L

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Viscount Ullswater: I think that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at half past eight.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 to 8.30 p.m.]
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("employed or to be employed by him") and insert ("including those employed or to be employed by him and freelances employed by independent producers").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move Amendment No. 111 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Birk. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that applicants for Channel 3 licences state their training and retraining proposals in relation not just to their own staff but also to those engaged by independent production companies. That is a critical part of the requirement. Before I continue, I should say that I shall also speak to Amendment No. 112 which is grouped with this amendment. However, I shall not speak to Amendment No. 112A.
As the Committee will know, the Bill currently requires applicants for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences to state their training and retraining proposals. However, we feel that this would probably not extend to the large and growing number of freelancers working on independent productions, which is a sector that is positively encouraged to expand by the Bill.
It is true to say, and has been repeated many times during the course of the Bill, that training in broadcasting is widely regarded within the industry as insufficient. Such training as has been provided has largely been provided by the BBC, and more recently by ITV. However, there is a significant shortfall in training provision, especially in the independent and freelance sector. The likely growth in this area and the urgent need for training were highlighted in the recent Institute of Manpower Studies report. That has made a significant impact.
It is again true to say that without some kind of requirement to provide training there is unlikely to be sufficient provision for it in the independent sector which is mainly composed of small and medium sized companies which are unable to carry large overheads and do not have any incentive to provide training for staff who may stay with them for perhaps only one production. Many members of staff in the industry will move around and will not stay in any one area for any great length of time.
The amendment goes some way to providing this training requirement and opens up the possibility of contract compliance provisions on training to he imposed by Channel 3 companies. Only if all independent companies are forced to have regard to training in this way is there likely to be a serious response. Underlying all of this is the need for trained and retrained personnel to produce programmes of sufficient quality both to satisfy viewers and to allow the United Kingdom to compete in the increasingly international programme production market. That is the purpose of this amendment. However, we look with great interest at Amendment No. 112 which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The key distinction between our Amendment No. 111 and Amendment No. 112 is that in Amendment No. 112 Channel 3 and Channel 5 applicants must indicate their proposals for encouraging the training of staff employed by independent companies, whereas our Amendment No. 111 seeks a stronger requirement. Therefore the government amendment merely encourages training of such staff while our Amendment No. 111 requires it.
Although Amendment No. 112 achieves the same broad effect as our Amendment No. 111, it does not commit licence holders to train freelancers and others employed by independent companies. It merely obliges them to encourage training for such people. The recent announcement by the ITVA that it is setting up a freelance training fund is to be welcomed as the practical application of this kind of encouragement. However, it is clear that the ITVA initiative is dependent upon other organisations such as the BBC and the independent producers putting in matching funds. This form of industry co-operation is still at an early phase in its development.
We feel that industry-wide action to prevent the growing skills shortage in the freelance market within the next few years must be bolstered by the kind of industry training fund which I proposed at an earlier stage in our Committee proceedings. It may be unrealistic to expect the ITV companies directly to train for the independent sector but they should be obliged to co-operate. While we welcome the Government's move in recognising that Channel 3 companies have a responsibility towards the staff employed by independent companies who provide them with programmes, our amendment is a little stronger and requires them to have a responsibility towards such staff. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 112 and 112A and reply to Amendment No. 111. We certainly share the views of the noble Baroness on training and accept that the maintenance of high technical and production standards on Channels 3 and 5 will require a correspondingly high level of training and retraining not only of programme production staff directly employed by the licensees but also of those employed by independent producers contracted to provide programmes for those channels. The noble Baroness made that point clearly.
However, we are unable to accept the amendment in the form it is drafted because it implies that the Channel 3 and 5 licensees should have a direct responsibility for the training of employees of independent producers. Primary responsibility for such training must rest with the independent producers themselves as employers. However, we accept that the licensees have a role to play in encouraging the independent producers under contract to them to train their staff to the appropriate level. Hence, we have put forward Amendment No. 112 to this effect, while Amendment No. 112A simply tidies up the wording of Clause 15(3)(d).
We do not envisage that such encouragement will simply consist of pious exhortation. This comes to the point that the noble Baroness made a moment ago. Channel 3 licensees will be in a position to use the contract conditions laid down with their independent producers to set out standards of training which such producers would be unlikely in their own interests to resist or evade.
I hope that that double-pronged attack, if I may call it that, which can be implemented will satisfy the
934
noble Baroness that while the Government accept what she is saying we are trying to achieve the same ends but in a different way.
Lord Ardwick: I want to speak simply to Amendment No. 112A. I may be obtuse but I do not see any tight connection between Amendment No. 112A and training. I am encouraged by Amendment No. 112A, which seems to provide the kind of physical presence in Channel 3 regional areas for which I asked the other day. Am I right to be encouraged?
In the Bill as we have received it Clause 15(3) (d) states:
"if the application is for a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service, a statement by the applicant as to whether, and (if so) to what extent, he proposes that any offices, studios or staff to be used or employed by him in connection with his proposed service should be located within the area to which that service would be provided".
That seems to ask the applicant, "Are you going to have a physical presence in the region or not?" and to leave him free to say, "No". If my interpretation is correct he is now asked a much sterner question about his proposals as to the use in connection with his proposed service of offices and studios situated within the area for which that service would be provided and about the services of persons employed (whether by him or any other person) within that area.
If the words bear the meaning that I take them to have that is a source of considerable gratification. We are deeply concerned not only about the general quality of the output of the regional stations on Channel 3 but also about the strength of the commitment to the region of those operating a regional channel. That commitment is strengthened if one has a number of employees living locally and serving on the in-house staff. It is also strengthened by the physical presence of studios and offices. The would-be licensee is required to extend his statement of extent to cover freelances and other staff employed by his independent contributors. It all helps, it seems to me, to ensure that programmes are made, not exclusively but as to a lot of programmes, in the region, for the region, by a regionally-based staff. If that is so, I welcome the amendment.
It would be of especial importance if the licence was granted as a publishing contract. We believe that Channel 3 licences should not be awarded as publishers' franchises but for making integrated programmes, and a decent proportion of those programmes should be produced in-house. I am told that there is already a sad tendency for some ITV executives to move in the direction of publishing instead of producing.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The noble Lord is quite right; there is no connection between Amendments Nos. 112 and 112A. It was a question of grouping the amendment with the other two which were germane to each other. Amendment No. 112A is a technical amendment and is in line with what the noble Lord said. It asks the applicants to indicate the regional facilities they will use. That must include—and the

935
word "must" is important—sufficient offices for carrying out what they are required to do under Clause 16(2) (d):
"that a suitable proportion of the regional programmes included in the service in accordance with paragraph (c) are made within the area".
That is the whole purpose of Amendment No. 112A. It is stronger than the wording in the original draft of the Bill. Clause 15(3)(d) currently invites applicants to indicate whether they intend to use regional accommodation; Amendment No. 112A specifies that they must use regional accommodation and invites applicants to say how much.
Lord Morris: Perhaps I may turn to the amendment which has been moved, Amendment No. 111. The debate on the three amendments—Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 112A—illustrates yet again the nonsense of the informal groupings. The mere fact that a subject is related does not necessarily add to the quality of the debate on the issues.
The other point that I wish to make concerns Amendment No. 111. I beseech the movers of the amendment to look very carefully at the phrase "freelances employed" because it is a serious contradiction in terms in law and not capable of being recognised.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, both for his explanation of Amendment No. 112 and also for speaking to our Amendment No. 111. I agree with the noble Lord that the wording in the amendment is somewhat mixed up.
It is very gratifying to see that the Government have shown great concern about training within the industry. They have listened to the arguments that were put forward by the Labour Party at an early stage in another place for a requirement for training to be included in the Bill, arguments which we have continued here. I am very happy to see that the Government have put forward an amendment which shows the industry our concern about the need for high grade training to keep the industry buoyant and competitive. On that basis I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 112 and 112A:
Page 13, line 7, at end insert (", together with his proposals for encouraging the training or retraining of persons employed or to be employed by persons providing programmes for inclusion in that service;").
Page 13, line 9, leave out from ("service,") to end of line 13 and insert ("the applicant's proposals as to the use, in connection with his proposed service—

(i) of offices and studios situated within the area for which that service would be provided, and

(ii) of the services of persons employed (whether by him or by any other person) within that area;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Willis Lord Willis moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 13, line 20, at end insert ("and
(h) a statement by the applicant that when proposing an original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work be
936
created for inclusion in a broadcast the applicant will not require the creator to enter into a contract with a publisher nominated by the applicant.").
The noble Lord said: To some extent we have already debated the amendment. Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the background. The issue is that the television and radio companies have enormous power over music. They use a great deal of it, particularly the radio companies. In the past the commercial radio companies have been forbidden under the regulations to set up their own music publishing houses because it would give them a monopoly and a power that would not be tolerable. None of that is mentioned in the present Bill. There are already circumstances which lead us to believe that intolerable pressure is being put on composers and small publishing houses to allow the television and radio companies to publish their music and take a share of the product.
I have no objection to a composer going to an independent publishing company and making the best deal that he possibly can. However, if the muscle of a great radio or television company is put up against him he finds his position almost impossible. Perhaps I may give one example which, in graphic dialogue, will illustrate the problem.
Here is one man who had the courage to stand up against a television company and lose in the process a great deal of money. He was asked by Thames Television to provide some music. The man's name is Denis King. He does not mind my mentioning it, and he is quite famous in the world of music. Within a week he had agreed and Joy Sharpen, the Head of Music at Thames Television, telephoned him. The following dialogue took place. She said, "I have been asked to tell you that if you are not prepared to agree to assign your publishing rights to Euston Music, which is a subsidiary of Thames Television, then I am not in a position to commission you to write the music for this production". He replied, "That would appear to be blackmail and I have no intention of changing my position". She said, "Well, I'm sorry". That was the end of the conversation.
If such a conversation can take place with a well known and very successful composer such as Denis King, I ask the Committee to imagine a situation in which there is a young, thrusting, new composer who is trying to get into the business and is prepared to sell his mother-in-law—or even his mother—in order to get the commission. What is the only way to stop such a thing happening? The only way is to say to the television and radio companies, "You have such power as it is in this sphere of music that we cannot allow you to set up independent publishing companies under your name in this field".
This is a very simple amendment. It would bring justice. Above all, it would fulfil the Government's aim to protect small independent producers. Most of those who write such songs and supply the music are small independent composers and publishing houses. If the Bill goes through as it stands without this amendment, I can assure the Committee that the television and radio companies will raid the market

937
place in such a way that the small independents will be destroyed. For that reason, I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I must first declare an interest. For the past 25 years I have been chairman of Radio Luxembourg London Ltd. That comes within the category of interest although it has nothing whatever to do with the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I am sure that he would not expect my noble friend to accept the amendment with the words on the Marshalled List, but I hope that he will give him the satisfaction of saying that even at this late hour in the Bill's journey to the statute book he will see whether he can find words that would meet his point.
It creates unfairness and is wrong when a composer or inventor, full of enthusiasm for his new baby, finds that the only outlet for him is one or other of the media and that the only way to launch his production at all is by taking a certain path which in money terms is not fair to him. I do not want to argue that a separate agreement cannot be made. There are publishers in the Committee and there is a parallel. If someone wants an advance because it suits him to use the money to exercise his talents, that is fair enough. But it would not be good if by the sheer power of the media (in this case) someone is forced to make an arrangement which is unfair to him. It would discourage composers and inventors of the future, who are the people in very short supply.
I think I am right in saying that the composer of "It's a long way to Tipperary" was a Staffordshire man—always a good thing. I believe that he sold the song for something in the region of 7s. 6d. Apparently he wanted a night out and in those days 7s. 6d. would have given him a good night out in the local pub. We know what happened to that song and the profit and advantage which came over the years to those who benefited from the royalties. It was stupid but the composer did it. It was the wrong thing to do but there it is.
I should like to feel that my noble friend is listening to my plea and if possible will recognise that behind this amendment is no great principle in relation to the Bill. It is a matter of finding some way to protect the little man who as an inventor has something new to offer. I repeat that such people are in short supply.
I do not know whether the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Birkett, will want to insist on their wording. I myself would not push it because I think that it is unlikely to be workable. But if one can give words to the spirit behind the amendment even at this late hour I am certain that justice will be done to a very important and inventive section of the people of this country.
Lord Ardwick: I notice that the lights in the Chamber have dimmed. Perhaps I could ask for more candle power. The lights have gone down and although we do not want to have the fierce glare of the television lights, surely we can have something better than we have now when half the lights are out.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that when the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and I agree, he should pay very serious attention to what we say. On this occasion we are absolutely at one. The case that he has made for this amendment is overwhelming. I hope that the noble Earl will pay attention to it.
I speak as one who has been associated with publishing in one way or another since about 1947. If book publishers were to behave in that way, then in the colloquial phrase they would be taken to the cleaners and quite rightly so. I hesitate to put words into the mouth of the noble Earl by saying tactfully that he should say "It has been suggested" in reply to this amendment; but I suggest that it has been suggested to him that he should say that this matter should be left to the Office of Fair Trading or the DTI and that it is unnecessary to put it on the face of the Bill.
This situation has been going on for some time. The DTI (whose Ministers change with extreme regularity every six months) has done nothing about it and the Office of Fair Trading has been unable to grapple with the problem. Therefore we have a strong negative argument in favour of putting this provision on the face of the Bill. I urge the noble Earl to listen to the wise words of his noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, even if in some sense they have been diluted by my equally wise but less acceptable words.
Lord Renton: I would go even further than my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. If it is considered unusual that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and I should be in agreement, I hope that that would be considered as strengthening the argument. For an applicant for a broadcasting licence to be able to compel an author to enter into a contract with a third party seems to me to have nothing to do with the application. Therefore I too hope that the amendment will be considered sympathetically.
Lord Birkett: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Willis. He has outlined the abuse that we are all determined to get rid of. At least, I am sure that no Member of the Committee considers such abuse worthy of support.
The noble Lord outlined the monopolistic dangers in the situation. The situation is rather more complicated even than he expressed. In requiring composers to publish their music or have it published through the ITV publishing companies, the ITV publishing companies require the return of 50 per cent. of the PRS (Performing Rights Society) fees. Those are the fees for having the music performed on television or indeed in any other form. Those are the residuals of the composer's life.
Since composers have very little going for them except music of this kind, it is pretty important to them. Fifty per cent. is a pretty steep fee when one considers that the great music publishers of the land—Boosey and Hawkes, Universal Edition and all those famous names—for the most part never take more than 33⅓per cent. They are publishing houses which work very hard for their composers. Effectively

939
they are their agents. They publicise and promote them to the world at large as well as publishing them. For that service, in general they take 33⅓ per cent.
The ITV publishing companies take 50 per cent. Very often there is no publishing involved because the music never will be published. They are therefore taking 50 per cent. for no service. They are not being cynical. They are not neglecting a publishing opportunity. Let me make that quite plain. They and the composer know that there will be no publishing. Therefore the 50 per cent. removal is a wicked imposition. In old-fashioned terms, it is bullying because they are in a position to bully.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has already suggested that it is right that the DTI and the Office of Fair Trading are not dealing with the problem. They may well be the right bodies to cope with the problem. There is no suggestion that they have been in any way lax or failing in their duty. The truth of the matter is that the system has not worked. The abuse continues. They have not cured it.
On the advisability of putting these mere 42 words into the Bill, surely prevention is better than cure not only in medicine but also in legislation. If this small clause appears in the Bill those obtaining the licences for the great world of independent television will know that it is an abuse which Members of this Chamber will not stand for. If those words do not appear in the Bill, I fear that they will not know that and the abuse will continue. I therefore urge the Committee to agree to the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: I am aware that the Minister has already spoken to the amendment on a previous occasion. However, as my name is connected with it I should like to say a few words of support from these Benches. There is no doubt—I have many letters as examples—that many composers who are commissioned to write music for television programmes are being coerced into granting rights in the music that they write to publishing companies owned by the television production companies even if the composer is already under exclusive contract to an independent publisher.
The ITV companies had given an undertaking to the IBA that it would not be a condition of commissioning contracts that publishing rights were assigned to them. However, the many letters that I have received from composers show that that is indeed happening. I am informed that composers have been making regular complaints to the Office of Fair Trading but that action has been impossible because of lack of evidence.
Composers are naturally reluctant to be named for they fear retribution from the broadcasters and the possibility of losing work. The IBA gave guidelines which attempted to protect composers from pressure to sign over their rights. But the ITV companies were released from the undertaking in December 1989. Local radio programme contractors are not allowed to be music publishers. It seems clear to me that
940
similar safeguards should be written into the Bill. I support the amendment, which reinstates the undertaking that existed before December 1989.
Lord Morris: I rise to support the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Birkett, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn on the amendment. To put it bluntly, we are talking of the theft of intellectual property. One could call it the appropriation flowing as a result of undue influence, if one wished to. It is nothing else. With respect, it is not right for the Minister to suggest that it is not appropriate to the Bill. I sincerely urge that for musicians in particular the air time involved in radio and television broadcasting is absolutely essential.
The regulatory authority—namely, the Department of Trade and Industry—is obviously the right department. Many consider that it is not a Home Office matter with regard to regulation. That factor in no way affects the relevance of the amendment within the context of the Bill. I most strongly support the amendment. I urge my noble friend to use his best endeavours to support the amendment in some way or another.
Viscount Brentford: I too should like briefly to support the amendment. I wish to emphasise one point. The ITV companies do not promote music in the same way that an ordinary music publishing company would. In this way the composer again loses out very heavily. I would have said much of what my noble friend Lord Colwyn said about the IBA undertaking. However, I do not need to do so. But I should like to urge the Minister to agree to the amendment in principle.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that the principle of the Bill was not involved in the amendment, and that it was an amendment to protect the little man. I agree with him. We debated the concerns about the amendment last week when the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, quite properly reserved the right to return to the matter now.
I readily recognise that this is a less draconian amendment than previous amendments on this topic, which sought to limit cross-holdings between broadcasting licensees and music publishers. The amendment in effect seeks to write into the statute an equivalent of the former undertakings by the ITV companies to the IBA that they would not make it a condition that composers should enter into contracts with particular music publishers. It is worth noting that when the IBA recently released the companies from these undertakings—not to make it a condition that people would have to be under contract to them—they did not do so because of any view of the merits of the issue. They did so simply because they did not want to perpetuate unenforceable undertakings entered into in 1968 before the present competition and fair trading legislation was in force. That legislation ought now to provide the proper remedy.
This amendment suffers from a similar problem. The ITC would not be able to enforce the statement by the applicant which is envisaged in the amendment

