Sitting of 19 July 1990

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

    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration of Lords amendment read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 24 July at Seven o'clock.

    MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Wednesday 25 July.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 25 July.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [ 12 July],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Tuesday 24 July at Seven o'clock.
    Mr. Speaker: As the remaining seven Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 25 July.

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 25 July.

    SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 25 July.

    EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 25 July.

    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 25 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Republic of Ireland (Transport Links)
    Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Irish Minister for Tourism and Transport to discuss transport links between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The day before yesterday.
    Mr. Stott: I thank the Minister for that most encouraging reply. Is he aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I fully support the plans agreed between Northern Ireland Railways and the Irish railway company for the upgrading of the Belfast to Dublin line? Will the Minister confirm that the £54 million grant provided by the EEC regional fund for that project is specifically dedicated to making cross-border and other improvements to the line? In other words, is not it a dedicated budget? Does the Minister have any idea of when the Irish Government will give the plan their seal of approval?
    Mr. Bottomley: Mr. Seamus Brennan made it plain that the Irish Government are committed to improving and maintaining the line. I cannot confirm dedicated funds for the line. That is as much for the Irish as for us to speak to the Community about. We have agreed with the Irish Government to undertake a detailed examination of the costs and benefits, and I hope that we shall be able to report progress to our respective Parliaments shortly.
    Mr. Kilfedder: May we have an assurance that the IRA will not be allowed to destroy that important link between Belfast and Dublin? Does the Minister agree that the IRA's campaign to destroy it is indicative of its opposition to a rapprochement between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and between the people of Ulster and the people of the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes. The IRA's action is essentially partitionist. I remind the House of the words of the Republic's Justice Minister, Ray Burke, that it is only by an act of God that there has not been a major disaster. The IRA is relying on the security forces to get every incident exactly right. I hope that those who mourn over the level crossing crash outside Ballymena will realise that the IRA risks such accidents every time that it places a real or hoax bomb on the line.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As Northern Ireland exports only 5 per cent. of its products to the Republic, does the Minister accept that as we move towards the single market, a first-class rail and road system between Belfast and Dublin is a necessity? Does he share the disappointment of most people in Northern Ireland that the Dublin Government seem to be rejecting the offer of financial assistance made by the European Community, to provide a fast rail link between Belfast and Dublin? Is not that a further example of Dublin saying no to co-operation with Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Bottomley: I think that my earlier remarks made it plain that the opposite is the case. I trust the Irish Transport Minister when he says that the Republic is committed to improving the line. A rail link between the two capitals of Ireland must make more sense and represent a better option than having to drive between the two. In the same way, it would be a good idea if the railway from the north-west ran to Belfast and on to Dublin. That, too, would be a better option than driving. Both would make sense in terms of the environment and reducing road casualties. It would also help the economic grography of Northern Ireland to improve rather than worsen.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: It is important to keep the rail link open, but has the Minister had discussions about the channel tunnel? Which way will its traffic run? Is he aware that a large sum of money has been granted to the Irish Republic to strengthen culverts and to widen roads, but nothing seems to be done north of the border to maintain the present level of traffic through Larne port?
    Mr. Bottomley: The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who is responsible for the economy, and I had a meeting with the Belfast chamber of commerce. We all agreed that we must give business in Northern Ireland a choice of routes. The Dublin chamber of commerce has also made it clear that much business in the south prefers the roads and railways in the north and that is why so much of its traffic goes through Warrenpoint, Belfast and Larne. We aim to maintain our competitive advantage while seeing improvements north and south.

    Extradition
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests have been made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the extradition of persons sought for (a) terrorist crimes and (b) other crimes since 1 April; and how many persons in each category have been sent back to Northern Ireland as a result of those requests.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): The answer to both parts of the question is none, Sir.
    Mr. Ross: Does the fact that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has not seen fit to make any requests for extradition finally confirm the impression of many people in Northern Ireland that the Government now believe that there is no chance whatever of the Irish Republic ever honouring any international obligation in relation to the extradition of those charged with terrorist crimes in the United Kingdom in general, not merely in Northern Ireland? Will the Government now stop making excuses for the Irish Republic, which has behaved most abominably in that regard?
    Mr. Cope: I do not make excuses, but the RUC sends a request for a warrant from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, first when there is good reason to believe that a particular individual is in the Republic and, secondly, when we have sufficient evidence to succeed with a warrant and, we hope, to mount a prosecution when an individual is returned. Since 1985 the general record has improved and we are working to improve it still further.
    Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the number of guilty persons roaming about in safety and comfort in the Irish Republic because the Dublin Government will not take the necessary steps to extradite known terrorists to the United Kingdom and the fact that there is alarm and concern at the imprisonment in the United Kingdom of four innocent persons—the UDR four from Armagh—when will action be taken to provide proper extradition proceedings between the United Kingdom and Dublin and to allow the four innocent men from Armagh to be released?
    Mr. Cope: We are constantly promised new evidence on the so-called UDR four, but so far we have not received any that would allow the case to be sent back to the courts and we shall not impose a political judgment on the sentence of the courts. Since January 1988, 14 people have been returned to the United Kingdom, orders for delivery in respect of a further six people are the subject of appeal proceedings before the Irish courts and the Irish state has successfully appealed against the decision of the district court not to order the return of a further two persons. Therefore, a number of terrorist and non-terrorist cases are still pending.

    Transport Infrastructure
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve Northern Ireland's transport infrastructure.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The proposals are in Northern Ireland's transportation programme, 1989–1993, presented last September to the European Commission.
    Mr. Forsythe: Will the Minister explain why his Department has not yet taken action on Northern Ireland Railways' urgent request in August 1989 for authority to fit automatic half-barriers to 11 open crossings? Is he aware that those crossings include the one at Slaght, the scene of a fatal accident in March this year, and Umbra, the scene of a near accident last month? Will he urgently introduce that legislation and alert road users by publicly listing those 11 crossings?
    Mr. Bottomley: I shall do what the hon. Gentleman asked at the end of his question. I should like to make sure that the Department and all others concerned provide all the evidence to the inquiry into the Slaght tragedy before we start giving out evidence across the Floor of the House. All of it will be made public.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that an important part of the improvement to Northern Ireland's transport infrastructure would be an improvement in British Rail's infrastructure from the channel tunnel to the land-sea link to Northern Ireland? What representations is my hon. Friend making to his colleagues in the Department of Transport and to British Rail to ensure that Northern Ireland can take full advantage of the channel tunnel when it is open?
    Mr. Bottomley: We work closely with the Department of Transport. Most of the links to Northern Ireland will also bring improved services to my hon. Friend's constituency.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further discussions he has had about the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): Both the United Kingdom and the Irish Governments remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which provides a valuable framework within which they can discuss issues of mutual interest and concern. However, in the context of any discussions on possible future arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland, I would give serious consideration to any implications for the agreement that such arrangements might have.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was brought in before the previous general election, has turned out to be nothing more than a house of cards? The Government, along with some others, are trying to find another type of superstructure before the next general election, as many Governments have done for the past 20 years. If the Government and other parties can cheer the collapse of the Berlin wall, it is high time that we got rid of the border and brought out the British troops.
    Mr. Brooke: As I remarked at a previous Question Time, the views expressed in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question do not enjoy widespread support in the House.
    Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. Friend beginning to understand that whose who are best able to represent nationalists in Northern Ireland are those who have been elected as their representatives to this House rather than the Government of that only foreign power whose constitution lays claim to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: In answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I gave the Government's attitude to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am sure that I am joined by the rest of the House in paying tribute to those in the House who represent the nationalist community in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Maginnis: Since the Dublin Supreme Court has found in the case of McGimpsey and McGimpsey v. Ireland that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is complementary to the territorial claim enshrined in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, is the Secretary of State surprised to discover that the Dublin Government have vetoed his political initiative? Is not it the case that the Irish Republic has a constitutional imperative to be obstructive when there is any chance of acknowledging that Ulster Unionists should have a right or rights?
    Mr. Brooke: No one has vetoed the initiative on which we are engaged, although I acknowledge that it is within the power of anybody to slow progress. It was said of the great cricketer, Denis Compton, that when he called someone for a run it was not so much an instruction as the opening of negotiations. In order to secure the opening of negotiations, it is not within my power simply to give an instruction.

    Disabled Pupils
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools have wheelchair access for disabled pupils.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Schools designed for disabled pupils include 38 primary and 22 secondary special units and 46 special schools, which cover both primary and secondary age groups. Specific adaptations for disabled pupils have also been made at 62 other primary and 29 secondary schools. Many other schools, especially primary schools, are accessible without adaptations.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good news for children with disabilities and their parents that many more such children are able to participate in mainstream schools? However, they are able to participate in mainstream education only if they have the same choice as other children. That choice often depends on adequate staffing and therapy levels and, of course, on adequate physical access. Too many schools, particularly secondary schools, are not yet able to provide that true choice of education.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that what he said in the first part of his question will be widely accepted. I certainly accept it. It is important that children with a disability have a degree of choice and educational excellence. As far as is possible within Northern Ireland, we try to ensure that that choice is available, especially in the secondary sector.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that many schools still have not made the necessary adaptations, so that we are simply conning ourselves when we speak of parental choice? Is not that choice severely limited not only because of a lack of access to the schools, but because of a lack of proper access to classrooms within the schools?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. It is important that as great a choice as possible should be available, and we are agreed on that. I cannot recall any instances of concern about secondary schools being expressed to me, although I accept that there tends to be more difficulty with secondary than with primary schools. If the hon. Gentleman would like to bring specific instances to my attention, I should be happy to hear from him. Given the concern that he has expressed, I shall certainly make appropriate inquiries.

    Political Parties (Discussions)
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with political parties in the Province.
    Mr. Brooke: During the past six months I have had a series of discussions with the political parties in Northern Ireland and with representatives of the Irish Government, each of which accepts that talks would need to address, as part of the process, internal arrangements, north-south and east-west relations. The constructive approach taken by everyone has produced a large measure of agreement
    1158
    about the various preliminary points of principle and also about the structure, format, and timing any talks might have.
    It is, of course, for the other potential participants in the talks to assess the best interests of those whom they represent. However, given the potential benefits of political dialogue, my judgment is that, with continuing goodwill, the outstanding matters that divide them could be resolved so that talks could be announced. I am ready to continue my efforts to facilitate the process, but such an announcement clearly cannot yet be made.
    Mr. MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House wishes him godspeed in those delicate negotiations? Does he agree that the political leaders of the various constitutional parties in the Province have shown exemplary restraint during the past few weeks while negotiations have been taking place? It must have been difficult for them in their constituencies and elsewhere. It is an encouraging development, and we should wish them well.
    Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the sentiments that he expressed at the beginning of his question. I concur with him in praising the restraint that everyone has shown during the past fortnight in ensuring that the possibility of talks remains and can be advanced.
    Mr. Ashdown: Notwithstanding the question and the answer, with whose sentiments I agree, did the Secretary of State note the comments of Bishop Cahal Daly at the funeral of yet another young sectarian murder victim yesterday? He said that those who would put obstacles in the way of the talks initiative would be letting the people down. Would not those who would put obstacles in the way of the talks bear a heavy responsibility if those talks were to fail?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the nature of his question. I would not wholly concur with Bishop Cahal Daly—although I am grateful for his comments—about being able to embark on such talks without conditions, because I think that there are perfectly understandable conditions that everyone would bring to the talks. The fact that the bishop expressed that thought is a vivid index of the desire in Northern Ireland for talks to begin.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State accept that if agreement were reached on the subject matters that he has listed to the House, in effect it would be a new agreement that would replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Has progress been made since he last spoke to the House, and do those with whom he has spoken since then share his view that the gap has narrowed?
    Mr. Brooke: Obviously, in the fortnight since I last addressed the House on the matter, talks with several parties have continued for a fairly long time. The gap has been narrowed, which gives one encouragement in persisting in the task, but there is still a gap.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that all those involved in discussions over a long period of time, like the right hon. Gentleman himself, have also shown great restraint and have been consistently constructive? Does he agree that political parties in Northern Ireland are under enormous pressure and that such restraint augurs well for the future? Before he considers camping on the

    1159
    racecourse, he should realise that a weekend is a short time in Northern Irish politics and that every last effort must be made to ensure that proper discussions and negotiations begin as soon as possible.
    Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in endorsing the restraint and the confidentiality that have been shown throughout the negotiations, which demonstrate the desire of the parties to make progress. The hon. Gentleman asked about camping on the racecourse. That metaphor was constructed for a particular purpose, and every time I reflect on it I am struck by what a dangerous process it would be. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that we should want to take every step before doing that.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Was not my right hon. Friend's honest initiative doomed from the moment the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic insisted that the Irish Republic should be consulted at every stage of the negotiations? Was not the Anglo-Irish Agreement the biggest mistake the Government have ever made? Why should a foreign state have a say in the government of Her Majesty's subjects?
    Mr. Brooke: I should not want in any way to amend my hon. Friend's question, but he was slightly tempting providence in calibrating the scale of the mistake that might have been made. The involvement of the Irish Government in internal talks has not been an issue between the two Governments. As I told the House during the debate on the renewal of powers, the Irish Government have acknowledged that they would not be directly involved in any inter-party talks about internal arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland. However, there is general recognition that any comprehensive political accommodation must emerge from a process of dialogue involving all the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the British and Irish Governments.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the Anglo-Irish Agreement gave a veto to many parties including the Dublin Government, and as it now appears that that veto is being exercised, will the Secretary of State consider those matters of reform and progress in Northern Ireland that are not connected with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, such as giving British Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland the same rights as English, Welsh and Scottish Members, and reforming the system of local government in Northern Ireland or, as a cricketing fan does he prefer to spend the entire summer at Malahide and the Mardyke?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand the subjects that the right hon. Gentleman raises. The Government have agreed that they should he happy to consider them and to discuss them with Opposition Members. However, it would be preferable to consider such issues as elements in an overall accommodation rather than reviewing them in isolation.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is up to the House and the political parties in Northern Ireland to decide what is the best form of devolved local administration for that sovereign part of the United Kingdom that we call Northern Ireland and that whether we choose to consult the Government in Dublin is a matter for us and not for that Government?
    Mr. Brooke: I hope that I gave my hon. Friend some reassurance in the answer that I gave a moment ago. The scope of the discussions that we now envisage would go
    1160
    beyond the present agreement. It is generally acknowledged that any comprehensive political accommodation must address all aspects of the problem and involve all those concerned.
    Mr. McNamara: In his initial answer the Secretary of State did not talk about making a statement before the House rises. Although we respect the right hon. Gentleman's desire to make a statement to the House—I wish that many of his colleagues would do so more frequently—if he feels that it would be in the best interests of the talks and negotiations that are taking place that a statement should not be made to the House, I am sure, speaking for the Labour party and, I think, for the whole House, that we would rather he made progress than that we should insist on any sort of statement.
    Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructiveness that underlies his question.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Lest what the Secretary of State has said today at the Dispatch Box should be misunderstood, will he confirm that he stands by what he wrote to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), my colleague across the way, and myself: that the Government are prepared to consider an alternative to and a replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
    Mr. Brooke: I gladly repeat the words that I uttered earlier this afternoon: that in the context of any discussions on possible future arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland, I would give serious consideration to any implications for the agreement which such arrangements might have. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Taoiseach and the Irish Government have expressed a similar view.

    Eastern and Northern Health and Social Services Boards
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given by the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland to the merits of rationalisation of hospital provision between the Eastern and Northern health and social services boards; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The precise pattern of services in each area is a matter for each board to decide in consultation with other boards, as required. Any major changes or closures are likely to require the approval of the Department of Health and Social Services.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that the working group set up by the Northern health and social services board to examine the Moyle hospital report on the case for the retention and development of acute services at Larne does not inspire confidence that an impartial assessment will be made? Is the Minister aware that the four officers who have been appointed are too closely associated with promoting the board's own policy, which will never be accepted in Ireland? Can the Minister assure the House that this Department will seriously consider this new report and that an enlarged group will be set up that is competent to deal with the issue of cross-board rationalisation? Will he

    1161
    also reassure us that justice will be done to this report, which has been professionally researched and presented, when it is examined?
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has written to those who produced the report and told them that he will look carefully at its contents. He has also made it clear that any rationalisation proposals for acute care will clearly have cross-board dimensions and that they will have to be taken into acount by the boards working together. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point will be taken into account by my noble Friend.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I am deeply concerned about the drastic cuts that have been imposed by the Eastern health board. Will the Minister set up a review into the effects that the cuts are having on the hospital and caring services in North Down?
    Mr. Needham: Since I have been a Northern Ireland Minister the amount of money spent on health care has risen from about £650 million a year to over £1 billion—hardly a cut. As for the particular point that the hon. Gentleman made, I shall draw it to the attention of my noble Friend.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister must be aware, however, that public disquiet continues over the proposal to downgrade Moyle hospital to the level of a community hospital, and of the strong belief locally that if that plan is eventually carried out it could involve loss of life in the area. In view of that disquiet, cannot the Minister give a firmer guarantee that he and his ministerial colleagues will review the decision in the near future?
    Mr. Needham: What will lead to loss of life in an acute hospital is that it is not properly staffed and does not have the right amount of equipment. Small local acute hospitals find it increasingly difficult to take on and retain the right staff and afford the right equipment. The key point about rationalisation is to ensure that we have modern acute facilities, led by the best doctors and nurses to look after our people. That is what we are doing by building the new Antrim hospital at a cost of £30 million.

    Drainage Council
    Mr. Mallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland; and what matters concerning the constituency of Newry and Armagh were discussed.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Last month the council determined that Camlough lake feeder drain No. 2 should be treated as designated. It accepted the drainage scheme recommended by the Department of Agriculture.
    Mr. Mallon: May I commend the Minister on having obtained a positive response to a problem that has existed for upwards of 40 years? I assure him that those whose agricultural land has been affected by the problem will welcome it and that it will also be welcomed by the roads executive which has spent almost £500,000 making good the damage done? Will the Minister pursue the work quickly and vigorously so that the harm can be undone before the turn of the days?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. May I take this opportunity of making the broader point that we do not intend to become involved in more major agricultural drainage schemes because of the environmental impact. We want to maintain the courses that have been designated so that we can avoid the high cost to the roads service, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and some of the consequences to agriculture. We will always consider the cost-benefit analysis and the environmental impact.
    Mr. William Ross: As the Minister has said that he is considering broader points, what consideration are the Government giving to the consequences of global warming on sea defences? What commitment will the Government make to the maintenance of existing sea defences, especially in regard to agricultural land?
    Mr. Bottomley: We wish to ensure that we obtain the benefits from spending extra money on sea defences. Where it is not possible costeffectively to protect land, we shall not be able to do so. It strikes me that on the one occasion on which the sea defences were breached, there was a fast response by the drainage service. I think that the farmer concerned has been able to get back into production, although I have not yet revisited him. People should realise that we can spend money only where it produces a return. There is no guarantee that the forces of nature can be tamed even by the best civil engineers.

    Paramilitary Actions
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been killed or injured in Northern Ireland as a consequence of paramilitary activity since 1969.
    Mr. Brooke: Since 1969, 2,804 people have been killed and 32,700 people injured. Four of those deaths have occurred since I last answered questions on 21 June. Constable Harold Beckett and Constable Garry Meyer, both full-time members of the RUC, were murdered as they patrolled the city centre in Belfast. William Sloss was murdered by the Irish People's Liberation Organisation and Martin Hughes by the Ulster Freedom Fighters in sectarian attacks.
    However, the police and the Army continue to make important finds of arms and ammunition. They also made a number of significant arrests in recent weeks. In particular, I know the whole House will join me in praising the exemplary courage of the young RUC constable who drove off a heavily armed Provisional IRA gang in Dungannon. But for his quick thinking and bravery, I am sure that he and his colleague would be dead today.
    Mr. Alton: I am sure that the House will concur with the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State. Does he agree with what Dr. Cahal Daly said yesterday that sectarian killings are the product of sick minds and twisted attitudes? He described those actions as loathsome and despicable. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that at some time the House will have to decide that those who pursue the strategy of the armalite and the bomb in one hand and the ballot box in the other will have to forgo the right to stand for election to this Parliament?
    Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in endorsing the comments expressed yesterday by Bishop Cahal Daly and I am sure that the whole House would do the same. The

    1163
    second part of the hon. Gentleman's question related to the proscription of organisations. I keep that matter constantly under review.
    Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that we listened to half the advice given by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and stopped this pretence of saying that the Anglo-lrish Agreement has achieved any of its fundamental aims? It has not. That emperor has no clothes. I wish my right hon. Friend every success in the discussions, but will not he concede that there is no reason to blame my hon. Friends who represent the Unionist cause on both sides of the House as they have expressed good will towards reaching some agreement. If the talks fail, let us place that blame where it lies, and that is on Dublin.
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has asked a comprehensive question. The question asked by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) perhaps had a conclusion different from that suggested by my hon. Friend. We are more likely to make progress in the talks if we concentrate on looking forward and on the positive aspects rather than questioning the motivation of anyone who is involved in them.
    Mr. Hume: In answer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and some other Conservative Members, will the Secretary of State confirm that we will not have lasting peace and stability in Ireland without the full agreement of the Irish Government and all constitutional parties in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about uniting people of peace and good will to ensure that the terrorist is defeated.

    Economy
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the state of the Northern Ireland economy and its future prospects.
    Mr. Cope: I do not underestimate the longstanding problems of the Northern Ireland economy, but there has been a significant improvement in recent years. The latest figures show that, compared with a year ago, manufacturing output has risen by 5 per cent., the number of employees in employment in March 1990 had risen by nearly 4,000 and it was announced today that the number of unemployed people in June 1990 had fallen by 9,100.
    Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that today's unemployment figures, which show a fall in male and female unemployment, are part of a continuing and healthy trend? Should not that be a source of encouragement and optimism to everyone inside and outside the Province who believes that it will have a prosperous future, irrespective of its various difficulties, as it increasingly shares in the economic growth of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Cope: I entirely share the sentiments expressed in the last part of my hon. Friend's question and I confirm that the reduction is part of a trend. The unemployment figures announced today were the lowest for just over eight years.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that the unemployment figures could be further reduced if terrorists stopped destroying businesses, even in their own areas, and if paramilitaries stopped intimidating employers and employees, again in their own areas, while, with typical hypocrisy, complaining of the shortage of jobs?
    Mr. Cope: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Terrorists and their activities are most damaging. It is their intention to damage the economy and other aspects of life in Northern Ireland, and they certainly affect the figures that I have given. The greatest boost to the economy of Northern Ireland would be the defeat and ending of terrorism.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend considered the economic success of the Republic of Ireland compared with Northern Ireland and how it has been affected by the decision that it took many years ago to fix the punt to other European currencies, as opposed to the pound floating more freely?
    Mr. Cope: As some of the figures that I gave earlier are better than those for the Republic, my hon. Friend might like to reflect on his question. So far as I know, there is no intention to have a separate currency for Northern Ireland.

    Shipbuilding
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: Harland and Wolff was returned to private sector ownership in September last year. I understand that the company's current order book extends into 1993.
    Dr. Godman: I am pleased to hear of those developments, and my pleasure will be shared by many of my constituents who have relatives and friends in Northern Ireland. May I press the Minister to resist proposals—offered, I think, by ministerial colleagues— that the European Community shipbuilding intervention fund be further reduced? Similarly, will he urge Harland and Wolff, where it uses those funds, to purchase engines and equipment from manufacturers in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Needham: The very fact that Harland and Wolff is now in the private sector means that almost all aspects of its business are going up: productivity is up, orders are up, and confidence is up. The only thing going down are its losses. Morale is up. That is all due to the fact that Harland and Wolff is out on its own and has a full order book which will last until the middle of the decade.

    Further Education
    Mr. Dover: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's consultation document on further education.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Further education has an important contribution to make to the economic and social life of Northern Ireland. The consultative document "Signposts

    1165
    for the 90s: A Review of Further Education" highlights the main issues which need to be addressed and identifies a number of ways forward. The consultative period will last until the end of the year and I look forward to receiving the views of the many interested parties.
    Mr. Dover: Does the Minister agree that the proposal to allow further education students to study university module courses for two years is revolutionary and innovative and that it will open up the possibility of higher education to many more Northern Ireland students?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is one of a number of proposals that we are seeking to canvass during the consultative period, not least because it would make a particularly significant contribution in Northern Ireland, which no longer has a polytechnic.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also participated in the deputation from the House which attended on Her Majesty the Queen Mother. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the defeat of inflation demands that, as well as central Government, local authorities must exercise restraint and responsibility in their spending plans? What conclusions does she draw from the fact that North Yorkshire county council, under Conservative control, increased its spending this year by less than any other shire county, yet regularly achieves some of the best exam results in the country; while the actions of high-spending Derbyshire county council, under Labour, have been declared in the High Court to be vindictive, illegal and a flagrant abuse of power?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Sound financial discipline is crucial to good management control of the economy. I congratulate North Yorkshire county council on its record and especially on its good education record—on a comparatively low community charge, lower than other people's. That shows that it can be done and that it is not the amount spent but the way that taxpayers' and charge payers' money is managed that matters.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister accept that the concern about the family which she expressed in her speech yesterday is widely shared and indeed praiseworthy? Given that concern, can she tell us what she thinks most damages families? Is it the highest mortgage rate in history? Is it the poll tax that has been imposed? Is it the freeze on child benefit, or the abandonment of community care?
    The Prime Minister: The greatest support that we can give families in material terms is to keep the economy going so that it produces the highest number of jobs we have ever had in our history, the highest standard of living
    1166
    we have ever had in our history, and the best social services; and, as I said in my speech yesterday, it is to give particular support to lone parent families.
    Mr. Kinnock: That reply shows that there is an unbridgeable gap between what the Prime Minister says is her concern about the family and what she is actually prepared to do about it. Does not she understand that the announcement yesterday that the Government are ratting on their pledge to provide help for people who care for disabled and elderly people at home shows contempt for some of the most needy, and certainly some of the most deserving, people in the whole of the land?
    The Prime Minister: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that local authorities are spending half as much again on personal social services over and above inflation as they were in 1979. There are 22 per cent. more day-care places, 26 per cent. more home helps and 13 per cent. more meals served to the elderly and disabled. As for the Government support for the elderly in nursing and residential homes, for every £1 Labour spent we are spending £100. Labour Members talk; we deliver the goods.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House, and to the millions outside, why the Government are effectively forbidding the necessary help to be given to people who are caring for loved ones with Alzheimer's disease and other dreadfully disabling diseases, thus saving the community and the taxpayer billions of pounds? Why has the Prime Minister ratted on the promise that she made?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, certain aspects of community care are going ahead. He also knows that—as I have said—the Labour party's record in government of looking after the elderly— [Interruption.] Of course Opposition Members do not want to hear about that; they only want to hear the hot air that the right hon. Gentleman pours out. For every £1 that the last Labour Government spent on residential nursing homes for the elderly, this Government are spending £100. We have created the wealth, looked after it well and ensured that it reached some of the people who needed it.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend do all in her power to ensure that the corridors of peace in Angola are opened to allow urgent humanitarian aid to reach all needy Angolans, bearing in mind the terrible famine that is afflicting that country?
    The Prime Minister: It is beyond our power to keep those corridors open. As my hon. Friend knows, when we receive urgent requests for humanitarian aid because people are greatly in need of food and water, we usually meet them.
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Darling: The Prime Minister now says that she is concerned with the family. Why, then, did she block the EC directive that would have given three months' parental leave per child? Have not we something to learn from the West Germans who, in addition to having a very successful

    1167
    economy, give 12 months' parental leave per child—soon to be increased to 18 months—and, in addition, 14 weeks' paid maternity leave?
    The Prime Minister: The draft directive to which the hon. Gentleman refers will not be published till September.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a recent list of the world's top 500 companies, Britain was shown to have the third highest number? We were behind only Japan and the United States of America, and way ahead of our European partners. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this gives the lie to those who never miss an opportunity, either at home or abroad, to run down our industrial performance?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I saw the report: 43 British companies are represented on that list, which is the third best number after the United States and Japan. We should also realise that, of the 50 best-performing companies in the European Community, 28 are British. They are performing well. We have great opportunities for more businesses to be set up under this Government. As my hon. Friend knows 1,700 new businesses a week have been set up this year.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister now regret her support for the barbarians of the Khmer Rouge?
    The Prime Minister: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, we have never supported the Khmer Rouge. What we did support, along with many other people, was an alliance under Prince Sihanouk which happened to include the Khmer Rouge, for a seat in the United Nations. We said that we would look at that again along with our other permanent member partners in the United Nations.
    The right hon. Gentleman should also remember that a goodly number of the Hun Sen Government of Cambodia were also members of the Khmer Rouge.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 July 1990.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Perhaps I may start the fraternal batting by asking my right hon. Friend whether she is aware that it takes between 13 and 15 years for a major road bypass scheme, such as that announced in Newbury today, to be approved and completed. In view of the importance of the road programme to our nation's economy, may I suggest that it would be wholly beneficial to find a way of reducing cumbersome and long-drawn-out planning procedures and enable new roads to be completed more swiftly?
    The Prime Minister: I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend. The problem is to balance the need for public consultation and the right to make objections with the need to get on and build the roads. The longer it takes, the more the price goes up. A planning Bill is expected in the next Session of this Parliament. We hope
    1168
    and believe that it will contain measures to enable higher compensation to be given to those whose property is compulsorily purchased. That, too, should help to speed up the process.
    Mr. Maginnis: No doubt the Prime Minister was dismayed by the Supreme Court ruling in Dublin in the McGimpsey and McGimpsey v. Ireland case where it was found that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was complementary to the territorial claim enshrined in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. What will the Prime Minister do to support the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his efforts to bring political peace to Northern Ireland arid overcome the obstructiveness of the Government of the Irish Republic?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has the full support of Her Majesty's Government and, I believe, of most people in seeking a good basis for the peoples of Northern Ireland to go ahead together to find a better basis for government in the Province. He has our full support, and I hope that he will be successful in his efforts.
    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 July 1990.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current strength of sterling on the world markets is further evidence of the correctness of her Government's economic policies? Is not it clear that the people of Britain can look forward to lower inflation and falling interest rates in the months ahead, now that the difficulties of the 1987 crash have been finally exorcised?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a great vote of confidence in the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A strong pound will exert downward pressure on unit wage costs which will mean that our goods will become more competitive arid we can continue to increase our exports. We prefer a strong pound, whether in or outside the exchange rate mechanism, or—to put it the other way round—whether outside or eventually in the exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 July 1990.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: The Prime Minister's Government encourage state schools and hospitals to opt out. Those are spurious rights, of course, but what about Scotland? Is not it entitled to opt out of the system, too? Is not it entitled to its own Parliament, or is that extending democracy too far? If it is not, she should have a word with Mr. Gorbachev because he will argue for self-determination. He has said that much.
    The Prime Minister: Hospitals in Scotland may become self governing, but that is not equivalent to opting out of the health service; it is a different way of being governed within it. The hon. Gentleman is aware that it takes longer for schools in Scotland to opt out, because, whereas all

    1169
    schools in England have school boards or courts of governors, that is not the case in Scotland. We had to set up those boards initially before we could proceed to the next stage.
    Mr. Conway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Conway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the county of Shropshire there are more than 2,000 beds in private nursing homes and homes for the elderly? Is not it staggering that this Government have spent more than
    1170
    £990 million supporting the elderly in those homes, as opposed to the £10 million spent under the previous Labour Government? Are not their weasel words ultimately their downfall?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend as that is the mesage I have been trying to get across to the Opposition during this Question Time. We have talked rather less than them, but spent a lot more on looking after those who are sick and ill. The benefits for carers have also increased enormously under the Government. Spending on invalid care allowance, for example, has increased from £8 million in 1979 to more than £180 million now. They talk, we act.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother
3.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have to tell the House that today, together with other right hon. Members, I attended upon Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, to deliver the House's message of congratulation on her 90th birthday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Her Majesty made the following reply:
"Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you from my heart for your kind message which I am delighted to receive. I am, indeed, most touched that you should have come here to Clarence House in the midst of your many commitments to wish me well on my birthday.
To me it seems just the other day that in this same room I accepted your greetings on a previous anniversary, and I am delighted that, ten years on, there should be here, today, four members of that delegation.
One of the consolations of growing older is to find pleasure and interest in the younger generation, whose qualities became very evident to me during the 25 years that I was Chancellor of the University of London.
My belief in the fundamental good sense, wisdom and integrity of those in whose hands lie the destinies of our country is as firm now as it was in the long years of the Second World War.
Throughout my life I have seen changes and developments, new patterns of behaviour and fresh outlooks—much has been transformed but the loyalty and devotion of our people to the Crown remains constant.
It is my prayer that with God's help our country will go forward from strength to strength in the years ahead.
And now, once again, may I tell you how touched I am by your message of good wishes at this time."
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: May I ask the Leader of the House what is the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yes, Sir. The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 JULY—Motion for the summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
TUESDAY 24 JULY—Opposition day (18th allotted day, 2nd part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Government mismanagement of the economy".
Remaining stages of the Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [ Lords].
Motion on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Orders.
Motion on the EEC Merger Control (Consequential Provisions) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 25 JULY—Remaining stages of the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 26 JULY—Debates on the motion for the Adjournment.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the business of the House for the first week after the summer adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 OCTOBER—Debate on financial services and the single European market on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Progress on remaining stages of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [ Lords].
Motion relating to health authorities regulations.
WEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER—Completion of remaining stages of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Caldey Island Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 18 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied.
FRIDAY 19 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, subject for debate to be announced.
Mr. Grocott: Following this week's price rises, first for water and yesterday for telephone bills, may we have an early debate on the way in which privatised monopolies are hitting the consumer? In particular, may we have a debate on the way in which former Cabinet Ministers, well paid, are advising those monopolies?
May we have a debate on the family, particularly following yesterday's crass sense of timing by the Prime Minister, when she made a statement on the family on

1173
precisely the day when the Government withdrew from important pledges that they had made, particularly to families with sick and elderly relatives? I hope that the right hon. Lady will be present for that debate because it will be interesting to hear her views.
In regard to poll tax, when shall we have statements on Scotland and Wales? That information should be available —the statements should be made today—and it is unacceptable that those matters are not being dealt with today.
We appreciate why the Government are anxious to rush for the recess, following a year in which they have suffered a steady loss of credibility through by-elections and Cabinet Ministers, but those are important matters and we need time to debate them.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman will find time to take part in the debate on the motion for the Adjournment. The first topic that he raised will apparently be germane to the motion selected by the Opposition for debate next Tuesday afternoon. I hope that Opposition Members will then pay tribute to the way in which privatised industries—former public monopolies —are achieving rising profits and immense expansions of efficiency, with prices falling in real terms, a welcome change from what preceded the present state of affairs.
As for the family, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman noticed the importance of the speech made yesterday by the Prime Minister. I shall bear in mind his request for a debate on that and the many topics on which my right hon. Friend touched.
As for Scotland and Wales, the Secretaries of State will be making an announcement before the House rises for the summer Adjournment.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider holding an urgent debate on the behaviour expected of aspiring statesmen when travelling abroad? Or does he believe that the advice given during that debate would be totally ignored?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that any such debate would emphasise the word "aspiring" rather than "statesmen".
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House clarify what he said about an announcement by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales about community care and the community charge? Does he mean that there will be an opportunity for hon. Members who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies to question the respective Secretaries of State at the Dispatch Box? If that is not what he means, will he agree to have a debate in the first week we return on the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which will be more necessary than ever given the way in which Scottish and Welsh hon. Members have been treated this week over community care and the community charge?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman need not get so worried about the matter. It is customary for the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland to make statements following a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Each of them will be making statements before the House rises, when they can be questioned in the ordinary way.
Sir Anthony Grant: May I join the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in asking for an early debate on the subject of the family, because the speech of the Prime Minister will be particularly welcome to those many taxpayers who have been outraged in recent years at having to subsidise the fornication of irresponsible fathers?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend puts the point with classic and characteristic clarity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will welcome his support for her speech.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not it a fact that because of difficulties with the computer, unless we make a decision on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure on questions before July, there is no chance that it will come into operation next Session? Would not it be wise at least to do that business before the end of July?
What has happened to the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests on the delicate issue relating to the Select Committee on Defence? Is it satisfactory that that matter festers and festers?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the last question is one for the Select Committee itself rather than for me. I agree about the importance of making the changes recommended on questions. I hope that the necessary motions will be tabled before the House rises.
Sir William Shelton: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion 1281, entitled "Sexual Offences Bill and Procedure for Private Members' Bills"?
[That this House notes with concern that the Third Reading of the Private Members' Bill the Sexual Offences Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Streatham, was blocked, despite the fact that it received an unopposed Second Reading, was unamended both in Committee and Report Stage, and had the support of both front benches and almost universal support in the House; and therefore urges that the procedures for Private Members' Bills should be reviewed in the light of this occurrence.]
Does he agree that the time may have come for a review of the procedure for private Members' Bills? Will he be prepared to look favourably on an amendment embodying this vital legislation to any relevant Home Office legislation in the next Session?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I can understand my hon. Friend's interest in the subject of that Bill, I cannot give any undertaking about its attachment to any other legislation that may be before the House next Session. Procedure for private Members' Bills is a matter for the Procedure Committee and I shall draw the matter to its attention.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week before the House rises on the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty? The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government signed that treaty. Yet they are blatantly in breach of clause 6, by embarking on the £10 billion Trident nuclear missile programme. In a review conference, non-nuclear nation after non-nuclear nation will denounce this country for breaching the treaty while at the same time expecting

1175
non-nuclear countries to remain non-nuclear. Is not that pure hypocrisy and outrageous? Is it not time that we had a debate on that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman's points. I am surprised that he advanced them this afternoon as he is likely to have a debate on that subject in the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an early debate next week on early-day motion 1136, on religious education in maintained schools?
[That this House, recalling that agreed syllabuses for religious education in maintained schools must now statutorily reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian, whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain, believing that religious education in schools should respect the integrity and identity of each religion studied within the agreed syllabus, and should in turn promote respect, understanding, and tolerance for those adhering to different faiths, further believing that thematic teaching approaches which blur the distinctions between religions tend to undermine their coherence and should be avoided, and recognising that for good educational reasons only two, or at the very most three, religions can be studied in any worthwhile depth within the normal constraints imposed on religious education by schools' weekly working timetables, urges the Secretary of State for Education and Science to monitor, assess, and if necessary, correct local education authorities' syllabuses in the field to ensure the proper reflection in those syllabuses of the ideals spelt out above; and further urges the Secretary of State to issue supplementary guidance to local education authorities on the subject.]
It would be particularly relevant to Ealing where pupils are required to follow a syllabus which is supposed to be Christian-centred, but which does not mention God, the Bible or Jesus himself and which was drawn up by the Labour council. Urgent action is needed and the House should debate the matter.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter if the state of affairs is as he describes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already received representations about locally agreed syllabuses for religious education and he is considering them.
Mr. Max Madden: What arrangements is the Leader of the House making to allow the House to vote on whether hospitals should opt out of the national health service and become self-governing trusts? I ask that because in Bradford, where four hospitals are due to opt out of the national health service, Yorkshire regional health authority has concentrated the phoney consultation period during the summer months of July, August and September, knowing that most people will be away on holiday and that most organisations do not meet. There will be little opportunity for any community test of opinion. What does the Leader of the House intend to do to enable the Secretary of State for Health to be told clearly that there is massive opposition in Bradford and elsewhere to hospitals opting out of the national health service?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not see why I should take great trouble to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to amplify or to represent his views when they are founded on so many misconceptions. We are concerned not with hospitals opting out of the national health service but with arrangements in accordance with the legislation approved by the House for hospitals to have self-governing status within the health service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make that well understood in his own constituency.
Sir Robert McCrindle: In view of the confusion surrounding Sunday trading, which has persisted since the failure of Government legislation some years ago, and of yesterday's court decision, is not there an argument for a further debate, to test the opinion of the House, and through it the opinion of the country, on any change to Sunday trading laws—or are we to presume that there will be no further legislative proposals in that regard during the lifetime of this Parliament?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is 30 years almost to the day since I first published an article on that very topic under the simple heading, "Set the shopper free." It seems to have been a long time maturing. My hon. Friend raises a point of concern, but a single debate is not likely to resolve the areas of continuing disagreement between the various parties. If it were possible to secure agreement, the Government would certainly be willing to give sympathetic consideration to making legislative progress.
Mr. Tony Banks: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1275, signed by 91 hon. Members:
[That this House expresses its extreme concern at the apparent intention of the Hong Kong authorities to continue trading in elephant ivory after the reservation ends at midnight on 17th July; recalls the many undertakings given by Ministers that the trade would end on the appointed day; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to keep their promises to the House by instructing the Hong Kong authorities to cease all trade and not to defy the CITES ban.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall the concern expressed by hon. Members about the loophole that the Hong Kong authorities were clearly intending to exploit, whereby the trade in ivory could continue under the guise of personal effects after the reservation ended at midnight on 17 July. Is the Leader of the House able to say whether that loophole has been closed? If it has not, may we have an early debate on that important subject?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's interest in that topic is strong, so I am not surprised that he has returned to that theme. As was made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans),
"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 … Hong Kong legislation now fully reflects the CITES convention." —[Official Report, 18 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 553.]
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As the laws that we pass in this country apply both to Scotland and to the United Kingdom, and given that we are so closely allied as to have in the United Kingdom a Lord Chancellor who is a Scotsman, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the

1177
Attorney-General, when he comes to speak on the Courts and Legal Services Bill next Wednesday, why the unacceptable parts of the proposed law reforms are to be dropped in Scotland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will recall the premise of his own question and that the arrangements for the constitution of this country make provision for different laws to be made for Scotland than for other parts of the United Kingdom. They may make legitimate debating points, but it would be remarkable if they were always coincident in every respect.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House spend some time during the recess thinking about and walking carefully around this building, with early-day motion 1307 in his hand?
[That his House believes that the Palace of Westminster should be made fully accessible for people with disabilities; calls for study to be made of the necessary improvements to the entrance, toilets, telephone and refreshment facilities and the installation of induction loops where appropriate; and further believes that visitors to the Palace of Westminster should not have to suffer the indignity of waiting outside to be admitted, being unable to get any refreshments without the presence of a member.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman first review the appalling provision for disabled people who visit or work in this building, and the lack of wheelchair ramps, induction loops, and documents written in Braille? Many people also experience difficulty hearing properly from the Floor of the Chamber and the Strangers Gallery. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider also the lack of facilities for visitors, who in the winter months are forced to queue outside in the rain and are unable to obtain any refreshments unless they are accompanied by a Member of Parliament.
The facilities here are, frankly, archaic and a disgrace to the country. It ill behoves the House to pass legislation requiring adequate facilities for the disabled in public buildings throughout the country if such facilities are not provided here [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This happens to be a very important matter. As the Leader of the House has not announced a subject for debate on 19 October, perhaps he will bring forward proposals as the subject of such a debate on that Friday morning.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has the almost unique capacity to make a significant, important and worthwhile case sound almost positively unattractive. All the matters that he has raised have been and are almost continuously the subject of consideration and arrangements have been improved recently as a result of recommendations made by the Services Committee. The arrangements under consideration by Sir Robin Ibbs may help us to improve the way in which we address some matters. It is also necessary to acknowledge that in a building of this kind and antiquity it is not possible to make every change that we might desire for the benefit of
1178
the disabled because of the sheer physical construction of the building. But the hon. Gentleman's case deserves to be considered more sympathetically than he suggests.
Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider arranging a debate on the structure of local government, particularly as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday announced his response to the Boundary Commission's proposal for a unitary authority on the Isle of Wight, stating that he acknowledged the force of the arguments but that there was no prospect of primary legislation during this Session of Parliament? However, I understand today that the deputy leaders of Isle of Wight county council have announced that they are to seek a private Bill to put that proposal into effect, and it would be helpful if the House had an opportunity to discuss the restructuring of local government into unitary authorities throughout the United Kingdom.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's constituency interests may well be represented by the private Bill that is now in prospect, but I do not know how widely shared would be his enthusiasm for a far-ranging, comprehensive reconstruction of local government. I suspect that there would be limited enthusiasm for that. At all events, his request for a debate will have been heard by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who is sitting beside me.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Leader of the House follow up the point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)? One hears that the Local Government Boundary Commission is making the most incredible proposals for changes between district councils. Not only will they have profound effects on parliamentary constituencies, which is one thing, but the commission seems to be erecting its own ideas about the divisions between districts—for example, using motorways —and ignoring people's feelings. May we have a debate because there will be great anger in the House at reports coming from the centre of London, which do not understand what is going on outside?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know from my experience that it is important that the Local Government Boundary Commission should be sensitive to particularly expressed local anxieties and should not place too much reliance on its own inspired approach to topics. In that spirit, I shall bring the right hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for him to pass on to the commission.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week to discuss the activities of the Anti-Poll Tax Union, one of the leaders of which, from my constituency, has called for the magistrates to be kidnapped?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Such a matter may well deserve to be investigated by the law enforcement authorities. It is clear that that union's activities are contributing to additional costs for fellow citizens to the disadvantage of our society.
Mr. Frank Field: Can the Leader of the House give a commitment that the two new Committees that will replace the Select Committee on Social Services will be up and running at the beginning of the new Session?

1179
If he cannot give such a commitment now, will he be able to do so in the form of a letter to the Committee before we rise for the summer recess?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to give a precise commitment on timing now, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we are committed to the division of the Committee and I shall make sure that my answer is communicated in an appropriate form as soon as possible.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the Post Office's annual report and the poor service that it provides in north-west London? Does he agree that such difficulties are more likely to be defeated by the introduction of competition than by the maintenance of a state monopoly?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the philosophy that appeals to my hon. Friend and I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that missing from the Report stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill when we consider it in the first week after the recess will be the legislative proposal to reduce substantially the period of consideration in divorce actions because Opposition Members on the Bill's Standing Committee forced the Secretary of State for Scotland to drop it? Would the Leader of the House like to thank those Opposition Members because, had not that happened, the Prime Minister would have been in the ludicrous position of saying yesterday that there should be an extended period for consideration in divorce cases, yet legislating for a shorter period?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Many factors need to be considered on such a matter, including the fact that that part of the legislation was originally proposed by the Scottish Law Commission. No doubt the House will be ready to deal with the Bill on Report.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time to discuss early-day motion 1247, which was originally tabled by me, but which is now supported by my most distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving)?
[That this House notes that the phenomenal success of the House of Commons gift shop has nevertheless produced congestion in the access to two of the Commons's most popular restaurants, the Members' and the Strangers' cafeterias; and urges the re-location of this popular facility within Westminster Hall, where shopping facilities have traditionally existed, and which is conveniently placed at the end of the line of route usually taken in conducted tours by honourable Members' constituents.]
The motion calls for the gift shop to be relocated from the downstairs corridor to Westminster Hall. Its phenomenal success in its present location prevents the progress of people who are in pursuit of pies and Pepsis in the restaurant at the end of the corridor.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the success of the gift shop, which contributes substantially to the trading success of the Refreshment Department.
1180
Sensible questions need to be considered about its location, and I shall see that that is done in the context of the space audit for the whole House.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has there yet been any discussion in the House of Commons Commission about the wages paid to people in the Refreshment Department? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the proposition, which I put months ago, that hon. Members should pay more for their food so that people in the Dining Rooms can be paid more?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Member responsible for answering on behalf of the Commission, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), answered a question on that topic on Monday and drew attention to the well-established arrangements for determining the pay of those who work for the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the pressure of time, hon. Members should ask questions only about the business that has been announced. I shall call those who were here for the business statement.
Mr. Barry Porter: That brings me back to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. I am somewhat puzzled by the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in relation to the fact that it seems clear that there is a distinction in principle between what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in England. I am aware that there is a difference between Scottish and English law.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This must be about next week's business.
Mr. Porter: It is indeed, Mr. Speaker. The Government have accepted that in Scotland the lenders, that is the banks and building societies, cannot represent the borrower, although that is not the case in England. May we have an early debate on that, either tied up with a debate on English law or within the context of the Scottish Bill, I care not which? The principle is exactly the same.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The debates in the first week of our return from the recess should provide an opportunity for those issues to be raised.
Mr. Allen McKay: Would the Leader of the House consider the fact that between now and our return from the recess local authorities will try to come to terms with poll tax capping and will have assessed the damage to local authority services and to our constituents? Does he agree that it would be wise to have a debate as soon as we return so that the House can look at the assessment of that damage and at any litigation that has taken place as a result of the statement later today by the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not propose to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement.
Rev. William McCrea: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that any

1181
alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement must have the consent of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland? Bearing in mind that criterion and the fact that the Anglo-Irish Agreement as at present enforced does not have the consent of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, is not it about time that the House had a full-scale debate on the agreement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House had an opportunity to consider closely related questions during the full-day's debate on Northern Ireland the week before last.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House be more than his usual charitable self, and tell us whether on any—and preferably on which—of the four days available for debate next week the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement on community care and the proposals for the community charge, or will we have to accept a written answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? If we are to discuss how to run a business properly, could we have a little more respect for hon. Members, especially those in opposition, and have some clear answers to our questions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: For the third time this afternoon —and it may be that on the two previous occasions the hon. Gentleman was talking too much to listen—
Mr. Douglas: Come on.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Once again, the hon. Gentleman cannot stop talking long enough to listen to my answer. I say for the third time that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a statement on that very topic—
Mr. Douglas: When?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Before the House rises.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) for legislation to enable local authorities to become unitary authorities—not to force a uniform change of local government across the country, but to allow areas that wish to choose a form of unitary authority to do so? There is a great deal of sense in that.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Without commenting on the case for unitary authorities, I acknowledge that there has always been a good case for a more discriminating and variable pattern of approach to local government reform, of the sort originally available under the Local Government Boundary Commission, but which disappeared towards the end of the 1950s.
Mr. Alan Meale: Following last night's decision on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, supported by 200 Conservative Members, and the dramatic effect that that will have on the coalfield communities, will the Leader of the House find time before the House rises for its summer recess for a full and frank debate on the needs of those communities?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not anticipate an opportunity arising for a debate of that sort, but the Bill has been extensively debated in the House over many months.
Mr. Bill Walker: Reverting to the earlier question on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which will be debated in the week that we return, my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that loyal supporters of the Prime Minister and her policies were also opposed to the divorce proposals. They were not Government proposals, but those recommended by an outside body. Have not we saved the House a great many problems by having those proposals removed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I dare say that that point can be made during the debate in the week that we return.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Leader of the House outlined the timetable for the further deliberation on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. May I point out that, as a member of the Standing Committee, I have been deeply concerned about the poor management of the Bill? It has meant that four new clauses that I tabled, which had as their objective the better protection of children in sexual or physical abuse cases, will not now be heard. Does he agree that we need a debate on the protection of children when they are giving evidence in such cases?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not my business to agree on the merit of that proposal, but there will be up to two full days for discussion of various aspects of the matter when the House returns in October.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When the Leader of the House replies to the Adjournment debate on Monday, will he refer to the article in the Prime Minister's favourite tabloid on Monday of this week, which suggested that he was about to be sacked?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question should be about the business next week. Please concentrate on that.
Mr. Skinner: Next week, the Leader of the House will be answering the Adjournment debate. I am asking whether he intends to reply to the article in the Prime Minister's favourite tabloid. I want to give him some advice. If ex-Cabinet Ministers are sacked, they obtain fewer directorships than those who leave on their own accord for family reasons. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to get a directorship, he should go now.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not about business next week.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall answer the debate and not newspaper articles, least of all those that attract the attention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Greville Janner: After visiting Glenfield district hospital in my constituency this morning, I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for a debate on the disastrous crumbling of the national health service in Leicestershire, where wards are closing, staff are struggling to provide services and some patients are waiting more than two years for an appointment with a consultant. As that hospital has a reduced budget of less than £26 million and it needs £3.6 million just for maintenance, surely that scandalous situation should be debated in the House, where hon. Members of all parties take exactly the same view.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows, because he has raised the matter on more than one occasion, that the allocation of money to the Leicestershire health district is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The district received significantly more money this year, amounting to a real terms increase in its budget of nearly 3 per cent. I have no doubt that he and/or some of his colleagues will find an opportunity to return to the matter in the Adjournment debate next week.

Adjournment Motions
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 26 July, up to 10 Members may raise, with Ministers, subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Local Government Finance
4.6 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for the local authority financial settlement for England for 1991–92 and about the review of the community charge. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will be making separate announcements about the arrangements in those countries in due course. I apologise at the outset for the inevitable length of my remarks.
In recent years there has been substantial growth in local authority spending. In the current year, local authorities are planning expenditure of £36.4 billion. That is an increase of 13½ per cent. over the comparable figure for 1989–90, and that came on top of a 9 per cent. increase over the previous year. So spending has grown by very nearly one quarter in only two years.
Local authorities, like other public sector bodies, should play their part in restraining expenditure if we are to maintain economic progress and limit the burden of national and local taxation.
As part of the settlement, the Government have to make an estimate of the total amount which it would be appropriate for local authorities to spend. That figure is known as total standard spending. From it is derived a standard spending assessment for each authority, representing the amount it should cost to provide a standard level of service.
For next year I propose to set total standard spending at £39 billion, compared with £32.8 billion for this year. This is over 7 per cent. more than likely expenditure this year. £39 billion should adequately fund local authority services next year, taking account of the additional pressures and burdens local government will face, and the scope for improved efficiency. Spending above that amount should not be necessary.
Most local authority spending is financed by Government grants and the business rate. This year those funds, known as aggregate external finance, were set at £23.1 billion, compared with about £10.5 billion from charge payers after allowing for rebates and transitional relief. I propose that the amount of aggregate external finance for 1991–92 should be £26.050 billion. This is an increase of very close to £3 billion or 12.8 per cent. above the amount being provided this year. This significant increase will necessarily mean that less can be afforded for other Government spending programmes next year. I expect authorities to pass on the benefit to their charge payers in their bills, rather than increase spending too much once again. As I shall make clear shortly, I shall be prepared to use my capping powers to ensure that that happens.
Proposals for the distribution of grant, including any changes which may be made to the methodology for standard spending assessments, will be announced in the autumn in the usual way. Earlier this year, I made it clear that I would be willing to consider new evidence about the way the standard spending assessments are calculated.
This year, with many councils overspending, the average charge after capping was £357. That, alas, is the position from which we will start next year. If local authorities play their part, as we have played ours by
1186
increasing external finance by nearly £3 billion, the average charge next year should be close to the community charge for standard spending of about £379. The majority of areas have charges below that figure this year, and many will benefit because no authority will have to pay into the safety net next year. Efficient authorities should be able to set charges below this figure, as should authorities who will still be receiving grant from the safety net.
Those local authorities which are not prepared to budget sensibly should know that I shall be prepared to make vigorous use of my powers for charge capping next year. As Secretary of State, I have power to cap in two ways. I can cap a council's excessive budget, or cap excessive increases from one year to the next. This year it was impracticable to use the latter power. Next year, I shall not hesitate, where authorities budget above the standard spending assessment—or SSA—for 1991–92, to use either or both powers to protect charge payers.
In deciding what is an excessive increase in an authority's budget, I propose to distinguish between those authorities which budget well above their SSA and those which spend above SSA by a smaller margin. I would expect to see smaller annual increases for the higher spenders, because the more profligate the authority the greater the scope for savings. As it would be the first time that authorities were capped on the basis of excessive budget increases, I have decided specifically for this year to give an advance indication of the proposed criteria for capping so that local authorities may take them into account in reaching their budgeting decisions.
In summary, while I would expect most authorities to budget at or below their SSAs, I intend to use my powers to protect charge payers. I want to ensure that the substantial amount of extra money contributed by national taxpayers to local government is not wasted in much higher spending but helps to keep charges to reasonable levels.
I now turn to our review of the community charge. The basic principle that all local people should make some direct contribution to the cost of local services through a charge levied on almost all adults has been accepted increasingly widely, but it would be surprising if a change of this magnitude did not require some adjustments in its second year of operation.
We have received many constructive suggestions from hon. Members and others. My proposals concern the standard community charge, non-domestic rating, the area safety net, the transitional relief scheme, the administration of the charge and improvements in accountability.
An issue which has given rise to a great deal of concern is the standard community charge. This charge applies where domestic property is no one's sole or main residence. It is right that owners of such properties should contribute towards the cost of local services. We have given local authorities a wide discretion in setting multipliers for the various classes of standard charge payer for the year ahead. It is disappointing that many have not used this discretion sensibly. There are many people, for example, who are required as a condition of their job to live in a particular property. They quite naturally wish to maintain another property which they would regard as their home, even though it is not their sole or main residence. The law allowed local authorities to set out a different approach to these cases, and I regret that many local authorities did not do so.

1187
I therefore propose a number of changes for next year so as to reduce the maximum standard charge which local authorities can levy in a number of exceptional cases. Among those who may benefit are people such as clergy men, service men and some teachers who are required as a condition of their job to live in a particular property; people who have houses with an empty "granny flat"; people who find themselves paying a standard charge when their home is empty following repossession; people who have an empty flat over a shop which it would be difficult to let for security or other reasons; students who face a reduced personal charge, but who can face a double charge if they own a home elsewhere; people whose homes are empty because they have gone to look after a relative or friend, or to be looked after; and farm owners who have empty dwellings on their land which, because of planning restrictions, can be occupied only by agricultural workers.
We are also proposing to help people who are having difficulty selling a property, either on a move or after they have inherited it, by extending the period during which it is subject to a zero charge. Full details of all these changes are set out in a consultation paper published today.
These and other proposed changes will, I hope, be widely welcomed. Subject to consultation, we propose to bring forward regulations which will come into force before the end of 1990 so that authorities can give effect to these changes from 1 April 1991.
There has been concern about the position of owners of small businesses who live "over the shop". They pay rates on their business property, but they are, of course, also liable to pay the community charge. That is not in fact an anomaly: all adults have to pay a personal charge irrespective of where they live, and rates are paid on all business property. It would therefore be inappropriate to change the fundamental liability for either the community charge or the business rate for people who happen to live on their business premises. Like other businesses, they may qualify for transitional protection against large increases in rate bills and, like other former domestic ratepayers, they may be eligible for community charge transitional relief. However, I recognise that this group of businesses may need more time to adapt to the higher bills which they face under the new system and I propose to amend the business rate transitional arrangements, for what are called small composite hereditaments, so that from 1991–92 annual increases in the business rate will be limited to 10 per cent. in real terms instead of the current maximum of 15 per cent. That will help the occupiers of 95,000 properties in England.
There has also been concern about the liability for non-domestic rates of people who provide bed-and-breakfast accommodation in their own homes. The present exemption for people who make accommodation available for fewer than 100 days a year has caused some difficulty. We therefore plan to change this rule from 1 April next year. We will shortly issue a consultation paper canvassing a range of options based on the amount of accommodation which the household proposes to make available rather than the time for which it is available.
These are the main changes to the community charge and non-domestic rates. I am also proposing a number of minor changes, designed for the most part to improve the administration of the charge by local authorities. These are also included in the consultation paper which is being sent to local authorities today. Copies are in the Library and the Vote Office.
1188
I also have in mind improvements to the community charge bill. The contribution of individual authorities to high charges is not clear enough on the face of the bill, and charge payers are inclined to think the council whose name appears on the top of the bill is responsible for the whole of any excessive spending.—[ Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are interested in the statement and are anxious to follow it. It is difficult to hear when hon. Members make comments from sedentary positions.
Mr. Patten: I shall therefore be proposing changes to ensure that the respective contributions of preceptirig and charging authorities to over or underspending are shown much more clearly. This will increase accountability. I propose to make—
Mr. Dick Douglas: This would not be necessary if it was not for you lot—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who is shouting and pointing across the Gangway, that it is very bad behaviour. He should know better.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Douglas rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no reason to raise a point of order, just because I have called the hon. Member to order. Please desist.
Mr. Douglas: He is sponsored by Gilbert and Sullivan.
Mr. Patten: I propose to make an alteration to the area safety net. The safety net is designed to protect charge payers in those areas where the ending of cross subsidies under the old rating system caused the largest changes.
As the House will know, in 1991–92 gaining areas will not have to contribute to the area safety net, and this will enable 20 million charge payers to benefit by up to £75. I expect the authorities concerned to ensure that this benefit is passed on to charge payers, and is not swallowed up in higher spending. For those people in areas receiving the most support from the safety net, which is paid for from the Exchequer, I propose that support should be withdrawn more slowly than previously proposed, at a maximum rate of £25 per adult per year. This will help almost 3.5 million people living in 25 areas where the support received in 1990–91 was more than £100 per adult. This could be worth up to £28 a year for the charge payers affected.
Finally, I propose a substantial increase in comunity charge transitional relief in 1991–92. The transitional relief scheme was designed to help former ratepayers, and pensioners or disabled people who were not ratepayers, who faced significant increases in their bills as a result of the change to the new system.
I do not propose, as some have suggested, to change the basis of calculation to take account of actual charges set by local authorities. That would merely channel extra help to the areas where authorities have increased spending fastest. I propose changes which will, none the less, help those most affected by the switch from the rates to the community charge—typically, people who lived in a property with a low rateable value.

1189
The improvements will more than double the amount of relief to be given in 1991–92 from the planned level of £260 million to £570 million. This is an increase of £310 million. I propose to distribute this extra help by requiring authorities to calculate relief in 1991–92 so that most households face no more than an increase of £2 a week because of the structural change from rates to the community charge. In other words, the threshold will be cut from £3 to £2. I also propose to postpone the phasing out of the relief for two years and to extend the scheme by two years to 1994–95. In all other respects, the scheme in 1991–92 will be unchanged. It will continue to be based on assumed charges for 1990–91, and will apply where people stay in the same home.
These changes will mean that every household receiving transitional relief at present will not only keep that relief in full next year but will see it increased by £52. Pensioners and disabled people who were not former ratepayers will also have an extra £52 of relief in their own right. On top of this, postponing the withdrawal of relief will be worth up to £13 in 1991–92 to everybody already entitled to relief this year. Many couples, instead of losing £26, will gain £52. In other words, as a result of these changes they will be £78 a year better off than they would otherwise have been. About 7.5 million people will gain in this way.
Furthermore, the lowering of the threshold will bring almost another 4 million people into transitional relief for the first time. These are people who lost between £2 and £3 a week as a direct result of the change to the new system. They will gain up to £52 a household. These changes will require amendments to the regulations which will be brought forward in the autumn. My officials will be discussing the administrative implications with the local authority associations.
The settlement I have proposed envisages 12.8 per cent. more support from Government grant and business rates towards local authority spending. That is generous by any measure, reflecting a substantial increase in real terms. If authorities budget sensibly, the average community charge in England should be close to the community charge for standard spending of about £379. But I can assure the House that if they do not I will use my powers to protect charge payers from excessive demands. I expect local authorities to set prudent budgets, so that the extra grant being provided goes to help charge payers through moderate charges, and not to boost spending.
The changes I have announced to transitional relief will benefit an extra 4 million people on top of the 7.5 million who already receive relief. They will represent a further £310 million of help on top of the previously planned £260 million for the relief scheme in 1991–92. Among those who will benefit will be elderly and disabled people who qualify for extra help under the current scheme. Almost 3.5 million people will benefit from the changes to the safety net. Many individuals and small businesses will benefit from the proposed changes in the rules concerning second homes, composite hereditaments, and bed and breakfast.
My announcement today means substantially more relief to those who most need help in the changoever to the community charge. It means a realistic financial settlement for local authorities. I believe that we have played our part in helping to smooth the introduction of this major reform. Now it is up to local authorities to play their part.
Mr. Bryan Gould: That statement is a double admission of failure which will disappoint many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and many millions of people outside as well. It is an admission, first, that the poll tax is and has been a disaster; and secondly, that it is a disaster from which nothing can be salvaged. The statement leaves the poll tax where it has always been: unfair in principle, unworkable in practice and fatally flawed.
Is not the message for the poll tax payer that no relief is in sight, and that for the majority, the bills will go up sharply yet again next year? Why should anyone rely on the Secretary of State's estimate of average poll tax bills, when he was so hopelessly and spectacularly wrong last time round? Is not his estimate for this year in any event more than £100 higher than his similar estimate for last year? Even the changes to the transitional relief scheme leave it still based on the same fairy-tale figures which have already meant that it is no more than a sham and a charade for millions of people. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, because the transitional relief scheme is still to be calculated on assumed rather than real figures it will provide no help to many poll tax payers who will be much more than £2 a week worse off?
Is not the message for local authorities from the Secretary of State's statement that they are again to be short-changed by the Government, that their independence is to be further eroded, and that, even after taking account of the shameful betrayal of those who pinned their hopes on community care, services will again have to be cut?
Has the Secretary of State learnt nothing from the disastrous experience of the past 12 months? Does he not recognise that it was his and his predecessor's insistence that local government spending would be £3.6 billion lower than it turned out to be which forced up the poll tax bills for this year, since every penny of that shortfall fell on the hapless poll tax payer? Why does he persist in repeating and compounding that error this year? Can he name any local authority association—including those under Tory control—that agrees with his assessment of local authority spending for 1991–92? Is not it the case that it is the hard-pressed poll tax payer who will again pay the price for the right hon. Gentleman's mistake?
What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman used for inflation—or is he too embarrassed to say, following his assertion last year that it would be less than half what it turned out to be? Will he confirm that the national non-domestic rate will be raised in line with the actual rate of inflation? What estimate has he made of the cost of new commitments imposed on local authorities by the Government, and how are those new commitments to be paid for? Will it again be the poll tax payer who picks up the total bill? What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the costs of collecting the poll tax, and of the shortfall faced by local authorities in the light of worryingly low collection levels, not least in his own constituency? Is not his hint that he intends this year—unlike last—to publish his capping criteria in advance evidence that, whatever other lessons he has failed to learn from charge capping, he now concedes that penalising local authorities for breaking rules imposed on them after the event was a serious and damaging mistake? Is not the truth that this is a paltry package that fails to live up to its advance billing and represents yet another battle lost by the Secretary of State at great cost to other spending

1191
programmes? The right hon. Gentleman has squeezed out of the Treasury a package worth only a touch more than £2 billion. With that sum, he has first to try to make good the errors made last year; secondly, to allow for inflation, now rising fast; thirdly, to meet the cost of new commitments imposed by his Government; fourthly, to remove the most glaring anomalies from the first year's operation of the poll tax, and, fifthly, to allow for a frighteningly low level of collection. It cannot be done.
Mr. John Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not recollect that anything has happened that needs my immediate attention. What is it?
Mr. Lee: As the House rises for the recess next week, Mr. Speaker, would it not be possible for you to grant an extra five minutes to the hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, and it delays the House.
Mr. Gould: In view of that attempted abuse of the House's procedures, I will repeat that last paragraph.
With a sum of just over £2 billion, the Secretary of State now has first to try to make good the errors of last year; secondly, to allow for inflation, now rising very fast; thirdly, to meet the cost of new commitments imposed on local government by his Government; fourthly, to remove the most glaring anomalies from the first year's operation of the poll tax; fifthly, to allow for a frighteningly low level of collection. That cannot be done: the circle cannot be squared.
The message is therefore, a grim one for local authorities and for poll tax payers alike. Happily, it is also a grim message for a Government who are uniquely responsible for the mess that they have created.
Mr. Patten: I suspect that it is conceivable that the hon. Gentleman's questions were drafted before I made my statement. He suggested—it was the first of a series of clichés that were trooped before the House—that there was no relief in sight. There is relief in sight, in the form of more transitional relief for 7.5 million who are already receiving it. We are talking about 4 million more people receiving transitional relief, and 3.5 million being helped because of the modifications that I have made to the safety net. It is worth noting that as a result of the benefits that we provide, which are more generous than those available under domestic rates, and as a result of transitional relief, while the average community charge set for this year after capping is £357, the actual average charge paid is £286. The difference between the two is made up through benefits and transitional relief.
The hon. Gentleman said that community charge standard spending was much higher than community charge standard spending last year. He referred to the increase in total standard spending. We have had to take, account of a 13.5 per cent. increase in local authority spending— an increase of almost a quarter in two years. If we had not done so, unfortunately people would have faced community charges which were much too high in the coming year.
The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities were being short-changed, and referred to a £3 billion-plus package as "paltry". That reminded me of a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr.
1192
Tebbit) about a large Government subsidy. He said that, if that was beating someone to death, it was the first time that it had ever been done with a cheque book.
Mr. Gould: How is it £3 billion?
Mr. Patten: I shall go through the £3 billion. The £3 billion is a £2.95 billion increase in aggregate external finance and £310 million in transitional relief. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman does not yet understand local government finance. He cannot, and I cannot, say what the contribution from the non-domestic rate pool will be until September, because we do not set the multiplier until September. Of course there will be a contribution from business rates, just as there has been in the past.
Mr. Gould: How much?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman and I cannot say until we set the multiplier. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that if the cash did not come from the business ratepayer—I assume that even under the Labour party's proposals, when they emerge, businesses will pay something—it would come from the taxpayer.
Mr. Gould: The right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake.
Mr. Patten: I have not made a mistake. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has shown once again that, even with his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) sitting beside him, he does not understand local government finance.
The hon. Member for Dagenham referred to local authority spending assessments. He said that at least some of the local authority associations proposed a substantially increased figure for total standard spending over what we have suggested.
The figure of £39 billion that I suggested would mean an increase of over 30 per cent. in local authority expenditure over three years. Many of my hon. Friends will regard that as spectacularly too high. The figures suggested by the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends would imply a 40 per cent. increase in local authority expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman has to come clean. Not only must he tell us what the Labour party would do in place of domestic rates and the community charge—the Opposition have wriggled, squirmed and turned on that month after month and year after year—he must tell us how much more the right hon. and learned Gentleman the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that he should commit the Labour party to spend on local authority spending. Is it £1 billion, is it £2 billion, is it £3 billion? How much more than £3 billion should local authorities have next year?
The hon. Gentleman will not tell us. He cannot tell us. It is a vacuous and cynical response that the Labour party makes to our proposals.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a heavy day ahead of us. We have a series of Lords amendments to two Bills and, of course, the important debate on the televising of the House, to which the House is looking forward. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that there will be other opportunities to debate this

1193
statement. I shall allow questions to continue on it until half past 5. Then we will move on to the next business. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to ask single questions.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the changes that he has announced will be greatly welcomed? In the first part of his statement, he made no reference to those prudent local authorities, such as West Sussex, that have spent below their SSA. Those local authorities have been unfairly treated for many years because the money from central Government has been going to profligate authorities to bail them out.
Could my right hon. Friend refer to the provisions relating to flatlet houses? Many owners of such houses are being charged the community charge whenever their accommodation happens to have one empty flatlet.
Mr. Patten: On my right hon. Friend's first point, I join him in commending those local authorities that have been prudent over the years and spent regularly at or below target. They have given extremely good value for money to their ratepayers or charge payers. Invariably they have provided a high level of service at the same time.
I hope that my right hon. Friend noted that, when I referred to capping for the future, I referred to those authorities that spent above their SSAs, either by a small amount or by a larger margin. It is on those authorities that we shall need to concentrate our particular attention. It would be intolerable if they were able to use the generous settlement announced this afternoon to push their spending higher, rather than to help their community charge payers.
I assume that my right hon. Friend was referring to what are sometimes known colloquially as granny flats. We propose to set a zero multiplier for such flats. All the proposals we are making on the standard community charge are contained in a consultation paper published today. We shall be anxious to hear contributions from right hon. and hon. Friends and others on those proposals. Once we have received those observations, we shall make a final announcement in the autumn.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that this will be an unsuccessful and expensive attempt to conceal the real unfair nature of the community charge for a little longer —until the other side of the general election? Does he not realise that a dozen sweeteners do not provide any substitute for a healthy diet? Will he come clean with the House by saying that all he has done today is to announce that he is buying votes and buying time? He has traded accountability of local government to local people for accountability to himself.
Mr. Patten: I am providing a decent and reasonable settlement so that local authorities can provide good value for money while they also provide the schools, fire services, and other community services that people want in their area. They want those services at a reasonable price.
I am bound to say that £3 billion-plus strikes me as more than a few sweeteners. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that his constituents will benefit from the proposals that I have made on the area safety net system.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent package he has outlined, which will be extremely welcome to a great many people up and down the country, in spite of the churlish response it has had from the Opposition?
How will those who will benefit from the transitional relief changes—the disabled and pensioners—and those likely to benefit from changes in the standard charge, as well as all potential beneficiaries, know exactly what is proposed? How will they know what those changes mean to them, given that we cannot rely on the Opposition to give an honest picture of them?
Mr. Patten: It is interesting—we saw this in some of the advertisements that Labour local authorities financed earlier this year—that the Labour party, even when it talks about the take-up of benefit, is apparently more anxious not to let people know about the benefits to which they are entitled.
Mr. Gould: That is a disgraceful assertion.
Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman considers the example of the Association of London Authorities—a Labour organisation—he will know that that is true. I could have made that point a great deal more strongly in the past than I have this afternoon.
I shall certainly do what I can to ensure that the additional benefits that I have announced this afternoon, the extension of transitional relief, are made clear to all those who could receive greater assistance as a result.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will not the Secretary of State realise that the package he has announced this afternoon clearly has the next general election in mind more than tackling the basic problem of the poll tax, the ability to pay? Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said today deals with that matter.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also admit that too many people on low incomes have to pay the full poll tax? Will he assure us that, when rebates are considered, he will use each of his votes in Cabinet to ensure that rebates are given to those people on higher levels of income?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman refers to ability to pay. I must point out that about 25 per cent. of all community charge payers are in receipt of assistance. A large number of them get 80 per cent. relief from their community charge with the rest covered by income support. In England, we are spending in all more than £2.5 billion in benefits for community charge payers. That recognises our responsibility to help the needier members of the community.
Mr. Robin Squire: Against the background of the most generous settlement for many years —[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."]—factually, the most generous—my right hon. Friend deserves particular congratulations on sending additional support to 4 million households that previously did not benefit from transitional relief. Will my right hon. Friend also note that the shallow criticisms by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman are more accurately reflected in the sparse attendence on the Benches behind him?
Mr. Patten: I had indeed noticed how interested the Labour party was in next year's local authority financial settlement. I wonder whether more Opposition Members will turn up on that afternoon, to which we are looking