941
since it would have no power to make it a licence condition that the ITC should not require the creator of an original work to enter into a contract with a nominated publisher.
That problem could be cured by legislating to make the statement an enforceable licence condition. But we question whether it would be right as a matter of principle to do that. It is not necessarily unreasonable for a commissioner to seek to acquire rights in the work for which he is paying. In principle, the price paid for the work should reflect whether or not the rights are being acquired or assigned.
I recognise that it does not follow that there is no scope for abuse—of course there is. The argument that much of the music commissioned by ITV companies is then published by a subsidiary could reflect no more than that these subsidiaries are major publishers which offer good possibilities for further exploitation of the music and thus benefit the composer. That would not be the view taken by the various groups, such as the Music Copyright Reform Group, which have lobbied on this subject. I know that it is sometimes argued that those who have been subject to alleged abuses in this area are reluctant to come forward for fear of reprisals. That is understandable, but both the Government and the Office of Fair Trading have received a number of detailed representations on these matters.
It is not for government to reach a view on whether there have been abuses in this area. But we have listened to the representations which have been made. In particular, my honourable friend Mr. Mellor met a delegation from the Music Copyright Reform Group on 18th April. In the light of that meeting the Government invited the Director General of Fair Trading to consider extending some related investigations which he was then undertaking to include in this area.
That is now in hand. I understand that the director's inquiries will cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, which has had support from Members, that a composer might not want his work published at all. I am advised that the director hopes to conclude his initial investigations during the course of the summer. The noble Lord may be aware that if in due course any practices by the ITV companies are found to be in contravention of competition or fair trading legislation there are order-making powers which can be used to enforce compliance with any such findings.
In the light of this explanation I hope the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will understand the Government's view that, even if the case for legislation in this area were more clear-cut than it is, it would be wrong to seek to write a new provision into the Broadcasting Bill when there is recourse under competition legislation and when investigations by the Director General of Fair Trading are currently in train.
I realise that the issue has concerned many Members of the Committee who may wish to return to it on Report in the light of the director's initial views.
942
I should like to consider the remarks that have been made, the views that have been expressed and the position of the Director General of Fair Trading to see what, if anything, can be done. The basic trouble is that if what is suggested as being wrong is being done it should be covered under the fair trading legislation. Therefore, it may be unnecessary to cover the situation under this Bill. However, I accept that there is a real point at issue.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Do I understand that orders could flow from the investigation? Is there any way of giving an undertaking between now and Third Reading that orders will be laid?
Earl Ferrers: The Director General of Fair Trading must first make his report and then my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must consider it. If the report states that certain actions are being taken which are contrary to the spirit of the legislation it will then be possible to lay orders to cover that so-called offence. However, that cannot be done during the Recess and I doubt whether it can be done before Report; but the vehicle exists.
Lord Willis: I thank the noble Earl for that reply, which presents a chicken and egg situation. The subject is important enough to be pressed and to be incorporated in the Bill. On the other hand, I should like to wait and hope that the Office of Fair Trading will report before we meet again in October. When the Office of Fair Trading says that it will report in two months, that is sometimes not the case. I hope that we shall not have to wait until next February, when it will be too late to act.
The Minister must understand my position. I desperately wish to protect the interests of composers against such a monopoly and I believe that that is the view of the Committee. I do not wish to press the amendment tonight. However, if by 8th October when we meet again we have nothing satisfactory from the Office of Fair Trading the matter should be pressed.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for that. I understand his anxiety. It is an anxiety which I share. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that he does not press his amendment this evening. Let us wait to see what happens as regards the Director General of Fair Trading. If the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord who is anxious about this matter, would like to discuss it with me before Report stage, then I shall be happy to do so. I want to be as helpful as I can. At the moment it seems that if this is written into the Bill, we may be covering twice the same fault—if fault there is—which would be a pity. If the noble Lord is good enough not to press his amendment this evening, then I shall be happy to discuss the matter with him or any other noble Lord who wishes to do so.
Lord Willis: With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 13, line 30, at end insert:

943
("(aa) the following matters, namely").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 114 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 116 and 132. I understand that this grouping includes Opposition Amendments Nos. 115 and 117.
We want to encourage the maximum openness in the application process for Channels 3 and 5 licences and to allow for public participation. In Clause 15(6) we have already required the ITC to publish the names and programme proposals of all applicants for these licences. Government Amendments Nos. 114, 116 and 132 will now enable the ITC to take account of representations from the public about the nature of the sere ice proposed in the applications. We see this as particularly relevant in helping the ITC to judge whether the regional programme requirements have been met.
We believe that these amendments fully meet the intention of Amendment No. 117. We would also expect the ITC, where possible, to publish the information on training, regional employment and facilities given by applicants, under the provision in Clause 15(6)(c). Amendment No. 115 gives us more difficulty because some of this information may be given on a commercial-in-confidence basis, which would rule out ITC publication. Therefore, we must leave the ITC to decide what can and cannot be published. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: Amendment No. 114 strikes me as being a matter of syntax. Amendment No. 115 is the one which the noble Lord said was more difficult. We are trying to achieve a means of enforcement of the regulations and also a form of accountability so that the public knows what to expect and can form its own opinions as to how successful companies are in complying with their original proposals.
In the light of what the noble Lord said, I do not see in this instance that the ITC should be in a different situation from any other public company. I am not convinced that it is so commercially sensitive that it cannot be written into the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord can think again about that, and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, says about the amendment in the light of his experience.
Amendment No. 117 appears to be met by the Government's Amendment No. 116. I feel particularly pleased about that because it was prompted by Opposition amendments in another place. The Minister there indicated on Report that he may bring forward an amendment. Therefore, we are grateful for Amendment No. 117.
Amendment No. 132 seems to me to be a different type of amendment and one with which we are not happy. It removes the description of what representations can be made to the ITC when deciding whether an applicant's proposals match the quality requirements in Clause 16(2) and (3). That would still allow the ITC to consider representations made to it when deciding whether an applicant's proposals comply with the requirements in Clause 16(2) and (3). However, Clause 16(4) would no longer specify that
944
representations can be made about the nature of the service which should be provided. On balance, as we see it, it would appear to weaken the Bill as other parties may not be certain as to what form or content representations should take.
Amendment No. 116 gives the ITC the power to invite representations, but only in relation to the published proposals, not in relation to what the service should be. We are not very happy about that. The amendment should be taken back or looked at again. Perhaps the Government will see it the way I see it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The information sought by Amendment No. 115 will be published. The ITC cannot be compelled to publish everything. It may publish some things, but it must have discretion as to what it should publish as some of it may be commercial-in-confidence. I imagine that we are on the same wavelength on what can and cannot be published with regard to commercial-in-confidence matters.
I shall consider the point raised by the noble Baroness about Amendment No. 132 to expand what consultation can be considered. I can do no better than that. I should prefer that the amendment be moved, and if there is anything substantive in what she has said which makes the position weaker rather than stronger, I shall not only write to her but ensure that something is done at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I thank the Minister for those comments. He is right in thinking that the major amendment is Amendment No. 116. We on this side of the Committee welcome the amendment and appreciate that the undertaking given originally in another place has been fulfilled. The noble Baroness and I are content with that and agree that it covers the matters set out in Amendment No. 117. That is the major matter.
With regard to Amendment No. 115, with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, there is a need for some discretion on the part of the ITC. Where people bid for those licences, a certain amount of musical chairs goes on with regard to some of the names. Confidentiality is a proper requirement, provided that there is openness as far as possible. There is a feeling that there should be more openness this time round than there was last time round and I go along with that.
We listened to what the Minister said on Amendment No. 132. If he would be kind enough to copy his letter to the noble Baroness to me, we shall see what he has said.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall of course do that. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support on the difficulties with Amendment No. 115 which are very genuine, although we want the ITC to publish, if at all possible.
Baroness Birk: Perhaps the Minister will also write to me about that. Although I am always impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, says, all we are requesting, as I understand it, are proposals for staff training and facilities. The

945
amendment does not cover the bidding process or any other commercial secrets. I should like the position spelt out a little more.
I shall leave Amendment No. 132 for the moment, but perhaps the Minister will write to me about it and the other amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert ("; and
(bb) a notice—

(i) inviting representations to be made to them with respect to any matters published by them in accordance with paragraphs (aa) (b) and (c) above, and

(ii) specifying the manner in which, and the time by which, any such representations are to be so made.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 not moved.]
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 13, line 37, leave out from ("licence") to end of line 39 and insert ("—

(a) on the grant of the licence or as soon thereafter as the Commission may specify, a specified amount of money; and

(b) throughout the period of the licence, for each year which commences on the anniversary of that grant and (within that year) at such time or in such instalments as the Commission shall specify, such amount as the Commission shall determine is on that anniversary the indexed equivalent of that specified amount.

(8) In this Part—
"indexed equivalent "means, in relation to each anniversary of the grant or (as the case may be) renewal of the licence, the amount arrived at by increasing (or, as the may be, decreasing) the specified amount by the same percentage as the percentage by which the retail prices index for the calendar month last but one before that anniversary is higher (or, as the case may be, lower) than the retail prices index for the base month;
"retail prices index" has the same meaning as in the Taxes Acts;
"base month" means the calendar month last but one before the month in which the relevant licence is granted or (as the case may be) renewed.").
The noble Earl said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 144A, 157A and 161A, standing in my name. I apologise for raising a somewhat technical matter at this late stage. Clause 15(7) of the Bill defines the cash bid in relation to a licence as,
"an offer to pay to the Commission, in respect of the grant of the licence, a specified amount which has to be so payable by equal annual instalments throughout the period for which the licence is in force".
The implication from that definition is that the bid is to be framed in money terms and not in terms of constant prices. If constant prices were to be used the
946
annual instalment should be increased each year by the index of retail prices to maintain its value in real terms and it would not, therefore, be constant.
The calculation of the cash bid in money terms raises a number of problems. First, in order to prepare a bid in money terms applicants must forecast the rate of inflation over the next 10 years. I defy anyone to do that accurately. As the amount allocated to the cash bid in each year will be a function of post-tax profits, the applicant who assumes the highest rate of inflation, if all the other assumptions are the same for all applicants, will submit the highest cash bid. The ITC will be faced with the task of deciding which applicant's estimation of inflation is the most accurate.
Secondly, as the trend of profits in money terms will be increasing not only by real growth but also by inflation, the surplus post-tax profits used to calculate the bid will also show an increasing upward trend. Adding up these surpluses will produce the absolute value of the bid which will then be payable in 10 equal parts. However, the amount payable in year one will be substantially higher than the year one surplus profit used to calculate the bid and applicants will show losses in the early years of the licence.
For example, if you assume in the first year that the surplus profits of the company are £1 million, that inflation is 10 per cent. and real growth is nil, the cash bid would be nearly £16 million, In equal instalments it would be £1.6 million, That is a deficit of £600,000 for the first year. You can extrapolate those figures across the next 10 years and it is only after 1997, assuming that the figures remain constant, that the company is not paying out more in its contribution in instalments than its surplus profit. Thus, in the early years when the new licensees are attempting to consolidate their businesses they will show losses as the real cost of their bid is greater in those years.
A further consequence of the existing proposals implied by the examples I have given is that successful applicants will in the early years not generate sufficient cash from current trading to pay the annual instalments. The new licence holders will either have to use previously accumulated cash resources or borrow to fund the payments. Companies will probably run up large overdrafts in the early years incurring significant account and interest charges. In view of the length of time over which the borrowings would be repaid—that is, the same 10-year period—banks and other institutions would require significant comfort that their exposure was covered. If, however, the amount of the cash bid were to be expressed in real terms, a critical but incalculable variable would be removed from the business plans and profit flows would more accurately reflect actual performance at current prices. In order to preserve the value of the annual instalments in real terms, the annual sum should be increased by the RPI or perhaps some other relevant index. Using the same example that I used before, the cash bid would be £1 million, the annual instalment would be added up by RPI and the reported profits would come back in 1996 instead of in 1998.
Thus, reported profits would be zero each year, which is what one would expect given that the surplus profits were assumed to fund the bid. As the instalments would all be paid out of current profits the large cash resources required under the existing proposals would not be needed. I believe that a change in this area would remove one of the fundamental uncertainties that exists in framing a bid. I believe that such a change is closer to the spirit of government policy in this area. If fewer applicants can bid the Government's aim of widening ownership of ITV companies will be frustrated. If there are fewer applicants the bids will be less high, thus frustrating another government objective of maximising revenue.
If the risk of over-bidding is significantly heightened the Treasury runs the risk of getting nothing at all if the applicant goes bust. Even if the few applicants are large corporations their agendas may change. They may dislike funding the front loading of nominal bid payments. Indeed, if a Channel 3 licence is a small part of a conglomerate's business, it may be that it is more likely to drop out when the going gets tough. The auction system per se involves a high degree of risk of over-bidding with attendant consequences in relation to production and financial commitments.
For instance, it is possible for an applicant to put forward the highest bid and win by making optimistic assumptions about Channel 4's future needs for a financial safety net from Channel 3. Such assumptions may be proved quite wrong by the passage of time. One can then theorise that Channel 3 licensees would have to transfer some resources from their own programme production in order to prop up Channel 4. There are other issues of this kind.
My point simply is that it is crucial for the risk to be reduced in order to safeguard the operation of the system. Without the significant risk of forecasting inflation, let alone the business risk of front loading the payments, the system has that much greater chance of providing the kind of broad-based commercially viable service that we are looking for. I apologise for having delayed the Committee overlong on this matter. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: As indicated at Second Reading, I declare an interest as chairman of TVS Entertainment plc. and of its subsidiary TVS Television Ltd. which holds the independent television franchise for the South East and South of England. I support the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in the amendment that he has moved and in the way in which he has spoken to the other amendments that he has mentioned. He has argued the case most ably. If I speak comparatively briefly it is because he has put the case so comprehensively. Therefore, I do not need to make a lengthy speech.
I mention that because I would not wish the noble Earl the Minister to feel that brevity indicates that one attaches less importance to this matter. On the contrary, these amendments are of considerable significance and they are greatly needed. The noble
948
Earl offered what I thought was something of an apology to the Committee by raising what are technical amendments. He is right in that they are technical amendments, but they have very considerable implications, not least for the possible range of programmes which the viewer would see and which would be under threat with the proposals as they stand.
Before turning to one or two of the conclusions that the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, came to, I add this to what he said. I rather suspect that when the Bill was drafted the Government did not perhaps completely appreciate that the problems outlined by the noble Earl would arise. Having listened to the arguments, it may well be that the Government will wish to seek a solution along the lines proposed. In that way some of the Government's major objectives will be secured.
It may also be helpful to the Committee to know that among the companies—the independent television programme contractors—no voices are speaking out against these proposals. In fact, the proposals meet with the approval of the existing licensees. In view of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, I need to go into no great detail. He has already referred to the definition of the cash bid and to the two interpretations which may be placed upon that. I agree with his deduction concerning the interpretation. It is the correct one and is the one which the Government regard as correct.
In addition, I do not need to go into detail about the various problems which would arise for existing and new contractors once the franchises have been allocated if the interpretation which has been given were allowed to run. Therefore the only thing that I should like to do is to underline the conclusions reached by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, as to the effects of these proposals upon companies from the point of one who is involved in the industry itself.
One of the major problems is that in the initial years of the new franchises successful applicants will not be able to generate enough money from their current trading to pay the yearly instalments. As the noble Earl rightly said, they will either have to use cash resources which they have built up previously or they will have to borrow to meet those needs. It does not need much imagination to realise that banks or other institutions which might be asked to provide that support would insist on very significant comfort indeed to safeguard their position and to see that their exposure was covered.
Many ITV companies do not, as things stand at the moment, have resources to cover the shortfall which would be expected and which the noble Earl mentioned. Only applicants with substantial backing would be able to apply, which would probably rule out most of the independent production companies from applying. That would thwart one of the Government's principal objectives, which is to open up the franchises to a wider circle of applicants. If fewer applicants could afford to bid, the Government's aim to widen the ownership of ITV would be frustrated.

949
With fewer applicants, bids would not be so high as they would be with a greater number of competitors. Again, that would have the effect of frustrating the Government's objectives. If on the other hand—I did not make a note during his speech but I think that this was another of the points to which the noble Earl alluded—the risk of over-bidding were increased through inflation estimates, the Treasury itself would run the risk of getting nothing if the successful applicant failed and became bankrupt. One suspects that that would not appeal very much to HM Treasury. Quite apart from the damage that that would do to commitments by successful applicants to produce programmes for the network, there is the damage which might be done as regards regional programme commitments.
The regional programme commitment is one of the highest priorities set by the Government in the Bill. It also happens to be one of the considerations which my company counts as being most important, as I am sure do other existing programme contractors. They give high priority to the special service which they provide for their regions.
The noble Earl made several points in his speech. He referred to the danger of having a small number of applicants who are large players; that is, sizeable corporations. It is indeed the case with large corporations, as one has seen, that their priorities tend to change over the years and their inclinations are also apt to change. They may not be too keen on concentrating on the high payments of the nominal bid in the initial years. Moreover, an ITV Channel 3 franchise is, after all, not likely to be the core business of such a major corporation. It may well simply be a small part of the overall undertaking. Therefore, when times become rather thin, as they inevitably do from time to time, it is the large corporations which are more likely to withdraw from this particular part of their business; that is, a licence to transmit a terrestrial service in a region.
For all those reasons I agree with the argument put forward by the noble Earl in the amendment which he proposed and in the others to which he spoke. I very much hope that, if he cannot give us an indication of the Government's direct response, the Minister will at least agree to look at the proposals seriously and have them examined so that we may perhaps see further steps being taken at a later stage if the amendments cannot be accepted tonight.
Lord Crickhowell: I apologise to my noble friend for missing the first few moments of his speech. I should at once declare an interest as I am a director of HTV. I shall be brief in what I have to say. I almost entirely agree with everything that my noble friend said and also with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham.
I must confess that the point at issue is one which escaped me until recently. I had not understood the possible implications of the clause as drafted by the Government. Indeed, I am not sure that the hazards were generally appreciated by the industry. One has only to consider the extraordinary situation which
950
arises if the value of the bid is almost totally dominated by the guess made about the inflation figure over a 10-year period. It would mean a total distortion of justice and common sense if the selection was made on that basis. There are serious potential hazards in view if this clause is not amended or if the Government do no bring forward a more satisfactory solution.
I do not necessarily stand by every letter in my noble friend's amendment. Indeed, there may be technical faults in it and there may also be another solution to the problem. However, I ask my noble friend in his reply to say that he will look at the matter sympathetically and, if that is not the ideal solution, undertake to come back with the Government's alternative at a later stage.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Stockton and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said that the amendments were technical but important. They are. They would enable the cash bid part of the competitive tender revenue to be paid in 10 equal instalments, but in each case the instalments would be increased or decreased in line with inflation. I understand the reasoning behind the amendments. Applicants who wished to make cash bids would have to make some kind of projection of their income and expenditure for the 10-year licence period. Part of that process would probably require them to estimate the inflation rate for that period. My noble friend Lord Stockton said that that would be difficult to do. I dare say that it might be, but it was also said that by automatically taking inflation into account there would be one less element for applicants to have to estimate and, accordingly, such a change would introduce greater certainty into the bidding process.
I understand that reasoning, but I am not certain that it is as simple as that. It is not at all clear that a licensee's income, which is principally from advertising revenue, or his costs, principally on programme acquisition, necessarily bear any simple relationship to inflation. Indeed, the evidence tends to suggest that advertising revenue more closely follows total domestic growth rather than the inflation rate. For that reason, I am not fully persuaded that such a change would introduce greater certainty.
My noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me to reconsider the matter. The amendments are technical and complicated. I am open to reason. I can give my noble friend Lord Stockton an undertaking that I will, without commitment, consider his amendment. I should find it of enormous help if those in the Chamber who are arguing for change, and those who advise them, could produce a more detailed analysis of the reasons for it, demonstrating why the change would introduce greater certainty. I do not rule out a change, but I do not want to introduce one which adds another layer of complexity without any compensating advantage. If my noble friend is content on that basis, I shall do my best to see what can be done.
The Earl of Stockton: I thank my noble friend for his assurance. We shall provide him with the material that he requests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Procedure to be followed by Commission in connection with consideration of applications for licences]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 13, line 49, leave out from ("force") to end of line 2 on page 14.
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("to (c)") and insert ("and (b)").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 124A:
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("proposed service") and insert ("service to be provided under the licence").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 110A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 14, line 11, after ("programmes") insert ("and documentaries").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 110A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 14, line 15, at end insert:
("(aa) that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to programmes with an educational purpose;
(ab) that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to social action programmes.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 110A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 126A:
Page 14, line 35, after ("that") insert ("(i)").
The noble Baroness said: I apologise to the Committee for introducing this amendment so late. I wish to move Amendment No. 126A and speak to Amendment No. 126B. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the proper concern with broadcasting from the regions should be met, under the Bill, as I believe is the intention. There is no doubt
952
that with the drawing up of the map of the regions, some regions will have to be dual, two conjoined small regions will count as one. Each of the individual parts would be too small and not rich enough to support an applicant company of its own. An analogy at present is with the company HTV which looks after Wales and the West, two regions conjoined under one company.
As the Bill stands it will be possible for all the regional programmes to be made in one of those two conjoined parts. The Committee will realise that regional programmes are not necessarily to be provided by the applicant company, but are to be commissioned by that company and made in the regions. However, as the Bill stands it will be possible, for example, in the Wales and the West regions for all programmes to come either from Bristol, for example, or from Cardiff. Then there would he no proper representation of the other part of the conjoined region. The purpose of the amendment is to stop that gap and ensure that the regional content must derive from each of the two parts of a dual region if it is set up. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I wish strongly to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. This situation could apply to a number of different regions in the system, apart from Wales and the West. For example, I live in a dual region where the present contractor is TVS, of which the chairman is the noble Lord, Lord Boston. The service provided in that dual region is extremely important for the eastern part of Kent. It would be important in the public interest that with such a dual region the regional service is sustained, programmes are made and studio facilities and other facilities are kept within the region. As one of the main thrusts of the Bill, which the Government have accepted throughout, is to try to reinforce the regional identity and the characteristics of the system, I hope the Government will look sympathetically at this amendment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I also wish to support this amendment, which has been clearly explained both by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. It seems proper that the ITC will be able, if it wishes, to continue the practice which has been followed by the IBA of specifying dual ITV regions. For all the reasons that have been put, we wish to support this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I know that my noble friend Lord Thomson has already supported this amendment so it is clear that it has the full support of noble Lords on these Benches. However, I should say with regard to the significance of the amendment that it is extremely important that the large regions should be encouraged to break themselves up into smaller regions. That is important from the point of view of investment in regional areas. I remember the days when Granada Television was awarded the franchise for the part of England in which I lived. Initially, I feared that we would get a train load of peasants from the Home Counties coming up to Manchester, being disgorged from the train, making programmes about the cotton trade and then going back to the Home Counties.

953
Fortunately, that was not the case. On the whole, the people who worked for that company all belonged and lived in the North. However, they all lived in one part of the North—the Manchester area.
In the early days when I took part in programmes for Granada I was discouraged from referring to Manchester because Granada was aware of the fact that Liverpool was also in that region. Therefore if I had to talk about a university, for example, I referred to Liverpool University—I was not allowed to mention Manchester—to make it clear that there were other parts of the region apart from Manchester. I mention that to show what has happened since those days. Granada Television now has its main studios in Manchester. However, it also has quite extensive studios in Liverpool and studios in Chester and Lancaster. That means, from the point of view of wealth and investment, that a considerable amount of money goes into those different parts of the region. That is immensely important.
I referred to the matter of talent at an earlier stage of our debates. Do we have sufficient talent to maintain all these different stations? I believe that we have if we tap the sources of talent which are at the moment unexploited in the regions. The only way that that will happen is if individual companies have a presence in different parts of their own regions so that they can recruit people of ability. It is extremely important that the individual regional companies should be encouraged, when they are established and have their franchises, to broadcast not just in one part of the region concerned but to have studios and centres in different parts of the region. The noble Baroness and others referred to HTV, but there are many other examples. There is a point of principle involved here. I wish to support the amendments.
Lord Crickhowell: I am broadly sympathetic to the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, but I cannot resist rising to my feet when the company of which I am a director has been so freely referred to. I am quite confident that if we are fortunate enough to regain our franchise—I hope we shall be fortunate in that bidding exercise, although some of us have anxieties on that score—we shall continue to provide material from both Cardiff and Bristol. I wish to inquire about a point of definition. I must confess that I have not gone through the rest of the Bill with great care to see whether there is some other part of it which answers the question I am about to raise.
I am concerned about the definition of each part of a region. If we are talking about a dual region and two major production units in different parts of it, that is one thing. However, as a director of a company that has been struggling in the public eye in recent months with the problem of cutting costs and therefore closing some of our outlying stations in Wales, I would not like a position where one was committed to production in all parts of the Principality, or, for that matter, in all parts of another region. It is by no means clear to me that the amendment as drafted would not lead people to suppose that studios have to be set up
954
in all parts of the region. It is important that we should be clear as to exactly what the amendment proposes before we accept it.
I repeat that in the example that has been quoted, in which there are two areas with totally different characteristics and an obvious need to provide a different programme, it is wholly appropriate that the company should split its facilities. However, I am anxious that we should not find ourselves caught by a whole range of commitments that we shall afterwards regret.
10 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The Bill provides that each regional Channel 3 licensee must provide a suitable range of regional programmes. It further gives to the ITC the power to require that in some licence areas separate regional programmes should be provided for different parts of that area, or different communities living within it. The Bill also provides that a suitable proportion of regional programmes should be made within the overall licence area. This amendment would give the ITC power to require that a suitable proportion of programmes intended for the different parts of the licensed area were made with in the sub-region for which programmes were intended.
We see that as somewhat unnecessary. I note what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said on the matter of the definition of the word "part". So long as the licensee is providing regional programmes for various parts of the region, and those programmes are made within the region itself, we do not see that it is necessary to require that the programmes be made within an even more localised area. Such a provision could mean that licensees would be unable to effect sensible economies of scale. It seems likely that where licensees are required to provide sub-regional programming they will wish to make their regional news programmes within each respective sub-region; but that should really be a matter for their commercial judgment. They could either set up separate news organisations in the two sub-regions, or they could try to provide separate news programmes for the two sub-regions from a single base. That should be a matter for them. So long as they fulfil the requirement for providing regional programmes, some of which will have to be made within the overall licence area, we do not need to specify precisely where those programmes should be made.
The Bill is intended to provide an enabling framework to enable British broadcasters to enter the more competitive 1990s. It will not help if we impose unnecessary obligations on them. The fact that I am unable to accept this amendment does not mean that the Government have reneged on the regional commitment, about which we are as firm as ever. A suitable proportion of regional programmes will still have to be made in the region.
As a mere Scot, perhaps I may venture into the area of the Principality. With my noble friend Lord Crickhowell here, I hope that what I say will not be presuming on what HTV may or may not do at the time of the licences becoming available.

955
On the assumption that the ITC retained the existing map, Wales would be covered by the licence area at present served by HTV. That includes the whole of the Principality of Wales and the Bristol area. It seems likely that the ITC would require the licensee for that area to provide separate regional programming for Wales and Bristol respectively. I think it highly unlikely that such a licensee would seek to make all regional programmes, including regional news, from one place. It seems almost certain that he would, without compulsion, seek to set up two separate news operations in the respective sub-regions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, raised a most important point about the future map. I should like to answer that point as well. I am aware that the IBA, in its financial modelling, concluded that some existing licence areas will be only marginally viable in the 1990s, and is considering whether it might not be a better approach to amalgamate two of the existing franchise areas to form one larger and more viable licence area. The Bill would already give it the power to require the licensee for that large licence area to provide separate regional programmes for the two smaller regions which it encompassed, and this amendment would also enable the ITC to require the licensee to keep some form of production base in each area. I see the attraction of that. But we must be realistic. If the ITC creates a larger licence area because one or both of the smaller existing areas will be only marginally viable, we ought not then to add further unnecessary requirements which could threaten the viability of the larger licence area.
A requirement for a licensee to retain production capacity in each sub-region of his licence area where without such a requirement he could have achieved economies of scale could threaten the viability of the larger licence area. I repeat, provided that the licensee fulfils his regional obligations by providing some of his regional programmes from within his own regional area, it should be a matter for him how he then arranges for the production of those programmes.
I know that there are many Members of the Committee who have experience as directors of these companies or otherwise. I hope that the commercial realities in what I have said will become clear. Nevertheless, we feel that there is a strong regional content in the Bill which I hope will satisfy the Committee and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, whose views I respect in this matter.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The Minister has made a most important announcement for the first time; namely to tell the Chamber that the IBA may now be considering redrawing the map on the grounds that perhaps one or two of the areas, as the Minister put it, might be marginally viable. I think I am right in saying that last week in Committee the view from this Bench was that on the whole the IBA considered the existing map likely to be one which they wished to stand by.
I accept that this is properly a matter for the IBA and the ITC. Nevertheless, the present map has existed for a long time. Any changes to it would be of great interest to Members of this Chamber and indeed
956
to the general public and others. I hope that by the time we come back in October to the Report stage we shall be able to have from the IBA some reasonable clarity as to its thinking on this matter so that we may make whatever comments we feel are appropriate.
Lord Parry: Perhaps I too may intervene at this stage in the Committee. One talks of HTV. There is probably no company in Britain more closely in touch with the area in which it is based than that company. It is sensitive to the nuances of both the Welsh nation and the area which it covers around Bristol. However if a different company were to come in one's attitude would clearly be affected. One would be worried as to whether such a company would carry out its obligations in quite as rich a way.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I fully understand the noble Lord, Lord Parry. The fact is that HTV in its area is not alone. There are some companies in other parts of Great Britain where a similar position applies.
In regard to the map, which is the prerogative of the IBA, it is important that this matter has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and I think it only right that we should consider something with which the IBA may come forward. George Russell, the chairman designate of ITC, has already said that he would see merit in retaining the existing map. That is absolutely clear.
But the ITC must consider the map in the light of the Bill's provisions. However, nothing I said should be misconstrued. Nothing I said goes against what Mr. George Russell has indicated. As we are debating such an important part of the Bill covering the regional aspects, I think it only right that we should consider all the possible eventualities. In answer to the noble Baroness, that is why I brought forward this point which relates to the size of the areas.
Baroness Warnock: I am far from reassured although I hear what is said and am grateful for it. I am not so reassured by the supposition that it is possible that in future the map may be differently drawn and perhaps with more dual regions than before because of the non-viability of the constituent parts. That seems to make it all the more important that some of the programmes should emanate from each of the constituent regions. I can understand that there could be difficulties about what counts as a constituent region. However, I believe that those might be more easily dispelled than the fear raised in my mind by a failure to distinguish between a programme that is made for a particular region and one that comes from that region. There is a very important distinction. I hope that at Report stage we may learn more about the plans for the map. However, I shall not undertake not to raise the matter again at that stage. At the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126B not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Willis Lord Willis moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 14, line 40, at end insert:
("In addition to Christianity, the religious programmes shall, from time to time, cover the other great religions of the world and include, in a balanced way, the viewpoint of agnosticism and humanism.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that my amendment will appeal to a broad tranche of the Committee. It is in no way an attack on Christianity or anything else. I totally approve of the fact that we have now decided that there should be measures for religious programming in the Bill. I simply want that programming to represent the broad universe of opinion in this country on religious matters.
Let me be quite honest with the Committee. I happen to be an atheist. I am not an agnostic. An agnostic is simply a shame-faced atheist. I am a total non-believer. I do not apologise to the Committee for that. I was brought up as a primitive Methodist. I do not think that they exist any more. If one sat in chapel on a cushion that was a great sin. I lost my faith when I was about 14. I went to the bottom of the garden and said, "If there is a God, please lift that dustbin lid. Let that dustbin lid rise and that will prove him to me". I am sure that we have all done that at some time or another. Of course God ignored me and the dustbin lid did not rise.
More seriously, my faith was lost in the Holocaust during the Second World War. I could not believe that a God could exist who would allow such things to happen or who would allow man to allow such things to happen. Later in Cambodia I could not believe that a God could exist who could allow those things to happen. How could one square the idea of God with that horrible slaughter?
Neither could I believe in a selective God. When my father was dying of cancer, a neighbour of mine also had a relative who was dying of cancer. She said, "We prayed and prayed to God to save our father", and in fact he survived. My father died. I did not pray; perhaps that was my sin. But I could not believe that God could be so selective. Why should he pick one person out and say, "You will be saved", and pick another out and say, "You will be saved"? I am simply indicating my position to the Committee.
It does not mean that I do not have moral standards or do not live by moral standards. It does not mean that I have not brought my children up by moral standards. I believe deeply in the Ten Commandments and what they preach. Above all, I believe in the first draft of the American declaration of independence, which states that all men are created equal, and by virtue of that all men are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe in all those things.
I am trying to make the point that there are hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, who believe exactly as I do. They would not call themselves Christians—some of them might but they do not go to church—but they have the same moral standards that I have. I would not steal my neighbour's wife or his ox
958
or anything else and there are millions of people the same as me. I want their views to be represented on television.
Yes, let us have the Christian religion because it contains a great deal that will stiffen the moral fibre of this nation. But let our people also be exposed to the other points of view. There are good aspects in all the other religions which are important. In other words, I am asking that on television there should be moral education, that people's minds should be exposed to all the great philosophies and religions of the world and all the great teachings that can result.
I do not believe that anybody can lose by that. If the Christian religion says, "No, we want dominance and to be alone", that is a sign of fear. The Christian religion should be strong enough to be able to say, "Fine, we want you agnostics, humanists and Moslems to express your point of view. But we believe that in the end people will come round to the Christian point of view". In other words, you have to have faith in your faith. It is wrong to demand or to provide by statute a dominance, and I believe that most true Christians will accept that.
I have a strong faith and I love mankind. I do not believe in God but I believe in good. I believe in God with a double "o". Therefore, I believe that it would be wrong narrowly to limit television to the Christian religion. There are millions of people in this country who have different views. Even if they have no views they should be exposed to all the great philosophies and the great thinking that goes back for thousands of years. For that reason I beg in all humility to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: In listening to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I was reminded of some mini-circulational pamphlets published by the rationalist Press Association. My Amendment No. 130 is grouped with this amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I shall oppose this amendment and move my Amendment No. 130. If in consequence I make two speeches in succession—one against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and one in favour of my amendment—I hope that I can rely on the indulgence of the Committee.
I turn to the wording of the noble Lord's amendment. Agnosticism is not a viewpoint; it is a lack of viewpoint and was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in order to avoid answering the question, "Do you believe in God?". Apparently the noble Lord, Lord Willis, agrees with me about the status of agnosticism. Humanism means all things to all men. I suppose that I should begin with Protagoras in ancient Greece. He said, "Man is the measure of all things". I have never been entirely sure of the meaning of the phrase and I cannot believe that anything as variegated as man can be the measure of anything as though he were the standard yard or the standard metre.
Having passed from ancient Greece, let me refer to the Christian humanism of the Renaissance. I should love to repeat to the Committee Pico de la Mirandola's suppositious sermon that God addressed to Adam on the day of Creation, when he explained to