1195
forward, when the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) outlines the labour party's policy on such matters. I am sure that it will be standing room only, but we might have to wait rather a long time for it.
My hon. Friend was right to refer to the size and generosity of the settlement. We are putting a large amount of money from taxpayers and business rate payers into local authorities. We have played fair by local authorities; local authorities should now play fair by the community charge payer.
Mr. John Fraser: I congratulate the Secretary of State on delivering a long, intricate and difficult obituary on the creature produced by the right hon. Members for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). The right hon. Gentleman's statement simply demonstrates that the concept of restraining local government expenditure has gone out of the window, as has the concept of accountability. Why does he not bury the corpse and go back to a system based on ability to pay?
Mr. Patten: I believe that the proposals for which we have legislated and the announcement I have made this afternoon will mean—I argued this in the debate a couple of weeks ago, part of which the hon. Gentleman attended—that there is a much more direct transmission mechanism between local authority spending decisions and local electors. People are already looking with a far beadier eye at the spending decisions taken by local authorities. Unfortunately, when we introduced the community charge, a number of local authorities thought that they could spend up and blame the consequences on the new system rather than on their spending decisions. It would not be right to let them get away with that indefinitely.
Mr. Timothy Raison: May I, as a critic of the community charge, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the amelioration he has brought forward today? Have the Government any plans to reduce the excessive assumed level of income from capital above the limit of £3,000 for the purposes of rebates?
Mr. Patten: I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomed as much as I did the announcement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his Budget statement on the capital limit. There is some misunderstanding about the implications of interest rates that are implied by the increase in the capital limit to £16,000. First, no account is made of the first £3,000 of savings. Secondly, benefit is not withdrawn at the rate of £1 for £1 of income, but at the rate of 15p for every £1 of income. That means that, at the top level, at almost £16,000, the most that somebody can lose is £7.80, which is an implied interest rate of about 2.5 per cent., so the position is not quite as some of my hon. Friends have sometimes argued. Nevertheless, I am sure that, with his customary courtesy and eloquence, my right hon. Friend will continue to pursue that argument with the Secretary of State for Social Security and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Terry Fields: I am sure that the general public will never cease to wonder at the hypocrisy of the Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that yesterday—perhaps to obtain publicity for herself—the Prime Minister eulogised the family? Does he appreciate that the measures he has
1196
announced today will do nothing to stop the split-up of families because of economic pressure or for the conflict faced by women who are having to bear the poll tax charge for husbands, leading to the breakdown of families, or for the homeless in our streets? Is he aware that there is a vast army of people out there whose resolve will be reinforced by his statement today, and that the poll tax will be the rock on which the Government will perish?
Mr. Patten: When one is talking of hypocrisy, those whom I think of first are those elected members, whether of this House or local authorities, who are refusing to pay the community charge and who are urging—without, it must be said, according to a recent survey conducted by the BBC, much success—others to do the same, people who are attempting to act as free riders or freeloaders on the backs of the constituents.
Miss Emma Nicholson: As a strong critic of the sharpness of the initial introduction of the community charge, I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and thank him for the tremendous way in which he has shaken the pockets of the Treasury and made highly intelligent and receptive spending decisions on the sums of money that he has achieved. Will he remind the Opposition that, under the old rating system, 18 million people paid and 5.5 million received relief, and that under the new system, with his statement today, 36 million people will be financially enfranchised locally and about 25 million people will have assistance to help them pay?
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. As I said, the average charge paid by community charge payers this year is £286, which is a reflection of the generosity of the benefits and transitional relief. The benefits available are much more generous than they were under domestic rates, a point which has never been recognised by Opposition Members, who are regularly—indeed, institutionally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) pointed out earlier—churlish.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Does the Secretary of State agree that the fact that he has been forced to increase external financing by £3 billion next year and transitional relief by £310 million this year means that he has grossly miscalculated the revenue support grant settlement and the SSAs for local authorities in this financial year? Will he, even at this late stage, do something about the finances of local authorities, especially in view of the redundancies that will be caused by his clearly wrong figures this year? Will he also do something about the cuts in services that will come about as a result of his miscalculations?
Mr. Patten: I have not miscalculated. Local authorities have increased their expenditure by 13.5 per cent.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while his statement is welcome, there are areas where local people increasingly find it difficult to acquire houses in the face of outsiders buying holiday or weekend homes? Will he give an assurance that, as a result of the changes that he has announced affecting second homes, the locals will not find themselves having to pay more to pay for the reliefs on houses that are purely holiday or weekend houses and which fall outside the categories he mentioned?
Mr. Patten: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured when he sees the consultation paper that we have

1197
published this afternoon. The proposals to which I referred dealt with particular categories of people who, in the rather unhappy phrase used by my Department, are involuntary second home owners. The categories mentioned by my right hon. Friend are not covered in the consultation paper, and I hope that that reassures him. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will respond to the consultation document. We are keen to try at this stage to remove as soon as possible any legitimate grievances that may have arisen over the standard community charge.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the several cases I have drawn to the attention of the Government for the Spinal Injuries Association, among other voluntary bodies, where families which include a severely disabled person have had to pay over £700 a year more than they paid in rates? That arises from the repeal of the previous Government's Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978, when the poll tax became law. Should not those families have far more protection than the right hon. Gentleman has announced so far?
Mr. Patten: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about these matters, he is wrong to say that there is a connection between the consequence that concerned him and the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. Under the rating system, it was occasionally the case that disabled people would make changes or alterations to their property that would increase the rateable value of that property, and there was, properly, relief against that. The community charge is not in any way a levy on property: it is a levy on individuals.
The right hon. Gentleman should take account of the enhanced benefits for the disabled that have been introduced by the Government. If he is as concerned as I am sure he is about the impact on the disabled and others of the community charge in some parts of the country, I hope that he will be urging the leaders of Labour local authorities to set moderate levels of community charge.
Mr. Graham Riddick: My right hon. Friend's announcement, particularly in the way in which it relates to the extension of the transitional relief scheme, is welcome because it provides extra help and support for those who live in terraced houses with historically low rateable values, many of whom are pensioners and on modest incomes. But will he confirm that at the end of the day the level of the community charge in my constituency depends on the spending decisions of the local Kirklees council, and will he join me in urging it to get rid of the extravagance and wastage which undoubtedly now exist?
Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend, particularly after the representations that he made to me on that point, will welcome the changes that we have made to the area safety net, which will benefit his local authority to the tune of £2.2 million. That is very much a result of the representations that he made to me and to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. My hon. Friend is right to say that the level of community charge depends clearly and explicitly on the spending decisions taken by
1198
local authorities. We have provided a reasonable settlement. It is now up to local authorities to play their part.
Mr. Dave Nellist: We can cut through the Secretary of State's Elastoplast politics this afternoon and ask him if it is a fact that the aggregate external finance level that he has announced this afternoon is £1 billion less than the Tory-dominated Association of District Councils said was necessary next year merely to maintain existing services, and inevitably means hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cuts in jobs and essential services.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the promise of limited jam tomorrow will not cut any ice with the 28 million people who are worse off this year because of the poll tax? Is he also aware that hundreds of councils are in chaos because of their inability to collect the poll tax following the strike action that is occurring because of the millions of people who are unable or unwilling to pay? Is he further aware that shuffling the deck chairs on the Prime Minister's flagship will not turn it into anything but her Titanic?
Mr. Patten: The whole House, whether properly or inappropriately, has from time to time taken a particular and keen interest in the hon. Gentleman's own relationship to the community charge. The whole House knows that the hon. Gentleman is—at least for the time being—better off on two counts: first, because he is a resident of Wandsworth and secondly, because in his own community he does not pay the community charge, but leaves it to his constituents to carry him.
Not all the local authority associations are endorsing the figure politically at the moment, but they are putting forward a paper drawn up by their officers—the equivalent in governmental terms of a bidding letter. They have suggested that they would need to spend £40.7 billion next year and I referred to that point earlier. Over three years, that would represent an increase in local authority spending of 40 per cent.
I should have thought that even the Labour party, especially given the Gladstonian fiscal rectitude of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), would regard that as grotesquely excessive. It was, of course, a Labour Government who were the only Government in recent memory under whom local authority spending actually fell in one year by 6 per cent.
Mr. David Howell: At first hearing, the arithmetic of my right hon. Friend's package sounds extremely attractive. He deserves to be congratulated on bringing his package forward in this way. Can he reassure the House that people living in areas of low-spending or prudent-spending local authorities—[Interruption.]—who this year face an enormous increase in their total bills, will not have the gains from his package eroded by further wildly optimistic estimates by the Treasury about the rate of inflation?
Mr. Patten: First, while my right hon. Friend was referring to low-spending and prudent authorities, he was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and by the hon. Member for Newham,

1199
North-West (Mr. Banks)—my unofficial pair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He was interrupted with the suggestion—
Mr. Tony Banks: You had better withdraw that.
Mr. Patten: I make it clear straight away that all I am referring to is the fact that the hon. Gentleman and I have a relationship in the House of genial contempt, which has seen us through many long nights together. I do not want to get the hon. Gentleman into any difficulty.
The hon. Gentleman interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) to suggest that he was referring to rich or Conservative local authorities. With a bit of difficulty, I can think of one or two reasonably prudent, reasonably low-spending Labour authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dagenham."] Yes, like Dagenham. We want all local authorities to provide value for money. At the moment, it is mainly Conservative authorities that do so.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend referred to the arithmetic of the settlement. In bringing forward this settlement, I have been absolutely determined to put forward proposals that would not only sound attractive in July, but would look equally attractive in September and in next March. We are talking about an increase in aggregate external finance of 12.8 per cent. and about an increase in total standard spending over this year's budgeted spending of 7.1 per cent. Those are extremely robust figures.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Secretary of State explain—as no one else has today—why, when it comes to imposing the poll tax on the people, Scotland is first in the queue, but when it comes to hearing a Secretary of State explain the changes, we are the last in the queue? Does the Secretary of State not understand that one cannot solve the poll tax disaster by nibbling at the edges of injustice or by throwing money at it? The only way to make the poll tax acceptable is to relate it properly to ability to pay. Until that is done, the campaign of resistance and non-payment in Scotland—represented by half a million people 15 months into the poll tax imposition—will continue and intensify.
Mr. Patten: I am sure that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland makes his statement, it will he as sensible and realistic as my statement this afternoon. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will draw attention to the fact that, in its second year of operation in Scotland, one of the consequences of the community charge is that a number of local authorities have moderated their spending decisions.
Mr. David Nicholson: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals this afternoon, especially those on transitional relief and on business proprietors who live over the shop, and I also welcome his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
Will my right hon. Friend examine how, between now and his announcement on SSAs in the autumn, he can ensure that charge payers in shire counties operate on a more level playing field than do charge payers in inner London and other local authorities, who have been rather well looked after this year?
Mr. Patten: We have made it clear, as my hon. Friend knows, that we are prepared to consider fresh evidence on the methodology of the standard spending assessments. I know that some shire districts and shire counties have expressed a number of criticisms. There has occasionally been a problem this year when the lack of level ground on the playing field has been a result of some of the spending decisions that have been taken by shire counties.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: When the Secretary of State leaves the House, will he acquaint himself with the levels of income on which those on income support and state pensions have to live? Is he aware that the lowest income group in my constituency—those on income support—pay at least £4.95 a month in poll tax and that they were not properly compensated by the Department of Social Security for the poll tax?
When will the right hon. Gentleman do something about a pensioner in my constituency—and about many more like her—who has had to sell her mother's sideboard to pay the poll tax this year for herself and for her husband? When is the Secretary of State going to do something about people who are devastated by poverty and—
Mr. Patten rose—
Mrs. Mahon: —I have not finished yet. It is time that the Secretary of State started concerning himself about that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This does not help the hon. Lady's other colleagues.
Mr. Patten: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is now paying the community charge, but—
Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What on earth have how and when I pay my bills got to do with the Secretary of State?
Mr. Patten: For one very simple reason. If the hon. Lady is refusing to pay her community charge, as I believe is the case, a consequence is that her constituents, including some of those to whom she has referred who are less well off, will have to pay higher community charges in due course.
It is preposterous for the hon. Lady to behave in that sanctimonious fashion. I am sure that she will be delighted to know that Calderdale is one of the areas that will benefit from the area safety net adjustments. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), who also represents a constituency in Calderdale, has made that point to me on a number of occasions. Calderdale will benefit to the tune of £2.2 million.
Sir David Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local government spending has moved from a seething cauldron of public indifference to a position in which the public are taking an acute interest in what councils are spending? Many local authorities are now looking at their spending plans far more prudently than ever before.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One consequence of the introduction of the community charge is that public debate in local authority areas about spending decisions has become more acute and more lively.
Mr. Allen McKay: I take it from the Secretary of State's remarks that transitional relief will be extended in my constituency for a further lengthy period. It is currently £40 per annum for the next three years, but I presume that it will be reduced. I understand that the unified business rate is also being reviewed, and that an amount will be transferred to compensate for the different amount of relief that is being given to private poll tax payers. Therefore, businesses in my area that expected some relief—the initial relief, although it was spread over 10 years, was welcome—will now find themselves zero-rated. I take into account the increase in mortgage and tax rates as well. May I also know—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has taken three bites.
Mr. McKay: Just a further little one, Mr. Speaker. Will all the services that have been lost as a result of trying to find savings of £10.5 million be returned?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency which, because of modifications to the area safety net, will benefit to the tune of £2.1 million additionally next year. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency and all others, the postponement of any phasing out of transitional relief will obtain. As I said earlier, we are extending that scheme for two years. As to the uniform rate, large and small businesses in constituencies such as Barnsley are among the main beneficiaries of the changeover to uniform business rate and of revaluation.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people most disappointed at the outcome of his statement today will not be charge payers but the Opposition, who see the community charge issue disappearing fast as one that can help them to win the next general election?
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the problem confronting prudent district authorities within high-spending county councils. Can he assure those district councils that, when he caps high-spending county councils, he will do so promptly, so that district councils know that their charges can remain steady and will not have to be revised?
Mr. Patten: Hon. Members opposite will look even more long-faced when the Opposition announce their alternative to domestic rates and the community charge, but we may have to wait some time for that. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's remarks, because I also represent a prudent district council which has to send out bills that are much larger than they should be, because of the county council's spending decisions. We must review the effects of high-spending county councils. I referred to our proposed changes to the Bill, and I hope that those relating to capping will help to ensure that county councils spend more sensibly in future.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement will create a group of 4 million people who he recognises have paid too much this year? We have constantly pressed their case. They include low-income earners, pensioners, the thrifty, and people generally who would rather die than be in debt. The Secretary of State now says that next year, they will be
1202
helped by £1 per week. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the spirit, integrity, consciences and values of those people are so cheap that they will be bought by £1 per week in the form of a post-dated cheque?
Mr. Patten: I am not seeking to do that, but to provide, at the expense of the taxpayer, greater assistance—perhaps to many receiving benefit. I am seeking to provide greater relief for those charge payers whom I think need it. It is preposterous to say, whenever a benefit is increased in a Budget or on other occasions, that, because that has not been done before, people who do not receive that increase are in some way disadvantaged.
Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has made a most ingenious and valiant attempt to respond to the many intense, varied and often contradictory pressures that have been brought to bear on him from all parts of the House. I wonder whether he shares my more fundamental concern. He will be raising some £3 billion in public expenditure, which the nation may understand better as a figure of roughly £60 per head of the population, or £250 per family, to deal with a series of phenomena which arise partly from profligacy and partly from inflation. Is not it dangerous at any time to encourage the nation to believe that phenomena of that kind can ever be dealt with fundamentally and finally by increasing public expenditure, when we already have 10 per cent. inflation?
Mr. Patten: I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend on two counts. First, he mentioned that I had been the beneficiary of a good deal of advice. He was right to say that it was not always consistent. Secondly, he is also right to say that we cannot continue indefinitely to bail out local authorities with increased support from taxpayers. Local authorities intend to increase their spending this year by 5.5 per cent. in real terms. From 1985 to 1991, they will have increased their expenditure in real terms by the best part of 20 per cent. That is a massive rise and it must be paid for by someone. Community charge payers will increasingly recognise that they will have to pick up the bills because of the lack of value for money offered by their local authorities.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the truth that there has been a cut of more than £3,000 million in local taxes paid by the residents of large and expensive properties? The Secretary of State cannot for political reasons claw that money back. Is not that his dilemma? Is not that why £3 billion of taxpayers' money must now be found? My constituents in west Cumbria think that the poll tax is monstrous and appalling, and they look forward to a Labour Government who will abolish it.
Mr. Patten: As we all know, the Labour party's alternative involves local authorities spending more, but people being taxed less and also receiving free Esperanto lessons. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count. I am certain that he would not want to defend a system in which single pensioners, for example, pay exactly the same as a family of four or five wage earners living next door. Nor would he defend a system, I am sure, in which poorer families subsidised the domestic rates of better-off families. The real problem is the tendency of too many local authorities to spend too much money.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I wish that my right hon. Friend had been responsible for the community

1203
charge from the beginning. As to transitional relief from the uniform business rate, that disappears as soon as the premises change hands. Does my right hon. Friend intend to modify that arrangement, which hits small businesses in London and the south-east in particular extremely hard?
Mr. Patten: No, we do not intend to change that arrangement. One could not do so without also ensuring that similar provisions applied to new as well as existing property. In most circumstances, it would be very difficult to reach a decision. The transitional arrangements are intended to help business rate payers who were not aware before revaluation that their liability would dramatically change. That is not the case when someone moves premises.
Mr. Elliot Morley: The review acknowledges the hardship that the poll tax has brought upon many people, and a sensible Government would never have imposed it. But it does not recognise the effect on non-working partners, mainly married women, who must carry the full burden of the poll tax. Nor does it recognise the effect of the poll tax on small towns dominated by large businesses. They have lost a great deal in terms of the business rate, but they still have capital charges to carry. Nor does the statement acknowledge the stupidity of the standard spending rate calculations, which bear no relation to a local council's spending, be it Labour or Tory controlled. The review only serves to perpetuate an unfair, immoral and unconstitutional system which, if the Secretary of State had any integrity, he would denounce today.
Mr. Patten: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the situation. Under the old system, if a local authority received a large amount in business rates from a big local employer—a point on which the hon. Member for Dagenham has been wrong on a number of occasions—the rate support grant would have been adjusted downward.
Mr. Robert Banks: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which has the hallmarks of practicality and common sense. In considering changes to the methodology of the SSAs, will my right hon. Friend give particular consideration to relating the system under which a notional sum is arrived at for the revenue from interest on capital that an authority receives to the actual revenue from an authority's capital? Secondly, will he bear in mind the importance of the tourist industry and the necessity to give a fair deal to authorities which have a large number of visitors?
Mr. Patten: As I said earlier, we are prepared to look at new evidence on the SSA methodology before we distribute grant later this year. I should make it clear that none of my proposals will involve primary legislation, although some will involve secondary legislation. The only change that we have not discussed which affects the business rate in a way which will involve legislation is the change that we have to make on caravans.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister not understand that the people whom he is threatening all the time, saying what he will do to them, are local councillors who have been elected to provide services for local people? Does he not recognise that the more disadvantaged the area and the less well off the people in
1204
it, the more they need those services and the more anguished the decision for local councillors, Labour or Conservative, whether to cut education, social services or libraries—cuts which really affect people in their daily lives? Will he please stop hectoring councillors and understand what they do for local people in areas such as Leicester and elsewhere, where they are prudent and careful and deeply resent being called profligate when they are trying to serve the people who have elected them?
Mr. Patten: I should be surprised if even the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that an increase of 12.8 per cent. in aggregate external finance to local authorities, including the one in which his constituency resides, was insufficient.
Mr. Robert Hicks: I particularly welcome the extension of the transitional relief arrangements, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that, among the 4 million additional individuals who will benefit are those lone-parent families with sole earners whose income levels make them ineligible for relief at the moment and who have been obliged to pay between £4 and £5 per week per household as a consequence of the changes in local government finance? Unless they are assisted, the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today will not be as effective as most of us would wish.
Mr. Patten: The 4 million that I mentioned earlier are those who will now benefit from the transitional relief scheme because their losses in the move from domestic rates to the assumed community charge were between £2 and £3. Now that we have reduced the threshold to £2, they will benefit from the transitional relief scheme. I hope that many of those to whom my hon. Friend referred will also benefit from the enhanced assistance that we are giving in other ways.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State has sorely tempted the geniality of my contempt for him this afternoon with what he has announced, which was not so much a statement, more a redrafting of the poll tax legislation, made that much more cynical because he is attempting to bribe the electorate before the next general election. What calculation has he made of the increase in pay and prices that local authorities will face in 1991–92? What will the poor people of Newham have to do in terms of their further contribution to the safety net? [ Interruption.]
Mr. Patten: One or two of my hon. Friends are making remarks about what the hon. Gentleman's constituents might do which lack gallantry even if they are pointed and relevant. The figures that I mentioned earlier involve, as I said, increasing total standard spending from £32.8 billion to £39 billion, and an increase of 7.1 per cent. in the total standard spending figure over local authorities' planned spending for this year. Those are helpful figures.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I believe that the review will be seen as a thoughtful response by the Government to the concerns of many people, and I imagine that my constituents will be pleased, particularly those with low rateable values and those such as vicars and teachers who have to live in second homes while they buy properties for their retirement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as

1205
time goes on, any party that comes up with the idea of returning to some sort of domestic rating system will be seen as going back to the dark ages?
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He will know as well as I do some of the things which Opposition Members have said about the inequities of the domestic rating system, and he, like me, will have come to the conclusion that it is inconceivable that, after saying some of those things, they could even consider going back to domestic rates.
Mr. Max Madden: I am refusing to pay the poll tax because eight out of 10 of my constituents lose under the poll tax compared with the rates. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said today will lessen their anger at the unfairness and injustice of the poll tax. Will he give an assurance that the people of Bradford, who last May exercised their local democratic rights by turfing out the Tories from control of Bradford city council, will not be penalised by any Government actions between now and the next general election?
Mr. Patten: I certainly will not penalise anybody, but the way in which I react to local authorities will depend what they do. Once again I must say that it is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should take the view that his constituents should face larger bills so that he can have a free ride.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept, from someone who does not love the community charge, that I think that he has done extraordinarily well to get £3 billion extra out of the Treasury? Is it not somewhat alarming and disturbing to hear £3 billion called "a piffling sum"? If £3 billion is a piffling sum, God knows what the socialists would spend.
Surely the whole idea of local government is that it should be local and that it should be government, so that the people know that, when they vote for a local government they are voting for one kind of authority or another. Instead of charge capping, which puts the albatross of overspending firmly around the Government's neck, why not put it firmly where it should belong—around the local authorities' necks, and penalise them a pound for every pound spent over the SSA?
Mr. Patten: We have both been in the House for the same period, and my hon. Friend will recall that we have in the past had clawback systems which approximated to the proposal he makes but they are not uniformly popular —for example, with my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend is right to say that the amount of money that we are proposing as an increase to aggregate external finance is substantial. For the Opposition to witter on about it not being £3 billion is equivalent to their saying that money raised through corporation tax and spent on public services is somehow not a contribution from the public Exchequer.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Secretary of State has been wittering on about local authorities increasing their expenditure, but is not it true that that expenditure has been on important services such as home helps, provision for the mentally handicapped, education,
1206
housing and other obligations placed on them by the Government; and that local authorities have also had to cope with the inflation created by the Government's economic policies? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, when this malevolent and wicked tax was produced by the Government, it was said that it would be simple? Who will pay for the massive administration that his proposals today will entail? Will it be borne entirely by the Government? Does he realise that, as a result of his threat today to poll-cap every local authority, he has shifted from the liberal wing to the jackboot tendency in his party?
Mr. Patten: I leave knowledge of jackboots to the hon. Gentleman. It is entirely possible to provide good-quality services for the amounts that I have mentioned. It is also entirely possible for local authorities to provide a good standard of service with increased spending of 30 per cent. over three years. Plainly the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has his work cut out to convert the Labour party to fiscal probity.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is not the additional allocation of £3 billion to local authorities next year more than they could reasonably have hoped for? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still an enormous gulf between the best and the worst local authorities in terms of price and quality of service? What steps will he take to bring greater efficiency, greater economy and greater effectiveness to local government?
Mr. Patten: The answer to my hon. Friend's first two questions is a strong affirmative. The answer to his third question is that we all look to the Audit Commission to continue to press for greater efficiency in local government. For example, the commission has identified £650 million-worth of possible savings that have still not been made. It has also pointed to about £150 million-worth of savings that could be made through energy efficiency, and no doubt all hon. Members would agree about that. There is plenty that could be done to achieve the objective to which my hon. Friend properly and eloquently referred.
Mr. David Blunkett: I congratulate the Secretary of State on an undoubted sleight of hand, in which he was aided and abetted by the headline writers in some of our broadcast media, in pretending that an allocation of £3 billion is in some way a gift of Government through the grant system. Grant has increased by only £2 billion, two thirds of what has been talked about. The remainder comes from the national business rate.
The Secretary of State's announcement is a fraud. Will he confirm that the year-on-year increase in spending to which he has referred from last year, is well accounted for by the removal of creative accountancy measures, including the use of capital receipts? Authorities cannot be blamed for high poll tax charges, nor can they be blamed for spending cuts that are being considered by the Cabinet in its public spending review.
The amount of £2 billion is peanuts. What happened to the £5 billion that we heard about only a few weeks ago, and what happened to the Government's promise that they would look at those who had no income, people such as mothers looking after small children at home? What

1207
happened to the 43 suggestions put to him by his Back Benchers and what has become of the promised fundamental review of the poll tax?
Mr. Patten: I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would continue with his list of rhetorical questions and ask what happened to those Labour Back Benchers who are not here, and what happened to the Labour party alternative. [ Interruption.] I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question, about which his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham shouts from time to time. The hon. Gentleman knows too much about local authority finance to believe what he said.
Aggregate external finance to local authorities this year is £23.1 billion. Next year it will be £26.05 billion. That difference of £2.95 billion is made up of revenue support grant, specific grants and contributions from the non-domestic rate pool. For the hon. Gentleman to say that one should take no account of contributions from the business rate pool is like saying, as I mentioned earlier, that corporation tax should not be included in Government revenues because it comes from business. The hon. Gentleman's argument is ridiculous. He is trying to find some specious intellectual justification for spending the whole afternoon being churlish.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all those hon. Members who have been rising. I shall give them some precedence and further opportunities, possibly in the Adjournment motion next week.
Dr. Keith Hampson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House knows the problems that you face, but may I point out that some Conservative Members with northern seats who will benefit from this package suffer from high-spending local councils?
Mr. Speaker: It is terribly difficult to call all hon. Members who wish to participate. As I have said, there will be other opportunities.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you will consider that on a day on which the Government put down a business motion requiring us to stay here all night, and as there is no pressure for business to finish by 10 o'clock, it should have been possible to call all hon. Members who were rising.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. I have to have regard to the legitimate interests of hon. Members who wish to participate in later debates. It is desirable for some hon. Members who wish to get in early at Question Time, but that means that other hon. Members have to wait until late in the night.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We heard the Labour voice of Lancashire but we did not hear the Conservative voice. We should like to thank the Secretary of State for what he has done.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Conservative voice will be heard next week.
Mr. Barry Field: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. Can you explain how the only hon. Member who represents an entire county can express his view on this important package?
Mr. Speaker: What about trying next week? The hon. Gentleman has not been deprived in any way. He was called at Question Time today.
Mr. Cecil Franks rose—
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I suppose I shall have to hear hon. Members' complaints.
Mr. Franks: Further to the point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate your problems and accept your rulings. Will you bear in mind that you called the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which is a Labour voice for Cumbria, but did not call any Conservative voice for Cumbria?
Mr. Speaker: I shall do that next week.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the two motions on statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Crown Agents (Additional Powers) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Orders of the Day
  Government Trading Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 1

  NEW PROVISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
  "(5A) An order establishing a trading fund for operations carried on by a person appointed in pursuance of any enactment may provide—

  (a) for the fund to be under the control and management of that person instead of the responsible Minister and, accordingly,

  (b) for this Act to have effect as if—

  (i) the reference to the responsible Minister in section 3(1) of this Act and the first reference to him in section 4(1), and

  (ii) such other references in this Act to the responsible Minister as may be specified in the order, where they are references to him in the exercise of his function of controlling or managing the fund,

  were references to that person."
  5.37 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), after first 'the', insert 'continuing operations of the'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, after 'managing', insert 'the continuing operation of'.
  Dr. Marek: Amendment (a) is a probing amendment. Consideration of the amendments should not detain the House for long because in principle the Opposition have no problem with any of them. We are pleased with amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are technical or consolidation measures. Perhaps the Economic Secretary will confirm what I have said. I sympathise with the Economic Secretary who has been landed with the Bill at short notice because of the departure of the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We shall proceed gently in seeking some assurances.
  My noble Friend Lord Bruce of Donington raised three points in Committee in the other place. One point that he made when Lords amendment No. 1 was being considered in the other place was whether a corporate body could be a person. Could the Bill be construed in such a way that a corporate body could be appointed by statute to run a trading fund or an agency? The Earl of Caithness said:
  "On the first point raised by the noble Lord, I do not believe that there is a need to cover corporate bodies because the Bill refers to a person appointed pursuant to any enactment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 1990; Vol. 520, c. 229.]
  I am sure that the Government have considered that point in detail and I should like clarification of it. It would cause some consternation among the Opposition if the Bill were to allow a corporate body to run a trading fund. It is important that the original intention of the Bill is made clear—that trading funds should be run by the responsible Minister. It was later discovered that some people were
  1210
  appointed by statute to run trading accounts. We accept that it would be wrong for such people to be required to hand over the management of those trading funds to the responsible Minister.
  We are not opposed to Lords amendment No. 1, but we are concerned about how wide it may be interpreted. Wherever possible, we want responsibility to lie with the responsible Minister, who is accountable to Parliament. If my supposition is right, it could be open to future Governments, of either party, to move trading funds so that they could be run by corporate bodies. That would introduce all sorts of problems. It raises the fear of privatisation without primary legislation, although I think that Lords amendment No. 2 reassures us on that matter.
  My noble Friend sought reassurance that Lords amendment No. 1 was principally concerned with the day-to-day management of the funds. He also sought reassurance that, ultimately, responsibility lay with the responsible Minister, not with some civil servant or person appointed by statute. The Earl of Caithness gave my noble Friend that assurance, but it would be nice to hear it from the Economic Secretary.
  Amendments (a) and (b) are linked. There is some confusion about the Lords amendment. I hope that its intention—that a person appointed by statute can run any fund—means that he or she runs it on a continuing basis, from day to day. If a fund had to be wound up, I hope that the responsible Minister would intervene. The Lords amendment—its drafting may be defective—provides
  "for the fund to be under the control and management of that person instead of the responsible Minister".
  By inserting the words, "continuing operation", the sentence would read,
  "for the continuing operation of the fund to be under the control and management of that person instead of the responsible Minister."
  That may be otiose, but it makes it clear that the day-to-day management of the fund is under the control of that person, and if it were to be wound up or if there was anything that was not part of the continuing day-to-day operation of the fund, the responsible Minister would have to take responsibility.
  I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, first, about the points made in another place and, secondly, about the reasons for the Lords amendment.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for his kind remarks. I appreciate the work done on this legislation by Lord Bruce of Donington. I shall deal first with the amendment and then with the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  A fund will usually be under the control and management of the responsible Minister, who will also be carrying on the funded operations. Lords amendment No. 1 is concerned with funds for operations carried on by a person appointed in pursuance of any enactment. An order establishing such a fund may provide that its control and management be with that person. One example of that would be the Chief Land Registrar, who is appointed under the Registration Act 1925 to carry on
  "the whole business of land registration under the Act."
  In such cases, once a fund is established the operations will continue to be carried on by the office holder, pursuant to the relevant legislation, just as they were previously. The Lords amendment relates only to the control and

  1211
  management of the funds in such cases. It sensibly provides that it may be placed with that office holder by the order establishing the fund.
  I understand that the hon. Gentleman's amendments stem from a concern about the winding up of a fund that is under the control and management of a statutory office holder. As with any fund, new section 4A would apply. The responsibility for making appropriate orders under section 4A will remain that of the responsible Minister. Lords amendment No. 2 puts beyond any doubt the fact that the winding-up powers are not concerned with funded operations ceasing because they are being privatised.
  I shall take the hon. Gentleman's specific points in turn. His first point related to a statutory office holder. As a matter of construction, the reference to a person appointed pursuant to statute does not extend to bodies corporate. That was not the Government's intention, and they had nothing like that in mind. That question was raised in another place, but, as far as I am aware, no one has yet identified a corporate candidate that has inadvertently been caught by that provision. It should also be remembered that funds can be established only in relation to the operations of a Department of Government.
  I cannot rule out privatisation of trading funds, and would not wish to do so. However, if that were to happen, it would require further primary legislation, such as happened with the Crown Suppliers. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. The Bill does not provide the means to bypass the need for further legislation, and the amendment places that beyond doubt.
  Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend may recall—and it goes back a number of years—that a trading fund was set up for the Ordnance Survey headquarters in Southampton. I am sure that he has used that as a model of what can be achieved. It has succeeded in competing in the private market, even though it is a trading fund. It is moving forward with great prosperity and is creating a vast amount of employment in the area.
  Mr. Ryder: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful observation. As he knows, the orginal legislation was passed by the House in 1973. The purpose of this Bill is to update that legislation in the light of developments that have been put in place by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who is also responsible for the civil service. Perhaps I can add a rider to that by informing the House that the Ordnance Survey is not regarded as a trading fund.
  Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Question is, That this House—[Interruption.] We have just been debating the amendment to the Lords amendment.
  Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was some confusion when Mr. Speaker called the first amendment. He asked me to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1. If that was the case, what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is perfectly correct. I certainly was not going to shout, "Aye" when you put the Question on amendment (a). I do not know whether that helps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not need any help. I assumed that the hon. Gentleman, having been called to do so by Mr. Speaker, had moved his amendment to the Lords
  1212
  amendment. I put the Question that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1 be made and there was no response other than "No", so I declared that the Noes had it. Therefore, the amendment to the Lords amendment was negatived.
  Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 6, line 8, after "or" insert
  "while continuing to be operations of a department of the government"
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ryder.]
  Dr. Marek: First, I should like to thank my hon. Friend Lord Bruce of Donington for moving the amendment in another place and securing its acceptance there. My hon. Friend in the other place took a great interest in the Bill, did a lot of work on it, and I am sure spent a considerable time examining it and making sure that there were no further pitfalls or loopholes in it. It has been 17 years, since the Trading Funds Act 1973, before the Government have had to introduce more legislation because of what they considered to be a lacuna in that 1973 Act. There is nothing wrong with taking careful measure of any Bill to see whether it is watertight. I am certainly most grateful to my hon. Friend Lord Bruce of Donington.
  I should like to pursue the point that I raised about privatisation. I very much approve of the Economic Secretary's reply to amendment (a) to Lords amendment. No. 1. He said that the privatisation of trading funds cannot occur without primary legislation.
  The Paymaster General, the Earl of Caithness, did not reply fully to my hon. Friend Lord Bruce of Donington when he moved the amendment. He said that he was advised that there was no question of any possible privatisation without future primary legislation, but unfortunately he did not say it categorically. He said simply that he was grateful to Lord Bruce for tabling the amendment and recommended that the House should accept it. He said:
  "It proves the diligent work which the noble Lord has carried out on this Bill. It is something that we have come to expect from him and he had not let us down. He had given careful and detailed study to this measure."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 18 June 1990, Vol. 520, c. 604.]
  He then moved on to another point with which I shall deal in a moment.
  The Economic Secretary has already satisfied me in his reply to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1. However, it is an important point, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I mention it again. Privatisation of parts of the civil service that have trading funds will not be possible without primary legislation and the House being given the opportunity to discuss the matter. I am very pleased about that.
  The Earl of Caithness then talked about how annual reports and accounts would be presented. I have a letter—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment merely seeks to insert the words
  "while continuing to be operations of a department of the government."
  It is difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Lords amendment.
  Dr. Marek: I hope that you will bear with me for about 30 seconds, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the Hansard of the

  1213
  debate on Report in another place, considering what is now Lords amendment No. 2. The Paymaster General spoke about annual reports and accounts. If you bear with me for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be as quick as I can.
  I have a letter from the Earl of Caithness to Lord Bruce of Donington, in which he makes it absolutely clear that copies of reports and accounts in the continuing work of the Government trading funds have to be laid before both Houses. Towards the end of the letter the Paymaster General states:
  "If exceptionally the annual report is published separately, then the Treasury would use its powers of direction under section 4(6A) to ensure that the annual report is available to Parliament, either by laying it before both Houses or by placing copies in the Libraries of both Houses."
  If those reports were made separately, it would be very useful for them to be laid on the Table of the House as they would automatically come to the notice of hon. Members. If they were simply placed in the Library, the onus would be on hon. Members to seek the information required. I hope that the Economic Secretary will assure me that the reports and accounts will be placed on the Table of the House.
  I have made only two quick points: the first concerns privatisation, and the second is about reports and accounts being placed on the Table of the House. I should be interested to hear the Economic Secretary's reply.
  Mr. Ryder: I am happy to elaborate on the Government's commitment on privatisation as it is relevant to the Bill. There are differences of opinion between the two sides of the House, but the "next steps" agency's document made the position clear. The Prime Minister said:
  "Next steps is primarily about those operations which are to remain within Government…Where there is a firm intention of privatisation when an agency is being set up, this should be made clear."—[Official Report, 24 October 1988; Vol. 139, c.14.]
  Thus, in the rare cases when we anticipate privatisation, that will be made clear when the agency is set up. Of course, not all agencies will become trading funds, but for those that do, the position is now equally clear. Although we cannot rule out privatisation of funding operations, that would require primary legislation to deal with the winding up of funds as, for example, happened with the Crown Suppliers.
  Lords amendment No. 2—an Opposition amendment that was accepted by the Government—put that beyond doubt by making it clear that the winding-up provisions are not concerned with finding operations ceasing because they are being privatised.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's other point, I am happy to say to him that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if the reports and accounts of trading funds were given the widest possible circulation in the House, compatible with the existing arrangements. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have already committed ourselves to putting those documents in the Libraries of both Houses. We shall certainly do everything we can to ensure that, compatible with the existing arrangements, they are given the widest possible circulation, outside the two Libraries, within the Palace of Westminster.
  6 pm
  Dr. Marek: Would it be possible for them to appear on the pink slips in the Vote Office? That would make a big difference. If they appear on the pink slips, they come to the attention of every hon. Member as a matter of course.
  Mr. Ryder: I have no objection to them appearing on the pink slips, provided that that arrangement is compatible with what happens in other related spheres. I shall certainly look into the matter with a view to trying to achieve that aim on the hon. Gentleman's behalf.
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for his reply. I can ask no more than that he should look into the matter and try to achieve that aim.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

  ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF FUNDS
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 8, line 28, after "require" insert—
  "(6B) Where any enactment (other than this Act) requires, in whatever terms, a report to be prepared for any period as to the funded operations and sent to any person, or laid before Parliament, or both or so sent or laid by any time or times, an order may provide for that requirement to be treated as satisfied by preparing the report for the financial year and sending it to that person, or laying it before Parliament, or both, as the case may be, so sending or laying it by the time or times specified in the order."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ryder.]
  Dr. Marek: There was a debate in the other place about whether the amendment should have been tabled. As far as both I and their Lordships were able to discover, it was tabled simply to take account of practices in the Patent Office.
  I wonder whether an amendment could have been tabled simply for the Patent Office. I do not disagree with the Lords amendment, but a little information about it would be helpful. Is it just the Patent Office that is covered, or does the amendment cover other bodies?
  Mr. Ryder: The amendment is intended to deal with a problem which, so far as we know, is confined solely to the Patent Office. However, the amendment would cover any other similar problem. The Patent Office is required by the legislation to produce an annual report on a calendar-year basis. The intention underlying sections 4(6) and 4(6)(a) of the 1973 Act, as amended by the Bill, is that trading funds should be able to produce and publish combined annual reports and accounts. Since the Patent Office works on an April to March financial year, which it would be likely to retain if it were to become a trading fund, if it is to meet that requirement, the Patent Office will either have to change its financial year to the calendar year or publish two separate annual reports. The amendment solves the problem by making it possible for a report that is produced for a trading fund's financial year to be treated as satisfying any other statutory reporting requirements.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 9, line 11, at end insert—
  "(5) That Act, as amended by section 1 of this Act and this section, is set out in Schedule (Government Trading Funds Act 1973, as amended) to this Act."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ryder.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 5.
  Dr. Marek: This is another technical amendment. However, I should like the Economic Secretary to put on record his assurance that that is the case—that the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, as amended, is being reprinted in the schedule to the Bill and that the amendments deal with purely consolidation matters.
  This is a small Bill on which both the Government and the Opposition have collaborated to improve it. If the Economic Secretary can reassure me on that point, I believe that, together with the other amendments that have been made in both Houses, the Bill is now a better Bill.
  Mr. Ryder: The purpose of the amendments, however lengthy they may be, is extremely simple. The Bill amends the Government Trading Funds Act 1973. However, it is not easy to follow the final result simply by reading the Act and the Bill together. Therefore, we considered that it would help those who will use the legislation if the Bill reprinted the 1973 Act, as amended.
  For the avoidance of any doubt, I should make it clear that the amendments make no change whatever to the text of the Bill. They reflect all the amendments that have been made to the Bill during its passage through both Houses, including Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 3, which have just been agreed to by the House.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his assistance in ensuring that the Bill has been improved. Both he and his noble Friend Lord Bruce of Donington gave us useful advice.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
  Clause 5

    OFFENCES RELATING TO SECURITY AT AERODROMES ETC. 1982 C. 36
    Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 10, line 10, leave out "course of his duty" and insert
    "exercise of the power conferred by section 20(2)(aa) of this Act"
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 June], That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question again proposed.
    6.8 pm
    Mr. Tony Banks: Since Lords amendment No. 5 relates to clause 5, as well as to identity documents and security, may I raise with the Minister a case that throws a little light on the clause. It is an important issue. It relates to security arrangements at Gatwick airport and to statements in connection with identity documents, as set out in clause 5.
    The case is that of a constituent who has asked his Member of Parliament to draw the matter to the attention of the House. The constituent is me and I am my own Member of Parliament, so I know something about the case. It is not often that one has the opportunity to raise a case in such a direct way. However, it may help to amplify some of the issues raised in the amendments.
    I shall not bore the House with the details, but I am sure that many hon. Members have experienced being parted from their luggage when travelling from one country to another. From 1 to 3 July I was on official business in Innsbruck in connection with the Council of Europe. I returned from Innsbruck in the company of two Conservative Members of Parliament. On 3 July we travelled to Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris. Unfortunately, that visit coincided with an air traffic dispute. We were therefore unable to catch our connecting Dan-Air flight No. 986 from Paris to London. We went to the Dan-Air desk where I produced my baggage receipt. The chap on the desk was very helpful. He said that since we needed to get back here to vote we should travel to London by other means. Therefore, we decided that the best method of travel would be by train and ferry. He took details of my baggage receipt number and said that he would be more than happy to ensure that my case was handed on to me at the House of Commons. There were two labels on my bag. One said, "Tony Banks MP" and the other had my name and home address on it. There was no doubt to whom the luggage belonged. We then went on to London. It took us a great deal of time to get here but we made it eventually.
    I did not bother about my luggage because I assumed that it would catch up with me eventually. I knew that the dispute would last for a day or so longer. There is a theory that one of the rings of Saturn is made up entirely of lost airline luggage. I can only assume that my luggage has now been added to that collection. I have been waiting for my luggage to be returned from Gatwick airport by Dan-Air authorities. It has not turned up. The manager of the Thomas Cook office in the House has been assiduous in trying to track it down. Some 10 days after I returned,

    1217
    when I was beginning to become a little concerned about the whereabouts of my luggage, he was told that it had been collected on 10 July. The baggage receipt label had remained in the possession of the Thomas Cook office all that time. Obviously, I had not collected it and I wondered who had. I asked Mrs. Banks whether she had collected it unbeknown to me but she insisted that she had not. I began to get rather worried.
    This matter is related to the amendments because someone must have seen the luggage in the baggage handling area, pretended to be me and collected it. I have the details of the person who seems to be most concerned; the managing director of Gatwick Handling, which has handed over my luggage to someone purporting to be Tony Banks, Member of Parliament, without my knowing anything about it. When asked whether the luggage had been signed for, Gatwick Handling said it had not. The manager of the Thomas Cook office here asked on what authority the luggage was handed over. He was told that it had been handed over on authority but not what the authority was. It could not have been the baggage receipt because that has remained at the House of Commons. My luggage has disappeared.
    I should like the Minister to make representations on my behalf to Mr. Peter O'Boyle, the managing director of Gatwick Handling, and to Dan-Air to ask what the hell a Member of Parliament has to do to ensure that something is done other than raise the matter with his Member of Parliament, which I have done, and for his Member of Parliament to raise it with the Minister, which I am now doing. This is outrageous. Someone has impersonated me and made off with some of my finest gear. If that is security at Gatwick airport, these amendments are sorely needed.
    Mr. Peter Snape rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is only because so many amendments are linked that I have not yet had the opportunity to find out to which amendment the hon. Gentleman was addressing himself.
    Mr. Snape: Mr. Deputy Speaker, your customary ingenuity, together with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), will have to be brought into play if I am to comment in any detail on the sad sequence of events outlined so graphically by my hon. Friend. Although the matter is worrying from the point of security, it is difficult to believe that anyone could imitate my hon. Friend. He is one of the best known Members of the House, and it is a surprising breach of security that someone can purport to be Mr. Tony Banks and not be recognised. That is perhaps the most significant aspect of the issue. I hope that the Minister will treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves and that we will be given a proper explanation.
    As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a large number of amendments are linked together, but I shall confine my remarks to amendment No. 41, which says:
    "to take such steps—(i) to ascertain what practices or procedures are being followed in relation to security".
    I want to deal particularly with the detection of substances such as semtex or, bearing in mind the experience of Dr. Jim Swire, marzipan. The Minister will be aware that the machinery currently being tested at Gatwick airport is primarily the TNA system, which cannot discriminate
    1218
    between various plastics, some of which contain nitrogen. I understand that there is a problem in distinguishing between wool and explosives.
    I have a copy of a letter from Ferranti International to the Secretary of State, which was passed to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Both Ferranti International and my hon. Friend have asked me to raise this matter. I understand from the letter that Ferranti recently invited the Secretary of State to a demonstration in London of some evaluation trials on what is known as the EGIS system.
    Both sides of the House will be aware of the importance of the detection of plastic explosives. Ferranti's claims for the EGIS system suggest that it is superior to the TNA system. Did the Secretary of State go to the demonstration, and if so, what are the Department's views about its efficacy, bearing in mind the extensive trials held throughout Europe last year and this year? I will not press the Minister if he does not have the information to hand immediately. I know that he will agree that the detection of such substances is one of the most important aspects of airport security.
    I should be grateful if at some stage during the debate he can tell the House whether the Secretary of State, Ministers or civil servants have any experience of the system and whether the claims made by Ferranti have been substantiated by his Department. I hope that we can have the fullest possible details of the Department's intentions on the testing of the machines at Gatwick and our other leading airports. This is the issue upon which hon. Members, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, have expressed the greatest concern.
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was not able to make his speech a little earlier, because some of his points would have given the sketch writers some amusing thoughts and ideas. I remember the hon. Gentleman's visit to Paris, because I think that we met each other on the Gatwick express and I gave him a lift back to the House. I can assure him that I do not have his luggage—[Interruption.] I always try to be helpful, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) knows.
    I shall look into the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and I promise—
    Mr. Tony Banks: That was not the occasion on which the Minister gave me a lift. I came back with two of the Minister's colleagues and we were forced to come back by train and ferry because of the dispute. We never made Gatwick airport.
    I have raised this issue in a reasonably light-hearted way, but there are serious implications involved if someone can simply go along and satisfy the authorities that he is a Member of Parliament. It is not about me particularly but it demonstrates that there is something wrong with security at Gatwick.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I accept that. I shall look into it and take the matter up with the appropriate authorities. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman went abroad as often as he seems to.
    The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked about the TNA machine and the Ferranti letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As he knows, the TNA machine is now in place at Gatwick. We

    1219
    are looking at the progress that it is making, and we will be monitoring its effectiveness closely to see if it has a proper role to play. I should like to take the opportunity to go through some notes on the Ferranti machine and write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 6

  AIR CARGO AGENTS
  Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 12, line 26, leave out "by them" and insert
  "(whether by them or any other person)"
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 34.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments introduce no new points of principle. They revise the definition of cargo agents to include those who do not deliver cargo to an aircraft or ship but use a third party, such as a haulage contractor, to make the delivery.
  Without the amendments, cargo agents would be able to escape from the effect of the security directions—and from the intentions of the clause—simply by using a haulage contractor to deliver cargo. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the significance and wisdom of these two small amendments.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17

  INTERPRETATION OF PART II
  Lords amendment: No. 13, page 20, line 30, after "British Dependent Territories citizen"
  insert
  "a British National (Overseas)"
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This is purely a technical amendment which adds the term "a British National (Overseas)" to those found in clause 17(1)(a). The term is derived from the provisions of the Hong Kong Act 1985 and brings the terms used in paragraph (a) up to date.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.

Clause 22

  POWER TO REQUIRE HARBOUR AUTHORITIES TO PROMOTE SEARCHES IN HARBOUR AREAS
  Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 24, line 47, leave out from "then" to "any" and insert
  "subject to subsections (3A) and (3B) below, if a constable or"
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 16.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments seek to strengthen the rights of private householders in harbour areas where a search of their home is necessary.
  1220
  The amendments present two safeguards for householders who, often by accidents of geography or history, live within harbour areas. First, in line with general practice, only constables with a warrant will be able to carry out searches of private residences, and, secondly, only certain constables will be able to carry out such searches. Searches of private dwellings outside harbour areas are not possible under the terms of the Bill.
  Clause 22 has been substantially amended, but the Government never intended to use the powers in the Bill to require private residences to be searched by security guards. Where there was a need for a private residence within a harbour area to be searched—that would be agreed to only after the most careful consideration—the Secretary of State would require it to be carried out by the appropriate constables. That has been formalised by the amendments.
  Mr. Snape: The amendments touch on an important point of principle. Hon. Members will agree that the redrafting of the regulations for the searching of private premises within harbour areas is welcome.
  There was an exchange in anoher place between the Minister and my noble Friend Lord Underhill about the port of Harwich. I do not press the Minister if he does not have the information immediately to hand, but doubt was expressed about whether clause 22, as amended by their Lordships, would cover specific problems in and around a port.
  If the Minister has any information, we should be delighted to hear it, but we rest content on the important point of principle that it will be impossible to search private homes within a harbour area without the acquisition of a proper warrant.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said. We were concerned about how this problem came to light and we have substantially amended the clause to meet some of the objections that he made.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: If a private security guard approaches a constable, on what grounds does the constable make a search?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I shall try to help the right hon. Gentleman, but I am aware of his tremendous knowledge on the subject. The only people who will able to carry out searches of private homes in harbour areas are constables.
  Mr. Rees: I understand that, but on what grounds does the constable carry out the search? Does he question the security guard before making a decision?
  Mr. McLoughlin: A search would be carried out under the necessary direction by a constable of the appropriate forces. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands the words "appropriate forces".
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments No. 16 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 25

  MATTERS WHICH MAY BE INCLUDED IN DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 21 TO 24
  Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 29, line 12, leave out "In so far as" and insert "Where".
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 39.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments have their origins in an amendment to what is now clause 25, which was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn).
  The amendments to clause 25(4) and the equivalent amendment to the Aviation Security Act 1982 provide that a person receiving a direction which requires searches to be carried out or other measures to be taken by the police should inform the local chief officer of police or, in Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary if the direction requires the searches or other measures to be undertaken by armed police.
  Directions proposing the arming of police are likely to be issued infrequently; none has been issued under the powers of the 1982 Act. Nevertheless, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it would be wise to have this power available in case urgent and direct action is necessary in the event of an increased threat of a terrorist act.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 34 agreed to.

Clause 54

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 49, line 12, after "repeals" insert
  "in the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975."
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Hon. Members will note that clause 54 postpones for two months after Royal Assent the commencement of several provisions, including schedule 3. Paragraph (3) of that schedule amends section 2(1)(a) of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975. Therefore, the corresponding repeal in schedule 4 should be postponed for the same period, and the amendment will achieve that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 39 agreed to.

Schedule 1

  FURTHER AMENDMENTS OF THE AVIATION SECURITY ACT 1982
  Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 54, line 2, at end insert—
  "(aa) for the words from "any person authorised" to ""authorised person")" there is substituted "an authorised person","
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 42.
  Mr. McLoughlin: These amendments provide for the retention of the term "authorised person" in section 20(1) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 but delete the wording that defines that expression. The wording is unnecessary because the definition of "authorised person" is set out in paragraph 16 of schedule 1.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 41 and 42 agreed to.

Televising of Proceedings of the House
Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and other hon. Members.
6.29 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 265—I).
It might be worth recording my impression that one reason for the lack of overwhelming enthusiasm for attending this important debate is the fact that an equally important presentation by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is taking place in another theatre in a different part of the House. I dare say that interest will increase as we proceed.
As the House will be aware, the Select Committee, which I chair, published its report last week. Our verdict, simply put, is that the experiment has been a success and our recommendation—with only one dissentient, for rather special reasons—is that televising should become a permanent feature of the House. The report is long and covers all the matters of potential concern to the House, or about which particular anxieties have been expressed.
Let me begin by expressing, on behalf of the whole House, my thanks to all those whose efforts and expertise have made the experiment possible. They are listed in paragraph 6 of our report, but I wish specifically to mention the broadcasting organisations and Broadcasting Communications, which produced the signal. We should also pay tribute to the occupants of the Chair in this House and also to the Chairmen, members and staff of Select and Standing Committees, the Parliamentary Works Office, Mr. David Doig, the Clerk to our Committee, and most notably, if I may say so, the supervisor of broadcasting, Mr. John Grist, whose role has been a source of great reassurance to some hon. Members who were initially doubtful about the experiment.
I turn now to the Committee's detailed findings about the conduct of the experiment in the Chamber and in Committees. Paragraphs 16 to 33 of the report review aspects of televising in the Chamber itself, including the cameras, which have proved a great success technically, without being unduly obtrusive; the control room which, although extremely cramped, has worked remarkably well; and the cooling and ventilation system, which has, on the whole, been adequate to the task of dissipating the extra heat from the upgraded temporary space lights.
The lighting was probably the subject of the greatest apprehension before the experiment began. Certainly, the additional brightness—although it is at the margins of acceptabilty for television purposes—can be tiring on the eyes, especially towards the end of a long sitting. Equally certainly, the makeshift temporary lights that we can see above us can hardly be regarded as the embodiment of good taste and aesthetic excellence. But, by and large—I realise not everyone will agree—the House seems to have grown accustomed to the increased light levels, and has tolerated them as part of the experiment.
I should, incidentally, make it clear that if we vote for permanent televising, we shall have to live with the
1224
temporary lights for another Session while detailed work continues on the suitable design of a permanent replacement lighting system.
Let me next deal with the subject of sound in the Chamber, for this matter has been raised on the Floor of the House more than any other during the experiment. Its importance is reflected in the great emphasis which we give to it in our report. Our approach to the subject is set out in paragraph 23, from which I quote:
"We recognise that the first requirement of a debating Chamber such as the House of Commons is that it should be possible to hear the Member who is speaking, save only in extremely noisy conditions. The House is entitled to expect that every effort will be made to take full advantage of technological developments so that the standard of audibility in the Chamber is the best available. That being said, we think it right to emphasise at the outset"—
I am still quoting from the report—
"that the basic sound system in the Chamber has not been modified for the televising experiment."
I strongly emphasise that.
The sound system currently in use—that is to say, the microphones and the bench amplifiers—although it was the subject of significant modifications in 1970–71, was first installed as long ago as 1951. Technical advice, not surprisingly, is that—irrespective of televising—the system will need to be replaced or radically overhauled some time during the next five years. Work is already proceeding more urgently than that.
The files of the old Sound Broadcasting Committee, whose responsibilities we inherited, demonstrate clearly that complaints about audibility in the Chamber are not new, although I acknowledge that their number and frequency have grown since the start of the experiment. Quite why that should be is a question which has perplexed the Select Committee and its advisers. As the report makes clear, apart from some minor adjustments of the microphones near the Dispatch Boxes, there have been no changes to the sound system since the introduction of televising. I must also stress, as this was raised again in the House only the other day, that the bench amplifiers have been turned up as high as is consistent with the avoidance of feedback. They have most certainly not been altered—least of all turned down—to suit the whims of the broadcasters.
Nothing that I have said detracts from the seriousness with which the Select Committee views the genuine anxieties about audibility in the Chamber. It is for that very reason that the Committee has established a working party, under the chairmanship of the supervisor of broadcasting, to advise on the technical options for modernising the sound system. The working party, which is assisted by Mr. Richard Wright, head of sound operations at the BBC, will make its recommendations as early as possible in the next Session, with a view to any necessary work being carried out during the 1991 summer recess. The new equipment will almost certainly have to last as long as the present system, so a year spent now making sure that any proposed changes will work effectively is, in the Committee's judgment—and I hope that of the House—a price worth paying.
There are, it should be said, some very real constraints, which the Committee identified, on the scope for improvements in audibility in the Chamber—given what the report describes as
"its distinctive lay-out, architecture and political character."
We do not have desks in front of us, we do not have individual microphones, and the House will not hold all

1225
hon. Members at the same time. When the House is very noisy—whether we like it or not this happens with some regularity—the Committee says that
"only a system of individual microphones would be able to cope".
That is not feasible. The Committee has rightly assumed that the House would not be willing to countenance fundamental changes in its practice and procedure to achieve total, continuous audibility.
We certainly shall, however, be aiming to secure the most efficient sound system consistent with these practical limitations, because I have no doubt that that is what the House is entitled to expect. We will try to bring it up to date, to the highest standards possible.
It is only right to end this section of my remarks on a positive note. As we point out in the report, the production of a television signal of broadcastable quality from the Chamber is a demanding operation, and it has been carried out, the Committee concludes,
"with great skill and proficiency".
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the event that the House were to approve the report tonight and accept permanence as a principle, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that it is highly unlikely that the House would ever wish to reverse such a decision, given that the public clearly want cameras in the Chamber?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The development of opinion in the Committee, which I think is reflected in the House, is the best pointer. The Committee included several people who originally voted against the experiment. At the end of the day only one still dissented, on a conditional basis. I think that opinion has moved strongly in the direction of permanence.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does that mean that it is irreversible?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nothing is irreversible. We cannot bind our successors. Some eccentric successors may come along and undo all our good work, but I hope not.
On the whole, the Select Committee concludes that this aspect of the experiment has been handled "both efficiently and resourcefully." That judgment appears to be shared by the overwhelming majority of Select and Standing Committee Chairmen. That is not to deny that there have been problems—notably with the operation of the microphones and with the temperature in Committee Rooms on hot days—although, again, both are matters which predate televising. In addition, tripod-mounted cameras are less than ideal because of the amount of space that they take up, and many Chairmen would prefer the installation of remote-controlled equipment, as in the Chamber. Certainly the Select Committee takes the same view. I must point out that, even if we assume that the House will approve the Committee report today, the considerable additional costs involved make it unlikely that that development will come about before any permanent televising arrangements are in place.
Let me say a word about the effect of all that on the House itself. Before the experiment began, fears were widely expressed that the presence of the cameras would have a number of undesirable effects on the way in which the House conducts its business. For instance, it was claimed that hon. Members would "play to the gallery",
1226
that speeches would become a series of quotable "sound bites", and even that standards of discipline would deteriorate.
No one could claim, with hand on heart, that the House has continued to behave as though the cameras were not there. We have all grown accustomed to the initially disconcerting practice of "doughnutting"—although "doughnuts" appear to be in short supply tonight. We have all noticed some colleagues appearing in unfamiliar places to benefit from the more becoming backdrop of the panelling under the galleries, and it would be surprising if hon. Members—especially, perhaps, those of us who are able to speak from the Dispatch Boxes—were not conscious at times of addressing a rather wider audience. Even if we allow for all those factors, however, it is difficult to sustain the argument that the basic character of the House as a lively, often intimate debating forum has been changed to any significant degree.
In regard to standards of conduct—one always hesitates to pronounce judgment about them—our report strikes a mildly encouraging note. Despite recent manifestations of what might be termed "July Syndrome", fewer Members have been named or ordered to withdraw from the Chamber during the experiment than in recent comparable Sessions. As for the general level of noise in the Chamber, we record in our report your impression, Mr. Speaker, that it had not increased markedly during the experiment.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: For the record, it should be said that withdrawal from the Chamber is often related to the behaviour of the Prime Minister. If there were another Westland, doubtless it would happen again.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman can be trusted to make an original intervention in any debate—
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not dream of responding, in that sense.
I have dealt so far with the way in which the television pictures of the House's proceedings have been produced—a process over which the House has been anxious to retain firm control. However, right hon. and hon. Members are equally, if not more, interested in the result—that is, how the televised material reaches viewers. Those matters fall within the editorial judgment of the broadcasters.
The Select Committee commissioned a comprehensive study from the parliamentary research group at the university of Leeds, and the group's final report is published in full as annex 4 to the Select Committee's report; I simply draw attention to its conclusions on regional coverage. The group judges that the broadcasters have fully met the assurances that they gave before the experiment began as regards achieving reasonable balance and reflecting local interests. On political balance generally, the report mentions two points of concern, but also lists a number of qualifying factors that made reliable conclusions on that sensitive subject hazardous. For those reasons, the Select Committee deliberately refrained from comment, instead drawing attention to the statutory machinery to deal with complaints in that regard.
In the Committee's view—confirmed by the Leeds group—the volume of coverage in the Chamber has been

1227
pretty well as expected, with the emphasis overwhelmingly on extracts used in news and current affairs programmes. However, Committee coverage has, in the words of the report, been "vastly in excess" of what was predicted, and the amount of live coverage has been especially encouraging, given the fears before the experiment that there might be none at all.
Audiences for specialised programmes have been steady, although not spectacular; it is through news programmes that most of our constituents see the work of the House. As those bulletins are watched by many millions of people, we should not underestimate the extent to which the televising of our proceedings has opened up the House to a much wider audience. If the Select Committee has any significant regret, it is about the lack of an evening round-up programme of the day's parliamentary business on any of the terrestrial channels—although we recognise that that is a matter for the editorial discretion of the broadcasters.
Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. and learned Gentleman qualified that latter remark by referring to "terrestrial channels". There is an excellent evening round-up programme on British Satellite Broadcasting—BSB—called "Left, Right And Centre"; I am an occasional presenter, along with other hon. Members. Perhaps that format could be urged on other television producers, and there could be a televised equivalent of "Today in Parliament".
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has underlined my point. I think that the Committee, as a whole, hoped for something of the kind. I suspect that, with the multiplication of channels, there will be an amplification of coverage of various kinds. I shall say more about that when I deal with the dedicated channel.
The House will be aware that the rules of coverage—the types of shot that the television director is permitted to take—were relaxed after about two months of the experiment, to allow a somewhat wider range of reaction shots and to enable the director to use a "mid" or group shot. In addition, a second wide-angle feed has been made available to the broadcasters, strictly for editorial purposes.
Mr. Dalyell: I am not complaining, but will the Leader of the House satisfy my curiosity? By what alchemy have the rules suddenly become more and more relaxed? I am not saying that it was wrong, but, after all the firm assurances that we have been given, I think that we are entitled to ask how it happened.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of alchemy. The Committee was not a Committee of alchemists but a Committee of parliamentarians operating in accordance with the rules laid down in last year's report, and those rules were quite clear. The hon. Gentleman says that he is satisfying his own curiosity; he could do so completely if he were to study last year's report, which said that this was an experimental process but that, throughout the days of the experiment, variations in the rules should be permitted. Flexibility was encouraged, under the discretion and the control of the Committee of which I was Chairman, and it was in response to representations made by the broadcasters that the variations were made.
The Committee concluded that the rules, as now framed, afford
1228
"a reasonably clear, accurate and lively account of the House's proceedings."
That does not mean to say that they have necessarily reached a final, immutable form. The Select Committee—or, more accurately, its successor—will remain ready to consider any suggestions that may be made for changes in the rules; however, it is my guess that they are likely to be no more than marginal in character. We seem to have reached a reasonable modus vivendi.
Mr. James Hill: Before he leaves that point, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether the Committee examined the quality of the commentaries aligned with the programmes? I find that in a certain programme broadcast on Sunday mornings, the two commentators treat the subject in a very glib style, and I am not sure that they do any good to the presentation of the film.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I note what my hon. Friend says. That point was not raised with the Committee. However, my hon. Friend can raise it directly with the broadcasters.
If the House agrees with us that the experiment should be regarded as a success and that televising should be placed on a permanent footing, how are we to proceed from here? The report proposes that the current administrative and financial arrangements—whereby the broadcasters fund a company, House of Commons Broadcasting Unit Ltd., which subcontracts the production of the signal to an independent operator—should continue until 31 July 1991. In the meantime, the Select Committee's successor should work out the details of a permanent televising system, which would be submitted to the House for its approval by Easter 1991 and would come into effect in autumn next year.
We shall continue with the present arrangement—if it is the wish of the House to make it permanent—and, during the next six months, we shall work out the permanent arrangements that will thereafter come into place.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is it proposed that the Committee, when it is reconvened—assuming that the House agrees—will examine the non-broadcast use of material from the House? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have written to him about that, and I hope to raise the matter if I am called. Will it be within the terms of reference?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has been in touch with me on more than one occasion on that matter. We have had several applications from outside broadcasters and composers to use material from the television archive that has not been broadcast. We have not found it easy to come to principled conclusions on the matter, so we have put it to one side and we shall look for principles to guide us in making the right reaction in due course. Most of us believe that the right answer will come with the introduction of a dedicated channel. That will put everything in the public domain and people will be able to do what they like. The televised material will then be like a copy of Hansard. It will be as available as Hansard.
Mr. Benn: The problem is not availability. Hon. Members can obtain any debate from the archives but must sign a statement that it will not be used. Like Hansard, non-broadcast material is available but one must undertake not to use it.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is right. It is available in record form but it has not been broadcast. There is no lack of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's points, but if we move into that territory we must have rules to guide us.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned a dedicated channel. It might be of use to the House if he would talk a little about his thoughts and expand on the points about a dedicated channel. As he knows, an amendment has been tabled by 168 hon. Members calling for a dedicated channel in the fairly near future. It would be of great use if we could bear my right hon. and learned Friend's thoughts in mind.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The most unsurprising thing that I am likely to say in my speech is that I did not need my hon. Friend's encouragement to address myself to that topic. Clearly, I shall have to deal with that.
I shall deal first with the two alternatives that we have identified for permanent television and come on to the dedicated channel after that. The Committee identifies two main options for permanent arrangements. One is a House broadcasting unit, which would own or lease the necessary equipment and would be directly responsible for producing the signal and supplying it to the broadcasters. The other is an independent unit answerable to a Select Committee and contracted to or licensed by the House to produce the signal and supply it to the broadcasters. In either case the production of the signal could be carried out as an integrated operation incorporating coverage of Committees and another place, assuming that their Lordships are willing to consider such a proposition.
I know that some right hon. and hon. Members are attracted to the idea of a House unit constituted as a Department of the House. The Committee will certainly examine that option seriously. However, we shall want to explore carefully the extent to which the legitimate desire of the House to retain control over the form of the signal necessitates in practice the employment of the relevant broadcasting staff by the House itself. Equally, if the idea of an independent unit is pursued, we shall need to be assured that the interests of the House are properly safeguarded and that the broadcasters are protected against unfair exploitation by a monopoly supplier of the signal. Whichever alternative is adopted, the House can be assured that it will retain control over the televising operation through the Select Committee and, on a day-to-day basis, through the Supervisor of Broadcasting.
The financial arrangements could in theory range from total public funding to a scheme in which the broadcasters pay the full cost of generating the signal—perhaps through some form of subscription. Obviously, I must not anticipate the Committee's eventual conclusions, but I think it fair to state as a general principle—it may be only my view—that the initial onus lies on those who favour public funding to show why the broadcasters should not continue to be responsible, as they are now, for meeting the major part of the costs. The House might take the view that the division of expenditure on the experiment is broadly correct. The Parliamentary Works Office met the cost of changes to the fabric of the building, the House was responsible for the staffing of the Select Committee, including the Supervisor of Broadcasting, and the broadcasters paid for the equipment. All those matters will receive the Select Committee's urgent attention next
1230
Session and I hope that the House will understand why, given their complexity, we did not attempt to reach conclusions on them in time for this debate.
I now come to a dedicated channel, about which many right hon. and hon. Members feel strongly. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). It is reflected in the amendment which you said that you intended to call, Mr. Speaker, tabled by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Should we have a dedicated channel devoted to continuous transmission of the proceedings of the House—gavel to gavel, as the transatlantic jargon has it, although we do not have gavels in the House? The advantages of such a development are obvious. It would ensure complete coverage. It would avoid the problems of editing and compression into unrepresentative highlights which worry the House.
The Select Committee needed and needs no persuasion of the merits of a dedicated channel. The case for that was firmly upheld in the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). His case was, indeed, totally accepted by the Committee. Paragraph 172 of the report says:
"We reiterate our belief in the need for a dedicated channel providing continuous, unedited coverage of the House's proceedings and we recommend that this should be provided at the earliest opportunity, as an adjunct to the permanent televising of the House."
That is as far as the Committee goes. There is absolutely no doubt about our position. The House will be interested to know that discussions are already taking place on one possible scheme which, at first sight, appears rather promising. So there need be no doubt that this is an issue which the Committee has taken and will take extremely seriously, and on which we propose to take evidence in the autumn, if the House approves our report tonight.
The amendment appears to mean that the House's approval for the Committee's report, and hence for the principle of permanent televising, is conditional on the existence of a fully operational, permanent dedicated channel within 12 months. Strictly speaking, if no such channel were established by then, and despite the promising proposal that I mentioned, that certainly cannot be assured. So televising at that point would either come to an end or we would need to make it subject to annual renewal by the House. That would run completely counter to the main thrust of the report, which is that the principle of permanent televising should be settled once and for all now.
The amendment is also unhelpful in that it seeks to tie the hands of the House in advance before it has seen the outcome of the evidence which the report says that the Committee proposes to take on the subject next Session. In my judgment, the amendment is unhelpful even to the fulfilment of its own objectives.
Nothing that I have said detracts from the importance of the objective of establishing a dedicated channel. The Select Committee goes out of its way to endorse that strongly in the report. We considered the proposition which is explicit in the amendment. After considering it carefully and tightening the drafting, we concluded, with only one dissenter—my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North—that our conclusion was right.
I advise the House that we should now come to a conclusion on the main question. It must make sense to decide whether we shall say yes or no to permanence

1231
today. That will not in any sense diminish the zeal with which I and the Committee will pursue the establishment of arrangements for a dedicated channel.
The Committee proposes to follow up several other matters if our report is agreed by the House. They include the requirements of the archive. That embraces the point of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Last, but far from least, we shall consider the needs of the deaf. No fewer than 4 million of our fellow citizens are classified as hard of hearing, of whom some 2.5 million suffer from a hearing impairment sufficiently serious for them to benefit from subtitling. For that reason, a whole section of our report is devoted to the needs of the deaf and to the trials of subtitling and signing which the Committee has organised on their behalf. Access for the deaf to our proceedings is an important topic which will be high on the new Committee's continuing agenda.
In conclusion, I remind the House that the Select Committee's report is the outcome of a careful and considered evaluation of the experiment by 20 right hon. and hon. Members, seven of whom voted against the original decision to hold it. The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North now remains the lone dissentient—only in a qualified sense, but he can speak for himself later—is some measure of the extent to which the experiment has proved that the House can be, as the report states,
"exposed to a wider audience through television without losing its special character."
The success of the experiment reflects credit not only on those hon. Members who have always been in favour of televising, but on those who honourably held—some still do—a contrary view, but who co-operated fully. They bore with fortitude the inevitable changes in the appearance and working conditions of the Chamber and Committee Rooms.
We have been able between us—broadcasters alongside politicians—to develop an important interpenetrating partnership in which each has come increasingly to understand the other and in which, so far at least, we may all have some modest pride.
After decades of debate, not just inside the House, but outside, prompted by such notable and diverse pioneers as Sir Robin Day and Aneurin Bevan, who spoke strongly in favour of television in 1959, the House has the opportunity tonight to settle one way or the other whether it wants its proceedings to be televised on a permanent basis. The Select Committee's report gives a clear lead in favour of permanent televising and I commend it to the House without condition, qualification or amendment.
7 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I strongly support the motion in the name of the Leader of the House, but although I voted for the televising of the Commons and the establishment of the experiment, I am by no means an unqualified and uncritical supporter of it.
I had certain reservations about the way in which the experiment would work in practice. First, I was concerned about the effect of televising on the behaviour of the Chamber—I hold different views about that from Conservative Members. Secondly, I was concerned about the balance of coverage between the House and its Committees. My third concern was the political balance of coverage between the Government and the Opposition.
1232
My anxieties have been removed on several grounds, but I am still anxious about one matter, about which I shall speak later.
I do not want to miss the wood for the trees. I want to emphasise the main thrust of the Select Committee that the televising experiment has been a remarkable success. Thankfully, we are not dependent upon anecdotal evidence to judge its success.
I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the people involved with the report at different stages. I especially want to pay tribute to the Institute of Communication Studies of the university of Leeds for its research on the televising experiment. Its report contains a wealth of information and it means that our judgment can be based upon a proper detailed assessment of programme output, not on the views of individual hon. Members.
As a result of the research undertaken by the BBC on the public's reaction to the experiment and that undertaken by the Independent Broadcasting Authority on the reaction of hon. Members, we have a substantial body of research from which we can form our judgment.
The unequivocal message from the research is that the experiment should cease and televising become a permanent feature. The BBC research into public reaction to the experiment revealed that the overwhelming majority of people, 83 per cent., felt that the televising should continue. The public also made some interesting observations about us: 70 per cent. of them thought that most hon. Members were quite intelligent—I do not know where they got that figure from—59 per cent. thought that we worked very hard, which is undoubtedly true, and as many as 40 per cent. thought that we were trustworthy. The crucial figure is the 83 per cent. of the public who feel that the experiment has been a success. We should be answerable to them were we to switch off the cameras.
The IBA conducted a survey into the reaction of hon. Members to the experiment and it revealed that the proportion of hon. Members who supported the televising of the Commons grew as the experiment proceeded. I hope that an overwhelming majority of the House now want that experiment to become permanent.
The most interesting research was that conducted by the Institute of Communication Studies on the way in which broadcasters dealt with the material that we sent out. That material is no use unless it is broadcast in a way in which people find it watchable and can be assimilated by them. On page 35 of the Select Committee report, the researchers at Leeds university conclude:
"Broadcast reporting of Parliamentary proceedings has evidently been extensive, serious, responsible, balanced in many respects, even at times creative … It is thus hard to find a single criterion by which their record and performance during the experiment could be seriously faulted."
That is praise indeed and it is based upon an assessment of the output.
It is also important to consider the audiences that we have reached via the various programmes. The report details the audience figures for "Westminster Live" on BBC 2 and its coverage of Prime Minister's Question Time, which ranged from 800,000 to 2 million. The "Parliament Programme" on Channel 4 attracts audiences of between 200,000 and 250,000. "Westminster Week" on BBC 2 attracts an audience of 300,000, as does "Week in Politics" on Channel 4. Even "Westminster"—one would have to be an addict to watch it since it is broadcast at the dreadful time of 8.15 am—attracts 100,000 of our fellow