959
him that he had created him somewhat incomplete but endowed him with free will so that he could complete his own creation according to his own designs. As fascinating as it would be to read this sermon to the Committee of Christian humanist Renaissance, I must be economical with the Committee's time. I should be only too happy to give any Member of the Committee a copy of the sermon or to place a copy in the Library.
I come to our own Cambridge Platonists of the 17th century, another group of Christian humanists. I can only suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, refers not to Christian but to secular humanists; and so, for convenience and brevity, I shall lump them altogether as secularists. Their weak standpoint is that they never have crossed, and never will cross, the pons asinorum of moral philosophy which is represented by the simple concept of cheating: why shall I stop my neighbour cheating me? The answer is too obvious to need any further reference. Interchange the subject and the object: why shall I stop myself cheating him? The answer is mysterious. The secularist donkey is ever left behind on the hump-back bridge which he cannot cross. He faces in the opposite direction towards an endless regress.
Those are philosophical themes. For nigh on 30 years I have been president of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. I welcome philosophical programmes whenever they appear on television. I delight in hearing Brian Magee quizzing various eminent philosophers on their beliefs. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to write that into the Bill, any mere than it is necessary to write snooker or the World Cup into the Bill. We can simply leave it to things as they are.
As regards the other world religions, let them run their own stations if they want to. There is nothing in the Bill to stop them. Otherwise, let them be content with the status of comparative studies, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, recommended. I do not believe that they need any special attention or selection in the Bill. Therefore, I shall oppose the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Willis.
I turn to my own amendment. In moving my amendment I must tell the Committee that I have put much thought into the wording. It requires religious programmes to have respect to our tradition. By that I mean that it should be borne in mind always and not trivialised or treated as of no account. Alternatively, I could have included the words "have regard to". That would have meant much the same as would "pay attention to". However, the word "respect" has connotations with "respect for", as opposed to "respect to", which I wanted to overflow into the amendment.
What is it that I ask that there should be respect to? It is the immemorial Christian tradition in this country. "Immemorial" means that it runs from a time to which the memory of man runneth not to the contrary and terminates in what we must accept as legend. There is a very old legend that Joseph of Arimathea was the uncle of the Virgin Mary, the great uncle of Our Lord and a rich man's merchant in the tin
960
trade with Cornwall, and that on a time he took with him Our Lord as a young man, on what we would now call a business trip.
Lost in legend, how can we possibly know that that is true?—until we suddenly find it returning to us in the poetry of William Blake and in the music of Hubert Parry which have given us what the Oxford Companion to Music calls our second national anthem:
"And did those feet in ancient times, Walk upon England's mountains green, And was the Holy Lamb of God on England's pleasant pastures seen, And did the countenance Divine shine forth upon our clouded hills … "
I do not need to go on because the Committee will know it by heart. If any noble Lords have been to the last night of the Proms, they will have heard the youth of the nation singing it as our second national anthem.
That is pure legend. But skip a little further and legend begins to coalesce with history. At the beginning of the 5th century of our era, the Roman garrison which protected this country left to cope with a crisis on the continent and never returned. It left behind it a Welsh-speaking Christian community unable to defend itself against the invasions of pagan Anglo-Saxons, from the continent of Europe. To that period belongs another of our legends—King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table—beginning to coalesce with history, but still very much in a Celtic context.
Then, 150 years or so later, Saint Augustine of Canterbury arrived in this country and proceeded to convert the pagan Anglo-Saxons to the Christian religion. From that time on—some 1,400 years—this has been a Christian country; and that is the immemorial tradition which I believe should be preserved.
Post-war emigration has given rise to hospitality and to tolerance for the faiths of others, but do not let us call ourselves a multi-faith culture. We are a Christian culture and, on any assessment of it by pollster methods, anything from 75 to 85 per cent. of this country confesses the Christian religion. If we are to establish anything immemorially, that is what we should establish.
I have argued earlier against writing into the Bill what is unnecessary because it is either provided elsewhere in the Bill or it is part of common law, but the sentiment in my Amendment No. 130 does not appear anywhere else in the Bill, nor can you trace it to common law. We live in an age in which secularist Quislings, if I may call them such, will burrow like maggots into the faith of our fathers if we let them. We do not need to let them.
Viscount Caldecote: We have heard two most sincere speeches from different points of view. I fully understand the sincerity and reasons behind the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, proposing Amendment No. 127, although I do not go along with what I might call his un-theology.
I do not believe that a convincing case has been made out for Amendment No. 127 and I do not support it on balance. It is not appropriate, first,

961
because it is not appropriate or necessary to make such detailed rules for the content of programmes. Secondly, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, this is still basically a Christian country. We have a Christian constitution with our Sovereign as the head of the Established Christian Church. Our business each day starts in this House and in the other place with Christian prayer. The accepted principles of conduct in commerce, government service and family life are largely based on Christian ethics and, as the noble Earl said, a substantial majority of parents want their children brought up and educated on Christian principles.
In such circumstances, it is not appropriate to equate Christian influence in broadcasting with other faiths. I have no wish—and I am sure that none of us in the Committee have any wish—to exclude other faiths in any way. I include agnosticism and humanism in those words. Nothing in the Bill excludes those other faiths in any way. We extend the hand of friendship to our friends in other faiths, but we do not gain their respect—I believe that it is quite the reverse—by not standing up for our own faith and by failing to stand up for the traditional Christian faith of this country. To the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I have to say that I have faith in my faith. That is why I am making these comments.
Some 40 years ago, when Sir William Haley was Director-General of the BBC, he said:
"The BBC bases its policy upon a positive attitude towards Christian values—it seeks to safeguard these values and to foster acceptance of them".
Those values are still of great significance in this country and we continue to safeguard them. It cannot be gainsaid that if those principles of the Christian faith were more widely followed this country would be a better and happier place in which to live.
For those reasons I oppose Amendment No. 127 and I support Amendment No. 130 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: The hour is late and I realise that noble Lords wish to go home but I think that the Committee would like a short contribution from these Benches.
During the 19th century there were many fierce arguments about the admission to Parliament and other great national institutions of those who were not members of the Church of England, either because they were members of other Churches or of no faith at all. I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said. The arguments were both arrogant and fearful. It took many years to reach the position which we now take completely for granted, and we should be aware of it tonight. We do not regard members of other Churches as our enemies to be excluded in all sorts of ways from all the principal ways in which the life of the nation is conducted and organised. We have a common conviction about our humanity and our citizenship; and we are able to welcome this without denying our own faith, or whatever our position may
962
be, without denying our history and certainly without denying the very real spiritual roots of this country in the Christian faith.
These two amendments seem to me to raise precisely the same sort of issue, except of course that we are usually now speaking about members of other faiths rather than members of other Churches. But the principle surely remains valid: we should not shut out members of minority groups, whatever they may be, from participation in the central organs of government or, indeed, from national institutions of which broadcasting must surely be a major and extremely influential one. That is what we are discussing tonight.
If that is the thrust of Amendment No. 127—and I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that it is—I do not have difficulty with it. However, the words do not appear to say that and I must explain why. To start with, the amendment refers to other faiths. That reference is unnecessary because Clause 16(2) (e) states,
"that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes … to religious programmes".
The word "religious" presumably covers other faiths. I have to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that humanism and agnosticism are not religions. It has to be said, and it would be unkind not to say this, that considerable irritation is sometimes caused by using religious slots in programming for programmes which appear to have no religious content whatever in the usual sense of the word.
I do not mean that a programme, a play or whatever it is has to use traditional religious language in order to appear to cover what may be deeply religious issues. For example, some of the best religious drama is not overtly apologetic. Nor do I mean that religious beliefs or statements should never be question or challenged. I certainly do not want the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to feel that I am frightened of him. I am not. I do not want him to be frightened of me, either. That is very different from suggesting that agnosticism and humanism are in some way religions. After all, the primary purpose of religious broadcasting must be to explore and sustain faith in various ways and not to destroy it. I believe that Clause 16(2) (f) covers what is wanted because it speaks of ensuring,
"that (taken as a whole) the programmes so included are calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests".
I see no reason why one should not be quite explicit about the fact that that should include consideration of the kind of issues raised under the broad headings of humanism and agnosticism. I find the wording of the amendment difficult and impossible to vote for as it stands. I do not want the mover of the amendment to think that I am being very fearful, or that I think that he has not got a valid case to make about our common humanity and the importance of minority groups being able to have a say within the context of this major national influence that we call broadcasting.
Perhaps I may conclude by referring briefly to Amendment No. 13O. It is right to remind ourselves and all our citizens of our own very strong Christian

963
history. I have just returned from the North East of England. I went to Tynemouth Abbey in particular. I can vouch for the value of signs and reminders of our Christian roots. I think that it is very important that each generation is encouraged by an awareness and knowledge of them. I am not so sure that putting on the face of the Bill the requirement that someone "shall have respect" to something will make much difference. I hope that others may persuade me that it will. Clearly, to that I would not wish to object at all in principle.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Sometimes I think that on matters of this kind we go into far too much detail in trying to guide a great institution along the path of duty. When we look at page 14 of the Bill and Clause 16(2) we see a whole string of attempts to apportion time to various aspects of the affairs of Channel 3. Subsection (2) (a) refers to,
"a sufficient amount of time".
Paragraph (b) of that subsection uses a similar phrase, as does paragraph (c). Paragraph (d) refers to,
"a suitable proportion of the regional programmes".
We are talking about paragraph (e) and that refers to,
"a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to religious programmes and programmes intended for children".
I shall not comment on the juxtaposition of religious broadcasting with programmes suitable for children. Paragraph (f) says,
"that (taken as a whole) the programmes so included are calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests".
The next paragraph refers to "a proper proportion". The last reference on that page is to specific proportions concerning programmes of independent origin. There is then mention of 25 per cent. There is talk about leading the broadcasting authorities along gently as to what they should do. That can be overdone.
There is one matter about which we can be sure. If religion is left out someone will want to put it in. When it is included it seems to me that we are entitled to look at other aspects of spirituality and other religions in order to consider what the conspectus should be in religious programmes. I wish that we could leave religion alone. The trouble is that it comes into so many aspects of our affairs. So many of the Members of the Committee are so unabashed in declaring their innermost thoughts and convictions, their belief in God and the respect that they command for religious institutions. It is absolutely blatant at times.
The House of Commons is much more reticent on these personal, private matters than is your Lordships' House. I sometimes think that we should merge the Synod of the Church of England and your Lordships' House, do this philosophical religious job between us and see whether we can sort it out once and for all. I am encouraged to be a little provocative because the Bishops' Bench is manned only by token forces at the present time. The formidable string of right reverend Prelates filing into their seats with their laundered overalls is a forbidding sight to an agnostic like myself.
964
Turning to the proposition moved by my noble friend Lord Willis, I want to see an acknowledgement of the wider aspects of spiritual life. It is assumed that religion is sufficiently clearly defined, historically and conventionally, to mean something that we all understand. It may contain a belief—it is intended so to do. It may be a way of life. It may be a code of conduct. If one calls it religion then it is assumed that it is a good thing. When we come to examine charity law we shall find that a charity can be any body which exists for the advancement of religion. One assumes that to talk of the advancement of religion is by itself completely expressive and close enough in definition. But to have religious education, religious broadcasting and religious slaughter is another matter. Last week we had religious broadcasting on Monday and religious slaughter on Friday; and so it goes on.
Religion is brought into every aspect of life. One can be sure of one thing. Any great institution, however historic, worthy and desirable, will create its bureaucracy and vested interests and will want to defend itself. One must bear in mind that all religions—most religions, at any rate—have a paid vocational priesthood. We pay parsons and clergymen to explain to us the spirituality of God, to tell us what to believe and to interpret what is understood to he the wishes of this supreme being. When we talk about religion we understand that noble Lords, especially those on the Bishops' Bench, will get up and say, "This should be preserved".
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is more of a historian than a clergyman. He told us very little about the content of religion. He told us a great deal about various aspects of our past history. But when I am referred to the immemorial tradition of the Christian faith of the British people, I ask whether that goes back to Henry VIII, to Adam Bede or to the time when Saint Augustine came over and found the natives of this country lovely people but all heathens. Where is this immemorial tradition of Christian faith? If that is to be the content of religious broadcasting, some of us are entitled to say that there are other aspects of this matter to be borne in mind.
In my view we in this country are too stuffy about religion; we are not innovative enough. The only joy in my early days of religion was the creation of the Salvation Army. At least it had some of the good tunes. It had bands and drums upon which to throw pennies. The men and women wore uniforms. They sang and they seemed to be happy. We went to something called a citadel which was very different from a church. It really was a happy community.
However, I am sure that the Salvation Army was frowned upon—it surely was—by orthodox religious institutions in Britain at the time. They all thought that General William Booth was a crackpot, an eccentric or a dissident. I say "a dissident", but surely the Christian religion was founded by a dissident. Do we not realise that Jesus Christ was a dissident from the Jewish religion? He broke away from it, became a dangerous man and so they executed him. They thought that he would be too dangerous if he were