1233
citizens—an average of 150 per constituency. If any hon. Member could address 150 of his constituents at that time in the morning, he would have a better means of communication with them than me.
Those figures are remarkable, especially when one compares them with the previous potential viewing figures. The Strangers' Gallery has the capacity for 157 people, but compare that with the lowest viewing figure of 100,000—those who watch "Westminster" on BBC2, broadcast the day after the events in the House. That demonstrates the success of television in making our proceedings available to our democracy as never before.
The overwhelming thrust of our findings is that the experiment has been a success. I shall consider the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in a moment, but I hope that all hon. Members will be cautious before voting for any amendment that says, in effect, because we cannot provide a single dedicated channel within a set time, we should switch off the signal currently received by so many of the public.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend used the words "switch off the signal". Did he hear the reply that the Leader of the House gave to me when I intervened? He said that he could not bind his successors. He was speaking for the Government. It is not, therefore, the Government's intention to see television removed from the House through their initiative. That means that the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that, in the event of the 12-month period running out, another motion will be tabled next year. How does that mean the signal would be switched off? That is my case, but my hon. Friend has misrepresented me.
Mr. Grocott: I am not misrepresenting the words on the Order Paper that we must follow. My hon. Friend's English is the same as mine and the words on the Order Paper say:
"provided that within 12 months from the date of approval of this resolution, televised proceedings of the House are broadcast on a dedicated channel".
That can mean only that, if they are not, the Select Committee recommendation is not approved. I must leave it there because time is short and I am sure that my hon. Friend is anxious to make his own speech.
Fears were expressed about the effect of televising our proceedings. The first fear was that it might seriously affect the way in which the Chamber operates. Many hon. Members, particularly Conservatives, were fearful lest we might become unruly and disruptive. My anxieties were the reverse of that. The evidence is not that television makes people unruly and disruptive. Particularly for public figures, the evidence is that television makes them bland and rather boring. Most television presenters are incredibly bland and boring, in my view. Television sanitises events on many occasions, and that particularly applies to sporting events. Horses do not thunder over fences but flow over them on television, and one never feels the crunch of the tackle in football.
My fear was that we should lose our passion and genuine anger of this place, remembering that justifiable anger develops sometimes when we speak on behalf of our constituents. Indeed, there is some slight evidence that that has happened and that this has become a less rowdy place.
1234
Personally, I hope that that trend does not develop further. I want it to be a real place occupied by real people, and I am thankful that, by and large, television has not greatly affected the House.
The person whom television appeared to affect most in the early stages was the Prime Minister. For the first three months she was almost unrecognisable to my hon. Friends and me. She stopped sneering and started smiling at us. She looked up and appeared to enjoy life for a change. Thankfully, she has reverted to type and the snarls have returned. I am glad that television is consistently showing people as they are.
My anxieties about the coverage were accentuated by my dislike of the rules of coverage that we approved some months ago. I am pleased that in January we relaxed the rules, and I hope that the rules of coverage will be relaxed further, not so that things get out of hand, but because we should leave to the television directors the professional judgments that they can make about which shots to use. I hope that there will be more reaction shots. We have nothing to fear from such a development or from what I should like to see—the establishment of a television unit as a Department of the House. So I should like to see more reaction shots and more freedom given to the director, and perhaps we can relax the rules on disorder, to which there is reference in paragraphs 81 and 82 of the report.
Another fear that we need no longer have is that television might somehow neglect the engine rooms of the Commons, the Select and Standing Committees. There has been no such neglect. Indeed, there has been remarkably extensive cover of Committees. The statistics in the report show that 93 Select Committee meetings and 36 Standing Committee meetings were covered during the period of the experiment. What is more, they got good viewing figures when carried live. That applied particularly to Select Committees.
There is no secret why such meetings are popular with the public. It is because they are intelligible. It also has something to do with the fact that people taking part in Select Committee proceedings talk in language that people can understand. The proceedings do not sound as if what is happening is occurring in a club. For example, people talk to each other using their names. Like all hon. Members, I am proud of my constituency and mention it whenever I have the opportunity, but in the real world people call each other by their names rather than by their constituencies. That helps Select Committee proceedings to be intelligible to the public, and I believe that in the long term we have lessons to learn from that, from the point of view of the way in which we organise our proceedings on the Floor of the House.
Another pleasant surprise has been the regional coverage, which is of great importance to many hon. Members on both sides. I ask the House not to rely on my personal views but, again, to examine the study carried out by Leeds university, which said:
"The interesting and imaginative record of Parliamentary coverage in the regions was particularly impressive not only for amount but also for its distinctiveness.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I dispute the findings of Leeds university on that point because, as other hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will agree, the coverage of the House in Northern Ireland is extremely limited. It is biased against many hon. Members and in favour of only one or two. The

1235
way in which the proceedings of the House are broadcast—I should say, are not broadcast—is a disgrace to the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Grocott: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman put his views to the Select Committee or to the research group. It has been encouraging to note how little criticism there has been of the coverage at regional level. I can go only by the results of the research group, which show that that coverage has been most satisfactory.
I urge Conservative Members not to think that the changes for which they have voted relating to the broadcasting system could have no effect on the way our proceedings are covered. I find a curious split personality on the part of Conservative Members. On the one hand they constantly encourage the broadcasters by saying, "We must have more coverage of Parliament. It must be serious and praiseworthy". On the other they say, "We must throw television to the commercial winds." There are points at which those two objectives are not compatible, and the research shows that regional coverage in particular might be affected. On page 36 of the report, the Leeds university group said:
"Attention is drawn in the body of the report to several signs of BBC-ITV differences in regional television approaches to Parliamentary coverage, which might well be accentuated as competition intensifies on the commercial side of the British television divide."
It is all part of the argument about television quality and variety of programmes. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways on such issues.
On regional and Committee coverage the experiment has been a great success, but I draw attention to our recommendations that there should be two additional Committee Rooms equipped for television, that we should have remote cameras for coverage in Committee Rooms and that the ITV companies must try to find a better way of spreading the cost of Committee coverage so that single companies that want only one Committee covered for their region are not severely financially disadvantaged in the way that they are now. At present, if 10 companies want the signal, the cost is the session divided by 10. If one company wants it—and all too often the one is a smaller ITV company—it must bear the whole cost, and that position needs changing.
Mr. Roger Gale: I hope that I shall have an opportunity of contributing to the debate later. In the meantime, I refer to the hon. Gentleman's apparent aversion to commercial television and private enterprise. Will he explain why, when an amendment was put before the Select Committee that would have offered the general viewing public start-to-finish coverage at public expense, every Labour member of the Committee rejected it?
Mr. Grocott: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not averse to commercial television. I worked for it for eight happy years. He knows that the amendment was opposed because it would have made acceptance of the report conditional on that one consideration. The hon. Gentleman has a worthy obsession, for a dedicated channel, and we know that it comes from an hon. Member who has been consistent in his opposition to the principle of television coverage.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a study for the Hansard Society entitled "Cameras in the Commons", which said, referring to Northern Ireland:
"the 1 March Questions also brought growing anger in Northern Ireland—mutually among MPs and broadcasters—on the way 'outsiders' were trying to get into the act, whether because their whips wanted it or because the Members wanted to be seen on television."
It also said that in mid-March
"only questions 6 and 17 among the first 20 were from Ulster Members. At that point the BBC and Ulster Television cancelled their plans for live cover of NI Questions both for 29 March and for early May. Before television, the ballot rarely went beyond 25 entries, almost all from within the Province. Now it was over 100."
Televising the House has not advantaged Northern Ireland Members and it has changed the attitude of the House to Northern Ireland questions.
Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman will make his own speech in his own time. However, he knows that the report from which he quoted is also supportive of the experiment and of the effects of the experiment.
The other issue, which is more serious and more contentious between the Government and the Opposition, is that of political balance and of the coverage that Opposition and Conservative Members receive. The disparity between the coverage of the Government and of the Opposition is shown clearly in the research. I am fairly relaxed about that because I do not expect us to be in opposition much longer. However, as a matter of principle the figures should be of some concern.
I have always felt that television runs the risk of helping whichever party is in power. Governments have tremendous advantages with the media. Prime Ministers—notably this Prime Minister—can obtain media opportunities whenever they want them. They can appear on virtually any channel, at any time, with an interviewer of their choice and with the questions vetted beforehand. As we all know, the Lobby access and the Parliamentary Press Gallery access of Government Departments is phenomenal. At the most recent check, there were 166 Government press officers. Governments always have a huge advantage in getting their message across.
I was concerned—as was the Leeds university research group—when looking at the figures in table 6 on page 15, on actuality coverage—that is, clips from the Chamber—to find that there were 268 clips of the Prime Minister, 105 of the Leader of the Opposition, 445 of the Cabinet, 197 of the shadow Cabinet, 295 of non-Cabinet Ministers, 112 of shadow non-Cabinet Ministers, 770 of Conservative Back-Bench Members and 622 of Labour Back-Bench Members. I know that there are qualifications to the figures and they are spelt out in report. Clearly, Governments will have more coverage because, for example, Ministers will be answering questions. However, there is no doubt—and the research group spelt this out, so it is not just my opinion—that that should be an area of concern. It needs more research and I put in a plea to the Leader of the House—and I hope very much that whoever happens to be a member of the successor Select Committee will agree—that we need to continue to monitor the output of television from the House. It is no use monitoring it only in the six months of the experiment and it is no use relying on complaints from the public or from hon. Members. There must be continuous, serious monitoring of output. I hope that money will be forthcoming to ensure

1237
that research continues so that we can all make our own judgments and do so on the basis of factual material.
Assuming that the House approves in principle today the televising of the Commons—and I very much hope that that will be the case—many important issues need to be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington raised the question of a continuous, dedicated channel. At the risk of re-emphasising an obvious, but important point, I must tell my hon. Friend that the Select Committee was quite unequivocal in its support of a dedicated channel. In paragraph 172 of its report the Committee said:
"We reiterate our belief in the need for a dedicated channel providing continuous, unedited coverage of the House's proceedings and we recommend that this should be provided at the earliest opportunity, as an adjunct to the permanent televising of the House."
I strongly support that. However, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington makes the continued televising of the Commons conditional on the success within a year of the negotiations. That has massive disadvantages.
Although we may all agree with the principle of a dedicated channel, we should not lose sight of the fact that only a small number of people are capable of receiving it. The figures need to be put on the record. A dedicated channel can operate only by means of satellite, which people receive either directly or via cable. I have already given the viewing figures for the most important programmes, although I did not give figures for news programmes, for which the number of viewers is even greater. At present, 21.5 million households can receive the terrestrial channels. The number capable of receiving the single, dedicated channel on which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is so keen are as follows. At present, 800,000 people have satellite dishes and 93,000 people are connected to cable, many of whom, but not all, will get the satellite—
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Households.
Mr. Grocott: Yes, I have given the figures for the number of households capable of receiving satellite transmissions, although not all the cable stations deliver satellite programmes. The total is 893,000 households—that is, 4 per cent. of households—that might be able to receive a dedicated channel if it comes about. The amendment proposes that unless we can devise a means to deliver a single, unedited channel to 4 per cent. of our fellow citizens, we shall switch off the transmission to the 96 per cent. who depend on terrestrial transmissions.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The amendment does not say that.
Mr. Grocott: That is what it says.
Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has made a most interesting speech and he has been generous in giving way. Parliament is currently censored because we show what the producers choose to show. This is a serious matter, although the experiment is working interestingly. The suggestion of a continuous channel could overcome the problem. At the most recent Education Question Time, we had an important question on discipline in schools. The BBC transmission the following morning truncated that question. It did not
1238
show the question as it should have been shown and as it happened. It dealt not with the issue of discipline in schools, but with the behaviour of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). That is a serious abuse.
Mr. Grocott: There will always be difficult editorial judgments and no one disputes that. However, the survey gives a tremendous plus to the way in which the signal has been dealt with, however much we might dislike individual decisions.
The issue of a single, dedicated channel as a prerequisite is a red herring. Only a few people will be able to receive it and that is the crucial factor.
Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grocott: No, as I want to finish my speech now and I have already gone on longer than I intended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington proposes to continue the uncertainty for another 12 months. An issue dear to my heart—and one in which I am strongly in favour—is to have a Department of the House delivering the signal in due course, with staff recruited to do so, rather on the model of Hansard. We are, after all an electronic Hansard. However, we cannot even begin to think about that if there is continued uncertainty for another 12 months, which is what the amendment would mean. We cannot start thinking about all the important, permanent matters, which the Leader of the House has already spelt out in some detail. I strongly hope that hon. Members will resist the amendment, which would not produce any desirable effect that the Committee has not recommended already and which would run the risk of wrecking the whole system.
There are other issues that we must resolve in the next 12 months if the House votes "Yes" tonight. It is important to resolve the problem of serving deaf viewers. We spent a lot of time on it this year, and I hope that the Committee will continue to do so next year. We must resolve also the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), in respect of the principles that lay behind the use of non-broadcast material. Those difficult questions must be answered in the course of the next 12 months.
Finally, and most importantly, we must decide on permanent arrangements for the broadcasting of our proceedings that will stand the test of time. I hope that the House will agree that the only way to do that is to recruit the people whom we need ourselves, and not run the risk of constant staff turnover, which inevitably occurs in freelance companies. We need a proper arrangement of the sort that works so well for Hansard.
It has been a pleasure to sit on a Select Committee that appears to be achieving results. It is a double pleasure when neutral observation suggests that its work has been successful. I hope that the House will this evening make permanent the televising of our proceedings.
7.30 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I join the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in supporting the motion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, and in urging the House not to accept the amendment that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will move shortly.

1239
It is a matter of particular pleasure to me that the House stands on the brink of the permanent broadcasting of its proceedings, as I had the honour of introducing in 1988 the original motion for the experimental televising of Parliament, and of delivering the vote to the House with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is in his place today. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that even since then, rather than over the 20 years that the proposal has been debated, there has been a sea change in attitudes inside and outside the House. Many of the worst alarmist fears have not been realised. In true objective fashion, right hon. and hon. Members acknowledge that television represents a new form of communication that is to their advantage and to that of their constituents.
It is appropriate for at least one member of the Select Committee to express its thanks. First and foremost among the recipients of those thanks is my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, who chaired its proceedings so ably, sensitively and with such gentle leadership. The fact that the Committee was able to achieve near-unanimity on all aspects of the report, and that our proceedings were businesslike and reflected the views of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, in no small way mirrors my right hon. and learned Friend's qualities and abilities.
I pay tribute also to my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), both of whom played a long and active part in the Committee's considerations. No small degree of thanks is due to them both. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has just left his place, but it should be recorded that he, too, played an active, supportive and positive role over some years in the Committee's proceedings.
Gratitude should also be expressed, as it is in the report, to the Supervisor of Broadcasting and to the co-ordinator of the technical management. They and others delivered an experiment that reduced fears among right hon. and hon. Members and promoted the repute of the House outside. We must thank also the broadcasters themselves, upon whom many aspersions were cast—and no doubt that will continue to happen. They fulfilled their role responsibly, broadly abiding by the restrictions and rules promulgated by the House. The breadth of the editorial coverage they provided has done a real service to Parliament and the public. Many proponents in the television companies themselves have experienced frustration over the years and, I dare say, in their negotiations with the Committee. Nevertheless, they have our thanks, and we hope that they will continue to play as positive a part in the future.
It is important to assess the experiment in terms of both parliamentary and public reaction. Many right hon. and hon. Members who voted against the experiment in February 1988 have since changed their minds in the light of experience. That was evident in last July's debate, when the Select Committee presented a report that the House generally felt was too restrictive. The general tenor of that debate was that a more liberal approach should be taken, and that was reflected in decisions that the Committee subsequently took, which made the television coverage mirror reality rather more. At the same time, we have
1240
guarded against giving undue publicity to disorder or to the conduct of right hon. and hon. Members other than those who catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
The televising of Parliament has not changed the House substantially. To the extent that it has, it has been for the better. Some speeches have been more pithy. Perhaps they have not been a collection of sound bites, but the experiment has concentrated minds on using simple language that can be understood not by a professional political audience but by the people whom we represent.
One aspect of the experiment more than any other that has endeared the concept of the permanent televising of the House to right hon. and hon. Members is the unexpected popularity of, and interest in, the work of Select Committees. It is not widely understood among the public yet that a large proportion of a Member of Parliament's time is spent on Select Committee work—and very important it is, too. The spectacle of a civil servant wriggling on the parliamentary hook in an inquiry before a Select Committee not only makes good television but is what this place should be about. It is one reason why proponents believed that television would help to hold the Executive accountable. If there continues to be coverage of the detailed work of the House and of the probing of civil servants and others with an authority that is not available elsewhere, the experiment will have proved the predecessor of a permanent system that will gain widespread respect.
The case for permanently televising the House will be made by those who recognise that the experiment has, above all, introduced a new dimension to the task of communicating our parliamentary system that will be seen by history as a major constitutional advance. I believe fervently that it will strengthen the power of Parliament to hold the Executive accountable, rather than rely vicariously on those who report or edit our proceedings, personalities or words. Our constituents will be able to watch and to see in our eyes the true nature of the House and witness the atmosphere in which we argue a point of view. We cannot afford to ignore that added dimension at a time when television has become the principal means of communicating with millions of households.
The spectacle of the joust at Prime Minister's Question Time, the depiction of the emotion created in the House when issues such as abortion or the future of Hong Kong are discussed, and even coverage of the House when it is deliberating on what may sometimes seem dry or boring topics but which nevertheless have huge importance for vast sections of the community, can be properly imparted only by television. The experiment has shown that we have everything to gain and little to lose by making the televising of Parliament permanent.
If we were to turn the cameras off, that action would be widely misunderstood outside the House. Nor should we entertain an amendment that would make our permanent arrangements conditional on the provision of a dedicated channel—much as I am in favour of one—that will for the moment reach only a minimal public audience. It would be widely misunderstood by a public who have come to regard the broadcasting of the House as a welcome new dimension of our parliamentary democracy.
The proceedings of the House were originally held in camera, in secret, for the good reason that it was not the practice of the House to let the monarch of the day know what was going on. That was why there was no verbatim transcript of proceedings here and why no stranger was allowed access. But that is history and the evolution of our

1241
parliamentary democracy has been towards increasing openness with the arrival of Hansard, newspaper lobby coverage and correspondents, sound broadcasting and now television itself.
We deny our own power, we increase our impotence, if we cannot communicate. After all, half of any job should be doing it and the other half should be telling people what is being done. It is we who will suffer, in defence of the people whom we represent, if we allow Government and Parliament to have a monopoly of communication which we can choose to use and use at any time. We exercise a self-denying ordinance by not allowing a permanent arrangement.
Permanent such an arrangement must be because we have had long enough to debate the matter and to consider how best to televise our proceedings. If we fail to make that decision clearly this evening, we simply will not, in practical terms, have the investment in the equipment, skills and personnel that is needed to make a success of permanent broadcasting.
I defer to no one in my enthusiasm for a dedicated channel. I believe strongly that we shall have full representation of the House only when people can see an unexpurgated version of events, not the extreme aspects plucked from a debate, with the hotheads of each extreme shown on the news at 6 o'clock or 9 o'clock. Only when the length and breadth of the arguments are presented will people understand what Parliament is about and why Members of Parliament take the views that they do on contentious issues of public concern.
When we have—perhaps it should be mace-to-mace rather than gavel-to-gavel—coverage of our proceedings we will find a latent audience outside the House of people interested in our proceedings. First and foremost, they will be in the schools among the students of politics, those who should be able to see the way in which we operate so that they can assess our parliamentary system at work rather than through the text books. There are the farmers, the special interest groups, and the clergy. One can think of numerous groups who would like to see a complete debate rather than a report of it in The Times or a synopsis of it in a magazine or on television.
The experience in countries such as Canada has shown that there is a surprisingly large audience for the televised proceedings of the House and I do not think that there are any objectors to that among the proponents of the amendment. But I do not wish to imperil the permanence of our broadcasting by a condition that we must, within a finite period, have a dedicated channel. Whether we vote for that or not, the broadcasters outside are already getting on with a dedicated channel. Not all hon. Members may know that we had full coverage of the proceedings of the House in November and December last year on one of the Sky channels. As the Select Committee's report points out, later this year, with the new satellite that is being sent up from Guyana, there will be another 16 channels. There is no doubt that Sky would be able to do something about that. We hope that it will.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why Sky?
Mr. Nelson: It could be any other proposer. There are others who, even within the past few days, have been
1242
putting forward proposals for partial coverage of the House of a much more extended nature, and that is to be welcomed.
One important matter on which I may not carry every hon. Member with me, and by no means all my hon. Friends, is my strong belief that, as a matter of principle, when we eventually construct permanent arrangements for an electronic Hansard or for the broadcasting of the House, we should not rely on independent people from outside. It should be legitimate for Parliament to vote public money for the supply of the signal and for the televising of our proceedings. I feel strongly that at some future stage a conflict of interests may arise from the involvement of outside people. The televising of the House and the building up of an electronic Hansard over the years must be kept firmly within our control if we are to preserve their integrity. We should be able legitimately to say to the taxpayer that it is an essential part of democracy that we should be communicating on their behalf and that it is a proper call on public funds to do exactly that.
There may be ways in which one could rightly defray costs, such as by the selling of a licence, and I am all for that. I am all for a commercial approach, with archives selling what they can outside the House. But now, just as much as when we originally debated the matter in February 1988, grave suspicions would arise among hon. Members if we were in any sense to relinquish control over the broadcasting of the House to outside influences, however responsible they have been during the experiment. That would be dangerous.
In conclusion, we should not only be considering permanent broadcasting in the domestic context. There is a fantastic opportunity here for the proceedings of the House to be an electronic beacon to the emerging democracies from the Baltic to the Balkans, from Iceland to Tunisia. We should not underestimate the extent to which people are buying satellite dishes, the extent to which communications and broadcasting companies are taking messages and signals from satellites, and the extent to which people rely on a free democracy and communication from this House as well as from others in the EC.
It will be greatly to Britain's advantage and our proper influence in wise and world councils for us to go ahead and develop with proper and urgent speed a dedicated channel which will enable us to be seen in whole, not just in part.
The amendment would make televising proceedings of the House conditional; if we accepted it, the amendment would be seen as a wrecking one. It would have the effect of giving two bites of the cherry and extending the experimental period. Surely we have debated this enough. This is the time for a decision. The experiment has gone well. Let us have the courage of our convictions and take this historic step.
7.47 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add
'provided that within 12 months from the date of approval of this resolution, televised proceedings of the House are broadcast on a dedicated channel, unedited, from the start of the sitting to the rising of the House.'.
First, I proffer to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, an apology for the great inconvenience to which I put you during the debate the other evening. I apologise to you for that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Thank you.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My problem, as has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), is that it has always been believed that I am an opponent of televising the House of Commons. Let me explain how that arose and why I have always been misrepresented.
Two years ago I went to a Granada studio in Manchester where a programme was being made in a mock House of Commons on the televising of Parliament. On that occasion I spoke against the televising of the House by way of edited excerpts and I supported the principle of a dedicated channel. The editing led to the removal of the reference to the dedicated channel and I was seen as an opponent of televising the House. As of that date, I have always been known as an opponent of televising the House when that is not the case.
I have always supported the televising of Parliament by way of a dedicated channel and that was why I moved the amendment last year which led to the accusation that we had tabled a wrecking amendment. That is precisely my motive this year in moving a similar amendment, but again we stand accused of moving a wrecking amendment. That is not our intention.
After my intervention the Leader of the House proved my case when he alluded to the Government's commitment to proceed. By inference, that means that the Government will seek to continue the televising of Parliament. He said he could not speak for his successors, by which I assume he meant a Labour Government who, I assure him, would not wish to stop televising.
The public have seen Parliament in operation. A decision has been taken and the public would not expect it to be reversed. Equally, they expect an additional service and that is what the amendment would secure. Last year I voted against television because we were not to have a dedicated channel. I wanted no other method of televising the Commons, but this year I shall not vote against the main proposition because the public clearly want television to remain in the House.
I shall continue to press my case for a dedicated channel and shall return year after year with amendments until we get it. Last year 98 hon. Members supported my amendment. I was accused then of being in the pay of Murdoch, of being employed by Sky television and of having shares in Amstrad dishes. Nonsense, rubbish and garbage fuelled the campaign to discredit my case for a dedicated channel. People thought that we were threatening future televising, but all those stories were totally untrue and sought to discredit what I believe to be the way forward.
On today's Order Paper my amendment is supported by 189 other hon. Members. During the day that list has been reduced by 23 and the reason for it is simple: once again people were fed the stories about Murdoch and Sky television and were completely misled into thinking that this is a wrecking amendment. That has never been the case. There was concern because some hon. Members think that my amendment may be accepted. Some people are angry about that and I have had some heated discussions today about it. Equally, I have been aware of the considerable pressure exerted on many of my hon. Friends to withdraw their support for my amendment.
1244
The tactics of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) are clear. He has said that if we do not comply with the conditions in my amendment the signals will be turned off and the right to televise will be removed. That is rubbish because that cannot happen. The Leader of the House knows that he could never publicly sustain such a decision.
Sir Geoffrey Howe rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not giving way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He replied to my intervention and now he may want to attach conditions to that reply. He would do well to read his reply.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to intervene. The argument being advanced by him is his, not mine. My argument is perfectly clear and is built upon the hon. Gentleman's words. He says that until he gets a dedicated channel he will return year after year with an amendment. If his amendment is carried there would be no permanence about televising and we would have debates year after year. In the absence of such certainty there would be no confidence in the arrangements for making televising permanent. I do not think that any hon. Member is against a dedicated channel, but we want to secure a permanent commitment now. Thereafter we can have a dedicated channel as soon as we can get it. That will not be helped by the hon. Gentleman's assertions about my words.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understood from what has been said that the arrangements for administering transmission will remain the same for the next 12 months. Therefore, we are not moving forward during that time.
Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend knows that arrangements for the permanent televising of the Commons are quite different from temporary arrangements. They require much planning and proper recruitment of staff and the establishment of facilities. The House cannot possibly do that until it knows for certain that, without qualification, the Commons will be permanently televised. My hon. Friend's amendment would prevent that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If my amendment were accepted, I am sure that there would be some swiftly convened meetings at which decisions would be taken. They would decide how the channel was to he funded and who would meet the cost. They would construct the arrangement for the dedicated channel, if only to secure the survival of television in the Chamber after June next year. That is the sort of pressure that must be exerted on broadcasters to make them come to their senses. At the moment many of them say, "What is in it for us?"
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is not the broadcasters.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: They are behind the Commons broadcasting unit and have some responsibility. The amendment places an onus on people and organisations to come up with the goods, the dedicated channel. They would respond because they would be aware of the pressure. Last year's report said:
"If our orders of reference are extended as we have recommended, we ourselves propose to monitor closely developments in this field during the course of the experiment, so that any arrangements about the arrangements for permanent televising … can be taken on the basis of the most up-to-date information possible."

1245
We expected developments this year but nothing has happened. All the resolutions moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) were defeated. The monitoring and the initiatives that we were promised last year have not occurred. The Committee will examine these matters next year, but is it any more likely that decisions will be taken then? We must exert pressure now to ensure that very important decisions are taken as soon as possible.
To those who ask whether a dedicated channel is a practical proposition I reply that one has already been in place. Most people and most hon. Members are unaware that for three weeks last year the House had a dedicated channel that transmitted from the beginning of proceedings until late in the evening. It was set up at a moment's notice because an operator dropped his commercial interest in a transponder that he had been using for transmission to the Netherlands.
Mr. Grocott: People could not watch it in Workington.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Anyone in my constituency with an Amstrad transponder receiving dish could have watched our proceedings for three weeks at the beginning of this Session. Some of my hon. Friends will endorse that. I inquired today about how long it would take me to set up a dedicated channel and I was told that it would take 48 hours.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: How much would it cost?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Within 48 hours a dedicated channel could be operating and could cover the whole of the United Kingdom on Astra or Amstrad dishes. The technology is there and the dishes are being sold. As more of them are sold we could get national distribution by way of a dedicated channel.
Mr. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall do so in a moment.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend said that last time.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin spoke about other ways of televising our proceedings. I understand that the Leader of the House is thinking about cable, but I do not think that my hon. Friend is considering that because he knows that most of the country will never see cable. I shall never see it in west Cumberland. It may be installed in parts of Birmingham, or Manchester and in the centre of other major cities, but we shall not see it. If my hon. Friend is thinking about other forms of public service broadcasting, he will have to talk about big money. The state will not foot that bill.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) talked about satellite transmission by way of an Astra transponder of which there are 16. I understand that one of those would be the cheapest way to get national coverage for the House of Commons at the earliest possible opportunity. It could come to the House within 48 hours. However, because things here move slowly, the House may take 365 days for what I could do in a couple of days. My amendment would allow 363 days of further delays, which arise out of the way that things happen in this place. I believe that we should go down that route as rapidly as possible. The technology is available. We are
1246
told that it will cost £5.5 million to hire a transponder and to fund the uplink, which I understand to be the means of lifting the technology from earth to the satellite.
Where will the money come from? The public should pay nothing. It could be partly funded through public subscription from multiple users of television equipment receiving the astral transmission. It could be partly funded through specialist advertising. It might be that, in the early years, it could be pump-primed by a small amount of public money, although I do not think that that is essential. The major television companies are used to subscription services because they use the Press Association and Reuters.
Where is the market? It will be at centres of learning, universities, schools, further education colleges, libraries, local authorities, financial institutions, corporate bodies, private viewers and, perhaps the most interesting, regional stations. Let us take the example of Border Television. Perhaps its chap in Westminster has telephoned to say that I have done a 30-second slot. Why should Border Television have to ring down to London to arrange for it to be fed up the line on some complicated basis? There could be a television in a studio in Carlisle picking up a continuous transmission from London by way of the astral satellites. The company could then select precisely what it wanted and avoid all that nonsense that it has to go through at the moment. We are going the long way round because that is convenient for people who are London based or who are in the business, and want to protect their position. I am not saying that especially about Border Television's representative in the House because I know that he has far wider duties and he does some excellent programming. There are vested interests in maintaining the present structure.
Why do we need a dedicated channel? We want more comprehensive coverage, which would help the public to gain a more balanced view of our proceedings. It would enable regional television more effectively to monitor for excerpts that it thinks are important to its local viewers. It would redress the balance between Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members by giving more exposure to Back-Bench contributions, which invariably come later in the debate. All the research shows that, to some extent, the Front-Bench spokesmen hog much of the broadcasting time. I am not saying that that is unreasonable; it is because Front-Bench spokesmen come earlier in the debate.
A dedicated channel would help to end the advantage to those who are often given preference in debates. We all know who we mean—the budding Fathers of the House. I say in the presence of my fine and right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that that applies to Privy Councillors who also receive preference. People complain, but nothing is done about it. A dedicated channel would deal with that unreasonable preference. It would provide greater coverage of Committees. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture said that his Committee had important business, yet often the broadcasters came only for the humdrum stuff because there were few slots available for material from Select Committees.
A dedicated channel would counteract the splitting of questions for sound bites from the Floor. I have been worried on a number of occasions because the questions asked on television are not the same as those that I heard asked on the Floor. Indeed, Ministers' answers are also

1247
split. Perhaps those who do the editing do not think that it is important to carry the whole question, but I think that it is. It could lead to a misrepresentation of the question or of the answer. If there was a dedicated channel, at least the true text would be available.
A dedicated channel would stop the sort of incident that happened during the Public Accounts Committee debate last year. Much as I love my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—fine parliamentarian that he is—his contribution to the debate should not have received the television coverage that it did. The debate on the Public Accounts Committee lasted for three or four hours and we examined a number of value-for-money reports from the National Audit Office and from the Committee. But what was broadcast that night was an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover in which he challenged members of the Select Committee. I make no criticism of my hon. Friend because he did not select the material to be broadcast. He said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Committee, "You are all on the Select Committee and you are all part of the cosy consensus in this place. You all work together and you are all compromised. I will not have any part of it."
That was the sole contribution from the Public Accounts Committee debate in the broadcasting of the House of Commons. That is wrong and we cannot proceed on that basis. It misrepresented the proceedings of the debate. A dedicated channel would put an end to that sort of broadcasting and people could see exactly what happened.
I ask hon. Members to support my amendment. It puts pressure on those who are responsible to set up a dedicated channel. They know that it could be done rapidly.
8.6 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: As the only member of the Select Committee who voted against the adoption of the report, I wish to place on record my appreciation of the tremendous technical work and achievements of John Grist, who ran the experiment, Patrick Harpur, the originating television director, and his camera and technical teams. I say without reservation that they have delivered a technical experiment of the finest quality in the world.
There are technical problems that still need to be overcome, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House referred to some of them. I notice that the lighting in the Chamber tonight is miraculously at a slightly lower level than usual, but it still causes problems for some hon. Members, especially those on the Back Benches who get more of the glare in their eyes. The sound system is archaic. That is no fault of the broadcasters; the system was taken over by them and has not been modified for television. It it clear that, if the televising of the House is to proceed, the sound system must be replaced urgently. That would be to the benefit both of the television audience and of hon. Members, who are finding it increasingly difficult to hear if the Chamber is full and noisy.
Hon. Members have referred to the televising of Committees. Technically, they also leave a great deal to be desired. If we are to proceed, it is high time that at least some of the Committee Rooms were equipped with the same sort of remote cameras as there are in the Chamber.
1248
I do not think that there is any doubt in the minds of hon. Members that the cameras in the Committee Rooms are obtrusive. They also take up space that democratically might be better used. It is ironic that that was especially true during the proceedings on the Broadcasting Bill, when cameras took up space that members of the public wanted to occupy.
The Hansard reporters have made it abundantly clear that they find the sound systems in the Committee Rooms intolerable. A balance has to be struck between the microphones being used for broadcasting and for the provision of tapes for the Hansard transcriptions. Those highly professional people find it extremely difficult to do their job. If we are to proceed, I hope that that difficulty will be addressed with all possible urgency. I should like to think that the sound systems in the Committee Rooms might be unceremoniously ripped out and replaced during the summer recess.
Those technical criticisms are valid, but they do not detract from the professionalism and technical expertise that has gone into the experiment. It justifies the work that the original Select Committee put into the preparation of the experiment. That Select Committee was severely criticised by hon. Members, including some who are in the Chamber tonight, for inordinate delay. Apart from those who were hellbent on getting the cameras in at any price, most hon. Members probably recognise that almost a year of preparatory work was extremely worth while. We were able to learn from the experience of others, and as a result we were able to require and be given a state-of-the-art experiment. I am most grateful to all those who took part in it.
The Select Committee report touches on some vital matters that will have to be addressed in future, but it omits others. It is still a tremendous sadness to me that we have cameras in the Chamber and in some Committee Rooms, yet we are not prepared to provide Members of Parliament with the communications and information systems that the Canadian Parliament, which contributed so much to our understanding, already enjoys.
The Oasis system is available to all Canadian Members of Parliament and is quite exceptional, but even that is becoming outdated. It is now technically possible for every right hon. and hon. Member to have in his or her office a fax machine and a printer producing, for example, an electronic Hansard. There is no reason for us to destroy the Amazon rain forests that are lying on the Benches now. All that could appear on screen in our offices alongside coverage of the Chamber, recalled coverage of the Chamber from the Library, the databases that are already available, and a host of other material.
One of my original objections to the experiment was that I believed then, as I do now, that it is an experiment in "info-tainment" that does very little to enhance the working lives, the abilities and the performance of right hon. and hon. Members. I am sad that the Select Committee report does not address the ways in which we may improve our performance on behalf of our constituents by using to the best possible advantage the technologies that are now available.
Mr. Nelson: One of the arguments often adduced against us having that obvious and necessary facility to represent the interests of our constituents is that the House would be less live and that fewer hon. Members would be present in the Chamber. It seems to me that all hon.

1249
Members would attend debates that they wished to attend and those who were not in the Chamber would be better informed about the debates if they had that facility. The argument is complete nonsense and should be turned on its head.
Mr. Gale: There is an irony in that. As my hon. Friend will recall, I voted against the original experiment but, when the decision had been taken, I voted for a free-for-all. I wanted the cameras to show the Chamber as it is. The House—including some Opposition Members who voted for the experiment—decided to restrict what the cameras could show, so that, were we to have a dedicated channel, the viewing public would not be aware that there are now precisely 17 Members in the Chamber.
We cannot receive what is happening in the Chamber in our offices, but I find it hard to believe that there will be fewer than 17 hon. Members here were we allowed to watch the proceedings while sitting at out desks. Quite the reverse could happen. There is a strong argument that, if an hon. Member sitting in his office saw, for example, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) making his compelling although misguided speech, he might wish to rush down to the Chamber to intervene, so such a facility could bring more hon. Members to the Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to provisions for the deaf. The Select Committee has done a considerable amount of work and has taken evidence from a number of interested bodies, including the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. If the televising of the House is to proceed, we must urgently make provision for the deaf. That is part of the Select Committee's continuing work. We cannot emphasise too strongly our strength of feeling about that important matter.
I now come to the crux of the debate—the dedicated channel. I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friends and colleagues on the Select Committee who do not share my view. I should like to retrace the history of just a tiny part of the televising debate and to recall some comments that have been made in the past 10 years.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) sought to introduce the televising of the House in a short debate on 2 November 1983. Of course, there was no experiment then. The hon. Gentleman said:
"What is the relevance to the lives of the public of a series of impressive, well-considered debates if they hear little of those debates?"—[Official Report, 2 November 1983; Vol. 47, c. 876.]
He used that argument for the introduction of the cameras into the Chamber. That debate was lost, but I have never forgotten those words. What is the point of us speaking here if the public can see or hear little of our debates? Now we have television cameras in the Chamber, but the public can still see or hear very little of our debates.
On 12 June 1989, we debated the first report of the Select Committee on televising the House. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to a dedicated channel as an amendment similar to that on the Order Paper had been tabled. He said that most people favour it
"as soon as it is technically possible … Having taken part in the Committee's deliberations, I am reasonably convinced that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want a dedicated channel as soon as that is technically possible."
Unfortunately, he also said:
1250
"our investigations have shown that there is no prospect of achieving such a dedicated channel by the beginning of the experiment."—[Official Report, 12 June 1989, Vol. 154, c. 618–22.].
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who won that debate and is largely responsible for the fact that we now have cameras in the Chamber, although I do not hold that against him, addressed the amendment that was similar to that on the Order Paper today by saying:
"I will explain why the first is a wrecking amendment."
He used the same words that he used tonight.
"We are concerned with an experiment and the House is concerned that the Select Committee should bring forward recommendations for its implementation. Not unreasonably, it is trying to impose it by the autumn of this year."
He addressed the provision of a dedicated channel, saying:
"it is not a practical arrangement for the short term. If it were made a condition of the package of the main motion it may result in the whole experiment being dropped. It should be seen for what it is: a wrecking amendment which should be dismissed by the House."—[Official Report, 12 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 649.]
He used precisely the same words this evening.
Earlier this evening my hon. Friend referred, as did the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), to the fact that the House has had a dedicated channel for three weeks. He put forward an extremely compelling argument for a dedicated channel. Therefore, I hope that he will support us in the Lobby. He referred to the dedicated channel experiment, and he did so with some pride. I have to confess that it was I who told the hon. Member for Workington that it would be possible to set up a dedicated channel in 48 hours. However, to set the mind of the House at rest, it is not quite that easy.
During the last summer recess, I spent some time with people at Sky Television, who were interested in demonstrating that this could be done. I also went to see the Astra television people in Luxembourg. To set the mind of the House further at rest, Mr. Rupert Murdoch does not own any shares in Astra.
The Astra television people said they were willing to provide a transponder. British Telecom was also helpful. As one of the companies that is capable of uplinking a signal, it said that it would be willing to donate its services for a trial period. To its eternal credit, House of Commons Broadcasting Ltd. was not obstructive. It said that for a period we could have the signal free.
Therefore, we had the satellite transponder, the company to handle the signal—Sky—the company to uplink it—British Telecom—and the signal from House of Commons Broadcasting. That which we were told this time last year was technically impossible happened at the start of the experiment. On day one—the state opening of Parliament—the House had a dedicated channel. However, the House did not have the courage to go through with it, because it costs money.
Much has been made of the success of the experiment. The hon. Member for The Wrekin quoted reams from a Leeds university report. He also quoted figures. It is curious that both my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and the hon. Member for The Wrekin derided the satellite audience—800,000, they said—while quoting figures of, at the lowest, 100,000 viewers and a maximum of 1 million viewers to demonstrate that the experiment has been a success.
Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gale: Of course I shall give way. I tried to intervene during the hon. Gentleman's speech for exactly this reason.
Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman must compare like with like. One has to compare the number of people who are able to receive the terrestrial channels—21.5 million—with the number of people who can receive satellite and cable television, which is fewer than 900,000. He cannot compare the viewing numbers using the one system with the maximum number of people who are capable of using the other system. Who knows how few would watch our proceedings were they available on cable and satellite? That would be the real comparison.
Mr. Gale: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can quantify democracy. A large number of people are able now to receive satellite transmissions, either by dish or from satellite to cable head end, by cable. That number will grow astronomically over the next few years. That has been used as an excuse for doing nothing. The electorate have been denied the democracy that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and the hon. Member for The Wrekin referred to as being the reason for going ahead with the experiment.
My hon. Friend used grand words: he referred to emerging eastern European nations. He also used the word "beacon." Where is that beacon? It is available now, technically, to those emerging eastern European nations by satellite, but they cannot get it because we are denying it to them. It is time that we put our cards on the table and decided whether all that we are doing is providing clips to tart up "'The Nine o'clock News" or "The News at Ten" or whether we believe in something more significant. If we do, it is time that we got on with the job.
Mr. Lewis Stevens: My hon. Friend is enthusiastic about imposing a dedicated channel on the nation, but is he really enthusiastic about one, two or three channels? Earlier speakers have referred to the great success of televising the Select Committees. If one dedicated channel shows the proceedings in this Chamber, it appears that my hon. Friend would be satisfied to have clips from the important Select Committees and Standing Committees, which would be on a different basis.
Mr. Gale: Let me deal with that technical argument. A year ago, we were told that we could not do it at all, but we debunked that theory and proved in three glorious weeks that it could be done, and it was done. However, that was not enough. Now we must demonstrate how it can be taken forward. The train is leaving the station. The amendment is valid. If we do not move forward quickly, there will be another excuse.
We lost the Astra transmission because the last Astra transponder was sold for commercial purposes. Later this year another Astra satellite, with 16 channels, is to be launched. Some of the channels have been sold in advance of the launch. However, some of them are still available. Shall we come back here in a year's time and say, "We should love to do it, but unfortunately no transponders are available because they have all been sold"? Or shall we take the decision now and allow the electorate to see the House properly at work? It can be done. By the time that the House sits again in the autumn, it would be possible to connect us up, if we chose to do so, in a couple of days.
1252
We have to ask how it is to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester asked a salient question. The C-Span organisation in the United States has been cited as a shining example of televising democracy. C-Span is funded by the United States Congress. First and foremost, it is paid for by the state.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: C-Span is financed by the cable industry. It takes 3 cents out of every dollar going to cable. That is how the money is provided. The signal is provided by Congress; the funding is by the cable industry.
Mr. Gale: I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. It was I who first introduced him to C-Span. He ought to be aware that originally C-Span was funded entirely by Congress.
C-Span now has two dedicated channels, not one, because it is necessary to show the House of Representatives and the Senate at work, with explanatory interviews and the work of the committees.
Mr. Richard Tracey: And it shows the House of Commons live.
Mr. Gale: Yes, that is an irony. My hon. Friend says that it shows the House of Commons live. Is it not perverse that the American nation can see the House of Commons live more frequently than we can in the United Kingdom? The answer is that, eventually, we shall need more than one dedicated channel if we are to do the job properly, but let us try to walk before we run. Let us go for what is possible now. What is possible this autumn is one dedicated channel. There would be no great difficulty about providing it. The next argument, therefore, if technically I am right, and I believe that I am, is how it will be paid for.
I moved an amendment in the Select Committee. That is why I voted against the report. Part of the amendment was adopted. The Committee was a little mealy-mouthed about it. In the amendment to the report, I said that, as a prerequisite to the permanent televising of the House, a dedicated channel should be provided, if necessary at public expense. It will be no great surprise when I say that the words "if necessary at public expense" stuck in the craw of some people. It was unacceptable to them. Therefore, I was prepared to go part way and agree the word "adjunct" with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester who gave me particular support. Nobody, however, could agree about funding.
It has been said, correctly, that approaches have been made to House of Commons Broadcasting. Let me put my cards on the table. The approach was made by United Artists. It approached a number of hon. Members for advice. It is investing heavily in cable systems. Originally, it was interested in supplying the House on a gavel-to-gavel basis. It would have been made available to relatively few cable viewers.
Most of us said that that was not what we wanted. We want as many people as possible to be able to see this House when they want to, not when somebody tells them they have to. Today United Artists has been talking to John Grist, House of Commons Broadcasting and various others to see whether they can come up with a proposal. That is one expression of commercial interest already.
Those of us who believe that satellite is the answer do so because it is the best and quickest blanket-delivery system. The outlying farmhouses that will not get cable for

1253
a long time—the type of house referred to by the hon. Member for The Wrekin—can have a dish. However, we do not want every rooftop in London or Birmingham to be covered in dishes. We hope and believe that Britain will be cabled as soon as possible. The best way of delivering the House of Commons and many other services to those households is by satellite to cable head end and by cable to the home. The satellite is available now. We must take it before the train leaves the station and before we can use it again as an excuse for doing nothing.
That will cost money. The rough estimate is that it will cost about £5.5 million a year. Who pays? The hon. Member for The Wrekin went through a shopping list of people who might pay. It may be necessary to put public money into the establishment of a House of Commons unit and a dedicated channel. I am prepared to see that happen. If we believe that this has something to do with democracy—the House has apparently voted for the presence of the cameras on the assumption that it does—we must take that to its logical conclusion. If the public—both of those who watch—want the service, they must be prepared to vote the means. That is taxpayers' money.
I am no great advocate of the expenditure of more public funds, but I believe that the public will get their money back. I am prepared to see the establishment of a House of Commons unit and, if the House wishes, I am prepared to see the franchise offered to the highest bidder. That person will make money out of an experiment such as this and out of a dedicated broadcasting system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) asked about Committees. As we know, the House sits from 2.30 in the afternoon to about 1 am or 2 am on most nights. Occasionally it goes all night. However, on many nights there are probably about 12 hours of air time when the House is not sitting. That could be available for Committee coverage, political discussions, interviews and, if necessary, advertising. However, I do not think that we need go down that route.
The satellite system is by far the best method of delivering the signal of the House to the small independent television companies. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) is in his place. He has a particular interest in the reception in Scotland. The fastest way to get the signal to his viewers is by satellite. We all know that, if a major story is breaking in the House and the hand is sweeping round towards 6 o'clock, the big companies with the greatest clout such as Granada, Central and the London stations will have the line time. The small companies are pushed to one side. By satellite, every company can have access to what it wants when it happens. I believe that satellite delivery to independent stations and to BBC regional stations is the cheapest way of delivering the signal. It would save enormous sums on line costs, and I believe that those stations would be prepared to pay.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? He said that the transponder lines will be lost unless we take them up now. What will happen if they are lost? Are any other satellites coming on stream? When will the window open again?
Mr. Gale: The Hughes Corporation of America has said that it intends to launch a satellite with 104 channels.
1254
However, that will not be for another two years, because it intends to go for digital picture transmission and that is a developing technology. I am not saying that there are not other potential channels available to us, but if we choose to take the plunge we have a simple and ready-made system now. We know that it works because we have tried it.
In addition to the independent companies that I believe will wish to subscribe, we have those which already subscribe such as C-Span, American television which finds the House of compelling interest. In fact, it finds it of greater interest than does the United Kingdom audience. There is Canadian political television and the Commonwealth in its entirety. There will be a demand for European satellite transmissions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said, the sooner we can show the work of this House as a democratic assembly on satellite to the developing democracies of eastern Europe, the better. We can do it now.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend has listed a number of commercial television companies in this country, such as C-Span and Canadian television, which he said would pay towards the running of the highly expensive transponder. Does he have any indication from any of those companies that they would be prepared to pay? I do not believe that they would pay anything.
Mr. Gale: I am interested in the phrase "highly expensive". My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has worked for the BBC. He will know that, in broadcasting terms, £5.5 million is a drop in the ocean. To many people that sounds like a lot of money, but to Independent Television companies and to the BBC it is peanuts. It is peanuts that are readily and easily recoupable. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. I cannot remember whether he came with us to Canada when we took evidence from the Canadian House. The Canadian media get their signal free, but I am sure that he will recall that, when I asked the press gallery in Ontario whether it would be prepared to pay, the answer was an unequivocal yes.
I believe that there is a market in the City. I see no reason why City institutions and industries who find the workings of the House of value in their business life should not be prepared to pay a subscription. If we go down this road and create an additional arm to the democracy of the House, as I hope we will, the British electorate must have this service free of charge. I see no reason why those who have a commercial interest in the re-broadcasting of material should not be prepared to pay for it. The principle is well established. Commercial companies subscribe cheerfully to Reuters as a news service, the Press Association and Visnews, which produces television pictures which those companies buy. There is no reason why they should not subscribe and possibly save money on line costs.
What have we come down to? The system can be paid for by the taxpayer if the House wills it, or the money can be recouped from industry. It is technically possible now. There is nothing in the amendment, which I and another 180 hon. Members have signed, that will deny the continuation of the experiment. The suggestion that if we take this route the House will be switched off is nonsense. We are seeking to concentrate the mind of the House. A year ago, we were told that this was a wrecking

1255
amendment. We will not buy that argument tonight. We have demonstrated that it can be done. We believe that, if it is to go ahead, the public will want it done. It can be done within the next 12 months, and we should get on and do it.
We have a chance to decide tonight either to treat the United Kingdom electorate like grown-ups and allow them to decide what television from the House they see, or we can go on allowing Auntie BBC and Uncle ITN to decide which bits of the House are fit to be seen. I believe that the former is infinitely desirable. It is possible now, and I hope that the House will vote for it.
8.38 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I welcome the success of the experiment. Congratulations have come from both sides of the House. I hope, with the exception of the amendment, that the outcome of the rest of the votes at the end of the debate will be something of a foregone conclusion in that the House will clearly show its support for putting the televising of our proceedings on a permanent basis.
The history of these debates, not least of the past two years, stretching back to when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was introducing Bills and agitating—
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Positively prehistoric!
Mr. Kennedy: I acknowledge that fact.
It is heartening that the principle of televising is not the subject of debate and that technicalities or aspects of that principle are engendering more heat across the Chamber.
Two fears were expressed at the outset, the first of which was the intrusiveness of cameras in the Chamber. Despite the various physical problems that have been experienced from time to time, with heat more often than sound, no hon. Members have found them too intrusive. The second fear stemmed from the visit of members of the Select Committee to the Ottawa Parliament. Listening to its members increased hon. Members' apprehension that there would be a massive amount of play acting and staged demonstrations in the Chamber. That has not happened.
Constraints were placed on the much maligned broadcasters. In the original debate two years ago, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was characteristically offensive about broadcasters and made predictions of what would happen to our procedures as we became pawns at their disposal. That has not happened, despite the ludicrous constraints that we placed on professional broadcasters to produce an accurate visual image of this set. They are to be congratulated on, the journalistic flair that they brought to the task, on the originality of their programmes and—this anxiety is often expressed by hon. Members—the sense of humanness and sense of humour which, where appropriate, they have injected into their coverage of events.
The broadcasters have been faithful to the character, traditions and personality of the House. All too often, pomposity attaches itself to our proceedings and certainly to some of the egos or personalities in the Chamber. When hon. Members do not like what is portrayed on the screen or how it is portrayed on the radio airwaves at 8.40 each morning at the end of the "Today" programme or in "Yesterday in Parliament", they tend to blame the messenger, to say that the fault lies in the stars and that it
1256
cannot possibly lie with us. In the portrayal of 650 hon. Members, who at times are idiosyncratic and certainly highly individualistic, one cannot blame the broadcasters for seeking to draw out that humanness. In my anecdotal experience—I am not untypical in this respect—over the period of the experiment, without missing the political messages that hon. Members try to send, without losing their ability to judge a good or an unsound argument, a Government decision that is justifiable or one to which they are not sympathetic, as much as anything else the public have responded to the human interest of Parliament. Rather akin to the lead character in "Death of a Salesman", hon. Members who live or die by their ability to sell themselves, political ideas and parties should not knock a medium that is broadcasting this institution and adding more human interest than might have been the case before.
There have been problems for broadcasters. They have made commendable contributions to regional emphasis, but none the less they have occasionally run into practical difficulties. As the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) alluded to my interest in Scotland, I again underscore the need for something to be done about the chamber at the old royal high school in Edinburgh to overcome its sound difficulties. It is a high irony that, for once, this is an issue on which we can predate the Government. If one leaves aside developments beyond what used to be known as the iron curtain, in western Europe we have the most ready-made, modern and supposedly parliamentary debating chamber in Edinburgh, but its sound capacity is absolutely disastrous for modern broadcasting requirements. At some stage, an exercise should be carried out to see what the requirements were when it was thought that if devolution was agreed the chamber would be up and running within 10 years as a modern parliamentary base.
In general, within the constraints that have been placed on them, broadcasters have done a tremendous job. The problem is that they must reflect a House of Commons that is elected by a first-past-the-post system of politics, which makes the Labour and Conservative parties predominant. The layout of the House is based on a confrontational view of politics. It is not a hemicycle, as in many European countries, so its procedures reflect the usual channels and a two-party system.
As the televising experiment has continued, it has given rise to difficulties for representatives of third parties. Although I spoke as a Liberal Democrat member of the Select Committee, I was mindful throughout that I was a representative not of my party but of all third parties, if I can so describe them. Issues and implications for televising, which perhaps members of third parties feel acutely, are, none the less, extremely relevant to Conservative and Labour Back Benchers. In the submission made by my party, which was included in the final published report of the Select Committee, we highlighted a few of the implications for the political balance and the procedures of the House. I wish briefly to deal with them because they are in the report for any Member of the House or the public to read.
There is live coverage of the House on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. We know from the monthly rotation of departmental question time that some question times will not be covered live. Questions on Wales, transport and energy are often asked on Mondays. Scottish questions, which are always on a Wednesday, are covered live in

1257
Scotland—I am not complaining about that—but other question times that fall on Monday or Wednesday will never be covered live. Will broadcasters review their schedules—obviously, they want to cover Prime Minister's Question Time because it is the highlight of the show twice a week—or will the House revise its procedure on the cycle followed for departmental questions?
There has undoubtedly been an increase in the length of the speeches of Front-Bench spokesmen, and the figures will bear that out. The length of Opposition responses to Government statements has also increased. The net effect is that Back-Bench speeches—Second Reading debates being the most obvious example—are pushed further and further back and are less likely to appear in the main news schedules. That is true of hon. Members speaking for the Ulster Unionists, Liberal Democrats or one of the nationalist parties.
Mr. Kilfedder: And the Ulster Popular Unionist Member.
Mr. Kennedy: Or speaking as a respected Member of the House. In a debate on Northern Ireland there may be lengthy speeches by the Secretary of State, followed by a shadow spokesman and another Conservative Member. If the leader of the Ulster Unionists is called, it may be after 6 pm, by which time his legitimate viewpoint on a salient issue will not be heard. That is the practical impact, which is of concern to members of third parties, but equally it should be of concern to Back-Bench Members of the two main parties in this House. Another effect is that more people are being forced into the 10-minute rule period of debates, which I am not against in principle, but the 10-minute rule barrier now falls on speeches earlier in the evening.
Finally, televising has meant increased pressure on Question Time, and the figures contained in the report are disturbing in that respect. The extent to which non-Labour or non-Conservative Members are called within departmental Question Time appears to be suffering.
There are implications for broadcasters in the points that I have mentioned, but televising also has implications for the House—it affects the way in which we organise and run oursleves. I hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will examine that aspect. The excellent report by the university of Leeds, which refers to my party on page 14—I shall not detain the House by quoting it now—highlights the difficulties that have arisen.
I see from the Order Paper that eight of my hon. Friends have signed the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) spoke about in detail and with such clarity. I am prepared to go a long way down the line of their arguments because, like most hon. Members, I am in favour of a dedicated television channel. The problem is that we have to separate that principle from the pragmatics of what the Select Committee has been trying to deliver. While I remain committed to the principle, and I hope to the delivery of a dedicated channel, given the present limited spread of satellite availability in this country, I cannot see how we do Parliament a democratic service by making the service available 24 hours a day to a limited number of
1258
people, while, unsatisfactory though it is, we are delivering selected excerpts to the vast majority of people. On that basis, the amendment will not have my support.
In the past, when this place has reformed itself there have always been those who have predicted that the reform in question would mark the end of civilisation as we knew it. The debates on votes for women offer a classic example in this century. There were those who predicted much the same for televising, but I think that at the end of the day it has enhanced Parliament and made it more accessible. When one's constituency is as far from London as mine, that is an overwhelming vote in its favour. People's votes elect Parliament, people's taxes pay for it, so surely the public have the right to see what is being done in their name. Added to that right is the right of the deaf community to follow our proceedings. That has been the subject of attention—I hope that it will give it continuing attention—by the Select Committee.
I hope that we shall become more relaxed about and more trusting in the professionalism of British broadcasters, and drop the remaining restrictions. Anyone sitting in the Strangers' Gallery of the House can see with his own eyes what happens on the Floor of the House. The same right of access to that information must be given to someone sitting in the comfort of his own home with the television switched on. We cannot continue to deny people that.
Despite my concern about the impact of television coverage on Back Benchers and third parties, I shall certainly support the Select Committee report tonight, if only in the hope that it will act as a spur to bring the entire institution of Parliament into the 20th century just as we begin to head towards the 21st.
8.54 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I shall endeavour to keep my remarks brief and to the point, as I certainly would not wish to deprive fellow hon. Members of air time on this important issue.
I believe that the one-year experiment in televising the proceedings of the House has been a television success but a political failure. I certainly endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Televising has provided entertainment at low cost for the television stations. Edited highlights appear on the evening news bulletins, enabling the political correspondents to spice up their coverage of the proceedings of the House.
If all that the intrusion of television cameras in this place had produced was a handful of happy journalists with a few innocuous highlights on the evening news, I would have been happy to vote to keep the cameras here. But, as every hon. Member knows full well, that is not the end of the story. For example, the arrival of television has had a strange and unforeseen effect on the behaviour of many hon. Members. None of us is blameless, but all of us are dealing with a powerful force beyond our control. Television has brought out the worst in us all. Hon. Members are not, even at the best of times, publicity shy. Indeed, as we all know, there has to be a streak of the actor in every hon. Member. The successful politician certainly cannot afford to eschew publicity. To succeed in politics one has to get noticed—on the hustings, in speeches, on

1259
television or on radio. There is nothing that the average politician likes to hear more than the sound of his own voice.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Or her voice.
Mrs. Roe: Yes, with respect to my colleagues, his or her voice. Until the arrival of television cameras in the House, there was a series of moderating influences on what might be called the theatrical tendency. New Members of Parliament learn that certain forms of behaviour and dress are unacceptable in the Chamber. The House of Commons is the nation's most important forum for serious debate on matters of the utmost importance to our future. It is not, as some cynics derisively claim, a talking shop. What is happening in the Chamber matters.
Attention-seeking tactics are out of place in such an environment, and time-wasting exhibitionists have little real contribution to make to serious political debates. Until now most hon. Members have recognised that fact. Those hon. Members who are incapable of doing so—wilfully or through sheer dimness—have to contend with the wrath of the Whips, or with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the ultimate sanction against cases of what are, in effect, political exhibitionism was the fact that it was unlikely to get much publicity. It was pointless and puerile, and that was so until the arrival of television cameras in the House.
Now the rules have changed, and the effects have been largely inimical to serious debate and good government. I disagree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). The arrival of the television cameras has given show-offs the big audience for which some of them certainly yearn. More than that, as my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned earlier, television has forced many perfectly sensible Members of Parliament to go to absurd lengths so that they can be seen "on the box". The average television viewer, seeing his Member of Parliament on the screen, will assume that such a sighting is mere chance. In fact, it is more than likely that the hon. Member carefully positioned himself—or herself—so that he would be picked up by the television cameras.
Little does the unsuspecting viewer know the lengths to which certain hon. Members will go to be seen on national television. It is a sad fact that hon. Members check up on who is asking the Prime Minister questions beforehand so that they can sit next to the questioner and be guaranteed to appear on television screens in millions of homes during the evening news bulletins. Other hon. Members gravitate towards Mr. Speaker's Chair so that they can be seen when the television cameras zoom in on you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
None of that is especially surprising; now that the cameras are in the House, it is understandable that hon. Members should want to be seen doing their job by their constituents. I am sure that many hon. Members who are here tonight have participated in lengthy debates, only to be asked by a constituent after the event, "Where were you?". The answer is that the hon. Member was there all right, but in the 90-second package for the 10 o'clock news—which condenses six hours of debate, with perhaps 20 different speakers and as many interventions—not every contribution is covered.
The sight of hon. Members scrambling to sit within camera shot reminds me of those outside television broadcasts in which an interviewer speaks to camera with
1260
a couple of young children bouncing up and down pulling faces in the background. Who, after all, can resist the lure of publicity?
In addition, to those who merely scheme and plot in an honest fashion to appear on camera, there are the hon. Members who deliberately try to draw attention to themselves. Every Back Bencher knows that the contribution most likely to make it through the cutting room to the evening news is the absurd, the insulting, the provocative or even the jocular, and it is well known that outrageous points of order raised after Prime Minister's questions have a very good chance of finding their way on to the television screen.
The past year has proved that good television and good government are not synonymous, although I attach no blame either to broadcasters or to hon. Members. Hon. Members are merely responding to the introduction of a medium that forces them to behave differently; broadcasters are merely giving the viewers the choicest morsels of the day's proceedings to keep them entertained.
The failure of televising the House in its present form can be summed up in two words—design and money. If the Chamber had been specifically designed to accommodate television cameras, things might be different. A modern circular Chamber, with every hon. Member assigned a place, would help to get round the ludicrous problem of hon. Members stalking round the Chamber trying to find a spot where they are likely to be seen on the box. As for the other problem—money—the broadcasters say that they cannot afford the substantial set-up and running costs of a dedicated television channel. But if a television channel were set aside for the proceedings of the House and its Committees, the public would be able to see a far more balanced picture of what happens here. As it is, all that the great majority of the population see are a few brief edited highlights on the evening news. As well as giving the public a much fairer view of what hon. Members do, I suspect that a dedicated television channel would have the advantage of encouraging hon. Members to behave in a slightly less publicity-hungry fashion.
I do not wish to be wholly negative about the televising of the House. I believe that it is good news that a wider audience has been able to witness the exchanges between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition every Tuesday and Thursday: those weekly sessions have contributed to my party's continuing popularity in my constituency.
9.3 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: There are many ways in which this issue can be examined. One is the purely technical one about the changes in technology that would make it possible for more people to see more easily what happens here and elsewhere. There has even been the introduction of a financial element, in terms of the investment opportunities that might be created by a dedicated channel.
I am primarily concerned with the politics of the matter—the effect the cameras have on the relationship between the electors and their representatives. People have often spoken about the rights of hon. Members, but it has always seemed to me—indeed, I wrote an article in TV Times in 1957 calling for the televising of the House of

1261
Commons—that the real case for it is that the electors who sent us here would know what we were doing in their name. I think that that is the most important point.
It is long overdue. What a terrible loss to posterity that former hon. Members such as Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee and so on were not filmed. We would have had them on archive. Now that we have introduced the televising of our proceedings, I do not want to run any risk of terminating it because of the difficulty of establishing a dedicated channel.
Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), most of the fears about the behaviour of hon. Members have been laid to rest. No one who knows the House or its history believes that only television caused disturbances. The King came here when there was no television and tried to arrest five Members of Parliament. He was not seeking publicity. There have been disturbances on many occasions. My father used to tell me about the fighting that occurred when the Irish Nationalist Members were here. Charles Bradlaugh was brought to the House. The other day I visited the room where the Supervisor of Broadcasting works. It is the prison cell where Bradlaugh was imprisoned for trying to take the oath although he was an atheist.
Some hon. Members are slowly beginning to discover that if they want to be given attention they should not put on a new suit, get a clean shirt or have a better hairdo; they should raise the quality of their argument. If that message gets across, it will entirely justify televising.
Enormous tributes have been paid to the mass media. I am an old broadcaster. I started work after the war as a BBC producer and I still have an interest in it. We must recognise that there is a conflict between those who claim the right to speak because they work in the media and those who claim the right to speak because they have been elected. That is the essential conflict that has been tilted in our favour by the televising of Parliament.
To appear on "Question Time", we have to be invited by the producer. We are made up. The microphone is placed behind us so that no one at home can see that it is there. We are interrupted by Robin Day all the time. But in the House it is not like that at all. We are lucky to be called. If we are called, Mr. Speaker does not name an hon. Member and say, "Now it is time for a speaker from the hard left", or, "Now it is time for an hon. Member from the Tory wets." We are called by our constituencies. People can make up their minds about us according to what we say. We are not made up and we are not interrupted. It is important to recognise that there are important differences.
I often think about the qualifications needed to be a Member of the House of Commons. What is so marvellous about it is that there is none. That is why it is such an interesting assembly. The only qualification that we have is that we have been elected. I got my calculator out today to find out how many people had voted for me since I arrived in the House. I can tell the House that 379,056 people have voted for me in the 14 parliamentary elections in which I was elected. Those are my only qualifications, but they are the qualifications that every hon. Member has to be heard. That is what is important.
Although it is true that it has been much better to have our proceedings televised than not, I share entirely the
1262
view that exchanges on Tuesday and Thursdays between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are simply transmitted to zip up the evening bulletins. Previously we were given a picture of the people speaking and perhaps some of the sound broadcasting. Now we have the whole exchange. Television material has been an opportunity to illustrate the way in which the media want to cover politics. That is very bad. That is why I am strongly in favour of a dedicated channel, which I shall deal with in a moment.
Some examples have been given today. Let us take the debate on embryology and abortion, which aroused strong feelings. Views for and against were not confined to one side of the House. It would have been much better to have produced an edited version of the debates and made them available not only on the air but in videos which could be used by sixth forms, universities and so on.
In a debate before Christmas the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was lucky in the ballot and moved a motion stating that socialism was dead. It was the first time that I have heard socialism discussed since I have been in the House. Certainly, a debate on socialism has never been promoted by my party. A few of us got together and tabled an amendment. It was, dare I say it, a marvellous debate. The hon. Member for Tatton was provocative. The chairman of the Conservative party came in. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) spoke. All sorts of hon. Members spoke.
A few days later I met two young women who run a video company, 20th Century Vixen. Being rather slow on the uptake, it took me a long time to realise the parallel with 20th Century Fox and that they were feminists. They edited the five-hour debate on socialism and called it "The Commons on Socialism". It was an absolutely brilliant job. Every speaker was included and the balance was absolutely fair. I wrote to the Leader of the House about it, and showed it to the Supervisor of Broadcasting and the hon. Member for Tatton, but the Committee did not turn its mind to such projects.
It is absurd that our speeches are not freely available on video because, dare I say it, the quality of the debate, when one forgets the partisan exchanges on Tuesdays and Thursdays, is of a high order. People do not get here just by accident; they have experience and when hon. Members choose to speak they usually know what they are talking about, but many of those contributions are left out because they are not newsworthy.
I hope that the ban on the use of material is lifted. Hon. Members will be aware that anyone can buy a five-hour video tape for £20—that is what I paid for "The Commons on Socialism". If hon. Members buy such videos or want to make them available to sixth forms, what is wrong with that? People might argue that such videos would be selective, but Hansard is available without any copyright restriction. If one had a 40-minute summary of the debate on socialism, which was held that Friday and with it went the copy of Hansard, made available to sixth formers or students of the Open University, it could be a useful resource. The video I purchased offers an important precedent and it is worth while developing it.
I hope that the Committee will consider a wider use of our material. I understand that it was afraid that people would use such videos as a vehicle for advertising or to make fun of hon. Members, but, as Harry Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

1263
We cannot stand on our dignity if people want to see our proceedings and nothing could be more amusing or damaging than "Spitting Image" is.
A lot of other things that go on in the House should also be considered for broadcast, for example, the relationship between hon. Members and their constituents. Is there any reason why the full, mature life of an hon. Member should not be reflected when they are lobbied by pensioners, war widows and the like? The record of our parliamentary debates should not just reflect hon. Members' speeches—they represent a fraction of our work in comparison with the correspondence into which we enter, and the petitions and lobbies we receive.
We must also look at the House itself in the light of this new opportunity. I know, Mr. Speaker, that with your wig you are extremely popular all over the mid-west of America. I believe that C-Span has made you known from Ohio to Wyoming.
A party of sixth formers from a school in my constituency went round the House the other day with a guide. When I met them I asked them what happens in here and there was an awfully long pause before they could answer. The intelligibility of this place is not improved by its quaint methods and procedures.
Without going too far beyond the subject of this debate, in the years that I have been here the House has lost many of its powers. There are 30,000 American troops stationed here over whom we have no control whether or not we pass the annual Army order. Brussels has taken responsibility for our legislation and we cannot reject it when it comes back to us. The International Monetary Fund and perhaps the Bundesbank will increasingly take responsibility for our financial affairs. What does the House have left? The answer is that it is the great forum of the nation.
On Monday I had a discussion with you, Mr. Speaker, so far as it was in order so to do, about whether we should discuss the interview given by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Germany and the European Community. We have our rules and procedures which you interpret, Mr. Speaker, as you are required so to do by our Standing Orders. I do not believe, however, that the public understood why the one place—here—that could not discuss that matter was the place where the action was. We should have more contemporaneous debates because if we do not discuss what the people are considering, we shall become irrelevant as a forum as well as a legislative body, which is already happening fast.
When we come here as hon. Members we have certain clear things to do. The first is to represent our constituents, and any hon. Member who rises to his feet to defend a constituency interest is doing his job and should be respected, even if it is badgering, as it sometimes is, or disorderly, and I have known that to happen too.
Secondly, we have a duty to explain what is happening, because it is a puzzling world and I find that there is today a great thirst for understanding which in many respects is not best met by the mass media, which want to oversimplify or in some way to mystify. The media sometimes put up the experts or present matters in such a way that a n incident here is only a party battle. People want explanations and we are, in a strange way, uniquely qualified to give them.
But, above all, this House—if it could get through to the public on a dedicated channel—could recover democracy for the people from the media. Politics in Britain is now a spectator sport. People stay at home,
1264
watch television and wonder who will win the World Cup. Or they watch "Newsnight" and wonder who will win the general election. They do not see any difference between their role in the World Cup—because not everybody can play the game—and their role in the election.
The media, the pollsters, the people who hype it up and the public relations people who engage in politics have taken the democratic process away from us and made it something that highly paid experts want to manage for us. This House is made up of people whose commitment to politics is real because we are answerable to our constituents. When I am in Chesterfield tomorrow, everybody I see will be my employer. That is the difference between our role and pleasing a producer so that one may get on the telly. We meet our employers.
The House has an opportunity to do something about that state of affairs, particularly if it demands a dedicated channel. I would have redrafted my hon. Friend's amendment. I do not want to make it conditional, so I would simply have amended it to read,
"and instructs the Committee to finance and provide a dedicated channel by this time 12 months."
Had my hon. Friend worded it in that way, I would have voted for it. I fear that at present the amendment might be interpreted as demanding a pause instead of a decision.
Whatever we do, let us remember that this place is a talking shop, a place where people's ideas can be heard and where debate can be real. The older I get, the less impressed I am by the abuse and the tricks played between parties, because I want to hear the argument. I want to know what the case is for and against the ERM or any other issue, and how we should deal with the debt crisis and so on. I suspect that people sitting at home, not being engaged in the daily business of these affairs in the way that we are, want to know what we really think.
The hustings are enough for the election. But the people want to know our views, and television offers a unique technical opportunity. It has come too late for my satisfaction, but it is providing us with a chance to do something. It must, of course, be under our control and not handed over to someone to make money, because it is possible to make a lot of money. We should control and finance it. If we give every candidate free postage in a general election so that all the candidates, including those who lose, can get their views over to the general public, why cannot we finance, for educational purposes—for our education as much as theirs—a dedicated channel?
I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) not to make the amendment conditional. A dedicated channel is essential, or we shall simply become new pawns in a media game in which they will use the bits that they think fit their pattern. In many cases they are writing dramas in which we are allowed to play our part if we fit their script, but not if we do not. I have described what should be the basis of our approach to this issue.
9.18 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I subscribed my name to the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), consistent with the way in which I voted when this matter previously came before the House. I voted wholeheartedly for the televising of our proceedings, for the simple reason mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr.