965
allowed to stay alive. Therefore, they killed him. That is the great event in religious history which is the foundation of the Christian religion.
We should bear in mind the fact that we were all Papists before Henry VIII. His quarrel with the Pope was not about religious doctrine; it was about the woman he wanted to marry. A papal bull was put in his way. However, Members of the Committee know the history of this better than I do, so I shall not continue. In the United States they are innovative. It is a much more lively Christian country than this one. The people are not steeped in the conventions of religion. Almost within the lifetime of people like myself, and certainly in that of my father and grandfather, they have invented Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, Spiritualism and Scientology. That is a fair collection of new religions for one country to have created. They all have a certain appeal to people in America. They all appear on television on their various programmes, and some of them even have their own television stations.
You may call such religions cults, but you must bear in mind that the origins of more modern inventions in religious creation are much better known to us, and sometimes more easily criticised by us, than are the origins of the more ancient religious creeds which go back to the obscurity of early times. Indeed, we have no idea how and under what conditions they began. We cannot be sure whether they were started by holy men or men who were not quite so holy. But, at any rate, they have emerged as a result of some kind of struggle.
Why can we not have the opportunity of a wider religious perspective in this country? We are supposed to be a multi-racial society. Before very long Islam will be the second religious force in this country. We have Hindus in this country and I have become much enchanted by representations made to me by representatives of Buddhism in Britain. They claim to be the most rapidly expanding spiritual force in the world today. That is a claim to be reckoned with.
I suggest that programmes of a religious nature should be divided into two parts. The first part is what I would call participatory; that is, those which when broadcast create a congregation. They are for people who want to share the experience of what they see on the television. I would not go so far as to say that we want a television hymnal, but these people certainly know what the hymns are and they very often join in. There are smaller groups which I think may justify participatory programmes. I refer to Buddhists and Quakers. I also think that the humanists are entitled to some part of this provision by way of programmes which represent the spirituality of human beings.
Other programmes are informative. Those that do not qualify by numbers or through communication problems do not justify being called religious broadcasts. However, we are entitled to have information about them. There are various societies, associations, sects and gatherings of a devotional nature. We are entitled to know much more about them. Why cannot we have a broader view? I do not
966
care what the definitions are. We need not call them religious broadcasts, but let us have some space for them. If religion is to establish a claim upon all forms of such communication then the other groups should also have a claim so that we learn about the broader aspects of life.
Young people want something new. They want something contemporary. They do not want an immemorial faith. They want something that is related to their lives and the society in which they live. The voice of those young people is still not heard in this place. Somehow or other it should be. We should have a choir up against the Throne to give us the impression that we have a youthful congregation to whom we can talk.
I sometimes feel great despair as to whether we shall get out of the cloying attachment to that concept of faith and belief which needs to be re-examined in the light of the condition of humanity in today's world. The noble Earl said that he need not go on, and I shall say the same myself. I put my opposing view to him.
If we are to have freedom of discussion about religion and broadcasting of that wider kind, we must get rid of the law of blasphemy. Religious discussion cannot continue much longer in this country with the law of blasphemy in its present unsuitable state. We must get rid of it so that we can be free to talk. There is an article in the current edition of Encounter on "Religion after Rushdie" which is well worth reading. That is one of the biggest issues of all and it will be interesting to see how our television authorities cope with it in the future.
Viscount Tonypandy: I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because he has reduced the Bishops' Bench by 50 per cent. I listened, as the Committee listened, almost with relish to the noble Lord. For nigh on 40 years in another place or in this place it has been my privilege to listen to him. He knows my views and by this time I know his. He is a preacher manqué. What a mighty preacher he would have made if he had been a believer! He speaks with confidence.
I listened to my noble friend Lord Willis, if I may call him that, and was deeply moved because he reminded us of his Sunday School days with the Primitive Methodists. They were always close to the Salvation Army and they are now part of this country's great Methodist Church. Somebody went wrong to cause us to lose the noble Lord, Lord Willis.
We are concerned tonight about one of the most powerful weapons for communication in our land. We are dealing with what influence shall be brought to bear upon succeeding generations. The society we enjoy today is not an accident. It has been built upon a faith which people may laugh at, but it has endured, with intellectual giants as well as people like me. The truth is that ours is a Christian heritage. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, may well be right about a future clash with another faith within our own shores because we have been a tolerant and broad-minded

967
people in opening our doors. However, our heritage is Christian and our conduct is decided by the things that we believe.
If I believe I have every right to do what I like with my own life, I can be indifferent to the well-being of my neighbours. I can adopt a selfish attitude and go to the gutter or try to rise to the stars, it is true. But our faith fashions our conduct. We have a right in the high court of Parliament, which is here to protect the land, the land that every one of us loves, regardless of our attitude on this question, to say that the most powerful media of all shall respect—the word includes in my mind honour—and pay tribute to the Christian convictions which inspired our fathers here and in other places. A country without religion is a country without yardsticks for conduct—to know the difference between right and wrong.
I believe that the Christian conscience leads us to the brotherhood of man, the very thing that brought the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Willis, and myself together when I used to be free to take part in party political issues. I pay the price today of having held that high and honourable office in another place. There is a long tradition for that. Selwyn Lloyd sat here, on these Benches. Horace King sat here. The Committee will recall that the price is paid to the end of our days for having been dragged out of party politics and put in the Chair. I have tried to honour that tradition, and many of my noble friends must have been annoyed more than once when they saw that I really tried to do so.
I hope that tonight the Committee will reflect what I believe is the will of this country—that the media of radio and television shall give due and proper place to the faith that gave us our parliamentary democracy, to the faith that guided our fathers in dark days and good. I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I know that were the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to be carried ours could not come before the Committee. In this country, while we respect minority views, we cannot yet put Christianity as a minority view for—and I return to my seat on this—I know and this Committee knows that every Sunday still in these islands more people are found in our churches, be it with the Salvation Army, the Roman Catholic Church or any of the Protestant Churches. There is a solid core of which the other place is well aware. I hope and pray that the Committee will tonight support the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
11 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: I rise to urge the Committee to oppose Amendment No. 127 because too much emphasis is already given to religions other than Christianity. The whole basis of most broadcasting is agnostic and founded on secular humanism. No special place needs to be created in law for these viewpoints because they already flood through our broadcasting system.
Amendment No. 130, on the other hand, reflects concern about the abandoning of much of our traditional Christian religious broadcasting. In this
968
regard I am particularly interested in focusing on problems faced by families today. This is an issue which Christian broadcasting can contribute to significantly. The common denominator of symptoms such as loneliness, homelessness, child abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS is the inadequacy or breakdown of family care and relationships. As a society, we seem to be able to teach people how to make a living but not how to live.
The Christian gospel and basic biblical principles have historically provided mechanisms and structures for the transmission of love, mutual care and the sensitive nurture of children. Faith coupled with deep moral and social concern is the driving force behind many British Christians who wish to rebuild this aspect of the broadcasting media.
In January 1989 Dr. James Dobson's family television programme "Focus on the Family" captured the highest audience rating in the United States. The British broadcasting system imports from the United States "Dallas", "Dynasty" and "Miami Vice" but not its most popular programme dealing with marital problems, discipline of children and coping with teenage drug and sex pressures from a Christian perspective.
Only this year the IBA blocked the broadcasting of a 1990 radio documentary by the Care organisation about family needs purely on the ground that Care is a religious organisation. That decision had nothing whatever to do with the content of the programme. I regard that as intolerable discrimination and urge the Committee strongly to support Amendment No. 130.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps a Roman Catholic, in spite of Henry VIII, should be allowed to intervene. I support the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I shall not dwell unnecessarily on what he said because I agree with a point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on a previous occasion when she said that a recent poll showed that 90 per cent. of the country considered themselves to be Christian. I accept the argument of the noble Earl that that view should be represented in a predominant way.
I hope I may dwell for a moment on the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and on that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. They are good friends who believe in the brotherhood of man, like the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. They were all Methodists, of course. It can be argued that the best humanists have always been Methodists, but that does not mean that all Methodists become humanists. There is no doubt that a strong Christian foundation produces the best kind of humanist.
In the evening paper today I read that the Prime Minister made a passionate speech in defence of the family. Although I do not agree with her on many points, I agree with her, as reported today, that the state of the family in this country is worse than almost anywhere else in Europe. What is that due to? It is due to the fact that Christian values are not pursued in the family. We know that many humanists are ready to propound Christian values with regard to the family.

969
That may be true of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and it was certainly true of the late Lord Attlee. When he was asked: "Are you a Christian?" he said, "No. While I accept Christian ethics I can't stand the mumbo jumbo". When he was asked, "Are you an agnostic?" he said, "I don't know". He was not therefore really a member of that fraternity. Many humanists have not been ready to propound Christian values.
The trouble with our humanist friends is that they have no sacred books. There is no agreement on anything. Some of them might go back to Socrates, if they know what he said. Some of them may even import Karl Marx. More recently we have been instructed by the father of one of our most valued Members, the noble Earl, Lord Russell. No one would pretend that he was a champion of the family, except that he produced the most wonderful son—but that was incidental, one might say. I had better not dwell on that theme. There is no doubt that the values of the family were not propounded by the late Lord Russell, nor by Sir Alfred Ayer, another distinguished humanist.
I submit to the Committee that unless we return to Christian ideas of fidelity in marriage we shall never restore the family, and all talk about it is balderdash. We must insist on Christian values as applied to the family or this country will go down the drain. I believe that this country should return to those values, and I hope that the Committee will indicate that tonight.
Baroness Strange: In supporting the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I should like to comment briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, so pertinently pointed out—the close juxtaposition in paragraph (e) of religion and children. He clearly has in mind Wordsworth's statement that,
"Trailing clouds of glory do they come from God, who is their home".
Indeed, we have a higher authority yet who assures us, of children, that,
"Of such is the kingdom of Heaven".
As one goes down streets and looks in windows one may see a sinister, flickering blue light. It is the television. May it shine clearer and brighter, as in the hymn:
"Jesus bids us shine with a pure, clear light, Like a little candle shining in the night. The world is full of darkness, so let us shine, You in your small corner, and I in mine".
Lord Bonham-Carter: No one who had listened to the debate in this Chamber over the last 56 minutes would believe that we had been discussing a Bill which might become the law. We have heard a great deal about people's beliefs. I am convinced that one thing for which one cannot legislate is respect. One can legislate for behaviour, but I have never known how one could legislate for respect. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I would oppose the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
Secondly, I found the words in which he expressed the amendment, over which he told us that he took such trouble, rather strange. The United Kingdom has
970
been in existence only since 1707, and the traditions of Christianity in the United Kingdom since 1707 are by no means immemorial. Therefore I do not know to what he is referring. If he is referring to other Christian traditions, which I suppose started when St. Augustine landed here, that is a very different matter, but it is certainly not related to the United Kingdom as we know it today.
My real objection to the amendment is that I do not believe that a law saying that people should respect something has any validity, meaning or effect. Since we are discussing an enabling Bill, and have been told again and again that we should not lay down criteria which cannot be enforced but should set the paradigms within which the broadcasting authorities should operate, it seems contrary to those directions - which I believe are correct - that we should insert an amendment which directs the broadcasting authorities to respect:
"the immemorial Christian traditions of the United Kingdom".
Lord Dormand of Easington: I strongly support Amendment No. 127. The right reverend Prelate referred to my part of the country and mentioned Tynemouth Priory and the significance of that building. He will know that not too many miles away from that building is another magnificent building on a magnificent site; namely, Durham Cathedral. I have a reason for mentioning it. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will be interested and maybe the Committee also.
When a very close friend of mine retired from work last year he immediately applied to become what I think is designated as a warden of Durham Cathedral. He goes there two or three times a week to show people around and tell them about the building. The point of the story is that he is a convinced atheist. That happens to be my attitude. I go to Durham Cathedral for the sheer beauty of the place, the building, the site and so on.
I was interested in the figures which the noble Earl gave. He said that 70 to 75 per cent. of the population of this country were Christian. I am sure that that is somewhere near correct. But on that figure rests the whole burden of my case and, I think, the case of my two noble friends; namely, that 25 or 30 per cent. of the population are not Christians.
In the amendment we simply ask whether we cannot have time—if it is in those terms, about one-third, one-quarter or even less time—to say why we do not accept the Christian faith. Those of us without religious faith recognise the strength of feeling shown not only in this Chamber but by anyone who accepts that faith. Indeed, we fully recognise that many people derive great comfort from their religious belief. But we too obtain great satisfaction from what we consider to be a rational conclusion arrived at after considerable experience and deep thought.
On a personal note perhaps I may say that I started life as a Christian and remained so as a young man and for some years after that. I attended church regularly. I was a member of the parochial church

971
council and helped with all the church functions and so on. But after some years of very considerable thought, I came to the decision which I mentioned.
Despite what has been said, in particular by my noble friend Lord Tonypandy, there can surely be little doubt that there has been a great decline in religious belief and faith in this country. In my part of the world, and I am sure in other parts of the country, the churches are seldom full and quite often nearly empty. Again in my part of the world many of the churches and chapels are now factories or warehouses, their original use long forgotten. So I believe that, even if I take the noble Earl's figures of 25 or 30 per cent., there is a small percentage of people who do not profess the Christian faith.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps I may interrupt for a moment. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in a recent debate pointed out that in a poll taken in July 90 per cent. of the population said that they were Christian.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I heard that observation from the noble Baroness. I suppose that I am like many noble Lords and a little dubious about some of the polls which are taken. Indeed I have heard my noble friend say so on more than one occasion. I had not intended to quote, but I shall do so now. The British Humanist Association recently had a poll—I got word of it yesterday—from which it states that 35 per cent. of the population are not Christians.
The Earl of Longford: The noble Lord does not believe that surely.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Yes, I do believe it. My noble friend said that surely I did not believe it, but I do. In any case you pays your money and you takes your choice. There are certain sections of the population who are not Christians and their voice should be heard. We are talking in the context of broadcasting. Therefore by any standards, there must be a case for allowing that section of society to put its viewpoint. I am at a loss to understand why there is such a strong feeling against non-believers having broadcasts. Is it because some are afraid? I can hardly believe that that is so.
One could refer to the intolerance of many religions, including Christianity, over the years. There are some horrific stories to tell. However, the theme of my remarks is the need for tolerance. There is nothing negative about being non-religious. The word "atheist" has been used. I am an atheist. However, I call myself a humanist. Perhaps I may say to noble Lords who referred to this issue, yes, we are secular humanists. We are not pretending to be partly Christian and partly non-believer. A humanist is a non-believer. But the significance is that we try to be positive and constructive.
Like my noble friend Lord Willis, I attempt to obey the Ten Commandments. I certainly attempt—although I fail regularly—to live by the Christian ethic. That seems to me to be the general position of some of those who hold such views. I admit that we fail.
Although some of us are not very enthusiastic about being members of the European Community,
972
we are Europeans. I understand that most, if not all, members of the EC allow broadcasting time for non-believers. I do not have the figures. Perhaps the Minister can confirm in general terms that what I have said is correct.
The humanist attitude is not new. Many Christians believe that it has sprung from the changing and rather easy-going society of recent years. That is not so. It has developed from the philosophy of ancient Greece and Rome, from the modern renaissance and the enlightenment. It therefore has roots, like Christianity, which are centuries old. I am bound to say that in those circumstances I find it quite astonishing that such a narrow view is taken of present day disbelief.
I believe that the Bill provides a golden opportunity to demonstrate the tolerance for which Parliament, and in particular Members of this Chamber, are so widely respected. I fail to understand what harm such provision can do to those who are so intent on having religious broadcasts. If it reduces the time for religious broadcasts—which it may not do—it need not reduce the effectiveness of those broadcasts. However, above all the provision means that that large section of society which does not subscribe to any religious belief will receive its fair allocation of time. That surely must be simple justice.
11.15 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: I shall make a two-minute contribution as patron of the Christian Broadcasting Council. I wish to make one point which has not been made before. I do not wish to repeat what has been said. If we were to allow the mixture of religions and cults envisaged in Amendment No. 127, we should be putting forward a mixture that would be gravely disturbing to young people. That is the point. Members of the Committee can take any amount of broadcasting on Islam, Judaism and so on, and if we are sincere Christians it is like water off a duck's back. But we have to consider young people. They are put at grave risk if we allow the implications of Amendment No. 127.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about Moslems. I have spent 35 years of my life in the Arab world. I greatly admire Islam. I greatly admire Judaism, as I do Christianity. Those are the three monotheistic religions. We must draw the line between those religions on the one hand and Buddhism and other non-monotheistic religions. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others pointed out, they have their own channels for disseminating their religions. The provision was incorporated in the Education Reform Bill. We went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that Islam could be taught in schools and so forth. What we want and surely must have is Christianity preached in the British way. That does not mean, as has been implied, a US-style evangelism. We want Christianity preached on the air in the British way. It must be preached as it was by St. Alban and St. Anselm, by Wycliffe and Wesley and many others.
Lord Parry: This is a fascinating Chamber. Shortly after midday we were protesting that we were working