1265
Benn)—that the people of the United Kingdom are entitled to hear and see what is being done in their name. They have the right to see what is happening in this Chamber. That is why I believe that a dedicated channel is essential and that that channel should be completely under the supervision of the House.
Democracy can flourish only with open government, when the people feel close to Members of Parliament and to what is happening here at Westminster. There can be no doubt that, in the constant battle between the Executive and Parliament, the televising of our proceedings must help to give some muscle to hon. Members who wish to impose some restriction on the powers of the Executive. I am wholly committed to the permanent televising of the House.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I understand my hon. Friend's long attachment to the televising of Parliament. Did he catch the important point made at the end of his speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? He made virtually the same point that my hon. Friend is making, but he also made the distinction that to link the permanent televising of the House with a dedicated channel within 12 months could make the amendment a wrecking amendment for the permanent televising of the House. If those who say that a dedicated channel may not be possible are proved right, the amendment will turn out to have been a wrecking amendment. We must be cautious about the amendment in its present form.
Mr. Kilfedder: I want to emphasise that the amendment is not a wrecking amendment. No hon. Member who has added his or her name to it wants to wreck the possibility of televising Parliament. What the hon. Member for Workington and all hon. Members who subscribe to the amendment are doing is showing that we are determined to get a dedicated channel. The only way to do that is for us and for Parliament to flex our muscles. In that way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, we should be able to have a dedicated channel within 12 months. Even if it did not come within 12 months, the televising of Parliament would proceed. However, the only way to get a dedicated channel is by showing our determination to have one.
As I made clear in my intervention, I am not satisfied with the present broadcasting of the House. People outside see on their television screens only what the television producers and editors permit them to see, and that is contrary to the democratic principle. Why should we permit the media manipulators to censor the televising of our proceedings? What is taking place now is censorship. That applies to all parts of the United Kingdom, but especially to my own region of Northern Ireland.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) will agree that the coverage of speeches made in the House by most Northern Ireland Members is limited and, in some cases, non-existent. I have spoken in the Chamber on a number of occasions since television was introduced on matters that I regard as important not only to my constituents, but to everyone in Northern Ireland. Yet none of those speeches was broadcast by local Ulster Television or by BBC Northern
1266
Ireland, although they say that they are providing the people of Northern Ireland with a proper record of what is taking place in Parliament.
I should have thought that Northern Ireland, of all parts of the United Kingdom, needs to have Parliament projected into the homes of all its people—not only because of the terrorism there, but because we are being ruled by direct rule, an undemocratic system of government which can be given some democratic flavour only by the fact that the people of Northern Ireland hear what Members of Parliament are saying and what contributions they make to debates in the House.
Whatever the reasons for that shortcoming, the people of Northern Ireland are being denied proper coverage of the proceedings of this House and of contributions by Ulster Members of Parliament. That is not true in all cases. There are exceptions. Ulster Television is very fond of giving coverage to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) whenever he contributes to our debates here.
I have consulted Scottish and Welsh Members and with Lobby correspondents covering those areas of the United Kingdom, and it is beyond doubt that those Members of Parliament, together with others throughout the United Kingdom, receive proper coverage. Why is the same not done for those representing Northern Ireland constituencies? I speak not only of Unionist representatives. For example, I know that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who represents the SDLP, makes a similar complaint. It is wrong that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament should be discriminated against in that way.
I do not know why UTV and the BBC fail to provide proper coverage, but that matter ought to be investigated. It is an appalling situation, and I trust that the Leader of the House agrees that there should be a review of the coverage given by BBC Northern Ireland and by Ulster Television of our proceedings, especially of the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies.
The only way that we can ensure that the people of Northern Ireland and of the rest of the United Kingdom do not suffer a form of television censorship is to have a dedicated channel. There could then be no tampering with transmissions to the public, with coverage confined to snippets on the one o'clock or six o'clock news. Instead, the public could view the whole proceedings and hear everything that is said. Until such a service is provided—and the sooner the better—we shall not be allowing the public to enjoy parliamentary democracy in its fullest sense, which they deserve.
9.27 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not believe that a debate on the experimental televising of Parliament should degenerate into an orgy of self-congratulation, perhaps with the exception of the remarks of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Nevertheless, I admit that such self-congratulation is deserved because the experiment was a great success, and ours is a healthier democracy because of it.
I may add, however, that that success was entirely predictable and predicted. All the findings of the

1267
Independent Broadcasting Authority, Leeds university, Aston university, the BBC and the Hansard Society say that it is a great success, but the researchers have the air of parents congratulating their child on being toilet trained at the age of 10. I am not sure what the usual age is—or what it was for my kids, because in those days fatherhood was not a life sentence—but it is much younger than that. The question is why it took us so long to do something so necessary and so right, which has enhanced our standing, increased interest in Parliament among the public, and provided us with a feedback that strengthens our case against Ministers. The televising of our proceedings allows us to do our job better in testing the cases made by Ministers for their policies, and in putting the arguments before the public.
All the quibbles about whether the behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members has degenerated, whether they are wearing brighter ties, or whether some have been given a franchise to become egomaniacs are simply silly.
I hope that we shall surrender tonight the veto that we have over television. What is of importance is not how television may change this Chamber—and the changes have been minimal—but the effect that it has outside, which is uniformly beneficial. That is what we should be talking about.
We have achieved that success as much by good luck as by good management. We have evolved a rather curious, ramshackle structure for our television, part public, part private, which was produced at the last minute after the Committee had wasted nearly a year. I make no criticism of the contractors. They have worked brilliantly, particularly the contractor responsible for the Committee coverage, which has been a major success.
Technically, the coverage is the best of any legislature that I have seen and the efficiency of the touch screen system and the quickness of response is brilliant. But the structure has turned the mother of Parliaments into a scrounger, looking to other people to finance the service that we should be providing ourselves as part of the public's education, as part of doing our job.
That service should be provided, as Hansard is provided, free of charge. What we are providing is a Hansard in the electronic medium from which people obtain their news and information on current affairs. We should be financing the service, not looking to the BBC or ITV, which are already strapped for cash, largely as a result of Government policy. That makes us dependent on them and it makes it more difficult to move to the next stage, which is dedicated coverage. The people to whom we could look to finance that are now using such sums to finance the coverage that we should be paying for.
Far too much time has been devoted to the amendment. It took an hour to make a point that was Jesuitical in its casuistry. We should of course have a dedicated channel. We always should have had a dedicated channel. It always was essential and we should now set out to provide it with urgency. But it is not an alternative to the coverage on existing channels through news and current affairs programmes.
As a supplement to what has been done already, we need a public affairs channel in Britain, like C-Span in the United States, on satellite and from that into cable, which will carry the Commons, the Lords and the Committees, full time, gavel to gavel—or gabble to gabble in my case. When Parliament is not sitting, that channel could carry
1268
public affairs, whether in the form of conferences, press conferences, lectures, seminars or any other form of public affairs.
Such a channel would give to the political nation its own channel in the same way as the sports enthusiasts, the movie buffs and the news freaks have their own dedicated channels. That would allow them to watch what they want, to follow the argument without interposing the authority of television producers, who have been overwhelmingly effective and sensible in their choices but who, nevertheless, are interposed between us and the public.
It must be said that television producers do have a preference for the show biz, the sensational, or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the gambling horse race element in politics. That is one reason for the excessive coverage of Prime Minister's Question Time rather than the coverage of the job that we do well, which is testing the argument, in many cases to destruction when it comes to this Government, through serious contribution to the debate.
I support, actively and energetically, a dedicated channel, but I am suspicious of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and the hon. Member for Thanet, North coming bearing in gifts. They have been opposed to the principle of television on the terrestrial channels for so long that I cannot help seeing, their amendment as another means of carrying on their old and dead arguments against coverage.
The amendment is a pistol to the head of the House and I do not want to endanger the game that we play in any way at all. I want to achieve a dedicated channel. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield that it would have been better if the Committee had had a deadline of a year and been told to achieve it and provide it. It should have been left at that and not been made dependent on anything. It is the next great advance and is all about an educated, involved and informed democracy that knows what is being done in its name by its elected representatives. I hope that achieving that dedicated channel, which is the next thing that we need, does not take as long and is not subject to as many frustrations as the achievement of what we are commemorating today.
9.35 pm
Mr. David Amess: I fully recognise that as a consequence of my speech I shall receive less regional television coverage. I doubt whether in any future capacity I will receive an offer to chair a chat show.
I regret that we ever embarked upon this experiment and I certainly do not think that it has been a success. That is because politicians by their very nature are not modest creatures. For whatever reason, we have allowed ourselves to be seduced by the media. Increasingly, the House seems to be more media-driven than the other way round, and I regret that. Some hon. Members seemed to think that if we were seen on television we would be better loved by our constituents. Politicians all want to be loved, but over the last year I have not seen anything that has improved our esteem.
Some of the claims in favour of televising our proceedings were flawed. First, it was said that television would bring hon. Members back to the Chamber. It has certainly not done that tonight. People crowd in here only

1269
at peak TV times and it is difficult for Back Benchers to squeeze into the key positions that enable them to be seen by their constituents.
A distinguished hon. Member said that this place is a theatre. I resent that description, because anyone who knows anything about the theatre knows that it is bad television. The House is a special place. This is the mother of Parliaments and our proceedings have been copied by countries all over the world as a shining example of how things should be done.
Television has spoiled the special atmosphere of the House. It is extraordinary to define democracy as the ability of people to watch their Member of Parliament on television. Many people do not watch television, and many do not wish to watch it. I do not support an experiment that has not even improved the general standard of behaviour. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who said in her excellent speech that Prime Minister's Question Time is popular. However, I do not know how on earth my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can hear the questions put to her above the noise and the racket. Not many people will be impressed by that.
We have trivialised our proceedings, and Members of future Parliaments will never know how this place used to be. Although I am opposed to the televising of our proceedings, if we must have television cameras in this place I should like people to see us warts and all. That is why I support the amendment calling for a dedicated channel.
9.38 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: As one of the members of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, I should like to be associated with the expressions of thanks and appreciation voiced by hon. Members for the work carried out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons and by his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. They ably chaired the Committee, kept us all at work and helped us to produce constructive findings. Equally, I wish to be associated with the thanks expressed to Mr. John Grist, the Supervisor of Broadcasting, and to Professor Blumler of Leeds university. Mr. Grist advised on the technical aspects and Professor Blumler on the measure of interest and support among both Members of Parliament and the public. Without those people working with us, our job would have been exceedingly difficult.
There is no doubt that the experiment has been a success, and that was stated in the Select Committee's report. One clear piece of evidence for that is the very lack of large numbers of hon. Members in the House tonight. When we had a major debate on the matter two and a half years ago, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), the Chamber was full and there were some lively contributions. A number of those came from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who took the view that televising this place would lead to the frothy bits going out on the air and the whole procedure being high theatre. He certainly thought that that was the intention of the producers, and that the House and the public would get nothing out of it other than high theatre.
1270
During that debate, I made a speech that since has characterised me as an opponent of the televising of the House. I share the desire of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to clarify the position. I said that the only way to televise the House was through a dedicated channel, from the beginning to the end of our proceedings. I said that we were probably four or five years too early and that, eventually, technology would reach a point where such a service to the public could be provided—not only through satellite, but through more terrestrial channels. Indeed, the phrase used this evening—and it was used in that previous debate—was "a Hansard of the air." That should be our objective. We could then deliver to the British public information on the workings of this House in exactly the same way as they would receive that information if they came to sit in the Gallery to listen to our debates, or if they were to read the Official Report.
Although I said in that debate that we were conducting the experiment too early, and I voted against it for that reason, I accept that it has been successful, and that it has proved a number of things. First, it has proved that the cameras are not intrusive. The Select Committee took longer in its deliberations than the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) would have wished. He said a number of times in the press, on television and on radio that we were dragging our feet. He also said that he was up to his ankles in envy because he was not serving on that Committee. No doubt he would have made some valuable contributions.
Although our deliberations took a long time, we drove forward the technology, so that the manufacturers of the cameras and a great deal of the other equipment seriously took on board the fact that we did not want cameramen and all the other encumbrances of television in the Chamber. We wanted the smallest possible cameras and the most sophisticated lighting. Because of the time the Select Committee took and the study that it made, we have achieved that.
Where do we go from here? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Members for Workington and for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), I want to make it clear that I am not associated with the amendment as a wrecking amendment. I am sure that others who have put their names to the amendment would share that view. The House now has to focus precisely on where we go from here. If setting a time limit such as 12 months will make the House focus on a dedicated channel, we must do that.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am listening to the debate with great interest and with some uncertainty about how I shall vote on the amendment. Can my hon. Friend explain what would happen in the event of a dedicated channel not being in place after 12 months, despite the will of the House?
Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend was not here earlier when that matter was raised. A perfectly acceptable view has been put forward that, because the House appears to be universally devoted to continuing televising proceedings, a motion will be tabled to extend the operation of televising. I do not want to speak for much longer before we hear again from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
Mr. Grocott: We are Members of Parliament, and our trade is words and language. If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is true—that voting for the amendment will not in any way risk the continuation of the present televising arrangements—why does the amendment not say that? Why were those words not put specifically in the amendment when it was drafted? Why is the amendment being proposed and seconded by those who have consistently opposed the televising of the House?
Mr. Tracey: Unnecessary paranoia is creeping into the debate. Many of us have said quite clearly that we want to improve the televising of the Chamber and make it more available so that people can see our proceedings without selective editing or in selected parts.
My constituents and others who know that I am a member of the Select Committee have told me that they wish to see far more live televising of the House. The only proceedings that they know will be live are Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and possibly special occasions such as the Budget. Otherwise, most people do not know of precise live transmissions from the House. I do not believe that too many people want to get up at 8.30 in the morning to watch the workings of the House of Commons.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said, it is unfortunate that there is no late evening programme on the major terrestrial channels, although there may well be one on BSB, as we heard from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) earlier in the debate. Apart from the recorded extracts and the pull-together programme with commentators, the public want to see live transmission of the House, and the more of it the better, judging by the remarks made to me by people in industry and in the City. I was with a leading industrialist from the defence industry today, who said that it would be useful to see an entire transmission of a Question Time that was particularly relevant to that industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester was arguing against the amendment, but told us that he believed that schools and universities would very much welcome a dedicated channel and continuous broadcasting. From my point of view, and that of my hon. Friends, the amendment was tabled in good faith. We want to improve the televising of the House so that the British public can see us absolutely as we are and listen to the development of arguments. I rest my case on that premise and I invite hon. Members to vote for the amendment.
9.49 pm
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thank hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friends the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), for the thanks that they extended to me and in particular to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Malden (Mr. Wakeham) for our chairmanship of the Committee. Our report laid a good foundation for the debate. Virtually nobody argues against the televising of the proceedings of the House being put on a permanent basis. However, there had to be one exception—my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). I am glad that the breed is not wholly unrepresentative, but that puts the matter in perspective.
I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was joining the same
1272
camp. She set out a substantial catalogue of television's characteristics: that it is selective, that it is entertainment, that it is trivial. Has she never read the parliamentary sketch writers? What does she think about their selectivity and the entertainment that they provide? The same characteristics have always applied to the press. I thought that her arguments were adequately rebutted—I rarely say this—by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Let us therefore assume that most hon. Members want the televising of our proceedings to be made permanent.
A number of topics have been raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and the Committee will have to apply its mind to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and other hon. Members referred to the need to improve the quality of sound in the House. Yesterday, the sound in the Edinburgh chamber was bad. We must improve the facilities for the deaf and provide adequate access to the archives. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield should not imagine that we have rejected, without having thought about it, his request for an edited video of debates. The Committee has not yet been able to agree on a set of guidelines that would reconcile the legitimate demand for wider access to our proceedings with the need to protect the rights of the House and individual Members. We shall certainly consider that important point.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) referred to the television coverage of Northern Ireland debates as an example of unfair regional coverage. The general verdict on regional coverage was favourable. We received no evidence on that point from Northern Ireland. The Leeds group did not exempt Northern Ireland from its generally favourable verdict on coverage. If, however, my hon. Friend the Member for North Down wishes me to do so, we could ask the Leeds group to re-examine its raw data on that question and find out whether there is any cause for concern. In any event, we shall keep the matter under review.
Different views were expressed about the rules of coverage. As the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) suggested, they will be kept under review. Political coverage will be a matter of permanent and continuous interest to us all. All those matters will form part of the Committee's agenda in the months ahead.
My final point, which is at the heart of the debate about the amendment, is that the discussion takes place on the premise that all hon. Members are dedicated to a dedicated channel. No hon. Member has said that he does not like what we have now. However, all of us would like a channel that carried the whole of our proceedings from beginning to end, for reasons that to me make entirely good sense.
Everyone who has access to the channel will receive an uncut, unedited and completely comprehensive presentation of our proceedings. Those who say, "I shall vote for the amendment because I want a completely dedicated channel," are missing the point of the debate. We all want a dedicated channel. Paragraph 172, which was referred to by the hon. Member for The Wreking as well as by me, could not put it more plainly. The wording takes account of suggestions made by the hon. Member for Thanet, North:
"We reiterate our belief in the need for a dedicated channel providing continuous, unedited coverage of the House's

1273
proceedings and we recommend that his should be provided at the earliest opportunity, as an adjunct to the permanent televising of the House."
—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is muttering that we said that last year. I do not want him to rise to his feet, however, so he can mutter from his sedentary position.
During the year, we have been looking at all the possibilities for promoting a dedicated channel and we shall go on doing so. The case for a dedicated channel is accepted. The case against the amendment is that it makes permanence conditional. The extraordinary wording at the beginning of the amendment says:
"Line 2, at end add 'provided that within 12 months from the date of the approval of this resolution'".
The question that must be resolved once and for all is whether television stays in the House. Wording such as that in the amendment would achieve what the hon. Member for Workington wants, which is the prospect of a debate every year.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry, but I will not give way. If that were hanging over the industry, confidence would disappear and uncertainty would take its place.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry, but I will not give way.
The Committee and I have been taking part in discussions with organisations already as to how we can move towards a dedicated channel. We want to address ourselves to the question whether we have an independent unit for the House or a House unit. The Committee has to get such questions under way. We have to decide on promoting arrangements, who shall be in charge, recruiting people and arranging for them to be recruited. If all that were to be subject to an annual debate in the same way as the Army Act, which was abolished some years ago, it would be absurd.
If we vote in favour of the amendment, the press and outsiders will see it as a vote for uncertainty. We need to achieve a permanent answer to the question whether television stays in the House.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) put the issue simply when he said that we are not required to choose. We are all saying that we want to have permanent dedicated television and we do not want it to be subject to a hangover condition such as that contained in the amendment.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that there is to be a free vote tonight. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure me that Ministers are permitted to vote in different Lobbies? That is all I seek.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: This matter has always been the subject of a free vote, and it will be no different tonight. It has also been the subject of consideration by mature Members from both sides of the House over the past 12 months. As I said when the matter was last voted upon, seven of the 20 on the Committee considering the matter voted against it but, as a result of our work together over the past 12 months, all except one have concluded in favour of the words recorded in our recommendations—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet,
1274
North campaigned against it and, to be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton, he was not there when we had the critical vote. However, the overwhelming majority of the Committee, having thought about it carefully, said, "For heaven's sake let us go ahead with it." That seems to be the right conclusion to reach for both sides of the House.
For the benefit of those who were not here a moment ago I shall repeat the phrase that the hon. Member for the Wrekin and I have both emphasised. In our recommendations upon which the House is invited to vote tonight, we said:
"We reiterate our belief in the need for a dedicated channel providing continuous, unedited coverage of the House's proceedings and we recommend that this should be provided at the earliest opportunity, as an adjunct to the permanent televising of the House."
That is the objective to which I, with the help of the Committee, shall dedicate myself. We want to achieve it as quickly as possible. That would be made more difficult if my hon. Friends and others were to vote for the charter of conditionality which begins:
"provided that within 12 months from the date of the approval of this resolution".
We want not a proviso for permanence but permanence itself, and I ask the House to vote for it.
Question put That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 94.

Division No. 308]

[10 pm

AYES

Arbuthnot, James

Lightbown, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Maclean, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Malins, Humfrey

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Marlow, Tony

Bottomley, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Bright, Graham

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Monro, Sir Hector

Buck, Sir Antony

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Butterfill, John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Pendry, Tom

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Pike, Peter L.

Carrington, Matthew

Portillo, Michael

Cash, William

Roe, Mrs Marion

Chope, Christopher

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Cran, James

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

Summerson, Hugo

Fallon, Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Forman, Nigel

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Forth, Eric

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Franks, Cecil

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Gale, Roger

Tracey, Richard

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Trippier, David

Gordon, Mildred

Ward, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Watts, John

Ground, Patrick

Wells, Bowen

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Wilshire, David

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Winterton, Nicholas

Janman, Tim

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Kilfedder, James

Younger, Rt Hon George

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kirkwood, Archy

Mr. David Amess and

Knapman, Roger

Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 32.

Division No. 308]

[10 pm

AYES

Arbuthnot, James

Lightbown, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Maclean, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Malins, Humfrey

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Marlow, Tony

Bottomley, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Bright, Graham

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Monro, Sir Hector

Buck, Sir Antony

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Butterfill, John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Pendry, Tom

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Pike, Peter L.

Carrington, Matthew

Portillo, Michael

Cash, William

Roe, Mrs Marion

Chope, Christopher

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Cran, James

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

Summerson, Hugo

Fallon, Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Forman, Nigel

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Forth, Eric

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Franks, Cecil

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Gale, Roger

Tracey, Richard

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Trippier, David

Gordon, Mildred

Ward, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Watts, John

Ground, Patrick

Wells, Bowen

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Wilshire, David

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Winterton, Nicholas

Janman, Tim

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Kilfedder, James

Younger, Rt Hon George

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kirkwood, Archy

Mr. David Amess and

Knapman, Roger

Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Allen, Graham

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Batiste, Spencer

Chapman, Sydney

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

1275

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Meale, Alan

Cormack, Patrick

Miscampbell, Norman

Cryer, Bob

Mitchell, Sir David

Dewar, Donald

Morley, Elliot

Dixon, Don

Mudd, David

Dobson, Frank

Needham, Richard

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Nicholls, Patrick

Durant, Tony

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Dykes, Hugh

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Evennett, David

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Paice, James

Fisher, Mark

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Foster, Derek

Rathbone, Tim

Fraser, John

Redwood, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

George, Bruce

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Riddick, Graham

Grocott, Bruce

Ruddock, Joan

Hampson, Dr Keith

Sims, Roger

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Skinner, Dennis

Harris, David

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Haselhurst, Alan

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Haynes, Frank

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Stern, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Stevens, Lewis

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Thorne, Neil

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Howells, Geraint

Tredinnick, David

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Vaz, Keith

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Viggers, Peter

Illsley, Eric

Wallace, James

Irvine, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

Jack, Michael

Wheeler, Sir John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Widdecombe, Ann

Kennedy, Charles

Wigley, Dafydd

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Wood, Timothy

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Yeo, Tim

Lilley, Peter

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Tellers for the Noes:

Maclennan, Robert

Mr. Austin Mitchell and

McNamara, Kevin

Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Division No. 309]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Dobson, Frank

Allen, Graham

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Arbuthnot, James

Dykes, Hugh

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Evennett, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Batiste, Spencer

Fisher, Mark

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fookes, Dame Janet

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Derek

Bevan, David Gilroy

Franks, Cecil

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fraser, John

Bottomley, Peter

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

George, Bruce

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Buck, Sir Antony

Gordon, Mildred

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Grocott, Bruce

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Ground, Patrick

Carrington, Matthew

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cash, William

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Chapman, Sydney

Harris, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Haselhurst, Alan

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Haynes, Frank

Cope, Rt Hon John

Henderson, Doug

Cormack, Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cryer, Bob

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Dewar, Donald

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Dixon, Don

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

1276

Howells, Geraint

Pike, Peter L.

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rathbone, Tim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Redwood, John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Illsley, Eric

Ruddock, Joan

Irvine, Michael

Sims, Roger

Jack, Michael

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Kennedy, Charles

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Kilfedder, James

Stern, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Stevens, Lewis

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Summerson, Hugo

Kirkwood, Archy

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Lilley, Peter

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Thorne, Neil

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Maclennan, Robert

Tracey, Richard

McNamara, Kevin

Tredinnick, David

Madden, Max

Trippier, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Vaz, Keith

Meale, Alan

Viggers, Peter

Michael, Alun

Wallace, James

Miscampbell, Norman

Warren, Kenneth

Mitchell, Sir David

Wheeler, Sir John

Morley, Elliot

Widdecombe, Ann

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Wigley, Dafydd

Morrison, Sir Charles

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Winterton, Nicholas

Mudd, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Needham, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Yeo, Tim

Nicholls, Patrick

Younger, Rt Hon George

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Mr. Austin Mitchell and

Paice, James

Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

NOES

Amess, David

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Patnick, Irvine

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Pendry, Tom

Chope, Christopher

Portillo, Michael

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

Powell, William (Corby)

Durant, Tony

Riddick, Graham

Fallon, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Forman, Nigel

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Skinner, Dennis

Forth, Eric

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Janman, Tim

Ward, John

K
Kirkhope, Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Knapman, Roger

Wilshire, David

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Lightbown, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Maclean, David

Mr. Tony Marlow and

Malins, Humfrey

Mr. James Cran.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 265—I).

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

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES
  That the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and of Orkney Line Ltd. and Shetland Line (1984) Ltd., which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and of Shetland Line (1984) Ltd., which was l
  aid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  SEA FISHERIES
  That the draft Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy Powers) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  GAME AND RABBIT MEAT
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9825/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 2nd May 1990, relating to game and rabbit meat; and supports the Government's aim that any Community measure resulting from this proposal provides consumers with adequate public health safeguards but does not impose unnecessary burdens on game producers and processors.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

Radioactivity
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
10.25 pm
Mr. James Cran: I raise tonight a question of importance not only for my constituency but nationally. That question is radiation, and hon. Members will agree that it is a sensitive subject that causes concern to everyone, and in particular to those involved with its containment.
To that end, I cite the Baxter report, which was commissioned by the East Yorkshire health authority as a result of a cancer cluster problem in my constituency. That report requires public comment by the Government—by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and by the National Radiological Protection Board—because the report's recommendations, if they are correct and scientifically based, raise national implications for the exposure to radiation of the work force in non-nuclear industries.
I am not a scientist. The report was actioned by a collection of scientific heavyweights, led by Professor Baxter, a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He has a personal chair at Glasgow university and has 24 years' research experience in the area with which we are concerned. He was aided by Dr. East, Dr. MacKenzie and Dr. Scott, all of whom have similar backgrounds and scientific credentials.
A critique has been prepared on the subject. It has been sent to me—not by the National Radiological Protection Board, because it was prepared for that board by Mr. Hipkin, Mr. Stather and Mr. Wilkins—and it says on the front page:
"This document has been prepared for internal use within NRPB. The contents should not be quoted or the document made available outside NRPB without the consent of the Head of Industrial Operations Department."
My constituents cannot read the report because, as I say, it is confidential. But they can read the Baxter report, so the Government and the agencies that represent the Government in this area must come out into the open with their conclusions about what the report says. The Baxter report and the NRPB critique illustrate the great difficulty for the public when experts on crucial matters such as this fall out. I have no option but to elicit a response from the Government by quoting those recommendations.
The first recommendation is startling. It is that there should be an urgent reassessment of the radiation exposure limits for employees in industries such as mining, coal-fired power generation and chemical production. That means that, according to Professor Baxter, there should be a re-examination of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and particularly of the exemption orders. A governmental response is required. The upshot of all that is that Professor Baxter says that after 30 years of improved scientific understanding—and this is the important point—that means that the old statistical limits are several hundred times too high. That is a considerable order of magnitude and has considerable implications, if true, for the workers who are exposed to radioactivity at work at normal industrial companies.
The whole issue is illustrated clearly in my own constituency in the case of a company called Capper Pass. That company has been the subject of investigation for radiation emissions before. I must make it clear that the

1279
company has always observed the advice it has received from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and from the National Radiological Protection Board, so no blame attaches to it. The question is what advice the company is being given. If Baxter is correct, it would seem that the work force in that company and in similar companies throughout the country are being exposed to radiation limits that could—I emphasise that word—be too high.
The additional problem with the 1960 Act is the many exemptions attached to it. Baxter says that the provisions do not cover the great majority of Capper Pass feed materials—that is, the raw materials going through the works. Yet he points out that, in 1984, the NRPB assessment of those very raw materials suggested that workers could be being exposed to radiation doses that were 10 times the present public level. If true, that is extremely worrying. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able either to reassure me and say that the report does not have any credence or to say that it does, and that he intends to act.
Baxter also says that there is another considerable problem in relation to these companies and to the way in which the raw material is processed, which is that there is inadequate attention to what is called the ALARA principle—as low as reasonably achievable. That merely means internationally agreed requirements that attention has to be paid to the reasonable minimisation of exposure to radiation. Baxter says that, if attention had been paid, the consequences of the growing obsolescence of the 1960 Act, to which I have already referred, would have meant that the whole question would have been less significant. It seems, therefore, that, if Baxter is correct, he may raise questions about the official advice that companies are now being given.
The scientific validity of the Baxter report is clearly open to some dispute if the critique prepared by the NRPB is correct. I am not quoting that report here, because it is confidential, even supposing that I might be able to do so. I am not quoting it, because my constituents cannot read it, so I am looking to my hon. Friend to tell me why the scientific validity of the report is unsupportable.
Baxter says that there has been a dramatically improved understanding of the same radio-nuclides as in the Capper Pass raw materials. It is now believed that the exposure radiation from these is 30 times greater than was the case 30 years ago—which, coincidentally, is when the 1960 Act was passed.
Baxter is saying clearly and roundly to the Government that the 1960 Act needs clear revision. He says that it is outdated, that it does not take account of the latest scientific advances, and that therefore the Government should act. The Act permits large-scale handling of ores, of intermediates and of waste products, some of which may contain uranium and thorium, which will expose workers to radiation beyond the recommended limits. I know perfectly well that my hon. Friend is sufficiently aware of the requirements for health and safety. If he were convinced that that was the case, he would act. The question is whether or not the advice that we are being given is accurate.
I do not have time to discuss this highly technical subject in the depth that I would like, but I hope that I have imparted to my hon. Friend the Minister the importance of the issue for health and safety reasons.
1280
There can be little doubt about that, and the Government must make up their mind as to whether or not the report is correct.
From a constituency point of view, the excessive radiation exposures at Capper Pass may be relevant to the cancer cluster problem in my own constituency. I remind the House that the recently-published Gardner report highlighted the apparent association between the incidence of leukaemia among youngsters at Sellafield and the radiation levels to which their fathers were exposed at the Sellafield station. If Baxter's conclusions are correct, perhaps they should not necessarily be confined to just the nuclear industry.
The problem is a serious one for my own constituents, but it also raises national issues. Little has been heard from the relevant bodies, including the Government. I do not criticise them for that, because time is needed to assess conflicting advice and to move public opinion along at the same time. Nevertheless, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for a statement on the Government's current position, and what they feel that they should do for the further protection of workers in non-nuclear companies in this country.
10.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I very much welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) has provided to review the controls that are exercised over exposure of workers to radioactivity in what is termed "non-nuclear industry". It is not a single industry but covers a range of commercial and service activities that either intentionally utilise the properties of radiation and radioactive materials or involve incidental exposure to them.
Much attention has rightly been given, in this House and elsewhere, to the civil and defence applications of nuclear material and the exposure to radiation that can result. Many forget the wide range of activities that "non-nuclear industry" embraces. They include, for instance, medical, veterinary and dental practices. We are all familiar with the use of x-rays for diagnostic purposes, but these days radioactive preparations are also administered to people as a diagnostic aid. In addition, controlled exposure to very powerful radioactive sources is a well-established form of treatment for certain forms of cancer.
In industrial manufacture, various plant and consumer products contain radioactive sources, such as measuring gauges, smoke detectors, and emergency signs. Also, the medical preparations to which I have referred must be manufactured before they can be used.
There is also industrial radiography, in which powerful x-ray or radioactive sources are used to radiograph welds in pipelines and other heavy metal fabrications, to ensure their integrity. Such work is carried out either in purpose-built facilities or on site, in fields, or even offshore by divers checking North sea oil platforms.
All those activities involve the intentional use of radiation, but there are other activities where the exposure to radiation that arises is incidental to the process. Examples are metal smelting, to which my hon. Friend referred, in terms of his own constituency, and to which I shall return, where there are radioactive impurities in the raw materials, and some forms of mining—especially tin

1281
mining—where there are accumulations of the naturally occurring radioactive gas, Radon. As discussed recently in the Select Committee, Radon can also occur in significant quantities in above-ground work places.
In the last two or three years, there have been pressures to take action to reduce the legal dose limits controlling exposure to ionising radiation. Those pressures have been resisted, for reasons that I shall explain fully in a moment.
Occupational exposure to ionising radiation is possibly the most closely regulated of all occupational exposures to harmful agents. The legal provisions have a firm, internationally agreed, scientific basis which is, quite properly, subject to review and, if necessary, revision as technological changes or relevant new data become available. I think that it would be helpful if I briefly placed that in context. Since 1985, all work with ionising radiation, whether or not it is part of the nuclear industry, has been regulated by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. Those regulations replaced earlier legislation made under the Factories Act 1961. They extended the legislative cover to include all uses and users of ionising radiation, such as university research, which were previously unregulated.
The Ionising Radiations Regulations lay down an annual exposure limit for workers of 50 mSv a year. A particular feature of the new regulatory framework is a requirement to keep doses as low as reasonably practicable, and not merely below dose limits. In addition, doses that exceed 15 mSv a year must be investigated. The dose limit for members of the public is 5 mSv a year.
In practice, most public exposure to radiation from work activities arises from the disposal of radioactive waste in its various forms. Disposal of hazardous wastes requires authorisation from Departments other than mine, but I understand that those authorisations impose tight requirements which result in doses very much lower than the 5 mSv limit that I have quoted.
The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, under which the regulations were made, requires the views of all interested parties to be sought and considered before any proposals for regulations are submitted to Ministers. Moreover, the structure of the Health and Safety Commission, the statutory body responsible for proposing such legislation, consists of members who represent the interests of employers, workers, local authorities and—a recent welcome addition—the public. That ensures a fair consideration of all views and legal provisions that have been accepted as appropriate and workable by those most affected.
In addition, we have the National Radiological Protection Board, statutorily appointed in 1970, to advise Government of the acceptability of the international recommendations on which, as I have said, our regulations are based.
The dose limits currently in force correspond to those in the European directive, known as the basic safety standards, that the regulations implemented. In turn, those were based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection that were current at the time that the directive was agreed by member states.
However, since then there has been further international revision of the scientific basis for the estimates of
1282
the risk from exposure to radiation, largely as a result of more evidence becoming available about the survivors of the Japanese atomic bombings.
The ICRP is therefore reviewing its recommendations in the light of that later information and in February this year issued revised recommendations in draft form inviting comment on its proposals. It hopes to publish its finalised recommendations early in 1991.
The next step will then be to revise the basic safety standards; again we will consult widely within the United Kingdom to agree the line that our permanent representative will pursue during the negotiations to ensure that the revised directive contains suitable and acceptable provisions. There will then be further consultations before the provisions are finally translated into national legislation.
The Health and Safety Commission issued a consultative document in February this year containing proposals for interim measures pending receipt of revised recommendations from the ICRP. That would focus attention on those relatively few workers who still receive higher doses—defined as more than 15 mSv in a year. That action was in response to advice from the National Radiological Protection Board that it would be prudent for employers to constrain their workers to no more than an average of 15 mSv a year over several years in the light of the changing views on the estimates of risk from exposure to radiation.
I make those points to show that there are ample opportunities for people with differing views to try to influence the final product. I am pleased to say that, since 1985, worker exposure in all industries, nuclear and non-nuclear, has generally decreased. The picture is generally satisfactory, and bears out our belief that there is no need for precipitate action to change the legal dose limits.
My hon. Friend mentioned his interest in the Capper Pass smelting plant, which is well known. His concern about radiation is understandable, as smelting of tin is one of the activities I mentioned in which the presence of radioactive material is incidental to the process carried on.
The consequences of that type of activity for the work force, for the general public, and for the environment are complex. Some of the points made by my hon. Friend related to pollution and public health. He will understand that they are more properly the province of my right hon. Friends in the relevant Departments. I shall try to respond to my hon. Friend in terms of my responsibilities for the health and safety of the work force and the general public. I shall specifically draw the debate to the attention of my right hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health.
The Capper Pass smelter uses a range of natural ores and recycled by-products as raw materials. That means that a wide range of materials other than tin pass through the process. They include lead, cadmium, arsenic and also polonium, which is radioactive. The presence of polonium came to light in 1984, when a customer found traces of it in some alloys supplied by Capper Pass. Extensive tests and measurements were carried out, by the Health and Safety Executive and other organisations, which established that existing controls were adequate to control any radiological risk to workers or members of the public.
Health and Safety Executive inspectors have visited the Capper Pass plant on numerous occasions both before and since the detection of polonium. They have considered the

1283
full range of potential health problems at the plant, not merely those connected with radiation, and enforcement efforts have concentrated on those problems judged to have potentially the most serious consequences. These were the general standards of occupational hygiene and dust control throughout the plant. A survey of the plant by the executive's inspectors was undertaken in September 1989.
There has been public concern about the risk of radiation from the plant and, as we know, in 1988 the East Yorkshire health authority commissioned a study by Professor Baxter of the Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre to review radioactivity in and around the Capper Pass smelter. Professor Baxter's report was delivered in March and it was followed by the press statement by the health authority. It brought fresh attention to possible problems of radioactivity arising from the smelting processes.
It has been suggested—my hon. Friend has raised the matter—that there may be an association between the clusters of leukaemia in the locality and radioactive emissions from plants such as Capper Pass. At this stage I can do no more than quote from Professor Baxter's report:
"We cannot, in any way, attribute excess cancers to the practices at, or discharges from, the plant.
All we can say in summary is that there is far too little information on which to form a sound judgment."
In response to the concern about the plant, the Health and Safety Executive has undertaken further surveys, which will be followed by the executive's inspectors in the usual way.
1284
To place the issue in context, my hon. Friend will recall that, in response to one of his questions in 1988, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, our hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), said that an assessment by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution of samples from the main chimney stack at Capper Pass indicated that the most exposed member of the public would receive less than 1 per cent. of the dose received from natural radiation. I think that my hon. Friend said as much in opening the debate.
In a debate such as this, there is obviously a limit to the detail and the extent to which we can go into the subject. I hope that I have been able to assure my hon. Friend that the Health and Safety Executive continues to take a keen and active interest in this matter. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has raised in the House on a number of occasions the concerns expressed by his constituents about Capper Pass.
As I have said, I shall draw the debate to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and to the attention of my right hon. Friends in the Department of Health. If, on reflection, my hon. Friend feels that there are matters within my responsibility that he would like to take up with me, I shall be pleased to see him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  EC Officials (Search Warrants)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions in the current year courts have issued warrants to officials of the European Community to search the offices of companies in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There have been no instances during the current year of United Kingdom courts granting orders in connection with the search of company premises by officials of the European Community under the EC rules on competition.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those categories of alleged offence which qualify for international legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  International legal aid is available under the provisions of the European agreement on the transmission of legal aid applications for civil, commercial and administrative cases. This agreement provides for the transfer of legal aid applications between signatory states. The treatment of applications is governed by the rules of the legal aid schemes of the recipient states and varies from state to state.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wray
  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
  The amount of low flying training carried out by the RAF will continue to reflect operational requirements.

  Royal Clarence Yard, Gosport
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Clarence yard at Gosport.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In common with the rest of the naval estate, the cost effectiveness of the Royal Clarence yard is continually monitored.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what 654
  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. Alan Clark
  A total of 21,985 subject access requests have been received by the major pay and personnel database centres in the Ministry of Defence; all were from current, past and potential employees. The figures so far are considered to be roughly in line with the forecast of between 0.01 and 0.1 per cent. of the target population per annum. The subject access fee charged is not being reconsidered.

  Al Yamamah Agreement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the date of the conclusion of the Al Yamamah agreement with Saudi Arabia and the dates of the conclusion of subsequent modifications of that agreement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The original formal understanding and the memorandum of understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the Saudi Arabian Government concerning Project Al Yamamah were concluded, respectively, in 1985 and 1986. A further formal understanding was concluded in 1988.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and places of meetings about the Al Yamamah agreement with Saudi Arabia and officials or representatives of his Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My officials are in constant touch with representatives of the Saudi Arabian Government during which a wide range of issues concerning the Al Yamamah agreement are reviewed and discussed.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current agreement under which Menwith Hill base is occupied and controlled by the National Security Agency of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) gave to the hon. Member on 27 April 1988,Official Report, column 203.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Company Taxation
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will identify the provisions by which, if under the proposed pay and file system no assessment has been made on a company within the normal six-year time limit, the tax already paid by the company under the pay rules of pay and file will be repayable to it; within what period from the end of such six-year period such tax will have to be repaid; whether interest will be payable on the repayment by the Revenue; and by what legal process the tax-paying company will be able to enforce such payment.

  Mr. Ryder
  As I explained in Standing Committee E on 21 June,Official Report, column 383, it would not necessarily be appropriate for tax paid by a company under pay and file to be repaid where an assessment was

  655
  not made within the normal six-year time limit. But where the company was then able to show that no assessment could be made, it would be entitled to claim repayment of the tax and interest would be due on the tax repaid.

  Married Woman's Tax Allowance
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost to the Treasury in a full year of making the married woman's tax allowance transferable to(a) working husbands and (b) nonworking husbands; and what is his policy on making such a move.

  Mr. Ryder
  The cost would be a little over £3 billion; some 95 per cent. would result from married women transferring unused personal allowance to husbands in paid employment. These estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are, therefore, provisional.

  An arrangement of this kind would have some similarity to the system of fully transferable allowances for married couples described in the 1986 Green Paper "The Reform of Personal Taxation". In the light of the response to the Green Paper the Government decided not to go ahead with that proposal, but to introduce the present system of independent taxation incorporating the transferable married couple's allowance.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Customs and Excise officers at ports of entry to the United Kingdom have pay scales designed to reward proficiency in more than one language.

  Mr. Ryder
  Although pay scales are not designed to reward foreign language proficiency, Customs and Excise officers at ports of entry can be paid allowances in addition to basic salary, normally for a maximum of two languages but exceptionally for three where one language is Finnish, Greek, Arabic, Hungarian, Turkish, or any Asian or Slavonic language.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Customs and Excise officers at ports of entry to the United Kingdom are required to be able to speak foreign languages.

  Mr. Ryder
  Customs and Excise officers at ports of entry to the United Kingdom are not so required but some are proficient in foreign languages and receive appropriate allowances.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the report on eastern European economics entitled "End of the Cycle" by Morgan Stanley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  At present the Treasury and Cabinet Office library does not hold a copy of the report entitled "End of the Cycle" by Morgan Stanley. The library is trying to obtain a copy.

  Government Departments (Staff)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of staff in post in central Government Departments at 1 April.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  On 1 April 1990 there were 562,388 staff in post in central Government Departments. Of these 495,233 were non-industrials and 67,155 were classified as being in industrial work.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Schools, Wandsworth
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what consultations he has had with Wandsworth borough council regarding parental choice of secondary schools;

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the closure notices for Chestnut Grove, Walsingham, John Archer and Battersea Park comprehensive schools, issued by Wandsworth borough council;

  (3) when he or his colleagues last met (a) the director of education of Wandsworth borough council and (b) the chairman of Wandsworth borough council education committee, regarding the closure of comprehensive schools in Wandsworth and the resulting pattern of school provision in Wandsworth;

  (4) when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the Wandsworth education committee to discuss comprehensive school closures in Wandsworth.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As part of a cycle of meetings with the inner London councils to discuss the progress they have made since they took over responsibility for education from ILEA on 1 April, I intend soon to meet representatives of Wandsworth local education authority. That meeting will include discussion of the authority's secondary reorganisation proposals, on which it is to issue a public consultation document. If consultation led to the publication of statutory proposals requiring the determination of the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend would consider these in due course.

  Haberdashers' Aske's CTC
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science with what persons he will enter into an agreement under section 105 of the Education Reform Act 1988, for the purposes of establishing and maintaining a Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Secretary of State will enter into an agreement with the Haberdashers' Aske's City Technology College Trust, which has not yet been formed. When it is formed the primary members of the trust will be persons nominated by those organisations including the Haberdashers' Company which intend to sponsor the CTC. Membership will include a nominee of the Secretary of State.

  World Literacy Survey
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that the United Kingdom participates in the world literacy survey; and if he will make a statement.
  657
  Mrs. Rumbold
  No proposal on this has been put to the Government, but I understand that the National Foundation for Educational Research—to which it was put—declined to participate on justified grounds. The national curriculum and the equivalent arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland, should in due course provide a much sounder platform for international comparisons.

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in relation to each city technology college, what amount of earmarked annual grant or related payments were paid by his Department for the school year 1989–90; and for what purposes each element of earmarked annual grant was paid.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Earmarked grants are the subject of specific bids for the colleges and relate to specific expenditure on:

  a. consumables—the purchase, during the start-up period only, of a basic stock of library and text books, courseware, stationery and other consumable materials;

  b. school meals—the provision of free meals for pupils who qualify, a subsidy in respect of those pupils who do not, and supervision costs;

  c. pupil support—to cover the costs of school uniforms and school transport for disadvantaged pupils;

  d. IT development—software and courseware for the incorporation and exploitation of IT throughout the curriculum and in the administration of the college; and

  e. staff development—to provide for in-service training and curriculum development needs arising from the curriculum in CTCs.

  The total EAG provision for the three colleges in the academic year 1989–90 is as follows:

  £

  Kingshurst

  143,000

  Djanogly, Nottingham

  213,000

  Macmillan College, Teesside

  204,000

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in respect of each city technology college what amount of annual per capita grant or related revenue costs were paid by his Department for the school year 1989–90; what unit of cost per pupil was used in calculating the amount of such payments; how this was determined; and what enhancement of annual per capita grant was allowed under the terms of paragraph 11 of the model funding agreement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The annual per capita grant—APG—for the academic year 1989–90 for the three CTCs that are open is as follows:

  £

  Kingshurst

  927,000

  Djanogly, Nottingham

  871,000

  Macmillan College, Teesside

  852,000

  The APG is determined by taking the unit cost for pupils under school leaving age, which for the academic year 1989–90 works out at £1,929, and for pupils over school leaving age, is £3,086. These are determined by the actual expenditure per secondary pupil in a group of 24 LEAs that maintain schools in similar areas to CTCs with an addition for central administration costs. Furthermore,
  658
  an allowance is made for diseconomies of scale during the start-up period of a CTC while it works up to full pupil capacity. This provides for more teachers in year one than the overall pupil-teacher ratio would justify; more non-teaching staff in year one than the final target complement would imply pro rata; and an additional sum to reflect premises-related diseconomies.

  Management Information Systems
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the criticisms in the report, "Computerised Management Information Systems in Further Education—A Study of Quality Assurance", of the two major suppliers of these systems.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department plans to publish the findings of the project in the early autumn.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations his Department has received from suppliers mentioned in the report "Computerised Management Information Systems in Further Education—A Study of Quality Assurance" seeking to have the report modified or changed before its publication.

  Mr. Jackson
  Before accepting the completion of the project, the Department sought the suppliers' views on the factual accuracy of the project team's findings. The suppliers' replies highlighted some inaccuracies and indicated how they proposed to respond to the team's findings. These responses will be taken into account in the report due to be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when his Department will publish the report entitled "Computerised Management Information Systems in Further Education—A Study of Quality Assurance", which was presented to his Department in December 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 10 July 1990,Official Report, column 186.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he expects to be available to him, and what studies have been made and are being undertaken relating to governors of grant-maintained schools and proposed grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The views of the governors of grant-maintained schools are sought on a variety of issues. It is clear that they welcome their new status. In particular, governors welcome their greater independence and the freedom to decide their own priorities and to implement policies for achieving their goals. Many governors believe that their increased responsibilities make for a more satisfying and fulfilling role.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the appointment of an independent person, pursuant to paragraph 3(5) of schedule 2 to the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990.
  659
  Mr. MacGregor
  The Student Loans Company will appoint an independent assessor, whose function will be to investigate and report on disputes between the company and borrowers or intending borrowers under the loans scheme. The appointment of the assessor will be subject to my approval. The assessor will operate in accordance with an agreed set of procedures and terms of reference, a copy of which I have placed today in the Library of each House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Welfare Inspections
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animal welfare inspections were made by state veterinary officers in each of 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of visits to farms specifically to carry out animal welfare inspections in each of these years was:

  Year

  Inspections

  1985

  6,064

  1986

  5,804

  1987

  5,219

  1988

  5,670

  1989

  3,902

  The reduction in 1989 was due largely to the need to divert the effort of the state veterinary service to tackling the problems of BSE. However, veterinary officers continued to monitor welfare in the course of their visits to farms for other purposes.

  Veterinary Investigation Centre, Polwhele
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tests for listeria were carried out at the veterinary investigation centre, Polwhele, Truro, in 1987, 1989 and to the most convenient date in 1990; and what percentage of these tests gave a positive response.

  Mr. Maclean
  The veterinary investigation service does not routinely carry out tests specifically for listeria. As a disease of animals, listeriosis is considered as a differential diagnosis when pathological material is submitted to a veterinary investigation centre by a practising veterinary surgeon.

  In the period 1987 to 9 July 1990 the following diagnoses of listeriosis were made at Truro VIC either by microbiological examination or pathological examination or both:

  1987

  1988

  1989

  11990

  Cattle

  3

  17

  14

  9

  Sheep

  7

  6

  8

  10

  1 To 9 July 1990.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many possible BSE samples were examined at the veterinary investigation centre, Polwhele, Truro, in each of the years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 to date; and what percentage of these cases proved positive.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are two stages in the examination of brain material for BSE carried out in veterinary investigation centres.660

  (i) The removal of brain material for examination.

  (ii) The histopathological preparation and miscroscopic examination of the selected tissues.

  In respect of (ii) the VI centre at Polwhele acts as one of 11 designated centres for this purpose and as such the numbers examined do not necessary reflect the situation.

  In 1987 to 9 July 1990 the VI centre at Truro carried out the following procedures:

  1987

  1988

  1989

  11990

  (i) Removal of brain tissue

  44

  364.00

  611.00

  620.00

  (ii) Histopathological examination

  44

  437.00

  537.00

  730.00

  Percentage histopathological examination +ve

  100

  90.16

  89.57

  89.18

  1To 9 July 1990.

  Veterinary Investigation Centres
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinary investigation centres are currently operated by his Department; and how many of these are currently under review as to their future retention.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are 19 veterinary investigation centres in England and Wales. The review of the veterinary investigation service was commissioned by the Minister with a view to improving the quality, efficiency and the cost effectiveness of the services provided by VI centres. As such the review considered the service as a whole. The report of this review has been submitted to Ministers but as yet no decision has been reached on any of the recommendations within the report.

  North-East Salmon Review
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the north-east salmon review has been completed; and when he expects to publish the report.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 29 June,Official Report, column 388.

  Fishery Protection
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to change the arrangements for fishery protection at sea.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes. In order to maintain the patrol capability at the level I consider necessary to achieve effective deterrence and proper compliance with United Kingdom and Economic Community fisheries regulations, the Department has arranged to charter the Southella to carry out fishery enforcement duties within British fishery limits. The charter will run from the middle of this month. The ship is already converted for this work, having previously carried out similar duties for the Falkland Islands Government and the Commission of the European Communities. It will supplement the forces of the Royal Navy's fishery protection squadron.

  Like the ships of the fishery protection squadron, Southella will operate under the direction of the Ministry's sea fisheries inspectorate. She will carry a team of

  661
  experienced inspectors who will carry out enforcement checks on both British and foreign fishing boats, mainly though not exclusively in the south-west approaches.

  This civilian addition to the fishery enforcement capability is necessary because of a current shortfall in the availability of suitable naval ships this year. The requirements for next year will be reviewed in the light of the availability of Royal Navy vessels.

  I commend the fishery protection squadron for the invaluable service it has given and continues to give in carrying out the fishery enforcement duties for the protection of fisheries and the ultimate benefit of all fishermen.

WALES

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 July to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, column 199, what was (a) the percentage of polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated material, and (b) the tonnage of other toxic materials that were imported into Newport via the River Usk during the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March.

  Mr. Grist
  Of the 1,314 tonnes of hazardous waste recorded as imported into Newport via facilities on the River Usk, 479 tonnes or 36.45 per cent. was polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated material, and 835 tonnes was other material.

  Hospitals (Salmonella)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he anticipates receiving a report on the cause of the salmonella outbreak at Ely hospital, Cardiff;

  (2) when he next expects to meet the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority to discuss the salmonella outbreak at the Ely hospital, Cardiff.

  Mr. Grist
  Officials at the Welsh Office have already received a preliminary report from the health authority concerning the investigation and control of the salmonella outbreak at Ely hospital and further progress reports are awaited. At the present time my right hon. Friend has no plans to meet the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority to discuss this matter.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to institute better anti-salmonella preventive measures in hospitals and other institutions in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Food Safety Bill, which applies to hospitals and other institutions in Wales, will require higher standards in relation to the preparation and handling of food including the requirement for food handlers to receive a minimum level of training.

  NHS Drugs
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value of national health service drugs administered in Wales(a) in total and (b) in hospitals in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The net ingredient cost of all drugs and dressing administered by the NHS in Wales during 662
  1988–89 was £160,154,164 of which the cost of drugs and dressing administered by district health authorities was £22,618,505 and £3,556,682 respectively.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received for the provision of a secure unit for young offenders below the age normally committed to prison; over what time span these representations have been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We have not received any representations which call for the provision of a secure unit for young offenders. However, we have received representations which draw attention to the availability of secure accommodation in Wales.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the arrangements for paying new housing capital grants.

  Mr. Grist
  New housing capital grants were introduced by part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The approval of Parliament for expenditure on these new grants is being sought in the main supply estimates for class XVI, vote 6—housing, other environmental services and welfare food, Wales. Pending that approval urgent expenditure, estimated at £22,733 million, will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce his proposals arising out of the Government's recent review of the operation of the new system of local government finance in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a consultation paper which has been produced as a result of the review. The paper, which I shall be distributing shortly to interested bodies and individuals, sets out proposals with respect to the standard community charge, and certain other matters. Views are being sought on a number of changes which we are proposing to make in Wales. Similar consultations will also take place in England and Scotland. Comments on the proposals are invited by 28 September.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  United Nations Conference, Paris
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will be representing Her Majesty's Government at the second United Nations conference on the least-developed countries to be held in Paris in September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I hope to lead the United Kingdom delegation to the second United Nations conference on the least-developed countries in Paris.

  Rihand Power Station, India
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that no further British Government aid will be provided
  663
  for the Rihand power station project in India, involving British companies, unless flue gas desulphurisation technology is installed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A thorough appraisal of the project, including its environmental impact, is a condition for the provision of British aid to the second stage of the Rihand power station in India. The appraisal will examine the impact on the Indian environment of the level of sulphur dioxide emissions from the plant and assess the environmental and economic costs and benefits of flue gas desulphurisation. Because of the low sulphur content of Indian coal, the level of sulphur dioxide emissions would be relatively small. In the light of the appraisal, we will ensure adequate environmental safeguards are taken in consultation with the Government of India.

  Developing Countries (Aid)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase support for the least developed countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The British aid programme is focused on the poorest, including those classified as least developed. Within an aid programme that is planned to grow in real terms, the Government will increasingly support least developed countries which are well governed and implement sound economic policies.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the proportion of gross national product given in overseas aid for each year from 1980 to 1989 to(a) the original 31 least developed countries and (b) the current 42 least developed countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The proportion of GNP given as official development assistance to the 31 countries classified as least developed at the time of the first UN conference on the least developed, and the 42 countries currently classified as least developed from 1980 to 1989 was as follows:

  Proportion of GNP given as official development assistance to LLDCs from 1980 to 1989

  Year

  31 original countries Total per cent.

  42 current countries Total per cent.

  1980

  0.09

  n/a

  1981

  0.12

  n/a

  1982

  0.10

  0.11

  1983

  0.09

  0.14

  1984

  0.09

  0.11

  1985

  0.10

  0.11

  1986

  0.08

  0.09

  1987

  0.08

  0.10

  1988

  n/a

  0.10

  1989

  n/a

  n/a

  Note: The total is made up of bilateral assistance and imputed multilateral assistance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accesses were made to each index of the police national computer over the last year; and how many of the access requests could search more than one index.
  664
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total number of accesses to each of the indices of the police national computer in the year to 30 June 1990 was as follows:

  Index

  Number of Accesses

  1. Stolen and Suspect Vehicles

  21,370,168

  2. Vehicle Owners

  3. Chassis/Engine Numbers

  508,710

  4. Fingerprints

  200,917

  5. Fingerprints (Scene of Crime)

  13,658

  6. Criminal Names

  1,094,072

  7. Wanted/Missing Persons

  2,134,554

  8. Disqualified Drivers

  765,081

  9. Convictions

  902,277

  10. Major Investigations

  5,921

  11. Crime Pattern Analysis

  279,711

  There have also been the following joint accesses:

  Number

  To indices 6 and 91

  1,996,349

  To indices 6, 7 and 9

  1,687,245

  To indices 6, 7, 8 and 9

  8,265,989

  To indices 4, 6 and 9

  652,426

  1 All accesses to the criminal names index will in addition automatically generate information from the convictions application.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of accesses made to the police national computer by each constabulary over the last year; and what was the proportion of access requests made to the vehicle indexes of the police national computer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Force

  Numbers of transactions for the year up to June 1990

  Proportion of transactions made to vehicle indices

  Avon and Somerset

  928,045

  60.5

  Bedfordshire

  376,446

  66.9

  British Transport Police

  141,988

  42.1

  Cambridgeshire

  375,627

  60.7

  Central

  141,178

  51.6

  Cheshire

  436,687

  62.1

  City of London

  101,987

  58.8

  Cleveland

  331,288

  55.8

  Cumbria

  366,151

  62.9

  Derbyshire

  448,074

  61.1

  Devon and Cornwall

  730,000

  55.6

  Dorset

  457,665

  59.6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  106,837

  59.0

  Durham

  350,553

  53.1

  Dyfed-Powys

  241,976

  48.3

  Essex

  892,740

  60.1

  Fife

  137,425

  56.4

  Gloucestershire

  359,446

  68.0

  Grampian

  265,928

  49.4

  Greater Manchester

  2,271,199

  57.3

  Guernsey

  19,249

  10.5

  Gwent

  187,118

  46.3

  Hampshire

  877,175

  59.4

  Hertfordshire

  463,569

  46.5

  Humberside

  529,245

  60.2

  Isle of Man

  20,547

  52.9

  Jersey

  33,476

  10.1

  Kent

  1,198,384

  60.7

  Lancashire

  1,126,272

  58.4

  Leicestershire

  397,810

  55.4

  Lincolnshire

  267,208

  61.3

  Lothian and Borders

  610,533

  59.4

  Merseyside

  932,268

  55.6

  Metropolitan

  7,597,182

  48.4

  665

  Force

  Numbers of transactions for the year up to June 1990

  Proportion of transactions made to vehicle indices

  Norfolk

  392,549

  63.5

  North Wales

  309,407

  51.3

  North Yorkshire

  440,309

  65.6

  Northamptonshire

  319,903

  67.8

  Northern

  103,454

  52.0

  Northumberland

  990,490

  66.7

  Nottinghamshire

  650,988

  71.8

  South Wales

  842,909

  59.2

  South Yorkshire

  684,321

  70.4

  Staffordshire

  398,871

  58.4

  Strathclyde

  1,289,244

  33.8

  Suffolk

  288,693

  58.7

  Surrey

  370,132

  61.8

  Sussex

  791,593

  51.8

  Tayside

  318,767

  50.7

  Thames Valley

  1,232,066

  57.4

  Warwickshire

  312,924

  68.7

  West Mercia

  498,609

  57.5

  West Midlands

  2,240,914

  62.8

  West Yorkshire

  1,407,148

  54.6

  Wiltshire

  286,988

  64.0

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each category found in the stolen and suspect vehicle index of the police national computer; and what was the minimum and maximum size of each category in the index over the year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Category

  Current

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Confirmed lost or obtained by deception

  397,420

  307,408

  397,420

  Lost or Stolen

  406,337

  406,337

  411,018

  Obtained by deception

  88

  78

  88

  Found

  28,284

  28,284

  28,572

  Removed

  13,035

  12,980

  14,063

  Street to Street

  121

  121

  162

  Repossessed by Finance Company

  0

  0

  0

  Suspect

  128

  122

  128

  Police Vehicle

  3,621

  3,621

  3,704

  Blocked

  6,328

  6,323

  6,410

  Information

  16,752

  16,327

  16,877

  Seen

  7,490

  7,348

  8,357

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each index of the police national computer; and what was the minimum and maximum size of each index over the last year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Index

  Current

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Vehicle owners

  43,846,016

  41,386,599

  43,846,016

  Stolen vehicles

  489,162

  469,874

  489,162

  Chassis-engine numbers

  823,393

  791,850

  823,393

  Wanted/Missing persons

  117,805

  112,011

  117,805

  Cross reference

  983,949

  964,898

  985,202

  Disqualified drivers

  375,708

  367,864

  377,057

  Convictions

  3,249,407

  2,929,865

  3,249,407

  Criminal names

  5,582,320

  5,457,187

  5,582,320

  Fingerprints

  4,094,626

  4,004,441

  4,094,626

  Crime pattern analysis

  110,214

  103,149

  110,214

  Extremists crime index

  1,202

  1,118

  1,202

  Major investigations

  328,426

  326,360

  328,426

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each category 666
  found in the wanted and missing persons index of the police national computer; and the minimum and maximum size of each category in the index over the year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Category

  Current

  Wanted

  33,031

  Fails to Appear

  33,083

  Suspect

  215

  Impending Prosecution

  49

  Deserter

  1,552

  Locate

  42,299

  Missing

  2,513

  Found

  13

  Absconder—from care

  574

  —from hospital

  66

  —from detention

  2

  —from youth custody

  134

  —from prison

  934

  —from remand

  5

  —from school

  47

  Recall—from detention

  0

  —from youth custody

  1

  —from prison

  320

  A record of the minimum and maximum size of each category over the past year has not been maintained and the information is therefore not available.

  Mr. D. J. Burrows
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in respect of compensation for damage done to private property by convicted criminals who abscond from Her Majesty's penal establishments; what factors underlay his refusal to make payments to Mr. D. J. Burrows of Lakenheath, Suffolk, in respect of the damage done to his boat in October 1989 by two persons who had escaped from Hollesley Bay remand centre in Suffolk, and were convicted of breaking-in offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Home Office does not accept general responsibility for loss or damage caused by absconders from penal establishments. The courts have upheld that Home Office liability applies only where an escape takes place which is attributable to the negligence of staff, when they are under a duty to take steps to prevent an escape. There must be some failure to take proper care on the part of the authorities. In the case of Mr. Burrows there was no evidence of negligence by the staff involved at Hollesley Bay colony and the Department cannot therefore accept any legal liability for the damage to his yacht.

  In certain circumstances ex-gratia payments may be made to owners of property stolen or damaged. This ex-gratia scheme is operated regardless of whether the abscond was due to any fault on the part of the staff of the establishment concerned. It simply accepts that in some establishments the conditions are such as to permit absconding if the inmate is so minded and in these circumstances compensation has been paid, for the sake of good will, to members of the public particularly at risk when they suffer loss. The Department makes such payments only where the loss or damage is not covered by insurance.

  Mr. Burrows' boat was covered by an insurance policy, but the insurance company declined to meet his claim

  667
  because, in breach of a policy condition, he failed to notify it until several months after the incident. The Department could have considered an ex-gratia payment to cover uninsured losses, such as an excess charge on the claim or a loss of no claims discount; but not to cover insured losses which Mr. Burrows has had to bear because of his failure to make a timely claim. Mr. Burrows was advised orally of the position on more than one occasion before he finally claimed from the insurance company. I am reviewing the case however to see whether the Department's actions contributed in any way to Mr. Burrows' delay in making a formal claim to his insurance company; and I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Peter Lloyd
  During the period 11 November 1987 to 16 July 1990 the Department received 35 requests for subject access. It was not judged possible, at the time when the provisions came into operation, to make any firm advance estimate of likely take-up, but there was an indication, on the basis of experience in other European countries, that requests might be in the range 0.1 to 1 per cent. per annum of records held—that is, between 5,400 and 54,000 requests per year to be addressed to the Home Office. I have no plans to reconsider the subject access fees charged by the Department.

  Asylum
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals and of which nationality have been granted asylum in the United Kingdom since 1 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not yet available. Provisional figures for grants of refugee status in the second quarter of 1990 will shortly be provided to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Isle of Man Bank
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations have been received in connection with the failure of the Isle of Man bank.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the collapse of the Savings and Investment Bank in the Isle of Man in 1982, a total of 52 representations have been received from, or on behalf of, 18 former investors with the bank. They have been informed that the matter is a domestic one within the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man.

  Greater Manchester Police
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the internal police inquiries into Greater Manchester police(a) following the collapse of the court proceedings
  668
  against Kevin Taylor and (b) following the collapse of the court proceedings against Gerard Corley; and if he intends to publish the report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Both these investigations are being carried out under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The reports will be submitted to the Police Complaints Authority and copied to the chief constable of Greater Manchester.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is given to magistrates in deciding whether young offenders under 17 years of age should be confined in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. John Patten
  The only juveniles under 17 who may be remanded to prison department establishments are 15 and 16-year-old boys who have been refused bail and certified by a court as being too unruly to be safely remanded to local authority care. The criteria governing the issue of unruliness certificates are laid down in the Certificates of Unruly Character (Conditions) Order 1977. The use of the sentence of detention in a young offender institution, which is available for some juveniles, is governed by the criteria in section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Guidance to courts on the use of their powers is given from time to time by the Court of Appeal.

  Minority Communities
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings the responsible Minister has held in the last 12 months with members of the minority communities; how many of these meetings were with young people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since 1 July 1989, I have held 30 meetings with individuals and groups from the minority communities, of which 14 have been with young people. The meetings have taken place not only in the Home Office but also in areas such as Birmingham, Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Nottingham.

  In addition, I have attended two meetings of the Home Secretary's advisory council on race relations, the formal interdepartmental committee on which individual members of the minority communities can advise the Government on all aspects of race relations in Britain.

  All these meetings have been an invaluable opportunity for me to learn about the issues that concern our minority communities. I have also been able to discuss ways of developing Britain as an integrated, multiracial society in which the minority communities can participate fully and freely without fear of prejudice and discrimination.

  Forensic Pathology
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the results of his consideration of the report of the working party on forensic pathology in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have now carefully considered the report of the working party which had been examining the provision of forensic pathology services to police forces and coroners in England and Wales together with the
  669
  comments which I have received on it from 23 interested individuals and representative bodies. Without exception, those consulted have endorsed the report's principal findings and recommendations, particularly in relation to funding, accreditation, training and research, and have urged me to implement these urgently in order to reverse the recent decline of the service and ensure an adequate supply of forensic specialists in the future.

  The main proposal of the report is that the supply of forensic pathology services should be regulated through the market—that is, the main users of these services, police forces, should contract with the suppliers, the pathologists, for the services they need at prices and on conditions to be agreed between them. The role of the Home Office would be to maintain the high quality of the service through new arrangements for accreditation, training and research.

  I have decided to accept the working party's proposals and to introduce the new arrangements straight away, including the establishment of a policy advisory board to oversee the development of this vital part of our criminal justice system.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the youngest(a) boy and (b) girl being held in a prison in England and Wales on 9 July.

  Mr. Mellor
  According to the records held centrally on 31 May 1990, the latest date for which information is readily available, the youngest boy and girl held in a prison or remand centre were aged 15. Both had been sentenced.

  Strangeways Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra financial allowance and additional days' leave were given to prison officers from prisons in England and Wales who were sent to Strangeways prison during the recent riot at that prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Prison officers sent to Her Majesty's prison Manchester during the recent emergency received an ex-gratia payment of £8 per hour in respect of additional hours worked. All staff involved in control and restraint deployment received five days' special leave with pay. Governors were asked also to grant a discretionary five days' special leave to any other staff who suffered particular stress at Manchester.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be charged the costs of supplying prison officers from prisons in England and Wales for duty at Strangeways prison during the recent riot at that prison; what was the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The costs of supplying prison officers for duty at Her Majesty's prison Manchester during the recent riot there are borne on the prisons vote—(class XI, 2).

  The salaries of prison officers sent to Manchester are already paid by the prison service. The only additional salary costs are payments for additional hours worked in connection with the disturbance. These costs, together with transport and subsistence expenses, amounted to £545,094.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support is given and by whom, to women prison officers now working in male prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Guidance to line managers in the prison service emphasises the importance of effective induction for staff who are new to an establishment, and line managers at all levels are expected to encourage and support their staff.

  Murders
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the police clear-up rates for(a) all murders and (b) murders of gay men for the two most recent years for which he has figures.

  Mr. John Patten
  In cases of homicide it is not possible in the absence of a court decision to distinguish between offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. In England and Wales in 1988 and 1989 the ratio of offences of homicide cleared up to offences of homicide recorded in the same years was 96 and 92 per cent. respectively. Some offences are recorded and cleared up in different years. Statistics of homicide recorded and cleared up in 1988 are published in table 2.8 "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1988"—Cm. 847—and for 1989 in table 6 of "Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/90". Records available centrally on the sexual status of homicide victims are incomplete. The available information shows six homosexual men to have been victims of homicide in 1988 and 1989; all these cases were cleared up.

  Prisons (Incidents)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the reported serious incidents that have taken place in prisons in England and Wales between 1 January and 9 July.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following numbers of incidents between 1 January and 9 July 1990 are recorded as having been reported by prison service establishments under the broad headings shown, excluding incidents under headings categorised as minor.

  Number

  Escapes

  53

  Attempted escapes

  7

  Escapes from escort

  46

  Attempted escapes from escort

  3

  Recapture/surrender of escaped inmates

  50

  Assaults—on staff

  48

  —on inmates

  77

  —on other

  8

  Deaths of inmates, believed to be suicide

  21

  Other deaths of inmates

  20

  Deaths of staff

  3

  Fires causing personal injury, or serious and/or extensive damage to property

  11

  Acts of concerted indiscipline

  60

  Barricade incidents

  7

  Rooftop demonstrations

  26

  Food refusals

  39

  Key/lock compromises

  7

  Hostage incidents

  11

  Bomb threats/explosions

  24

  Dirty protest

  1

  Other miscellaneous incidents

  38

  671
  To be meaningful, a list would need to include some description of incidents. In view of the number of incidents, such information could be given only at disproportionate cost.

THE ARTS

  Regional Film Theatres
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the chairman of the British Film Institute to discuss increased investment in regional film theatres.

  Mr. Luce
  I regularly meet the chairman of the British Film Institute to discuss current issues.

  Works of Art (Resale)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what controls he intends to place on the resale of works of art by those who have purchased under the new regulations recently announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government have never had the power to control the sale of privately owned works of art. On 4 May, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that, if an owner does not accept an offer from a private individual, the existence of that offer will be taken into account in deciding on the export licence application. If either the original owner, having rejected all offers to purchase, or a new owner, subsequently offer the item for resale, no conditions can be imposed on that sale. Should a resale result in an application for an export licence, the normal procedures for considering it would operate.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish the response he has made to the letter from Dr. Peter Jung and expert colleagues in foraminifera, ammonites and mammals of the naturhistorische museum in Basel about whether a major collection can be actively cared for under proposals such as those for the natural history museum in respect of expert staff; and what action he proposes to take to discharge obligations, in respect of scientists' work in building up collections to the benefit of smaller museums, throughout the world.

  Mr. Luce
  I have placed a copy of my correspondence with Dr. Peter Jung in the Library of the House. I have asked the Government's chief scientific adviser, who is in discussion with the natural history museum, to keep me informed of the museum's position in relation to the United Kingdom science base. I shall be meeting the chairman and director of the museum to discuss these and other issues.

  British Library
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many reader seats were provided in the £2.3 million first phase conversion of the Corn Merchant's Store at the British Library, Boston Spa; and whether the second phase of this conversion has been approved.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: None. Approval has not been sought for a second phase.
  672
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make it his policy to move little used material to stores outside London so that readers may use most of the St. Pancras building.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: This is a matter for the British Library Board.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the cost of repairs at the India Office library and records; and whether the British Library is to use the section vacated some years ago by the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The refurbishment at Orbit house by the British Library includes the area vacated by the Ministry of Defence and the costs are estimated to be £1.1 million excluding VAT.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on details of published surveys relating to readers' characteristics and needs in planning the new building at St. Pancras.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The "Report of the National Libraries Committee" Cm 4028 included several surveys. Further surveys have been undertaken by the British Library for use in planning the new building and have been reported to its advisory committees.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when readers may inspect plans of the collection allocations and visit the site of the St. Pancras building.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The detailed collection allocations have not been finalised by the British Library although broad plans are being prepared. They will not be available for consideration before the end of this year. A user and staff communication programme has already commenced including a video and the production of leaflets. It is intended to institute site visits for readers towards the new year subject to safety considerations.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the percentage of shelving in phase I of the new St. Pancras building housing science and technology publications.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: Over 40,000 m of shelving, representing 13.8 per cent. of the shelving in the first stage of construction, are destined for science and technology publications. This compares with 27,000 m in the present Holborn and Aldwych buildings. A further 6,500 m are planned for the completion phase.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what are the total costs of the development of the radiation polymer preservation programme and the number of books which have been preserved by this process.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The development costs incurred by the British Library for the polymer preservation programme total £540,000. During the research period which has recently ended the process has been applied to sample volumes only.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the revenue from commercial sales of the British Library archivist book copier.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: Royalties from commercial sales so far total £15,000.
  673
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what area in phase I of the new St. Pancras building is to be allocated for book preservation.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: An area of over 1,500 sq m is assigned to book preservation functions in the first stage of construction, in addition to the environmentally controlled storage and consultation facilities and associated plant.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will itemise total investment by the British Library in compact disc with read-only memory.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: This information is not readily obtainable. Increasingly, the British Library's various operations employ equipment which makes some use of CD-ROM technology.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will take steps to ensure that stools, work surfaces and trolleys are part of the brief for the science and technology reading rooms at St. Pancras.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: Work surfaces, chairs and trolleys are included in the brief for the science and technology reading rooms at St. Pancras. Stools are not included.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how it is proposed to manage phase I of the new St. Pancras building so it provides a national centre for reference, study and other information in relation to scientific and technological matters.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The whole of the British Library's London-based scientific, technological and business services currently spread over three buildings will be brought together at the same time at St. Pancras and will provide reference, study and information services in response to users' needs.

PRIME MINISTER

  Criminal Proceedings (Children's Evidence)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to modify or change the legal procedures concerning the evidence of children on commission in criminal proceedings; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are giving careful consideration to the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission in its recent report on the evidence of children and other potentially vulnerable witnesses; and, for England and Wales, to the comments received on the report of Judge Pigot's advisory group on video evidence. We shall announce our proposals as soon as possible.

  Westwood Hospital, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Westwood hospital, Bradford.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received any views from member states since the Dublin meeting of the European Council on the United Kingdom proposals to be submitted to the intergovernmental conference on monetary union.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's proposals have been welcomed as a constructive contribution to the debate on EMU and are being considered further in ECOFIN and other appropriate bodies.

  Wandsworth Director of Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last met in an official capacity the director of education of Wandsworth borough council.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Education and Science are in regular contact with representatives of all local authorities in England.

  Council of Europe/WEU
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will place in the Library a copy of the correspondence received from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate about the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union.

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will obtain for her office library a copy of the report on eastern European economics entitled "End of the Cycle" by Morgan Stanley.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are obtaining a copy of that report.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister which east European countries have not taken up the credit which is available to them; how much is still available; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Export Credits Guarantee Department cover, subject to varying security requirements, is available for short-term credits for all markets of eastern Europe. Cover for medium-term export credits—that is, credits in excess of two years—is available to Czechoslovakia, GDR, Hungary and the USSR. The position on the availability of ECGD medium-term credit for other countries is under active review.

  National Characteristics
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will hold meetings to discuss the national characteristics of peoples of countries other than Germany.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the replies given to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on 17 July,Official Report, column 859.
  675
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library a copy of the minutes of the meeting on 24 March which discussed what were considered to be the characteristics of Germans.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Engagements
  Mr. French
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also participated in the deputation from the House which attended on Her Majesty the Queen Mother.

  In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Bowis
  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 comparable information he has on 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.

  Car Parks
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has plans to amend the Fair Trading Act 1974 to include car park operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no plans to do so at present.

  Dixon Takeover Report
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what compensation his Department has so far paid out to investors due to the early release of the price-sensitive Kingfisher-Dixon takeover report.

  Mr. Redwood
  All claims which are received before the end of the month will be considered for compensation. No payments have yet been made.

  Chartered Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will hold a public hearing before granting supervisory status to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
  676
  Mr. Redwood
  No. But we intend, in considering applications for recognition as a supervisory body, to take account of any views or representations we receive from third parties.

  Unlisted Securities
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has introduced since 1982 to protect investors in the unlisted securities market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 1 July 1985, the issue of shares other than those to be included on the official list of the stock exchange has been regulated under part III of the Companies Act 1985. Prior to that Act, such issues were primarily regulated by provisions of the Companies Act 1948 of which the 1985 Act provisions are a consolidation. Shares may be offered to the public only by public limited companies, and there must be a prospectus which complies with the requirements set out in schedule 3 to the Act. My Department has recently issued a consultative document on part V of the Financial Services Act 1986 which will complete the replacement of the provisions of the Companies Act relating to the public offers of securities.

  The stock exchange, of which the unlisted securities market is part, has been a recognised investment exchange—RIE—within the terms of the Financial Services Act 1986 since the main provisions of that Act came into force in April 1988. Prior to this, the stock exchange was a recognised stock exchange under the terms of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. Responsibility for RIEs has been transferred to the Securities and Investments Board, including ensuring their compliance with schedule 4 to the 1986 Act, which sets out the safeguards for investors which RIEs must provide.

  Since April 1988 those carrying on investment business in the United Kingdom, including advising investors and dealing or arranging deals in securities for them, have had to be authorised or exempt under the terms of the Financial Services Act.

  Al Yamamah Agreement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the dates and places of meetings about the Al Yamamah agreement with Saudi Arabia that involved officials or representatives of his Department or the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  Departmental and Export Credits Guarantee Department officials participate when necessary in interdepartmental meetings on the Al Yamamah project. Listing the dates and places of such meetings, which date back to 1985, would involve disproportionate cost.

  Insurance Bundling
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will refer the practice of selling cars with free insurance, known as insurance bundling, to the Director General of Fair Trading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is already examining this practice, following a recent complaint.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, further to his reply of 18 December 1989,Official Report, columns 23–24, what conclusions have been reached on the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, after separation of the insurance services group.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed that ECGD will continue as a separate Government Department, with the chief executive reporting directly to the Minister for Trade and me.

  The immediate priority of ECGD's management is to prepare, subject to enabling legislation, for the separation and sale of the insurance services group.

  The work of the remaining part of ECGD is essentially an executive function of the Government, and as such falls within the scope of the Prime Minister's statement of February 1988 launching the "next steps" project. The ECGD is engaged in redefining its financial objectives and developing a more consistent methodology for market assessment and underwriting decisions. This is compatible with the "next steps" approach, and agency status will be further considered when we have experience of how the new arrangements are working.

  United Kingdom Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the import content, other than fuel, of United Kingdom manufactures other than food and fuel in 1973, 1979, 1985 and 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: Information on which to base a reliable estimate is not available.

  Insurance Companies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the persons who have conducted investigations under the Insurance Companies Acts.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: Such investigations are usually conducted by those concerned with insurance company regulation. To publish the names of the civil servants concerned would be against usual Government practice, and could lead others to the wrong conclusions if a named official subsequently made a routine visit to a different company which was not being investigated.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the companies investigated since 1979 under the Insurance Companies Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The table lists the number of investigations under section 44(2)(b) of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 since 1979.

  Investigated

  1979

  1

  1981

  1

  1983

  2

  1984

  1

  1987

  3

  1988

  3

  1989

  1

  678
  These investigations are confidential. They may find that there is nothing of concern, or they may find problems that can be remedied fairly easily. To publish the name in such circumstances would do unjustified damage to the business.

  Compliance Officers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about inadequacies in the performance of compliance officers; and from whom they came.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating organisations employ compliance officers to check that investment businesses comply with the regulatory requirements in the financial services sector. This includes assessing the adequacy of compliance procedures in licensed businesses under their regulatory control. These bodies themselves are responsible for the performance of their own officers. I receive complaints about inadequacies from time to time, which are pursued by the relevant bodies in the most appropriate way.

  Property Development
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on shortfalls of liquidity in companies involved in property development; and from what source.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: I recently received a letter from an hon. Member enclosing representations about the entry into administrative receivership of a construction company. I am not aware of any other such representations.

  FIMBRA
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the effectiveness of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: My right hon. Friend and I regularly receive a variety of representations on the effectiveness of the Financial Services Act and the self-regulating organisations. Since 3 July we have received two representations about FIMBRA through hon. Members.

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 26 February,Official Report, column 16, in how many of the unpublished companies inspectors' reports listed there, there were criticisms of the quality of company reports and accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: I cannot disclose details of unpublished reports. The inspector's report on Euroflame Holdings plc was referred to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. The decision whether to publish reports involving 13 of the companies listed in the Official Report on 26 February, at columns 16–17 remains under consideration. The report on House of Fraser Holdings plc was published on 7 March 1990.

  Internal Market Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which Minister from his Department is to attend the European Community Internal Market Council on 17 July;

  (2) what matters are to be discussed in the European Community Internal Market Council of 17 July.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The Internal Market Council on 17 July was cancelled.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what matters are to be discussed at the European Community Internal Market Council on 17 September.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: I understand that at this stage the matters likely to be discussed at the Internal Market Council on 17 September are transEuropean infrastructure networks, the copyright protection of computer programmes, and spray suppression devices for vehicles and trailers. However, this agenda must be very uncertain. It is some time before the Council, and firm agendas are usually announced in the committee of permanent representatives about two weeks before the Council in question.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Minister from his Department is to attend the European Community Internal Market Council on 17 September.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: Plans have not yet been finalised for ministerial attendance at the 17 September Internal Market Council. It is unlikely that I will be the United Kingdom representative.

  Vietnam
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of United Kingdom exports to Vietnam has been in both volume and cash terms for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The only information available is for visible trade at current prices and is as follows:

  United Kingdom visible exports to Vietnam

  £,000

  1980

  15,213

  1981

  1,180

  1982

  858

  1983

  950

  1984

  1,786

  1985

  2,076

  1986

  1,287

  1987

  2,597

  1988

  2,212

  1989

  4,108

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of United Kingdom imports from Vietnam has been in both volume and cash terms for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The only information available is for visible trade at current prices and is as follows:
  680

  United Kingdom visible imports from Vietnam

  £,000

  1980

  69

  1981

  130

  1982

  132

  1983

  603

  1984

  1,154

  1985

  1,757

  1986

  1,200

  1987

  356

  1988

  491

  1989

  1,711

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antarctica
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has received proposals from any Antarctic treaty nation regarding a moratorium on minerals mining in Antarctica.

  Mr. Maude
  No such proposals have been formally put to us. In respect of other proposals for conservation in Antarctica I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 3 May, at column 626.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects that his Department will finalise proposals which the United Kingdom is to make to the meeting of Antarctic treaty parties in November.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 17 July to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), at column 494.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whom he will be consulting before the special meeting of the Antarctic treaty parties in November to discuss environmental protection for the Antarctic environment.

  Mr. Maude
  We shall be consulting various Antarctic treaty parties.

  Israel
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extent to which Her Majesty's Government's policies with regard to Israel are influenced by the holocaust.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We can never forget the suffering of the Jewish people in the holocaust. We want friendly relations with Israel and a just and lasting settlement of the middle east conflict to enable Israel to live in peace and security with its neighbours, including the Palestinians.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds the Government have made available for the promotion of democratic trade unionism in eastern Europe; and how that money has been allocated.
  681
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made available money to assist eastern European countries in their transition to democracy and a market economy. This takes the form of a know-how fund for eastern Europe which is administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Any requests from eastern European countries for assistance within the area of democratic trade unionism will be considered on their merit and funds allocated accordingly.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests have been received from trades unions and the Trades Union Congress for funds for the promotion of democratic trade unionism in eastern Europe; and what action has been taken.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The joint assistance unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which administers the know-how fund for eastern Europe has not received any proposals for assistance in this area from the United Kingdom trade union movement. In order to keep in touch with trade union views a senior union leader is a member of the know-how fund advisory board.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the application made to the post in Jedda on 29 May by Mohd Nasir, who was born in 1961 and whose application reference is 7987, to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when entry clearance will be issued by the British High Commission Islamabad to Khalid Mahmood, husband of Mrs. Saeeda Begum of 48 Maple street, Blackburn, following the refusal of leave of appeal to the tribunal against the decision of the adjudicator to grant entry clearance; and why entry clearance has not yet been issued.

  Mr. Maude
  In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the questions to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Members will receive a reply from the unit as soon as possible.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the promptness with which British posts overseas issue entry clearances after the completion of the appeal process.

  Mr. Maude
  Posts overseas contact successful appellants immediately on receipt of notification from the Home Office that an appeal has been allowed. How quickly entry clearance can be issued varies according to individual circumstances.

  World Cup
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Italian authorities about the treatment of the English football supporters deported from Italy during the world cup.
  682
  Mr. Maude
  Both Her Majesty's embassy at Rome and Her Majesty's consul at Florence are in touch with the Italian authorities to assist them in the location, identification and return to the United Kingdom of the personal property of those British nationals removed from Italy following the violence at Rimini on 26 June 1990.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 and 17 July.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 16 and 17 July. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council considered the necessary follow-up to the European Council in Dublin, including on preparations for the two intergovernmental conferences, and on development policy and social policy. The Council also took note of the outcome of the Houston economic summit.

  The Council further reviewed the Community's relations with central and eastern Europe, including the G24 programme of western assistance and the extension of the Community's PHARE programme to other eastern European countries in addition to Poland and Hungary. The Council endorsed the postponement of signature of the trade and economic and commercial co-operation agreement with Romania and the exclusion of Romania from the proposed extension of the PHARE programme.

  The Council considered Commission proposals for additional assistance to Yugoslavia and remitted them for further study. The presidency also presented a proposal for a Mediterranean financial institution, which was similarly remitted for further study.

  The Council agreed a negotiating mandate for a trade and economic co-operation agreement with Chile, and conclusions and guidelines for a common position of the Community and member states for the second United Nations conference on the least developed, to be held in Paris in September. The Commission presented proposals for the Community's response to Colombia's special plan to combat drugs, and referred them for further discussion.

  On 17 July, the Council discussed the current state of play in the GATT Uruguay round in the light of the outcome of the Houston summit and in advance of the trade negotiations committee in Geneva from 23 July.

  A meeting of the European Community/Malta Association Council took place in the margins of the Council on 16 July. Separately, Ministers agreed informally to defer decisions on the referral of the Malta and Cyprus European Community membership applications to the Commission until the September Foreign Affairs Council meeting.

  There was also discussion on 16 July in European Political Co-operation of CSCE, eastern Europe—including Albania—South Africa, Vietnam, Kenya and the middle east. Ministers agreed that a Troika ministerial mission will meet separately the Israeli Foreign Ministers and the presidency of the Arab League on 23 and 24 July to follow up the Dublin declaration on the middle east.

  Albania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to encourage the settlement of Albanian refugees in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Any applications for asylum in this country from Albanian nationals would be considered in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the percentage change on the previous year in(a) current, (b) capital and (c) total local government expenditure in real terms for each year since 1980 and the total and average annual changes in the period 1980 to 1989.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The figures are shown in the table.

  Expenditure by local authorities in Scotland Change from previous year (per cent.)

  £ million

  Current

  Capital (gross)

  Total

  1981–82

  3.0

  -2.6

  1.7

  1982–83

  1.5

  -1.2

  0.9

  1983–84

  5.0

  16.2

  7.4

  1984–85

  -1.7

  -13.0

  -4.3

  1985–86

  -2.6

  -4.3

  -2.9

  1986–87

  5.1

  4.9

  5.0

  1987–88

  2.8

  13.8

  5.0

  1988–89

  1.0

  -4.8

  -0.3

  1989–90 Provisional

  3.5

  -3.2

  2.1

  Average annual change

  1.9

  0.3

  1.6

  Total change

  18.6

  2.4

  15.0

  Cancer
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the mortality one year after diagnosis for(a) colonic cancer and (b) breast cancer for each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Mortality figures one year after diagnosis for the period 1983–87 are as follows:

  Colonic Cancer

  Health Board

  Number of registrations 1983–87

  Percentage of Patients who died within one year of diagnosis

  Argyll and Clyde

  620

  45

  Ayrshire and Arran

  596

  44

  Borders

  203

  34

  Dumfries and Galloway

  246

  39

  Fife

  522

  42

  Forth Valley

  405

  42

  Grampian

  813

  44

  Greater Glasgow

  1,650

  45

  Highland

  403

  35

  Lanarkshire

  590

  43

  Lothian

  1,232

  42

  Orkney

  30

  43

  Shetland

  34

  53

  Tayside

  812

  45

  Western Isles

  55

  36

  684

  Health Board

  Number of registrations 1983–87

  Percentage of Patients who died within one year of diagnosis

  Scotland Total

  8,211

  43

  Breast Cancer

  Health Board

  Number of registrations 1983–87

  Percentage of patients who died within one year of diagnosis

  Argyll and Clyde

  856

  17

  Ayrshire and Arran

  763

  15

  Borders

  265

  16

  Dumfries and Galloway

  331

  14

  Fife

  768

  13

  Forth Valley

  597

  14

  Grampian

  992

  11

  Greater Glasgow

  2,246

  13

  Highland

  519

  14

  Lanarkshire

  1,017

  14

  Lothian

  1,865

  14

  Orkney

  40

  5

  Shetland

  64

  19

  Tayside

  1,013

  14

  Western Isles

  89

  12

  Scotland Total

  11,425

  14

  Family Planning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the centres which offer the kind of comprehensive counselling outlined in Her Majesty's Government's guidelines for unplanned pregnancies in Scotland in the Edinburgh area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Current guidance from the Scottish Home and Health Department about the provision of family planning services draws health boards' attention to the need for counselling facilities, especially for young people. Such counselling is available within Lothian health board's area through general practitioners; obstetric and gynaecological in-patient and out-patient services; the board's community clinics; family planning clinics in central Edinburgh and peripheral locations; and at the Brook advisory centre.

  More detailed information about individual centres is not held centrally.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the Forestry Commission land announced for disposal on 16 June 1989 has so far been disposed of; on how much of this land has public access been protected; and if he will consider retrospective action to reinstate public access to land sold where access was not protected at the time of the sale.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Just over 7,000 hectares of forest land were sold by the Forestry Commission in the period between April 1989 and June 1990; in addition, some 2,900 hectares of other land were sold in that period. These sales were not subject to special conditions relating to public access and retrospective action to impose such conditions would not be practical or appropriate.

  The Government are concerned, however, that the general public should continue to enjoy access to those

  685
  forests to be disposed of by the Forestry Commission in a way which is compatible with their management for forestry and other purposes. We are giving careful consideration to ways of achieving this objective. In the meantime, the commission is deferring the sale of woodlands that are particularly sensitive from the point of view of public access, except in those cases where the sale is to an environmental body under the sponsorship arrangements.

  A68-A697 Junction
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking on proposals for the improvement of the junction between the A68 and the A697.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Borders regional council, as agent authority, has put forward two sets of proposals for improving the safety of the A68-A697 junction. The first, which involves changes to the side road traffic island and the laying of anti-skid surfacing material has been approved for implementation in this financial year. The second proposal, which was recently submitted, is to substantially alter the geometrical layout of the junction. This is a longer-term solution and will be the subject of further discussions between my Department and Borders regional council.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many deaths in Scotland were as a result of assault with(a) a household axe, (b) a kitchen knife, (c) a Stanley knife and (d) a coal hammer in each year since 1980;

  (2) how many convictions for grievous bodily harm in Scotland were as a result of assault with (a) a household axe, (b) a kitchen knife, (c) a Stanley knife and (d) a coal hammer in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of the exact type of weapon used in cases of homicide and serious assault are not collected centrally, with the exception of firearms.

  Trunk Road Improvements
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the cost of the trunk road improvements, road by road, since 1979 in Dumfries and Galloway; and the projected expenditure for the next five years, including reconstructing the A74 into a motorway.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The total expenditure on new construction and improvements on trunk roads in Dumfries and Galloway region for each year from 1 April 1979 is listed in the table.

  Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1979–80

  1·2

  1980–81

  1·4

  1981–82

  4·0

  1982–83

  7·2

  1983–84

  5·6

  1984–85

  8·1

  1985–86

  11·1

  1986–87

  8·8

  686

  Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1987–88

  17·9

  1988–89

  19·9

  1989–90

  24·2

  Information from 1979 on individual schemes costing under £1 million is not available. However, the following table lists all major trunk road schemes costing over £1 million completed since May 1979.

  Scheme

  Expenditure (£ million)

  A7 Canonbie Diversion

  5·4

  A7 Synton to Mossend

  1·3

  A74 Johnstone Bridge to Dinwoodie Lodge

  1·8

  A75 Carsluith Diversion

  1·5

  A75 Collin Diversion

  3·8

  A75 Gatehouse of Fleet Bypass

  9·0

  A75 Creetown Bypass

  5·2

  A75 Bridge of Dee Diversion

  2·6

  A75 Castle Douglas Bypass

  6·2

  A75 Ringlord Bypass

  2·5

  A75 Annan Bypass

  17·0

  A75 Glenluce Bypass

  6·8

  The following table gives the estimated expenditure on major schemes costing over £1 million which started prior to April 1990 but are not yet completed.

  Scheme

  Cost (£ million)

  A701 Ae Bridge

  1·4

  A75 Dumfries Bypass

  20·3

  Start dates for future schemes currently in preparation are dependent on the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, the availability of finance and the relative priorities of the individual improvements. It is not therefore practical to determine individual starts and the associated expenditure in detail beyond the year ahead. Starts have been announced for 1990–91 to the £4 million A74 Carrutherstown-Hetland improvement, which is now under construction, and the £35 million upgrading of the A74 between Gretna and Kirkpatrick Fleming, which is due to commence in the near future. In addition schemes for major trunk road improvements in Dumfries and Galloway costing in excess of £250 million are the subject of studies or are being prepared.

  NHS Drugs
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of national health service drugs administered in Scotland(a) in total and (b) in hospitals in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the year ending 31 March 1990, the cost of drugs in Scotland was:

  £ million

  Hospitals

  43·96

  Community Pharmacists and dispensing doctors

  215·42

  Total

  259·38

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply of 11 July,Official Report, column 233, if he will take steps to ensure that the Greater Glasgow health board writes immediately to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen about the weekly cost per bed it will pay to Takare plc under the contract for care of the elderly in Rutherglen.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer of 11 July.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he is proposing to make to the community charge arrangements following the review of those arrangements.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am proposing to make the following changes:

  Community charge relief
  (1) with effect from 1 April 1990 the threshold for relief will be reduced from £3 per week to £2 per week.
  (2) the scheme will be extended by two years.
  (3) relief paid under the scheme to an individual will not reduce until the fourth and fifth years.
  Those proposals will take effect from the beginning of the second year of the scheme in Scotland. The lowering of the threshold for relief will give £52 more relief than would otherwise have been the case to each household that qualified for it, provided they have not moved. Pensioners and the disabled who were not former ratepayers and who qualified for extra relief will also receive an increase of £52 of relief. On top of this, postponing the withdrawal of relief will be worth up to £13 in 1990–91 to everybody already entitled to relief in respect of 1989–90. Many couples will be £78 a year better off than they would otherwise have been as a result of these changes. It is estimated also that the number of people benefiting may increase by more than 50 per cent. as a result. The amount of relief paid out is expected to increase by more than this proportion, reflecting the increase in relief that existing recipients of relief will receive as well as relief being paid for the first time to new recipients. The implementation of these changes will be subject to discussion with local authorities before regulations bringing them into effect are made.

  Local Authority and Financial Year

  Number of CPOs received

  Number of CPOs confirmed

  Number of CPOs subject to Public Local Inquiry

  1986–87

  Aberdeen

  —

  1

  —

  Angus

  —

  —

  1

  Annandale and Eskdale

  —

  1

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  9

  5

  1

  Banff and Buchan

  3

  3

  —

  Clackmannan

  1

  1

  —

  Cunninghame

  2

  1

  —

  Dundee

  4

  4

  2

  Dunfermline

  1

  1

  —

  East Kilbride

  —

  1

  —

  Edinburgh

  6

  5

  —

  Glasgow

  34

  20

  3

  Gordon

  3

  —

  —

  Hamilton

  2

  2

  1

  Kilmarnock

  —

  1

  —

  Kirkcaldy

  1

  1

  —

  Kyle and Carrick

  1

  1

  —

  Moray

  —

  1

  —

  Motherwell

  3

  3

  —

  My proposals to exempt small bed-and-breakfast establishments from non-domestic rating have been widely welcomed in Scotland: in consultations, there was general agreement that a limit of six bed spaces would be appropriate, and that it would not be desirable also to extend the exemption to establishments available for 100 days or less. Accordingly, I intend to lay regulations very shortly to exempt bed-and-breakfast establishments providing accommodation for no more than six people from non-domestic rates, by prescribing that they shall be treated as domestic property.
  A number of specific classes with maximum multipliers have already been prescribed. These include empty manses, properties empty as a result of a person's death, property whose owner is being cared for elsewhere, empty homes belonging to students, and empty property belonging to prisoners. It is my intention now to prescribe additional classes of premises and the maximum multipliers which will apply to them. I will consult with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with community charge registration officers with regard to the details before making the appropriate regulations. My intention is to make provisions relating to property owned by people who live in tied accommodation, property which has been repossessed by a mortgage lender and, subject to views which are expressed during consultation, property which forms a self-contained part of either the main residence of a charge payer or of a non-domestic property owned by him.

  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many compulsory purchase orders in each of the last four years were subject to public local inquiry from local authorities, broken down by local authority;

  (2) how many compulsory purchase orders have been confirmed by his officials, broken down by local authority, in each of the last four financial years;

  (3) how many applications for compulsory purchase orders he has received from local authorities broken down by local authority, in each of the last four financial years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The information requested is set out in the table.
  689

  Local Authority and Financial Year

  Number of CPOs received

  Number of CPOs confirmed

  Number of CPOs subject to Public Local Inquiry

  North East Fife

  4

  2

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  1

  1

  —

  Renfrew

  —

  1

  —

  Stewartry

  1

  1

  —

  Stirling

  1

  1

  —

  Strathkelvin

  2

  2

  —

  Tweeddale

  —

  —

  1

  West Lothian

  7

  4

  2

  Borders Regional Council

  1

  —

  —

  Lothian Regional Council

  1

  1

  2

  Totals

  88

  65

  13

  1987–88

  Aberdeen

  1

  1

  —

  Angus

  1

  1

  —

  Argyll

  2

  4

  —

  Banff and Buchan

  —

  —

  1

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1

  1

  —

  Clydebank

  1

  1

  —

  Clydesdale

  1

  1

  1

  Cunninghame

  1

  1

  —

  Dumbarton

  2

  2

  —

  Dundee

  6

  6

  —

  Dunfermline

  3

  —

  —

  Edinburgh

  3

  3

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  35

  27

  3

  Hamilton

  1

  1

  2

  Inverclyde

  1

  1

  —

  Kirkcaldy

  5

  2

  —

  Monklands

  2

  —

  —

  Moray

  2

  1

  —

  Motherwell

  4

  3

  1

  North East Fife

  1

  1

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  1

  1

  —

  Renfrew

  3

  1

  —

  Stirling

  1

  —

  —

  Strathkelvin

  2

  2

  —

  Tweeddale

  —

  1

  —

  Borders Regional Council

  1

  1

  —

  Highland Regional Council

  1

  1

  —

  Lothian Regional Council

  1

  —

  1

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  1

  —

  —

  Totals

  85

  64

  9

  1988–89

  Aberdeen

  4

  4

  —

  Angus

  1

  1

  —

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  3

  1

  —

  Banff and Buchan

  —

  1

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  2

  1

  —

  Clackmannan

  1

  —

  —

  Clydebank

  1

  1

  —

  Cumbernauld

  1

  1

  —

  Dumbarton

  3

  2

  1

  Dundee

  4

  1

  —

  Dunfermline

  —

  1

  —

  Edinburgh

  —

  1

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  —

  1

  1

  Glasgow

  25

  25

  1

  Hamilton

  4

  3

  —

  Inverclyde

  1

  1

  —

  Inverness

  3

  —

  —

  Kirkcaldy

  3

  3

  —

  Midlothian

  1

  1

  —

  Moray

  1

  2

  —

  North East Fife

  —

  1

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  1

  1

  —

  Renfrew

  5

  3

  1

  Stirling

  1

  1

  1

  Strathkelvin

  13

  10

  —

  West Lothian

  1

  1

  —

  690 691

  Local Authority and Financial Year

  Number of CPOs received

  Number of CPOs confirmed

  Number of CPOs subject to Public Local Inquiry

  Lothian Regional Council

  1

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  1

  2

  —

  Totals

  82

  70

  5

  1989–90

  Angus

  2

  —

  1

  Argyll and Bute

  1

  2

  1

  Clackmannan

  1

  1

  —

  Clydebank

  1

  1

  —

  Clydesdale

  2

  1

  —

  Dundee

  —

  2

  —

  Falkirk

  1

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  24

  19

  2

  Hamilton

  2

  1

  —

  Inverclyde

  —

  1

  —

  Inverness

  1

  —

  —

  Kyle and Carrick

  1

  —

  —

  Midlothian

  1

  —

  —

  Moray

  2

  —

  —

  Nithsdale

  1

  1

  —

  North East Fife

  4

  1

  —

  Renfrew

  5

  4

  —

  Stewartry

  1

  1

  —

  Strathkelvin

  3

  1

  1

  West Lothian

  2

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  1

  1

  —

  Lothian Regional Council

  —

  1

  —

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  1

  1

  —

  Totals

  57

  39

  5

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the applications for compulsory purchase orders he received in each of the last four financial years were in respect of(a) unfit houses which were occupied, (b) empty private sector housing properties, (c) empty private sector industrial properties, (d) poor management of privately rented housing properties and (e) poor management of privately rented industrial properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will release additional funds to enable greater respite care facilities to be offered within Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: As regards resources for local authorities, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to his question on 3 July 1990. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend makes financial assistance directly available to voluntary organisations in the social work field. Grants are currently made to Crossroads (Scotland) and a number of other bodies at national level which promote local respite care services. Support for voluntary organisations providing local caring services is seen as essentially the responsibility of local authorities and in some circumstances, health boards.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the number of accesses made to the police national computer by each constabulary over the last year; and what was the proportion of access requests made to the vehicle indexes of the police national computer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is as follows:

  Force

  Numbers of transactions for the year up to June 1990

  Proportion of transactions made to vehicle indices

  Avon and Somerset

  928,045

  60·5

  Bedfordshire

  376,446

  66·9

  British Transport Police

  141,988

  42·1

  Cambridgeshire

  375,627

  60·7

  Central

  141,178

  51·6

  Cheshire

  436,687

  62·1

  City of London

  101,987

  58·8

  Cleveland

  331,288

  55·8

  Cumbria

  366,151

  62·9

  Derbyshire

  448,074

  61·1

  Devon and Cornwall

  730,000

  55·6

  Dorset

  457,665

  59·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  106,837

  59·0

  Durham

  350,553

  53·1

  Dyfed-Powys

  241,976

  48·3

  Essex

  892,740

  60·1

  Fife

  137,425

  56·4

  Gloucestershire

  359,446

  68·0

  Grampian

  265,928

  49·4

  Greater Manchester

  2,271,199

  57·3

  Guernsey

  19,249

  10·5

  Gwent

  187,118

  46·3

  693

  Force

  Numbers of transactions for the year up to June 1990

  Proportion of transactions made to vehicle indices

  Hampshire

  877,175

  59·4

  Hertfordshire

  463,569

  46·5

  Humberside

  529,245

  60·2

  Isle of Man

  20,547

  52·9

  Jersey

  33,476

  10·1

  Kent

  1,198,384

  60·7

  Lancashire

  1,126,272

  58·4

  Leicestershire

  397,810

  55·4

  Lincolnshire

  267,208

  61·3

  Lothian and Borders

  610,533

  59·4

  Merseyside

  932,268

  55·6

  Metropolitan

  7,597,182

  48·4

  Norfolk

  392,549

  63·5

  North Wales

  309,407

  51·3

  North Yorkshire

  440,309

  65·6

  Northamptonshire

  319,903

  67·8

  Northern

  103,454

  52·0

  Northumberland

  990,490

  66·7

  Nottinghamshire

  650,988

  71·8

  South Wales

  842,909

  59·2

  South Yorkshire

  684,321

  70·4

  Staffordshire

  398,871

  58·4

  Strathclyde

  1,289,244

  33·8

  Suffolk

  288,693

  58·7

  Surrey

  370,132

  61·8

  Sussex

  791,593

  51·8

  Tayside

  318,767

  50·7

  Thames Valley

  1,232,066

  57·4

  Warwickshire

  312,924

  68·7

  West Mercia

  498,609

  57·5

  West Midlands

  2,240,914

  62·8

  West Yorkshire

  1,407,148

  54·6

  Wiltshire

  286,988

  64·0

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many accesses were made to each index of the police national computer over the last year; and how many of the access requests could search more than one index.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total number of accesses to each of the indices of the police national computer in the year to 30 June 1990 was as follows:

  Index

  Number of accesses

  1. Stolen and Suspect Vehicles

  21,370,168

  2. Vehicle Owners

  3. Chassis/Engine Numbers

  508,710

  4. Fingerprints

  200,917

  5. Fingerprints (Scene of Crime)

  13,658

  6. Criminal Names

  1,094,072

  7. Wanted/Missing Persons

  2,134,554

  8. Disqualified Drivers

  765,081

  9. Convictions

  902,277

  10. Major Investigations

  5,921

  11. Crime Pattern Analysis

  279,711

  There have also been the following joint accesses:

  To indices 6 and 91

  1,996,349

  To indices 6, 7 and 9

  1,687,245

  To indices 6, 7, 8 and 9

  8,265,989

  To indices 4,6 and 9

  652,426

  1 All accesses to the criminal names index will in addition automatically generate information from the convictions application.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the ministerial review of employment services for disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  The results of the review were published on 29 June in a consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities". The document sets out our intentions for the development of services in the 1990s, taking forward the themes established in the 1980s of integration into the work force and the active commitment of employers to good practice in creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The document has been widely distributed and the period of consultation lasts until 31 December.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to outlaw discrimination against disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" was published on 29 June. It invites comments on the merits and demerits of various legislative approaches to securing good practice in the employment of people with disabilities. Antidiscrimination legislation is one of the approaches discussed. Decisions on the best way forward will be taken when we have considered the comments that are received.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the consultation paper "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The consultative document was published on 29 June and only a few comments have so far been received. It is too soon to expect interested parties to make considered responses. The consultative period ends on 31 December 1990.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) on what basis he made his estimate of the savings in the cost of administration staff if the Neasden Health and Safety Executive office were to close;

  (2) if he will give details of estimates of (a) the number and (b) the cost of extra inspector hours used in travelling if the Neasden Health and Safety Executive office were to close and of the number of inspections forgone.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available as the Health and Safety Executive has no current plans to close the Neasden office.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the number of inspections performed by Health and Safety Executive offices in(a) Neasden, (b) Barking and (c) Southwark.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. The total number of visits made by Health and Safety Executive inspectors operating from the three locations between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 is as follows:
  695

  Number

  Neasden

  5,235

  Barking

  3,085

  Southwark

  10,558

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the policy of the Health and Safety Executive with respect to advertising job vacancies internally in the London region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Jobs are filled by seeking the most suitable people in the most economical way, taking account of the requirements of the post, the capacities and career aspirations of available people, and the possibilities of finding suitable candidates by normal postings action or by promotion. In general, posts are advertised where the HSE has difficulty—or expects to have difficulty—in securing sufficient suitable candidates: not as a matter of course.

  Hazardous Substances Regulations
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The responsibility for the implementation of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 rests with industry.

  The Health and Safety Executive has committed substantial resources to promoting awareness and understanding of the regulations through the preparation of a wide range of guidance material, national and trade advertising and extensive use of local TV, radio and press. The HSE has worked closely with employers' organisations and others to encourage them to develop guidance for their members. The HSE and local authority inspectors have given advice and, where appropriate, initiated enforcement action during the course of their visits to employers' premises.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost to increase the maximum poll tax rebate from 80 to 100 per cent. for everyone in Scotland receiving the maximum 80 per cent. rebate in 1990–91, assuming that others in receipt of less than the maximum rebate were not affected by this change.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimated cost of increasing the maximum community charge benefit from 80 to 100 per cent. of the community charge set by the local authority, only for those already in receipt of maximum benefit, would be about £35 million in Scotland in 1990–91. (Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1985–86–87 Family Expenditure Survey).

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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 696
  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. Gillian Shephard
  The total number of subject access requests from the Department's records from October 1987 to 13 July 1990 is 1,420. This includes those made of the then DHSS up to July 1988. The original estimate in 1987 of the number of such requests in DHSS was based on a 0.3 per cent. take-up of requests by data subjects, or 210,000 per annum. No subject access fee is charged by the Department.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the new criteria for eligibility for independent living fund grants were drawn up.

  Mr. Scott
  In order to make effective use of the fund's resources and to enable the fund to respond positively to the majority of new applications, as well as continuing to provide assistance to those already being helped, the fund's trustees have decided to give priority, for the time being, to those applicants between 16 and 74 years of age and who are also in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what percentage, of income support claimants under 60 years of age are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments.

  Mr. Scott
  At June 1990, the latest date for which data are available, 399,421 social fund loans were being recovered from income support recipients under the age of 60, representing 14.4 per cent. of all such recipients.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the earnings disregard and slacken the earnings taper for single parents in receipt of benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have already announced that the earnings disregard in housing benefit and community charge benefit for lone parents is to be increased in October of this year from £15 to £25 per week. We have no plans to alter the benefit tapers.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals have been lodged against local adjudication officers who have refused claims for attendance allowance in each of the last five years; and what proportion of those appeals have been successful during the same period.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table.

  Attendance allowance appeals lodged with and percentage success rates at Social Security appeal tribunals 1985–89

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Appeals lodged

  237

  204

  163

  402

  457

  Percentage successful

  11·8

  13·7

  19·6

  14·4

  14·7

  697
  Requests for reviews of the decisions on attendance needs are for the Attendance Allowance Board.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines have been issued in the last two years to local officers to determine eligibility for attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The main adjudicating authority for attendance allowance is the attendance allowance board. The board published its handbook for delegated medical practitioners—the doctors who make decisions on its behalf—in 1988. Amendments to the guidance in the handbook are included in the board's published annual reports. A copy of the last report, which was issued in June 1990, has been put in the Library. I understand that a further three amendments to this guidance—dealing with children under two years of age, children with deafness and blindness, and relevant changes in circumstances—are to be issued shortly.

  Staff Shortages, Bootle
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for dealing with staff shortages at his Department's Bootle office.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The current staffing level at the Bootle office is 119.5 including nine fixed-term contract staff. This is above the level assessed as necessary to meet the operational needs of the office from 1 August 1990.

  State Pension
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions on a common state pension age for men and women, in the light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling in the Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange group case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Barber judgment dealt with pensions paid under a contracted-out scheme. It distinguished these from benefits awarded under statutory social security schemes. The Government's position on a common state pension age was set out in our response in April to the report of the Select Committee in another place.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has of payments of income support to claimants in residential care whose total additional weekly income from retirement pension, attendance allowance and housing or other benefits exceeds the care fees being charged when the weekly personal allowance is taken into account.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no evidence of such payments.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the number of persons in residential care now eligible to claim housing benefit following the widening of the difference between the capital thresholds for eligibility for income support and housing benefit;

  (2) what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department of additional claims for housing benefit from
  698
  persons in residential care arising from the widening of the difference between the capital thresholds for income support and housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not available.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any information about the results of applications for community care grants for furniture and household goods by pregnant women or women with babies who have been homeless but have been allocated accommodation.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available.

  Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he intends to make any change to the benefit subsidy arrangements for housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  We are today consulting the local authority associations on a proposal to change the basic rate of direct benefit subsidy from 97 to 95 per cent. from April 1991, as an improved incentive to economy. This change would affect all community charge benefit and housing benefit expenditure other than rent rebates in England and Wales covered by the housing revenue account arrangements, which are taken into account at 100 per cent. in calculating subsidy.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are taking the proposed change into account in drawing up their proposed local authority expenditure settlements for the next financial year.

  Income Support
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he estimates it would cost his Department to extend the full rate of income support to cover all adults, including 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The estimated cost for income-related benefits would be around £400 million, based on existing benefit rates and youth training allowances. The actual cost would also depend on the number of people on youth training at the time.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1985–86–87 family expenditure surveys.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer given on 21 June,Official Report, column 714, how many people on income support receiving a transitional addition lost entitlement to maximum housing benefit in a similar way in April.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The estimated number of claimants so affected is 7,500. But an estimated 96 per cent. of all those floated off maximum housing benefit, some 187,500, gained or were no worse off.

  Dependants
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the numbers of children aged 16 to 18 years claimed for as dependants by parents(a) on income support and (b) on family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The latest available information is that, at May 1989, the number of dependants aged 16 to 18 years for whom income support was in payment was 109,000. In the families receiving family credit at the end of April 1990 there were 37,000 dependants who were aged 16, 17 and 18 at the time the awards were made.

ENERGY

  United Kingdom Continental Shelf Gas
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of gas production this year on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Gas production in the first four months of 1990 was some 7,200 million therms. The level of production in the remainder of the year will depend on many factors, in particular the severity of the forthcoming winter.

  Methane
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to decide whether to grant a consent under section 12 of the Energy Act 1976 for the discharge of methane into the atmosphere from the St. Fergus gas terminal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Both operators of the St. Fergus gas terminal currently hold valid venting consents for normal operations. No further venting consents are currently needed because gas which must be disposed of as a result of the fitting of emergency shut-down valves and the depressurisation of the main gas line will be flared.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is his policy in respect of the granting of consents under section 12 of the Energy Act 1976 for discharges of methane into the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what environmental factors he takes into consideration before granting consents under section 12 of the Energy Act 1976 for discharge of methane into the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government are well aware of the adverse environmental impact of methane as a greenhouse gas. However, provision has to be made for venting for safety reasons. My Department scrutinises venting consent applications carefully and no consents are issued until I am satisfied that they are for the minimum amounts necessary for safe and economic operation.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of global warming, in so far as this relates to emissions from energy sources.
  700
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is essential that all nations play their part in reducing emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. As regards carbon dioxide, the Government have announced that the United Kingdom is prepared, provided that other nations do their share, to set itself the target of stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2005. The White Paper on the environment to be published in the autumn will spell out the full range of the Government's policies in relation to global warming, including those in the energy sector.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list his responsibilities(a) as Secretary of State and (b) as sole shareholder in British Nuclear Fuels plc in relation to the company's financial and accounting procedures; and if he will make a statement on the exercise of these responsibilities.

  Mr. Baldry
  British Nuclear Fuels plc and its directors must comply with the requirements of the Companies Acts on financial, accounting and audit procedures. Under the terms of section 14 of the Atomic Energy Act 1971 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for laying copies of BNFL's report and accounts before both Houses of Parliament.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 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. Wakeham
  This information is not collected by my Department.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the details of the proposed capital structure of National Power and PowerGen; what factors he will take into account; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I shall announce the proposed capital structures at flotation of National Power and PowerGen as soon as possible. All relevant factors will be taken into account.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will call for a report from the Director General of Electricity Supply on the operation of the upper limits on direct sales by National Power and PowerGen to electricity consumers above 1MW.

  Mr. Baldry
  My officials are in regular contact with the Director General of Electricity Supply's office on all aspects of the regulatory regime.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the answer of 2 July to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras,Official Report, column 430, (1) what types of competitive process were used to choose those companies chosen competitively; and what was the smallest number of competitors for any one appointment;
  701
  (2) how many valuers were chosen on the basis of an already established association with the company concerned.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Six of the firms of valuers were appointed on the basis of established relationships with the body concerned. The other nine were chosen following a competitive tender process with the number of competitors ranging from six to two depending on the availability of firms with sufficient resources and suitable local experience. The competitive process involved assessment on all the usual criteria, including price. My Department then carried out an exercise to cross-check prices across all the property advisers and negotiated discounts to fee rates where appropriate.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any representations from Kleinwort Benson regarding the selection procedure of items of correspondence between that company and his Department concerning the feasibility of privatising nuclear power to be sent to the Energy Select Committee for the purpose of its inquiry into that subject.

  Mr. Baldry
  Kleinwort Benson was consulted on the papers released to the Committee.

  Electricity Distribution Companies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those electricity distribution companies which have lost more than(a) 15 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 25 per cent. and (d) 30 per cent. of their supply contract load since the first quarter of the current financial year.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the chairmen of the 12 regional electricity distribution companies regarding their investment proposals in new electricity generating stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions to invest in independent generation projects are matters for the company concerned.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the use of natural gas in electricity generation over the next 10 years, and on the breakdown of its use between different sectors of the supply industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The future use of gas in electricity generation is a matter for the industry.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimate for the annual amount raised by the fossil fuel levy.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I announced on 12 February that I intended to set the levy rate for 1990–91 at 10·6 per cent.702
  The detailed forecasts underlying this calculation are commercially confidential because they depend, inter alia, on forecasts of the electricity pool price. I shall publish the amount of levy collected in respect of 1990–91 after the end of the year.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has recived the 1989–90 report and accounts of the electricity industry successor companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have today placed copies of the regional electricity companies' and National Grid Company's accounts in the Library. I will place copies of the accounts of National Power plc, PowerGen plc and Nuclear Electric plc when they are available.

  British Coal
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has considered the British Coal Corporation's further response to the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the corporation's capital investment programme.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In May 1989, at columns 455–47, my predecessor informed the House that the British Coal Corporation had provided its initial response to the MMC report on the corporation's investment programme, and that a copy had been placed in the Library of the House. Under the normal arrangements for the follow-up to MMC recommendations arising from section 11 inquiries British Coal has now provided a second response, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. This second response is intended to give an account of the steps taken over the last 12 months to implement the commission's recommendations. It also ensures the continuing relevance of the report by providing a helpful description of the developments in the corporation's business environment since its initial response and setting out fully the organisational changes that British Coal has made in response to those developments.

  The commission's report drew attention to the need for British Coal to commit itself to specific, quantified financial objectives—recommendations 1 and 2. In its initial response, the corporation said that it geared its investment programme to the need to fulfil the overall objectives set by the Government. It also pointed out that it would be able to consider what further objectives should be set only when the new coal supply contracts with the generators had been finalised. In informing the House of that initial statement, my predecessor supported the commission's recommendation, but accepted that new medium-term objectives could not sensibly be finalised before the completion of the new coal supply contracts with the electricity supply industry. I share this view, but I have made it clear that following the financial reconstruction provided for in the Coal Industry Act 1990 I expect the corporation at least to break even this financial year and to remain profitable thereafter. We also expect the corporation within the next two years to have made sufficient progress towards self-financing that it can start to reduce the oustanding borrowings remaining after the financial reconstruction. We have therefore told the European Commission that apart from restructuring and social costs it is not our intention to make any financial support available to the corporation in respect of 1990–91

  703
  and subsequent years under the terms of the current state aids decision. Once the full implications of the coal contracts have been digested I hope to announce firm and precise targets for the corporation.

  The MMC report pointed to the major changes in its business environment facing British Coal, and expressed the view (recommendation 3) that the corporation's board will need to ensure
  "that the systems and organisation are conducive to systematic and rigorous review of future prospects in British Coal's business environment."
  In his statement last year my predecessor emphasised the importance of a fully articulated and co-ordinated business planning system, and indicated that he expected the corporation to set out in detail its response to this. British Coal has separately told me that in its view the business planning system continues to be
  "well constructed to meet the requirements of the main planks of British Coal's strategy since the strike"
  (MMC report, paragraph 4.75). It appreciates that business planning in the future, given the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, will need to allow for the prediction of and timely response to significant changes in the commercial environment. It considers that flexible response amid uncertainty will need to go together with setting a firm overall direction towards a state of sustained viability. In particular, greater emphasis will be placed on the cash-generating ability of individual collieries. In future, where a colliery has no hope of achieving a positive cash flow it cannot be regarded as having much chance of surviving. I welcome this general approach, and in particular I would expect the level of sales projected beyond the transitional period ahead to be based on those supply sources able to show a positive cash contribution, not on those units which represent a cash drain on the corporation's finances.

  I have indicated that its future business strategy needs to be based on a thorough and co-ordinated examination of all aspects of the corporation's operations. It will be particularly important to ensure that specific loss-making sales of coal are identified and addressed, and that new commitments, particularly in the industrial and domestic sectors, are not taken on, unless realisations generate an adequate return. There also needs to be a firm co-ordination of the marketing and financial strategies.

  I have asked British Coal to provide a further response to this MMC recommendation in 12 months' time setting out the detailed steps that have been taken to strengthen its business planning.

  The MMC report highlighted the need for British Coal to adapt its organisation and systems in the light of developments and changes in its business environment (recommendation 5). British Coal's response reports the progress made in adapting its management organisation since the MMC report was first published. I therefore welcome the changes the corporation has made to the way its production management is organised. This is important not only in terms of cost savings, but in respect of matching British Coal's management structure to the market and business environment in which it has to operate. The corporation is right to draw attention to this in its response, and also to the changes it has made to its industrial relations and staff departments. This should help it to develop a more integrated approach in the key area of employee relations. The changes in the marketing department, too, are welcome evidence that British Coal is
  704
  making real and significant efforts to adapt its organisational and management structure to meet the challenge of a new market place. In this context, I welcome the corporation's recent decision to end the arrangement whereby each colliery is attributed with a share of the average proceeds nationally. From the beginning of 1990–91 regional groupings of supplying units will be credited with the average proceeds available to that region for coal of the qualities produced, thereby aiding the identification of the profitability of coal flows on a local basis.

  Apart from the specific response on business planning which I have asked for next year, British Coal will, under the normal arrangements for the follow-up to MMC recommendations arising from section 11 inquiries, be reporting to me in two years' time on its implementation of the MMC's recommendations. I shall inform the House when these further responses have been made.

  Energy and Carbon Dioxide Modelling
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy during the period from December 1989 to May 1990, how many staff in his Department were employed on energy and carbon dioxide modelling; and what assessment he has made as to whether his Department has sufficient internal capability to review the energy and carbon dioxide projections as outlined in energy paper 58 and to carry out approximate additional modelling exercises.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Contributions to work on energy and carbon dioxide modelling are made by several staff involving different fields of expertise, as appropriate. The Department's model is kept under general review. I am confident that the Department has the necessary expertise to do this and carry out any review of energy paper No. 58, as required.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sitting Times
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what estimates he has made of the costs of keeping the House open for sittings which go beyond 10 pm.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The costs of keeping the House open for sittings which go beyond 10 pm are diverse and many are not at present separately identified. I shall be giving consideration to methods for improving this position.

  Members' Remuneration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what changes are proposed to the way in which hon. Members are remunerated.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No changes are proposed to the way in which hon. Members are remunerated.

HEALTH

  Maternity Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has funded to assess the safety or the comparative costs of delivery in(a) district

  705
  general hospitals, (b) general practitioner maternity units and (c) at home; and if he will give the conclusions of each project funded.

  Mr. Dorrell
  "Place of delivery: a review" by Rona Campbell and Alison Macfarlane;British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (1986) volume 93 pages 675–83 a copy of which is available in the Library, is the most recent refereed publication arising from work funded by the Department. Alison Macfarlane is employed by the national perinatal epidemiology unit at Oxford which has conducted considerable work in this field with departmental funding since 1978.

  Accident Prevention
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants he intends to make available for the purpose of funding regional accident prevention groups and home and water safety councils, in the light of the report by the National Association of Health Authorities on "Action on Accidents: The Unique Role of the Health Service."

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department does not make grants for this purpose. Regional and district health authorities may decide, in taking account of local priorities, whether to make funding available to such groups.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to regional health authorities and district health authorities on accident prevention in the areas of home and water safety.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No specific advice has been given to health authorities on these issues.

  NHS staff at 30 September of each year

  Whole-time equivalent1

  South East Thames Region

  Medway district health authority

  Year

  Medical and dental2

  Nursing and midwifery3

  Medical and dental4

  Nursing and midwifery3 5

  19796

  3,300

  29,040

  n/a

  1,050

  1982

  3,360

  31,570

  120

  1,510

  1988

  3,730

  30,480

  140

  1,640

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  Notes:

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalent.

  2Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  3Includes agency staff.

  4Excludes all Consultants and Senior Registrars whose contracts are held by the Regional Health Authority. There will therefore be more doctors and dentists actually working in Medway DHA than are accounted for.

  5Due to reorganisation of District Health Authorities in 1982, district data for 1979 are not directly comparable to later years.

  6Not adjusted for reduction in nurses' working hours during 1980–81 (from 40 to 37.5 hours per week).

  Elderly People
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities which have partnership arrangements with the private sector for the care of the elderly and give in each case the company concerned.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. However, we welcome cost-effective collaboration between the national health service and the independent sector to make services available to all patients including elderly people and expect health authorities to consider appropriate opportunities as part of their regular reviews of performance.
  706
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics he requires district and regional health authorities to collect on home and water safety accidents.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health does not require health authorities to collect specific statistics in these areas.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce his proposals to clarify the new role of the community health councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State laid regulations on 6 July which amended the Community Health Councils Regulations 1985. The Department will be issuing revised guidance on these and related matters to the health service shortly.

  Medway Health District
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the figures for the number of doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives in the South East Thames region, and separately, in the Medway health district, 1979–80, 1982–83 and 1988–89.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The available information is shown in the table. Our census data are collected every year at 30 September. Therefore, figures in the table relate to staff in post at 30 September for the years 1979, 1982 and 1988.

  Health Care
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to achieve a reduction in inequalities in access to health care between regions and socio-economic groups.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 26 June at column 165.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve family planning services.
  707
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 19 June at column 508 and on 27 June at columns 249–50.

  Census
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to the statement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health in the debate on the draft census order on 19 December 1989 in the Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., whether a decision has been made on the request from the Economic and Social Research Council for output from the 1991 census in the form of samples of anonymous records for people and households.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under the authority provided by section 4(2) of the Census Act 1920, the Registrars-General for England and Wales and for Scotland have agreed, in principle, to the Economic and Social Research Council's request to prepare two separate samples of anonymous records from the 1991 census at the cost of the Council. One sample, for people, would consist of extracts from census data about two individuals in every hundred; and the other, for households, would consist of extracts from census data about one household in every hundred. The Registrars-General are confident that these samples would not disclose any information about identifiable individuals.

  The samples of anonymous records would complement the information available from the traditional type of tabulated census statistics. They would provide a flexible sample database for statistical research and would also help users assess which extra tables it would be cost effective to commission from the full census database. They would make a significant contribution towards ensuring that the country gains as much benefit as possible from the taxpayers' investment in the census.

  Confidentiality would be safeguarded both by not identifying any geographic areas smaller than a large local authority district and by omitting data categories which apply to small groups in the population. Furthermore, there would be some blurring of data so that not all records would represent actual individuals exactly. In addition, the possibility is being investigated of setting up a body of independent experts to advise Ministers on the confidentiality arrangements for the samples of anonymised records.

  The Registrars-General's decision follows consultation with the Office of the Data Protection Registrar, which has confirmed that it has no objection in principle to the issue of samples of anonymous records. The Registrars-General are continuing discussions with the Economic and Social Research Council on the detailed arrangements.

  Novopen
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to add Novopen pens and needles used by diabetics to the drug tariff list of prescribable appliances.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no present plans to make this equipment available on general practitioner prescription although the matter will be kept under review.708
  We believe that the existing range of disposable and reusable syringe equipment fully meets the needs of most insulin dependent diabetics.

  Wakefield Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total interest-bearing capital debt for Wakefield health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Wakefield health authority does not have an interest-bearing debt. In common with all district health authorities, it is required to value its capital assets in order to introduce capital charging from April 1991–92. All directly managed units will include capital charges—equivalent to interest and depreciation—in their revenue costs, and consequently in the prices charged to purchasers of services.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued by his Department to local authorities with regard to the format, content and consistency of their community care plans.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Draft guidance on community care plans was issued by the Department on 15 June. The guidance will be finalised in the light of responses to formal consultation.

  Care Villages
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy with regard to the establishment of large-scale care villages accommodating on a residential basis several hundred or more individuals who all require some form of social or nursing care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no reason in principle why large-scale care villages should not meet the registration requirements of the Registered Homes Act 1984. The decision in individual cases, however, is a matter for the local registration authority.

  Cornwall Air Ambulance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his meeting with hon. Members representing constituencies in Cornwall, if he will now make a statement on the funding of the Cornwall air ambulance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Discussions with Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority are continuing. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Youth Treatment Service
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has reached a decision on the future management of the youth treatment service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The findings of a social services inspectorate inspection of the two youth treatment centres managed by the Department of Health were published in May 1989. Copies of the report had been placed in the Library.
  709
  A key recommendation was that, while a national service of the kind provided by the YTCs was still needed, their management was not most appropriately placed within the Department, but should be brought more within the framework of mainstream child care. The findings were made available to providers and users of the service and other interests.

  Having carefully considered the views expressed on the findings and visited both centres, we concluded that there remains a need for a nationally based YTC service to deal with a small but very difficult group of disturbed young people who cannot be catered for elsewhere in the child care system.

  Direct management by the Department is not the most effective way to run the service.

  We are assessing the benefits which might be obtained from establishing a "next steps" agency to run this service. A feasibility study on this will be completed by the end of this year.

  The study will need to consider how best to involve those in the voluntary and local authority sectors with experience of developments in mainstream child care. The views of local authority, voluntary bodies, YTC staff and other interests will inform the study.

  Number of units of blood issued to non-NHS hospitals and clinics by blood transfusion centres in England and Wales—1982 to 1988

  Blood transfusion center

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Northern

  0

  2,236

  1,739

  1,722

  1,678

  1,360

  879

  Yorkshire

  0

  0

  950

  1,589

  2,443

  6,432

  2,116

  Trent

  331

  102

  2

  0

  20

  546

  2,662

  East Anglia

  2,078

  1,864

  1,690

  1,758

  1,655

  1,441

  3,502

  North West Thames

  14,580

  19,439

  22,413

  21,512

  21,955

  24,127

  24,202

  North East Thames

  6

  0

  0

  0

  127

  2,620

  3,357

  South East and South West Thames

  9,141

  10,174

  10,433

  13,885

  17,857

  16,350

  19,134

  Wessex

  0

  257

  1,342

  2,333

  2,523

  5,879

  4,301

  Oxford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4,359

  0

  South western

  1,259

  1,241

  4,338

  4,032

  2,315

  3,658

  3,008

  West-Midlands

  2,628

  3,512

  3,601

  4,431

  10,154

  9,086

  5,095

  Mersey1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,362

  1,438

  North western

  1,414

  1,961

  2,724

  3,065

  3,313

  5,302

  6,058

  Wales2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,839

  209

  England and Wales

  31,437

  40,786

  49,232

  54,327

  64,040

  84,361

  75,961

  1 Covers Mersey regional health authority and North Wales.

  2 Covers South and Mid Wales.

  Figures may be unreliable as the data submitted by many of the transfusion centres are incomplete.

  For the years 1979 to 1981 the following figures relate to the number of donors reporting at blood transfusion centres. From 1982 onwards the figures are those of actual donations received.

  Transfusion centre

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Northern

  139,797

  145,938

  144,880

  134,392

  133,039

  131,947

  133,544

  128,321

  120,878

  122,267

  Yorkshire

  147,875

  157,078

  155,653

  143,626

  152,874

  154,905

  149,128

  146,119

  134,463

  133,088

  Trent

  146,554

  153,587

  163,187

  162,229

  166,362

  174,425

  169,680

  174,976

  186,605

  197,746

  East Anglia

  90,954

  93,350

  93,406

  84,629

  86,275

  87,650

  86,393

  90,012

  91,536

  92,195

  North West Thames

  184,273

  187,042

  197,504

  180,644

  183,033

  189,246

  190,048

  199,731

  193,372

  192,004

  North East Thames

  169,066

  169,238

  170,966

  145,472

  145,241

  136,647

  138,875

  136,722

  135,439

  142,716

  South East and South West Thames

  268,240

  277,720

  285,737

  256,589

  301,029

  302,097

  282,738

  277,696

  268,585

  282,188

  Wessex

  89,376

  95,584

  96,902

  90,030

  93,889

  95,719

  94,088

  93,990

  95,931

  95,484

  Oxford

  123,565

  125,859

  128,299

  115,997

  118,822

  119,689

  111,129

  104,609

  104,537

  107,805

  South western

  182,513

  186,274

  186,808

  172,462

  171,678

  170,859

  168,169

  175,570

  180,057

  182,008

  West Midlands

  194,823

  199,051

  201,019

  195,332

  193,048

  200,128

  199,389

  199,290

  199,320

  216,485

  Mersey

  123,059

  129,680

  123,433

  115,478

  119,604

  117,589

  121,642

  123,190

  112,659

  108,387

  North western

  190,029

  202,523

  209,886

  179,351

  179,844

  181,638

  180,133

  181,587

  176,843

  176,328

  Wales

  94,360

  97,112

  98,051

  82,763

  91,102

  96,087

  94,104

  96,637

  94,091

  92,109

  England and Wales

  2,144,484

  2,220,036

  2,255,731

  2,058,994

  2,135,840

  2,158,626

  2,119,060

  2,128,450

  2,034,316

  2,140,810

  710
  We want the resources deployed in the YTCs to be better used to provide a higher quality and more cost-effective service. This might be achieved by unifying the service at its current level of 70 available places on the Birmingham site. Conclusions will be made public by the end of the year.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give for each region the units of blood supplied to private hospitals for each year since 1979;

  (2) how many units were handled by the blood transfusion service in each year since 1979 by regional transfusion service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The available information is given in the tables. Data giving units of blood supplied to private hospitals were not collected prior to 1982. Figures essentially for years before 1987, are likely to be incomplete because regional transfusion centres were not always informed of issues from hospital blood banks.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has reached conclusions on the future location of the railway inspectorate.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have now completed my consultations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. It has been agreed that an agency agreement should be made with the commission for the discharge of my railway safety functions and for the transfer of the railway inspectorate to the Health and Safety Executive, where its identity would be maintained. These arrangements will come into effect in the autumn.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what practical steps he has introduced to encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative to cars in urban areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  Both car use and cycling are matters of personal choice. Cycling remains one of the least safe modes of transport, so our main role must be to help make it safer. People will then feel freer to cycle and will be more prepared to allow their children to do so.

  My Department continues to promote safer cycling through the publication of technical advice and guidance based on our research and application studies. We have announced recently changes in the criteria for transport supplementary grant under which local highway authorities will be able to bid for grants for local safety schemes, which can include cycling provision. This is in addition to the cycle elements of major highway and traffic management schemes which will still be eligible for grant.

  Car Journeys
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact on traffic speeds in London and other urban areas if the number of car journeys were to decrease by 10 per cent.

  Mr. Atkins
  Traffic speeds in urban areas are influenced by a number of factors such as road and junction capacity, parked vehicles, signal timings, roadworks, time of day and weather conditions. Other things being equal, a reduction of 10 per cent. in car traffic might lead to an increase in peak-hour speeds of between 5 and 20 per cent.

  Northolt Airport
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 347, he will estimate the implications of increased use of Northolt airport for aircraft noise in the area of the airport and increased road congestion to, from and around the airport; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will meet a deputation of local residents and the hon. Member for Ealing, North to discuss the future of Northolt airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no proposals to increase the use of Northolt by civil aircraft, so estimates of possible 712
  effects would be speculative. A civil enclave is a separate issue. I am, of course, always willing to meet my hon. Friend.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the annual expenditure of his Department on public local inquiries in each of the last 10 years, indicating the date, the cost and the duration of each inquiry.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1989, the last full year for which information is available, 30 inquiries into trunk road schemes were held. Details available are as follows:

  Scheme

  Date

  Duration (days)

  A41 Chester improvement

  17 January

  2

  A595 Egremont bypass

  6 February

  3

  A12 Capel St. Mary

  14 February

  1

  A47 Norwich southern bypass

  21 February

  4

  A3 Milford bypass

  21 March

  9

  A5 Telford — Shrewsbury bypass

  4 April

  5

  A523 Macclesfield relief road

  11 April

  2

  A259 Guestling Thorn diversion

  18 April

  4

  A49 Weaverham diversion

  26 April

  5

  A422 Alcester

  2 May

  1

  A6 Burton Latimer bypass

  6 June

  1

  A259 Dymchurch

  13 June

  2

  A66 Bowes bypass — County boundary

  20 June

  2

  A6 Improvement Derby

  20 June

  1

  A65 Gargrave bypass

  4 July

  14

  A339 Basinstoke northern bypass

  4 July

  1

  A38 Alrewas — Barton

  14 July

  4

  A40 Gipsey Corner

  18 July

  17

  A590 Dalton-in-Furness bypass

  9 September

  5

  A59 Mellor Brook bypass

  26 September

  4

  A516 Etwall bypass

  23 October

  3

  A47 East Dereham

  31 October

  2

  A1 Gatenby Lane Leeming

  7 November

  10

  A568 Widnes eastern bypass

  8 November

  4

  M5 Warnden — Strensham

  21 November

  7

  A12 Hackney Wick — M11

  21 November

  29

  A31 Stoney Cross junction

  21 November

  10

  A1 Tempsford

  28 November

  8

  A41/A421 Bicester bypass

  28 November

  3

  A27 Crossbush bypass

  12 December

  3

  Accurate costs to the Department of these inquiries, including consultants' fees and costs, are not identified separately from total scheme preparation cost. Costs of the elements such as inspectors' costs, which can be identified, and details of previous years' inquiries could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  River Thames (Accident Procedure)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the emergency accident procedure known as POLACAP was immediately put into effect on the night of 20 August 1989 after the collision of the Bowbelle and the Marchioness on the River Thames.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The conduct of emergency procedures following the accident was examined in the investigation carried out by the marine accident investigation branch, and will be covered in the chief inspector's report when it is published.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the emergency exercises carried out under the Port of London authority combined accident procedure in recent years.
  713
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The emergency exercises carried out under the Port of London authority combined accident procedure in recent years were:June 1986—PLAFIRE
  October 1987—PLAFIRE
  May 1988—NEPTUNE

  Marine Craft
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Government inspectors there have been, in each of the last 10 years, inspecting(a) pleasure craft and (b) non-pleasure craft for seaworthiness.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of Department of Transport surveyors in marine offices available to carry out such inspections in each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  Date

  Number

  1 April 1981

  168

  1 April 1982

  165

  1 April 1983

  171

  1 April 1984

  172

  1 April 1985

  157

  1 April 1986

  146

  1 April 1987

  138

  1 April 1988

  127

  1 April 1989

  122

  1 April 1990

  122

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) pleasure craft and (b) non-pleasure craft using the River Thames have had their seaworthy licences withdrawn in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Some 135 passenger vessels operating on the River Thames are required to be periodically surveyed and certificated by the Department of Transport to ensure compliance with relevant safety provisions. Any serious deficiencies detected during random inspections must be corrected before the vessel is allowed to operate. In the past 12 months four vessels have had their certificates temporarily invalidated.

  Larger non-passenger vessels are also subject to periodic survey and certification as well as random inspections. It is normal practice to detain a vessel found to have serious deficiencies until they are corrected rather than withdraw certificates. In the past 12 months four vessels were detained.

  Detailed information for earlier years is not readily available.

  Airline Regulations
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the international regulations that govern the actions of police on a national airline or in national airspace.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Tokyo convention of 14 September 1963 sets out the powers of the commander of an aircraft to protect the safety of the aircraft and its passengers and to maintain order on board, whilst the aircraft is in flight. It is a matter for the commander, and the law of the aircraft's state of registry, to regulate the use of the police for this purpose.

  Investment
  Sir William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, year by year from 1974 to the present, with estimates for the next five years, the total investment by central Government in roads and London Underground in the Greater London area, and roads and British Rail countrywide.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to provide all the figures requested. No planning figures have been agreed for the period after 1992–93 and allocations for investment in roads in London are made only one year ahead. It would be possible to identify the total investment by central Government in roads in Greater London before 1982–83 only at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  Investment in

  1Roads in London

  2 London Underground

  3 National roads in England

  4 British Rail

  1974–75

  n.a.

  36

  286

  124

  1975–76

  n.a.

  43

  403

  171

  1976–77

  n.a.

  50

  393

  200

  1977–78

  n.a.

  44

  313

  214

  1978–79

  n.a.

  47

  330

  245

  1979–80

  n.a.

  65

  408

  300

  1980–81

  n.a.

  78

  478

  337

  1981–82

  n.a.

  91

  568

  310

  1982–83

  30

  82

  684

  269

  1983–84

  21

  110

  651

  277

  1984–85

  20

  143

  726

  404

  1985–86

  54

  168

  754

  412

  1986–87

  85

  187

  794

  411

  1987–88

  88

  274

  908

  543

  1988–89

  62

  264

  935

  590

  1989–90

  118

  371

  1,296

  715

  Plans

  1990–91

  131

  546

  1,758

  1,052

  1991–92

  n.a.

  711

  1,818

  1,258

  1992–93

  n.a.

  812

  1,920

  1,421

  n.a.= not available.

  1 Central Government expenditure on new construction and the improvement of motorways and trunk roads in Greater London. Includes costs of works, land and design supervision but excludes maintenance expenditure.

  2 Funds for investment in London Underground Limited are allocated by London Transport (LT). Prior to 1984–85, the Greater London Council were responsible for funding LT. Figures up to and including 1983 are for calendar years. Expenditure on Jubilee Extension and Dockland Light Railway is included.

  3 Gross capital spend by central Government on national roads in England only.

  4 Covers Great Britain. Includes investment in BR Engineering Ltd., BR Maintenance Ltd., Freightliner, Road Transport Organisation and BR Property Board but excludes expenditure on continuously welded rail which is now classified as maintenance. Figures up to and including 1983 are for calendar years. The figure for 1984–85 covers a 15-month period; the 12-month equivalent was £323 million.

  Merchant Ships
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the increase in United Kingdom merchant shipping tonnage for 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There was no increase.

  Unroadworthy Vehicles
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths and serious injuries each year can be attributed to the use of unroadworthy vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  The police complete a standard accident report form called STATS19 for each personal injury accident that occurs on public roads. The information requested is not recorded on the STATS19 accident report form and is therefore not available.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of (i) deaths, (ii) serious injuries and (iii) slight injuries relating to passengers on(a) stage carriage services and (b) other bus and coach services which occurred in the last three years for which figures are available, expressed in terms of number per million passenger miles.

  Mr. Atkins
  The police complete a standard accident report form called STATS19 for each personal injury accident that occurs on public roads. The information requested—subdividing buses and coaches into stage carriage services and others—is not recorded on the STATS19 accident report form and is, therefore, not available.

  Casualty rates for all public service vehicles, whether or not in stage operation, are given in table 26 in "Road Accidents Great Britain", a copy of which is in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has sent to the letters about Kincora which he has recently received from Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Cope
  The letters will be replied to shortly.

  Investment
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on inward investment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Northern Ireland has achieved its best-ever year for inward investment since the Industrial Development Board was formed in 1982. A total of 14 projects were secured promoting almost 2,000 new jobs.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of inward investment in the Londonderry area and the jobs created.

  Mr. Needham
  Of the 14 new inward investment projects secured by the Industrial Development Board in 1989–90, three have chosen to locate in Londonderry, promoting 620 new jobs.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current levels of private sector investment in Belfast.
  716
  Mr. Needham
  I am pleased to report that private investment in Belfast has increased dramatically in recent years. In the city centre alone, major projects completed in the past five years, under way or programmed total £573 million. In addition, during the past five years the Industrial Development Board has backed industrial projects with a total planned investment of £177 million.

  Government
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the better government of the Province.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government would consider any proposals likely to prove stable and durable which would command widespread support and provide an appropriate role for both sides of the community.

  Local Government
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to introduce local government structures and responsibilities in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Local government structures and responsibilities already exist in Northern Ireland. The Government would give serious consideration to any workable proposals for more local involvement in the government of Northern Ireland, if they seemed likely to command widespread acceptance. However, in their talks with us, the Northern Ireland parties have indicated their support for the establishment of a form of locally accountable administration for Northern Ireland as a whole.

  Legislation (Amendment)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to extend to Northern Ireland legislation the same provisions in respect of amendment as exist for Great Britain and United Kingdom legislation.

  Mr. Brooke
  If the right hon. Gentleman has any proposals, he knows that I should be happy to discuss them with him.

  UK-Irish Relations
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he expects to discuss United Kingdom-Irish relations at his next meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  At my next meeting under the Anglo-Irish Agreement with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, I expect to discuss the range of issues which normally arises at such meetings, just as I did on 17 July.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in Northern Ireland.
  717
  Mr. Needham
  At March 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, there were an estimated 524,840 employees in employment. This is the highest figure for March since 1980.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  At 14 June 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 95,055 unemployed claimants in the Province, representing 13.6 per cent. of the work force. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen for 17 consecutive months and is at its lowest level for over eight years.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans for the development of the blood transfusion service.

  Mr. Needham
  Final approval has now been given to a new £7.7 million blood transfusion centre on the Belfast city hospital site. Construction of the new centre, which will be purpose built and will provide the most modern and up-to-date facilities, is expected to start early in 1992 and should be completed within two years.