973
too hard; shortly before midnight we are debating this basic question at great length and with great interest. The Chamber comes alive at such times and no Member need apologise for speaking in the debate. Many of the speeches were powerful and moving. If ever there was a good reason for keeping one voice intact, we have heard it tonight.
The dilemma of the Committee is the dilemma of the nation at this time. Despite some of the claims that have been made, no one knows how many people now in this country are practising Christians. Perhaps many profess much more than they possess in the reality of the Christian faith.
When I joined the Neyland Urban District Council in 1948 it was impossible to hold a council meeting on Tuesday evening because there were prayer meetings in the chapels of the town. A sufficient number of people attended the prayer meetings to make certain that no other meeting could take place. There is a danger that each of these two amendments is seeking to do what the institutions that have been created at great sacrifice are failing to do at this time. There is little point in those who profess the Christian faith, but do not belong to institutions strong enough to insist in Christian values being maintained in this second half of the 20th century, trying to harness the media to do a job that they are failing to do.
I am encouraged, as are many Members, by the fact that there are some signs of a resurgence of interest in the Christian religion at a time when, for instance, young parents are at their wits end about how to control and lead their children in a difficult time in human society. It is a curious fact that the effect on me of each amendment moved by noble friends and Members on the other side of the Committee has convinced me that the best thing that we can do is to leave the Bill as it stands. I am not convinced that either amendment advances the cause that their movers wish to advance.
Earl Ferrers: As one may have expected on such an issue, we have had a debate full of interest and strongly-held views which go to the heart of people's fundamental beliefs. This is a most important subject and one which Members of the Committee have treated with the care required of it. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that we have heard a great deal about what people feel. However, he brought us back to the reality that we must deal with what is actually put in the Bill.
The Government accepted arguments put forward in another place that Channels 3 and 5 would, at least for some time, have such a significant place in the independent television sector that they should be required to devote a sufficient amount of time to religious programmes. Those words are now incorporated in Clause 16(2) (e) of the Bill. In other words, the ITC must be satisfied that an applicant's plans to provide religious programmes are adequate before it can even go on to consider a financial bid. That being so, all those who are going to make a financial bid must have in their proposals adequate time for religious broadcasting.
974
On Amendment No. 82, which was accepted, we agreed that due responsibility must be exercised in respect of the content of any of its religious programmes and that in particular any such programmes must not involve any improper exploitation of any susceptibilities or any abusive treatment of others. Those are considerable and positive markers in the Bill as regards religion.
The Government see considerable force in some of the arguments advanced. They are very powerful. However, I have no doubt whatever that the religious programming which is shown on Channels 3 and 5 should both respect and reflect the Christian traditions in this country, which as the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, reminds us, go back to the Venerable Bede and beyond. I have no doubt that the ITC and the Radio Authority will see to it that their licensees respect those traditions.
It is a long-standing regulatory tradition that religious broadcasting should take account of the wide range of religious views in the United Kingdom while giving proper weight to the traditions of Christian belief in our society. That is a clear balance. Account must be taken of the long-standing tradition of Christian belief while, at the same time, recognising the wide range of other beliefs. Therefore, that gives a fair balance.
Clause 16(2) (e) ensures that a sufficient amount of time is given to religious programming. I should like to draw attention also to the IBA's background paper No. 5 on religious broadcasting. That says of religious programmes on Channels 3 and 5:
"These programmes would be required to maintain the centrality of the Christian faith, while still allowing opportunities for the views of other religious groups to be expressed".
To go further and to attempt to write a formula into the Bill would be fraught with difficulties.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, refers to humanism and agnosticism and suggests that time should be given to them. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, humanism and agnosticism are not religions. They may be a way of life and may be attitudes but they are not religions. Once you start writing such matters into the Bill, that creates confusion and life is made very difficult for those who have to put into reality what Parliament has written on to the face of the Bill.
The right reverend Prelate referred also to Clause 16(2)(f), which obliges licensees to put out programmes to cater for a wide variety of tastes and interests. That is perfectly true. He said also that we must be careful not to put on the face of the Bill words suggesting what you should have respect to. He said that that was unclear as to its effect.
I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is back in his place because he was out when I said that I agreed with him earlier. Even though he does not always agree with me, it is nice for him to be here when I agree with him. The noble Lord asked: what is immemorial? That is a very important question. I looked in the dictionary to find out what immemorial means. It is an expression which the noble

975
Earl, Lord Halsbury, put into his amendment to imply the depth of feeling of Christianity which goes back to most people's feelings throughout the country as a tradition. I question whether it is sensible to write that into the Bill.
How then do you write into a Bill upon which people will have to act within the law that they must have respect for something? If you say that you are to transmit so many hours of programming on the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, that is understandable. However, to write into a Bill that you must have respect for something that is immemorial will give those who have to translate into practice what Parliament writes into the Bill a great deal of difficulty.
There is a practical point about definitions and categories. Religious programmes will probably make up only a fairly small proportion of Channel 3 and Channel 5 output. The current figure for ITV is about 2 per cent. I do not know what the figure will go up to, but we must remember that in future there will be many more channels offering potential outlets for religious programmes; so whatever happens the percentage for Channels 3 and 5 is unlikely to be large.
The logical extension of Amendments Nos. 127 and 130 would be a highly complicated form of words giving the ITC a legal obligation to cater, perhaps proportionately, for Christianity, ethnic minority religions and all the religious beliefs and traditions which deserve to be accorded respect in our society.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Perhaps I may make a point about having respect. Have not so-called or apparently religious programmes sometimes carried a hostile and snide undercurrent? The requirement of respect would rule that out.
Earl Ferrers: If my noble friend looks at the Bill, he will see that it already contains a provision whereby you may not be abusive to sensibilities and other religions. If a programme were to carry that kind of inference, it would be caught by the provisions introduced into the Bill as a result of its having passed through another place and as a result of the Government having tried to meet the concerns expressed there.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that it would be for the ITC to decide whether in any circumstances programmes about agnosticism and humanism would count as religious programmes. In some cases it would be arguable whether they should, but if the audience demand is there such programmes will not go unrepresented.
Clause 16(2) (e) states that a sufficient amount of time must be given to religious programmes. The IBA's background paper says that programmes are required to maintain the centrality of the Christian faith while still allowing the views of other religious groups to be expressed. It says that due responsibility must be exercised with respect to the content of any of the programmes of a religious nature against exploitation of susceptibilities and abusive treatment.
976
Those are all staunch points in the Bill to protect the religious views of people and to ensure that they are expressed carefully.
I return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and by the right reverend Prelate. It would be dangerous to write into the Bill words which must be translated into fact and which are of themselves difficult to translate into fact and are mostly expressions of opinion.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he will help the Committee, at least those of us less familiar with the existing framework than he is. He has lent great weight to a statement by the IBA as to what must be the attitude of the Christian religion. What is the status of that undertaking? Is it a legal undertaking? Is it subject to change without the authority of Parliament?
Earl Ferrers: It is an IBA background paper. It is an indication of what it expects the present licensees to adhere to and it is what it anticipates the Independent Television Commission, when it is set up, will also expect.
Lord Willis: Perhaps I may first apologise to the Committee. When I put down my modest little amendment, I had no idea that I was taking the cork out of such a bottle. I should like to thank noble Lords not only for staying up so late but for the valuable contributions that they have made. I noticed—I hope that no one will be offended by this—a certain amount of fear among the Christians present. They were all very anxious to defend their position.
I have the greatest respect and affection for the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, as he well knows, but I thought it was a little offensive to refer to humanism in the same terms as snooker. As my noble friend Lord Houghton said, humanism goes back to ancient Greece. It is a great and honourable tradition and philosophical attitude. It is on those lines that I introduced my amendment.
I do not think that we shall get very far, not only on this amendment but in any other respect, by being intolerant. One of the problems of speaking about Christianity in this country is that nobody knows what a Christian is. People in some parts of the world kill each other in the name of the gentle Jesus. Are they Christians? That is the problem faced by our young people.
However, it is too late to go into such a discussion tonight. I accept what the Minister said and thank him for his courtesy. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 129 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 14, line 40, insert:
("( ) that religious programmes shall have respect to the immemorial Christian traditions of the United Kingdom;").
The noble Earl said: I have spoken to this amendment and I do not need to add anything to what I said beyond the fact that I think it necessary to test the opinion of the Committee, even though it means a Division at a late hour. I beg to move.
11.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 130) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 34.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brentford, V.

Longford, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Norrie, L.

Caldecote, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Perth, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Elton, L.

Stockton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Strange, B.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tonypandy, V. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Birk, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Strathclyde, L.

David, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trumpington, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hacking, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Willis, L.

Henley, L.

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 14, line 42, at end insert:
("(fa) that programmes of each type are shown at appropriate times of the day and week, having regard to the potential viewers of programmes of that type;").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ardwick Lord Ardwick moved Amendment No. 131ZA:
Page 14, line 48, at end insert:
("(i) that a reasonable amount of time is given to the broadcast of Parliamentary proceedings").
The noble Lord said: This is another "reasonable amount of time" amendment. The suggestion is made that a reasonable amount of time should be given to the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. This is an important amendment. The reporting of Parliament has very much fallen away in the British press. In the tabloids, Parliament hardly appears at all. The serious
978
newspapers are highly politicised today but they too have never given smaller reports of Parliament than they do today. Even in the war years, when there were four and six-page papers, they gave a better show to Parliament than they do today.
The interesting point about Parliament and broadcasting is that Parliament is essentially an aural process. It is much more attractive to hear on radio or to see on television than it is to read in print. In suggesting that a reasonable amount of time should be given to the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings, I do not believe that we are handing a lulu to the Channel 3 companies. We are careful to say "a reasonable amount of time". That can depend on what the commission thinks is reasonable in certain circumstances.
I hope that this requirement can be added to the rather long list of subjects which have to be given sufficient time. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: It is perfectly possible, as the noble Lord said, for this requirement to be added to the long list of subjects that have to be televised and broadcast. The amendment would add to the quality threshold for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees a requirement that a reasonable amount of time should be given to the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. Many of the arguments which I listed in my response to the debate on Amendment No. 110A apply here as well. There will be nothing to prevent licensees from showing parliamentary proceedings. But we see no need for a statutory requirement on licensees to show them. The public service channels—BBC1, BBC2 and Channel 4—will continue to broadcast parliamentary proceedings. I have no doubt that Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees will wish to include broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings in their programmes, not least because of the requirement on them to broadcast high quality news programmes. However, I suggest that we should not add a statutory requirement for them to broadcast parliamentary proceedings. It is not a suitable requirement to include in the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord will agree.
Lord Ardwick: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 131A:
Page 15, line 1, leave out ("proposed service") and insert ("service to be provided under the licence").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to in connection with Amendment No. 110A. It is basically a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 15, line 8, leave out from ("them") to ("and") in line 9 and insert ("in pursuance of section 15(6) (bb) with respect to that service;").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 114. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 133:

979
Page 15, line 9, after ("for") insert ("and in the case of Regional Channel 3 services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the Commission shall have regard to the national needs of Scotland and Wales and the special needs of Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that full regard is paid by the franchise-holders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to the distinctive cultural identities, traditions and interests of those countries. While I readily accept that the wording of the amendment could be improved, I believe that its message is clear.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are different from the regions of England. Indeed, they are more than regions. That is the starting-point of the discussion on the amendment. Together with England, they constitute the countries of the United Kingdom. They have their distinctive cultural identities and interests. They have their own national institutions, and Scotland and Wales are separate nations.
I understand that in broadcasting terms generally, although not in this Bill, the three countries are often referred to as "national regions". Therefore, we submit that this background points to the need for the broadcasting legislation to take a distinctive approach towards television services for those three countries and not merely to treat them as three other regions.
Perhaps I may say a few words about Wales which, obviously, I know best. It is true to say that Welsh culture expressed in both languages in prose, in poetry, in drama and in music is now in as fine a flower as at any time in our history. But sadly it is inadequately reflected and projected in the great mass of English-language television programmes which are seen in Wales. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris will develop that theme.
I should point out that the range of English-language television programmes which are devoted to Welsh interests is very limited. It usually consists of a nightly half-hour news programme, a weekly current affairs programme, a weekly Wales and Westminster programme and a weekly programme for farmers. However, that is it. That menu may be adequate to satisfy regional requirements under Clause 16(2)(c)(i). However, we think that the English-speaking Welshman deserves a fuller range and diversity of programmes.
I should perhaps mention that a debate is underway in Wales about the need for an English-language television channel for Wales alongside Sianel Pedwar Cymru, the Welsh-language fourth channel. I note that the case for such a channel has recently been developed in an article published in the April-May edition of Planet. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has studied the issue and is generally supportive of the case.
A poll in the Western Mail last February showed that there was a 73 per cent. positive response to the following question:
"Would you be in favour of Wales having its own television channel to serve English speakers in Wales as S4C serves Welsh speakers?"
980
The point was made last week when the following question was put to me:
"In the future there will be no shortage of television in English, but what of television in English for the people of Wales?"
Those in Wales who are conscious of the need for a greater English language television outlet for Wales as a cultural necessity consider that Clause 16(2)(c)(i) does not constitute an adequate defence of the interests of Wales.
My noble friend Lord Blease is in his place. He has served the people of Northern Ireland well throughout his life. We know that his judgment on Northern Ireland matters is highly respected in this place. He supports the amendment in so far as it relates to Northern Ireland. Surely Northern Ireland cannot be treated adequately as just another region under subsection (2)(c)(i). Television has a key role to play in Northern Ireland in encouraging greater mutual understanding across the community, including respect for the cultural heritage of both communities.
I shall not attempt to do justice to Scotland's claim, but my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, who speaks from these Benches on Scottish matters, has authorised me to say that he fully supports the principle of the amendment and regrets that he cannot be here this evening.
As we see it, the amendment would reinforce the safeguard which is to be found in Clause 16(2)(c)(i) and would strengthen and foster the cultural identities of the three countries. On the question of the authority for the amendment, I can offer some assistance to the Minister. I can assure him that it does not embody a novel principle. The principle is already contained in the BBC charter. Article 10(1) of the charter requires the corporation to establish three national broadcasting councils: one for Scotland, one for Wales and one for Northern Ireland. Article 10(4) requires that each of the councils in discharging its function is to have,
"full regard to the distinctive culture, language, interests and tastes of Our People in the country for which the Council is established".
The BBC's duty, as laid down in the charter, is clear and specific. On reflection, I believe that it is an improvement on the wording of the amendment. What is now required is for a similar duty to be placed on the Channel 3 franchise-holder in the three countries. I know of no reason why that requirement, which is binding on the BBC, should not be equally binding on the Channel 3 franchise-holder.
If the Government do not consider that the principle is relevant to Channel 3, would they not be establishing a precedent for agreeing at a later stage that the principle is no longer important when the BBC charter comes to be reviewed in 1996? If that were to happen, it would be apparent that the status of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was being reduced. I have outlined the main arguments in support of the amendment. I very much hope that the Government will give the arguments their fullest consideration between now and Report stage in October. I beg to move.
12 midnight.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: If this amendment is accepted, it would give instructions to the commission by statute. If we are to move along that road, why can we not instruct the commission by statue to allow for the special needs of England? The wording looks a little racist to me. I do not think that this is a helpful amendment to the Bill. Clause 16 covers what is necessary for the United Kingdom and I do not think we ought to start, even by casual inference, to deal with the special needs of Wales and Scotland and omit the special needs of England. I hope that we do not do so; there is no need for it.
I admire the nationalism of the noble Lord and his supporters but the English feel a little nationalistic too occasionally. I should not like them to be left out. This should not be pursued; it does not look good and is not necessary.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies in his proposal which I do not consider to be racist or nationalist in any offensive sense. It is a modest little proposal intended simply to require the commission to remember the special or national needs of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales because these are not regions in the English sense. Two of them are nations and Northern Ireland is surely a uniquely sensitive area.
In Wales, where there is the language to consider, it might be thought by the Committee that when the needs of the Welsh language have been met, the commission has done its duty by the Broadcasting Bill. However, I point out that there are more parts to Welsh national culture than are represented by the single language alone. I suspect that many Members of the Committee would not be unduly familiar with the works of Dafydd ap-Gwilym or Euros Bowen because they were composed in the Welsh language. However there will be few in this Chamber who do not recognise the name of Dylan Thomas and consider that he is a Welsh poet. He has made a vast cultural contribution, but through the medium entirely of the English language. I doubt whether he could have put 20 words together in Welsh if he had been required to do so on pain of death.
The same might be said for other poets in our tradition like Dannie Abse and Vernon Watkins or great writers and artists like David Jones, himself an artist, poet and prose writer. It is complicated by the fact that one of the greatest poets writing in Wales at present, a kingpin of the Welsh cultural establishment, R.S. Thomas, is himself a fervent and fluent Welsh speaker who refuses to write his poems in any language other than English.
There is a Welsh national culture in the English language which has a symbiotic relationship with the Welsh culture in the Welsh language. Similarly there is a Welsh musical culture which is national. There is a fine stereotype of the Welsh devotion to music well described by Flanders and Swann. They talk of the Welshman:
"He works underground with a light in his hat, And he sings far too loud far too often and flat".
982
That stereotype has long since gone. Few Welshmen work underground, with or without lights in their hats. The male voice choirs and the chapel choirs are far fewer than they were, but there is a great, flourishing musical tradition represented by the BBC Welsh Orchestra, currently performing an oratorio by Arwel Hughes, conducted by his son, on the subject of St David.
There is the Welsh Youth Orchestra, which has an international reputation, as does the Welsh National Opera. There is also that unique and marvellous thing, the Llangollen Festival, which is a multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-media event. It is a great celebration in the Welsh countryside of something which is uniquely part of the Welsh musical tradition. My noble friend said that the principle behind this amendment is already present in the charter of the BBC. Surely the independent television and radio companies should have those same privileges and should be in the same position. I hope that this modest proposal will commend itself to the Committee.
Lord Blease: I first wish to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I have never considered that the recognition in the charter of the BBC of the three national areas of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland constitutes a racist phenomenon. I do not think that charge has ever been levelled at the BBC, although the charter existed for many years before the arrival of the independent television authority. I want to take a broader approach to regionalism. We should pay particular regard to the needs of the three national regions.
Since the establishment in the United Kingdom some 30 years ago of independent broadcasting there is little doubt that the strength and the public importance of the independent television system lies in the standards, quality, production, management and presentation of its regional programmes. It is at the regional level that the commercial competence, programme standards and quality that the audience demand are put to the test and have to be met.
The regional companies are tested and tried in a judgmental sense not only by local communities but also particularly by local politicians, clerics and advertisers. During the passage of this Bill I believe I have detected a move towards regional amalgamations-I hope I am wrong about that—and some form of joint licensing under a common ownership. I believe that this would erode the vitality and dynamism of regionalism. The federal system, in my view, is drifting towards centralism.
The Committee will not be surprised that I wish to deal with this matter in the context of Northern Ireland. The population of Northern Ireland accounts for only 2.6 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom. The advertising potential and the revenue of any commercial television company in Northern Ireland is therefore curtailed. Despite the intense efforts of Ulster Television to promote developments in its revenue uptake, it still accounts for only 1.5 per cent of ITV's total revenue. Northern Ireland is also unique as a national area with deep rooted political, economic and religious problems as well as distinct