  Multiple-handicap Young People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision is being made in Northern Ireland for the education of children and young people with visual and audio multiple handicap.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At the pre-school stage, support from the education sector can take the form of assistance to parents at home by teachers from special schools or from the peripatetic teaching service, or by attendance of the child at a nursery school or unit. Toy and book libraries are also available.

  Provision for children of compulsory school age is made at primary or secondary schools or in special units attached to such schools, or in special schools. In addition, a support service based in the Jordanstown school advises schools in the field of visual impairment and this is supplemented by the board's peripatetic service which provides a support and counselling service for children with hearing difficulties.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to amend the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the discussions to find an agreement for transcending the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  718
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the trilateral talks to find an agreement to transcend the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the talks he is holding with various political parties in Northern Ireland and the Eire Government.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay).

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet the Foreign Secretary of Ireland to discuss the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of Ireland to discuss the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I expect to meet the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs at the next meeting of the intergovernmental conference which is likely to take place within the next few weeks. We are likely to discuss the normal range of issues falling under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Security
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member and the right hon. Member to the answer which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).

  General Practitioners' lists
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Government are considering to give patients the right of appeal when removed from general practitioners' lists.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Integrated Education
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the development of integrated education.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the coming into effect last February of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, a number of schools have approached the Department of Education for advice about integrated status.

  The Department of Education has received proposals for the establishment of two new grant-maintained integrated schools and three existing independent integrated schools are also seeking that status. In addition, seven existing grant-aided schools have begun the procedures to achieve either grant-maintained or controlled integrated status.

  Devolution
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding the devolution of powers to the Province from Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been engaged in discussions since January with the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. These discussions have, in part, considered how progress might be made towards a transfer of powers from Westminster to locally elected representatives. I have also received, from time to time, representations from various organisations and individual members of the public.

  "Making Belfast Work"
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress being made under his Department's "Making Belfast Work" initiative; and what resources have so far been committed to it.

  Mr. Needham
  The "Making Belfast Work" initiative was launched in July 1988 to reinforce, through specifically targeted programmes, the efforts being made to address the economic, educational, social and environmental problems in the most disadvantaged areas of Belfast. The initiative is delivered under a strategy published in January 1989, which is designed to address problems of unemployment, lack of skills, low educational achievement, poor health and a bad environment.

  More than 100 separate projects—large and small—were operational during 1989–90; of these, more than 80 are being continued or expanded in the current financial year in addition to 40 new projects which have been introduced. There are encouraging signs of progress; for example in 1989–90 LEDU, the Local Enterprise Development Unit—Northern Ireland's small business development agency—promoted 1,100 jobs in the "Making Belfast Work" areas, a trebling of its performance prior to the initiative; almost 3,000 people were placed in jobs or training by eight local job clubs and new job markets in the Falls and Shankill areas; the Whiterock further education centre had around 2,000 people enrolled on 80 different courses; almost 1,000 people undertook open learning training; and there were significant improvements in immunisation uptake rates, particularly in north and west Belfast. Particularly encouraging is the fact that during 1989–90 unemployment fell in virtually every ward in the initiative area, and the recently announced Springvale project is an exciting opportunity for a major economic regeneration initiative in the heart of north and west Belfast.

  A total of £92.5 million has been provided for the initiative for the period 1988–89 to 1992–93, of which £10 million was spent in 1988–89, £15 million in 1989–90 and for which £22.5 million is available in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. This is in addition to the extensive resources already allocated to Departments' mainstream programmes in the "Making Belfast Work" areas.

  Maintaining and accelerating the progress achieved to date requires a comprehensive and sustained effort involving the Government, the private sector and the local community.

  Kilroot Phase II
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further progress has been made towards a final decision on the future of Kilroot phase II.

  Mr. Needham
  Work is continuing on the comparison between Kilroot phase II and interconnection with Scotland. I hope to be able to announce my conclusions within the next few months.

  Conservation
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on conservation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since replying to the hon. Gentleman on 1 March 1990, at columns 307–8 with a detailed statement on conservation of the environment in Northern Ireland, there have been some further developments.

  Two new areas of special scientific interest, Moninea bog and Fairy Water bogs, have been declared bringing the number of ASSIs to 26. A further 73 historic buildings have been listed bringing the total to 7,685.

  The Department of the Environment's planning service has been considering a report by Professor John Hendry of Queen's university who has proposed that the Department should consider designating a further 28 conservation areas in addition to the 26 already designated and the eight proposed in the Belfast urban plan. Two of the 36 proposed conservation areas—Ballycastle and the cathedral area in Belfast—were designated in June.

  On 9 July 1990 the Department of Agriculture issued its document "Countryside Management" which outlines its strategy on conservation. I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman. We look forward to receiving the report from the Select Committee on the Environment and to the first report for the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside.

  The size of the directorate in the Department of the Environment is to be doubled.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish his considered reply to the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 26 June at columns 154–55. We intend awaiting comments on the report (Cm. 1107) from any interested persons or organisations prior to coming to any conclusions.

  Cross-border Security
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Cope
  Measures to improve security co-operation are regularly discussed at Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference meetings, most recently on 17 July. In
  721
  addition, regular meetings take place at all levels between members of the RUC and the Garda Siochana. Progress has been made, but further improvement is possible and the Government are committed to securing it.

  County Towns
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the regeneration of the county towns of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) on 1 February 1990 at column 337. Since then the International Fund for Ireland—IFI—has made available up to £3 million this year for a third urban development programme and has announced a new programe focused on smaller towns—those with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Both these programmes are administered by the Department of the Environment's planning service on behalf of the IFI.

  The Department of the Environment has consultants working on regeneration strategies in Downpatrick and the Craigavon area and regeneration partnership arrangements with district councils in Armagh and Carrickfergus.

  Anglo-Irish Conference
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference will be held.

  Mr. Brooke
  The next meeting is likely to be held within the next few weeks.

  Community Relations
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Community Relations Council to discuss improved links between Catholic and Protestant communities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Northern Ireland Community Relations Council was established in January 1990. The council has already established a wide range of contacts with groups working to promote reconciliation, greater cross-community contact and awareness and understanding of cultural diversity in Northern Ireland. The council has also launched a number of funding programmes designed to support the work of these groups. I have not yet had the opportunity to meet the council, but I hope to do so later in the year.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools are taking part in the cross-community contact scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the introduction of the cross-community contact scheme in October 1987, more than 400 schools—about one third of all schools in Northern Ireland—have become involved.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last discussed the case of those found guilty of the Birmingham pub bombings with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and is not within the ambit of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but the matter was referred to during a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 30 November 1989.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what level the youth training programme allowance would need to be increased to bring it to the same value as on its introduction, measured by(a) the rise in prices, and (b) the rise in average earnings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The weekly training allowance was first paid to young people in the youth opportunities programme (YOP) in April 1978 and was £19.50. The equivalent value of the youth training programme allowance if adjusted for changes in the retail prices index would be £49.50 and if adjusted for changes in the index of average earnings it would be £63.48.

  The youth training programme (YTP) especially since the introduction from 1 April 1990 of the new arrangements for delivery and funding, incorporates substantially higher quality training than YOP. It is, therefore, misleading to compare the values of the YOP and YTP training allowances, which reflect the fact that trainees are still learning.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what value-for-money and cost-effectiveness evaluations the Royal Ulster Constabulary performs on its own services.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Chief Constable's strategy statement 1990 in which he sets out the RUC's principal objectives for the current year. The RUC has developed and continues to develop a range of methods of judging the extent to which those objectives are being achieved.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the incidence of heart disease in Northern Ireland in 1990, 1989, 1988 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Mortality rates for the four most recent years for which figures are available are given in the following table. Morbidity incidence figures are not available.

  Age standardised death rates from ischaemic heart disease per 100,000 population aged 40–69 years

  Year

  Male

  Female

  1986

  557

  169

  1987

  497

  155

  1988

  512

  175

  1989

  461

  155

  723
  It is encouraging to note that deaths from heart disease are on a definite downward trend having fallen by around 25 per cent. over the last 10 years. The Government's "Change of Heart" coronary prevention programme, launched in October 1986, aims to ensure that the reduction in mortality continues over the next decade.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were accidentally killed on the roads in Northern Ireland last year; and what was the average number for the previous five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  One hundred and eighty-one people were killed on the roads in Northern Ireland in 1989. The average during the previous five years was 199. In 1986, 236 died.

  A programme was launched on 31 October to achieve the following targets:
  to reduce by one third within 12 months commencing 1 November the average annual fatality rate of 210 over the last three years; and
  to reduce by one third serious road casualties—killed and seriously injured—by the end of the century.

  The preliminary total of deaths from 1 November 1989 to 30 June 1990 shows a 13 per cent. decrease over the same period last year. This statistic may change.

  Reduced levels of drink driving are likely to be contributing to reduced levels of death.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by how much the number of road deaths has fallen since the launch of the road casualty reduction campaign.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The fall has been 18 per cent. Since the campaign was launched on 1 November 1989, road deaths have fallen to 114 compared with 139 for the same period last year. The number is provisional.

  I am grateful that the media in Northern Ireland have been treating road deaths as events that generally have avoidable causes. It is particularly noticeable that the main categories—adults as passengers, pedestrians and drivers—have fallen from 117 to 84, a drop of 28 per cent.

  School Governors
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration is being given to offering recompense to members of new boards of governors in the form of attendance allowance in respect of their increase of responsibility and work load under local management of schools.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no plans to change present arrangements.

  Education Achievement
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will initiate an inquiry into the levels of achievement for Northern Ireland schoolchildren in A-level and general certificate of secondary education results relative to comparable children in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The qualifications of Northern Ireland school leavers compare favourably with those in England and Wales; comparison with Scotland is not appropriate 724
  because of different examination arrangements. The most recent comparable statistics show 26 per cent. of Northern Ireland leavers with one or more A-levels compared to 18.7 per cent. in England and 17.9 per cent. in Wales. The figures also show that some 16.4 per cent. of Northern Ireland school leavers obtained no recognised qualifications compared to 9.6 per cent. in England and 17.5 per cent. in Wales. However, there has been an encouraging reduction in the number of unqualified leavers in Northern Ireland in recent years and the Government believe that the education reforms will accelerate this trend.

  NHS Drugs
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the value of national health service drugs administered in Northern Ireland(a) in total and (b) in hospitals in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The total expenditure on drugs in Northern Ireland for the latest financial year available, 1988–89, was £78.21 million, of which £9.96 million was hospital expenditure.

  Dog Fighting
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the incidence of organised dog fighting in Northern Ireland; and whether any prosecutions have been brought for this activity in the last four years.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: I am advised by the Chief Constable that information held centrally does not distinguish dog fighting from other offences of cruelty to animals.

  Terrorism
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each of the present council areas in Northern Ireland the number of deaths from terrorist action since these council areas came into existence until the latest available date, or as much of such information as is available to him.

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

  Courts and Legal Services
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline his proposed course of action following the publication of the Green Paper on the courts and legal services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The future framework for legal services in Northern Ireland is presently being considered in consultation with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. I expect that a policy paper for Northern Ireland will be published in the autumn.

ENVIRONMENT

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the responsibilities of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in respect of discharge of radioactive waste to the public sewers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regulates the disposal of all radioactive waste, including discharges to the public sewerage system, by means of authorisations issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (RSA 60). These authorisations impose strict conditions and activity limits, set at levels which ensure proper protection from such disposals for members of the public, sewerage workers and the environment. In all cases, proper and detailed records must be maintained by disposers. These records and the premises concerned are subject to scrutiny by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspectors under powers contained in section 12 of RSA 60, to ensure compliance with the terms of certificates of authorisation issued.

  Landfill
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra resources he will make available to ensure full monitoring and necessary remedial work to all landfill sites where there is a risk of leachate and ground water pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the licensing provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 waste disposal authorities already have responsibilities, in consultation with water authorities, now the National Rivers Authority, to ensure that no water pollution is likely to arise from the disposal of waste to land. The costs of meeting any monitoring and remedial works have to be borne within the budgets for operating licensed sites and for the enforcement of statutory responsibilities. No extra resources would appear to be necessary.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation in line with the proposals of the European Community draft directive on landfill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  A draft directive is still in preparation by the Commission, with the aid of expert working groups on which the United Kingdom is represented, but is unlikely to be available until the end of the year for further consideration and negotiation. It is, therefore, too early to say what legislative implications it might have. However, the Commission appears to be basing its proposals upon systems of site licensing to high operational standards, therefore meeting the objectives of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those statutory functions currently carried out by the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  The statutory functions of the Nature Conservancy Council were set out in section 1, together with schedule 1, of the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973.
  726
  Since 1973, the following Acts have conferred additional functions on the council: Import of Live Fish (Scotland) Act 1978, Highways Act 1980, Animal Health Act 1981, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Inheritance Tax Act 1984, Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, Agriculture Act 1986, Channel Tunnel Act 1987, Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988, Electricity Act 1989, and the Water Act 1989.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are currently employed by the Nature Conservancy Council on(a) permanent contracts and (b) temporary contracts.

  Mr. Trippier
  On 1 July this year, the Nature Conservancy Council employed 766 full-time staff and 87 part-time staff on permanent contracts, and 449 full-time and 42 part-time staff on temporary contracts.

  Methane
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that all waste tips are monitored to identify those which are at risk from methane release; what resources he will make available for this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  In 1988–89 Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, together with waste disposal authorities, undertook surveys of landfill sites to determine those with the potential to generate landfill gas. It is intended that the results of these surveys will be published in due course.

  A capital allocation of £33 million has been earmarked during 1990–91 for local authorities undertaking landfill gas remedial work on closed sites. Similar resources will be made available in future years.

  Gas controls should be installed in current landfill sites within normal operational budgets in line with the recommendations of waste management paper 27 and no additional resources need to be made available.

  Crassula
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he has taken concerning the sale of crassula from aquarium shops;

  (2) what advice he has received from the Nature Conservancy Council concerning the sale of crassula as a pond and aquarium oxygenator.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have received no information or advice from the Nature Conservancy Council on the use of crassula in aquaria and I have taken no action regarding its sale in aquarium shops.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes),Official Report, 23 May, columns 187–88, what steps he takes to ensure environmental factors are given full weight in respect of the Antarctic environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department's officials have regular discussions on the protection of the Antarctic environment with officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which has overall responsibility for the Government's policy on the Antarctic.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those public supplies identified by the drinking water inspectorate where levels of tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene exceed the World Health Organisation standards for these substances; and where undertakings under section 20 of the Water Act 1989 have been given.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his earlier question,Official Report, 5 July 1990, Vol. 175, column 646.

  Undertakings have been given by water companies as follows under section 20 of the Water Act 1989 to take steps to secure or facilitate compliance with the standards for tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene:

  Water supply zones

  Date by which steps to be completed

  Lee Valley Water Company

  Luton Park Town

  31 March 1990

  Luton Stopsley

  Luton Chaul End

  Mid Southern Water Company

  Maidenhead No. 1

  31 December 1990

  Maidenhead No. 2

  South Staffordshire Water Company

  Sutton Boreholes: City

  Brownhills

  Central

  Three phases:

  December 1990

  December 1992

  Deember 1994

  Barr Beacon: Aldridge

  Pheasey

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish his Department's report into radioactive contamination of London drinking water.

  Mr. Trippier
  The research work commissioned by my Department on iodine 125 and being carried out by St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college will not be completed until March 1991. A first draft report was received this month and is currently being reviewed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The report will be published in due course and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Inspectorate of Pollution
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the director of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to discuss staff recruitment.

  Mr. Trippier
  I meet the director of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regularly and discuss all aspects of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's business including staffing and recruitment. There are currently 215 staff in post in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution compared with 148 when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was established in April 1987 and 193 a year ago. The staff complement has recently been increased further to 250. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has 35 vacancies in the increased complement, of which 26 are for 728
  professional staff. Eight of the professional vacancies are reserved for successful candidates from the current recruitment competition. We are continuing to recruit actively to fill the remaining posts.

  Dogs
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to introduce new controls on dogs.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Our consultation paper "Action on Dogs", issued in August 1989, put forward two main proposals: transferring the duty for dealing with strays from the police to local authorities and clarifying enforcement of the existing collar and identification tag requirement. We recently issued, together with the Home Office and the Welsh and Scottish Offices, a consultation paper entitled "The Control of Dogs". Following discussions with the joint advisory committee on pets in society about how the package of measures outlined in "Action on Dogs" could be strengthened, the new paper considers two ideas in particular: first, that there should be a specific offence of allowing a dog persistently to stray, and, secondly, that there should be a fixed penalty scheme for the enforcement of the collar and tag provisions. We intend to legislate at a convenient opportunity.

  Empty Properties
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has developed any new proposals for the utilisation of suitable Government-owned empty properties for homeless families.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government's policy is to sell surplus properties wherever possible. Where disposal is not practicable, Government Departments are encouraged to let their empty properties to local authorities and housing associations to assist them in relieving local housing pressures. The Department of Transport has recently contracted out the management of the majority of its domestic dwellings to housing associations, and the Ministry of Defence has so far leased 650 homes to local authorities.

  Leisure Centres
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications he has received from boroughs with loss-making leisure centres, built with European Community grants, to be released from restrictive conditions so they may be privatised.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not aware of any formal applications from local authorities to be released from the conditions placed on European regional development fund grants by the European Commission which relate to the disposal of publicly owned leisure centres to the private sector.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the practicality of reducing nitrate content in water through the creation of new wetlands; and if he will make a statement.
  729
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am aware that studies carried out in other countries have shown encouraging results. This is an interesting proposal and I will keep developments under review.

  Groundwater Contamination
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake a full national survey to identify aquifers most at risk from groundwater contamination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As part of its statutory duties to protect water resources and control pollution the National Rivers Authority is already undertaking national surveys of groundwater contamination and establishing a uniform national network of monitoring sites. It is also developing a national groundwater protection policy which will include a classification of aquifers according to vulnerability from pollution.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the financial benefits of compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have no comprehensive information about the financial results of compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services. However, findings published by the Audit Commission and other bodies point clearly to the possibility of achieving substantial savings in the cost of providing services, which may be as high as 20 per cent.

  Housebuilding Costs
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the average price, excluding the value of land, of building(a) a two-storey house with three bedrooms, reception room, bathroom, toilet, kitchen, with external dimensions 21 ft by 22 ft, or the nearest equivalent for which he has information and (b) a terraced house block comprising five such houses.

  Mr. Chope
  Estimates, based on tenders accepted by local authorities, indicate that in England the current average cost of building a two-storey three-bedroomed house with external dimensions of 21 ft by 22 ft, excluding the value of land but including external works and professional fees, is approximately £43,000. The cost of a terrace of five such houses is approximately £215,000.

  National Rivers Authority
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the recreation duties of the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Section 8 of the Water Act 1989 imposes upon the National Rivers Authority a duty to make available for recreation the waters and associated lands to which it has rights. This section also places upon the National Rivers Authority a duty to promote the use of other inland and coastal waters and land associated with such waters for recreational purposes.

  In carrying out these duties I understand that the National Rivers Authority seeks advice from the statutory regional rivers advisory committee.

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that authorities adequately carry out their duties with regard to signposting footpaths and bridleways.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department recently carried out a survey among authorities to establish the extent of signposting of footpaths and bridleways; the results have been made available to highway authorities through the County Surveyors Society and the rights of way review committee. It is for the authorities to take action as appropriate in the light of these findings, within the context of the formulation of their rights of way strategies.

  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what lengths of footpaths and bridleways now exist in England and Wales.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Precise figures are not available: however, a recent sample survey by the Countryside Commission suggests the total length of rights of way in England and Wales to be about 140,000 miles. Of this, footpaths make up 106,000 miles and bridleways 28,000 miles.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the introduction of a mechanism to protect access to Forestry Commission land which is to be disposed of.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 18 June,Official Report, column 450, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Water Gathering Grounds (Public Access)
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the National Rivers Authority has any duty to protect public access to water gathering grounds owned by water undertakers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Water Act 1989 imposes on the water undertakers a duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving public freedom of access to areas of natural beauty and to sites of architectural or historic interest on their lands. This duty also applies to the National Rivers Authority in respect of its own lands. The NRA is also under a duty generally to promote recreational use of inland and coastal waters and associated land.

  The code of practice issued by the Government under section 10 of the Water Act gives practical guidance to the National Rivers Authority and the water undertakers on the performance of their environmental and recreational duties.

  Rights of Way
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is a requirement of the countryside premium scheme that rights of way must be kept clear and in good order; and if he will include in the
  731
  countryside premium scheme a management guidelines requirement that rights of way must be kept clear at all times.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Landowners and the local highway authorities are statutorily required to keep all rights of way clear and in good order. The countryside premium scheme, operating in seven eastern counties of England, enhances public access to the countryside and does not override any statutory provisions. It is implict in the general rules and conditions of the scheme that farmers should fulfil their statutory obligations in respect of existing rights of way and, under the guidelines for the meadowland option, there is a specific requirement for landowners to keep open and available for use at all times any footpaths, bridleways or byways on land entered into the scheme. The Countryside Commission keeps the guidelines for the scheme under review.

  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that rights of way across countryside premium scheme land are in good order; and what steps have been taken where rights of way are found not to be in good order.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The duty to protect and assert the public's right of passage and to prevent the stopping up or obstruction of highways is placed with the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980. I am not aware of any problems with rights of way on countryside premium land. However, if such problems came to the attention of the Countryside Commission project officers who are responsible for administering the scheme, they would ask the landowner to take remedial action. Landowners failing to meet their obligations may prejudice payments under the scheme. They may also be prosecuted in certain circumstances by the highway authority or any other person.

  Leaseholds
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many leaseholders have enfranchised their lease under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not held centrally.

  Car Pollution
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of car-induced air pollution in urban areas and the estimated impact if the number of car journeys were(a) reduced and (b) increased by 10 per cent.

  Mr. Trippier
  Cars are responsible for about 81 per cent. of national emissions of carbon monoxide, 23 per cent. of national emissions of oxides of nitrogen and 28 per cent. of national emissions of volatile organic hydrocarbons. Estimates for central London suggest that petrol-driven vehicles contributed 46 per cent. to annual mean concentrations of oxides of nitrogen. However, emissions depend not only on the number of car journeys, but on road speed and traffic congestion. It is not presently possible to make precise estimates of the impact of a change in driving habits on urban air quality.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to introduce legislation to prevent the dumping of sewage sludge at sea which is contaminated by toxic pollutants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. Control of dumping of waste at sea is already exercised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in accordance with powers available in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling of 28 June,Official Report, columns 312–13, if he will state the relevant sections of the primary or secondary legislation under which exemption from the community charge is given to those aged 18 years who have left secondary education and in respect of whom child benefit is continuing to be paid.

  Mr. Portillo
  Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, as amended by paragraph 10 of schedule 5 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to introduce legislation to require nutrient removal pollution controls at sewage works discharging to the sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Sufficient powers to require nutrient removal at sewage treatment works where necessary are already available under the Water Act 1989. It is for the National Rivers Authority to decide when to impose such conditions.

  Atmospheric Conditions (Monitoring)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, columns 502–3, if he will give the county or region in Scotland of each monitoring site; and if he will give grid references for those rain acidity monitoring sites whose grid references are not contained in the second report of the United Kingdom review group on acid rain 1987.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information for the current acid rain monitoring network is as follows:

  Site Name

  Map Reference

  Region

  Eskdalemuir

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Strathvaich Dam

  NH 347 750

  Highland

  Glen Dye

  NO 642 864

  Grampian

  Allt a'Mharcaidh

  NH 876 052

  Highland

  Whiteadder

  Lothian

  Loch Dee

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Achanarras

  ND 151 550

  Highland

  Balquhidder

  NN 521 206

  Central

  Yarner Wood

  SX 786 789

  High Muffles

  SE 776 939

  Preston Montford

  SJ 423 143

  733

  Site Name

  Map Reference

  Region

  Flatford Mill

  TM 077 333

  Bannisdale

  NY 515 043

  Cow Green

  NY 817 298

  Thorganby

  SE 676 428

  Beddgelert

  SH 556 518

  Wardlow Hay Cop

  SK 177 739

  Tycanol Wood

  SN 093 364

  Llyn Brianne

  SN 822 507

  Woburn

  SP 964 361

  Compton

  SU 512 804

  Driby

  TF 386 744

  Hillsborough Forest

  J 243 577

  Pumlumon

  SN 823 854

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will bring forward funds already committed in order to develop sheltered housing schemes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Small Shops
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the average change and (b) the aggregate change in rate bills for small shops in 1990–91 as against 1989–90.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  While there is considerable variation in the charges for individual shops, the average rate bill for small shops in England has fallen as a result of the introduction of the uniform business rate and of the non-domestic revaluation: including the effect of the transitional arrangements, there has been a 2 per cent. reduction in real terms compared with 1989–90. The aggregate rate bill of such shops has fallen by £10 million in real terms. This is partly because the uniform business rate has kept the total increase in business rates well below the increase in local authority spending this year. For this purpose small shops are those with rateable values of £500 or more and less than £15,000 in London and £10,000 elsewhere—the definition used in the business rate transitional arrangements.

  Empty Council Properties
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enable local councils to bring the council properties now lying empty to habitable standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: The Government have made clear to local authorities the need to make efficient use of their housing stock, including giving a high priority to using their capital resources to bring empty properties back into use. The new housing revenue account subsidy encourages to reduce the number of their empty properties. Inefficient authorities reduce their entitlement to HRA subsidy.

  In addition to their normal housing investment programme allocations local authorities in London and the south-east will this year have an additional £42 million to repair and rehabilitate their empty housing as part of our initiative to help tackle homelessness. This should create up to 2,500 new lettings.

  Industrial Pollution Inspectorate (Report)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the industrial pollution inspectorate will produce its annual report.

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

  A report covering the work of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate for Scotland for the period January 1987 to March 1988 is presently being printed and will be published within the next few weeks. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what tonnage of polychlorinated biphenyls was imported into Newport by sea in the past three years.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 6 July 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information sought is available only since the introduction of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988.

  Records of shipments under the regulations show that 479 tonnes of PCB contaminated materials were imported via Newport for disposal in the year 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Message From The Queen Mother
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern):: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that, pursuant to the Order of the House, I together with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Aberdare, the Baroness HyltonFoster, the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, waited upon Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother today with the Message of this House of 17th July and that Her Majesty made the following reply:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commmons:
"I thank you from my heart for your kind messages which I am delighted to receive. I am, indeed, most touched that you should have come here to Clarence House, in the midst of your many commitments, to wish me well on my birthday.
"To me it seems just the other day that in this same room I accepted your greetings on a previous anniversary, and I am delighted that 10 years on there should be here today four members of that delegation.
"One of the consolations of growing older is to find pleasure and interest in the younger generation, whose qualities became very evident to me during the 25 years that I was Chancellor of the University of London.
"My belief in the fundamental good sense, wisdom and integrity of those in whose hands lie the destinies of our country is as firm now as it was in the long years of the Second World War.
"Throughout my life I have seen changes and developments, new patterns of behaviour and fresh outlooks. Much has been transformed but the loyalty and devotion of our people to the Crown remains constant.
"It is my prayer that, with God's help, our country will go forward from strength to strength in the years ahead.
"And now, once again, may I tell you how touched I am by your messages of good wishes at this time."

Package Travel: EC Directive
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will amplify their answer of 28th June (HL Deb. col. 1721) with particular reference to the Commission threeyear plan and the EC Directive on package travel.
The Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the answer given on 28th June listed those items dealt with at the 13th June Consumer Council. As indicated, the Commission presented its threeyear plan to the council. However, there was no prior discussion of the plan by member states, nor was the plan debated at the 13th June council, although EC Ministers were able to offer comments on it. The council acted by unanimity to adopt the text of the package travel directive on which EC Ministers reached a common position in December last year with two minor amendments.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that repeats the answer I received some time ago. As the Government share in the disappointment of the consumer organisations that this threeyear plan lacks specific proposals, will the Government press for action to promote consumer integration in Community policies? As regards the package travel directive, can the Minister say how swiftly the Government hope to be able to implement that so that holidaymakers may benefit at the earliest opportunity?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that I can give the noble Baroness some comfort as regards the first part of her question. The Government have lost no opportunity to press for progress in this area of concern. They will continue to raise the subject of consumer integration whenever appropriate. Concerning the package travel directive, we shall be taking very seriously the date laid down in the directive of 31st December 1992.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House to what extent, in the Government's view, the members of ABTA (the Association of British Travel Agents) are aware of the opportunities available to them to expand their businesses as a result of the package travel directive? We understand that they are being a little slow in this matter. What measures are the Government proposing to ensure that they are so aware?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is up to ABTA and its members to decide whether or not they want to expand in the European Community.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is very pleasant to see him back at the Dispatch Box answering questions on this particular matter? Will he let me have any dates for future meetings of the Council of Ministers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure what to say in reply to the noble Baroness's comments. With

1005
reference to the dates of future meetings of the Consumer Affairs Council, there is a provisional date for 22nd October of this year.

Securities: Tax Allowances
3.7 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their intention to disallow for capital gains tax purposes the indexation allowances accumulated up to March 1990 attaching to units or shares in trusts specialising in giltedged and other fixed interest securities, in view of the retrospective implications of their proposal.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no. I should make it clear that the proposed change is not retrospective. It applies only to disposals on or after Budget day.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that predictably disappointing reply. I take this opportunity to declare a very minor interest in the matter. Is he aware that the Government's proposals are indeed retrospective? Indexation is added to the original purchase price on a monthbymonth basis. Therefore, under these proposals, an investor could lose up to 96 months of accumulated indexation at a stroke. Moreover, the proposals are doubly retrospective in that they apply from the morning or early afternoon of 20th March, before the Chancellor made his speech. Is the Minister aware that when, in 1986, giltedged stocks were exempted from capital gains tax, 365 days' notice was given for investors to arrange matters to their maximum advantage by realising losses and deferring the realisation of gains? In this instance, is the Minister further aware that not even 365 seconds' notice was given?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, capital gains tax changes, whether increasing or reducing liabilities, normally apply to disposals on or after the date on which they come into force.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will elaborate a little. Will he inform the House of the rationale behind the original decision?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes indeed. The purpose of the change is simply to close a loophole through which capital gains tax losses could be artificially created. I am sure that that is a measure that your Lordships will welcome.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that someone who invested £10,000 in a perfectly respectable giltedged unit trust in March 1982, and who sold the units for £15,000 in June of this year, would have made a loss in real terms of £890? Nevertheless, that person may have to pay up to £2,000 in capital gains tax. In other words, tax of £2,000 would be payable on a loss. Does the noble Earl agree that, according to Mr. Nigel Lawson's own words, that goes totally against what he had been trying to achieve since he came to Parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will agree that if somebody had bought an investment in a unit trust that dealt in the way that specifically relates to this Question, and invested £1 million at par and sold that investment for £1 million a year later, due to indexation that investor would have a theoretical loss of £100,000 to set off against other capital gains tax. That is why we are closing the loophole.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, am I correct in my understanding that, as a result of the new arrangements for separate assessment of husband and wife, those of us who are fortunate enough and rich enough to have wives who as well as ourselves have large investments on which they make capital gains will have double the capital gains tax relief that previously existed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a separate question, but the answer is yes.

Scotland: Unemployment Levels
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
In which months during the last three years unemployment in Scotland has fallen.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, the seasonally adjusted estimate of unemployment in Scotland has fallen in every month since April 1987. Scottish unemployment has fallen by more than 40 per cent. since the beginning of 1987.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord very much for that Answer, may I congratulate him on the fact that as a Minister he has been able to help in these matters and has been so successful? Thank you.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are always glad to know that unemployment is falling. The Minister will be aware, however, that we have a long way to go. Unemployment in two Glasgow constituencies is as high as 19.9 per cent. and 18.3 per cent., whereas in certain parts of the South East it is 1.1 per cent. and is as low as 1 per cent. in midSussex. The Scottish figures do not include the fact that 770 steel jobs will be going soon. I wonder whether the Minister has any idea of what the knockon effect of that will be. More important still is the fact that in the past year the Scottish Office budget allocated to training was underspent because there were not enough young people to take it up. Can the noble Lord say what the Government intend to do to increase the confidence of young people in the training programme?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord asked about confidence. I turn to the Fraser of Allander report of 4th July which said:
"Scotland's economy continues to show clear signs of outperforming that of the United Kingdom as a whole".
From the point of view of confidence among young people, that must be some good news. I accept that

1007
some areas in Scotland show high levels of unemployment but I am equally aware that in areas such as Cumnock and Sanquhar the decrease in the rate of unemployment between 1987 and 1990, which was a very bad blackspot, has been 10.6 per cent.
The noble Lord mentioned Lanarkshire and the problems arising from the proposed closure of the hot strip mill. We are aware of those problems. Unemployment in the Lanarkshire traveltowork area could rise by up to 0.7 per cent. as a result of the closure. The noble Lord should also be aware that Lanarkshire has shown a remarkable recovery. In the past three years the number of unemployed in Lanarkshire has fallen by 46 per cent. and the unemployment rate dropped from 18.3 per cent. to 10.2 per cent., which is indeed still too high. I hope the noble Lord will realise that the moves by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office to encourage further investment in Lanarkshire are ongoing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if interest rates remain at their present unacceptably high level, how long will it be before unemployment in Scotland and indeed elsewhere in the United Kingdom starts going up?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord touches a chord with me when he refers to interest rates. He realises of course that the major underlying problem is inflation. He may look back on May 1979 with rose tinted specs because at that time unemployment in Scotland was 140,000, which was a very low figure. But we were also experiencing inflation rising to 20 per cent. shortly afterwards—
Noble Lords: Twentytwo per cent.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: All right, 22 per cent. But let us not forget that between March 1975 and March 1976 the inflation rate was more than 20 per cent. That was a very long time for industry to have to cope with the situation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we always enjoy it when the noble Lord quotes all kinds of exciting figures from the mid1970s. Perhaps we can return to the Question. Will the noble Lord confirm that unemployment in the United Kingdom as a whole is now on an upward trend as demonstrated by today's figures? Is he saying that unemployment in Scotland is still on a downward trend, thus bucking the United Kingdom trend? At what point does he think that unemployment in Scotland will start to turn up?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord may be a forecaster of great repute but I am not. All I can do is to take today's figures. The June figures for unemployment in Scotland still show a downward trend.

Timeshare: OFT Report
3.15 p.m.
Lord ClintonDavis Lord ClintonDavis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading concerning timeshares.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Director General of Fair Trading's report on timeshare was published on 3rd July. It makes a number of legislative proposals. The Department of Trade and Industry is considering his recommendations carefully.
Lord ClintonDavis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. Do the Government recognise that speed is of the essence here because abuses identified by Sir Gordon Borrie in his excellent report will continue unless and until legislation is invoked? Does he recognise that Sir Gordon has very strongly urged that legislation is required to deal with unethical practices which prejudice consumers and ethical companies alike and that selfregulation simply will not suffice?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that the DTI will make a comprehensive response as soon as possible; and after that we shall be able to see exactly what course of action to take.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether other countries in the European Community have similar problems to those identified by the director general; and if so, how do they deal with them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot answer for what happens in other countries of the European Community.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Lord indicate the extent to which the industry is itself trying to remedy the defects identified in the report by the Director General of Fair Trading and the extent to which he feels that this might go some way to solving the problems?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware that the Timeshare Developers Association was criticised somewhat within the report. We have had a period of selfregulation for some time. Now the department must study the recommendations of the report to see what should be done in the future.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean when he says that he cannot answer for other countries in the European Community? He and his ministerial colleagues are constantly trotting out comparisons when they happen to think they are favourable to the Government, whether yesterday or the day before about the number of directives implemented by different countries or about inflation rates or growth rates when the figures were favourable long ago.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all I can say is that I am not responsible for the decisions taken by national

1009
governments of other European Community countries There is a European Commission dimension to this and I understand that the European Commission is also looking into the problem.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord discard his position of total ignorance about what happens in other member states of the Community? Will he kindly find out what happens, report back to the House and see what lessons the Government should be learning?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. The Office of Fair Trading has just made a comprehensive report about the whole industry. We have now received that report; and in the light of considerations we shall then be taking further action.
Lord ClintonDavis: My Lords, will the Minister give some further and better particulars as to what he means by urgent consideration? Can we in fact expect legislative proposals in the next Parliament to deal with this matter, bearing in mind, as I said before, that the abuses continue? Secondly, is he aware that the European Commission has introduced, or is about to introduce, proposals dealing with this very matter? Does he consider it appropriate for the European Commission to do that? I hope he will say yes.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the matter is still under discussion as it comes under the threeyear future plan. As regards the timing of the department's response, that will be given as soon as possible.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1990, the Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy Powers) Order 1990 and the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1990 will be taken.

Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) (No. 2) Bill
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 in order to provide for compensation during a transitional period for tenants of licensed premises to whom Part II of that Act applies by virtue of Section 1(1) and Section 1(2) of the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Act 1990. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 24th July
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 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Henley on Tuesday 24th July.—(Lord Be!stead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): 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.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES In the Chair.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 163A:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause: (&Restriction on changes in control over Channel 3 licence holder
.—(1) Where
(a) any change in the persons having control over—
(i) a body to which a Channel 3 licence has been awarded or transferred in accordance with this Part of this Act, or
(ii) an associated programme provider, takes place within the relevant period, and
(b) that change takes place without having been previously approved for the purposes of this section by the Commission,
then (subject to subsection (4)) the Commission may, if the licence has not yet been granted, refuse to grant it to the body referred to in paragraph (a) (i) above or, if it has already been granted, serve on that body a notice revoking it.
(2)In subsection (1)—
"associated programme provider", in relation to such a body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) (i) of that subsection, means any body which is connected with that body and appears to the Commission to be, or to be likely to be, involved to any extent in the provision of programmes for inclusion in the licensed service; and
"the relevant period", in relation to a Channel 3 licence, means the period beginning with the date of the award of the licence and ending on the first anniversary of the date of its coming into force;
and paragraph 3 in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection as if a body to which a Channel 3 licence has been awarded but not yet granted were the holder of such a licence.
(3) The Commission shall refuse to approve for the purposes of this section such a change as is mentioned in subsection (1) (a)—
(a) if it appears to them that the change would be prejudicial to the provision under the licence, by the body referred to in subsection (1) (a)(i), of a service which accords with the proposals submitted under section 15(3) (b) by that body (or, as the case may be, by the body to which the licence was originally awarded), or

1011
(b) it appears to them that the change would be prejudicial to the provision of Channel 3 as such a nationwide system of services as is mentioned in section 14(1);
and the Commission may refuse so to approve any such change if, in any circumstances not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, they consider it appropriate to do so.
(4) The Commission shall not under subsection (1) refuse to grant a licence to, or serve a notice on, any body unless they have given it a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.
(5) Where under subsection (1) the Commission refuse to grant a licence to any body, section 17 shall have effect as if that body had not made an application for the licence; and, where under that subsection they serve on any body a notice revokin3 its licence, subsections (5) to (7) of section 37 shall apply in relation to that notice and the revocation of that licence as they apply in relation to a notice served, and the revocation of a licence, under subsection (3) of that section.").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, when moving Amendment No. 163A, I speak also to the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 293A, together with Amendments Nos. 163B to 163F, 169B, 341A and 341B which are tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
The Government noted the many strong arguments which were put forward by this Chamber and Members of another place for a moratorium on takeovers, in order to provide for a period of stability at the commencement of the new licence period. The proposed new clauses therefore provide for a moratorium on takeovers of Channel 3 and 5 and national radio licensees from the date of the granting of a licence to the end of the first broadcasting year of the licensee.
The three other related government amendments are consequential. In the case of Channel 3, this will mean effectively a twoyear moratorium. The period of one year from the date of broadcasting is the time period which Mr. Russell, the chairman designate of the Independent Television Commission has asked for. Thereafter, we believe that it would be right to allow takeovers of licensees. The prospect of takeovers is an important market discipline. But that does not mean that there will then be a free for all. Takeovers and transfers of licences will still be subject to the oversight of the ITC. It will have to be satisfied that the original programme promises and licence conditions can still be met by the body which takes over the licensee, and that the new owners are people to whom it would have been prepared to grant a licence in the first place. I very much hope that this development will essentially meet the concerns expressed by many noble Lords on Second Reading.
With regard to the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, these would deny the Independent Television Commission any discretion in agreeing to a change of ownership during the licence period, and would require them to revoke the licence in all circumstances where any such change occurred. I do not believe that that can be right. Moreover, I think that when the noble Baroness looks deeply into the matter she will also agree that that cannot be right. There may well be circumstances
1012
where it would be positively beneficial for a change of ownership to occur, and the ITC should have the scope to recognise that fact.
Amendment No. 163D would give the Independent Television Commission discretion to refuse changes of ownership after the moratorium period and through-out the whole of the licence period. I find it difficult to accept that amendment for the reasons which I have given. Takeovers are an important market discipline and after the initial moratorium period it would be inappropriate for a light touch regulatory body to he able to interfere with issues of ownership, other than to satisfy itself— and this is important—that the new owners would continue to stick to the licence conditions. Of course, as matters stand, it will still be able to do so. The other amendment would extend the moratorium period to two years after the commencement of broadcasting. That is unnecessary, as it is a longer period than Mr. Russell would consider to be appropriate.
Clause 5(3)(b) and (c) deal with changes in the control of a licensee. If the ITC is not wholly satisfied that new owners could continue to satisfy the licence conditions, it could revoke the licence. The prospect of that happening will almost certainly mean that no takeovers will occur until the company effecting the takeover has satisfied itself that the commission would approve. That situation is bound to take much of the heat out of predatory takeovers. But if the ITC is fully satisfied that the new owners could continue to fulfil all the licence conditions it should not have a power to block a takeover. The moratorium period is designed to give a period of stability at the beginning of the new licence period. But after that time, the licensees do not need to be unduly cosseted.
There was a great deal of concern expressed about the moratorium both by Members of this place and those in another place. For the reasons which I gave on Second Reading, we felt that it was right to have the disciplines of the market place. However, in view of the fact that so many Members of this and another place thought that there should be a moratorium, the Government have agreed that it should be introduced.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that a oneyear moratorium, which as I explained would, in essence, as regards Channel 3 programmes, mean a twoyear period of stability, is acceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 163A, Amendment No. 163B:
After Clause 20, Line 7, leave out from ("period") to end of line 9.
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may start by thanking the Minister for explaining the government amendment so clearly. I should also like to say that the fact that we have amendments regarding a moratorium before us today is a great triumph for Members of this Chamber on all sides. I say that because when the Bill left another place, although there had been a great many objections to the omission of such a provision from the legislation, nothing was done and it arrived in this place with no clauses referring to a moratorium. However, we now

1013
have these proposed new clauses and we are most grateful to the Minister. In my view, this provision makes very good sense.
We on this side of the Committee, together with the Social Democrats, had tabled an amendment on a moratorium before the Government put their proposal forward. However, in the circumstances, we thought that it would be preferable to table amendments to their amendment rather than to leave our original amendments on the Marshalled List.
The main difference and bone of contention which arises between the Government's amendment and those which we have tabled is the length of time for which the moratorium will last. The Government's proposed moratorium would last for 18 months or two years. It would extend from early 1992 to December 1993. In another place the Opposition argued for a moratorium of at least three years.
It is not just because Members of another place argued for a moratorium that we have put these amendments forward. The inclusion of such a provision in the Bill seems to us to be much more sensible. As we see the situation, there will be a year from the time when the licences are awarded. After that time, according to the professional opinion which I have sought from the industry, what we really need is a period of two years to enable the companies concerned to work out what they are doing and to plan the screening of programmes. A year is not long enough. The main difference between us is the length of time. I ask the Government to consider that point because if the Bill goes through we all want the companies to be successful and to put out good programmes within a sufficient period of time without having to look over their shoulders in case they are about to be taken over, which of course was the main reason for the proposed moratorium in the beginning. The government amendment does not give long enough. The idea of having two years' screening should be seriously considered by the Government.
The new clause is permissive, as the Minister said, because the ITC may refuse to grant or revoke a licence during the licence period. We believe that any changes of ownership during the relevant period should require the ITC automatically to revoke the licence. That would be achieved by changing "may" to "shall" in line 10. The ITC's power to refuse to approve a takeover is qualified by the fact that such a takeover must prejudice the service or the network. The moratorium is limited in its effect by the length of the relevant period, while the danger of takeovers continues beyond. We believe that the same takeover provisions should continue to apply after the relevant period, albeit with the retention of the ITC's more permissive power provided by the word "may" in line 10.
We turn now to the more permissive side of the amendment. Not to make the power mandatory in respect of takeovers in the first instance is wrong because it would put the ITC in a position, which I do not believe it wants, where it has to decide whether the takeover is correct, whether it should be allowed,
1014
whether it is too big or whether it is small enough not to be taken notice of. That is wrong when one wants as clear and decisive a situation as possible. By making the provision mandatory and not therefore putting the burden on the ITC, it will make the clause clearer and stronger.
Once on air, companies need a reasonable period in which to demonstrate what they can do. We must remember that the companies which will eventually gain the licences will not all be the same companies as now. Some of them may be, but some may be new and will not have had the opportunity or the experience to be able to get their feet quickly under the table.
The amendments deal not only with the period but also with the change. There is a letout in one of the amendments which gives the ITC a certain amount of flexibility. If it wishes to be more permissive, it is always open to it to discuss the matter with the OFT or one of the government departments. My impression is that the ITC would be happier if the matter were completely clear cut. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support Amendment No. 163A and the associated amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Like her, I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have moved an amendment proposing a moratorium. It has taken a long time and a great deal of argument in this place and another place to bring the Government to the view that it is a common sense modification of their free market ideology. However, better late than never. It is a sensible change.
I support the noble Baroness's proposition that one full year of broadcasting is too limited a period. With all the amendments that we are discussing, I try to do my best to apply the test of the interests of the viewers and the listeners. What has been true over the years about the commercial broadcasting system—it will be true about the new system—is that the period during which one reallocates commercial contracts and licences is immensely destabilising for the companies involved and therefore for the programmes that they produce. It is a period during which the viewers suffer from a degree of destabilisation. It is important in the interests of the viewers and the listeners that one should do one's best to produce as much stability as possible during a period of change. There is a degree of separation between the shareholders and a company's senior management and the creative people who produce the programmes. It is important to try to allow the people who are making the programmes, which are what interests the viewers and the listeners, to settle down and get on with the job so that when under the new arrangements the company is inevitably in the market place, the dust will have settled on the programme-making side and the programmes will be available. When the ITC has to make the judgment as to whether the company making the takeover bid is likely to be able to fulfil the licence conditions relating to the programmes a degree of continuity will be possible. The advantages of two years of transmission over one year are considerable.

1015
I do not know what the IBA's view is as to whether the provision should be "may" or "shall". I should have thought it would have been a help to the IBA and the ITC in what will be a difficult situation to have a clear and unequivocal statutory position which will enable them to say, without fear of having to face a judicial review of their decision, that Parliament has laid down a closed period for takeovers and that they have no alternative but to impose that closed period. For those reasons I strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I join my noble friends Lady Birk and Lord Thomson of Monifieth in their welcome of the Government's decision and commend them on providing a moratorium on takeovers. That is excellent. It shows that the Minister and his fellow Ministers Mr. David Mellor and the Home Secretary, Mr. David Waddington, have once again listened and taken account of the arguments advanced in this place, in another place and elsewhere. In their approach to major changes sought in the Bill, Ministers have not just said to themselves, "We have one concession to make. We do not much mind upon which, topic we make it; but we shall give something away". On the contrary, they have treated on their merits the arguments on the various proposals put forward. They have treated each case separately and have decided accordingly. So often governments of different complexions have decided to make one concession, irrespective of the merits of the arguments on a variety of amendments. I feel it right to pay tribute to the continuing constructive approach of Ministers to the Bill.
As has been said already by my noble friends, now that the Government have decided in favour of a moratorium in principle, we—and the Government too—wish to make that moratorium as effective as possible in order, in part, to achieve the Government's aims as effectively as possible. Hence, the only point on which we now need to concentrate, as has been made clear, is the length of the moratorium.
At Second Reading I pointed out that in the debates in another place a popular period among Members, not just from one side but from all sides, was at least three years. There seems to be general agreement that the moratorium should start so as to cover the period from the time when the franchises are awarded.
Perhaps we may concentrate on what the period should be after broadcasting has started. Also at Second Reading, I went on to argue that it should last for at least twoandahalf years from the time when broadcasting starts, with an an absolute but rather unsatisfactory minimum of oneandahalf years. My noble friend Lady Birk in her Amendment No. 163F has proposed two years. I hope that it will not embarrass her if I go a little further than that, but hers is an excellent proposal.
Two years—twoandahalf years is better—would allow time for the companies to establish themselves and for a proper assessment to be made of their programme performance. That is important. The bare 12 months which the Government propose would not
1016
be enough to enable that to be done. Here I take up one point which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has just made. He referred to the period mentioned by the chairman of the IBA, Mr. George Russell. I remind the Committee that Mr. Russell said that he would like at least one year. He clearly wanted—and has said so elsewhere—more than one year. No doubt that is for some of these reasons.
I remind the Committee that companies have been bringing their year ends into line at 31st December. Annual reports do not come out until some months later so it would be reasonable for the moratorium to go at least to the middle of the year. Thus the reports could appear and a thorough annual assessment could be made.
Again I remind the Committee that if the moratorium finishes on 1st January 1994, as is proposed under the Government's amendment, there would not even have been a complete winter schedule of ITV Channel 3 programmes. We would still only be a little way into the winter schedule and would not have seen a full year's service right through.
Presumably in specifying one year after the new franchises start broadcasting, the Government felt it would enable contractors to establish themselves and allow their programmes to be assessed. Neither of those aims would be achieved by the bare 12 months. I refer to the views of the IBA once more. It has given its view in the ITN context that the new contractors will not have established themselves until the end of 1994. That is after two full years, the period proposed in my noble friend's amendment.
I very much support what my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth said about the viewers' interests being paramount. It is surely in viewers' interests and would secure another government aim to achieve consistency in producing good quality programmes that there should be time to see not just how one but two years' programmes have gone. I submit that it is clearly desirable to compare the first year with the second, to see whether improvements have been made and the new contractors have established the start of a consistently good series of programmes. That is part of the case for allowing the time for a full assessment to be made after two years of broadcasting and to make that assessment for preference after about twoandahalf years of broadcasting. I very much hope that the Minister will at least say that he will have another look at the length of the moratorium. To do so would be both in the viewers' interests and in the interests of securing most effectively the Government's aims.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Perhaps I may intervene since I have been privileged to be a Member of the IBA for four or five years. In my view and my experience what Members opposite have said is absolutely correct. It does not seem possible to me for new franchise holders to put their potential on air or on television within such a short time. People can change their programmes according to the publicity they receive and for all kinds of reasons. Two years

1017
seems to be the minimum that should be given to the franchise holders either to improve their programmes or go further down the road they have chosen. However, they should be given the opportunity of two years in which to improve, if improvement is needed. I support the noble Baroness's amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lady Macleod is concerned that there should be a twoyear period during which there would be a moratorium. In practice, that is what there will be. The moratorium only begins to operate for a year once the broadcasting starts. The broadcasting will not start until about a year after the licence has been granted. So from the time when the licensee knows that he will have the licence, in effect he has a twoyear period, under the Government's amendment, during which he may not be taken over. That is quite a long time.
Mr. Russell is, after all, the chairman designate of the ITC. He indicated that a moratorium lasting until the end of 1993 would be sufficient. The main reason for the moratorium was the risk of disruption before the start of broadcasting or immediately thereafter. This is what the Government's amendment seeks to secure. A number of people have told me that the potential broadcaster, the potential licence holder, must make his bid. To do so he must go to a tremendous amount of trouble and expense in formulating his bid, with all the costs involved. Other predators will be sitting in the wings and as soon as he gets the licence along comes another predator who has had none of that trouble or expense and eats him up. "That's not fair", people say. The Government agree that that would be disturbing and disrupting.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said this at Second Reading. The argument went that if during the following months there was a potential takeover, the management of the new licensed company would spend its time trying to fight the takeovers as opposed to getting on with putting the licence into operation. This is the vulnerable period. So we decided that there should be a moratorium for that year. Thereafter, the licence holder would be able to display his ability by broadcasting. The moratorium would last for the whole year of broadcasting.
We believe that that is a pretty generous length of time. I know that some people would like longer. During the Second Reading debate some people suggested a moratorium of three years, others two, and some said that one year would do. We have provided a moratorium for one year which, in effect, comes out to two years. It is rather like horse trading. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, says "We have got one year, now what about two years or perhaps oneandahalf years?" One has to draw the line somewhere. If one takes the view that there is a certain market discipline in allowing takeovers, it is not unreasonable to say to these companies, "You have virtually two years of quietude when the takeover will not be allowed".
I feel that we should not seek to extend that. I now turn to the words "may" or "shall" which appear in Amendment No. 163C standing in the name of the
1018
noble Baroness. If we were to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may", it would mean that the ITC would have to revoke every licence should there be a change of ownership. There could be circumstances where a change of ownership could be beneficial—for example, where a licence holder was going bust. If another company sought to take over that licence, that could be a beneficial arrangement. However, under the amendment of the noble Baroness, that licence would have to be revoked and all the screens in that area would go blank.
It would be a pity to deny the ITC the right to allow a licence to continue in the hands of a new person. In the example to which I have referred it would be beneficial for a new licence holder to take over the licence of a company that was in financial straits. I hope that the Committee will agree that the word "may" is correct and that it will not impose strictures on the ITC. I hope that the Committee will appreciate that, while we understand the reasoning behind the speeches of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, on the whole we believe that the oneyear moratorium from the date of broadcasting is the correct solution.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for that reply and explanation. I shall deal with the words "shall" and "may" before I discuss the length of time of the moratorium. The Government's proposed new clause states in subsection (3):
"The Commission shall refuse to approve for the purposes of this section such a change as is mentioned in subsection (1) (a)".
In other words, certain mandatory duties and responsibilities will be placed on the commission.
I am afraid that I did not agree with the Minister's general explanation. Perhaps we were talking about two different things. I should like to take that matter away, think about it and perhaps return with it at a later stage. As regards the length of time, I believe there was a little misunderstanding over this at one point. The Minister said that two years had been decided upon and implied that we had been asking for that in any case. However, I think that later on he realised that that was not the case. What we are asking for is one year while the arrangements are being made, but two years of screening. That is the important point. My noble friend Lord Boston expressed that point well when he said that such a period would enable the ITC to take stock after a year's screening and be able to discuss the screening. However, one year altogether is far too short a period.
I take the point about horse trading. However, as I have pointed out, we tabled an amendment many weeks ago, long before the Government's amendment was tabled. At that stage my noble friend Lord Boston suggested a threeyear period. I would prefer that too, but finally in our amendment we were cautious and modest. I should like to see that modesty rewarded. We are talking about three years in total, but that period includes two years' screening.
The Government have come such a long way from the stage when they were saying no all the time in another place—we are grateful for that—but they are

1019
spoiling the ship for the sake of a ha'porth of tar, or one year. I hope that the Minister will consider taking this matter away for further consideration and coming back on Report with it. We would all be grateful to receive such an undertaking.
Earl Ferrers: I quite understand that the noble Baroness would be grateful if I gave that undertaking. She is enormously persuasive when she says that it is a pity to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. It is hardly a question of a ha'porth of tar. We are giving a oneyear moratorium from the time at which screening starts. However, the noble Baroness says in the most charming way that she would like a twoyear moratorium. A twoyear moratorium would mean in fact a threeyear moratorium—we are agreed on this —because there is also the period before screening commences. The noble Baroness is in fact saying that companies in the independent television business should have the privilege of a threeyear break from being subjected to market forces, and that if any company wishes to take those businesses over it should not be allowed to do so during that period. She believe s those companies should be isolated and insulated from such pressures.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, that is asking for a little too much. We have given a oneyear moratorium. We think that that is right. That concession represents a considerable change of heart on the Government side. The noble Baroness, and the noble Lords, Lord Boston and Lord Thomson, have been kind enough to recognise that. We have made a considerable change, and we think that is as much of a change as we can reasonably be expected to make. I hope the Committee will agree that to ask for a threeyear moratorium for the independent television companies, during which period they cannot be taken over, is going too far.
Lord Annan: I hope that the Minister will think again on the limit of two years—the one year, plus the waiting time. I do not know how much experience the Minister has of companies being taken over. I have no such experience, but two of my friends have recently undergone that experience. They tell me that when one is faced with a hostile takeover bid, one's entire energies are spent in repelling the invaders. One has to put oneself in the hands of one's public relations advisers who then mount a campaign to persuade the institutions and one's shareholders that one's company is doing a good job. One has no time whatever for forward planning or for running one's company.
That is why some of us feel that if this period could be extended to what will amount to a total of three years in all, companies would be given the chance to get going and to devote their energies to programming within the limits of satisfying their shareholders. We should not put such a weight upon companies in the early stages that they must convince shareholders—in this case we are probably talking about the institutions—
that they are maximising profits to the fullest extent, when the ITC is looking at them to see whether they are living up to the promises which they made when they won their franchises.
Earl Ferrers: I go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said. The people I know who have been subjected to takeovers have found it a most disagreeable business. The noble Lord is right to say that in such circumstances one directs one's energies to defending one's premises and one's organisation. That is why we have said that there should be a moratorium. It is obviously a matter of opinion how long the moratorium should last.
Clearly there comes a time when people have to defend their organisations and it is quite right that other companies should be allowed to take them over. However, to say that a twoyear period is not enough and that there should be a threeyear period, or perhaps even a fouryear one is, I think, going a little too far. One cannot insulate companies from the general marketplace for too long a period. I would suggest that two years is long enough.
Baroness Birk: I am disappointed but at this stage I do not think that we shall get any further along this road. Therefore I shall withdraw the amendment while reserving the right to come back at the next stage when I hope that there will have been some change of heart. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that we were speaking to her amendment; it was my amendment.
Baroness Birk: I was attempting to amend the government amendment. I think that I am right in saying that an amendment to an amendment is dealt with first.
Earl Ferrers: I stand in sackcloth and ashes. The noble Baroness is quite right; she was amending my amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 163C to 163F not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 163A agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clause 21 [The Channel Four Television Corporation]:
Lord BonhamCarter Lord BonhamCarter moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 22, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: The amendment addresses the power of the Government to veto appointments to the board of Channel 4 made by the ITC. It is an important matter and I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Minister to change his mind wholeheartedly on this occasion rather than halfheartedly as on the last occasion.
As I understand it the Government's argument for introducing the power to veto appointments made by its own appointed body, the ITC, to the board of Channel 4 is that the ITC has less direct oversight over the activities of Channel 4 than over those of the old IBA, and therefore the Government's role, as representing the public—if I follow Mr. David Mellor's argument in another place correctly—is necessary and more important than when the IBA carried out that function.
If that is the case the Government are saying that the powers with which they have endowed the ITC are insufficient for it to carry out one of its most important functions, which is to appoint the board of Channel 4. I would much prefer the Government to change the powers of the ITC rather than to bring the Government into the very arena of broadcasting by themselves making appointments to that body and therefore running the risk of being thought to be or actually politicising Channel 4.
The Government have undermined a basic principle which has governed broadcasting in this country for many years, namely that it should be the object of policy to introduce a buffer between government and politicians and the broadcasters and everyday broadcasting. That is an extremely important principle and one which has been followed in many other fields, such as the Arts Council, with very great success. It was a brilliant invention and one which we should hang on to at all costs.
In reality, the Government are saying that they do not trust the ITC to make those very important appointments, to appoint suitable people to those jobs. I ask myself what constitutes an unsuitable person for such jobs. They can only be either professionally unsuitable or politically unsuitable. The ITC will not appoint a lot of crooks to the board. It is very unlikely that the ITC will be so ignorant of the area in which it operates that it will appoint to those jobs people who are professionally inadequate. Therefore one is reduced to concluding that what the Government mean by an unsuitable person is a person who is politically unsuitable to the Government. It is precisely that which must be avoided because of the danger of politicising appointments these days by governments of all parties, not least this Government whose record in this matter has not been without blemish. The risk of governments using their patronage to put their own people in places of authority is something that we have to avoid and if we do not, it is at our peril.
The system under which this country has run such institutions in the past is one based on selfrestraint in which governments do not pack bodies like the BBC, the IBA or the ITC with people of their own political persuasion. There have been far too many signs over the last year that that selfrestraint has not been properly exercised. The introduction of this clause in this Bill, providing the Government with the capacity to veto appointments and the ability to remain as a threat to the board of Channel 4 in all its daily operations, is something which we should not allow to pass. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: In supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, I should like to clarify one point. Perhaps the Minister can help. I gained the impression recently from Michael Grade, head of Channel 4, that there has been a change in the arrangements—which is not yet in the Bill. I understand that the arrangement would be very much more distant: the Secretary of State would not make appointments, but Channel 4's choice would be made
1022
openly and the Secretary of State would only have the power to veto it. However, the matter would already be in the open and it would be a much less closed arrangement than at present appears in the Bill.
Is that true? If the Secretary of State is to have such a power does that mean that Channel 4 would be prevented from making public the name of its choice before the Secretary of State used his power of veto? I should like to know what change is to be made. I have the impression that there is to be a change. If there is to be a change I should like to know what it is and how it will be reflected in the Bill.
Lord Winstanley: Naturally I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I believe that having set up the machinery the Government should trust it to do the job. I do not believe the requirement is necessary.
I speak merely in order to ask a question which the Minister may be able to answer when he replies to the amendment. Hitherto there has always been an age limit. Under the existing statutes members of the boards of independent television companies have been obliged to retire at the age of 70. So also have members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. It appears that the age limit has now disappeared. If I am correct in saying that it has disappeared, can the Minister tell me why?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: At present Channel 4 is wholly owned by the IBA, which broadcasts its programmes, approves its schedules and decides its income. The Government appoint the members of the IBA. There have been no objections to those arrangements, even although they involve government responsibility for the appointment of the ultimate controllers of Channel 4.
In future Channel 4 will be owned by the corporation, which will be appointed by the ITC, with the Government retaining only a long stop power of veto to be used in the remotest of circumstances. The ITC will have the power to dismiss members of the corporation without government approval. We see these arrangements as involving a considerable withdrawal of government influence over Channel 4 and as giving Channel 4 a much larger degree of independence than it has hitherto enjoyed. Channel 4 will be a statutory body operating to a statutory programming remit. We therefore believe that the Government are justified in retaining some interest in the process of appointments to the corporation.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked about an age limit. There is currently no age limit on appointments to the IBA, nor will there be for the ITC. I should point out that Channel 4 itself, having been consulted about these matters, is quite content with the new what I might call lighter touch involved in the Government's proposals for Channel 4 so far as concerns the board.
I hope that I have explained this matter clearly enough to the noble Baroness. There is a change and we believe that it is a change for the better. I hope that this explanation will mean withdrawal of the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I listened carefully to the Msinister's explanation of this change but I am bound to say that I remain unconvinced by the arguments that he adduced. It is true that the Bill changes the status of Channel 4, which now becomes a separate Channel 4 corporation, where previously, nominally at least, it was a wholly owned subsidiary of the IBA.
But as the Minister will know, in practice the IBA dealt totally at arm's length with its relations with Channel 4 in regard to its regulatory responsibilities. There have been references in earlier debates in this Committe to criticisms of the degree to which the IBA carried out that regulatory responsibility for programme matters that came out of Channel 4. But in practice the IBA treated Channel 4 at arm's length, exactly as it treated all the other programme contractors.
In the past members of the board of Channel 4 were appointed by the board of the IBA without needing to seek the approval of the Government. I cannot understand why in these circumstances it is not perfectly possible and consistent to continue that arrangement. The Government appoint the members of the ITC as they appointed the members of the IBA; then the members of the ITC appoint the members of the Channel 4 corporation. That insulates the Government from what is an especially sensitive appointment. I should have thought that from the Government's point of view it was a healthy insulation which protected them from the kind of charge about which my noble friend Lord BonhamCarter was concerned.
Given the facts as I have sought to describe them, I do not believe that the change in the structure of Channel 4 is an adequate justification for a change in the method of appointment of the board of Channel 4.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not know that I can add very much to what I have said. I said that this is a long stop power. Channel 4 will be a statutory body operating to a statutory programming remit. As the noble Lord said, if there have been statutory requirements, as in the case of the ITC, the BBC, the BSC, the BCC and the fourth Welsh Channel, they all have boards appointed by the Government.
I thought that we had moved on a long way since 1978. I do not want to be churlish about this matter but the other day Sir Robin Day's memoirs brought the issue back to me. I noticed that the White Paper produced by the previous government spoke about plans to secure greater government control over the BBC's output by inserting a new layer of management appointed by the Home Office.
In this area we are trying to have a lighter touch but I do not think it unreasonable for the Government to retain a long stop power as contained in the Bill as it stands.
Lord BonhamCarter: I must confess that I found the Minister's answer completely unsatisfactory. He spoke about a long stop power which will only be used in the remotest possible circumstances. He did not tell us what the remotely possible circumstances would be.
1024
I put to him two possibilities: one, that the person was professionally unsuitable (which did not seem to me very possible because I thought it unlikely that the ITC would appoint a professional dunce to the board); the other, that he might be politically unsuitable (which seemed to be all too possible).
The Minister said that they were trying to introduce a lighter touch. In point of fact, as he must know, he has introduced a heavier touch. The IBA did not have to obtain approval for the chairman and board of Channel 4. He cannot deny that. Now the ITC will have to obtain approval for the chairman and the board of the ITC. In my view that is a very funny definition of a lighter touch. I am sorry that the Minister has been unable to meet me in what I believe to be a very important constitutional position. I am afraid that I must test the opinion of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 164) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81, NotContents, 115.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Annan, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Blease, L.

Listowel, E.

BonhamCarter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

LovellDavis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

ClintonDavis, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

PrysDavies, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

EwartBiggs, B.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Scanlon, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Underhill, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Varley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Willis, L.

Jay, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Balfour, E.

Aldington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Alport, L.

Belstead, L.

Annaly, L.

Bessborough, E.

Auckland, L.

Blatch, B.

1025

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Lurgan, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Caldecote, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mostyn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Moyne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Cockfield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Colwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pym, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Derwent, L.

Richardson, L.

Eccles, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Effingham, E.

Rochdale, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Albans, Bp.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Ferrers, E.

Salisbury, M.

Flather, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seebohm, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Shannon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hankey, L.

Stockton, E.

Havers, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henley, L.

Hertford, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hood, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

HyltonFoster, B.

Tryon, L.

Joseph, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wharton, B.

Layton, L.

Wigram, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wise, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Young, B.

4.24 p.m.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Revenue deficits of Corporation to be funded by Channel 3 licensees]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 24, line 33, leave out from ("(1),") to ("by") in line 35 and insert ("then (subject to subsection (4)) the amount of the difference shall be raised by the Commission").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 166.
Clause 24 makes provision for the ITC to impose a levy on Channel 3 licensees in circumstances where Channel 4 is unable in any given year to achieve an income of an amount which is at least equivalent to 14 per cent. of the total television revenues for that year.
As it stands, Clause 24(3) leaves it to the discretion of the ITC whether to impose the levy. Upon reflection we now feel that the ITC should be required to impose a levy and this is the purpose of Amendment No. 165.
Amendment No. 166 simply recognises that at the stage where the ITC is required to establish a Channel 3 company's qualifying revenue it may be in a position to determine rather than estimate the amount. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: have one question. Is the ITC happy about the provision? Does it quite happily accept the argument that the Minister has put?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, indeed. It is very happy about it. It feels in a much stronger position to deal with the situation.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the Committee approves the amendments, and Clause 24, it ought to be aware of exactly what the Government are proposing with this device. It is a very curious proposition to which I believe not enough attention has been given during the debates on the Bill.
Channel 4 is a well established success story. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lords opposite that it is entitled to be called a Conservative success story. It was the creation, in the political, parliamentary sense, of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. The arrangements with regard to the financing of it have now been changed in a fundamental way. The reasons ought to be examined before we continue.
The basic proposal is that Channel 4 should now sell its own advertising in competition with Channel 3. That has been proposed ostensibly on the grounds of promoting competition. In practice it is a concession to the advertising industry which has grumbled over a long period—and I think justifiably in many cases—about the high prices that it has to pay for television advertising. But we ought to be aware that the proposition in this clause will not help the understandable grumbles of the advertising industry. It will not bring down the cost of advertising.
Why is television advertising at such high cost? It is because it is an extremely popular and effective form of advertising for a wide range of goods and services. The supply of television advertising time is limited by the necessity under statute to ensure that there is not too much advertising at any particular hour of programmes. The demand outstrips the supply. The difficulty about the Government's proposal ostensibly to create competition is that it does not in the least increase the supply and it probably will increase the price.
Channel 4 I believe is now setting up its own national selling organisation. There will be two sets of overheads to be met; one from Channel 3 and the other from Channel 4. I am not sure of the final position but it is extremely difficult for Channel 4 to sell other than national advertising whereas the present arrangements enable Channel 4 to carry regional advertising. They make it possible for local specialist advertisers to enjoy access to television advertising that is impossible for them on a national basis because it is too costly.

1027
The thinking behind the proposition is very dubious indeed. In the proposal to which these amendments relate, such advertising will be bolstered by an economic device that I believe would make Adam Smith turn in his grave. There is to be competition between Channel 4 and Channel 3 for selling advertising. But if the competition does not work well enough, then Channel 4 will be compulsorily subsidised by Channel 3 with which it is supposed to be in direct competition.
My noble friend Lady Birk asked whether the ITC thought that was a good idea. It might have been more pertinent to ask what the ITV companies thought about it. It is a curious competitive device and I did not feel that the clause should be allowed to pass without the Committee's attention being drawn to the fact that the Government are putting before us an elaborate to and bogus charade in respect of Channel 4 advertising.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I note what the noble Lord says. I am sorry that he does not like the arrangement—which may appear to him to be curious but which to others is satisfactory—to try to move Channel 4 on from the current position. In relation to the amendments to which I have spoken, Channel 4 and the IBA, to which the noble Lord contributed such distinguished service, approve of the amendments. The advertisers themselves have welcomed the separate setting up of Channel 4 air time. It is wrong to suggest that the clause will cause disruption to the advertising market. Of course there will be difficulties and problems when new arrangements are made. But by giving some kind of comfort to the company to proceed along the lines that we would wish we are letting it flap its wings—the wings that are now emerging from the little chicken that the noble Viscount produced. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for the remarks that he made about this being one of the Government's good decisions and for acknowledging the part played by the noble Viscount. However, he is being a little tough in pouring such a large bucket of cold water over the whole of Clause 24.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 25, line 21, after ("estimate") insert ("or determine").
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 167:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause: ("Research into feasibility of new commercial television service
. The Commission shall conduct such research as may be appropriate to investigate the technical and commercial feasibility of a new national commercial television service, taking into account the requirements set out in sections 26, 27 and 28 below.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 168. Amendment No. 167 is a probing amendment designed to test the willingness of
1028
the Government to establish a viable Channel 5 that enhances the existing broadcasting system. There is considerable concern that Channel 5 was designed partly to satisfy the advertisers' desire to bring down the advertising rates. A channel that aims to reach only 65 to 70 per cent. of the population, with proportionately low revenue and no distinctive programming remit as yet, appears more likely to undermine the existing broadcasting standards than to enhance them.
The prospects for a significant number of highquality original productions appear on that basis to be limited. It is more likely that without a strong programme remit Channel 5 may he forced by commercial pressure to rely on a large amount of cheap, boughtin and repeated material. Have the Government conducted any research into the commercial feasibility of Channel 5? If so what did it reveal? Secondly, why have the Government not helped or encouraged the IBA to begin work on the necessary engineering infrastructure for Channel 5?
A further anxiety relates to the startup and transmission costs, including the need to retune domestic video recorders even in areas without Channel 5 reception. I understand that that will be necessary because of the interference that will be caused. The number of VCRs affected exceeds 750,000, as confirmed in a written reply given by Mr. Mellor in another place to a parliamentary Question.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that such issues are examined in advance and before rushing in to establish the new Channel. Ultimately our argument is not negative; everyone would welcome an extra channel of sufficient quality. We merely wish to ensure that sufficient preconditions, including a strong programming remit, are set to ensure that Channel 5 enhances our broadcasting system rather than undermines it.
Although the amendments are grouped together many questions are attached to them. It may be convenient for the Minister to reply separately to Amendment No. 167 relating to research and viability. I do not mind, but we may become bogged down. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: It would be easier to deal with this amendment separately. The noble Baroness asked whether the Government have carried out any research. The Department of Trade and Industry has conducted research in relation to Channels 5 and 6. As a result the Government decided to go ahead with Channel 5 but not with Channel 6. Channel 5 will be larger than any single Channel 3 company and there is no reason to doubt its viability.
The IBA has carried out detailed financial modelling which fully confirms the commercial viability of Channel 5. That is so even bearing in mind the costs of equipment and transmission. It is a completely different kind of channel to Channel 3. It will be a national channel but it will not reach everyone; only about 70 per cent. Therefore, the conditions are different.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The Minister gave an inadequate reply to the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that there should be serious study. He says that a study has been carried out by the DTI. From my experience the DTI tends to rush into such matters with great ideas but without exploring them in depth. I remember a famous occasion on which it suddenly called the chairmen of the BBC and IBA to this building in order to try to persuade us to transfer Channel 4 and BBC 2 to satellite. The idea was shot down in about 50 days as being technologically foolish. The more comment that has been made on the proposals for Channel 5 the more one is glad that the ultimate responsibility for broadcasting policy will remain with the Home Office.
The comments that have been made about the economics of Channel 5 become increasingly worrying. One of the highest regarded financial commentators on broadcasting economics is Bronwen Maddox. She writes a good deal about such matters and is on the staff of one of the merchant banks involved. Recently she suggested that the worst obstacles are the startup costs. She suggested that the transmission might cost £40 million. Then there is the case of retuning most of the country's VCRs in order to avoid interference. That has been estimated at £60 million. Those costs must be borne by whoever is willing to bid for Channel 5.
Thirdly, everybody will need a further aerial for Channel 5. At present we have aerials for the four terrestrial channels and we are all busy wondering whether to buy a Sky dish or a BSB squarial. When Channel 5 comes along, we shall have to stick another aerial on to our roofs. It is estimated that the overall cost to householders of receiving Channel 5 will be £250 million.
Those are formidable figures. They may be mistaken figures, I do not know, although they come from a reputable source. Before we launch into a major new project like this the Committee is entitled to know that really serious research has been carried out so that we have the material on which to make informed judgments as to the best way forward.
We should all welcome a further channel and on another amendment we shall come to the possibilities of using Channel 5. However, the starting point is to know a good deal more about the realistic costs of the project in order to decide whether or not it is viable.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness's amendment suggests that the ITC should conduct the research into the technical and commercial feasibility of Channel 5. At the same time, it requires it to set up Channel 5. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that he was glad that broadcasting remained in the hands of the Home Office. I took that as being a somewhat backhanded compliment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: It is a real compliment.
Earl Ferrers: That gets me into even greater difficulties. I am delighted that the noble Lord should compliment the Home Office in such a way. I shall
1030
satisfy him by saying that had he complimented the Department of Trade and Industry in the same manner, that would be equally acceptable.
The Department of Trade and Industry has already conducted research and has concluded, as is fairly well known, that Channel 5 should be commercially viable and that it could achieve a coverage of up to 70 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. That is one reason that we decided to go ahead with it. If it is not likely to be viable, then there is no point in going ahead with it. That does not guarantee viability but it is considered to be potentially viable. On that basis we decided to go ahead with Channel 5.
The Government are not obliged to take a position on the financial viability of Channel 5. A full study has been carried out. We conclude that as the availability of frequency is there, and as the study indicates that there is a possibility that it is viable, then we should make that possibility open to the market. The best estimate which we have of the retuning costs is £20 million. That is based on the Department of Trade and Industry's study.
There has been a study which has shown viability and it is now up to the market place to see whether anyone wishes to take this on. Of course, if all the sets are to be retuned, that is an expense. However, that expense should be undertaken by the person who takes on the licence and it is not as high as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I shall now deal with the arguments as regards Amendment No. 168 because the amendments go together. The Minister seemed to think that, because the amendment states that "the Commission shall conduct research", that lets the Government completely off the hook. However, when I began I pointed out that this is a probing amendment which tests the Government's willingness to establish a viable Channel 5. As I also understand it, the IBA wanted to start on the infrastructure but the Government would not put up the money. How is it to get the money for the infrastructure of something which it has not yet been able to sell and as regards which at present there is no chance of putting out bids?
The following amendment, which deals with programme requirements, is closely linked to the first amendment, because if research has not been carried out and the viability is not known and there is not much idea of what its structure will be, then it will be very difficult to have a proper schedule of programmes.
Under the Bill as it stands, Channel 5 would be the first national terrestrial channel to be established without any deep thought as to how it should enhance or bring something different to the existing broadcasting system. When Channel 4 started, it was given a very specific remit and a great deal of thought was put into it. Originality was given a very high priority. Thus we achieved the quality of programming which there now is on Channel 4. When commercial television started, plans were made as to

1031
what it was meant to do. When BBC 1 and then BBC 2 were set up, there was a complete understanding of what was required and needed.
Here we have a blank. There is a vacuum. We just have the title: Channel 5. Without a strong and distinctive programme remit, it seems destined to become a poor parasitic relation of Channel 3, competing for revenue with little scope for original production and reliant on a large amount of acquired programming. Neither viewers nor programme makers could possibly gain from that.
Given those problems, the only justification for the establishment of Channel 5 will be if it has a distinctive programming remit. This amendment provides such a remit by requiring a reasonable proportion, including at peak times, of local programmes of interest to and made largely within the relevant local area as well as educational programmes. Local programmes could be provided by as many as 40 or 50 local stations.
I wonder whether the Government have thought out that point. Is there supposed to be one franchise or do they wish to break it up into different franchises? Will Channel 5 be new and distinctive or will it be a replica of Channels 3 and 4? Do the Government accept that Channel 5 should have a specific remit for local programming in line with the IBA's research into the citybased local optout services? That is one line which could be followed. Is Channel 5 to be a truly national service or will it be made up of a number of different services with one or more licences, which I have already mentioned?
Because of the shortage of frequencies, this could be the last opportunity to offer truly local television services in the United Kingdom. Cable television, with a more limited coverage and an emphasis of syndicated satellite channels, seems much less likely to produce a significant amount of locally originated service.
In addition, Channel 5 could have a distinctive profile as a knowledge channel specialising in educational and documentary programming. It could provide a significant boost to education and training in the UK including programmes from the Open University and Open College, schools, polytechnics and universities. That could be one stream of the channel's national programming and would complement a continuing commitment to education on the main terrestrial channels. That could compensate for what we discussed yesterday when so much anxiety was expressed about the quality of programmes on the new Channel 3 when the new auction system comes into being. That would be a means of providing a quality guard.
These programme ideas are probably feasible; they are certainly desirable. To provide Channel 5 with no remit at all would be a wasted opportunity. One has the impression that it is there as a name and a number, but that the Government have washed their hands of it; that it might just disappear into the distance and that we will not hear much more about it.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness has given Channel 5 a pretty good spike, and says that it will not
1032
be much use; that we will not hear much more about it and so forth. I believe that she is being a little pessimistic. She asked a number of questions —in fact she moved to the following amendment—and I shall try and answer her points because they are important and require an answer.
The timetable for the award of the Channel 5 licence will be a matter for the Independent Television Commission. The ITC may decide that the licence for Channel 5 should be awarded after those for Channel 3 so that the unsuccessful bidders for Channel 3 licences have the opportunity to bid for a Channel 5 licence.
The ITC will be aware that the Channel 5 licence will be more valuable to a bidder the earlier that the service can be transmitted. The Government are proposing that arrangements for a transmission network for Channel 5 will be a matter for the successful Channel 5 licensee. The choice of transmission system may be a crucial element in the Channel 5 business plan. We do not feel that that decision should be preempted by the private transmission company, which will take over the IBA transmission network, being allocated a transmission contract in respect of Channel 5 before the Channel 5 licence has been awarded.
I appreciate the desire of the noble Baroness to see Channel 5 providing local television programmes. There is nothing to stop an applicant from arranging his Channel 5 service in that way. We do not believe we should make it a statutory requirement. The Government have identified that two additional broadcasting frequencies—UHF channels 35 and 37—could be made available for broadcasting. We felt it right to make those frequencies available, even though they could not in themselves achieve 100 per cent. coverage, in order to give wouldbe broadcasters an opportunity to expand the choice for viewers and for viewers to have the opportunity of greater choice where possible.
We are not predicting that Channel 5 will be a success. We do not see any reason why it should not be, and hope that it will be. We are giving further opportunities for entrepreneurs to provide additional broadcasting services where they want to, "have a go". A number of economic assessments of Channel 5 have recently been performed, some of which illustrate that even if Channel 5 is provided as a single national service it will be only marginally viable.
It is the intention that there should be one licence for the Channel 5 network, although it could be split into two; for instance, breakfast time and another. The viability of Channel 5 will depend crucially on the business strategy of the licensee and his success in winning and retaining an audience for the programmes which he chooses to show. Our view is that it should be for the licensee, with as little constraint as possible from statutory instrument, to determine how best to use the channel to build an audience that will be crucial to its commercial survival.
The Bill lays down detailed programming requirements for Channel 5. It will be for the licensee

1033
to develop a distinctive remit for the channel in order to compete effectively with Channel 3. It is wrong to suppose that unless the Bill lays down the precise programming policy for Channel 5 it will not acquire a strong distinctive identity.
The noble Baroness said that there would be no remit. With the greatest respect, that is not so. We have imposed basic consumer protection requirements on the licensee and also the full quality threshold in Clause 16, which applies in the same way to Channel 3 with the exception of the regional requirements. That exception is not included for two reasons. First, it is likely to be a national channel; secondly, it is not likely to cover 100 per cent. of the country.
The Channel 5 licensee will have to satisfy the Independent Television Commission that it will give a sufficient amount of its services time to news and current affairs programmes of high quality, to other programmes of high quality, to children's and religious programmes; that its 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 material 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 broadcasting independent productions.
That is a very demanding remit for any organisation and for any channel whose prosperity is not taken for granted. It demonstrates that when the noble Baroness says there is no remit for Channel 5, with the greatest respect, she is not correct.
Bearing in mind those substantial standards being imposed on Channel 5, it is right that the licensee should decide how best to organise the service. Some argued that the Channel 5 licensee may wish to subcontract for local services. That is what the noble Baroness refers to when she talks of "optouts". The licensee may contract for local services for part of the transmission time. There would be nothing to stop different programmes being transmitted from each separate transmitter. Those are matters for the licensee to decide. We cannot require in legislation that a Channel 5 service should be organised in any specific way beyond the existing requirements of the quality threshold, which are very important. I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that there is no point in imposing obligations on licensees which could have the effect, if we are not careful, of making the service nonviable. We should leave those matters to the commercial decisions of the applicants.
I hope that I have managed to explain to the noble Baroness some of the ideas that we have in mind for Channel 5, and that she will realise it is not as grisly a picture as she portrayed.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The remit which the Minister just described is acceptable so far as it goes, but it is very basic. My noble friend Baroness Birk has performed a notable service in tabling these new clauses. They will enable the Committee to begin to
1034
apply its mind to what might be best in the public interest regarding this very valuable national resource —a possible fifth television channel.
I am bound to say that given the doubts that have emerged regarding the costs associated with a fifth television channel, and the basic remit that will be included in the Bill, the likeliest course of action for anyone willing to take on the very great risks involved is to make Channel 5 a general entertainment channel. If that is so we should face the consequences of what that would mean for the general overall quality of British broadcasting.
A general entertainment channel with very limited regional or local optouts would give the kind of competition to Channel 3 that might make it extremely difficult to maintain the standards of Channel 3 that we have been painstakingly seeking to write into the Bill. The knockon effect if Channel 3 is undermined would, as many noble Lords have said in the course of the debates, in turn undermine BBC 1. Therefore very grave implications are involved.
Behind all that is the question of what is likely to be the totality of advertising available for the various new television channels that are coming along. I said that proposals in relation to Channel 4 were totally bogus in regard to helping to bring down the cost of advertising. I welcome the fact that one of the advantages of Channel 5 would be to provide real competition in advertising instead of bogus competition. It would help to bring down the cost of advertising which would be a healthy development.
However, there is still the question of the limits of television advertising. How much is available? How many channels can the potential pool of television advertising in this country finance at a reasonably acceptable standard? Those are big issues. The Government's approach, which is almost purely entrepreneurial—to propose, within a general framework of basic standards, to offer almost a blank cheque to those who might be willing to bid to take the risks—raises big issues about the future standards of broadcasting in this country. The two new clauses that we are discussing raise big issues on which the Committee should take a view.
5 p.m.
Lord Ardwick I: have rather friendly feelings towards Channel 5 because it gives the possibility of introducing real additional choice. We shall, of course, have real additional choice with cable and satellites, but they will cost money. Channel 5 could offer choice to the nonaffluent. I am particularly interested in the possibilities of local television broadcasting. I do not know what its effect will be on local newspapers, but it would certainly have a good effect on local communities.
Advertising is the only source of revenue. I go along with the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. When I looked at the forecast, I wondered whether the Government were serious about Channel 5. Was it just a dream in the mind of some young man in the DTI? Could it earn enough revenue? There is no law which says that, when a new channel is created, advertising

1035
is automatically created to support it. As the noble Earl told us only the other day, advertising bears a reasonably constant relationship to GDP. Although that has been less true in years of great buoyancy, we must accept that it has been true over a period of time.
It has also been suggested that Channel 5 will bring relief to the advertiser. I do not see much relief being brought to the advertiser. If a channel with 2 million viewers loses 1 million to another, the cost per viewerhour remains identical, apart from some marginal competition between two companies that are now competing; and it may be that there is a bit of a market from some advertiser who does not want a wide span of television. However, it is extremely difficult to look even with minimum confidence to the future.
I wonder about the timing of the introduction of Channel 5. After all, Channel 3 will face a considerable ordeal if the satellites are as successful as people think they may be and if they fractionate the total audience. If the audiences on Channel 3 are smaller and then there is a proposition to introduce Channel 5 and reduce the audience still further, the viability of commercial television generally will be in grave doubt.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps I may add one reason why the prescriptions that the Government set out for the bidding process on Channel 5 may pose particular problems.
The Minister spoke yesterday of the general relationship between the quality threshold and the highest bidder. He conceded that in certain circumstances the highest bid might indicate that the quality of the bid was not all it should be in that the very high field bidder proposed to improve his profitability by putting out programmes that were not of an adequate quality. The Government have therefore established that there is a possible relationship between a high bid and inadequate quality and that the quality of money, to which my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth referred, was a potential judgment that the commission would have to make.
If that is true in general of Channel 3, how much more true is it of Channel 5? The Minister has eloquently explained that the maximum area of entrepreneurial discretion will be given to those bidders who wish to conceive and invent the way in which Channel 5 will provide television services to the public but that the widest possible latitude is to be given. If there is to be the widest possible latitude, we shall give the commission an extraordinarily difficult job of judgment to know whether the quality of money with regard to any particular bid is a good quality of money.
I urge that the amendment, which asks the commission to conduct research, be taken seriously, not least because it will give the commission the grounds and the information on which to make the, judgments that are necessary to the Government's proposed highest bidder method.
Earl Ferrers: When I listen to noble Lords opposite, I begin to wonder sometimes where their spark of excitement and enterprise is. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, poured cold water on all the new arrangements for Channel 4 and said that they were perfectly awful. Along came the noble Baroness and started on Channel 5. She said that it will fail, and will not achieve an audience and will fade away. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, turned round and said, "Well, I don't know. It might be successful and, if it is so successful, it will cause all Channel 3 licensees to be in a muddle". He then asked whether we were right to give Channel 5 people a blank cheque.
Channel 5 is different. Those frequencies are available. It is something new. There will be all the problems of retuning. We shall not be able to reach 100 per cent. of the country. We shall only be able to reach 70 per cent. There will be extra expenses, but those people who want to take a risk and are prepared to make a go of it should surely be entitled to do so, provided that they accept the standards of quality threshold that the Bill places upon them. The noble Baroness said that we should do more research. The Government have done their research, and, as a result, we believe that it is a viable proposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made a point which I think is mistaken. He said that I said the other day that there might be opportunities where someone who was not the highest bidder was given the franchise. He said that that meant that the highest bid might be of inadequate quality. I did not say that. I said that all those who were entitled to bid would show that their quality was above the threshold and above the requirements. Anything above that was of adequate quality. There might be occasions where someone who has not given the highest bid can show that he would provide a better programme than someone who has submitted the highest bid. In those exceptional circumstances, the ITC could award the contract to someone who was not the highest bidder. That is not the same as saying that it is of inadequate quality. I am sure that the noble Lord realises that.
I appreciate the concern about this matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment. The research that has been done shows that Channel 5 can be viable. We believe that a commercial opportunity should be given to companies that wish to take advantage of it.
Baroness Birk: I do not want to repeat everything that I said. There are points that have not been dealt with. It is not a case of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, or myself having gloomy views. I am very unhappy about so many features of the Bill. However, if something exciting were to come along which created more balance in the Bill I would grasp it. If people are to have a chance or an opportunity, what are they to have a chance or an opportunity about? I return to an earlier point. We are talking about a situation which is in a vacuum.
As I pointed out, Channel 4 came along and, before that, commercial television and BBC 1 followed by BBC 2 which was intended to add another dimension to the BBC. All these channels had a purpose. As

1037
regards commercial television the arrangements were not made in such detail except for the public service broadcasting, and the "must carry" requirements. However, within those provisions there was plenty of room for initiative and creativity. That is what we want. We feel that the Government should have some idea about what should happen.
If, as the Minister said, the quality requirements are exactly the same as for Channel 3 contained in Clause 16, why, in Amendment No. 169D, are the limited time services proposed for Channel 5 free from the programming obligations placed on Channel 3? The Government may feel that it is a small point. It is an indication that Channel 5 is not receiving the attention that it should. We are not going to make any headway; I must divide the Committee.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 167) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; NotContents, 100.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Channel 5]:
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 26, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) The licence period for Channel 5 shall be 15 years").
The noble Lord said: In view of our rather thorough discussion on Channel 5 I shall not take up the time of the Committee. Perhaps the amendment will be taken by the Minister as a sign of repentance. He believes that we are so unsympathetic to enterprise; but in this case we believe that the risks associated with setting up Channel 5 are so considerable that we wish to suggest that, in order to reward enterprise, those who take the risks should have a 15year contract instead of a 10year one. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I appreciate the intention behind a 15year licence period for Channel 5. It is to provide greater security for the licensee faced with large startup costs and a more uncertain financial climate than Channel 3. However, we do not believe that the proposed amendment will help because it fails to appreciate how the licence system will operate in practice. I shall try to demonstrate what I mean by that.
The Channel 5 licensee, like his Channel 3 counterpart, will be awarded a licence for 10 years

1039
with the option of seeking a semiautomatic renewal after six years. While the licence runs, the licensee is committed to the cash bid and the net advertising revenuerelated payments fixed at the outset. These payments can be changed only at the time of renewal. The present arrangements thereby provide a break-point after six years at which the financial terms can in effect be renegotiated. Were the licence period to be extended to 15 years, that breakpoint would presumably not come until 11 years into the licence period.
A licensee who at the outset took too optimistic a view of the financial prospects and who ran into subsequent financial difficulties would therefore no longer be able to look forward to a relatively early breakpoint at which the level of payments could be reviewed. The result of lengthening the licence period would therefore be to impose an additional, possibly damaging, inflexibility as the licensee found himself locked into financial arrangements that could not be altered.
I understand what the noble Lord seeks to do. He suggests that because of the risks involved the timescale could perhaps be longer. However, with the breakpoint indicated, and as we know that interest has been expressed in this channel, I think that the present arrangements are the ones to which we would wish to stick.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Perhaps the Minister will be glad to know that for once I am persuaded by his arguments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendinent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Application to Channel 5 of provisions relating to Channel 3]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 26, line 44, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 169C and 169D. In passing perhaps I may say that I am mortified that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, should be persuaded by my noble friend and yet not be persuaded by myself. At least I shall try on these modest amendments to take the noble Lord with me.
They are minor amendments designed to provide that in the event that the ITC were to advertise for two or more Channel 5 licensees, the remit for Channel 5 as a whole which is set out in Clause 16(2) should be shared between the licensees as the ITC may determine. There might, for example, be a Channel 5 breakfast licence. It may not be necessary for that licensee to fulfil all the obligations set out in Clause 16(2), such as providing religious programmes and programmes for children. But the service taken as a whole should certainly cover all those aspects. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am becoming positively worried because I think that the noble Earl is right in his arguments. If in fact we divided the clock different considerations would apply to different times
1040
of day. It is important to have the necessary flexibility, which I understand is the purpose of the amendments. I am happy to go along with them.
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply appreciative of the noble Lord's ever widening sense of understanding.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 169B:
Page 26, line 44, leave out ("20") and insert ("(Restriction on changes in control over Channel 3 licence holder)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 169C and 169D:
Page 27, line 5, after ("shall") insert ("(except where subsection (3) below applies)").
Page 27, line 7, at end insert:
("(3) Where the Commission make a determination under section 26(3), section 16(2) shall, in its application in relation to each Channel 5 licence, have effect to such extent as they may determine to be appropriate having regard to the nature of the service to be provided under that licence.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Initial Channel 5 licensee required to retune equipment susceptible to interference]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 27, line 38, after first ("equipment") insert: ("(aa)").
The noble Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 171 to 173. The only substantive amendment is Amendment No.171 which exempts the holder of a Channel 5 licence from liability to return or modify equipment if the only reason for interference to relative equipment is the installation of an aerial to receive Channel 5. Engineers who install a Channel 5 aerial will almost certainly have to retune the VCR as part of the installation procedure, where otherwise interference would be caused, in order to obtain a clear reception of the Channel 5 signal.
The remaining amendments, Amendments Nos. 170, 172 and 173 are simply minor drafting improvements to subsections (3) and (6) of Clause 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 171 to 173:
Page 28, line 3, at end insert ("or
(bb) if the equipment would not be liable to suffer interference caused by the transmission of Channel 5 but for the installation at the place where the equipment is kept of any apparatus for enabling that service to be received there;").
Page 28, line 4, leave out ("such") and insert ("relevant").
Page 28, line 26, leave out ("likely") and insert ("liable").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Nomination of bodies to provide news for regional Channel 3 services]:
[Amendments Nos. 173A and 173B not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord BonhamCarter Lord BonhamCarter moved Amendment No.174:
Page 30, line 22, leave out from ("provider") to end of line 28.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the ownership of ITN. It is an important amendment as news on television is an important item in its programmes. Indeed, 80 per cent. of the population receive their news broadcasts from television or from the radio. Therefore, the quality of news provided by television or radio, whether it be on the BBC or ITV networks, is a matter of the utmost concern.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the ITV companies keep complete control of ITN. That, in point of fact, is the ordinary pattern of ownership as regards television. Major television companies, without exception —although there may be one which could be regarded as an exception—all control their news providers. The exception to whom one might refer is Ted Turner, but he is a provider to cable television and I am talking about conventional television.
The reason this consideration is important is that those companies want to be assured that the quality of the news they receive is in accordance with the standards which they lay down. As they are liable for mistakes, they like to have control over those who provide them with this vital element of their programming.
The case as regards ITN is rather special in that it is regarded by the ITV companies as a cost and not a profit centre. That is an important factor. Its purpose is not to make profits, it is to provide news. Indeed, it has achieved a formidable reputation in this role. ITN and the BBC compete with each other to provide news and that competition has proved to be extremely effective.
Over the past few years the output of ITN has substantially increased to nine hours per day. Added to this there are the three or four radio bulletins which it supplies to a number of commercial radio stations. It has tripled its air time in the past three years and, at the same time, cut its news staff by 12 per cent. Its features are shown world wide and it provides news for 1,000 broadcast and cable networks. Its broadcasts are widely admired not just in this country but also throughout the world. Its success is evidence of the fact that, if you treat your news provider as a cost centre, rather than a profit centre, it pays dividends in terms of the end product. Indeed, there is much evidence to show that those who do otherwise find that the standard of their news broadcasts suffers.
The excellence which ITN has attained is a direct result of the nurturing and the investment undertaken by the ITV companies. As I understand it, the proposal in the Bill is that they should be forced to disinvest at a moment when ITN is being expanded, when it is exploring new markets which are opening up as a result of new technology and when, in addition, it is about to move into a new building. I believe that that situation should concern everyone.
It is wholly reasonable that the Channel 3 companies should wish to have control, for the reasons I have already given, of the organisation which provides them with news broadcasts. Finally, to retain it is to follow a wellknown Conservative argument:
"If a thing works, don't muck about with it!"
I cannot understand what has compelled the Government to try to change the organisation and the financing of a body which has provided an excellent service over the years, which is now on the point of expansion and to which we all owe a debt of gratitude. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): I should remind Members of the Committee that if this amendment is carried I cannot call Amendment No. 175.
Baroness Birk: In speaking to this amendment I should like to include Amendment No. 175 which is tabled in my name. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, has already said because I agree with him. The problem with his amendment is that it will not work. I agree that the status quo appears to be working very well at present. I also understand that the ITN people have plans for the future as regards how they will improve their organisation and management and that they are moving into new premises. However, in my view it is unrealistic to hope that the Government will leave matters as they stand. Nevertheless, if they were to do so, I would be as pleased and delighted as the noble Lord.
Further, if the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, does not work, then my amendment is designed to ensure that the existing ITN franchiseholding owners can maintain their control over the company. The breakdown in those circumstances would be 70 per cent to 30 per cent. It means that there would be a 30 per cent. chance for outside investors, which is quite a sizeable proportion. The noble Lord was absolutely right when he sang the praises of ITN. There are very few outstanding news services in the world. In this country we have the BBC and ITN and in America they have the ABC, CBS, and NBC. ITN is one of those outstanding news providers. Therefore, it would be a great pity if anything were to rock that particular boat. It could result in a diminution of the quality of our news service in this country. It does indeed appear that the maxim, "If it works; leave it alone", really applies in this case.
In my view, the Government must exercise restraint upon themselves as they seem always to be throwing everything into the market and leaving it to market forces. It is rather like the Romans throwing the Christians to the lions, one after the other. Of course, any restraint can only be selfimposed. However, I hope that that factor will be taken into consideration. I know that my noble friend Lord Ardwick who has a great deal of experience in this field will want to make a contribution to the debate. I have, therefore, kept short my remarks.
Lord Ardwick: I feel the same kind of vehemence with regard to this subject as some noble Lords expressed towards midnight last night when confessing their religious faith or lack of it. I have a religious faith. It is that an adequate and pure news supply is a basic essential for a civilised democracy.
In my view this is one of the occasions on which the Government have made a mistake. It is a mistake which shows their innocence of the real world. It may well be that the same young man at the DTI of whom I was complaining a few moments ago was the person originally responsible. However, the Government seem to regard the television news service as a commodity which can be bought or sold, extended or contracted as the demand grows, or diminished; or that it can be replaced if it is not quite up to scratch. However, that is not so.
Anyone who has been in the news business will tell you that ITN is most inadequately described as a news service. It is much more than that; it is an electronic newspaper with all the ethos and drive of a newspaper. It is old enough now to have a tradition of excellence and dedication, often to be pursued even at the risk of life. It is today two newspapers. There is the major one that serves ITV and the minor one that serves Channel 4. "Minor" may be the wrong word since many people regard Channel 4 news at 7 p.m. as the best of all news programmes.
ITN is strangely constituted. It is wholly owned by the ITV companies, and so, in the arid language of the accountant, it is an item of cost, and not one of profit. That is identical to a newspaper. The advertising people and the circulation manager bring in the money, but it is the journalists who spend it. Journalism is always a cost in a well run newspaper, and although from time to time a newspaper may try to sell a service, it never gets far. The only things that are saleable are pocket cartoons and crossword puzzles.
The idea that the service is a cost is not convincing even to those who measure profit and loss in monetary terms. Prestige is also a business asset. ITN is a source of great, prestige to independent television. The fair name that independent television has in this country depends upon the quality of its news programmes. "News is sacred", as C. P. Scott said. Until ITV came along and developed, the BBC was the sole custodian of the Holy Grail. ITN now shares that honour. It is largely because it does so, that so many people in this country are battling for the survival of ITN. We do not want the ITV companies to be defenceless opponents of richer companies that shudder at the words ''public service". To quote Scott again:
"newspapers are of course a business, but they are like no other business".
Electronic newspapers are the same. That is where the Government have gone wrong. They see ITN as a monopoly, sheltered by the ITV companies, incurring large costs, never facing competition, and never fighting to produce and sell other services to other customers.
The Government have therefore come up with the remarkable proposition that 51 per cent. of ITN
1044
should be sold to others to encourage it to get into the market place. It is all very well to argue that with 49 per cent. of the stock, ITN will still be in command of the company—technically and practically yes; but morally, no. The company will have ceased to be a company oriented to service and become one oriented to profits. There are two ways in which an efficient company such as ITN can show a profit. It can find new markets for new products (novel kinds of news services) or it can cut its costs by spending less on the news services it provides to the companies.
A reduction in the richness of ITN's services would make BBC again the outstandingly respected news service, and Channel 3 would lose prestige and revenue. There are ways in which ITN could increase its revenue from time to time. It could provide a few needed services, but within limits. Once profit becomes its main aim, its morale as an electronic newspaper would be sapped, and it would no longer be a serious competitor for the BBC.
The Government have been good learners as they have battled on with the Bill. They have changed what were once firmly held but erroneous opinions. I should like to see them do so again. They should leave ITN as it is, as the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, has suggested, and make it the sole supplier of Channel 3 and the chief rival to BBC and Sky News, or they should encourage it to be a little more commercial. If they have modest proportions of nonChannel 3 investors some of them should obviously be members of its loyal and devoted staff. I have received a great deal of paper about ITN. I have had many conversations. I have heard some sensible suggestions. I have heard some bizarre suggestions; but the wisdom of ITN's future is contained in the two amendments.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: I shall not move Amendment No. 176A which is in this group because its scope has been covered in another and better way by the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The argument to keep ITN under the control of the Channel 3 franchise holders has been elegantly and forcefully put by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. All that I can do is to endorse them most fully. The best regime for ITN is the status quo. If not, then majority control.
However, what concerns me is that I fear my noble friend the Minister will resist the amendments. I should like to consider the situation that will prevail in that eventuality. If the Government insist on changing ITN's structure, they must avoid creating a longterm monopoly. Therefore, the ITC should be cautious about committing itself to the full 10year term as regards ITN without a review. If institutions purchase 51 per cent. of ITN's shares, they will require a return at least equal to that obtainable from other investments on the Stock Exchange. That is the purpose of institutional investment. Most UK institutions own shares in any given company for about six months only. They will therefore have little interest in the longterm perception of ITN as an effective news provider if ITN gradually loses ground

1045
to the BBC news service because it cannot swiftly bring resources to bear on events such as the Romanian revolution.
The IBA stated earlier this month that the requirement for a nonlicence majority shareholding is intended to support the independent thrust and underpin the financial basis of a nominated news provider with a genuinely national and international structure, and to open up the possibility of competition. They are strong arguments. ITN's independent thrust and financial basis have hitherto been wholeheartedly supported by ITN shareholders. ITN has been allowed to invest in a flotilla of development businesses and ancillary exploitation businesses. At the last count, ITN had 10 different revenue sources. That may not continue if there is an outside majority investor.
There is also the possibility that Channel 3's financial position could change for the worse and that it could obtain a less expensive, but high quality, news service from elsewhere. The nominated news providers' costs might rise significantly, which would lead to a significant rise in the cost of its news service to Channel 3. If ITN loses the Channel 4 news service contract, which is a twoyear contract, at some point in the future, will its shareholders accept the considerable losses without attempting to recover a significant proportion of such losses through an increase in the price of the main news service to Channel 3? If they do not, will they not face possibly insurmountable financial difficulties?
I believe that if the Government wish to preserve a national news service of high quality, it will be counterproductive for such a service to be owned by a majority of nonChannel 3 shareholders. If the nominated news provider is majorityowned by nonChannel 3 shareholders, such shareholders could only be expected to maximise profits. Since new ITV licences would be required to take that service, the shareholders would be in a position to charge a monopoly price for the service, in the knowledge that Channel 3 had effectively no bargaining position. Channel 3 would not turn to a competitive supplier for a lower price or more efficient service. The outcome would be a news contractor which would use its position as a monopoly supplier and which would not be subject to the competitive pressure to be efficient.
At a later stage in the Bill I may well move amendments to attempt to give the flexibility of supply in national and international news. There may be other ways of achieving the same object which closer scrutiny will reveal. Certainly, referral to the OFT seems to me to be a lengthy and cumbersome process. The Government have called their White Paper on broadcasting: Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality. These words should also apply to the provision of an international and national news service on Channel 3.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I wish to join in supporting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, and the amendments to which my noble friends Lady Birk and Lord Ardwick
1046
have spoken. Perhaps I may endorse what they have said, that ITN has established a reputation as a leading news service in world terms. I believe that it has served the nation splendidly and proved itself alongside and in competition with the BBC. Even though I come in part from ITV, perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that; I happen to be one of those in ITV who has had no direct personal involvement in ITN.
As other Members of the Committee have said, it seems foolish to do anything to impair ITN's effectiveness. I share their views to the extent that it seems best to leave the structure and status of ITN alone. In view of its record, it seems in the best interests of viewers to do so; again we bring in the criterion of the best interests of viewers because that is our prime test. However, there is no harm in encouraging ITN to sell its services and to earn money —it has been doing so quite extensively already—as well as to maintain the strictest possible control on costs.
As part of the aim to operate on a more commercial basis, the Government's desire to introduce outside investment and shareholders is understandable. However, to do that it is not necessary to go so far as to require the existing shareholders, the existing programme contractors or any new ITV Channel 3 licensees to sell 51 per cent. or more of ITN. It is worth noting that if ITV did so—and the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, has alluded to this—perhaps that formula would overcome the exception that he mentioned in the case of the Turner organisation. If ITV sold a majority in ITN, it would become the only first rank broadcaster in the world not to have complete control over its own news service. Moreover, it seems reasonable that as the users, the programme companies should have responsibility for the quality of the service provided and stand to account for that quality.
The Government's aim to widen the ownership of ITN could surely be achieved if 30 per cent. of the equity were sold to new outside shareholders. This is along the lines of the amendment mentioned by my noble friend Lady Birk. It would also ensure that enough of the ownership remained. It has after all stood the test of time and helped to maintain a first quality news service over the past 35 years.
I turn to one other point. One of the Government's aims is to seek to reduce costs and keep them under control—an aim which which many, if not all, of us agree. I certainly do. To leave the programme companies with only a minority holding would not do that. I very much share the view put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. Since he has spelt it out, I do not need to go into it in detail. I simply add a further voice to what he said and put it in this way. As the customers, it is in the interests of the present shareholders to ensure that the costs of ITN are kept under the firmest possible control. After all, they do have a direct incentive to keep costs down in the interests of its own shareholders, to whom it has a duty. If the majority shareholders were from outside and were not customers, the incentive would be the

1047
other way round: it would be to maximise the dividend payments. The danger then is that it would be at the expense of the quality of the service which is and has been provided. It would be in the interests of the outside shareholders to charge as much as possible to the customers, the programme contractors and the existing shareholders.
One must also bear in mind, as the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, said, that the programme companies are not just the customers but captive customers, as it has been put. They wish to remain captive customers because the status quo is the ideal situation, but not in a situation where they would be exploited. That is the point for any outside shareholders who had a majority interest.
So the Government's proposals are not the solution that they might at first sight seem to the problem of how to keep down costs. Quite the reverse. It is in the interests of viewers that the ITV Channel 3 companies should be solely responsible for the national and international news programmes on ITV Channel 3. That is best achieved by keeping the existing structure and status of ITN, although my noble friend's amendment would go a long way towards doing that and serve the purposes of some of the Government's aims as well.
I ant attracted by the idea which the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, put forward, particularly his point that the ITC should keep a close watch on any single news provider. Perhaps this is one of the points which the noble Earl had in mind; it might lead to the attraction of a review during the franchise granted to a single news provider by the ITC.
6 p.m.
Lord Willis: I wish warmly to support the amendment. I beg the Government to rethink their philosophy and go back to their original philosophy. It seems to me that this is a complete contradiction. From the beginning, the ITV companies took a big risk and have subscribed to ITN for many years to set up a news service to supply them. That news service has been eminently successful and is recognised throughout the world as being one of the best news services one can find. It is successful; therefore the Government's reaction is to say, "Let us break it up. That our reward for your initiative and your investment." That is totally wrong. It is like saying a cook should not own his own frying pan or his own gas stove, that he can only own, say, 49 per cent. of it. It is a total nonsense. We have here a marvellous service. I wonder why the Government want to tinker with it.
In m y fevered imagination I have a picture of a group of civil servants, or perhaps junior Ministers, sitting down together and deciding that now that they have finished with the Broadcasting Bill they should turn their attention to something else. At that point one of them suggests looking at ITN. Another one may say that it is all right and they should leave it alone. However, then the others say, "Come on. Let us have a go at ITN". That is a totally pointless exercise. Here we have a superb news service. It is competitive
1048
in the sense that it must now compete with Sky News, BSB News and other services. It also competes with the BBC. Why do the Government need to touch it? Why do the Government want to break up a fantastic news organisation of which everyone is proud? I beg the Government seriously to think again.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I wish to add a postscript. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, paid tribute to this side of the Committee for our great reasonableness in accepting the good amendments that he has put forward. I believe that this is an opportunity for the noble Earl to reciprocate. He could say that he is so impressed with these amendments and the good sense with which they have been moved that the Government have decided to change their mind and will not proceed upon the course they have chosen. In the feeling that that is likely to happen, I shall not say more but simply sit down.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is always ingenious. I paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, because he had become so broadminded and had understood the point of view of the Government. I was happily placed in the position of paying that tribute. I am content to remain in that position. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will realise that the Government are right.
The noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, seems to have become infected by the pessimistic virus that is prevalent on the Opposition Benches. His only contribution to the challenges and excitements of the future is to advise that ITN should not be touched as it is doing very well as it is. He suggests that as it is doing very well we should not try to find out whether it can do any better. He does not believe that we should try out any fresh ideas or try to get some fresh money or fresh thoughts. His is the philosophy of leaving a plant alone in case it dies if one waters it. No one is complaining about ITN. We all think that it produces an excellent service. All we are saying is that, with the future opening up before us, we wonder whether it is reasonable for the whole of ITN to be owned by Channel 3 companies.
Lord Ardwick: Yes it is!
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said "yes" in a particularly unhelpful intervention. I do not believe it is reasonable for it to be owned by Channel 3 companies. The noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, says that he wants ITN to be owned by Channel 3 companies. However the Government think that Channel 3 companies should not have 100 per cent. ownership. There is a difference of approach here.
We believe that the shareholding of the Channel 3 news provider should be broadened and that a majority shareholding should be held by nonChannel 3 licence holders. We have always believed that and the Bill puts that into practice. Amendment No. 174 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, and Amendment No. 175 standing in the name of the noble Baroness would allow the Channel 3 licensees collectively to have unfettered control of a nominated news provider. At the moment

1049
we are talking about ITN, but this measure does not apply just to ITN. Even with a 70 per cent. stake, any proposal favoured by outside shareholders could be voted down by the Channel 3 licensees. Amendment No. 176A would allow Channel 3 licensees to have a majority shareholding at the discretion of the ITC. All of these amendments are designed to make quite sure that the Channel 3 licensees hold the majority shareholding.
There are four main reasons why we have thought it right to provide that Channel 3 companies should have only a minority shareholding in the news provider. First, this should help to encourage the news organisation to act efficiently. Secondly, the wider share base gives scope for directors with outside experience and outside thoughts. Thirdly, the advantage of diversification and expansion is the introduction of greater scope for risk capital for investment. Fourthly, the proposal would ameliorate the tensions that otherwise might exist because of the conflict of interests among Channel 3 licensees themselves who at present collectively own the news provider.
There may be some misunderstanding about the need for Channel 3 companies to own their own news service. We naturally want the news service to provide high quality news—there is no difference of view here—but this does not mean that the Channel 3 licensees have themselves to own the news service.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, produced an enchantingly domestic analogy. He said that on the whole the cook has to own the frying pan and not just 49 per cent. of it. Perhaps I could direct the noble Lord to another analogy. If he chooses to move house, he will move his furniture from one house to another. He does not have to do that by putting it all in his car and humping it over to the new house himself. He can employ a contractor to do that because contractors are professionals and specialists. They are good at that job and they know their business. The noble Lord would pay a contractor for moving his furniture. He does not have to own the contractor. The same position applies to the matter we are discussing.
Lord Willis: Such a person would not get the contractor to cook his sausages, would he?
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord went out to a restaurant, the sausages might be a good deal better than those he cooks for himself.
The ITC will, under our proposals, be required to nominate a news provider who is capable of providing high quality news. In order to retain nomination by the ITC, the news provider will have to continue to provide a high quality news service. If he did not, his nomination would be withdrawn.
My noble friend Lord Stockton and the noble Lord, Lord Boston, were worried about what would happen if the news provider charged too much for his services. If the supplier tries to increase the price unreasonably, on the basis that he is the monopoly supplier, he could risk being denominated by the Independent Television Commission. He may find
1050
that another news supplier is offering better value for money and that supplier could be nominated in his place.
On a similar point my noble friend Lord Stockton was worried about creating a longterm monopoly. The Bill already provides that the ITC must, at regular intervals, review the performance of the nominated news provider. The first of these reviews would almost certainly take place well before the fiveyear period, which was suggested in an amendment of my noble friend which he did not move. The review would probably take place after three years.
If, as a result of one of those regular reviews, the Independent Television Commission concluded that another news supplier could offer a better service, it would be obliged to terminate the nomination of the existing news supplier and to nominate the other supplier instead. The Bill therefore already contains a slightly more detailed and more sophisticated review mechanism than that which might be expected at first glance.
I wish to make the following point clear because it has worried every single speaker this afternoon who has spoken on this group of amendments. The Government are not seeking to exclude Channel 3 licensees from holding the controlling share of the news provider. If Channel 3 were to hold the 49 per cent. share for which the Bill would allow, that would almost certainly amount in practice to a controlling interest, particularly as the Bill provides that no other single person or company could have a shareholding that was greater than 20 per cent. In other words, although 51 per cent. of the shareholding is owned by people other than news providers, no one of those other owners could own more than a 20 per cent. shareholding. Therefore the chances are that the 49 per cent. shareholding held by the licensees themselves would create a controlling interest.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for giving way. Perhaps I may take up one point that he has just made. He used the qualification "almost certainly". That is a very severe qualification indeed and does not amount to complete control.
Earl Ferrers: I am trying to recall in what circumstances I said, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, suggested, that they would almost certainly have a controlling interest.
Lord Boston of Faversham: The noble Earl also said "for all practical purposes". No doubt he would wish to include that in the phrase. Those are the terms in which he put it. One has to look very closely indeed at that very severe reservation—"almost certainly"—because if it is almost certainly controlled it is not certainly controlled. That is a severe drawback.
Earl Ferrers: That is a perfectly fair point. If all those who were the owners of the 51 per cent. were collectively to gather together on some point they would overrule the 49 per cent. As nobody on the other side can own more than 20 per cent. the chances

1051
of that happening are remote. However, it could happen, I agree. Our reasoning is that there could be cases where that should happen.
We have tried to create a sensible balance between the legitimate interests of Channel 3 companies to have a say in the affairs of the company which will provide the news for them and the desire to avoid too narrow and introspective an ownership base.
Amendments Nos. 174, 175 and 176A, which would permit Channel 3 licence holders to hold a controlling interest, are misguided. Amendment No. 176, which relates to staff, is unnecessary. I know that the Committee feels strongly about the matter and has anxieties, but I hope that I have been able to explain that although there will be an influx of fresh thought in the 51 per cent. shareholding, that does not necessarily mean that the Channel 3 licensees collectively would lose control of the organisation.
Lord Annan: Is one of the arguments that the noble Earl is deploying that when the late Lord Thomson was required by the IBA to divest himself of a very large proportion of his shares in Scottish Television that it was because it was in the public interest to bring other shareholders into that company and to limit the power held by the late Lord Thomson in that company? Is he saying that that is one of the reasons why he believes that it is in the public interest to bring new blood into the running of the company?
Earl Ferrers: The analogy with the late Lord Thomson is not relevant to this particular case. Our view is that here is an organisation which has been immensely successful. We all accept that it has done very well. It is owned and controlled by those who purvey the news. We believe that to permit outside ideas, outside thought, outside money and fresh views will make it even more lively and enable it possibly to provide news for others as well. In providing that service it will be open to competition, because if it does not do well others will be able to do better. As a result it may he able to provide even better news than it does at present and it will not be such an enclosed organisation.
6.15 p.m.
Lord BonhamCarter: In one of his happier moments the noble Earl described me as having been infected by the virus of pessimism, which appears to have infected every single speaker on this topic this evening, with the exception of the noble Earl. Possibly the virus of pessimism has spread through my veins after watching the activities of the noble Earl's Government over 10 years. I regard their initiatives and their itch to meddle in everything even if it is going well, with a good deal of scepticism. I find that his arguments for meddling in ITN arouse my scepticism in an extremely acute form.
The Minister asked one or two rhetorical questions which perhaps I may answer. He asked whether it is reasonable for ITN companies to be owned by the ITV companies. The argument which I put forward and which most other noble Lords expressed was that it was reasonable not only on the basis of our
1052
experience of ITN as a producer of news but also on the basis of the experience of other television companies elsewhere in the world.
The noble Earl asked why activities should not be contracted out to experts in the field. ITN is an expert —an expert recognised throughout the world—in the field of gathering news. I do not know of any newspaper which contracts out its journalism. ITN regards itself as an expert in that field and therefore it wishes to retain that within its own control because it wants to control the people who provide it with news, for which it has a real responsibility.
Nor do I understand why, by bringing in outside shareholders, who presumably know nothing about news or television, one should expect to produce new ideas which would vastly increase the quality of the news provided by ITN. I suggest that those people who would have invested in ITN from outside would have invested in it to make money. The making of money is not the best way of judging what has previously been run as a cost centre. Nor is it very easy to value a cost centre. There would be considerable difficulty in obtaining a true valuation of ITN.
We have had a long and interesting debate on the subject. The overwhelming majority of opinion expressed in that debate has been that the Government have not yet convinced us that what they propose is a good idea. I believe, as the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, suggested, that the best course would be to leave things as they are. However, the second best course would be to see whether we can persuade the Government that it is unnecessary to give outside investors a majority interest but that they should have a minority interest so that ITN can use their ideas but not have those ideas forced down its throat.
Therefore, I shall seek leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage, but if the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, decides to press her amendment I shall, of course, support her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 30, line 26, leave out from ("to") to end of line 28 and insert ("no more than 70 per cent. of the shares in that body; and
(ii) possess no more than 70 per cent. of the voting power in it.").
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I have listened very carefully to everything that has been said. It is interesting that the Minister has a number of his noble friends around him but none has supported the view of the Government on this subject. Everyone who has spoken, including the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, has taken the view that has been taken on this side of the Committee. It is not a party political view but a realistic view which reflects the views of the IBA and the association of independent television companies.
ITN, quite rightly, would have preferred everything to have been left as it was. No arguments have been put forward by the Government to persuade any of us to change our view on the matter. I believe that we

1053
should follow the view of the ITA, which has agreed that the initial release of onethird of the equity and voting power in ITN will be more than enough to meet the Government's concern. That is what is proposed in my amendment. Therefore I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee. I beg to move.
6.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 175) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; NotContents, 75.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Annan, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monkswell, L.

BonhamCarter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

ClintonDavis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

PrysDavies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Diamond, L.

Rochester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L

Serota, B.

Ewart Biggs, B.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stockton, E.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Varley, L.

Hunt, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gridley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Halsbury, E.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L.

Balfour, E.

Hives, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Howe, E.

Belstead, L.

HyltonFoster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Birdwood, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Lytton, E.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

BoydCarpenter, L.

Milverton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nelson, E.

Butterworth, L.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Northbourne, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pender, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Peterborough, Bp.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cox, B.

Pym, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

1054

Saint Oswald, L.

Swinfen, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Thomas pf Gwydir, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ullswater, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vaux of Harrowdean, L

Strathcarron, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wise, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Young, B.

Sudeley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.28 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 176 and 176A not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved amendment No. 177:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
(" Conditions requiring holder of Channel 3 or 5 licence to deliver promised service
.—(1) Any Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence shall include such conditions as appear to the Commission to be appropriate for securing—

(a) that the service provided under the licence accords with the proposals submitted by the licence holder under subsection (3) (b) of section 15; and

(b) the implementation of the proposals submitted by him under subsection (3) (c) and (d) of that section.

(2) In subsection (1) the reference to section 15 is, in relation to a Channel 5 licence, a reference to that section as applied by section 27.
(3) Any conditions imposed in pursuance of subsection (1) may be varied by the Commission with the consent of the licence holder (and section 3(4) (b) shall accordingly not apply to any such variation).").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 156. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Schools programmes]:
[Amendment No. 177A not moved.]
Lord BonhamCarter Lord BonhamCarter moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 31, line 16, at end insert ("provided at times appropriate for schools").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. These programmes concern television used for educational purposes. I need not emphasise to the Committee that it is an extremely important and growing aid in education in our schools. The question that it raises is a relatively narrow one. We know that a large number of teachers in schools use television, appreciate it and depend upon it.
A recent survey showed that 12 per cent. of primary school teachers find television central to the education of their pupils and 74 per cent. used it from time to time and found it useful. In secondary schools the figures are the same. In the same survey they are 8.5 per cent. and just under 49 per cent.
I understand that the Government envisage that the ITC will continue the procedures of the IBA in this field. However, there is some concern that the licences only "may" have conditions with regard to schools programmes which implies, as ever, that they may not. I suggest that it be a statutory duty. Amendment No. 179 turns "may" into "shall" which serves that purpose.
There is also concern that with the growth of popular daytime TV programmes, schools programmes may be scheduled at inconvenient hours, perhaps late or very early, on the assumption that all schools have videos with which they can record those programmes. The fact is that at present that is not so, however desirable it might be that it should be so. A survey by Moses and Croll showed that 23 per cent. of teachers in primary schools and 26 per cent. of teachers in secondary schools had inadequate facilities for recording those programmes. Hence it is genuinely important either that they should be provided with equipment so that they can record the programmes, or, if not, that the programmes should be scheduled in hours when they can be used. The problem is particularly important and acute in rural schools where TV education is particularly important. Amendment No. 178, which stands in my name, would ensure that schools programmes are shown at appropriate times. I beg to move.
Baroness EwartBiggs: I should like to say a word in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, and then to speak briefly about Amendment No. 179.
I believe that it is very important to make sure that schools programmes are broadcast at appropriate times for schools for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, has given. It is true that in some schools it may be convenient to record programmes. But there are other schools which do not own a video recorder. I think that it is fairly unlikely, as the noble Lord has suggested, that, miraculously, they will all be provided with one. If the schools do not own a video recorder and do not have the staff capacity to work the equipment outside convenient times, then the schools programmes cannot be shown.
This amendment does not determine rigidly the appropriate times for schools but leaves it to the ITC to ensure that the services are provided at those times.
Amendment No. 179 has the effect of ensuring that commercial channels must contribute towards schools educational programming. The requirement is necessary because it is possible to imagine a time when education authorities might be expected to subscribe to TV schools programmes when such programmes come in sponsored packages. I therefore do not think that it is a very contentious amendment. All those who sincerely believe in public service broadcasts will welcome it most eagerly.
Baroness David: I should like to say a word in support of these amendments. The provision is important because if the programmes are not shown at appropriate times, then unless the schools have videos, they will be in difficulty. We all know that at the moment schools are short of cash for books, equipment and so on. Some schools may well have difficulty in providing sufficient videos, tapes and so on.
With the existing shortage of teachers, television programmes may be relied upon more heavily. They are a very good aid to teaching if they are used properly. Of course teachers need to be present but
1056
such programmes are a very great help. It is therefore extremely important that these programmes should be made. That is the provision in Amendment No. 179. They should also be available at the right time.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should like to draw the Committee's attention in particular to Clause 31(1). It states:
"The Commission shall do all they can to secure that a suitable proportion of the programmes which arc included in Channel 3 services and Channels 4 and 5 (taken as a whole) are schools programmes".
The ITC shall do all that it can in that regard.
On Amendment No. 178, the relevant point is in Clause 31(2)(c)(ii) which refers to conditions requiring the licence holder to ensure that schools programmes included in the licensed service,
"are suitable to meet the needs of schools in the area or areas in the United Kingdom for which the service is provided".
Clause 31(2) (d) refers to,
"conditions specifying the minimum number of hours in term time or within normal school hours that are to be allocated to the broadcasting of schools programmes in the licensed service".
Those are the paragraph and subparagraph that we wish to address. They give the ITC power to ensure that schools programmes are suitable to meet the needs of schools, and to specify the minimum number of hours in term time or within normal school hours that are to be allocated to schools programmes. The Bill's provisions will give the ITC ample power to ensure that schools programmes are broadcast at times appropriate for schools. It would not necessarily be the case that all schools programmes would have to be broadcast during term time. Increasingly schools have access to video recorders and can be expected to use these facilities to reschedule programmes broadcast outside normal school hours. However, again I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 31(1). The commission would have to be sure that that balance was correct in that area.
Amendment No. 179 would oblige the ITC to require all Channel 3, 4 and 5 licensees to show schools programmes. The intention of the Bill is to give the ITC the flexibility to determine how best to provide schools programmes. It may indeed conclude that schools programmes can best be provided on three, four and five channels. On the other hand, the ITC may prefer to concentrate its schools programmes on one channel only. The important point is that the ITC is under an obligation in Clause 31(2)(c) to ensure that the schools programmes are suitable to meet the needs of schools. It will be a matter for it to decide how it can best achieve that. We believe that the Bill should not include a statutory requirement which might impede that objective. Surely the way that schools programmes are to be provided is a matter for the commission to decide given the obligations in the statute under Clause 31(1).
I hope that the explanation that flexibility would not come easily if Amendment No. 179 were accepted will determine what Members of the Committee think about the amendment.
Lord BonhamCarter: I have listened to what the Minister has been good enough to say. I agree that Clause 31 goes a long way to meet the requirements of the amendment that I moved.
However, I hope that he will have drawn the attention of the ITC to the importance which Members of this Chamber attach to this aspect of those responsibilities. I reiterate that although it is surprising, the figures indicate that 23 per cent. of teachers in primary schools and 26 per cent. of teachers in secondary schools do not have video equipment. Therefore the hours at which the programmes are broadcast is still extremely important. The evidence is that those least likely to have the equipment are small schools in rural areas.
In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lord BonhamCarter Lord BonhamCarter moved Amendment No. 180:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Promoting the arts on television
. The Secretary of State, in order to ensure the availability in the licensed services of a wide range of high quality programmes on the arts, shall

(a) set a percentage of the annual revenue obtained by the Commission,

(b) allocate a sum equal to the amount set under paragraph (a) above;

and shall ensure that the sums so obtained are paid to a body corporate established by the Arts Council for the purpose of promoting the arts on television.").
The noble Lord said: We return to the arts, upon which we touched briefly yesterday. I hope that on this occasion I shall be presenting an exciting entrepreneurial idea which the Minister will pick up, welcome, accept and carry out. I do not see him looking very forthcoming at the moment.
When the White Paper was published the Arts Council, to its great credit, noticed that there was an opportunity for it to take an initiative. It embraced the idea that the increased viewing choice which was to be made available should include the production and transmission of programmes showing the activities of its clients—those in the arts. It commissioned Messrs Coopers and Lybrand to assess the opportunities should the Arts Council try to increase the dissemination of the arts to a wider audience through increased coverage on television and video. The Arts Council has had experience of making such films and distributing them successfully. The films have been regarded by most people as being extremely good examples of their kind.
The Coopers and Lybrand report concluded that an opportunity existed for an agency to invest in such programmes. It should coordinate them with the broadcasting companies and the businesses interested in arts programmes for sponsorship and so forth. Therefore, it set out a plan. Its objectives were to bring the work of the Arts Council's clients to a wider audience by those means and to do so with a minimum call on private funds. To achieve that worthy objective
1058
it planned to set up an independent company and commit £1.5 million annually from a new broadcasting incentive fund beginning in 1991. The company will commission highquality arts programmes from independent production companies mainly derived from the productions of existing arts companies. In accordance with the Coopers and Lybrand report, it will be financially selfsufficient within five years given adequate investment. It will earn its revenue from domestic and international sales and it will develop a secondary market through home videos.
The Arts Council is persuaded that the plan will work in part as a result of the response that it has received from sponsors, arts organisations and broadcasters to the idea that it floated. Secondly, it is persuaded because of the Coopers and Lybrand projections and assumptions about the themes, the cost of production, marketing and administration and its conclusion that with sufficient investment profitability can be achieved within five years. Those two responses have encouraged the Arts Council to believe that it is on to something that can work.
The idea complements and reinforces the Government's objectives for increasing competition, choice and quality in broadcasting. The company's programmes will offer to millions more people the chance to enjoy the best works supported by the Arts Council. The venture is not large but it is significant. It launches a new idea and I hope that the Government will embrace it. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: I was interested to read the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, relating to the promotion of the arts. I have always believed that if we are to have 27 channels, which is more or less what we have now with perhaps more later, one or two might be devoted entirely to highquality programmes on the arts.
I was also most interested to read the letter that I received from Anthony Everett, the new secretary general of the Arts Council. He gave me details of the council's plans to set up an independent company to finance arts television programmes, such as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter. It was an extremely interesting proposal put forward by the Arts Council and Coopers and Lybrand which concluded that a commercial opportunity existed, given the right level of initial and continuing investment.
Therefore, I was glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, had tabled the amendment. I have had correspondence about the matter with my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I was glad that he told me that this was an imaginative and timely initiative. However, I accept the point that he does not believe it appropriate that there should be a statutory provision which would compel ITC licensees to fund such a body. I shall not state all the points that my noble friend made in his letter to me because it is better that he should do so himself.
I am glad that the Government welcome the Arts Council initiative and wish it every success. I was

1059
interested to read an article published in the Evening Standard on 29th June. It discussed the Arts Council's proposals for a £5 million television company and asked the question: where is the 1990s equivalent of Sir Kenneth Clarke's "Civilisation"?
I agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that, interesting and pertinent though the amendment is, it need not necessarily be included in the Bill. It would run counter to the deregulatory thrust of the Bill as a whole. Nonetheless, I hope that the Arts Council will succeed in its efforts to obtain voluntary contributions from broadcasters to its new incentive funding initiative. I hope that it will also receive contributions and sponsorship from others. That happens, for example, at the Chichester Festival Theatre, in which I have an interest, and at Glyndebourne opera. Neither are dependent on the taxpayer. I hope that the Arts Council will succeed in obtaining the necessary voluntary contributions to set up its new independent company, Arts Council Television, even if there is no provision in the Bill for that.
Baroness Birk: I am sorry that on this occasion I do not fir d myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, and nor with my old friend the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. We on these Benches agree that there should be more arts programmes on television. I have discussed the matter with members of the Arts Council and have received their letter and memorandum. It appears to be an attractive idea, but while the intentions are excellent the whole project misfires. I do not believe that this is the way to use Arts Council money, which is always in short supply. It is not the job of the Arts Council to set up its own broadcasting company, which is expensive in financial and personnel terms. I am also worried that there would be an adverse effect on the ability to obtain more government funding for the arts.
I believe that there should be many more arts programmes on television and radio than we have at present. However, I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to achieve that. It is a question of method. I believe that the Art Council should be able to commission programmes from independent producers for Channel 3 and Channel 5, if there is one. I prefer the route proposed by Amendment No. 128 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter, and myself. I believe that that is the best way to approach the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and that is a somewhat happy and unusual position to be in. This amendment is not quite suitable. I agree with the noble Baroness that this is an interesting initiative and we wish it success but that is completely different from imposing an obligation upon ITC licensees to contribute.
It is an imaginative and timely initiative. However, we do not consider that it is right to have such main statutory provision for it. I expect that the Arts Council will seek voluntary funding and will ask for contributions. Of course, it can seek funding from the broadcasters. However, as there are no specific requirements on any ITC licensee to show arts programmes, it is not right to require the licensees to
1060
fund a body which is engaged in promoting those sort of programmes which they do not have to show in the first place. No doubt such programmes will be shown and no doubt voluntary contributions will be made to the Arts Council. However, I do not believe that it is right to impose a statutory requirement upon the licensees to do so.
Lord BonhamCarter: For one marvellous moment I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, was going to support my amendment. I was rapidly disillusioned and the support disappeared. For another moment I thought that possibly the virus of pessimism might not have entered into the veins of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. However, this bright new, interesting, entrepreneurial idea was turned down flat by the noble Earl. The virus of pessimism or scepticism has spread across the Floor of the Committee.
I listened to the words of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. He said that he recognised that the spirit of the amendment ran counter to the regulatory thrust of the Bill. I say to him that all the best amendments which have been moved run counter to the regulatory thrust of it. That is why we are grateful to the Government for modifying in so many ways the original Bill which was brought before Parliament.
However, one must accept one premise on which this proposal rests, whether it be practical or impractical; that is, that it is almost certainly the case that today most people's access to the arts is through television. Therefore, to encourage television broadcasters to broadcast arts programmes is highly desirable. As we decided the other day, television brings artistic performances and works of the very highest class and quality to millions of people who would not otherwise have access to them. Without the use of this magical medium, they would be wholly deprived of that.
Although this scheme may be flawed, I do not believe it should be thrust aside as impractical. It has the germ of an idea of great importance and I hope that it will be carried further. I hope that in some shape or form it will find its way on to our screens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Subtitling for the deaf]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 33, line 30, after ("television") insert ("broadcasting").
The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting improvement to Clause 32(8).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume and that we return to this business at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1990
6.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): rose to move, That the draft Order laid before the House on 21st June be approved.[21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this scheme is presented in accordance with the requirements of Section 13 of the Agriculture Act 1967, as amended by the Agriculture Acts of 1970 and 1986. The order replaces the maximum charges set out in the schedule to the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1988. In doing this, the order increases the maximum charges payable for cattle, pigs and sheep in respect of general expenses, and increases the maximum levy in respect of species promotion payable on cattle and sheep. For pigs, the maximum species promotion levy remains unchanged. There continues to be no species promotion levy on calves, and the maximum general levy on calves remains unchanged.
The species promotion levy is paid solely by producers, and the general levy is shared equally between producers and slaughterers. The actual amounts within these maxima will continue to be determined by the MLC in consultation with the appropriate representatives of the industry. It usually takes several years for actual rates to reach the permitted maxima. Before submitting its scheme to agriculture Ministers, the commission consulted widely within the meat and livestock industry on its proposals for new levy maxima. Agriculture Ministers have consulted the industry separately. In the light of these consultation exercises, I am satisfied that the proposals have the support of the industry because of the overall benefit to the meat and livestock industry.
I should now like to set out the background to the draft order. Customs and Excise has examined the position of the MLC in respect of VAT. The conclusion was that the MLC's levy fell within the VAT system. In technical terms, it constitutes a financial consideration for a taxable supply of services. This means that as from 1st September this year VAT will be charged on MLC levies. As a consequence, the MLC will be able to recover the VAT it incurs on its purchases (inputs) against the VAT charged on its outputs. Levy payers registered for VAT will also be able to recover from Customs and Excise the VAT charged on the levy to the extent that it is attributable to their own taxable expenses.
The main purpose of the draft order is to allow the MLC to increase its levies to take account of the payment of VAT from 1st September. Otherwise there would be a significant fall in the revenue of MLC after payment of VAT, leading to a cutback in its activity.
1062
As far as levy payers are concerned, I have already mentioned that the VAT they pay will be recoverable from Customs and Excise.
The maximum rates specified in the draft order would also provide some scope for the MLC over the coming years to increase its levies (in particular the species promotion levies for cattle and sheep) over and above what is required because of the VAT changes. This reflects the views of the relevant species promotion councils, and any actual increase would be put in place in full consultation with industry representatives.
The draft order would exempt from the levy certain livestock brought into the United Kingdom from other member states. This is necessary to meet our Community obligations. I would stress that it is a very limited exemption. It is confined to animals which have been fattened here for relatively short periods. The numbers involved are extremely small, and the effect on MLC income will not be significant.
The raising of the maxima has the support of both the industry and Ministers, and I ask your Lordships to support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Commit tee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we on this side of the House, thank the noble Baroness for breathlessly explaining the order and its purpose. I immediately give her the reassurance that we are in support of it. Indeed, we have very little to say about it.
I was gratified to learn from her introduction that there had been full consultation both by the Ministry and by the Meat and Livestock Commission with the 13 representative bodies who have an interest in these matters, and that there was unanimous agreement in favour of the changes which the levy proposes. Such unanimity in the meat industry is, in my experience, a rare occurrence. We should be grateful that the industry is so wholeheartedly behind the commission in the increases now proposed.
I had a note from the commission which gives me the gratifying additional information that the species promotion levy, which is included in the order, is likely to remain at those rates for the next three years. If that should prove to be the case, it will be a source of gratification for those called upon to pay the species promotion levies.
I note what the noble Baroness said regarding the decision by Customs and Excise to vary the rulings regarding VAT. One must accept the fairness of the variation. Again, the MLC is apparently satisfied with it. In my dealings with Customs and Excise I always believed in an arm's length relationship and the maximum disputation of everything which it proposed. That led on occasion to some very valuable concessions under de minimis and other rules which I never fully understand but which ultimately were beneficial to us. However, I am assured by the Meat and Livestock Commission that what is proposed will be to its advantage rather than to the reverse. To that

1063
extent is would be wrong of me to criticise unduly the Custom s and Excise based on experience which may be sadly out of date. That said, we support the order.
Baroness Trumpington: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and apologise for my breathlessness. I thank him for his welcome.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy Powers) Order 1990
7.4 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the authority was established in 1981 to replace both the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority. Its purpose is to promote the efficiency of the sea fish industry as a whole having regard to the interests of the consumers. It aids the marketing, and encourages consumption, of sea fish and sea fish products; provides training; carries out research and development; gives advice and information; and administers the UK national fishing vessels grants scheme.
For the purposes of financing its activities the authority may, under the Fisheries Act 1981, impose a levy on weight of sea fish or sea fish products landed in, or imported into, the UK or transhipped within British fishery limits. The authority is proposing to increase the levy from 1st April next year. Consultations with the industry are currently taking place arid once these are completed in September or October, a formal proposal for a levy increase will be made to fisheries Ministers.
The current levy is 7p per kilo or £7 per tonne. Under the Fisheries Act 1981, the maximum that can be collected is £8 per tonne. In order to accommodate any proposal to increase the levy above £8 per tonne it is necessary to increase the current ceiling. The purpose of this order is to increase the ceiling now so that the authority will be acting within its powers when the regulation is made in the autumn. The order increases the ceiling to £20 per tonne since it would not be sensible to have orders of this kind regularly. I must emphasise that the order just raises the overall levy ceiling; it does not increase individual levy rates for fish and fish products.
A decision on the actual rate of levy is, in the first instance, a matter for the authority which must prepare a new levy regulation at whatever rate of levy is considered necessary. The industry must then be consulted about the proposal. Finally, after taking account of the industry's reactions, it is for Ministers to consider, and decide upon, the authority's levy regulation and make an order. Raising the levy ceiling today does not therefore commit anyone to an increase in the levy, although it is no secret that the authority is thinking in terms of a 31 per cent. increase it simply provides the statutory basis for the authority to make a formal proposal.
I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for introducing the measure to us as clearly as he always does. We note the purpose of the levy and the permissive character of the increases. We also note that the negotiations as to the amount to be used under the powers in the order will be with the industry.
My only query stems from the common fisheries policy and in particular the quota system. Given that the limitation on landings of fish is now so severe, will that of itself result in the Sea Fish Industry Authority having to raise more money by way of the rate of levy than would otherwise be the case? In that context, while not wishing to engage the Minister in a major debate or even a discussion of the matter at this hour of the evening, can he say whether the role of the Sea Fish Industry Authority is being looked at in the light of the fact that for the foreseeable future the restrictions on catches under the common fisheries policy are of such a nature that the promotional aspect of the authority's work is likely to be somewhat reduced? I very much regret that; it is however a fact of life. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for welcoming the order. One of the difficulties for the industry at the moment, as he rightly says, is that the weight of fish landed has gone down considerably—particularly haddock in northern waters but also other species. That presents the SFIA with problems regarding the rate. The SFIA is setting its levy on the weight of fish landed. Thereby hangs the problem which it now faces about the size of the increase of the levy.
Having said that, it will not have escaped the noble Lord's attention that the value of fish landed has dramatically increased. Therefore, the catching side of the industry—although the processors have some problems—is quite satisfied with the very high levels of price it is obtaining for what used to be fairly low priced commodities; cod, haddock, whiting, and skate in the main.
The answer to the noble Lord's question regarding the role of the SFIA is no. The promotional aspect has perhaps taken a different turn in so far as, having now established its role as the promotional organisation for fish, the authority finds that it must spend a great deal of time evaluating how it can increase the intake of fish or the attractiveness of fish to the housewife. Although its promotional role has changed, it is still relevant because the fish must compete with other foods.
I hope that, without going into a detailed discussion of the fishing industry, which is not having an easy time at the moment, the noble Lord will understand that the difficulty for the SFIA is increased because it has to do its job and, to do that, it needs a levy. However, with fish landings having gone down and values having gone up, it has a problem.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1990
7.10 pm
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this order is intended to replace the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1987. It is the sixth of its kind. As well as carrying forward the provisions of the previous order, it introduces the terms of a European Community directive on aircraft noise which effectively rules out the addition of further so called chapter 2 aircraft to the fleets of EC member states. As in the case of the previous order, it is considered preferable to have a new comprehensive order rather than have the complexities which would result from an amended order. The noise standards section is largely unchanged and repeats that in the old order.
International noise certification standards for civil subsonic jet aircraft are specified in the International Civil Aviation Organisation's annex 16 to the convention on International Civil Aviation. Chapter 2 is the minimum standard and that is attained by the older types such as the BAC111 and Boeing 727. More modern types, such as the Airbus A320 and BAe 146, are certificated to the more stringent chapter 3 requirements and are appreciably quieter. The order will give force to EC Directive 89/629/EEC and will bar from November this year the addition to the airline fleets of EC member states those aircraft which do not meet chapter 3 noise standards.
The provisions contained in the order represent a first step towards the eventual phasing out of operations by this class of aircraft and follow the undertaking given in the 1985 airports' policy White Paper. The nonaddition proposals are supported not only by the UK, but by the majority of the member states of the European Civil Aviation Conference which are not already members of the European Community.
The banning of chapter 2 aircraft operations altogether will be no simple task when it is remembered that over half of the world jet fleet is comprised of chapter 2 aircraft. However, we are confident that an international agreement will be reached later this year that will allow those aircraft to be phased out over the period 1995 to 2002.
Regrettably, the problem of aircraft noise disturbance in the vicinity of airports will never entirely disappear. However, the provision in the order represents a further, if modest, step in the Government's ongoing campaign to alleviate the nuisance. I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved.[22nd Report from the Joint Committeer—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for explaining the purpose of the order. Those who are instructing me in the matter have told me to say very little, apart from giving the order a generous welcome and saying that we support it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.14 to 8 p.m.]