983
cultural characteristics which have been mentioned by both my noble friends. These require delicate handling in television terms. Special care and energy are needed to ensure that the high quality of local services is maintained and made available in this small region.
Apart from the special features of Northern Ireland, I believe that all regions of the United Kingdom have special regional needs and interests. The critical issues of regional broadcasting concern questions of equality and fairness within the federal network system of programme production, scheduling, financing and transmission. Some of those issues have been ably dealt with by noble Lords who have considerable experience in the broadcasting profession, in production skills and in finance management.
The point that I wish to make specifically relating to the amendment of my noble friends Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Morris of Castle Morris concerns the principle of quality threshold, which has been mentioned over and over again in the debate today. How is that quality threshold to be considered objectively, measured, adjusted and used in the judgmental sense of deciding who is to have the franchise? In the federal network system presented in the Bill, and to meet the distinctive programme needs of the various regions, can there be one uniform quality threshold? It will have to be adjusted to meet the particular needs of the individual areas.
In the Northern Ireland region Ulster Television has been judged by the provincial flavour and the good quality material which it has presented on television screens in Northern Ireland. I have a list of 12 programmes that have been presented this year by Ulster Television dealing with the culture and needs of Northern Ireland and developments in the region. They are not only of interest to Northern Ireland but also to people in the United Kingdom as a whole. Perhaps I may mention a few of those programmes.
"William's War", which was presented a few weeks ago, was a one-hour dramatised documentary produced by Ulster Television. It dealt with the interaction between William III of Orange, King James of England and King Louis XIV of France. That was well-received in Northern Ireland and has been networked in some of the other regions of the United Kingdom. "God's Frontiersmen" was a dramatised documentary in four one-hour episodes which traced the story of the Scots-Irish from the Lowlands of Scotland and the farmlands of Ulster through to their pioneering settlements in North America. "December Bride" was a prestigious Ulster Television film shot at Strangford Lough and based on a book by a Northern Irish author. It had its premiere at this year's Cannes film festival.
I am not speaking only of Irish language programmes but about programmes filmed to convey not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to a wider audience the culture, needs and identity of Northern Ireland. A further example is a programme called "A Grief Observed", which was a half-hour, award-winning documentary which followed the pregnancy of a young farmer's wife carrying a child with brain damage in the knowledge that it will be
984
born dead. That was a film which had particular significance in Northern Ireland but also had International relevance.
There are other programmes that I could mention in this connection. I have attempted to convey the imaginative and challenging programmes that have been screened in Northern Ireland and have been proven to pass the quality threshold test. I hope that that quality will be suitably weighed against any mere untested paper presentation and oral submission to an ITC panel and the films judged as reasonable programmes. I support the amendment tabled by my noble friends.
Lord Parry: Dylan Thomas has been mentioned. He said on one occasion that had he been born an Eskimo rather than a Welshman and lived on whales instead of in Wales things might have been different for him. So I understand the dilemma of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, at this late hour in seeking to grasp what we are trying to say. We are saying that the Welsh people, the Northern Irish people and the Scottish people have a particular identity. One of our professors, Professor Gwyn, Alf Williams, has said that although we Welsh lack almost every characteristic of a nation, we have a stubborn belief that we are one. It is in that sense that we put forward this amendment. Our country is a country in its own right, as other noble Lords have said.
The essential point that I want to make is that over the years that the BBC has existed the regions of England have contributed substantially to the growth and development of the television and radio industry. The nation of Wales has contributed out of all proportion to the national development of those media, and so indeed have Scotland and Northern Ireland.
At this late stage I shall only say that we have separate pools of talent in this nation. I believe that England is moving into closer identification with its regional areas. The day might well come when claims which can be substantiated are put forward on behalf of those regional areas. Just at the moment the richness of the culture in these nation states, and the contribution that it makes to the development of broadcasting within Britain and internationally, is so great that provision must be made within the Act for the Independent Broadcasting Authority just as it is for the BBC.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Birk: I think it is time that somebody from England got a word in. I shall make it short. Not very long ago, although it seems years ago now, on 11th July in Committee there was a reassurance given from the Government that it was unlikely that Wales would be split between two licence areas. That was the subject of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies on that occasion. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, the Minister who spoke for the Government, restated the view of the chairman designate of the ITC, George Russell, that the existing

985
15 ITV areas would remain; but he went on to say that the viability of a licence area would determine whether or not it would remain.
It seems to me, as it did to my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, when he spoke on an earlier amendment, that things have moved on and have changed a little since then. In an article in the Independent of Wednesday, 11th July, George Russell was quoted as saying:
"I wanted there to be 15"—
those are the areas—
"I haven't changed my mind. The 15 regionals are greatly desired by the public, but we know there is a slow drain of advertising revenue from the North and outlying areas to the centre and the South. Is this the proper shape [of ITV] for the 1990s? It is better [to redraw] than to have companies collapsing".
In my view the statement signals that the redrawing of the ITV map will be based on strict economic viability criteria and perhaps will not give due weight to the geographical, cultural or national coherence of the areas covered by the licences. Indeed, I understand that he has already commenced an analysis to see whether the five smallest regions of Grampian, Border, TSW, Ulster and Channel are viable. In these circumstances, it is important that this amendment should be supported and accepted. As has been clearly put before the Committee, what it seeks to do is to guarantee the special and national needs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
It is possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, pointed out, that the amendment should have gone further and sought to guarantee the identity of the English regions in the regional Channel 3 system, as all the English regions have their own special identity and characteristics. But that could be done in a different way or be added to later. In the meantime I believe that it is important that this amendment should be accepted. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Amendment No. 133—which at one stage looked like a Welsh symphony with an English drum and an Irish pipe thrown in—would require the ITC to have regard to the national needs of Scotland and Wales and the special needs of Northern Ireland when assessing applicants' proposed regional services in these areas. But Clause 16(2) requires all regional Channel 3 licensees to provide a suitable range of regional programmes which are of particular interest to those people living within the relevant area. Therefore a Channel 3 licensee for Wales, for example, would have to provide programmes which were of particular interest to the people of Wales. That is clearly spelt out in the wording in Clause 16(2) (c).
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, considers that the regional requirements in Clause 16(2) (c) and (d) are rather weak. This is the first time that a statutory requirement has been put into a Bill on this subject. It reflects the Government's desire that Channel 3 should continue as a regional service. Those requirements are designed to ensure
986
that all regions—and that includes the regions of England—receive a service which satisfies the respective regional interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked about the situation in Ulster and the difficulties that arise when dealing with the media in the Province. That will be a matter for the ITC. Special care and sensitivity will be needed in that regard. As a Scot, I am rather surprised that no mention was made of the Gaelic language as the Welsh language was referred to. I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to do something about the Gaelic language to bring it perhaps more into line with the way in which the Welsh language has been dealt with in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned Article 10(4) of the BBC's charter which lays down the responsibilities of the national broadcasting councils which exist for the BBC in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The present Bill does not require the establishment of similar national councils, although the ITC, following the good example which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will know, could, if it wished, establish advisory committees for those areas, and I imagine it will do so. Consequently such a provision would not be appropriate here.
It seems to me that we differ on the strength of the commitment in Clause 16(2) (c). I shall look most carefully to see whether the clause is strong enough in the light of what has been said. This will be done on a UK basis covering the regions of England as well as Scotland (and I speak as a Scot), Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not believe that we should single out the nations concerned, although of course the cultural differences have to be respected by the ITC. Of course the licensees would be very wrong if they did not have due regard to those cultural differences when they put in their bids to have a franchise.
I shall study the position in the light of what has been said. I am not persuaded that much needs to be done to what is on the face of the Bill at the moment. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, withdraws his amendment, I shall consider again the wording in the Bill as it stands. If it needs to be strengthened in any way, I should like to consider that before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the Minister for the tenor of his response. He quite rightly identified the critical question: whether Clause 16(2) (c) provides an adequate defence for the national identity and culture of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am content that the Government should consider the application of Clause 16 (2)(c)(i) to the traditional regions of England. Obviously one must study carefully the Minister's reply; but as he has undertaken to review the clause, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment. However, I reserve the right to come back on Report if by then we are not satisfied with the response of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

987
Clause 17 [Award of licence to person submitting highest cash bid]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 17, line 6, leave out ("(subject to section 18)").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 17, line 18, at end insert:
("(13) In a case where the licence has been awarded to any person by virtue of the operation of this section, in accordance with any provision of this Part, on the revocation of an earlier grant of the licence, subsection (12) shall have effect as if—

(a) paragraph (b) were omitted; and

(b) the matters specified in that subsection included an indication of the circumstances in which the licence has been awarded to that person.").

The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may say that it may be convenient for the Committee to speak also to Amendments Nos. 140, 185 to 187, 194, 196, 205, 218, 219, 221, 277, 281, 297, 300 to 302 and 305 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. These are essentially drafting improvements and consequential amendments related to the revocation of licences and other penalty clauses in various parts of the Bill.
However, there are two changes of some substance. The first refers to Amendments Nos. 135, 219 and 277 dealing with Clauses 17, 71 and 95 which relate to Channels 3 and 5, local delivery and national radio licences respectively. These amendments are intended to clarify what information is to be published where a licence has been revoked and subsequently granted to another applicant in the original competitive tender process. In such circumstances there is no point in publishing again the names of those applicants who passed the quality threshold in the original process. But there is a need to set out why the licence has been revoked and granted to another particular company. This is the purpose of these amendments.
The second refers to Amendments Nos. 185 and 301 dealing with Clauses 37 and 104 which relate to ITC arid Radio Authority licences generally. These amendments provide that where licensees have simply ceased to provide any service before the expiry of the licence—possibly following a refusal to renew a licence—then the regulatory body can immediately revoke the licence. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: We are grateful to the Minister for the explanation of this series of amendments dealing with revocation. At this time of night I have little to say about them. It is clear and fair, as the Minister has proposed, that if there is a revocation between the grant and award of the licence one should carry on and offer it to the next highest bidder and not go through the whole auction process again. However, if the revocation occurs after the award or the start of the service, do the Government intend that the auction procedure should be repeated?
Viscount Ullswater: No, I understand that the auction is not to be carried out again.
988
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 17, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Birk: I wish to oppose the Motion that Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, associates himself with the Motion. As we know, Clause 17 lies at the heart of the Bill and expresses in the clearest possible language the Government's guiding principle; namely, that the largest amount of money and not the highest quality is the fundamental arbiter of the licence allocation. Despite the admirable work in the other place by the Opposition and the flexibility of the Minister in defining exceptional circumstances in subsection (4), nevertheless the primary and overriding part of the clause states quite clearly:
"the Commission shall, after considering all the cash bids submitted by the applicants for a Channel 3 licence, award the licence to the applicant who submitted the highest bid".
Therefore, in those particulars the Bill remains exactly the same as when it first arrived. It does not say that the ITC may award the licence to the highest cash bid subject to qualification. It unequivocally states that the ITC shall award the licence to the one person who puts up the most money.
The Government will claim that Clause 16 provides a quality hurdle of substance to ensure that applicants can deliver a minimum set of programme requirements. Nonetheless, once an applicant has surmounted or somersaulted the hurdle, quality is irrelevant in the process and the highest cash bid alone determines who will win the licence.
We welcome ministerial attempts to address the anxieties of the industry and those outside it; namely, that quality is subordinate to money. However, the exceptional circumstances in subsection (4) in which a lower cash bid can be accepted have been redrafted twice but there is still just that one word "exceptional". In normal or unexceptional circumstances, which will obviously be the majority of cases by virtue of this definition, the provisions of subsection (1) will apply without qualification; that is, the highest bid will win all.
Unfortunately, Clause 17 reflects the Government's philosophy from which it is very hard to move them. We were within 17 votes of achieving that this afternoon but that is not quite enough. However, we shall continue to try but without any assured feeling of success.
The quality of broadcasting, like the quality of life, suffers enormously when it is subjected to the primacy of the highest cash bid - the quickest profit, the fastest buck. The Exchequer does not need the relatively small sum which the cash bid system will produce but broadcasting does. The quality of the programmes must depend to some extent on the money which is invested in them. The key purpose of the highest cash bid system is not to allocate licences in an objective fashion nor is it to secure a fair return for the taxpayers on the sale of a valuable asset. A fair return to the taxpayers, who are also the viewers of television

989
and listeners to radio, would be to give them value for money and not just what they pay by virtue of a licence, by subscription or by owning a dish but what they receive by way of programme quality, diversity and range. It is a pure free market ideology - I am not sure that "pure" is the right word - set loose with the most powerful medium of communication in this country.
Clause 17 is the root and branch of the Bill. That is why we believe that this clause, above all, should be ripped out and replaced by something better which will stand the test of time. No doubt the next Labour Government will repeal this Bill and bring forward legislation to give quality and not cash its rightful place at the centre of broadcasting. However, we will have to wait for that. It is unpleasant to contemplate having this Bill on the statute book in its present form. That is why we are opposed to Clause 17 remaining part of the Bill.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: At an early stage in our discussions today I gave notice that in due course we would oppose this clause in principle. Even as a natural pessimist I did not foresee that it would be quite as late as it is now. Therefore, I shall not weary the Committee by going over the arguments put by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, so thoroughly and so necessarily, but it is important even at this hour to put on record our fundamental objections to the methods used in the Bill.
This is the heart of the Bill, as we keep saying. The bidding process, even with all the welcome modifications that the Government have produced, still seems to us to be wrong in principle. I am bound to say that my worries about the way it might work were considerably underlined and enhanced by the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. He put forward a different formula for calculating the way in which the bids should be paid. I confess that I did not wholly follow the technicalities of his argument but it seemed to me that on the basis of his calculations the bid system has grave dangers for the quality of commercial television in this country. It is for those reasons that I am happy to join the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in opposing the clause.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will not oppose the clause too hard. I can appreciate that they have a different view of the working of the Bill than the Government. We believe that the competitive tender is the fairest and the most transparent way of allocating licences for commercial television.
Clearly there will be a number of people who will compete for licences. I have always believed that the quality threshold is essential, and in order to keep up quality contenders must show that, to compete for this prize, they can provide a suitable service of adequate standard and of quality. It is only then that the bids will come into operation.
The noble Baroness said that decisions will be made on the largest amount of money and not on the highest
990
quality. However, once applicants have got over the quality barrier their applications will all be of high quality. The noble Baroness would prefer, once we have selected those who have achieved the quality threshold, to let someone decide that one is better than the other in terms of what she considers is quality. I can only assume that she would prefer the system which operates now. But the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said there must be a better system. He does not like the present system. He thinks that there should be a change. Therefore, it is pointless to suggest that we should keep to the old system and we believe that the Bill proposes a better way forward.
Baroness Birk: It is not the same thing. It does not mean that we go back to the old system entirely, nor does it mean that, because there is a quality hurdle, money is not the arbiter. It is. We have shown in detail that it is. Obviously the Government think that they have a better system but it is not right for them to say that money is not the final arbiter, because it is.
There are differences. An amendment we put forward earlier today proposed a tailored, three-stage system which is very different from the way in which the IBA has been operating. So it is not a question of either having the new system that the Government have in the Bill or going back to an old system. I assure the Minister that it is something different.
Earl Ferrers: It may be that it is something different. However, once the various applicants have gone through the quality threshold, either it is the highest bidder who wins the prize, as it were, or someone chooses. That is a subjective judgment about which people might have different views. The whole point of the quality threshold is that it is designed to ensure that only those applicants who are capable of providing a high quality service are eligible to bid for licences in the first place. Thereafter, I do not believe that there is a need to make fine distinctions on the relative quality of the applicants' proposals. That does not mean that all the proposals will be exactly the same. If each applicant were given the right to broadcast it may be that the results would be different but the quality would be up to the proper standard.
We accept that there may be exceptional circumstances which may include a situation where the quality of the programmes offered by one applicant was exceptionally higher than that of the applicant putting forward the highest cash bid. If that were so, it would be justifiable for the ITC to award the licence to a lower bidder. I do not think that I can say more as I know that the noble Baroness will not be persuaded. I hope that she will think that the provision is not quite as bad as she makes it out to be.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 136:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Report on implementation
.—(1) The Commission shall, three years after the implementation of this Act, prepare a report to Parliament on the implementation of the Act.
(2) The Commission in the report to Parliament under subsection (1) above shall make particular reference to—

991

(a) the general quality of programmes included in the services;

(b) the diversity of programmes included in the services and their appeal to specialist audiences; and

(c) the strength of regional programming in the services.").