Broadcasting Bill
House again in Committee.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)Baroness Darcy (De Knayth) moved Amendment No. 182:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause: ("Sign language programmes
.The Commission shall ensure that any Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel 4 or 5 shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to provide a sufficient amount of time for programmes with sign language in the licensed service.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that Channels 3, 4 and 5 broadcast some programmes with sign language for deaf viewers. It leaves it to the ITC to decide how much after weighing up the needs of deaf viewers against the question whether using sign language for some informative and educational programmes will be imposing too much on hearing viewers who may not wish to see them. It cannot be turned off in the manner of subtitling. This amendment is supported by the Deaf Broadcasting Council, Deaf Accord, and the RNID. The British Deaf Association is part of Deaf Accord. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is the president and he strongly supports this amendment. He has asked me to give his apologies because he has had to leave.
The organisations for the deaf warmly welcome the amendments to Clause 32 introduced in the other place at Report. They will mean that at least 50 per cent. of the programmes on Channels 3 and 5 are subtitled within five years of the new franchises. That is a great benefit to the 4 million deaf and hearingimpaired people. However, there are 50,000 profoundly deaf people whose only or preferred language is British sign language (BSL). Research shows that the average reading age on leaving school is under nine years for some of these handicapped people. Therefore, they find that rapidly changing subtitles are difficult.
Signing makes sensible use of positive visual abilities rather than of limited hearing abilities. That is a fundamental point. Sign language is visual and, therefore, television is the ideal medium for communication. It is recognised as being important as a means of providing education and information for the public in general. Therefore, it is essential for those

1067
who do not have access to other media. The Government have already recognised the importance of sign language when they want to get a message across. They have produced a video in BSL on the poll tax.
What does television offer in sign language at present? BBC 1 and Channel 4 each regularly broadcast a halfhour programme with sign language, but basically it is at offpeak hours on issues affecting deaf viewers. The most welcome recent development is Channel 4's news slot at 9 a.m. with sign language. That is the first signed network news in Britain. Of the 15 ITV regions only six provide any sign language and none of these is the large television companies. Two surveys in the regions both showed that more than 80 per cent. of the public agreed that sign language should be on some regular news programmes. There was no adverse public reaction.
Last September a conference held in Sweden on television production for the deaf produced some interesting papers. Sweden reported that their 20minute, weekly signed news programme had figures totalling three times the number of deaf people in the country. The viewing figures for Switzerland were way above the deaf population. Obviously, hearing viewers were looking at and appreciating these programmes as well.
Broadcasters have resisted sign language interpreters on ordinary programmes on the ground that it would distract the hearing viewers. However, they have acknowledged that that is only their personal view and they have no evidence to support it. It has not been possible to carry out network research because of insufficient examples to provide a serious survey. Until sign language is regularly shown on network television at peak hours, how are we to judge? We are in a chickenandegg situation. This amendment would nudge those television companies who do not provide some signing into doing so. As I have said, it can be a minimum amount.
Concern has also been expressed about technical problems, the cost and the small number of viewers who would be involved. I do not think that those are good arguments. The television companies which have provided signing have overcome any technical problems. The cost is low. It is £200 an hour which is half the cost of subtitling. In any case, is it really justifiable to reject sign language because subtitling benefits the majority of deaf viewers? Those who use sign language accept that subtitling should be the key service. They merely want some access to news, information and education.
At the international conference on television and deaf viewers which I mentioned earlier, the Swiss submission stated that they also tried to build a bridge between the world of the deaf and the world of the hearing. This amendment will help to ensure that deaf people are less isolated from events and from the hearing public. I hope that the Minister will reflect whether the positive benefits in communication, integration and understanding do not outweigh the unsubstantiated fears that hearing viewers may be distracted by signing. If at the moment he cannot give
1068
any positive response, I hope that he will at least agree to discuss the issue further before Report. I beg to move.
Baroness EwartBiggs: I support this amendment. My noble friend Lady David also strongly supports it. Unfortunately, she is not here to speak to the amendment. The supporters of this amendment are not asking for a great deal. They are asking that Channels 4 and 5 should include conditions requiring the licence holders to provide a sufficient amount of time for programmes with sign language in the licensed service. I do not think that this amendment can be seen as one making a very great demand.
The noble Baroness has put forward some very convincing reasons showing the importance of this amendment. She has pointed out the number of deaf people living in Britain. She has indicated that their only and preferred language is the British sign language. BSL is a true language with its own grammar and syntax. I did not know that it is Britain's fourth indigenous language. Public interest in it has grown considerably in recent years. Moreover, in 1988 the European Parliament took an interest in the subject. It passed a resolution calling on member states to recognise their own national sign languages.
I found myself very convinced by the argument that sign language is a visual language which enables deaf people to communicate effectively and fully in a way that they find most comfortable. Therefore, television is the ideal medium for conveying information in sign language. There is the added reason that, for most deaf people, it is difficult to understand English. Television programmes with sign language would give them access to information which they would otherwise be completely denied. According to the research carried out by the IBA in 1984, there is very strong support from the public for sign language to be included. The cost seems remarkably low.
We on this side of the Committee believe that there is very strong support for deaf people to have access to more television with sign language interpretation. This amendment allows the ITC to decide where to strike the balance between the needs of deaf people and the effects on hearing viewers.
Surely we should do everything we can to include deaf people in the life of the community. In so many ways deaf people must feel excluded and, as the noble Baroness said, isolated from normal daytoday life. There is little one can do to help them but this is something that can be done. I strongly support the amendment. It will do something to include deaf people in life. Television is a wonderful medium for that. Therefore I too hope that the Minister will look favourably on this important amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I am delighted to support the amendment to which my name is also attached. Earlier the noble Earl the Minister talked to us about the virus of pessimism. I am bound to say that I feel optimistic about the amendment for a whole number of reasons which I shall now explain.
First, as Members of the Committee will know, the amendment has been moved by a noble Baroness who,

1069
although she now sits on what might be called a movable Bench, actually belongs to the CrossBenches. The amendment also has attached to it the names of noble Lords of all three parties. Had we been allowed to attach five names to it, I am absolutely certain that we could have had a Bishop as well. What I am saying is that the amendment is supported by Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber.
I should also have thought that an amendment designed to enhance the enjoyment of television for people with impaired hearing would by definition appeal to a Chamber such as this which is full of noble Lords whose hearing is impaired. I do not merely mean those who do not wish to hear; I mean the very large number of noble Lords—there are many in my own party as well as in other parties—who have certain hearing difficulties. There is a great understanding of the problems of people with hearing impairments. That is my second reason for feeling optimistic.
My third reason is that a long time ago I moved a similar amendment—or an amendment designed to achieve the same effect—to the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. That was warmly welcomed, as I recollect, by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who dealt with the Bill on that occasion. Subsequently, the Government incorporated something of this kind into the Cable and Broadcasting Bill.
My other reason is a more personal one. A programme which I presented for Granada Television was the first programme in this country to be regularly and routinely signed for people with hearing impairment. A lady signed the programme. She appeared in the corner of the screen. This was greatly appreciated by all viewers. The lovely balletic movements of the sign language were not a distraction. The lady who signed that programme later signed all three party conferences—Conservative, Labour and my own, which perhaps shows proper consideration for what has come to be regarded as true impartiality.
What I have described was not an impairment of the programme. It enhanced it in many ways. But it did something else. It greatly increased the interest of other people in sign language. We found from our own experience that a large number of viewers of our programme, which went out four times a week, started to learn sign language. Not all those people had hearing impairment. They were people who appreciated that a knowledge of sign language would be very helpful to them in dealing with other people who had impaired hearing. As a result, a number of classes were set up which greatly increased knowledge of sign language not merely among people with hearing impairment but among people whose hearing was acute and unimpaired in any way. That is a public service.
I have two points to make. First, a measure such as this would do a great deal to increase and enhance the enjoyment and appreciation of television of those with hearing impairments in our community. That is a very
1070
large number of people indeed. Secondly, it would do something to increase understanding in the community as a whole of the problems of those with hearing impairment. Thirdly, it would encourage more and more people to learn sign language. I know that there has been a problem in this respect because there are a number of different systems of sign language. One hopes that in the end there will be just one system. As long as there is a system which people learn and which improves communication between those with full unimpaired hearing and those whose hearing is impaired, that is a social service of immense importance.
There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the presence of that lady using very attractive and extremely expressive balletic movements to sign the programme did anything to impair the programme's acceptability to other people. I support the amendment. I hope that it is received with the same kind of encouragement as my earlier effort on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill was received some years ago.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment. If there had been room on the Marshalled List, my name would have been on it as well—possibly a sixth one following the right reverend Prelate. It may be of interest not only to the Committee but to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in particular, that the British Deaf Association is about to publish a sign language dictionary, which is funded by BP.
In Parliament we change rules where necessary. There is a rule that we cannot have dogs in the Palace of Westminster. In the other place there is a completely blind Member, the Member for Sheffield, Brightside. He needed his guide dog. Rules were changed so that he could bring his guide dog into the building and, I believe, even into the Chamber. There was a time when in this House we did not have a mobile Bench. I am sure the Committee would agree with me that it would be a great shame if we did not have a mobile Bench. All Members of the mobile Bench give the House great service. It is quite possible that a profoundly deaf Member will join this House. That Member would not be able to take part in our proceedings if provision for sign interpretation was not made. I am sure that we would make such provision.
If we are prepared, as I am sure we are, to make provision for an individual who needs this service, why should we not make provision for more than 50,000 who need it on television? They are an unfortunate group in our society in that they have the greatest difficulty in communicating in any way. As other Members of the Committee have said, their language is not English; it is sign. They actually need an interpreter to interpret from their language of sign into English. Yet they are citizens of this country. At least we can provide signing for them in their own language for such programmes as the news, documentaries and discussions. It would be rather difficult to have such provision for some of the films,

1071
as one might detract from those films. But for the more important programmes on television we ought to have sign language.
There is a great move at the moment to train more sign interpreters and so the problem of producing interpreters will decrease. I can see no reason why the Government should look unfavourably on this amendment. They may wish for it to be reworded in some way to fit in with the Bill but I hope they will give it serious consideration and allow something of this kind to be included in the Bill. We are not asking for every single programme to be signed; just a proportion of them. I heartily support the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am afraid that I cannot speak with the same experience or knowledge as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the other speakers who have taken part in the debate. However, I should like to add my voice in support of the amendment. I do so against this background. Ten or 12 years ago there was very little provision on television for those who were hard of hearing. But since that time steady and good progress has been made. The IBA took a leading part both through its technologists and through the research work which it financed at Southampton University.
I know that the Government have shown themselves to be sympathetic in this area by way of the amendments which they have already accepted to Clause 32 of the Bill. Although there are always practical difficulties about such matters, my own experience is that when sign language has been used in television programmes it has proved a great deal less intrusive than people had imagined before the decision to include it was taken. Therefore, I am an optimist about steady and sensible progress being made as regards this sort of provision.
Although it is true that subtitling is the best way to help the great majority of people who suffer from impaired hearing, there are 50,000 deaf people for whom the British sign language is probably the only means of access to television programmes. The amendment is modest. It seeks to ask Parliament to show its commitment to the principle of some sign language provision on television. I hope that the Government will be able to respond sympathetically.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: As I entered the Chamber this evening the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was volunteering me as someone who would support the amendment. Therefore, I am very happy to put myself on record as doing so. It is an important and valuable amendment and one which I hope the Government will take seriously.
Two particular mental images come to mind in this connection. One occurred when I paid my first visit to a club which was exclusively for the deaf. I was the isolated person. I was unable to communicate with a group of people who were communicating with each other remarkably well, almost exclusively by the use of sign language. I was the intruder, even though I was the bishop who was visiting the community. I was meeting people whom one never normally meets in the
1072
normal run of conversation and social intercourse. They had their own subculture of relationships, clubs, societies and organisational life which does not normally impinge upon the rest of us. Therefore, we are not talking about the typical minority; we are talking about another world and one which we need, through the main channel of the media, to communicate with. These people need to know that they are accepted as part of the vast wider community from which they are at present isolated.
My second memory is of seeing on television the screening of an American programme. It featured an address being given by an American president or senator. In the corner of the screen one could see the person who was doing the signing for the benefit of that channel. The very fact that this was being done carried powerful weight with me on behalf of the speaker. I felt that sensitivity was being expressed, as well as a desire to embrace all those who were able to see the programme.
Similarly, on the rare occasions that I have been preaching or addressing a meeting where someone has been signing for the benefit of a group of people, there has been something deeply emotive about the way it has been done. Therefore, any company which offers this service will earn for itself rich rewards and, at the same time, gain much credit. If the amendment were to be accepted it would not be seen as an intrusion by an interfering government on behalf of a poor minority. Instead, we would be doing something which seems to be right and which would be acceptable to the viewing public. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Viscount Ullswater: I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the subtitling provision in Clause 32 represents a significant advance for viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and other speakers paid tribute to the fact that this is recognised in the clause. The advantage of subtitling is that it makes television programmes accessible to all deaf or hard of hearing viewers.
Lord Swinfen: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend so early in his speech. I trust that he will forgive my intrusion. He is quite wrong in his assertion. Subtitling does not make television available to all those who are deaf or hard of hearing. Indeed, there is a large proportion of people whose only language is signing and who cannot properly read English.
Viscount Ullswater: I take my noble friend's point. The same could be said of those who do not come from our country and who also cannot read English. However, sign language is much more limited. It is generally not learnt by those who are simply hard of hearing and its use is confined essentially to the severely deaf. Sign language is clearly not a satisfactory substitute for subtitling and would add little to a programme which is already subtitled. Moreover, sign language suffers from the additional disadvantage of taking up space on the screen which would be likely to be distracting to nondeaf viewers if it were used with any great frequency. We do not consider that there is a good case for imposing any

1073
statutory requirements for sign language on Channels 3, 4 and 5. Therefore, I must tell the noble Baroness that Amendment No. 182 is not acceptable.
The noble Baroness, Lady EwartBiggs, said that the proposers of the amendment were not asking for a great deal. That is true. It is accepted by the Government. However, the use of sign language on television is not ruled out. There may well be programmes in which sign language could play a valuable role. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans drew attention to the fact that if companies wanted to provide a sign language service, that would be a good selling point for them. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent or discourage individual programme producers introducing sign language in such contexts.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that people gain a great deal of enjoyment from watching programmes which provide a sign language service. I agree. I am sure that it brings great enjoyment to those who possibly cannot read, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, thus enabling them to enjoy the programmes. I should like to point out that Section 7(2) (g) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, provides that the Cable Authority should have regard to the extent to which cable services include matter which promotes "the understanding or enjoyment" of programmes by the deaf. However, that would equally be met by subtitling which is provided for by the Bill under Clause 32.
Lord Winstanley: I thank the noble Viscount for mentioning the earlier Act. I hope that he will forgive me if I remind him that that provision arose from an amendment of mine which the Government graciously accepted. I know that what counts is what is written in the Bill. But our debates at that time covered various aspects to which the noble Viscount has referred, including subtitling and sign language. They were very much in our minds when the Government accepted my amendment. It was a matter of principle and not a compelling matter.
Viscount Ullswater: I appreciate that fact. However, the present Bill goes much further. In Clause 32 it sets out the subtitling arrangements which must be included by the licensee, whereas the other provision was an encouragement to provide services for the deaf.
The Government have consulted the chairman of the BBC to see what approach the corporation will take on signing. He said:
"At present, there are two programmes on BBC2—'See Hear', which is weekly, and 'One in Four', transmitted monthly—which employ signing. We have experimentally provided signing for special events such as the Budget speech and some aspects of party conferences. Our review will certainly look at options for extending signing but there are, I believe, real difficulties here. Signing is undeniably unobtrusive—whether it is provided by a 'box' in the corner of a screen, or by a 'companion' presenter in vision. If the `box' is used about onefifth of the screen is taken up, which creates particular difficulties in, for example, a current affairs programme including sequences of graphics. The advantage to a small number of viewers has to be balanced against the loss of picture information to the rest of the audience. There
1074
are other problems, too, with signing, especially for network output. The total number of potential beneficiaries—the prelingually deaf—is, I believe, around 50,000. As you know, two varieties of sign language are in common use in this country, so the number benefiting from the chosen language"
BSL, which I should have thought would probably be the most common
"would be yet smaller. Even when the language used is common to both signer and viewer, misunderstandings can easily occur—especially in programmes dealing with complex issues. It seems to me at the moment that it makes sense for the BBC to concentrate on expanding and improving its teletext service, with the aim of making a range of output accessible to the deaf, while experimenting with the provision of signing for some special events".
I believe that the line the BBC is taking is the right one. Of course we want to expand the range of services for people with disabilities, but we cannot do everything at once. It is right initially to move forward in the direction which will bring the greatest benefits in terms of access to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, the amendment had allparty support. It was strong and informed support from all sides of the Committee. What the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said about the attractiveness of the sign language interpreter is right. It is something that the Government have not taken on board. They look upon the signing interpreter as a little ogre in the corner of the screen. The research available seems to indicate that that is not so. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, with his great experience, and for the timely entry into the Chamber of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, and his contribution, and to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for his contribution.
The Minister will not be surprised when I say that I find his argument disappointing. Yet again it is that we must concentrate on subtitling and do the greatest good to the greatest number of people. It is not good enough. We must at least start to do something for those who are most in need of help. The Minister said that the Bill does not rule out sign language—that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent or discourage the use of sign language. There is nothing in the Bill to encourage it. The words "sign language" are not mentioned.
I shall not press the matter tonight. It is an issue about which deaf people feel strongly. I want to get the amendment right before I go further. Is the Minister willing to enter into discussions during the Recess with the organisations concerned with the deaf? It would be helpful if he could indicate that even if his mind is not open there is at least a tiny crack showing.
Viscount Ullswater: The Government are willing to meet the noble Baroness and any of her advisers so as to take these points in hand. Clause 32 talks about subtitling. It provides:
"'Subtitling' means subtitling for the deaf whether provided by means of a teletext service or otherwise".

1075
That would include signing.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should be a lot happier if the Bill said "signing". It is only implied.
Viscount Ullswater: That is one of the matters we would discuss.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for that intervention. I thank him for being willing to discuss the matter. As I said, I shall not press the matter further at the moment, but we need a specific mention in the Bill. We shall see what it will be. As the noble Baroness, Lady EwartBiggs, said, we need something so that we can include deaf people and help them participate in the life of the community. Perhaps we can have discussions and return to the matter in the autumn. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Announcements of programme schedules]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 34, line 9, after ("4") insert ("and, where any part of the area for which the licensed service is to be provided is in Wales, programme schedules for programmes to be broadcast on S4C").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment fulfils an undertaking given in another place that the Channel 3 licensee covering Wales will be required to give announcements of S4C's programme schedules in the same way as Channel 3 as a whole will give Channel 4's announcements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 183A:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause: ("Promotion of equal opportunities in relation to employment by licence holder
.—(1) Any Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel 4 or Channel 5 shall include conditions requiring the licence holder—

(a) to make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment by him, equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups; and

(b) to review those arrangements from time to time.

(2) In subsection (1) "racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.").
The noble Earl said: I shall speak at the same time to Amendments No. 190A and 297E. The amendments give effect to the undertaking given by my honourable friend Mr. Mellor on Report in another place that the ITC and the Radio Authority would be placed under certain duties in relation to equal opportunities. In preparing the amendments we have taken account of points made in subsequent discussions which my honourable friend held with the honourable Member who moved the original amendments on behalf of the Opposition and with his advisers.
The new clause to be inserted after Clause 34 places the ITC under a duty to attach conditions to Channels 3, 4 arid 5 and domestic satellite service licences requiring the licensees to make arrangements to
1076
promote equal opportunities in matters of employment as between men and women and people of different racial groups, and to review those arrangements from time to time. The new clause to be inserted after Clause 101 places the Radio Authority under a similar duty in relation to national commercial radio licences.
It may be helpful if I outline how we envisage that those provisions might work in practice. In advertising the licences concerned the ITC and the Radio Authority could indicate that the successful applicants would be subject to an equal opportunities condition under their licences. They could therefore be invited to explain what arrangements they would propose to make on equal opportunities. The ITC and the Radio Authority would then be able to judge whether those arrangements would be adequate. Once licences were in force the equal opportunities condition would be enforceable in the same way as any other licence condition. It would be open to the ITC and the Radio Authority to satisfy themselves that their licensees had proper arrangements in place, and that they reviewed them from time to time.
The ITC and the Radio Authority will not, however, have any locus in monitoring the outcome of the equal opportunities policies. They will not, for instance, have any role in monitoring the composition of the licensees' workforce. That will be a matter for the licensees themselves. It would, however, clearly be useful for some information on licensees' progress on equal opportunities to be published. We understand that the IBA has it in mind that the equal opportunities condition will include a requirement on the licensee to publish such information in their company annual reports. I beg to move.
Baroness EwartBiggs: I thank the Minister for explaining the amendments so clearly. We very much welcome them as they provide new clauses relating to equal opportunities. However, I am not sure that I go much further and agree with the Minister that these amendments reflect the commitment that the Government, in the shape of Mr. David Mellor, made at Report stage in the House of Commons. From my knowledge, the commitment was slightly different.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister about the assurance that I believed had been given. I understood that the Government indicated that the new clause would also cover, first, a specific reference to all aspects of employment such as application, promotion and training; and secondly, that it would cover disability as well as gender and ethnic origin. I wish to know why the disabled have not been included in the clause. After all, there must be many opportunities for the disabled in industry and it is important to include them in the clause. Thirdly, despite the noble Lord's explanation of the commitment by the ITC, I had understood that the clause would cover the obligation to monitor these duties and publish the findings in each licence holder's annual report, which would be lodged with the ITC.
Perhaps the Minister implied that the ITC would impose much stricter monitoring than is provided for in the clause, which is merely to review those

1077
arrangements from time to time. That is much vaguer. However, we understood that there would be a commitment that monitoring would be carried out annually, which is important, and that it would be published in the annual report, which would be lodged with the ITC.
I add one further comment about the previous debate in your Lordships' House on the amendment. To begin with, we feel that the same requirement should be extended to independent producers who provide programmes for inclusion in the licensed services in exactly the same way as Government Amendment No. 112 does, which we debated during the last Committee stage. That amendment lays down a requirement to promote training. We wonder why equal opportunities should be treated any differently from training. That is another question.
Also at Committee stage we proposed Amendment No. 6 to try to place equal opportunities' obligations on the ITC in relation to its staff, but the Minister was not willing to accept it. He argued that other statutory bodies might also need to be subject to a similar duty if the ITC were placed under this obligation. However, in moving that amendment we believed that all statutory bodies should be placed under a similar duty. The precedent of the ITC would not automatically have a knockon effect on other bodies. The Government felt that it was less important for ITC staff to be subject to equal opportunities' provisions than for the more influential programme makers. Again, that does not seem to be a logical argument.
We are pleased that the Government listened to the arguments put by my honourable friend Mr. Mark Fisher in another place and agreed to include an equal opportunities clause in the Bill. However, we are disappointed that it falls short of our expectations. It is not as specific as we thought it would be and is more wideranging. Perhaps the Minister will say why he excluded the disabled from the clause.
Again, will he kindly explain the reasons for not insisting in the Bill on a requirement to monitor the duties to establish how well companies are succeed-ing? Why should the requirement not be extended to independent producers? Why should equal opportunity regulations not be imposed on the ITC in relation to its staff? After all, no doubt the legislation will have to last a long time and it is important to get such a vital requirement right. Otherwise, who knows, European legislation may be brought in and supersede the equal opportunities clause in the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer those questions.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I thought that the noble Baroness would be pleased with the amendment, instead of which she poured a bucket of cold water on it. She said that we ought to have gone a great deal further. All employment in large companies is covered under existing equal opportunities legislation. However we took the point and considered that it was important, after representations had been made to us, that it
1078
would be suitable and appropriate to spell out the provisions more specifically in the Bill. That is what we have sought to do as a result of the observations made by Members of another place. The reference to employment in the clause includes matters such as training, promotion and so on. Therefore it is a fairly wide description.
The noble Baroness was concerned about discrimination against people with disabilities. She asked why it was not included. I understand from the Department of Employment that the whole subject is under review at the moment. The Government have recently issued a consultative document called: Employment and Training for People with Disabilities which addresses the issue. It discusses the present quota system which will require licensees to employ a minimum proportion of registered disabled people. It considers the potential of other legislative and nonlegislative approaches. The period of consulta-tion lasts until 31st December. We felt that this was not the right time to preempt the outcome of that consultation. Nor do we believe that the Broadcasting Bill is the right context in which to tackle a general issue such as disability.
The noble Baroness also referred to monitoring. We did not believe that it was appropriate for the ITC to monitor the composition of the licensees' work forces. It is more a matter for the licensees themselves. The IBA has indicated that it does not wish the ITC to have a monitoring role. I can best put it to the noble Baroness in this way. In the licence there will be conditions for equal opportunities. The licensee will be expected to say what provisions he intends to make for equal opportunities. Part of his licence, which he accepts, will be the requirement to fulfil those conditions.
The noble Baroness asked why the ITC would not monitor it. We do not believe that it is right for the ITC, on its own initiative, to knock on the doors of various licensees and ask, "What are you doing about disability and equal opportunities?" We expect that those licensees will put forward in their annual report exactly what they have done with regard to equal opportunities. That will be the way in which the ITC will monitor what the licensees have done. Indeed if they do not fulfil the requirements of their licences for this matter—that is the case with any matter covered by the licences—their licence will be at risk.
The noble Baroness asked why we did not also apply that requirement to the ITC. The Independent Television Commission will be in the same position as all other employers. It is subject to the general law on discrimination. Licensees will be especially influential in this regard. That is why these specific and general obligations are put on licensees.
I hope that the noble Baroness will understand the reasoning behind the measure. The fundamental position is that licensees will be responsible for what they do and for what they say they will do. The ITC can check whether they are carrying out those intentions by studying the annual report that the licensees will have to produce every year.
Baroness EwartBiggs: I wish to press the Minister once again on the question of disabled people. I did not understand what he meant when he said that this matter was under review and he did not feel this was an appropriate moment to include the disabled. However, if he included the other two groups why could he not also include the disabled? After all, once the research that the noble Earl referred to has been carried out, it will be too late to include them. I hope the Minister can clarify that.
Earl Ferrers: A review is being carried out at the moment. That review will consider the present quota system. If there are any alterations to that, they will be included in the general law and all licensees will be obliged to come into line with the general law. However, as this review is being carried out at the moment, I think it would be a pity to preempt its outcome by trying to write a provision into this Bill when the results of that review will cover far wider areas than merely broadcasting.
Bareness Seear: I hope the Minister can clarify one point a little further. He said that the ITC will check whether companies are fulfilling requirements by asking them to make an annual report. However, it all depends on what they are asked to include in their annual reports. There would be nothing easier than for a company to state in its annual report that it was an equal opportunities employer. Employers up and down the country, starting with the Government, claim to be equal opportunities employers. However, that does not prove anything until one can see figures and movement in some direction. One wants to know what changes have occurred in, say, the numbers of people employed from ethnic minorities. That is the only way in which one can monitor such matters. Bland statements about being an equal opportunities employer are not worth the paper they are written on. Unless an annual report contains more specific information, one will not find out anything.
Earl Ferrers: The ITC will not be numb over this. If an annual report states that a licensee considers himself to be an equal opportunities employer fullstop, the ITC is perfectly entitled to ask such a licensee what he is doing to warrant that status. The ITC could say that a licensee had stated he would do such and such when he applied for a licence, and that it had to check how he was fulfilling those conditions. If a licensee had not fulfilled the conditions that he said he would meet, his licence would be at risk. Licensees are supposed to state what they have achieved in their annual reports. If they were to come out with some bland statement, it would not be unreasonable for the ITC to ask for a more specific explanation.
Baroness Seear: If the ITC required quite specific information to be stated in annual reports and laid down what that specific information should refer to, that would constitute proper monitoring. However, anything less than that does not constitute monitoring.
Earl Ferrers: That is entirely a matter for the ITC. If, in awarding a licence, the ITC stated that it wanted to know exactly what was being done on certain
1080
matters, it can demand such information. However, one must be careful about writing into legislation individual items on a variety of different matters which every company must report on in its annual report. I would say with the greatest of respect to the noble Baroness that she is being a little sceptical over this matter. Each licensee is obliged to fulfil its obligations and it is up to the ITC to see whether it has fulfilled those obligations. If the ITC is not satisfied that the obligations are being fulfilled, it can ask questions about those obligations.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 183B:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause: Networking arrangements between holders of regional Channel 3 licences
.—(1) This section has effect with respect to the making of arrangements which—

(a) apply to all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences, and

(b) provide for programmes made, commissioned or acquired by or on behalf of one or more of the holders of such licences to be available for broadcasting in all regional Channel 3 services, being arrangements made for the purpose of enabling regional Channel 3 services (taken as a whole) to be a nationwide system of such services which is able to compete effectively with other television broadcasting services provided (otherwise than by satellite) throughout the United Kingdom; and any such arrangements are referred to in this section as "networking arrangements".

(2) Any application for a regional Channel 3 licence shall, in addition to being accompanied by any such proposals as are mentioned in section 15(3) (b) to (d), be accompanied by the applicant's proposals for participating in networking arrangements made under this section; and—

(a) where a person has duly made such an application, the Commission shall (without prejudice to the operation of section 16(1)) not proceed to consider whether to award him the licence as mentioned in that provision unless it appears to them that any such proposals are satisfactory; and

(b) section (Conditions requiring holder of Channel 3 or 5 licence to deliver promised service) shall apply to any such proposals as it applies to the proposals submitted by the applicant under section 15(3)(c)and (d).

(3) The Commission may publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, general guidance to applicants for a regional Channel 3 licence as to the kinds of proposals which they would consider satisfactory for the purposes of subsection (2) (a); but before doing so the Commission—

(a) shall consult the Director General of Fair Trading, and

(b) if he requests them to make any change in the guidance, shall incorporate the change in the guidance.

(4) Each regional Channel 3 licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to do all that he can to secure—

(a) that, by the relevant date, networking arrangements have been made which—

(i) have been entered into by all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences, and

(ii)have been approved by the Commission; and

(b) that, so long as he provides his licensed service, there are in force networking arrangements which have been so entered into and approved (unless there are for the time being in force any arrangements made by the Commission under subsection (5));

1081
and any such licence shall, so far as is necessary for giving effect to any such conditions, come into force at the time when it is granted.
(5) If

(a) no such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (4) (a) are made by the relevant date, or

(b) any such arrangements are so made but cease to be in force at any time before 1st January 1995,

the Commission may themselves draw up such networking arrangements as they consider appropriate; and, if they do so—

(i) they shall notify all the holders of regional Channel 3 services of those arrangements, and

(ii) those arrangements shall (subject to subsection (6)) come into force on a date determined by the Commission.

(6) No arrangements made by the Commission under subsection (5) shall come into force at any time after 31 st December 1994.
(7) Each regional Channel 3 licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to give effect to any arrangements made by the Commission under subsection (5).
(8) Where any arrangements have been approved by the Commission under subsection (4) (a), no modification of those arrangements shall be made by the holders of regional Channel 3 licences unless it too has been so approved.
(9) Without prejudice to the generality of their power to refuse to approve any arrangements or modification under subsection (4) or (8), the Commission shall refuse to do so if they are not satisfied that the arrangements in question, or (as the case may be) those arrangements as proposed to be modified, would be appropriate for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1).
(10) In this section—
"regional Channel 3 licence" means a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service;
"the relevant date" means the date which the Commission determine to be that by which any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (4) would need to have been made by the holders of regional Channel 3 licences in order for the arrangements to be fully in operation at the time when those persons begin to provide their licensed services.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 183B I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 183C to 183H, 183HA, 183HB, and 183J.
The Government's new clause is a new provision requiring Channel 3 licensees to participate in networking arrangements agreed between those licensees to provide programmes for broadcasting in all regional Channel 3 services.
Licensees, on appointment, will be free to seek to conclude whatever networking arrangements they wished. The expectation will be that should voluntary arrangements not materialise within a specified period of the award of the licence, the ITC would be able to impose a scheme of networking on the licensees. Any imposed arrangements would last for a maximum of two years, or for such shorter period as was agreed among the licensees themselves.
Any networking arrangement, whether agreed voluntarily or imposed by the ITC, will need to be based on the principle that all programmes offered to the network should be considered on the basis of value for money. It is particularly important that network arrangements do not continue the current practices
1082
which involve production quotas for certain contractors, nor should larger companies be able to abuse their dominant position. Subsection (3) of the clause requires the ITC to consult the Director General of Fair Trading before issuing any illustrative guidance on networking. Our intention is that the Director General of Fair Trading should be required to assess the implication for competition of any networking arrangement, whether imposed by the ITC or agreed voluntarily between licensees.
We are still considering with the Office of Fair Trading how this can be most effectively achieved and in particular whether modifications to existing competition legislation are needed. If we conclude that they are, we shall bring forward amendments on Report.
I now turn to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to the Government's new clause on networking. Amendment No. 183C inserts a reference to scheduling of programmes. The networking arrangements addressed by the new clause are essentially concerned with the commissioning and acquisition of programmes to be shown on the network. The precise mechanism for the scheduling of those programmes is a matter which we believe should be left entirely to the licensees themselves. We therefore see no need for any such reference to scheduling in the new clause.
Amendments Nos. 183D and 183E seek to relate access to the network to the size of the regional Channel 3 licensees. This would impose a far more rigid quota system for the provision of programmes to the network than that which the ITV companies operate at present. It would mean presumably that a company having a 20 per cent. share of total Channel 3 revenue would be limited to providing no more than 20 per cent. of the networked programmes. This is wholly unacceptable because it would run directly counter to the Government's belief that programmes should be commissioned on the basis of the best value for money. Licensees must certainly have fair and free opportunity for access to the network, but their contribution to the network should be based on the excellence and competitiveness of their programmes rather than on their size.
The other day noble Lords made such a great deal of fuss about quality that one would not expect them to approve this amendment. However, we wish to see that quality is the basis upon which these programmes are made.
Amendments Nos. 183G and 183H would remove the time limit on the power of the ITC to impose networking arrangements, if the licensees had been unable to agree to such a provision among themselves. We want those arrangements to be agreed voluntarily by the Channel 3 licensees if at all possible and for the ITC to intervene only as a last resort. Voluntary agreement would be less likely if the ITC could step in at any stage during the currency of the licence to impose an alternative network. That would mean that a single reluctant licensee could frustrate the whole agreement in the hope that he would get a better deal

1083
from an ITCimposed system. The Government's intention is for the ITC to use its powers in the early stages of the Channel 3 licence period, if necessary, to prevent a possible breakdown in the provision of the service but thereafter to withdraw and let the licensees negotiate their own arrangements, which will almost certainly evolve throughout the period of the licence.
Amendments Nos. 183F and 183J would bring forward the "relevant date" mentioned in subsection (5) (a) of the new clause on which the ITC could impose an arrangement to the time when the Channel 3 licences were to be advertised. Clearly at this point it would be impossible for potential applicants to reach any network agreement because no one would know who the successful applicants would be. The amendments would therefore effectively give the ITC no option but to impose networking arrangements. I do not believe that that would be right because it is not compatible with our desire to see the networking arrangements concluded on a voluntary basis.
My noble friend Lord Gray has tabled some amendments, but he is not here this evening. The Government are in favour of as much openness as possible in the dealings of the Independent Television Commission with its licensees. Therefore we see merit in Amendment No. 183HA, which would require the ITC to make public its approval of any networking arrangements for Channel 3 and any modifications to them. We shall take that into account and if necessary at Report stage produce a suitable amendment on those lines after we have consulted the IBA about any practical difficulties.
I am afraid, however, that we would find it difficult to accept Amendment No. 183HB, also in the name of my noble friend. It would require the ITC to ensure that networked programmes were provided from a wide range of Channel 3 regions. Given the federal structure of Channel 3 and the Clause 3 requirement on the ITC to ensure fair and effective competition, that is likely to occur in any case. However, in order for the ITC to guarantee it there would have to be some form of quota system for networked programmes. That would be unacceptable. The network arrangements themselves will ensure that all Channel 3 licensees have the opportunity to offer programmes to the network but we believe that networked programmes on Channel 3 should be commissioned on the basis of the best value for money rather than the place of origin of the programme. Our philosophy is that one can guarantee that everyone has a fair opportunity to compete but one cannot guarantee that everyone will be successful. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 183B, Amendment No. 183C:
Line 5, after ("for") insert ("and schedule").
The noble Baroness said: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the new clause put down by the Government. We have all been worried for some time that nothing would come forward on networking. We have inquired of the ITV companies what was to happen and they said that they were working on it. We
1084
were very conscious that it would create a number of problems if the Bill received Royal Assent and nothing had been agreed on networking.
The main weakness of the new clause is that the relevant date to be determined by the ITC for the conclusion of a networking agreement is linked to the beginning of the provision of the licensed services in January 1993. The clause places the obligation on the new Channel 3 licence holders to reach agreement on networking arrangements between the award of the licences in early to mid1992 and the relevant date by which the arrangements need to be agreed so that they are fully in operation by 1st January 1993.
Applicants cannot seriously bid for regional Channel 3 licences without knowing the full implications and cost of the networking arrangements. General guidance from the ITC will not be sufficient for that purpose. It would therefore seem sensible not to leave the new Channel 3 licence holders to reach agreement and to specify that the relevant date by which networking arrangements must be agreed should be the date of publication of the notice inviting applications for regional Channel 3 licences as required in Clause 15(1).
In Standing Committee in another place on 18th January the Minister, Mr. Mellor, said at col. 200 that if George Russell, the chairman designate of ITC,
"and his colleagues were unable to reach an agreement, he would have difficulty allocating franchises, or considering proposals from various groups to become franchise holders, without a framework against which to assess those proposals".
It seems that we are still in that position. even with the amendment.
In the other place the Government refused to concede proposed new clauses establishing a network agreement because the ITV companies were in the process of deciding upon one and if they did not do so by the target date of summer 1990 the ITC would be given the power to impose networking arrangements. The summer has now been reached—and probably will soon be past after this hot spell—with the ITV companies showing no immediate prospect of resolving their differences in reaching agreement before Channel 3 licences are advertised. It seems to us that the ITC should be given a clear date by which the ITV companies should either have concluded an agreement or an agreement is imposed upon the new Channel 3 companies.
While it is preferable that the ITV companies should agree a network agreement by a specific deadline it should also be remembered that the networking arrangements will only cover future Channel 3 licences. Not all of the ITV companies will retain their franchises, so the ITC must be given a central role in bringing about effective network arrangements. New Channel 3 licence holders cannot be left with that responsibility in the short period of less than six months in which to reach agreement. The IBA has said that,
"we believe the creation of a new network system before next year's licensing round is vital and we believe that the initiative for developing this should be with the companies".
The trouble is that if the companies do not come to some agreement themselves the whole process will be held up even further.
The new clause refers to networking arrangements which provide for programmes enabling a nationwide system, but it does not explicitly require the regional Channel 3 licensees to schedule their programmes collectively. Government and Opposition amendments tabled at Report stage in another place provided not only for the supply of programmes but also for their scheduling, although that was one of the points from among the amendments that I am moving which the Minister did not seem to like.
The debates indicated that there was unanimity on the content of the amendments but not on the timetable for implementation of the networking arrangements. If the government amendment is accepted, will the applicant's proposals for networking arrangements be considered as a matter upon which representations from the public could be made? It seems that we have not got quite so far as we had hoped. We need to know from the Government what will happen. Will there be a stronger requirement on the ITC? Otherwise, as I said much earlier, referring to what the Minister said in another place, if an agreement is not reached there will be great difficulty in allocating franchises because nobody will know what cost is implied for them.
I hope that the Minister will take note of these amendments and perhaps give us a fuller answer when my noble friends (because they are joint amendments) have spoken to them. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I should like to associate these Benches with what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has just said about the Government's new clause. This is one more case where we welcome the fact that the Government recognised that some new provision was required in the Bill and have moved. But our welcome is a qualified one, as the noble Baroness said. We hope that it may be possible to make further progress either tonight or by Report stage certainly. The positive achievement—it is a notable and major achievement to which I pay due tribute—is that we now have the words "networking arrangements" in the Bill and they will be in statute. That is a notable step forward.
It is important to recognise how vital a network is to a national television service, even though, as in this case, it is a national service which has a very strong regional federal identity. The fact is that, although the viewers in Peterhead or Penzance are not always aware of it, 95 per cent. of what they see comes from the present network. There is no ITV company which shows more than 30 per cent. of its own production.
There has not been any basic difference between the Government and the Opposition on the importance of having a network for the Channel 3 system. Any difference that arose came from the fact that the Government were inclined to feel that such a network would emerge from the hazards of a free market system. I am glad that they appear to have withdrawn
1086
from that position. It has taken a long time to convince the Government that it is essential to take positive action to sustain what is regarded as the familiar mix of programming, which is what people know as ITV and will know as Channel 3 once the new licensees are appointed.
The birth of the amendment moved by the Minister has, I can well understand, been a difficult one. I saw one version of it on Friday and the final version for the first time on Tuesday. There were some interesting and significant differences between the two. I shall not go into any textual analysis but it is quite clear that they reflected some of the problems between the Home Office and the DTI. But perhaps more particularly and more seriously, they pointed to the very real problem of defining the relationship between the ITC and the OFT.
Having tabled this amendment, the Government are still in a situation in which there is a real risk of confusion and regulatory clash. That happens under a number of the new arrangements under the Bill. It happens in terms of the role of the Broadcasting Standards Council to which we shall come later. However, if there is to be such confusion and clash between the ITC and the OFT, it would be disastrous for the launching of the new system. It is absolutely essential that, having completed the Report stage, at Third Reading it should be clear beyond peradventure that the lead responsibility in this matter is that of the ITC. If that is not clear—and there is still work to be done on that—instead of ending up with a network we might well finish up with a fair degree of anarchy.
I know that the ITV companies have some very serious legal reservations about the present state of development reflected in the Government's amendment. No doubt they will make the Government aware of it. I am not a lawyer. However, they fear that, unless the wording of the Government's amendment is strengthened quite considerably, it will not be clear that the ITC has the responsibility for those arrangements. The Channel 3 system will be sucked in under the aegis of the restrictive practices legislation and the activities of the Restrictive Practices Court. That may be good for the lawyers but it will certainly be damaging to the standards of Channel 3 broadcasting.
The Minister showed a great reluctance to accept the thrust of the amendments. He revealed that the Government are determined to believe that an effective and adequate network system can emerge primarily from the working of the free market system. For instance, he said that they declined to have the word "scheduling" in the Bill because the purpose of the network was to make arrangements for the production of network programmes. But network programmes are only part of the story. It is the time at which they are distributed that matters to the viewer so that there is a national character to the spine of popular network programming. I beg the Minister to reconsider that matter.
We seek to safeguard the regional character of the network productions with the provisions in the other amendments. The Minister said on two separate

1087
occasions that the Government wished to concentrate on what is best value for money rather than the place at which the programmes are produced. He thought that our amendment—which sought to have network production broadly proportionate to the size of the regions—was wholly contrary to that philosophy.
There is a very serious regional issue here. I regret that the Minister's colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is not here to argue it. Perhaps I may put the Scottish viewpoint, which I know best. Under the existing system, where the IBA has a fairly positive responsibility, the regional contribution to the network has not been satisfactory. For example, Scottish Television—which is the largest of the two and a half contractors covering Scotland—has a good record for producing network programmes. Some are very well known indeed. In Scottish politics there is the famous Goschen formula which was supposed to set the broad share that Scotland enjoyed of activities within the United Kingdom. If I remember rightly it was eleveneightieths. Scotland produces 1 per cent. of peak time network viewing on the present network.
In terms of independent production, the pull of the metropolis for independent producers is tremendously strong. If that is the policy that the Government wish to pursue, I shall tell them the consequence. If they wish simply to pursue the pure market position of best value for money, without considering the place where the programmes are made, they will end up with a network production system which is almost entirely concentrated in one or two of the great population centres in the Midlands and the South. I cannot believe that that is the Government's serious intention as regards the regional aspect.
Finally, there is the important issue mentioned by my noble friend Lady Birk. Again, with a halfhearted attitude towards sensible network arrangements, the Government wish to put a sharp time limit on the role of the FTC. I beg them to reconsider. No one knows precisely how many of the present ITV companies will be future licensees. Under the new system takeovers will be allowable and licensees will change from time to time. If the matter is left to obtaining agreement in such circumstances amid all the changes, the interests of the viewers of Channel 3 throughout the country will be put seriously at risk. The network could end up in changes. It is important to maintain a residual duty on the ITC so that if necessary it will make adequate network arrangements in the interests of the viewers.
I agree with the Government and hope that it will not become necessary. By far the best method is to have a network system which is not only fair among all participants but is voluntary among licensees. I can tell the Minister that the task of achieving unanimity even among the present ITV companies is more difficult than obtaining unanimity among the member states of the European Community. If one wants Channel 3 to work there will be a vital role for the ITC in maintaining the necessary spine of network programming.
The Earl of Stockton: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 183HA standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin who regrets that he
1088
is unable to attend today. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 183HD standing in the name of my noble friend who is a director of Grampian Television. I thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his undertaking as regards Amendment No. 183HA. It will greatly shorten my remarks.
During the debate on the Bill in another place my right honourable friend the Minister said that in his opinion the consequence of centring the arrangements on the largest five ITV companies was an increasing awareness both within the industry and outside that the big five were operating an unfair cartel. He also said that many of the views expressed in the debates in another place reflected the fettered atmosphere of that cartel which had long outlived its useful purpose.
My right honourable friend has long held that view, as he admitted on 23rd January in Standing Committee F in another place. He confessed that he was outraged four years earlier in a previous incarnation by the way in which the big five managed the networking arrangement. He said that he had not changed his view of the gang of five as an anticompetitive cartel.
It is to support the smaller regional companies against the cartel that I propose the amendments on behalf of my noble friend. If they are agreed by the Committee the ITC will have the power and the duty to ask why so little was being fed into the network from a particular regional company. If it was found that that was due to the operations of the network the ITC could rectify the position. However, if it emerged that a particular regional company was not offering programmes suitable for the network—and that would be part of its duties under the Bill—it could, so to speak, show that company the yellow card. I am disappointed that the Minister appears to have set his face against the amendments.
On a more general point, I share the anxieties expressed both inside and outside this Chamber that the clause gives the Office of Fair Trading a wideranging role while giving no guidelines on the impact of the Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976. Do the Government really intend that networking arrangements should be referred to the Restrictive Practices Court? If so, I believe that the networks will be running very much behind their programme schedules.
I urge the Government to lay down the authority of the ITC in this matter and to avoid confusion between the two regulatory authorities.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I should like to join in welcoming the government amendment introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I should like also to support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Birk and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I also support the two amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. It is very encouraging that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has already indicated that he is able to accept

1089
Amendment No. 183HA. That enables me to shorten my remarks. I shall return in a few moments to Amendment No. 183HB.
As regards the Government's main amendment, there is no doubt that it will help to pave the way for the new networking system which is so necessary. My own company has been pressing for a new system for a long time and it is excellent that all the ITV companies—all the existing programme contractors —accept the need for a new system. Although final agreement has yet to be reached, it should not be overlooked that the ITVA has been carrying out very effective and strenuous work on this matter. I should like also to pay tribute to the encouragement given over a considerable period of time by the IBA and by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. When he was at the IBA he was very much in support of improvements in the networking system and he encouraged those improvements.
I welcome particularly the Government's decision to empower the ITC to intervene to impose a networking system, if necessary. However, I would go further, as would my noble friends. I feel that the ITC should not just have the power to intervene in that way but it should be required to do so if necessary. Indeed—this was one of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—it should have a duty imposed upon it in the legislation to do that in the absence of a satisfactory system devised by the companies.
I should like to put that in the form of a question to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and ask him whether he will give further consideration to placing such a duty upon the ITC. If he cannot answer that immediately, will the Government consider bringing forward further proposals at a later stage?
There is another, closely related point. I believe that the Government's principal aim, as has been spelt out, is to see that there are proper networking arrangements to cover the transitional period, as it has been called, and to enable the ITC, if necessary, to impose a system to last for up to two years after the franchises have begun unless the companies agree on a shorter time.
That is most laudable, as far as it goes. But what happens after the two years if the companies or the new franchisees have not been able to agree to introduce a suitable networking arrangement for the years after that? What provision is there for that situation? What thought has been given to that possible problem? Let us face it; a hiatus could arise. We cannot leave it just to chance or to hope. It is an important matter. It amounts to the safeguarding, no less, of one of the nation's two principal terrestrial national network programme systems: the commercial one alongside that of the BBC—BBC1. The Government's aims rest on the provision of such a network.
Some of us feel also that it would be very difficult if not impossible for applicants for ITV Channel 3 licences to frame a bid where there is significant lack
1090
of certainty regarding the cost and content of the network schedule for eight out of the 10 years of the license period. The matter of cost has already been alluded to this evening by my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth. It is a serious problem, and I join in asking the Government to give it further consideration.
There is also a great deal of concern that networking arrangements will not, as the amendment is at present drafted, be exempt from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. I was encouraged by what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, that minds are not closed on this matter. He stated that further work had to be done regarding this matter and the relationship with the Restrictive Practices Court and the Office of Fair Trading. That is encouraging. However, perhaps I could seek to ensure that that consideration is among those taken into account when the further work is carried out between now and October.
The network arrangements at the moment are exempt. Under that exemption, for example, tariffs for programmes are able to be established. The Committee will be relieved to know that at this time of night I will not go into any detail on the highly technical matter of the costing of network programmes and the system involving tariffs. Perhaps I could say, as many noble Lords will be aware, that tariffs for programmes are part of the basis for payment by the programme companies for programmes which go out on the network. If tariffs were to be eliminated and replaced by, say, negotiated prices, that would result in a significant distortion of the budget for the programmes, contrary to the apparent fairness of negotiated prices. Negotiated prices appear to be the fairest way to deal with these matters, but when one examines the situation more closely, that is not so.
That situation would also result in significant premiums being paid for certain programmes. Resources will not exist for the broad range and quality of programmes now transmitted; in particular, religious, children's and current affairs programmes. A significant rise in the budget could not be sustained without jeopardising the heart of the quality threshold regional productions. That again, as we have seen earlier in the Committee stage on this Bill, is something on which the Government place a high degree of priority.
I should like to emphasise that some of these matters which, on the face of them, are technical, and some matters which appear to go to the intricate machinery—for example, of networking—and to carrying out the practices of the ITV or Channel 3 system, actually have a much wider effect. They endanger part of the principle of a good broadcasting Bill; namely, to produce a good range of good quality programmes. Those are matters Which focus on and are liable to affect, unless they are dealt with properly, the aim that all of us here and all those of us involved in broadcasting seek to achieve; namely, a good range of good quality programmes for the viewer.
For those reasons I welcome the Government's approach to the matter in tabling their networking amendment. However, I join with all other Members

1091
of the Committee who have spoken in asking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to give thorough consideration to the matters, not least to the relationship with the Restrictive Practices Court and the Office of Fair Trading which goes much wider than simple financial matters. It goes to the heart of the matter.
Earl Ferrers: This is an important part of the Bill, albeit a fairly technical one. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is always generous in his appreciation of what the Government have done in this regard. I appreciate that because I realise that the Bill is not exactly close to his heart from the point of view of what he does and does not like. I appreciate it when 1 e says that the Government have helped to meet some of the points. The same applies in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that he had seen the previous drafts and that they were not the same as the amendment. I would be the first to accept that this is a difficult matter. It is difficult to get it right. We shall take carefully into account all that Members of the Committee have said today. This is not a total blueprint for success. We cannot guarantee that it is wholly right and that it is the only possible result. The fact that it has been difficult to produce shows the problems that are related to it.
The general principle from which we started is that, on the whole, networking should be the result of the cooperation of the licensees. They should decide on the kind of things that they want networked. They should decide upon the scheduling rather than the ITC imposing it on them. That is the basic philosophy. In the past, that has not happened. They have been told what is to be networked and what the scheduling is to be. When one makes a great change like this, it inevitably throws up difficulties.
I was encouraged to see that the Independent Broadcasting Authority sent out a note dated oddly enough 18th July, which was only yesterday, saying that the 10 ITV companies,
"have proposed a new practical shape for networking. They were asked to do this by the end of July. Their new scheme is a most important step towards identifying how networking should develop in practice under the arrangements, and they deserve every credit for having brought the complex negotiation to the stage they have by this deadline".
I echo that and congratulate them on having done so. It is a great step forward.
The philosophy is that it should be the licensees who agree the networking. It is only if they do not agree that the ITC must come in and impose a network upon them with the idea that that will provide a network for a time. At the end of the twoyear period, with any luck, they will have sorted out their differences and found a more suitable form of networking. If they have not, ipso facto they prefer the one imposed upon them by the ITC and that one will become the adopted system.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that he hoped that we would make it clear beyond peradventure that the lead should come from the ITC. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said that a duty should be placed on the
1092
ITC. I believe he also said that there should be a residual duty on the ITC to provide the networking if there is no other. We intend to place the responsibility not on the ITC but on the licensees. It is only when the licensees fail to agree that the responsibility will fall onto the ITC. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked whether the public can make representations about networking. They can do, but the ITC is not obliged to take account of them. She was worried about the time scale. The newlyappointed licensees will he able to seek to reach agreement as soon as they are appointed, which will be late 1991. It is only if they fail to reach agreement by, say, mid1992, that the ITC will need to step in.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was concerned about the regulatory clash. At present we are looking at the precise role which the Director General of Fair Trading should play. That is a point with which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, was also concerned. We are anxious to avoid any possibility of a confusion of roles. If necessary, we shall bring forward at Report amendments to meet any possible problems in that regard.
It was the IBA itself which proposed that the new arrangements should be limited to the first two years of the new licence. The Government adopted its proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred to Scottish Television. It is precisely because the Scottish Television companies have had such poor access to the network that we want to change the system and give them a fair opportunity to offer programmes to the network. The assumption that, without quotas for programming from each individual region, only material from one or two regions would be selected for network, shows, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, very little faith in the ability of the regions as a whole to produce programmes which offer good value for money. It would be odd to require through a quota that some programming should be accepted that offers poor value for money or which is very questionable.
Again, the whole principle behind this is that in the past various companies had a certain percentage of the network as of right. If five big companies have a great hunk of the network it leaves the other poor minnows fighting each other. It would be difficult for them to compete. We wish to allow all companies to produce their programmes and whether they come from the large or small programme makers, they will be networked. It gives the smaller companies a much bigger opportunity.
My noble friend Lord Stockton and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, were concerned about the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It is not our intention that the arrangements should be referred to the Restrictive Practices Court. They will be exempt from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act because they will be provided for in the statute. As regards my noble friend's other point, I agree with his concern about the big five cartel. However, a regional quota system would take a straight bat to that system since it would, potentially, give the biggest quotas to the

1093
biggest companies. Fair opportunities for all, whether the companies are big or small, seem the right way forward.
I have moved this amendment because that is what the Government feel is right. We shall take seriously into account all that has been said this evening on what is a very technical matter. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am sorry to intervene again but I shall do so briefly. At the outset of my remarks just now I said that I wished to say something about Amendment No. 183HB proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. I very much support the observations that he made about it. There is here a not insignificant legal problem which ought to be looked at further. I very much hope that the noble Earl will seek to do that.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: As I explained when I moved the amendment, Amendment No. 183HB is not acceptable to us. I do not advise the Committee to accept it but I shall certainly look at the point which the noble Lord raised.
Baroness Birk: A great deal has been said all round and the Minister has been faced with a great many questions. May I take it that he will look into these matters and come back at Report with something different? In the meantime the companies may find some solution among themselves. It is not satisfactory to leave such a complicated matter quite like this tonight.
Earl Ferrers: One of the problems is that it is difficult to be conclusive if one does not know who will be the licensees. The whole point of the provisions is that, when the licenses are granted and people know who the licensees are, at that moment the licensees will be able to get together to decide on the network. At the moment we do not know what that is and therefore there is bound to be, as the noble Baroness said, a vacuum. The reason there is a vacuum is that we do not know who the licensees will be. But the mere fact that the present contractors have got together and worked out a system is most encouraging.
I undertake to consider all that has been said today. The noble Baroness asked whether I will come back at Report with some alterations. I cannot possibly answer her because that will depend on the results of the consideration that we give to what has been said.
Baroness Birk: I understand that completely. By the time we come back at Report perhaps some solution will have come about anyhow. If it has not, we shall want to have another discussion to find out what can be done next. We are concerned that something concrete should be settled. We shall be in an unsatisfactory position unless a firm requirement is put on the ITC to institute a scheme itself.
Earl Ferrers: A firm requirement is put on the ITC to do it if the licensees themselves cannot come to a conclusion. That is fairly clear. If one accepts the principle that it is for the licensees themselves to decide how they will network, then they will have to
1094
get together to decide how they will do it. Only in the event of their not being able to agree will the ITC step in. One has to be careful about making it possible for the ITC to come in at every juncture because that would allow any one licensee—it could be a small one—deliberately to frustrate agreement in order to get the ITC to impose a system.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: We all agree with the noble Earl that these are difficult matters on which it is impossible to come to a final conclusion tonight. The noble Earl referred to today's statement from the IBA. I was glad that he quoted the part which showed how far the present companies have gone in producing a scheme for the IBA that could provide an agreed basis for the network. I noticed that in the statement the IBA said that developments have occurred in the past few days. Some are provisional and will need further detailed consideration before the issues are in all cases clear. In the light of that we are in a transitional state. I hope the noble Earl will agree that we should not finalise the amendment and the amendments to the amendment tonight. Will he give an assurance that we will come back to these matters in a more final form at Report stage?
Earl Ferrers: I cannot give a commitment as to what certain noble Lords may wish to do at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. If they wish to table a further amendment on Report, they are free to do so. Similarly, if the Government believe that it is appropriate to bring forward an amendment, we shall certainly do so. However, I should prefer, if I may, to say that we shall leave the matter here and that we shall give it further consideration. It is only after such consideration that we shall be able to decide what kind of amendment is required, if indeed one is needed.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 183C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 183B, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 183D to 183J not moved.]
Amendment No. 183B agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power to impose financial penalty or shorten licence period]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 35, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Power to revoke Channel 3 or 5 licence]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 185, 186 and 187:
Page 36, line 14 at end insert:
("(3A) If the Commission are satisfied in the case of any Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence

(a) that the holder of the licence has ceased to provide the licensed service before the end of the period for which the licence is to continue in force, and

(b) that it is appropriate for them to do so,

1095
they shall (subject to subsection (8)) serve on him a notice revoking his licence.").

Page 36, line 24, after ("(3)") insert (",(3A)").
Page 36, line 30, after ("(3)") insert (",(3A)").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments were spoken to in connection with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 36, line 37, after ("determine") insert ("provided it shall be no longer than 18 months").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment limits to 18 months the length of time during which a Channel 3 licence holder may provide a licensed service for another region following revocation. It has the effect, first, of avoiding the uncompetitive extension of media ownership; and, secondly, of ensuring that a speedy replacement contract is established to cover the franchised area. If the amendment is not accepted, there is a risk of merger by default when one licensee is asked to take on the provision of programme services for another for an indefinite period.
The point should also be made that this amendment would help to ensure that no two contiguous licence areas could be owned or controlled by one company. The Government have indicated several times that the Bill would clarify this fault. The Home Secretary confirmed that fact on Second Reading and the Minister of State, Mr. Mellor, reaffirmed it in Committee in another place. It puts a time limit on what would otherwise be called a temporary situation. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 37(7) enables the Independent Television Commission to invite a regional Channel 3 licensee to provide a service in an additional licence area, where the original licence had been revoked, for such period as the ITC may determine. It is certainly intended that this should be a temporary arrangement, until such time as the commission can arrange a new round of competitive tenders and allocate a new licence to the new licensee.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment. We do not think that an arbitrary limit of 18 months should necessarily be set on such an arrangement as there may be circumstances where a longer period would be necessary. Therefore, if she will be good enough to withdraw her amendment tonight, we shall consider the matter further and decide whether to bring forward an amendment at the next stage which makes clear the fact that the arrangements should be of a temporary nature in such circumstances.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for that reply. It has taken nearly four days for us to reach some agreement, but we have reached it. I withdraw the amendment with pleasure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Licensing etc. of domestic satellite services]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 38, line 2, at end insert:
("(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of section 3(2), a licence to provide a domestic satellite service may authorise the provision of a service which to any extent consists in the simultaneous transmission of different programmes on different frequencies.").
The noble Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 193 and 211A. Amendments Nos. 189 and 193 make it clear that the ITC can award a single licence to cover programming on, for instance, the five BSB channels or the four Sky channels. That reflects the existing position in which the five BSB channels are provided under a single IBA contract. That does not affect the provision made by Amendment No. 51 to which the Committee agreed on 9th July. That amendment made it clear that the unit of currency for the purpose of the ownership rule would be the programme stream rather than the licence.
Amendment No. 211A is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. I should like to hear what he has to say about the matter before making my response. I beg to move.
Lord St. John of Bletso: I shall speak to Amendment No. 211A. I apologise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who wanted to speak this evening but who was unfortunately unwell and had to leave early. The amendment would encourage the sharing of satellite dishes by households. It addresses a situation where several different people, all of whom want to watch satellite television, may want to club together to install one dish which is then linked to all their homes. By sharing one dish, the proliferation of dishes is limited, as one dish per household is not needed. They can also share the costs of the shared dish.
My amendment is intended to make such arrangements as simple and nonbureaucratic as possible. Although the amendment relates to satellite television, it should technically be grouped with amendments to Clause 67, which deals with local delivery services. However, since I cannot be here next week the amendment has been grouped with amendments to Clause 40, and I am grateful to the Committee for agreeing to that.
Even those of us who are enthusiastic about the development of satellite television services sometimes find ourselves a little less enthusiastic about the visible proliferation of the dish aerials necessary to watch the new programmes. Most dish aerials are unobtrusive, but a few are becoming something of a blot on the landscape.
I am aware that the satellite industry is concerned to lessen the impact of dish aerials. I understand that the new model dishes are less conspicuous and that new installation techniques are being found to make those aerials less obtrusive. I am advised, however, by Sky and BSB that we can help to lessen still further the impact of aerials. That is the purpose of the amendment.

1097
It is an amendment which has the support of both Sky and BSB, which may be unusual, and also of the Confederation of Aerial Industries, a trade association representing the companies in the business of installing satellite systems. The amendment should appeal to all those who wish to see the protection of our visual environment. The amendment, as I have said, is intended specifically to promote the possibility of sharing aerials. I suppose one could call it a "sharial" amendment. I make no claim that the wording of the amendment represents technical perfection in legislative drafting. I hope that the Committee will be kind enough to consider the intended objectives. We may persuade the Government in due course to offer us a proper, regulatory approach to achieve our aim.
As some Members of the Committee may be aware, it is difficult today for viewers to share a satellite dish. Under the 1984 Cable and Broadcasting Act, even an informal agreement by two neighbours to share a dish is considered to be a cable television system subject to licensing. The requirements of licensing are burdensome and the result has been that dish sharing has not been a practical proposition. Wisely, however, the Government have recognised the difficulties in the 1984 Act and have offered assurances in the other place that licensing requirements will be significantly liberalised from 1st January 1991. They will permit in as simple a way as possible the sharing of dishes by those who live in single buildings such as blocks of flats, or in two adjacent dwellings such as a pair of semidetached houses, or in two neighbouring terraced homes.
At the same time, the Government suggested that this liberalisation might be extended to include dishes serving up to five terraced houses. It is here that I believe that the Government have not gone far enough. The amendment seeks to extend this liberalised licensing scheme to cover the whole terrace of houses. I can see no reason to limit the concession to just two terraced houses or even five. Surely the objective should be to allow the largest possible number of homes to view satellite television using the smallest possible number of dishes.
I hope that the Committee will agree that the principles underpinning the amendment are straightforward. Perhaps I may offer a brief word on the practicalities. The Government have already identified in the other place that the liberalised licensing scheme I have mentioned will be achieved through the means of a socalled class licence. Issued by the DTI under the Telecommunications Act, this class licence will provide blanket and automatic approval for those dishsharing schemes which come within its ambit. The general requirements of the class licence, as I understand them, are quite straightforward. They require that the system meet basic technical specifications so as not to cause radio interference and that the system carry only programmes approved by the Independent Television Commission.
However, I am concerned about the ambit of the class licence. It should not be limited to single
1098
buildings or pairs of houses. It should be extended to cover the case of a shared dish serving the whole terrace of houses. I hope that we may learn tonight that the Government are sympathetic to the amendment so that we can allow a greater choice of viewing in Britain without spoiling the view. I commend my amendment to the Committee.
10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I have some sympathy with the underlying idea of the noble Lord's amendment. The Committee may find it helpful if I set out briefly the present regulatory position on the sharing of satellite dishes and the Government's proposals for change. Any cable system serving two or more households requires a licence from the Cable Authority unless it carries only BBC services or channels regulated by the IBA. It also needs a licence under the Telecommunications Act.
The main purpose of the Cable and Broadcasting Act licence is to ensure the maintenance of acceptable standards of taste and decency. That is why a licence is not needed for systems carrying only BBC and IBA services since they are regulated separately. Where an application for a satellite master antenna television system—which is known as SMATV—licence is made within a franchise area, the Cable Authority offers the franchise holder the right of first refusal to provide a service. This applies irrespective of the size of the proposed system. If he takes up the right of first refusal, the franchise holder has six months in which to provide a service.
Turning now to the future, on 27th April 1989 the then Home Secretary announced that it was our intention to relax significantly the regulation of SMATV. Under these proposals, systems covering up to 1,000 homes will not need to be licensed under the Broadcasting Bill, although they will continue to need to be licensed under the Telecommunications Act. Systems covering single buildings, of whatever size, or adjacent semidetached or pairs of houses in a terrace will be covered by a class licence under the Telecommunications Act. I believe that that was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso.
We have indicated that we would be prepared to consider extending this class licence to cover groups of up to, say, five terraced houses if there proved to be a significant demand for such systems from groups of neighbours. Larger SMATV systems would need individual Telecommunications Act licences. Where the proposed system was in a franchise area, the cable or local delivery operator would be given a right of first refusal.
We consider the right of first refusal is necessary in order to underpin cable and local delivery franchises, particularly as the latter are to be allocated by competitive tender. However, we intend that the right of first refusal should operate more briskly than is the case at present. We announced our detailed proposals on 6th June.
These proposals represent a significant, though not total, liberalisation of SMATV and they should allow

1099
more communal systems to develop. Indeed both Sky and BSB are working with SMATV operators and local authorities, and other large landlords such as housing associations, to provide their services to hundreds of thousands of flat dwellers.
The noble Lord has suggested that the class licence under the Telecommunications Act should be extended to cover complete terraces of houses. As I have said, the Government would be prepared to consider an extension to cover up to five houses in a terrace, but I do not think that we could go quite as far as the noble Lord suggests. We have to strike a careful balance between the interests of those householders who wish to share dishes and the need not to undermine cable and local delivery operators. We believe that our proposals get this difficult balance about right.
I hope that the noble Lord will see from this explanation that the whole thrust of the Government's proposals is towards meeting the objective of his amendment. We are keen to see sharing of satellite dishes where this can be practicably arranged. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNair: Like many other Members of the Committee, I have noticed the prevalence of dishes in many areas. Any scheme which does away with the need for multiple dishes, while preserving the ability of people to receive satellite television, must be a good idea. I would hope that a satellite dish from each company could be shared so that viewers may have the choice of programmes from both satellite systems.
I believe that the reason for the restriction to one dish per dwelling is purely environmental. If that is the case, this amendment would obviate the need for such a restriction where sharing of dishes takes place. Perhaps the Minister would let me know the Government's thinking on the matter. I support wholeheartedly the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. The scheme which he has proposed could be particularly useful for people who are prevented by planning constraints from installing individual dishes. I suggest that the logic in the suggestion of my noble friend is clear. He mentioned that a shared dish on the top of a tower block, linked to each flat, will be covered by a class licence. However, where homes are laid horizontally rather than vertically, that is in a terrace of houses rather than a block of flats, why should the same class licence not apply if the residents want it?
The potential for this amendment to encourage sharing may not be limited to the suggested and important extension to terraced housing. The regulatory experts may think of other ways to apply it. The important thing is the intention of the amendment. We must encourage sharing. I understand that the principle behind the amendment enjoys wide support. Indeed just this afternoon I learnt that the Association of District Councils has welcomed any moves which would have the effect of lessening the visual impact of dishes, without eroding the public's ability to receive new television services.
Viscount Ullswater: I have listened carefully to the noble Lord. I am sure he will read carefully my reply to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. I should inform the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the Department of the Environment issued a consultation document on llth July which sets out the options for changes in permitted development rights for satellite dishes. This canvasses the possibility of allowing all buildings to have two satellite dishes without planning permission.
In the South and East both dishes could be the maximum 60 centimetres in diameter and in the North and West, where larger dishes are necessary to allow reception of Sky Television, one dish could be 80 centimetres in diameter and the second 60 centimetres. That would facilitate fair competition between the two satellite companies. Should that option be accepted, it is likely to be accompanied by a requirement that dishes should be sited in such a way as to minimise their effect on the buildings' external appearance.
It will be seen from what I have said that the Government are leaning at least some way towards the noble Lord's amendment. However, as I said in my original reply, I believe that we have the balance about right.
Lord Morris: My noble friend Lord Ullswater, in his rebuttal of the case so ably stated by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, even if he was not aware of it himself, used the most chilling phrase. He referred to the Government's determination not to undermine cable and local delivery operators. He will be aware that since 1984 and the implementation of the cable Act the performance of the cable companies in laying down local delivery services by cable can only be described as abysmal. If my noble friend really wants to encourage the laying down of cable in this country he should encourage the receipt of signals by satellite. That will be the competitive element which will spur the cable companies to lay cables throughout the country.
I shall have time to consider with greater care his response to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord St.John of Bletso, between the Committee and Report stages, but I strongly suggest that the Government should encourage the sharing of satellite dishes in order to spur the laying of cable in this country, to the greater benefit of the telecommunications infrastructure within the country as a whole.
Lord Ardwick: I should like to add a word from a personal point of view. This must be a dilemma which strikes many people. I live on a small estate of 20 houses comprising three rows of terraced houses forming a hollow square, with about seven houses in each block. We have a rule that no television aerial is to be erected. Under that rule we are forbidding the use of satellite dishes. Among the residents there are two journalists, two television writers, four or five actors and actresses. We all have a professional need to receive satellite television. However, we see no solution until we can have one or two dishes that can serve all of us without causing any offence to the eyes of our neighbours.
Viscount Ullswater: An application for a licence would not be denied, but the cable franchisee of the noble Lord's area, if his estate falls within a cable franchise area, would need first refusal. If the cable franchisee does not take up that opportunity of providing the cabling and the aerials, then a licence would be granted.
I have to say to my noble friend that there has been a great deal of investment interest in the cabling industry in the past two years and we believe that it would be a pity to disrupt that by liberalising the position too much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 38, line 4, leave out ("and") and insert:
("(aa) section (Conditions requiring holder of Channel 3 or 5 licence to deliver promised service), and").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 156. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 190A:
Page 38, line 5, after ("sections") insert ("(Promotion of equal opportunities in relation to employment by licence holder) and").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 183A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 38, line 14, leave out ("subsection (6)") and insert ("subsections (6) to (9)").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 109. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Licensing etc. of nondomestic satellite services]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 38, line 27, at end insert ("or 16 (2) (g)").
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple short amendment. It requires nondomestic satellite broadcasters to include a proper proportion of EC originated material if they wish to be licensed to gain access to British audiences. While Britain may have little control over nondomestic satellite services unless they apply for licences, this amendment is an explicit reminder to such companies that what they are expected to offer should reflect the EC preference for EC originated material and that nondomestic satellites should not simply be the easy means by which United States or other nonEuropean material is able to flood the airways.
It also reflects the requirements for a suitable amount of EC material which are built into the EC directive on transnational broadcasting and the Council of Europe convention on the same subject, to each of which the British Government are a signatory. I beg to move.
Lord BonhamCarter: I have nothing to add to the words so eloquently spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in support of this totally admirable amendment except to say that I support it.
Viscount Ullswater: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord but I cannot accept this amendment, which would apply the European programming requirement to nondomestic satellite service licences. We have made clear that we shall impose the consumer protection requirements on such licences, but that otherwise their development should be left to the market. I believe that it would be heavy handed to apply a positive requirement of that kind to such licences.
The noble Baroness asked how the Government envisage that the UK should meet its obligations under the EC directive in relation to the European content of nondomestic satellite services. The directive provides that states may implement its provisions by law, regulations or administrative means. Implementation is to be achieved by October 1991. We envisage that in the case of nondomestic satellite services implementation of the directive's provisions on European programming will be done administratively. The ordermaking powers in Clause 173 could be used if necessary at some point in the future. We do not see that as an issue which should cause any difficulties. Both the convention and the directive recognise sensibly and realistically that the proportion of European programming may need to be increased progressively over a period of time. They also acknowledge that European content requirements should apply only where practicable.
Lord BonhamCarter: Does what the noble Viscount said mean that there will be no limitation on nondomestic satellite television and the endless series of American programmes?
Viscount Ullswater: I do not believe that that is true. For instance, the news programmes from these satellites have a European content. Many of the sporting programmes have a European content and a lot of the ethnic programmes have a regional characteristic.
Lord BonhamCarter: If the noble Viscount looks at the sports programme sin the morning he will find that it is largely American. If he looks at the films he will find that they are very largely American. Naturally the news programme is not.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Perhaps I may pursue this matter for a moment with the noble Viscount. Her Majesty's Government are a signatory to those European conventions. They have a spirit as well as a letter. Are the Government saying that they will use the opportunity to deal with this matter administratively, simply by turning a blind eye to whatever happens?
Lord Morris: Not at all. It is quite clear that the noble Lords opposite have not understood what my noble friend said. In effect he said that this amendment is totally unnecessary. It is quite unnecessary to make

1103
an amendment in a domestic statute when it can be perfectly capably handled by regulation. That is all that he said.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I was not arguing in support of the amendment going into the present Bill. But I was rather shocked by what I thought might be the implication of what the Minister was saying: that nondomestic satellites will be treated extremely leniently, to put it mildly, in terms of the spirit of the European directive which the Government have signed.
Viscount Ullswater: I am grateful to my noble friend for leaping to my defence in some way. I thought that I had stated quite clearly that the directive provides that states may implement its provision by administrative means. I stressed that that is the way we intend to do it. The implementation of the directive is to be achieved by October 1991. I see no reason why that should not be done.
The power in Clause 173 could be used if necessary. We are not in any way trying to avoid the directive. I simply outlined the way in which the directive will be implemented. I drew attention to the fact that the power in Clause 173 could be brought into effect. However, I suggest that we do not need to write it on to the face of the Bill, as the amendment does.
Baroness Birk: It is very late. I had not considered the clause closely. It does not seem at a quick glance that Clause 173 covers this provision. It states:
"This section applies to

(a) the BBC;

(b) the Independent Television Commission;

(c) the Welsh Authority;

(d) the Radio Authority;

(e) The Broadcasting Standards Council".

That is the end of the clause. It says nothing about nondomestic satellites.
Viscount Ullswater: That provision comes under subsection (2) (b) because the body is licensed under the ITC.
Baroness Birk: It is not very clear. It states that it applies to the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. It does not state that it is licensed outside. It is roaming rather far.
Viscount Ullswater: The ITC is not a broadcaster. But the broadcasting requirements are to be implemented by those licensed by the ITC.
Baroness Birk: I shall withdraw the amendment. That will give my noble friends and myself a chance to look into the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No.193:
Page 38, line 27, at end insert:
("(2A) Section 39(1A) shall apply to a licence to provide a nondomestic satellite service as it applies to a licence to provide a domestic satellite service.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 189. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 38, line 36, leave out ("subsections (2) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (2)").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Licensing etc. of licensable programme services]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 40, line 25, leave out ("on religious matters or").
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 40, line 39, leave out ("subsections (2) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (2)").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, 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.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Medway Tunnel Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twentyfive minutes past ten o'clock.

  GENERIC PRESCRIBING: SAVINGS ESTIMATE
  GENERIC PRESCRIBING: SAVINGS ESTIMATE
  NHS MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT
  NHS MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT
  SMALL SHOPS: RATE LEVELS
  SMALL SHOPS: RATE LEVELS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: LOCAL AUTHORITY STAFF INCREASE
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: LOCAL AUTHORITY STAFF INCREASE
  GREATER LONDON: EMPTY DWELLINGS
  GREATER LONDON: EMPTY DWELLINGS
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE:MONITORING
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE:MONITORING
  HCFCs: EC RESOLUTION
  HCFCs: EC RESOLUTION
  PDLLUTION INSPECTORATE: STAFF VACANCIES
  PDLLUTION INSPECTORATE: STAFF VACANCIES
  MISSILE TARGETING
  MISSILE TARGETING
  SYRIA—UK RELATIONS
  SYRIA—UK RELATIONS
  ALBANIA—UK RELATIONS
  ALBANIA—UK RELATIONS
  RAILWAY SAFETY:FUNDING
  RAILWAY SAFETY:FUNDING
  VEHICLE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
  VEHICLE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
  SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE: CROWN SERVANTS' FAMILIES
  SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE: CROWN SERVANTS' FAMILIES
  CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES
  CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES
  ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME
  ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME
  LICENSED TEACHERS: COST OF SCHEME
  LICENSED TEACHERS: COST OF SCHEME
  SUICIDES IN PRISON: TUMIM REPORT
  SUICIDES IN PRISON: TUMIM REPORT