The noble Lord said: This new clause follows a discussion that we had at an earlier stage of our debate It reflects the fact that there is a fundamental difference of character between the future ITC and the present IBA. Unlike the IBA, the future ITC is to be primarily a licensing organisation. It will certainly not have the day-to-day, week-to-week regulatory responsibilities of the present IBA. It is charged with having a lighter touch altogether in terms of progamme matters. It will deal with any problems that arise about the way in which the licensees are fulfilling the conditions of their licences after the event rather than before, as happens at present.
In the light of this major change in the character of the commission that will be responsible for the new system and in view of the fact that it is a radically new system, we feel that it is very important that after a reasonable period of time there should be a thorough appraisal of how well the new system is working. Three years appears to be a reasonable period. In effect the clause proposes a kind of triennial report on the way the new broadcasting system has operated. The commission is asked to report to Parliament on the general quality of programmes included in the services; on the degree to which diversity has been fulfilled, which is one of the principal demands made on the new licensees; on the degree to which they have fulfilled their commitment to appeal to specialist audiences; and on the strength of the regional programming in the services.
I hope that in this case the Government will feel that this is a constructive and sensible proposal and that it will be of general service to Parliament as a whole. I also hope that after an appropriate time it will give us the chance of seeing how the new system is working. Perhaps the noble Earl is right and that the fears we have expressed about various aspects of the Bill will prove to be unfounded. Let us see. It is very important that Parliament should have the opportunity to take a measure of how the new system is working. I hope that even at this time of night we might have a positive response from the Government. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has set out the case very well. If the Bill goes through in its present form, and after three years the report shows that our worst fears have not been realised, I too shall be happy.
The Earl of Stockton: Before the Minister replies I should like to add my voice to those of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. It would be an extremely good idea to have these reports laid before Parliament as indicated in the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The first new clause seeks to impose an additional duty on the ITC to prepare a report to Parliament on the operation of the
992
new legislation three years after its implementation, and would require the report to make particular reference to general quality and other considerations. The second new clause requires them to assess the programme service provided by local delivery operators. We think that this is both wrong in principle and unnecessary in practice. The Bill already requires the ITC to prepare an annual report on its proceedings for the Secretary of State who must lay copies of the report before Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is quite right. We have been here before on this matter. When we debated Amendment No. 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, which would have required the ITC's report to include an assessment of the programme service provided by Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees, I undertook to consider whether enough had been written into the statute. I can now announce that the Government will bring forward an amendment on Report to require the ITC to comment in its annual report on the extent to which licensees had fulfilled the undertakings given during the application process and which would have been written as licence conditions.
We do not feel it necessary for the ITC to comment on each licence condition of each licensee where licence conditions have been fulfilled. Instead, it is intended that this provision will give the ITC scope to make a general comment and to make reference to specific licensees when it feels it appropriate so to do. We certainly envisage that the ITC's annual report will be both comprehensive and pertinent, and we expect it to include many of the areas set out in the proposed clause. But we believe that the ITC should essentially decide for itself both the form and the content of the report it makes. The general duties in respect of the ITC's report match those for the other regulatory bodies in the Bill and we do not think it would be right to multiply these statutory obligations. Parliament will have the opportunity to examine the reports of all these broadcasting bodies in full, well before three years are up.
Turning to the second new clause, the Bill deliberately distinguishes between the local delivery operator who runs the system and the service provider. An example would be the distinction between, say, Westminster Cable on the one hand, and Sky on the other. Cable and MVDS provide a convenient means by which a number of channels can be received by the viewer. In general, with the possible exception of some local channel, all local delivery operators are likely to offer a similar package of programming. I doubt, therefore, whether it would be very illuminating for the ITC to publish an assessment of their services on an individual basis. It is, however, quite likely that the ITC's annual report will give details of the type and range of programming carried by local delivery operators. The Cable Authority has always included such an account in its annual reports. I think that this will meet the point behind the noble Lord's second new clause.
I hope the noble Lord will understand from my response that we regard the annual reports of the ITC

993
as extremely important. I trust that this will be the basis on which we and he will be able to judge the performance.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the Minister sits down, will he be kind enough to tell me to what he is referring when he says the "second new clause"? It may be that I am beginning to flag a little, but can be clarify that he is referring to Amendment No. 167?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am referring to both parts of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 136. The first section refers to the three-year implementation requirement and the second section refers to the "particular reference" which the commission shall make in the report to Parliament. We take it that that is what the noble Lord is aiming to achieve by way of the amendment. However, if that was not his objective, then I apologise. It may be that I have gone rather wider in my reply than the noble Lord expected.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I confess that I did not know that that was what I was aiming for. I must catch up on the detail. I shall therefore concentrate on the Minister's reply as regards Amendment No. 136. As this appears to be a Bill in which bidding is very much at the heart of the matter, I am bound to concede that in this case he has out-bid me. I asked for a three-year report, but he has offered me an annual report. I can only express my thanks to him and add the cautionary note that I shall wait to study the amendment which he brings forward to see how far it satisfies us.
I do not dispute the assertion that one should not need to go into great detail as regards every single licensee. If there is a licensee who is causing anxiety to the ITC, it is important that the report should mention the fact to Parliament. However, we shall have to wait and see what form it takes. In my view, an annual report is a good deal better than a triennial report. I am most grateful to the Minister.
Baroness Birk: Before we conclude the matter, can the Minister assure us that the new amendment will be prepared in time for the Report stage, and that we shall have time to study it before it is discussed in this Chamber?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I can assure Members of the Committee that it will be prepared in time for the Report stage. We have, at least, some considerable time to prepare the amendment. I hope that it will be tabled in good time.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Holder of Channel 3 licence to give security against failure to maintain proposed service]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 17, line 19, leave out subsections (1) to (3).
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 are pre-empted by the Committee's agreement to Amendment No. 137.
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 17, line 46, leave out ("revoke the licence,") and insert ("serve on him a notice revoking the licence as from the time the notice is served on him,").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 18, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 3.
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 105. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 18, line 21, leave out subsections (7) to (11) and insert:
("(7) Where the Commission revoke a Channel 3 licence under this section or under section 37, they shall serve on the licence holder a notice requiring him to pay to them, within a specified period, a financial penalty of the prescribed amount.
(8) In subsection (7) "the prescribed amount" means—

(a) 7 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for the last complete accounting period of the licence holder (as determined in accordance with section 19(2) to (6)); or

(b) where his first complete accounting period has not yet ended, 7 per cent. of the amount which the Commission estimate would have been the qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as so determined).

(9) Any financial penalty payable by any body by virtue of subsection (7) shall, in addition to being recoverable from that body as provided by section 63(5), be recoverable by the Commission as a debt due to them from any person who controls that body.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Additional payments to he made in respect of Channel 3 licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 144 and 144A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 19, line 13, after ("him") insert ("or by any connected person").
The noble Viscount said: I think that it would be convenient if in moving this amendment I were to speak also to Amendments Nos. 146 to 152 to Clause 19 and similar amendments, Amendments Nos. 285 to 292, to Clause 97 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
These amendments make clear that the qualifying revenue of a licensee includes the revenue of any person connected to that licensee. The amendments are simply designed to ensure that a licensee could not reduce his qualifying revenue by arranging for all or part of it to be paid to an associated company. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: As I understand it, this amendment introduces a potential loophole in the Bill that licence holders may be able to use to exploit and reduce any fees or fines payable to the ITC. I take it that that is its objective?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 146–152:
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("by him").
Page 19, line 20, after ("holder") insert ("or any connected person").
Page 19, line 21, leave out ("him") and insert ("the licence holder').
Page 19, line 25, leave out ("the licence holder and") and insert:
("(a) the licence holder or any connected person, and (b) ").
Page 19, line 26, after ("holder") insert ("or any connected person").
Page 19, line 35, leave out ("the licence holder, in any accounting period of his,") and insert (", in any accounting period of the licence holder, the licence holder or any connected person").
Page 19, line 42, leave out ("him") and insert ("the licence holder or the connected person, as the case may be").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 20, line 19, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Duration and renewal of Channel 3 licences]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 20, line 28, leave out ("four") and insert ("two").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to stop licence-holders taking unfair advantage of their position in the market by bidding too soon for renewal. There should be a standard point at which applications for renewal of a licence can be received. Two years should be sufficient for the presentation and adjudication of applications. Four years may be too long and yet too short to assess the work and the progress of the company.
Each company granted a licence should plan for its initial licence period only. If it is successful by all the criteria set by the ITC it should feel confident that it will win renewal in the face of competition. The ITC should set aside the final two years of the licence period to re-assess the shape and needs of the area to be served; to access the performance of the current holder and to examine the alternatives and potential competitors. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: There is a balance to be struck in determining the point at which Channel 3 and 5 licensees should be able to apply to have their licences renewed. Clearly, licensees will need to have operated satisfactorily for an adequate period in order to demonstrate to the ITC their fitness to carry on with
996
the licence. On the other hand, the application cannot sensibly be delayed beyond the point at which the ITC would have to begin the new licensing round if it were minded not to renew a licence. We believe that six years strikes a sensible balance. It is long enough to judge whether a licensee has performed satisfactorily and should have his licence renewed; but it is short enough to effect adjustments in the licence price, which changes in economic conditions may require.
Amendment No. 154 would not permit licensees to apply for renewal until two years before the end of the licence period. The noble Baroness feels that the final two years should be spent in reviewing the licensee to see whether he has kept up to the mark, but it takes about two years to undertake a new round of licensing, and that would not give time to negotiate renewal terms with existing licensees. We therefore consider the amendment to be impractical.
Our general view on renewal of licences is that there should be a presumption in favour of renewal, providing the licensee has sustained the high quality service required under the licence, and providing the ITC does not intend to change the licence area. That is the purpose of Clause 20(5). Its removal would give the ITC total discretion about whether to renew a Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence. It would enable the ITC to refuse a licence for any reason, however arbitrary, without needing to explain its decision. Amendment No. 155 is therefore unacceptable.
Government Amendments Nos. 163, 207, and 220 are merely drafting improvements to the renewal Clauses 20, 48 and 73. Amendment No. 163, for example, makes it clear that in relation to a renewed licence, the end of the licence period means the end of the period for which the licence has been renewed.
1 a.m.
Baroness Birk: I do not know whether it is a drafting error or the Minister has misunderstood. Amendment No. 155, which deletes subsection (5), removes the right to automatic renewal. It does not remove the presumption which remains that an incumbent who genuinely provides a good service will surely be in a favoured position to retain the licence anyway. There is no desire either on my part or under the amendment to cause unnecessary disruption to the services and uncertainty for the staff employed by licence holders.
However, we feel it is wrong that there should be a presumption of almost automatic renewal of a licence, provided only that the licence holder has not manifestly failed to provide the promised service. It must be wrong that a licence holder seems potentially to hold a licence in perpetuity. There must be something to prevent that extreme on the one hand. On the other hand, what we propose would not remove the presumption that the licence would continue but also it would at least give the ITC some flexibility.
Earl Ferrers: There is plenty of flexibility. It is true that the presumption is that there should be a renewal, provided the licensee has maintained a high quality and the ITC does not intend to change the licence

997
area. Without that, if the noble Baroness's intention were to come about, there would be a renewed round of bidding every 10 years. We feel that that would be unfair to the existing companies and that they ought to be presumed to have a chance to renew their licence unless they fall down on their performance. There is a flexibility: the ITC is not obliged to renew the licence. If it does not wish to do so, it may embark on a new round of bids.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The four-year proposal is generous. There is a 10-year contract and after six years the company can apply to have it renewed. That seems to me to be an extraordinarily short time to put the licence holder to the test. Therefore I strongly support the idea of two years as proposed by my noble friend.
The noble Earl is inclined to poke a little fun at my better way of the past. One of the better ways in which the whole system can be organised is open to the Government under the Bill. It is to enable some kind of staggering to deal with the problem of whether a licence should be renewed. For the whole country all at once to be subject to all contracts being up for bidding is a cumbersome process. It seems to me that the rolling proposal, provided there was a longer initial period and a period nearer the final termination of the contract, offers an opportunity for flexibility.
Earl Ferrers: There is an attraction in the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. However, there are practical difficulties. When I first addressed my mind to this, I thought the same as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—four years seemed a long time and two years would be better. However, if we are to have a renewal of the licensing system, the process takes two years. We must then be able to evaluate it before the two years. Therefore we need to evaluate the licence possibly three years before the end of the licence period. So we have said in the Bill that four years before the end a licensee may apply for a new licence. That gives time for the ITC to consider how the applicant has done and evaluate it. Then if the commission thinks it necessary for the licence to undergo a new set of negotiations, that can be done. But that in itself would take two years.
If a licensee applies after six years for a new licence and is given it, that licence may last for 10 years. However, it does not run contiguously from the end of the first 10 years of the first licence. In other words, it would not be 20 years. If after six years the licensee applied for a new licence and was given a 10-year licence, it would run from the end of, it may be, the seventh year. There would not be a 20-year run.
Baroness Birk: It is too late to continue with this amendment. I believe we have reached the end of the road for the moment. I reserve the right to bring the amendment back at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 156:
998
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("any such conditions as arc mentioned in section 18(1)") and insert ("the conditions included in the licence in pursuance of subsection (1) of section (Conditions requiring holder of Channel 3 or 5 licence to deliver promised service) (whether as originally imposed or as varied under subsection (2) of that section)").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 156, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 177 and 190, all of which stand in my name. The substantive amendment, No. 177, creates a new clause, which will require the ITC to lay down conditions in Channel 3 and 5 licences to ensure that the service provided accords with the licensees' programme proposals and that the licensees will implement their proposals on training and on regional employment and facilities where appropriate. The clause, therefore, ensures that applicants will not be able to give undertakings which they do not intend to keep. There is, however, a provision for the ITC to vary such conditions, with the consent of the licensee, where this is necessary in the light of changing circumstances.
It was always intended that a licensee's programme promises could be included as licence conditions by virtue of the provision in Clause 18(1). However, this provision has been deleted as part of the amendment associated with performance bonds. The new clause therefore replaces this provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 21, line 5, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This amendment was tabled as a probing amendment to find out basically what the terms of the subsection mean. Looking back at the relevant subsection of Clause 17, I understand that it deals with applicants who may be using sources of funds which are inappropriate, unacceptable or illegal. I am not clear what is involved here. A few brief words of explanation would be helpful. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am quite sure that a few brief words of explanation would be most helpful. However, I am not so sure that I can provide them at the moment. I thought we had discussed this amendment with Amendment No. 110.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am sorry. That is correct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 157A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 21, line 15, at end insert ("and").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 21, line 20, leave out from ("renewed") to end of line 22.
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 161 and 161A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 21, line 36, leave out from ("terms") to end of line 40.
The noble Viscount said: This was spoken to with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 21, line 47, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 6 on page 22 and insert ("and
(b) the reference in section 37(3A) to the end of the period for which a Channel 3 licence is to continue in force shall,
1000
in relation to the licence, be construed as a reference to").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, 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.
House adjourned at nine minutes past one o'clock.

  VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES: EC "EUROPLATE"
  VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES: EC "EUROPLATE"
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION REGULATIONS
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION REGULATIONS
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY: REVIEW CONFERENCE
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY: REVIEW CONFERENCE
  UNHCR: UK CONTRIBUTION
  UNHCR: UK CONTRIBUTION
  COMPANY REGISTERS: CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT
  COMPANY REGISTERS: CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT