Sitting of 5 June 1990

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

    Cancelled Operations
    Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum and minimum number of operating theatre sessions cancelled by district health authorities last year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Four districts reported no cancelled scheduled operating theatre sessions in 1988–89 and one reported just over 2,000 cancelled sessions.
    Mr. Maples: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Does he agree that the figures that he has just given show yet again that there are enormous discrepancies in the performances of different health authorities? Does he further agree that if only the less efficient could improve their performance, they could deliver far more health care for the same amount of money?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes. He made a good point. Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have pointed out the enormous discrepancy within health districts in the efficient use of operating theatres. The Bevan report shows that across the country the average utilisation is 70 per cent. If that were raised to 90 per cent., there would be a saving to the National Health Service of £100 million. The reforms that we intend to introduce next April will help to achieve that.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What steps are being taken to increase the average utilisation figure? Would improved information technology help, especially when patients do not turn up or when notes are not available to the surgeon carrying out the operation?
    Mr. Dorrell: Improved technology certainly has a part to play and our response to the Bevan report recognises that. We are currently consulting on the lessons to be learnt from that report and we expect to issue guidance soon.
    Dame Jill Knight: Was not there a recent case of an ophthalmic surgeon working in the Health Service carrying out more operations in one month than another ophthalmic surgeon carried out in six months? Do not
    492
    NHS patients have the right to expect unanimity of good service, wherever they may live? Is not that the most important reason for the review of the NHS?
    Mr. Dorrell: During my three and a half weeks in the job, that specific case has not been drawn to my attention. However, the principle espoused by my hon. Friend is right. We are introducing reforms next April to try to achieve that unanimity of service throughout the country.

    Community Care
    Mr. Bell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on earmarked grants to local authorities for the purpose of community care.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on earmarked grants to local authorities for the purpose of community care.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Local authorities are responsible for determining the use of the resources on matters for which they have policy responsibility and for which they are accountable. The House welcomed the Government's decision to make community care the prime responsibility of local government, and earmarked grants would be inconsistent with that decision.
    Mr. Bell: I am sorry to hear the Secretary of State's response, although I am not surprised by it. Is he aware of the anxiety throughout social services departments that there will not be sufficient grant to meet the demand for community care? Is he further aware of the London Research Centre report, published in April, which suggested that there would be a shortfall of £100 million rising to £500 million by 1994? Will he consider specific grants to meet such shortfalls, should they arise?
    Mr. Clarke: We have always made it clear that local authorities need, and will receive, adequate resources to carry out their new responsibilities. Those resources will be decided during the public expenditure round. It is rather premature to produce reports, from any source, about the inadequacy of resources before we have even decided what those resources will be.
    One difficulty with earmarked grants is that it is impossible to separate that area of expenditure from what is already being spent on care in the community, which in large part is already a local authority responsibility. remind the hon. Gentleman that while the Government have been in power total spending on care in the community has risen by 68 per cent. in real terms—that is more than half as much again as was being spent when we took office and before we introduced our popular arrangements.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: On 6 December the former junior Minister made a speech of glowing support for community care when he addressed the annual general meeting of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Is not it a cruel deception of such bodies that there is a distinction between the Government's aims and the methods that they use? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that earmarked grants should be available to areas such as north Derbyshire so that they can meet the provisions referred to in Government statements?
    Mr. Clarke: My junior Ministers move on to greater things so rapidly that I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to a speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office or my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, but if he was addressing the National Schizophrenia Fellowship I have no doubt that the reference was, above all, to the specific grant that we have made it clear that we shall be introducing to encourage community care for mentally ill people. A specific grant for that area is important because in the past it has not been given high enough priority by local authorities. Therefore, money aimed specifically at mental illness will be allocated to local authorities when they produce plans that are satisfactory to the health authorities.
    Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comfirm that, whether earmarked or not, grants given to local authorities from next April will represent the sums that hitherto would have been paid in social security benefits? Is he yet able to give the formula by which the figures will be calculated or an estimate of the sum involved? I am sure that he appreciates the difficulties of local authorities in making their plans from next April without knowing what resources will be available to them.
    Mr. Clarke: We are firmly committed to transferring from the Department of Social Security vote to our vote and to local government the sum of money that would have been spent by the Department of Social Security under the old policy of making provision through income support for people in residential care. We also have to make a calculation for growth and a calculation of what is available for this year, and we shall do that when we make the decision on the revenue support grant for local government. I appreciate the difficulties for local government in having to make plans when final decisions have not been reached on exactly how much will be available next year, but that is inescapable in the system of annual financial planning that we have always had. It is true of the whole range of government, under this Government or any other, that we have to wait for the autumn spending round before we know exactly how much we have for the next year. Neither the Treasury and Civil Service Committee nor anybody else has yet come up with a better way of doing it.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to consider the sad and moving story that appeared in the Nottingham Evening Post last Friday about Colin Jago, a schizophrenia sufferer, who slipped so tragically through the community care net? Will he have a look at that story to see whether any lessons can be learnt for our policy on care in the community?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree that the story of Colin Jago is tragic. It shows what a dreadful way of life he led as a result of suffering from schizophrenia. I shall ask the chairman of the district health authority to let me have a report on his case to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt.
    Mr. Allen: That is sheer hypocrisy. The Secretary of State is allowing the mental illness unit for adolescents to close.
    Mr. Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman stoops any further to try to make party political points out of a tragic individual case—
    Mr. Allen: It is hypocrisy.
    Mr. Clarke: People must make their own judgment about where hypocrisy lies in the matter, and loud-mouthed barracking does not help.
    I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) that Colin Jago was examined and interviewed by a doctor at Mapperley hospital, who decided that it was not necessary to admit him to hospital for treatment. However, we must discover the full facts to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt from Mr. Jago's sad death.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that Sir Roy Griffiths recommended an earmarked grant, that the local authorities, including the Conservative ones, want an earmarked grant, and that now the other place has voted for it? Even flagship Wandsworth has made representations to the Secretary of State supporting the case for a ring-fenced grant. Why does he disagree with everybody else if it is not that he is afraid that an earmarked grant will make it only too plain that he cannot come up with the cash that the councils need to make care in the community work?
    Mr. Clarke: Because good government depends on clear responsibility and accountability, and I have not been persuaded that it is right to give responsibility for this matter to local government and then for the House or any Government to try to keep to themselves part of the responsibility for determining the level of resources. No one in Wandsworth or anywhere else would want the Government to determine the total level of resources available. There is also a practical problem with an earmarked grant. I do not understand how it is proposed to distinguish the earmarked grant, made with whatever new money we might make available, from all the moneys already being spent on care in the community by local government, which already provides home helps, meals on wheels, and so on. I do not believe that it is practicable and nor, for the reasons that I have given, am I persuaded that it is desirable.

    Social Workers
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to assist in the recruitment of local authority social workers.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is for local authorities themselves, as employers, to take whatever steps are appropriate to recruit the staff whom they need.
    Mr. Worthington: Did the Minister hear the Prime Minister praising the work of child helplines the other day, when she said that we must make sure that enough telephones are provided and that sufficient volunteers are available to man them? Is not it a little hypocritical of the Prime Minister to make that remark when the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work states that an extra 800 social workers need to be trained each year to maintain the present level of services?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was praising the work of Childline, which uses volunteers and provides an excellent service. We pay £300,000 towards the cost of that service. The CCETSW has responsibility for training, and we have substantially increased its funding. There are significantly more people—about 4·5 per cent. more—joining the profession each year than leaving it. Of course, we continue to have discussions with employers and with the CCETSW to ensure that there is an adequate supply of social workers to undertake important tasks, in addition to the volunteers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that social services recruits not only need university degrees or to be armed with diplomas in humanities but should be streetwise? Would not it be a good idea to recruit mothers whose children have grown up—and perhaps even younger grandmothers—because such women have raised families, are streetwise, and are not as green as grass?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely support my hon. Friend. In my view, streetwise grandmothers are precisely the people who should be undertaking work with young families. The work that we do in training social workers ensures broad entry. It is not the case that it is only 18 or 19-year-old undergraduates whom we want to attract. We seek to recruit also the mature woman who has experience. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's words when I next meet those responsible.

    Health Care, Nottingham
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Strelley health centre, Nottingham to discuss standards of health care.
    Mr. Dorrell: I have no plans to visit Strelley health centre at present.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern at Strelley and other health centres about the Government's policy on preventive medicine? Is he further aware that 2·5 million fewer people have received free eye tests than in the previous year? Eye tests can detect serious illnesses such as cancer and kidney disease, and other conditions. Will the Minister admit at the Dispatch Box, on his first day in the job, that it was a terrible mistake to charge people for eye tests that were previously free?
    Mr. Dorrell: No, I am unaware of any of those things. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to represent his arguments in tomorrow's debate. I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who is replying to that debate, will be able to knock the hon. Gentleman out of the water.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) is almost the local Member of Parliament concerned, and I am sure that he agrees that his constituents and mine receive excellent service under the National Health Service provision in the city of Nottingham. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that health centres are growing not only in number but in excellence? I ask him to join in paying tribute to the chairman of the district health authority, Mr. David White, and to all those involved in Health Service provision in the city of Nottingham.
    Mr. Dorrell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Mr. White. As he said, my constituents also benefit from the considerable improvement in health care made over the past few years in Nottingham. The city has two major general hospitals, and has seen a 9·2 per cent. increase in direct care staff in the Health Service over the past five years. It has also seen a 22 per cent. increase in in-patient cases and a 22 per cent. fall in the average general practitioners' list. That is an enormous improvement in health care in Nottingham, from which my constituents, among others, benefit.

    Community Health Councils
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of community health councils.
    Mr. Dorrell: We have no plans to alter the role of community health councils.
    Mr. Hood: Has the Minister read the leaked letter—published in the National Union of Public Employees journal recently—from the Secretary of State for Social Security, which showed that the answer given to the House is not as accurate as suggested? The letter states that it is the Government's intention to do away with the right of community health councils to complain about such things as hospitals opting out. If that is the case, will the Minister admit it, and if it is not, will he officially deny it? Consumers of health care are getting sick of their democratic rights being taken away.
    Mr. Dorrell: I am afraid that I am not an avid reader of the NUPE journal, but I can confirm that no change is envisaged for the role of the community health council when a district health authority proposes the closure of a hospital.
    Mr. Nelson: I welcome the reassurance that my hen. Friend has given, but will he reflect on the fact that while community health councils can be a useful sound-board for local opinion on the health services that are provided, it is the membership of the health authority that has executive control over local allocation of resources? A key issue in future is to try to ensure that the range of authority members and their responsiveness to local opinion is such that they can bring influence to bear and reflect public opinion in the provision of health services.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that the changes that will be introduced next April are intended to emphasise the executive nature of health authorities. That leaves an important role for the community health councils. In many ways it will be an enhanced role after April. It creates the opportunity for them to become more concerned with the development of the service in the area for which they are responsible.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Minister publish for the relevant community health council any draft business plan that has been submitted to his Department or any draft application for self-governing trust status? Will he also publish for the relevant community health council a copy of his Department's response to any such draft papers, to ensure that the council is effectively able to represent local opinion when a hospital in its area is deciding whether to opt out?
    Mr. Dorrell: I shall not undertake to publish draft business plans, but I give the undertaking, which my right hon. and learned Friend has given many times, that the community health councils will be fully consulted on any proposal to establish a self-governing trust.
    Mr. Conway: Will community health councils be able to do much that Members of Parliament who are active in their constituencies cannot do? Given that circumstance, does my hon. Friend think that if the councils did not exist at this time tomorrow, they would be missed, or that they are much loved?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is an active Member of Parliament. If everyone was as active as him, he might have a point. Community health councils have a significant part to play in the future of the Health Service, by representing proper concerns when major changes are envisaged and as a consultee in the future development of the Health Service. I hope that in future the councils, in the same way as other bodies are concerned with health issues, will be more interested in output by the Health Service than in input.

    NHS Trusts
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on how many ballots have been held in hospitals which are considering opting out; and whether any of these have shown a majority in favour of such a course of action.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has of the views of National Health Service staff or patients on the formation of self-governing trusts.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No Government have ever thought it sensible for changes in management of NHS services to be subject to ballots. Applications for NHS trust status will not be invited until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. Staff and members of the public will then have an opportunity to express their views on individual proposals before any decisions are taken. I prefer the usual process of consultation rather than public referendum on such complicated and specialist issues.
    A total of 195 units have so far expressed an interest in NHS trust status, with some 80 stating that they may seek trust status in 1991. That demonstrates the keen interest with which senior NHS staff, including members of the medical and nursing profession, view the prospect of establishing NHS trusts.
    Mrs. Ewing: In the light of that response, will the Secretary of State tell us the definition of the electorate when such decisions are reached? Surely all categories of staff and existing, past and potential patients must be involved in the decisions as well as the community health councils, which have already been referred to. Has he established any criteria on which he will say no?
    Mr. Clarke: Of course, the staff of the National Health Service are a key part of it. They deliver the service and we depend on their dedication. However, we have never operated any type of worker control and the public have an interest in those matters as well. The founding of the National Health Service was not made subject to local
    498
    ballots and I can recall no change in the 40 years since then that has been made in that way. We shall have a full process of consultation and I will refuse applications unless I am satisfied from all the information that comes in from the consultation that, if granted, a particular application will lead to a better quality of service for patients in that hospital and better value for money for all those interested in the National Health Service.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that in ballots held across the country, huge majorities have been returned that are opposed to hospitals opting out of the National Health Service? Is he further aware that almost every organisation connected with the National Health Service—the Health Service trade unions, the community health councils, Health Service charities and voluntary organisations—is equally opposed to hospitals being allowed to opt out of the National Health Service? As the Health Service belongs to the people, why does not the Minister let the people decide by ensuring that there are ballots in every area affected before any hospital is allowed to opt out of the Health Service?
    Mr. Clarke: I am against any hospital opting out of the National Health Service. If people go round asking daft questions, they get daft answers, which is not a very positive contribution to running a better National Health Service. We shall have a full process of public consultation on what local people are proposing in the places that go ahead with an application for NHS trust status. The Labour party is bereft of any serious contributions. Instead of putting forward its own ideas on how we might go back to more local discretion and control in running the Health Service, it leaves the whole matter to the ridiculous local ballots being run by councils, unions and other people.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend admit to the House that the drive for NHS self-governing status comes from his Department through the chairmen of the regions and the chairmen of the districts, all of whom are party political appointments? Will he state genuinely to the House that if it is the view of local people, and especially if it is the view of consultants, doctors, nurses and paramedics working in a hospital, that they do not wish to go for self-governing status, he will refuse that application?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not only not admit, but I strongly deny my hon. Friend's allegation and his ridiculous travesty of our appointment process—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Clarke: If the appointments were party political, I should have complaints from the Opposition about them. The applications for self-governing status are coming from people concerned with the hospitals and units themselves. It is rather absurd that when, in effect, we go back to a system very similar to the old hospital management boards, which gives back far more local control at the sharp end of delivery over how the Service is run, we are opposed in this way. I well remember the Labour party fiercely fighting the establishment of the district health authorities and the regional health authorities, which it now says should run the Service. Eighteen years ago, the Labour party argued vehemently that it was wrong to take away local control of hospitals. I have undergone a

    499
    conversion in those 18 years and I am inclined to think that the Labour party was right. The trouble is that the Labour party just opposes any change at any moment.
    Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question and the Minister did not——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman were asking to raise the matter on the Adjournment, that would be different.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down, please.
    Mr. Dykes: On a calmer note, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if there is a proposal for a management area change and then the idea of a self-governing trust, it could cause extra delays, and that, if there is an erosion of services and facilities, as at the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, there is a danger of that hospital's future being severely threatened? Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay attention to that and say what he intends to do about it and when our colleague the Minister for Health will visit the hospital?
    Mr. Clarke: I have visited that hospital and I certainly recommend my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to visit it if she has the opportunity. I understand the need to resolve some of the uncertainties surrounding the future of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. I shall certainly ensure, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of Health will too, that nothing connected with NHS reforms causes further delay or creates fresh difficulties for all those who work in that excellent hospital.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that he could sidestep all questions on local ballots if he would simply agree to a timetable that first put the proposals to the general electorate so that electors who had no opportunity to comment in the last election will have an opportunity to vote on them in the next one? I warn the Secretary of State that, if he persists in bulldozing through the proposals for opt-out without giving local people any voice, the next Labour Government will take back all those hospitals into local health authority control.
    Mr. Clarke: I have had a look at the draft manifesto that the Labour party prepared for the next election. It seems to be so vague on management issues that I came to the view that it was voting to make no changes in particular to whatever it inherited if and when it got back into power. I am absolutely astonished that the hon. Gentleman is now committing himself to making no changes to the way in which the National Health Service is run, without submitting any proposals that he might have for local ballots in the future. If we ever had a Labour Government, it might reduce the dangers of dangerous action, but I do not think that a Labour Government would adopt such a foolish process.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a growing number of senior doctors, nurses and paramedics in the two district health authorities in my area are growing increasingly excited at the thought that they may have an opportunity to shorten the administrative hierarchy that constantly second-guesses their judgments, frequently to their detriment?
    Mr. Clarke: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says. I know that quite a lot of those who are interested in NHS trust status are, among other things, looking forward to being free of the day-to-day control of their district, region or other parts of the system. There certainly is widespread enthusiasm. I disapprove of all the ballots, whatever the electorate is. It is a selective way of looking at the interests of everybody who has a common interest in the NHS—it does not belong to the staff. So far, five of the ballots among consultants have been in favour and seven have been against. I hope that everybody will wait until they have a proper application and then go through a sensible process of consultation, making whatever representations they want. That will enable me to make a better-informed judgment in the end, which is in the interests of the Health Service and its patients.

    Dental Checks
    Mr. Rees: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now remove the charge on dental checks.
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now remove the charge on dental checks.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I see no reason to do so. It is right that adults who can afford to do so should make a contribution to this part of their dental care.
    Mr. Rees: Are not dental checks an important part of preventive medicine? Has the Secretary of State noticed that independent research shows that the number of dental checks is falling? Although that may save money, is not it bad for the health of Government policy?
    Mr. Clarke: I think that dental checks are important, which is why I think that those who can afford to do so will willingly pay £3·45 for a dental check. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that 40 per cent. of the population is exempt from any charge. I know of no evidence of a sustained decline in the number of dental checks. Indeed, over any lengthy period, there has been a steady increase in the number of dental checks and in the total number of dental treatments in the National Health Service.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage the dental practice board to make available treatment under the EC 18 certificate? I understand that recently the board was denied all knowledge of it and that therefore some patients have been paying for their treatment.
    Mr. Clarke: I am not aware of those problems. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing them to my attention. I shall take up the matter with the dental health board and let my hon. Friend have a written response to her question.
    Mr. Kennedy: Further to the answer to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have been talking to dentists, because all the dental surgeons to whom I have spoken over the past few months have said clearly that only people in two income categories can afford a full, prolonged and comprehensive system of dental care—those on full state benefits who do not have to pay and those in an income category such that they can afford to pay—and that the bulk of people, who fall somewhere between the two, are cutting their dental

    501
    treatment because of the cost. How can the Secretary of State deduce from that that there is no downturn in preventive medicine?
    Mr. Clarke: Of course, similar representations are made to me by dentists whenever dental charges are raised generally, in line with the longstanding policy of this Government and of previous Labour Governments. However, it is clear that over any sustained period there has been a steady increase in the number of dental treatments given under the National Health Service. Over a lengthy period I expect to see a continued and satisfactory level of dental check-ups. I do not believe that for the 60 per cent. of the population who are asked to pay, £3·45 is a deterrent charge for a perfectly reasonable part of any individual's preventive medicine—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to listen to the questions and not to conduct private conversations, which is disruptive.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is not it true that the new dental contract will, for the first time, pay dentists a fee for the regular patients on their list, without requiring any contribution from the patients? Although it is understandable that dentists feel some concern about the details, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a positive vote from dentists in the forthcoming ballot on the new contract would be a vote for prevention and would provide a much-needed shift in emphasis towards better dental health?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, I agree. The new contract will enable dentists to offer patients all-round continuing care, including emergency cover, treatment plans, better information and the replacement, free of charge, of certain restorations that fail within 12 months, and so on. I have agreed the new contract with the dentists' representatives and they are commending it to their members. I very much hope that the dentists will vote in favour of the new contract, which represents a substantial improvement in our dental services, for which many dentists have been pressing for many years.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House that there is no evidence of a decline when the Minister for Health told the House in February that there had been a slight dip and when in May his Department reported a reduction of 700,000 cases, thus bucking the upward trend throughout Europe? Does the Secretary of State accept that he has got his figures wrong and will he go back and do his homework—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will hon. Members, especially those below the Gangway, desist from conducting private conversations, which are very disruptive?
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that he has plainly got his figures—and his policies—wrong?
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There was a dip, but I referred to long-term trends. There is always a dip—I have no doubt that this was the case when the Labour Government were in power—when charges are increased for any part of NHS services. However, over the years, the dips are not sustained. I repeat that I do not believe that £3·45 is a
    502
    deterrent charge for the 60 per cent. of the population who are liable to pay the charge, and nor do I believe that any evidence will be forthcoming to demonstrate that it is.

    Cottage Hospitals
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy changes his Department has instituted during the last six months with regard to cottage hospitals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dorrell: There has been no change in the position. It is for health authorities to determine the pattern of services in their own locality.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the comments by the Secretary of State on 10 October when he said that the Government's new funding arrangements would ensure that
    "popular cottage hospitals will thrive"?
    As there are now six small cottage hospitals under the axe for closure in my county, will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether that is because a different policy is being pursued in Wales or because there has been a change of policy in the Department of Health, which means that such hospitals in England are in as much danger as are those in Wales?
    Mr. Dorrell: No, Sir. There has been no change of policy. The same policy is pursued in Wales and England. The policy is to allow greater delegation of decision-making to local level. Where there is a genuine and sustained local demand for a community hospital, that will be seen in the purchasing decisions taken from next April onwards.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cottage hospital provides a signal service in rural areas, especially where travelling distances are great? Does he recognise that there is a feeling in the southern part of my constituency that Herefordshire district health authority is being frustrated in its attempt to redevelop Ross cottage hospital into a community hospital by a less than fully co-operative attitude on the part of West Midlands regional health authority? Will he be careful that any advice that he gives to the regional health authorities reflects the wish to sustain the viability and independence of the health authority to provide what it deems to be appropriate for an area and that no element of discouragement floats in?
    Mr. Dorrell: One great virtue of our reforms is that we shall be rather less heavy handed than we may have been in the past in the type of advice that we offer from the centre to a district health authority. I believe that as a result there will be greater diversity of local decisions and of health care available and the manner in which it is provided. We hope that that will lead to improved standards and more uniformity in the quality of health care, which in the end is what the patient is interested in.
    Mr. Skinner: Has the Minister considered the possibility of setting up a royal commission to look into cottage hospitals with a view to safeguarding their future? He could put in charge a man who is desperate for a job—he sits below the Gangway—and who is the last leader of the SDP. He has done a good job for the Tory party over the years and the Minister could repay him the compliment.
    Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about his future well-being.

    Doctors (Recruitment)
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet members of the medical practices committee to discuss the recruitment of doctors.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there are now in the National Health Service.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Department holds regular meetings with the chairman of the medical practices committee. We are not aware of problems with regard to the recruitment of doctors. At 1 October 1988 there were 25,322 unrestricted principals in England. That is 4,000 more than in 1979.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that not inconsiderable delays can occur between the practice obtaining approval to recruit a general practitioner and the recruitment taking place and that that is to the clear detriment of the local community? Therefore, when she next meets the chairman of the medical practices committee, will she ask him to introduce a more rigorous monitoring system that will ensure that appointments are made in under a year and that if a practice does not intend to take advantage of it, the opportunity to have a new doctor is given to another practice?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the matter, particularly the case which arose in his constituency. Time is needed to advertise and to interview prospective candidates and, of course, for new appointees to give notice. Certainly, I shall examine closely the point made and raise it with the relevant committee the next time I meet it.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and I welcome the increased number of GPs, which shows the Government's commitment to the NHS. Will she confirm that GP list sizes have dropped dramatically in the past couple of years? Does she agree that the GP now has more time to deal with the individual patient, which is in the interest of the GP, the patient and the NHS?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For the first time, the GP list size has fallen below 2,000. That is a major achievement. Not only do we have smaller list sizes, but the GP has at his disposal a much larger practice team. There has been 70 per cent. increase in the number of ancillary staff in the practice. That all means better care for patients.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: How many general practitioners will run their own budgets next year? Is there any truth in the rumour in the press last weekend that the software will not be available for GPs to run their budgets?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The whole proposal to have budget holders is going well, and about 400 practices have expressed an interest. Clearly, they will not be finally approved until we are confident that they can undertake the responsibilities. A practice budget will provide general practitioners with more autonomy and control. GPs are willing to join the scheme and we welcome the steps
    504
    forward. We are making good progress with the software and we are confident that it will be possible fully to implement the proposals.

    Community Care
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss community care.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I hold regular formal and informal meetings with the ADSS, but there is no fixed date for the next meeting.
    Mr. O'Brien: When the Minister meets the directors of social services will she agree to provide the additional necessary funds, as promised in the report of Sir Roy Griffiths, to maintain services to the elderly, the mentally ill and other people in need? Will she consider funding the additional social workers that will be necessary to meet the demand for social work? Will she also consider the suggestion of creating a Minister of Community Care?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, but when I meet the ADSS, which is frequently, as I made clear, I shall speak again about the vast sums already spent on community care—about £3·5 billion—as well as about the importance of new policies and ensuring that those resources are spent effectively and well in the interests of the individuals concerned. We have made it clear that adequate resources will be available and we are working openly and in close consultation with the ADSS on that popular policy.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Hannam: As this is World Environment Day, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the United Nations award to her? Is not it a fact that my right hon. Friend's recent decision to limit CO2 emissions in 2005 to the present levels will represent about a 30 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions from the projected levels? Surely this will mean substantial sacrifices on the part of energy consumers.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, I welcome the award as a recognition of the lead that the Government have taken on environmental matters. We have put forward a target time of 2005 so that we can get down the CO2 emissions during that year to where they are this year. That is a realistic target and one which I think will become a world consensus. I am very glad that the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has endorsed that as a realistic target and believes that in 15 years' time we shall have better science on which to make further decisions.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that she spoke for the whole country recently when she said that the poll tax had been a huge mistake?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken—I never said any such thing. I am very sorry to disappoint him, but he should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sad that the reports that there was some common sense breaking out in Downing street have been slightly exaggerated. Is the Prime Minister aware that the costs of administering poll tax are huge? Is she aware that there is chaos in many areas about the collection of the poll tax? Does she appreciate that poll tax capping will inflict crippling losses, especially on children's education? When all those things are true, is not it obvious that the only thing wrong with her saying that the poll tax is a huge mistake is that it was a gross understatement?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman never conditions his supplementary questions to my previous replies; perhaps that is beyond his capacity to think on his feet. With regard to the collection of the community charge, the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers will be aware that we accelerated the taxpayer's contribution, the revenue support grant, to local authorities so that they got virtually three months' grant in place of the two months that they otherwise would have got. That gives them a considerable advantage in cash terms so that if they put it on deposit they have a good extra amount to tide them over any difficulties.
    Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will condition herself to the reality that all over the country, under Conservative and Labour councils, people are saying, "This poll tax is costing us much more than the rates ever did. Where is the sense, prudence and fairness in that?" Is not it clear that such a tax is doomed, as it deserves to be, along with the Government who invented it?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the community charge, especially as he lives in Ealing, where, having had a Labour council, there is a very high community charge. But who is the right hon. Gentleman to talk? We looked at the Labour party's document, having heard Labour's director of campaigns and communications promise on 4 April that the next major policy statement by the Labour party would be on 23 and 24 May. We were told:
    "In that will be contained our fully worked out alternative to the poll tax."
    What did we see when we got that document? We found a list of principles followed by the statement:
    "The practical means by which we achieve these aims and principles are set out in a background paper."
    There is no background paper. The Labour party does not have a clue.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the astonishment and dismay of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House at the decision of the unelected Chamber on the War Crimes Bill? Will she bear it in mind that Australia, Canada and the United States, three countries with legal systems not dissimilar to ours and which do not take second place to us in regard to human rights, legislated on this long ago? Will she weigh very carefully in coming to any decision on this grave
    506
    matter the words in the conclusion of the Hetherington-Chalmers report that to take no action against such monstrous crimes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am quoting——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Father of the House must not do that. He must paraphrase.
    Sir Bernard Braine:—will taint the United Kingdom with the slur of becoming a haven for war criminals? Is not it clear that the only moral conclusion to be reached is that the Bill must be introduced in another Session?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I recognise the extremely strong feelings, because of the hideous nature of the crimes. We shall be considering carefully the implications of the result of the debate in another place and how best to proceed, bearing in mind the size of the majority in this House on a free vote. It may be that the House itself will wish to discuss the matter, in which case I am sure that that will be pursued through my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President.
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howarth: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her Government are presiding over record levels of homelessness, high mortgage costs, high rent increases and the complete collapse of the private rented sector? What does she intend to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: The Government are also presiding over a record number of homes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that considerable proposals have been made and money allocated to reduce homelessness. It was recently announced that £250 million would be devoted to it, with considerable increases in the money being made available in the coming two years, from £985 million to £1,700 million, to the Housing Corporation and housing associations to build more houses suitable for those and other people.
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the success of inward investment in Britain. She has no doubt noted that 41 per cent. of American investment and 38 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe comes to Britain. Does she agree that if the Labour party put the unions back in the saddle, overtaxed everyone and increased public expenditure that new investment would end and Britain would become the sick man of Europe, as it was in 1979?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that a record amount of inward investment in the Community comes to this country from the United States, Japan and other countries. Part of the reason for that is the kind of free enterprise economy that we run and our excellent record on enterprise, production and manufacturing investment. All those things would go if the Labour party ever put into practice its policy document, which goes back to the failed policies of the past.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree with the very sensible views of Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the West German Foreign Minister, who said that NATO will have to change and evolve to become the keystone of a new pan-European defence structure if the long-term stability and security of Europe is to be maintained?
    The Prime Minister: They are not new or sudden. I shall be speaking to a meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers at Turnberry on Thursday and there will also be a NATO summit in this country in June-July to do just that.
    Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it would be inappropriate for the Government to respond to the illegal action of France in banning British beef imports by a similar illegal action of our own, it is perfectly reasonable for British consumers to use their purchasing power to boycott French goods, inluding the appalling French Golden Delicious apples?
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings, but I must tell him that the Commission has been extremely good and quick in its action. It is quite illegal to ban exports from this country to Germany or France and the Commission is taking action. The special veterinary committee of the Community has agreed that Britain has taken all action possible and that British beef is safe.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: Does the Prime Minister agree that at a time of low morale in the teaching profession and teacher shortages it is a tragedy that Barnsley metropolitan borough council is having to sack teachers and close its music teaching centre, thereby depriving local children of tuition in music, simply as a result of her Government's arbitrary and artificial poll tax capping?
    The Prime Minister: That is not the cause, and it is absolute nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to say that. Local authorities such as mine whose education record is unbeaten have managed to do it with a low community charge. They manage things very well with the co-operation of their teaching staff and exhibit excellent local authority management.
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amos: Will my right hon. Friend note that I had British beef for lunch? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us try to get into order.
    Mr. Amos: Will she convey the congratulations of my farmers to the EEC Commission on its prompt action on the illegal ban imposed by certain EEC countries which is based on pure commercial interests? Will she confirm that all the independent scientific and medical evidence shows that it is perfectly safe to eat British beef? Does she agree that the decision by Northumberland county council to ban beef, which was withdrawn within two days, was an utter disgrace?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his meaty question. I entirely agree that the Commission has acted quickly, in response to the ban, which it regards as illegal. I agree that the special committee of veterinary experts attached to the Community has approved of everything that we have done in taking every possible measure in pursuit of the recommendations of the Southwood and Tyrrell committees and that British beef is safe. I also agree that those who have banned British beef have done so more to protect their farmers than for anything else. I will gladly pass on my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for her reply. I hope that she enjoys the rest of her day and that she has a pleasant night's sleep in a warm bed. Is she aware that this is National Housing Week? What will she do for those of my constituents who do not even have a home to go to tonight?
    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what has been done. I understand that just over 1,000 people sometimes sleep out rough in London. Some of them have other problems such as being mentally retarded, or have genuine problems and are genuine social cases. Others are not. During the lifetime of the Government, a great many hostel places have been built. There are now more than 21,000 hostel places in London, including some 3,000 emergency places and direct access beds. We have already just allocated another—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: They do not like to hear the facts, Mr. Speaker. Some £250 million will be spent over the next two years to provide nearly 15,000 extra lettings. The new housing association hostels will be allocated another £100 million, all to help with the problem of the homeless. There are far more council flats empty in London than there are people homeless on London streets.

Coach Crash (France)
3.32 pm
Mr. Peter Snape(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the coach crash on the A6 near Auxerre in France.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson) rose—[interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining to hear the private notice question please leave quietly?
Mr. Parkinson: Last Sunday, 3 June, at 8 am local time, a coach belonging to Montego European Travel went off the road near Auxerre in France, approximately 80 miles south of Paris, and rolled on to its side. Of the passengers and crew, 11 were killed, 18 seriously injured and 47 slightly injured. On behalf of the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, I should like to take this opportunity to express our sympathy to the families and friends of those injured or killed in this dreadful accident. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I am sure that I also speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the emergency services in France, whose prompt response may well have prevented further deaths. The British consul-general and his assistant went immediately to the scene of the accident and spent the day at the hospitals and with relatives, assisting them and providing information to the families involved.
The French started an investigation immediately, and the Government offered their help. Two of my senior vehicle investigation experts flew to France that evening to assist the French authorities, and I expect a full report on the vehicle from them next week. An examining magistrate has been appointed by the French prefecture to investigate all the circumstances of the accident.
My vehicle inspectors have already told me that the right-hand front tyre had failed. It was not a remould, was a correct size for the vehicle and was in good condition, and there was no sign of under-inflation. However, the tread had separated from the tyre, and the reason for that is being investigated further. The vehicle was fitted with a tachograph, which has been taken into the possession of the French police and is being checked.
I am sure that the House will appreciate that I must not say anything that would prejudge the outcome of the investigation. It is my intention to ensure that all the circumstances are fully investigated and the facts made available. I expect to receive a full report about the vehicle next week, and we have agreed with the French authorities that we will exchange reports.
The Government attach the highest importance to coach safety and to driver training. Before it goes on the road, each coach is approved and certificated. It is required to undergo an annual roadworthiness inspection. During the past three years, we have increased the number of special checks on coach safety to ensure that high standards are maintained. The coach involved in the accident had been checked in accordance with all the British requirements, and had been found to be satisfactory.
Britain has been playing a leading role in Europe in developing high standards of coach safety. In particular,
510
we have been pressing for the provision of seat belts in coaches, and, in the light of this tragic accident, we shall be renewing our pressure for the removal of obstacles to their standard fitment in all our coaches. I shall be having urgent discussions with the Bus and Coach Council, and others concerned, about any lessons that can be learnt from the accident to ensure that we maintain and secure the safest possible coach travel. I shall also seek to accelerate the fitting of speed limiters.
I would like to end as I began—by expressing my sympathy to the families and friends of those tragically involved in this terrible accident.
Mr. Snape: Let me, on behalf of all Opposition Members, associate myself with the expressions of sympathy tendered to the bereaved and to relatives of those injured in the tragedy, which has caused enormous shock and grief, especially in the west midlands.
May I press the Secretary of State about the implementation of compulsory seat belts and speed limiters? Can he give the House a date when that is likely to happen? He has rightly insisted on the unilateral implementation of seat-belt legislation for motor cars; why not do the same for coaches?
What plans has the right hon. Gentleman for stricter scrutiny of tachographs, especially on long-distance coaches? Will he call coach operators together to discuss speed and stability, and structural integrity—especially that of double-deck, high capacity vehicles such as the one involved in the accident? Has he any plans to introduce a ban on recut as well as remould tyres for coach operators, especially those operating over long distances?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the story, featured in the Daily Mail this morning, that the company had been operating illegally for some months? Is he aware that Opposition Members believe that this appalling tragedy is a direct result of coach deregulation, which has led—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—oh, yes—which has led to a proliferation of back-street operators who have neither the time, the money nor the resources to maintain their coaches adequately?
Mr. Parkinson: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the French authorities, and to join him in once more expressing my sympathy to relatives.
Seat belts are within the competence of the Community, and we have been leading the way to have them fitted in all our coaches. We have the support only of the Danes, and the slightly half-hearted support of the Germans; the remainder of the Community is opposed. As recently as last Thursday we pressed the Commission to come forward with a directive. We could take unilateral action, but it would be illegal and we could not enforce it. It would be a pointless gesture of the sort on which we do not intend to waste time.
As the House knows, since 1988 all new coaches have to be fitted with speed limiters. Any coaches built between 1984 and 1988 had to have them fitted by 1 April this year. Any built between 1974 and 1983 must have them fitted by next April. I intend to ask the Bus and Coach Council to bring forward that process. All coaches will be fitted with speed limiters by next April.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about tachographs. As he will recall, his party has consistently opposed them, under pressure from the Transport and

511
General Workers Union. It coined the phrase "spies in the cab." Speed limiters are now fitted to long-distance coaches and we monitor them. More tests have been carried out during the past year than ever before. Indeed, we have been increasing the number of inspections, which contradicts the claim of his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
The hon. Gentleman's question about recuts and remoulds was hypothetical. He was pursuing a point, made quite erroneously, that the tyre was a retread. It was not a retread; it was in good condition. It has been inspected by the inspectorate, and it was not failed—
Mr. Snape: Was it a recut?
Mr. Parkinson: It was not a recut or a retread. The tyre was in good condition.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the claim about the company operating illegally was made by a rival organisation, and it is being investigated. It is beyond doubt that the coach was properly licensed and was being properly operated last Thursday.
In referring to coach deregulation, the hon. Gentleman's prejudice once again overruled his knowledge. The plain fact is that these coaches have not been regulated for more than 10 years. Indeed, I believe that it is almost 16 years. It is absolute and utter nonsense to claim that the tragedy was a result of the recent deregulation of bus services. It struck an unfortunate note on this occasion.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: It is with great sadness that I inform my right hon. Friend that four of those killed on the weekend were from my constituency—Mr. and Mrs. Evans, who were celebrating their retirement, and Mr. and Mrs. Orme. I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words, which I shall take back to my constituents. I am sure that they will appreciate the fact that he is urgently investigating the accident.
The families of those four people and of the others killed do not want cheap party politics and I am sad that the opportunity to do that has been taken today. They want hope—hope that lessons will be learnt and that future lives will be saved. I hope that the Government and others responsible for reviewing the position—whether coach operators, drivers or the EC—will complete their investigations as soon as possible. The Government must introduce legislation, if need be in the cold light of day when the speculation and the emotion had died down, on compulsory seat belts and, possibly, even on speed restrictions for coaches, as is the case in some EC countries.
I ask my right hon. Friend to come to the House as soon as possible with his report of the investigation, because I am sure that the families in Wolverhampton want that reassurance.
Mr. Parkinson: May I express my sympathy to my hon. Friend and those of her constituents who suffered bereavement and injury in this terrible accident? We are determined that any lessons that can be learnt will be learnt. The investigation will be thorough. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this has absolutely nothing to do with deregulation. In spite of this terrible accident, we have one of the best records in Europe—half as many deaths as in France—and that is because we set and implement high safety standards, and we shall continue to do so.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: On behalf of my party, I express sympathy to all those who suffered and to their families who are still suffering. Will the Secretary of State comment on the current proposal that coach operators should have a licence for life? I hope that that proposal will be rejected and that the licence will continue to have to be renewed every five years.
Will he also comment on the inspection of the vehicles? There were suspicions about the tyres in this case, but vie have now heard that they were all right. Are all tyres inspected and are coaches which travel abroad allowed to have retreads? Will he also comment on the speed limits which apply in Britain, because I understand that coach drivers here are not allowed to use the fast lane or the overtaking lane?
Finally, will he comment on the fact that there is no training certificate for couriers. In this case they were helpful, but they could have been more helpful. The standards of couriers need to be raised, and a certificate for them approved by the Government.
Mr. Parkinson: There is a slightly misleading and worrying headline in the Evening Standard today which suggests that the driver had had the job for only 10 days. That may well have been the case, but he has had a licence to drive such vehicles for more than two years. It is a five-year licence, so it has three more years to run. The vehicle was fully inspected in July 1989 and is due for inspection again in July this year.
We are the only country in Europe to insist on a tilt test for double deckers. They have to be capable of leaning, fully laden on top, at an angle of 28 deg without toppling over before they are allowed on the road and this bus had passed that test.
We have considered speed limits. Our coaches are allowed to travel at 70 mph and to use the outside lane on motorways. Yesterday, two of our newspapers had coaches trailed and found that a number were exceeding the speed limit, which is illegal. By next April, limiters will be fixed to all coaches built after 1973. It will not then be possible to drive them faster than 70 mph. That law will be rigidly enforced and anybody who breaks it will be punished. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about couriers. He makes an interesting and worthwhile point, which I shall take up with the Bus and Coach Council.
Mr. Robert Adley: Was there not a tragic inevitability about the standard of driving that was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) when she held office in the Department of Transport as "intimidatory"? Is it not a fact that some of these tower blocks on wheels have evolved from rules which were made for single-decker coaches, which now bear no relationship to the rules needed for the double-decker buses plying in our towns and cities?
Is my right hon. Friend aware how many times I have asked him to impose speed limits on these coaches?
Mr. Roger King: Not from my hon. Friend.
Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend is a director of National Express, and he will have his chance to speak later.
Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware how often I have asked him and his Department to consider banning coaches from the outside lane of

513
motorways? Is he aware that the Bus and Coach Council has consistently resisted those proposals and his attempts to introduce tachographs, which many of us have sought for many years? Will my right hon. Friend contemplate the fact that what he has just said means that the older the coach the more it can escape from these rigid regulations? Should we not now impose discipline on those people and let them argue why it should not be imposed?
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend's commitment to trains and his hostility to coaches is extremely well known, and he has just given another illustration of it. The coach concerned had been certified as fit to be on the road and capable of being driven at the speed recorded. The driver held a properly obtained licence.
Mr. Snape: But was it travelling at the legal speed?
Mr. Parkinson: I was not talking about the speed at the time: I was saying that the bus was certified and the driver properly qualified.
I should like to give my hon. Friend some figures that I hope he will find encouraging. They relate to the number of casualties per billion passenger kilometres. Between 1975 and 1979, there were 1·2 deaths; between 1980 and 1984, 0·7; and between 1985 and 1988, 0·5 deaths per billion passenger kilometres. All injuries in the same period also showed a fall. There is no evidence to support my hon. Friend's totally baseless assertion that our roads are becoming more dangerous and that accidents are on the increase. The trend is encouragingly downwards.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal for single questions on this very serious subject?
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I add my deepest sympathies to the relatives of those killed and injured in that dreadful accident. I make special mention of the six people from my own constituency who were killed and the 15 who were injured. May I have the Minister's assurance that the resources of his own Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Health will, where necessary, be made available to the relatives who need help and advice in the aftermath of the tragedy? Will he give an assurance also that, whereas the French inquiry is a separate matter, there will be an independent Department of Transport inquiry into speed limits, safety belts and tyre safety standards—and that the results will be published in full and be acted upon?
Mr. Parkinson: First thing yesterday morning, the hon. Gentleman was in touch with my Department, and I hope that we were able to help in every way that we could. We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is probably affected worse than that of any other right hon. or hon. Member. The three Departments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will do everything that they can to help the survivors and the families of those who died.
The French have launched a police inquiry. Under French law, an examining magistrate has been appointed who will consider all the facts. In parallel, we have sent investigators to consider the technical aspects of the accident. As bodies will almost certainly be returned to this country, inquests will also be held here. We shall seek to
514
make available for those inquests any information that we have, and will also make it available to the House. If there is a need for further action, we shall not hesitate to take it.
Mr. Roger King: The whole bus and coach industry agrees with my right hon. Friend's remarks, and extends its sympathies to the surviving victims of a tragic disaster. Will my right hon. Friend urge upon the French authorities the need to investigate the implications of the alleged ditch running alongside a high-speed road, which appears to have been the primary cause of the vehicle going over on its side? Is my right hon. Friend aware that such double-deck vehicles are extremely stable and that only one has been involved in an accident in the United Kingdom in the 10 years that they have been in operation—when one fell on its side, tragically killing one person and injuring two dozen others?
There are several hundred such vehicles in this country, and they each travel approximately 100,000 miles a year. They are designed for reasonably quick, safe and attractive travel between cities and nations. If there are lessons to be learnt from the accident—lessons not just in coach design but in road design as well—they will be well taken on board.
Mr. Parkinson: I note what my hon. Friend says. Although I shall bring his remarks to the attention of the French authorities, I do not think that they will be persuaded to fill in any of the ditches at the roadside as a result of the accident. I confirm what he said when he gave statistics about coaches. This is a terrible accident and no one seeks to minimise it in any way, but it does no service to anyone to give the impression that such buses have proved unsafe in the past. They have a good safety record. We shall ensure that they maintain their present high standards and we will rigorously enforce the regulations.
Mr. Mark Fisher: May I join the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in their expression of sympathy for the bereaved and injured, 13 of whom came from Stoke-on-Trent, south Cheshire and north Staffordshire? Is the Secretary of State satisfied with standards in Britain, as he said that the bus met all of them? Does that not put a question mark over British standards of safety and maintenance and the speed regulations?
Bearing in mind the question mark over the operation of the company involved—which, like the travel agent, was not a member of the Association of British Travel Agents—will the Secretary of State this afternoon at least commit himself to a departmental public inquiry, which, I understand from his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, he has not yet done? Surely the least that he can do this afternoon is give an assurance to the bereaved and injured that there will be a Government inquiry?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman talks about the regulations, but although we are talking about a small company, all the evidence shows that it conformed to the law, that all its vehicles were tested and had passed the test, and all its drivers were qualified to drive such a bus. As he knows, a police investigation is going on in France and that inhibits us. For example, the police have seized the tachograph.

515
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the accident happened in France and therefore the French are in charge of the investigation. We have sent our inspectorate over to carry out a parallel investigation. The two reports will be made available to the House, and it may well come to the conclusion that the accident has been fully investigated and is fully understood. If there are lessons to be learnt, we shall learn them. I shall keep an open mind about the need for further inquiries, but the matter is being thoroughly investigated at the moment.
Mr. Michael Jack: So that we may learn more about the factors that cause tyre blow-out, will my hon. Friend ask the transport and road research laboratory to co-ordinate Europewide research on this important matter?
Mr. Parkinson: The TRRL is already carrying out investigations into the difficult subject of tyre blow-outs, which happen from time to time and have terrible consequences. The research that my hon. Friend wants is already being carried out.
Ms. Joan Walley: May I add my sympathy to that which has already been extended to the bereaved and injured? Will the Secretary of State tell us to what extent he will have a full safety overhaul? It is not enough for him to say that existing safety levels have been maintained. He needs to overhaul road safety completely. Will he also give an assurance that, when the public inquiry takes place, he will consider the schedules that road operators have to keep to catch ferries from France back to this country? Will he tell the House the last occasion on which the coach was checked?
Mr. Parkinson: I again express my sympathy to the hon. Lady, and to her constituents for their loss in this dreadful accident. Of course we shall see what we can learn from the incident. However, I must point out that we have high safety standards and that we enforce them rigorously. If more should be done, it will be done and that is what the investigation is about. We shall have to see whether anything emerges from that investigation that requires further action.
We shall also look again—and I have already discussed this with my colleagues—at the question of speed limits for coaches and whether the 70 mph limit is satisfactory. Until this terrible accident, there had been a continuing improvement, partly because of higher standards and partly because they were rigorously enforced. There is no question of seeking to do anything other than learning as many lessons as we can and taking the action necessary as a result of those lessons.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I have allowed it to run rather longer than usual because of its importance. I shall take two more questions each from both sides and then, I hope, I shall have called all hon. Members whose constituents have been affected by this tragic accident.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: The whole question of fitting seat belts on coaches has been revived by this tragic accident. Recognising the limitations placed on my right hon. Friend by the EC, does he agree that there is nothing to prevent the Bus and Coach Council recommending to its members that they should voluntarily
516
fit seat belts in coaches? In the process, he might also suggest to the council that, if we are to see competition on coach services, many of us would prefer to see it based on competition between vehicles that have seat belts and those that have not, rather than on speed, which sometimes appears to be the only criterion.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful suggestion and I will take up the matter with the Bus and Coach Council. Manufacturers are willing to fit seat belts if operators ask for them. Seat belts are offered to the operators, and I will suggest to the Bus and Coach Council that it encourages its members to fit them. I repeat that we cannot enforce that, because it is a Community matter and we have not been able to persuade our Community partners that seat belts are necessary. However, there is nothing to prevent members of the Bus and Coach Council from volunteering, and seat belts are available.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware, without commenting on this firm or anticipating any inquiry—which would be wrong—that it is common knowledge that many cowboy firms now operate? It is his responsibility to investigate that and to do what he can to outlaw them.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that a new motorway madness is emerging in Britain, as I have witnessed recently? Drivers are now driving on the inside lane and then cutting into the outside lane at 100 mph, which never happened before, and there is no police regulation. I have driven about 600 miles to conferences this weekend and I did not see one police car. Can something be done about that, please?
Mr. Parkinson: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the enforcement of the law is a matter for the police and I will bring the matter to the attention of the Association of Chief Police Officers. On cowboy firms, one reason why we have increased the number of spot checks is to try to catch out those who are not playing by the rules and who are not obeying the law. The number of spot checks has been increased substantially precisely for that purpose. By next April, virtually all our coaches will have limiters which will be set by law at 70 mph and which should therefore control the speed of our coaches.
The right hon. Gentleman's point about motorway driving is fair. As he knows, although we have one of the best records in Europe, 105 people are killed every week on our roads and part of the reason for that is bad driving. Many lives could be saved by the simple use of common sense by drivers and by pedestrians. It has been revealed that 44 per cent. of all pedestrians involved in accidents did not look either way when they stepped on to the road. Simple precautions could save many lives.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time of sadness and bereavement, the House has not distinguished itself, because most questions this afternoon have almost implied a reason for the terrible crash and disaster? Should we not do what Mr. Asquith said years ago—wait and see? The reason might be a production fault in the tyre or a bit of metal lying on the motorway. Hon. Members are panicking this afternoon and suggesting all sorts of reasons for the accident. Why do we not be sensible for a change and wait and see?
Mr. Parkinson: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. It is absolutely right for Members of Parliament to express their concern for their constituents on occasions such as this, and most hon. Members involved have been able to do so. We should not jump to conclusions about this matter. We certainly should not find people guilty before they have had a trial.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The family and friends of my constituents who are in intensive care with their children want to be quite certain that everything is being done to make sure not only that they are assisted back to this country but that such an accident will never happen again. Will the Secretary of State ensure that an immediate programme of research into the efficiency of seat belts—the lap type and shoulder type—is undertaken? Will he ensure also that the examining magistrate's report will be translated and made available to the House of Commons as soon as it is available, as the powers that are available to French magistrates are far wider than those in this country, and the report may contain information that is vital to road safety?
Mr. Parkinson: I express my sympathy to the hon. Lady. We in the Department have been convinced that seat belts would reduce the number of deaths and injuries, and that is why we have been pressing for them. We shall continue to make every effort to persuade our Community colleagues.
On the examining magistrate, I had better be a little careful. The examining magistrate may come to the conclusion that she wishes to institute proceedings. I do not say that to prejudge the issue. Therefore, I do not know at what stage she would be prepared to allow me to have a copy of her findings. As I have said, I want the House to have the full facts, and, as soon as I am in a position to make them available, I shall.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that I have called all the hon. Members whose constituents have been directly involved in this tragic accident. If I have not, will they indicate and I shall call them? In that case, we must now move on to the second private notice question.

Shellfish (North-East Coast)
4.3 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement about the safety of shellfish caught off the north-east coast in the light of the warnings issued by his Department.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): On 26 May, my Department issued a public warning that routine monitoring of the north-east coast of England by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scientists had found high levels of a toxin in shellfish. The toxin is concentrated by shellfish from a particular kind of naturally occurring algae which occurs at this time of the year.
My Department advised that consumption of all locally caught shellfish, including crustaceans such as crabs, lobsters, shrimps and prawns could cause illness, and should not be eaten while toxin levels remained high. The warning applied to shellfish taken from the coast between the Humber and Montrose. Local warning notices were issued and posted.
The occurrence of toxins at the levels found recently in shellfish from the north-east have in the past caused serious illness. Further extensive testing of molluscan shellfish—for example, mussels—has shown that the current levels of toxin are such that the public must, for the time being, refrain from consuming them. However, with the exception of crabs, the safety of all crustaceans such as lobsters, prawns and shrimps caught off the north-east coast has now been firmly established. The testing of crabs has revealed small amounts of toxin in the edible meat, and more tests are being made to obtain sufficient reassurance to enable the warning on crabs to be lifted.
The Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office have worked closely in addressing this problem and clear advice has been given to and acted upon by the public. I should also like to acknowledge the enormous effort put in to the control action and monitoring by the local authorities concerned.
Mr. Beith: Although it is obviously necessary to issue a warning about mussels and molluscs, as has happened in previous years, why, when there is no evidence of any danger from eating lobsters or prawns, did the Ministry's press release say that all locally caught shellfish, including crustaceans, crabs, lobsters, shrimps and prawns, could cause illness and must not be eaten? What tests had been carried out on lobsters, crabs or prawns when the statement was made? What tests were carried out over the next three days of the bank holiday weekend after the statement had been made? Does the Secretary of State realise what that greatly widened warning has done to the fragile livelihoods of the east-coast fishermen and fish processors?
What is the difference between compensating egg producers when ministerial statements are misleading and cause serious damage, and compensating the fishermen? Why is not the Minister responsible for fisheries, who is sitting beside the right hon. and learned Gentleman, responding favourably to the fishermen's demands for

519
reasonable compensation for the extent to which the warning went beyond what has been shown on the evidence?
Mr. Clarke: Paralytic shellfish poisoning is a dangerous disease. The livelihoods of a great many fishermen would probably have been destroyed if the Department concerned had not taken prompt action and if tragic results had occurred. We had a serious outbreak in 1968, when 78 people were affected. The toxic levels that were found on this occasion were as high as on that occasion. As the hon. Gentleman fairly said, toxic levels were lower in the intervening years, when routine local notices have sufficed.
In the circumstances, it was wise to be prudent and it was necessary to carry out the examinations, which were carried out, on crabs, lobsters, shrimps and prawns which feed as scavengers, to ensure that the toxin levels were safe. Toxin levels were found in lobsters, but in the digestive tract, which is not consumed. Toxin levels are still being found in crabs, the digestive tracts of which are consumed. We are continuing to monitor crabs and we shall give the "all clear" for crabs as soon as possible.
This is a naturally occurring phenomenon and I realise that it causes loss to the fishermen whenever it occurs. Indeed, we have records of it dating back to 1814. The phenomenon is well known in north America and occurs in continental Europe also. The statements given by Ministers—by my Department and others—were not misleading at any stage but were a prudent protection of public health.
I do not believe that there is any case for compensation for the fishermen who collect—they do not rear—these naturally occurring crustaceans and shellfish. Countless farmers are not compensated for naturally occurring disasters. I am not an expert on those matters and this issue is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As a non-farming Minister, with farming constituents, I do not find that an instant case can be made for compensating the fishermen, although I appreciate that they have suffered an unfortunate blow to their livelihoods from a naturally occurring phenomenon, which they all know perfectly well occurs in the stretch of the coast that they fish.
Mr. William Hague: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the way in which his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have worked together when handling this matter demonstrates the effectiveness of the current arrangements for alerting consumers when there is a possibility of a genuine problem affecting food? Can my right hon. and learned Friend think of any instance in which any other European Community country has been so quick to inform the consumer when there has been a similar problem?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Departments involved sometimes feel that they cannot win. In all these instances, we act promptly on the basis of the scientific and medical evidence. That is what we have done, on this and other occasions. However, I accept that one cannot win whatever one does. If one issues a warning, one is attacked by those whose livelihoods depend on food; if one does not issue a warning, one is attacked by the lobbyists who claim that there is a conspiracy between oneself and the producer—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): It is a hard life.
Mr. Clarke: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a hard life. Nevertheless, our actions on this occasion have received almost universal support. We have taken the only steps possible in the interests of public health. Although I do not have any official confirmation of this, I am led to understand that the French have banned the collection of shellfish in the mouth of the Rhone. I am certain that on all matters of food safety we have the best system in western Europe. I hope that all countries act as promptly as we do on such occasions and on all occasions.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Secretary of State recognise that, although the development of algae is a natural phenomenon, it is aggravated by the pollution problems in the North sea? That is the nub of the problem. I have lived all my life on the north-east coast of England. When I was a young man, it was reasonable to collect mussels and whelks along the coast, although on and off there was a ban. However, bans were not on the scale of the present ban. When will real action be taken to overcome the problem by pressurising the newly privatised water authorities to take serious action on the problem?
Mr. Clarke: I talked about acting on scientific and medical evidence. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, there is not a scrap of evidence to support his assertion that the problem has anything to do with the pollution of the North sea. The hon. Gentleman is not a very old man. He is a little older than me, but he was not alive in 1814, when the first incident was recorded of these algae blooming on that part of the north-east coast. It has been a regular occurrence for more than 100 years off that coast. People have died every now and again over the years from eating shellfish. That is well known by most people. I am glad that, when the hon. Gentleman collected shellfish in his youth, he did not disregard health warnings about the dangers of collecting them in the months of May and June, when in some years the algae bloom in such a way that toxins reach a dangerous level.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while there are risks from fishing in the North sea and natural events cause difficulties for fishermen, there is a wider problem in the state of the North sea fishing industry in general? Will he pass a message to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that point, so that we can have a review of the financial arrangements for our fishermen?
Mr. Clarke: The Minister responsible for fisheries is sitting on the Front Bench at this moment. He and I have discussed the matter already. I am answering the question because it relates to public health, but my hon. Friend is much involved in the problems of fishing in the north-east. He and I regret that the fishermen of the north-east have suffered this misfortune and are having a particularly bad year because of the algae, which for the time being are cutting back part of their livelihood. I take on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I know that my hon. Friend t he Minister will note them carefully, too.
Mr. John McAllion: Can the Secretary of State explain why, having issued a serious public health warning on a Saturday about algae off the north-east coast, the Minister responsible for environmental and public health issues and his Department was unavailable for comment to provide clarification until the middle of the following week? That led to maximum confusion and uncertainty about the extent and nature of the threat. Does the Secretary of State accept that such a performance by a Government Department is disgraceful and unacceptable? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that that performance is not repeated in the future?
Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, I strongly refute all those allegations. It is becoming the fashion, every time that a warning has to be issued about a food danger, for people to make absurd allegations about the conduct of the Departments. Scientists and experts were working and were available over the weekend. Ministers from all the Departments involved worked closely together. The statements that we issued were perfectly clear and accurate and were a prompt and proper response to protect public safety. It is becoming absurd. Hon. Members search for scandal when prompt action is taken to protect people against a purely natural incident. A particular alga has flowered at this time of the year off a part of our coast, and as a result of our action no one has suffered any injury to health.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me, as one who is the same age as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), was brought up on the north-east coast, lives there now and is a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, that the problem of natural algae has been known in the north-east for a long time? Is it not odd that, in the previous private notice question, everyone was being clever after the event, but my right hon. and learned Friend is now criticised for being clever before the event? The latter is the way that I prefer it.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and I know that, in 1968, toxin levels were high and there was a serious outbreak of poisoning that led to the illness of 78 people. It is not just a stomach upset, for if people eat the shellfish, they are also prone to a serious paralytic disease.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, had the Departments concerned not worked closely together to issue a prompt warning, we would quite rightly be answering criticisms today about our neglect of our duty and of public health. It is somewhat idiotic for people to scratch about today trying to criticise a prompt response to a worrying problem.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side; then we must move on to subsequent business.
Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that fishermen in my area believe that the dumping of sewage off the isle of May contributes to the poison that occurs in the estuary of the firth of Forth, which contaminates shellfish and other fish? Obviously that is unacceptable. It is all very well to condemn Lothian region or the city of Edinburgh, but the answer is to provide resources so that, instead of a ship depositing the poison
522
into the sea, a fully fledged sewage works is established to handle the sewage from the city of Edinburgh. Will the Minister and his Scottish colleagues ensure that money is made available for the people of my area?
Mr. Clarke: Obviously I have respect for the fishermen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Attempts have been made to study previous years to see if there is any correlation between the years when the algae bloomed to produce high levels of toxin and those when nutrients, including nutrients from sewage, have existed at a high level in the North sea. [Interruption.] To those algae, sewage is nutrient. There is no correlation between the two. The algae appear to bloom naturally when certain conditions of temperature, tide and so on occur, as have occurred this year. There is no scientific evidence to link that with any sort of pollution.
I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks about sewage to the attention of the Minister responsible. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this country has an excellent record of improving systems for the disposal of sewage and of improving our rate of dumping into the sea.
Sir Hector Munro: Of course my right hon. and learned Friend is right to give advance warning of problems, but does he accept that such warnings often affect the west coast fisheries, from which supplies are perfectly normal and okay? The public have listened to snippets of information on the radio and read snippets in the newspapers. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would have been better for one of the three Ministries to make the announcement rather than having one make it and the other two follow it up? If we spoke with one voice, perhaps we would be clearer.
Mr. Clarke: Only one Department made the announcement, but I am grateful if the other two Departments agreed with what we said, as they were involved in the decision. We issued a clear warning, which was clear about the geography as well. It is true that the particular alga has never bloomed south or west of the Humber in our history. Our statement tried to make it clear that the problem existed only between Montrose and the Humber. MAFF has continued to monitor other waters in case, for the first time, the alga blooms in other waters, but there is no evidence that it is occurring outside the affected area.
Mr. Brian Wilson: In spite of his somewhat blustering response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) the right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that, between the Saturday and the Wednesday, there was a complete dearth of specific information. Attempts to get more detailed information in the interests of fishermen and other marine users was unsuccessful. That is not an allegation but a fact, and the Secretary of State should accept it.
Does he also accept that the failure to give specific information probably contributed to the blanket ban on shellfish from the north-east of Scotland to the considerable detriment of marginal fishing ports in that area and small-time fishermen who catch shellfish? The heavy-handed approach to this matter has depressed the entire shellfish market in Scotland. It is essential for public opinion to understand that most shellfish coming from the east coast are entirely safe and that all the shellfish caught off the west coast, including mussels, are entirely safe.
Mr. Clarke: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the availability of Ministers, officials or information during the time he is describing. Indeed, I am assured that the Minister for Health and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were talking to each other on the telephone on Saturday morning and were available, as were all the experts, and that there was no lack of information in our clear statements.
I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks about shellfish from other parts of our shores. This problem does not exist except on the stretch of coast between Montrose and the Humber. Indeed, it never has occurred west or south of the Humber.
Mr. David Harris: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the concerns of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations that the French are apparently, and perhaps typically, trying to get some commercial advantage out of this situation by imposing additional requirements on imports of crab from other parts of the United Kingdom through additional documentation requirements? Are the Government, particularly through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, taking steps to deal with that situation?
Mr. Clarke: I believe that the French have behaved quite disgracefully on the question of beef, but at the moment I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on shellfish—although I accept, as my hon. Friend says, that apparently there have been difficulties over the export of shellfish to France.
The Minister responsible for fisheries tells me that he has been in touch with the French authorities to try to sort it out. He is able to offer a system of certification to the French giving the source of crabs and other shellfish being supplied to the French market. We are confident that the matter can be sorted out with the active co-operation of the French authorities who, as I said earlier, I believe have had to impose a similar ban on some of their shellfisheries in the estuary of the Rhone.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the disruption that has occurred in the markets for these market-sensitive products? Will he publish the evidence about which he has been talking and which scientists at Weymouth have been producing? How soon does he expect to lift the warning on crab? When he does that, will he give as much prominence to the fact that it has been lifted as to the adverse publicity it received when the warning went on?
Mr. Clarke: I will of course—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose Ministry carries out the tests, will agree with me—publish the evidence on which it is based. But I issue the warning, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will share with me, that, when we publish the evidence, it should not be immediately be seized on by the pseudo-experts trying to claim that the danger extends beyond the point of which we have already warned. That is always a danger whenever my Department or any other tries to issue scientific information about
524
problems of this kind. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall issue the evidence and I believe that it will reassure him about the action that we took.
Mr. Kirkwood: When will it be published?
Mr. Clarke: We will publish the evidence as soon as possible; I am not sure why we cannot issue it more or less straight away. MAFF is continuing to monitor crabs. Low levels of toxin are occurring. As soon as it is clear that there is no risk of high levels of toxin occurring in crabs, the warning will immediately be lifted.
Mr. Elliot Morley: We have always said that action must be taken to protect consumers in cases of this kind and that a precautionary principle in matters of food safety must apply in cases of doubt. Having said that, the Minister must be fair and accept that there has been unreasonable delay in dealing with the testing of crabs and in giving out information.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it was impossible to get information out of MAFF until the Wednesday after the bank holiday? Neither I nor the NFFO could obtain information. Does he further accept that crab samples from South Tyneside council were not taken by the Department for processing because it was a bank holiday? One would have thought that, when dealing with a public health matter of this type, some priority would have been given to dealing with such issues.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that independent tests on crabs obtained by fishermen have been ignored? Given all the delays and muddles, will he accept that fishermen deserve an ex gratia payment as compensation for the losses that they have sustained through no fault of their own?
Mr. Clarke: I do not usually face the hon. Gentleman, but the Opposition must decide whether they are shocked by the Government's lack of concern for food safety or by the fact that we take action when there is evidence of danger concerning food. Frankly, Opposition Members are trying to feed a mood of vague public alarm, when we have a perfectly straightforward case of a phenomenon that is familiar in the north-east and over which the Government have acted promptly and thoroughly.
It is not true to say that there was any difficulty in obtaining information. Perhaps in future the hon. Gentleman should consult my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for fisheries about how to communicate on such matters to obtain the information that he requires. We have an effective system for protecting public safety, and it has worked on this occasion. I think that the public are more sensible than either their politicians or the press on such subjects. Most people respect actions of the kind that we have taken, which are based on medical and scientific fact and not on spurious alarms or spurious complaints.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:
Michael Carr Esq., for Bootle.

Football Licensing Authority
4.31 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the Government to make appointments to the Football Licensing Authority on 1 June 1990."
The matter is specific, since today is the first opportunity for hon. Members to raise the matter of the failure of the Government to make the necessary appointments of chairman and eight members of this body by the date set by the Government themselves in a commencement order on 21 March. In a written answer to me on 8 May 1990, the Minister of State, Home Office said that the FLA would be set up on 1 June. I wrote to the Minister on 11 May pressing upon him the urgent need for these appointments to be made. I regret to say that I have not even received a reply to that letter. Now the Home Office has informed me that the appointments have not been made.
The urgency of the need for the FLA to commence operations is clear. Football clubs and local authorities cannot begin work on converting grounds to all-seated accommodation until the FLA, which will have the responsibility for granting licences to clubs to admit spectators, is in operation. They feel that the deadline set by Lord Justice Taylor and the Government for this urgent safety work is tight if not impossible.
The Government cannot argue that they are not aware of the seriousness of the situation. In the aftermath of the disaster at Hillsborough, the Prime Minister told the House:
"I suggest that the House should not delay a legislative measure to enable us to take advantage of Lord Justice
526
Taylor's recommendations for another 12 months, and that it would be negligent to do so."—[Official Report, 20 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 456.]
For once, the Prime Minister was right, but 13 months later the Home Office itself is preventing the implementation of the legislation by its failure to make appointments to the FLA, and that is nothing short of disgraceful. In January, the Home Secretary told the House:
"Those clubs that have not faced up to their responsibility now have a final opportunity to do so; and if they do not now act, the public will not forgive them."—[Official Report, 29 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 22.]
The football authorities have been proving that they are anxious to meet these tough deadlines. They have instituted four working groups to implement the Taylor proposals but are being prevented from putting them into action by the failure of the Government to face their responsibility.
If the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister need any further convincing of the seriousness of the situation, they have only to heed the words of the Minister for Sport:
"If we do not have the legislative vehicle in place, we would not be in a position to give clubs as much time as possible to meet the timetable outlined in the report."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 257.]
For those reasons, the House should adjourn to discuss this specific and important matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the Government to make appointments to the Football Licensing Authority on 1 June 1990."
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, the decision I have to take is whether to give his submission precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. In this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the criteria of the standing order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.35 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, for you, Mr. Speaker. So far as I am aware, no Frenchman has ever died as a result of the privilege of eating delicious British beef. However, many of our fellow countrymen have died or been maimed as a result of driving round in their second-rate, badly assembled and unsafe vehicles. Could you, as the champion of this House, tell us what rights the House has to enforce the European ruling that the French should not obstruct the movement of British beef? Alternatively, what powers does the House have to prevent the flood of European second-rate shambolic imports into this country? If we have no powers, could you—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am afraid that I have no such powers. I wish that I had.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When hon. Members make speeches on a subject in which they might have an interest, it is expected that they declare that interest. In the past several months, incidents have arisen of Ministers making speeches about privatisation and then going on to get jobs in various concerns. I refer to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who took part in the privatisation of British Telecom and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Skinner: Let me finish. Then there was the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who took a job with the National Freight Consortium. Then there was the last one—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not remotely responsible for any jobs that right hon. Members might take.
Mr. Skinner: I am just explaining it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is taking a long time to do it. He must raise a point of order on a matter for which I have responsibility. I have no responsibility for granting these jobs.
Mr. Skinner: In the last case, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) went to a job in British Gas. I propose that, in the future, as a matter of order, when Ministers make statements about privatisation plans, they declare their interest in taking jobs later on.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has abused the process of raising points of order. This has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The sad demise of the Social Democratic party over the weekend brings to light—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me, either. We have an important debate ahead and I shall have to propose a 10-minute limit on speeches. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to keep any of his colleagues from making a speech in that debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me?
Mr. Banks: Of course it is; otherwise I would not have raised it.
In a moment, assuming that we can make progress, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will move a ten-minute Bill. I congratulate him on being fortunate enough to be able to use this valuable procedural move to raise an important issue. The point of order for you is this, Mr. Speaker. A week or so ago, the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) combined, in a stand-up, jokey fashion, to abuse the ten-minute Bill procedure. As you know, Back-Benchers treat these Bills seriously. I have managed to steer one towards the statute book, and it will be discussed on Report soon. That shows that it is possible to use this procedure to enact a measure.
I am concerned that we may be about to have a repeat of that exercise of a week ago, in which one Conservative Member will move the Bill, not intent on carrying it any further, and another Conservative Member will speak after him. Together, they will make a few puerile jokes and then the Bill will be dropped. I do not begrudge any hon. Member the use of any device that is available to raise issues, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make it clear that you are not prepared to see the ten-minute Bill procedure abused by hon. Members to such an extent that the Procedure Committee may decide to take it away from us.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is alleging that, he should draw it to the attention of the Procedure Committee. However, what happened on that day was in order. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) rose to oppose the Bill, and that is within our procedures. It is up to the House to decide whether this type of debate—which takes time out of important debates that follow—is worth while. We have such a debate today. As I have said, I shall have to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker:—or a five-minute limit, if I take all these points of order.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that it ill behoves the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to condemn anyone else for frivolity in the Chamber, I wish to raise the important question of individual Members' rights. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are most solicitous about protecting the rights of individual Back Benchers, both in the House and when they visit other places.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and especially because of your relationships with other Parliaments around the world, will you look into the inability of the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) to visit the Chinese People's Republic? As you know, M r. Speaker, they were offloaded from a bus at Macau on the grounds that they were too left-wing to be allowed into the people's Communist republic. Will you tell your counterpart in the Chinese People's Assembly that if we, as an open democracy, must put up with mad left wingers in our country—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with me. Although I hope at some time to meet my Chinese counterpart, I do not think I shall raise that matter with him.
Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Lothian health board is in crisis because of financial malpractice and underfunding. There is also evidence of corruption involving the "Hibs" football club from Edinburgh. Many people are concerned about the takeover bid by the Tory spiv Wallace Mercer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ohl—yes, a Tory spiv.
Although the two cases are different, we need the Scottish Law Officers here to explain their legal aspects. We have had that opportunity before, but now it is being denied. What can we do about it? Can we summon the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland? We require them; they should be here.
Mr. Speaker: As an hon. Member with a football club in his constituency—the Crystal Palace club—I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said; however, I cannot help him.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point relating to what you said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner)—that you had no responsibility for circumstances in which Ministers who propose legislation and vote for it subsequently become financially involved in the companies that the legislation is designed to create?
Select Committee reports in 1974–75 set out a number of criteria that hon. Members must follow, and it is part of your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that hon. Members follow those rules. One of the rules clearly says that hon. Members must declare an interest when they directly have one, or might be thought to have one. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will set an example to the House and call on Ministers to declare any intention of gaining financial well-being. Some hon. Members think that the current standards of behaviour, and the financial malpractice in the House, are beginning to recall the venal practices of the 18th-century Parliaments.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to divine what may happen in the future. I could not possibly be expected to make such judgment about what any hon. Members, whether from the Front Benches or the Back Benches, might do in the future. I am concerned with order in the Chamber today.

National Audit Office (Extension of Powers)
4.44 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of the National Audit Office so as to permit the office, on an application by a national political party, to cost that party's election commitments.
In 1983, the Labour party lost the general election after producing what was described as the longest suicide note in history. In the past 18 months, it has produced a series of policy documents, which can best be described as the longest shopping list in history: a shopping list that is notably without prices.
My Bill would enable the Labour party, through an independent office, to cost its promises. It could cost not only the direct effect of its pledges, but the hidden costs—the knock-on effects on the British economy. The Labour document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" would perhaps be better described as "See the charges and count your change". The document lists no fewer than 171 promises, which would cost the British taxpayer and the economy dear. However, only two of the promises have a price tag, and those are priced at £1·5 billion less than the stockbroking firm UBS Phillips and Drew calculates. It calculates that the total bill to date of Labour promises made in the two documents—"Meet the Challenge: Make the Change" and "Looking to the Future"—would be £19·5 billion.
The Public Policy Unit, in its report on Labour's plans, says:
"It is impossible to estimate precisely how much Labour's commitments would cost and, because it is deliberately vague as to when their policies would be enacted, it is difficult to estimate the scale of the inflationary pressure which would build up."
The authors go on to point out:
"Local Government spending, for example, which amounts to £40 billion can impose a terrific drain on Government resources and there is some doubt as to whether a Labour Government could control, or would have the will amongst its ranks to control local government spending."
Labour, as always, remains a high-spending, high-taxing party. It has voted against every reduction in income tax since 1979. Had tax rates remained at 33p in the pound, as Labour wanted, a married man on average earnings would today be paying £20 a week—or £1,000 a year—more to the Chancellor. The biggest con in Labour's proposals is that it promises the earth, yet pretends it will not hurt. Even on Labour's own vague figures, a 50p top tax rate plus a 9 per cent. national insurance would mean that someone earning £18,200 a year would pay more tax, which would lead to higher bills for 3·5 million people.
However, the reality is far worse than the Labour party will admit. The City firm CSFB calculates that a childless couple on £6,000 a year would lose £4·10 a week; that the freezing of the higher tax rate would drag more people into Labour's new higher rate tax bands; and that single people, and many couples, earning £17,000 a year or more would have a dramatic increase in marginal rates—for example, a married man on £24,000 a year with two children would be £24·84 a week worse off under the Labour's tax proposals.
The Public Policy Unit report concurs with the CSFB finding:

531
"Not even the most punitive taxes on the better off will raise enough revenue to finance all of this."
It continues:
"The results of some of Labour's more punitive tax proposals may well be to cause people to question what point there is in earning extra income if the majority of that money is taken away even before they even see it."
Like the Bourbons of old, Labour has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Under the Government, the reduction of the top rate of tax to 40p in the pound has led to an increase in the percentage rate paid by the top band tax payers, which has risen from a quarter to nearly a third of all tax revenues. Under the Labour proposals, taxpayers in Scotland would face an additional threat from a tax-raising Scottish Assembly.
Mr. William O'Brien: What about the poll tax?
Mr. Bennett: As for local government taxation—the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is a Labour spokesman on local government—we shall wait with interest to hear Labour's proposals. We are not prepared to take any criticism from a party that cannot produce any alternative to the community charge. Labour's proposals for a roof tax would lead to massive increases in taxation.
On Labour's own calculations, the imposition of a national minimum wage at 50 per cent. of male earnings would mean wage increases for 4 million people—one sixth of the work force. Given that about one third of public spending is on wages and salaries, that would have a considerable impact on the public sector. The impact on other groups of workers would be for the newly empowered trade unions to demand wage rises throughout the economy.
Labour's policies would place new and crippling burdens on industry. It proposes a new state bank—the British investment bank—which would offer low-cost, long-term finance to firms unable to raise money from commercial banks. Nor would pension funds be safe, as their trustees would be encouraged by changes in the law to take the interests of their regional economies into account. In addition, there would be a range of regional and, where appropriate, local investment banks for Britain's nations and regions. Those, together with local enterprise boards and something called British Technology Enterprise, would have the power to take shares in existing companies.
Some would call all that a throwback to the 1970s, when Mr. De Lorean successfully conned the then Labour Government out of a cool £80 million. Others have pointed to the late and unlamented Greater London Council-controlled Greater London enterprise board, which so successfully lost ratepayers' money. Frankly, the origins are even older—way back in the 1940s, with the men in Whitehall knowing best. As Sir John Harvey-Jones, the former chairman of ICI, said succinctly:
"Whenever Government directs industry the thing invariably comes to grief … Governments which try to pick winners are not very good at it."
Labour's promise to renationalise British Telecom and the water industry, with the gas and electricity industries also in its sights, would not only rob millions of ordinary people who had invested some of their hard-earned savings in the success of those industries of their dividends but, by excluding the dividends, would cause share prices to plummet, enabling Labour to renationalise on the cheap.
532
We must study the hidden costs for industrial relations. Labour would bring back sympathy strikes and flying pickets. It makes no mention in its policy document of the right of trade union members to elect their leaders by secret ballot. The effect on the economy would be absolutely disastrous. As in the past, Labour is in the hands of the trade unions when it comes to industrial relations.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monkland, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) have eaten their way around the City of London—and to what effect? The Times Business News on 25 May reports Mr. Roger Bootle of Greenwell Montague as saying:
"The difficult thing for Labour is how to reconcile an anti-inflation policy with its undoubted spending ambitions."
Mr. Neil Mackinnan of Yamaichi Securities, an economic consultant to Labour, conceded that the City was probably still sceptical about Labour's taxation and tax policies. All those post-prandial tummy upsets and all the Alka Seltzers, only to be told that. Perhaps those hon. Members should have left it to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He, at least, would have enjoyed the lunches, if not the duty.
The Labour party's proposals include its defence policy. It is many years since the words "Labour party" and "defence" have sat comfortably with each other. Labour is led by a leader who is a committed member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—an organisation whose constitution begins with the words:
"The aim of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is the unilateral abandonment by Britain of nuclear weapons, nuclear bases and nuclear alliances."
Labour now speaks of a peace dividend. That is barefaced cheek from people who have opposed all the measures that have brought the Societ Union to the negotiating table. "Looking to the Future" contains no figures for what the Labour party will do, but we know from its last party conference that it is committed to a reduction of £5 billion in the defence budget.
Mr. Tony Banks: Not enough.
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman might say, "Not enough," but £5 billion is one third of the total defence budget. Perhaps he will tell us whether the Navy, the Army or the Air Force will be scrapped.
The reality is that, every time a Labour spokesman opens his mouth, uncosted promises come tumbling out. In every vote in this House, whether on cuts in income tax, denationalisation, the repeal of the archaic dock labour scheme or trade union reform, Labour has consistently voted against efficiency and reform. It was ever thus. Labour politicians who have dedicated a lifetime's service to the creation of bureaucracy, nationalised industries and Government interference cannot change their spots, whatever the advice or instruction of Mr. Mandelson. It would be only a skin-deep change, because underneath they would remain the same old—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his time.
4.54 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is a great pity that one of the few opportunities for Back-Bench Members to oppose or to introduce measures has been

533
prostituted in the way that it has this afternoon. I regret that the very good name of the National Audit Office has been dragged into this. It is an impartial and highly professional body that has produced numerous reports exposing Government inadequacies and waste in a number of areas.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) sought to repeat a joke that might have been good the first time around, but which has fallen flat the second time. He should consider the scope of his Bill. Had it gone a little further, a number of Opposition Members might have been prepared to support it. However, the hon. Gentleman stopped short of looking at the Government's record before the last three general elections. It would have been a marvellous Bill had it been on the statute book in 1979. We could then have costed some of the commitments that the Government have enacted while they have been in power—not merely the financial cost and the waste, but the social cost. With a large number of their commitments, it is too little, too late.
Why was not the commitment to almost double VAT costed? Indeed, why was it not even in the 1979 manifesto? Why were not the commitments on income tax and other indirect taxes costed? The tax burden on the individual has risen, not fallen. The Government myth of reduced taxation has been exposed. Why did not the Government include in their manifesto, and why did they not cost, their intention to reduce the real value of child benefit? Why was not the National Audit Office invited to cost the Tory manifesto so that their false claims could be exposed?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked, why was not the poll tax costed? Why were not the financial effects of the poll tax on every household costed and made clear to the British people? Why was not the National Audit Office asked to do that job? Despite its great professionalism, the National Audit Office could not have carried out such an audit, because even the Secretary of State for the Environment has his knickers in a twist on that issue.
Why did not the National Audit Office produce a few calculations, perhaps using the Treasury model, on the cost to the nation of high interest rates? As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton said, they would have made interesting calculations, especially in relation to the high mortgage levels. In my constituency, that cost—not costed in the Tory manifesto—amounts to an additional £200 a month on average for every mortgage holder. No doubt it is the same in other constituencies.
Why was not the effect of the ridiculous sporadic and crazy exchange rate policy on British industry costed? What about bankruptcies? Why was not the demise of the Raleigh company in my constituency costed? It started in 1979 with 11,000 employees but now has only 1,000. What was the cost for those 10,000 former employees—not merely in dole, not merely in misery, but in lost taxation?
Why did not someone in the Tory party think up this marvellous Bill before now? It does not even touch upon the social costs. It is a little joke; a little sprat. The old-age pensioner has seen the real value of the pension decline. How can we cost the misery that that has created? How can we cost the cuts in benefits for the disabled and the unemployed—those who have lost their jobs as a result of
534
the Government's incompetence? Perhaps the great professionals at the National Audit Office could cost all that. It would be a job well worthy of their talents.
The National Audit Office could evaluate the cost of pit and factory closures and the decline in our manufacturing industry. One third of our manufacturing industry has been disposed of by the Government. The shipyards have been closed. When we look around us, we see the immense cost in human resources of giving away our international competitive position.
The Government go on about waste, and rightly so. They can teach us a lot about waste. They have wasted £48 billion of North sea oil revenue. It has been frittered away abroad and given away in income tax cuts to try to compensate for the indirect taxation—VAT, national insurance and so on.
The hon. Gentleman asks why we do not cost our programme. I have to say:
"It would be irresponsible, and anyway impossible, to say … precisely how much it will cost. We do not have the advice which is available in government from professional advisers; we do not know what the world situation—or the domestic economic situation—will be when we come to office".
[ Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but that is a quote from "The Right Approach" written by the Conservative party in 1976. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for pointing that out to me. I shall send the Member for Pembroke a copy of that document so that he can memorise the quote.
The National Audit Office produced a good report a couple of weeks ago on the Government's failure to collect income tax. If an old lady gets 2p extra on her pension or in benefit to which she is not entitled, a team of people come looking to see whether she is scrounging on social security, but £5 billion is lost to the Inland Revenue and nothing is done about it, and that does not include tax evasion. If we are talking about costing programmes and failures, let the National Audit Office report on that sort of loss, which is totally unaccounted for by the Government.
Were such profligacy, waste and incompetence the responsibility of a local councillor, he would be surcharged, and rightly so. He would probably be bankrupted and have his home taken away from him and his assets and property arrested. But here, such people are promoted. They become members of the Cabinet and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out from a sedentary position 10 minutes ago, they end up with knighthoods or stacks of rewards from the City.
If we are to look to the future, I would extend the hon. Gentleman's Bill in a number of areas. I would cost the Government's promise to save the 72 marginal Tory seats that are being pumped up with additional revenue to keep their poll tax low. I would ensure that the National Audit Office examined the Tory party's accounts. It seems a little slow in putting those accounts into Companies house. I would ensure that the National Audit Office examined every company's accounts so that we could see that companies such as British Commonwealth, which is sliding down the tubes at the moment, donate six-figure sums year after year to their friends in the Conservative party.
Let us cost the Conservative party's programme—the poll tax and the privatisation of water, electricity and of

535
British Telecom. Above all, let us ensure that the real financial and social cost of every item in the Tory party manifesto is exposed. In that way, the British people, with the assistance of the National Audit Office, will be able to make a choice at the next general election.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just heard an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) in opposition to the Bill, but in his closing comments he urged support of it. Is it not the case that a Member can oppose a ten-minute Bill but not speak in support of it?
Mr. Allen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am clearly opposed to the Bill, because it does not go far enough. It does not include past spending commitments which have been concealed by the Conservative party.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): What has happened is quite in order. If an hon. Member seeks to oppose a ten-minute Bill, he must shout, "No." It is not necessary for him to go further than that, and that was done in this case.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. Donald Thompson, Mr. David Martin, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Robert Jones, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Gwilym Jones, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. William Hague and Mr. Geoffrey Dickens.

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (EXTENSION OF POWERS)
Mr. Nicholas Bennett accordingly presented a Bill to extend the powers of the National Audit Office so as to permit the office, on an application by a national political party, to cost that party's election commitments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

The Army
[ Relevant document: Sixth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1989–90 on the Physical Security of Military Installations in the United Kingdom, House of Commons Paper 171.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that in view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak, Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
5.6 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): We are in the midst of a period of profound and lasting change. Across eastern Europe socialism has been discredited as people have come to understand that only misery comes from centralised economies and national plans and the pursuit of egalitarianism—in fact, the policies pursued by successive Labour Governments in Britain since the war.
The changes that we have seen have not occurred by accident; they are the result of a gradual realisation in the Soviet Union that it was impossible to match the technology of the west while at the same time providing its people with a decent standard of living.
I believe that historians will judge that there were significant milestones down the road to new thinking on Soviet defence strategy—first, the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles across Europe. That demonstrated the determination of the NATO alliances to match Soviet capabilities and to risk the short-term unpopularity from their publics when doing so.
The second milestone was President Reagan's announcement that America was prepared to spend billions of dollars on the strategic defence initiative and to invest in new areas of technology that might not only give the west an impregnable shield from incoming ballistic missiles, but, much more likely, lead to a spin-off of revolutionary weapon systems that could radically alter the balance of power.
At that point the Soviets realised that they were involved in a race that they could never win. There was only one way out and that was by negotiation—serious negotiations to remove a whole range of intermediate nuclear forces, to reduce radically strategic weapons and to bring down the superior numbers of Soviet conventional forces.
The interesting thing about those two important milestones—the deployment of cruise and Pershing and the launching of the SDI programme—is that they were both bitterly opposed by the Labour party, which was wrong on defence policy then in the same way that it is wrong now.
We have, of course, seen in recent months a series of extraordinary developments in eastern Europe, and in the relations between the countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Those have already brought about fundamental changes in the European political and security landscape, many of which appear irreversible, and more changes are inevitable.
The most significant change will be the impending unification of Germany, which we warmly welcome and

537
which has been one of NATO's long-standing objectives. The German Government now appear to envisage all-German elections in December or January, with state unity likely to take place shortly before that. This makes it all the more important that we make good progress in the two-plus-four talks and ensure that we resolve the external and security aspects of unification in parallel with the internal aspects.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister has made a grand opening to his speech. Can he say whether he is now announcing that a proper defence review is being undertaken—or is the situation to continue whereby one Minister undertakes such a review with the opposition of the Secretary of State for Defence and presumably that of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces?
Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, the work that we are doing on options for change is an aspect that I shall cover later in my speech.
As to the central question of a united Germany's membership of NATO, both the East German and West German Governments have made clear firm support for that, as have other NATO countries and some east European countries. But while we do not regard a united Germany's right to choose membership of NATO as negotiable—it is enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act—we want to ensure that the Soviet Union's security concerns are properly met and have no wish to exploit the situation to the Soviet Union's disadvantage.
The process of change in security in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe to some extent predates the political transformation that has taken place since the historic events in Berlin last November. There were clear signs before then that the Soviet Union was making changes in its defence posture and force levels. In December 1988, President Gorbachev announced his intention to make significiant unilateral reductions in Soviet forces, including cuts of 500,000 men, 10,000 tanks, 8,500 artillery pieces and 800 aircraft. Our evidence suggests that those reductions are now well under way across the whole Soviet Union.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend rightly says that we must take account of Soviet concerns and fears, but will he confirm that in no way will those concerns and fears be allayed by a decision by the Americans at some future stage not to deliver to this country the commitment that it has given to Trident?
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I think that there is rapid realisation in the Soviet Union, as there has always been here, that the stalemate produced by the ownership of nuclear weapons by both sides is not as unsatisfactory as might have been thought in the past. I hope sincerely that the Soviets are now moving away from the concept of a nuclear-free Europe.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister will acknowledge that nuclear-owning powers are not the only states in the world, and that 139 non-nuclear countries have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Are they to be denied the operation of clause 6 of that treaty for the indefinite future? As the Minister knows, that clause commits nuclear nations to negotiate in
538
good faith the removal of nuclear weapons. Why are not the British Government doing something about getting rid of Trident, in order to honour and conform with the obligations contained in that treaty?
Mr. Hamilton: I am well aware of the contents of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but it is somewhat idealistic to believe that there will ever be a time when the world will be free of all nuclear weapons. It is one of the many illusions of the unilateralist wing of the Labour party—I say wing, but it seems to me that it makes up most of the party—that we shall somehow reach the point at which there will be a non-nuclear world. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the reality is that we are seeing a spread of and an increase in the ownership of nuclear weapons in the world, not a decrease.
Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister welcome that development?
Mr. Hamilton: Certainly not, but it is a fact with which we have to live. I do not want to be in a position in this country in which Libya has a nuclear weapon and we have none—yet that is the point towards which current Labour policy is taking us.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the British Government believe that they should not exploit German unification in the way that the Minister said, and if it is suggested that eastern Europe, as part of NATO, would have no NATO deployment at all within the East German zone, is the Minister suggesting as an alternative that there should be no NATO placings within Germany over and above those currently available in West Germany?
Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are still in the early stages of the two-plus-four talks, and the whole question of what troops should be in eastern Germany, and what will happen in respect of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from there, has to be agreed. Presumably we shall see a united Bundeswehr, including forces of the NVA, at the same time as there is a united Germany or subsequently. However, at present it is difficult to anticipate whether NATO troops will be positioned in East Germany. That remains to be negotiated, and it is what the two-plus-four talks are all about.
Sir Alan Glyn: Surely it is impossible to have a united Germany in NATO, with our forces in West Germany, and still have—as was said by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—Russian troops in East Germany, however few they number. One cannot mix the two.
Mr. Hamilton: Yes—clearly that is the way that the talks are going at the moment. The Soviets are considering keeping residual troops in eastern Germany, but I think that they accept that there must be a time limit on the withdrawal of those troops. I personally should not want to be in command of Soviet troops in East Germany after East and West Germany become united. They would not be in a very enviable position. I shall refer to that aspect again later.
More recently, bilateral agreements have been concluded between Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, which will see the withdrawal of all 105,000 Soviet troops now in those countries by June 1991. That

539
process of withdrawals has already begun and there is every sign that it will be completed on time. Although the west has said that it is prepared to contemplate a transitional period during which Soviet troops will remain in what is currently the GDR, it seems unlikely that the Soviets will want to keep their troops there any longer than necessary, given that it will scarcely be a friendly environment. That relates to my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn).
Discussions have also been opened on the possible withdrawal of Soviet forces from Poland. Overall, there seems a good prospect that, by the middle of this decade, if not before, the 500,000 Soviet troops now in central and eastern Europe will be gone.
Moreover, the countries of eastern Europe are also making major reductions in their own forces. In Hungary, for example, there are plans for 40 per cent. reductions in tanks and artillery and a 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. cut in manpower. The Czechoslovakians are cutting manpower numbers and the length of conscription, and are destroying 850 tanks. In Poland, major reductions in tanks, aircraft and artillery are planned, and its armed forces were reduced by about 30,000 last year, with further reductions to follow.
In addition to those major changes in the level and deployment of forces, we are witnessing the disintegration of the Warsaw pact as an effective military organisation. The military risks facing the alliance have already been greatly reduced. As the House will know, NATO is accordingly prepared to make appropriate adjustments to its military readiness. Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the continuing military imbalance in Europe and of the massive forces that the Soviet Union continues to have at its disposal.
The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the conventional arms control talks in Vienna. I visited those talks last week and was able to discuss with delegates a new British technique for the cheap destruction of tanks. The technique, costing only £50, involves the use of about 30 lb of plastic explosive and has the effect of quickly rendering a tank unusable prior to the more time-consuming process of recycling.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister suggests that we must keep up the level of our conventional weapons because of the threat, as he sees it, posed by Soviet conventional weapons. However, the Minister just said that the Soviets are likely to withdraw, and want to withdraw, from much of central Europe anyway. If the Soviet Union intended to use conventional weapons against a united Germany and the west, is it not true that it would have to fight its way through to the western lines? Did the Minister take that into account when considering what he calls the imbalance of conventional forces?
Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, that is something that one has to take into account. The reaction of Polish forces if the Soviets were to drive through Poland would have to be taken into account. That also affects warning time and the period that we would need to reinforce, which must be revised in the light of a future when Soviet forces might be concentrated within the Soviet Union, or possibly even further back than the western military districts, which cover such areas as the Ukraine.
540
The conventional forces in Europe talks aim to eliminate the Soviet and Warsaw pact acknowledged superiority in key types of offensive military equipment, reducing overall holdings on both sides to below NATO's current levels. Accordingly, we expect the United Kingdom, including the British Army, to take an equitable proportion of the reductions that will be made in holdings of some equipment.
The Vienna talks continue to offer the best means of permanently and verifiably reducing conventional forces in Europe, to the benefit of all concerned. We are therefore, in common with our allies, committed to seeing those talks through to a successful conclusion. Although we have recently seen some slowing of progress, the signs continue to be that the Soviets, like us, remain committed to achieving the completion of a CFE agreement this year.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the possible reductions of British forces and the number based in western Germany, is the Ministry of Defence examining certain areas of Scotland with a view to using them to train Army personnel, and especially as tank training grounds? If some British regiments are withdrawn from Germany, are they likely to be located in Scotland?
Mr. Hamilton: It is quite wrong for me to be drawn on the options for change at this stage or on any of the details. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that the Ministry of Defence is always considering areas throughout the United Kingdom, to increase the number of training grounds. We still do not feel, in the light of where we stand today, and without any question of any forces being brought back from Germany, that we have enough training areas, and we should like to extend them if the opportunity arises. Scotland is certainly an area that we have been considering, for example, when estates are up for sale.
Mr. Allan Rogers: May I press the Minister on the subject, as I understand that the Ministry of Defence had been attempting in recent years to review the amount of land that it holds and not to increase it. Is the Minister now saying that he is seeking to increase the amount of defence land? Are not the ranges at Castlemartin sufficient for training, especially as the German Panzers will not train there any more? I presume that they will not wish to train in this country if our tanks are to move out of Germany.
Mr. Hamilton: The general feeling is that we could do with more training areas, and we have always taken the view that we should like to acquire large areas if they came up for sale and were reckoned to be suitable—the consensus is that we do not have enough.
Apart from CFE, there is also the prospect of progress towards reductions in both nuclear and chemical weapons. In the nuclear area, we can look forward to negotiations to achieve reductions in the number of short-range nuclear weapons deployed in Europe shortly after the signature of a CFE treaty. Encouraging progress was made at the Washington summit, which we hope will lead to an early strategic arms reduction talks agreement. As to chemical weapons, the destruction agreement signed at the summit is an important breakthrough and should provide added impetus to the Geneva negotiations, which have as their aim the global elimination of those weapons.

541
The changes already taking place in Soviet force levels and deployments, together with the changes in eastern Europe, mean that we face a very different security situation in Europe. Further reductions in Soviet force levels and withdrawals from eastern Europe, together with the progress in arms control agreements, will mean that, by the middle of the decade, the situation will have changed even more radically. So it is right that, both within NATO and nationally, we should be taking a close look at our strategy and force structures.
Indeed, NATO Defence Ministers at the recent Nuclear Planning Group and Defence Planning Committee meetings have already commissioned reviews of nuclear posture and military strategy. However, the basic principles of alliance strategy remain valid. We must continue to deploy an effective mix of nuclear and conventional forces in Europe to preserve security. We must not forget that the Soviet Union—whatever the intentions of its leadership—will continue to be the dominant military power on the continent of Europe. Even when it has reduced to the level under negotiation in Vienna, it will still have 12,000 tanks—by far the largest national force. In addition, it will, of course, continue to retain substantial forces east of the Urals, unconstrained by the current arms control negotiations.
At the same time, the Soviet Union has not escaped the popular pressure for reform sweeping through central and eastern Europe, and the internal strains to which it is subject are clear for all to see. We should therefore not be acting responsibly, when addressing our future military requirements, if we were to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union remains a militarily very powerful, and potentially unstable, neighbour.
So, there are some things that must not change—membership of NATO will continue to be the best means of guaranteeing our security, even though NATO will have to adjust to changed circumstances. NATO is a defensive alliance with no aggressive intent, and there are signs that the eastern European countries, including the Soviet Union, are now beginning to recognise that. It has served us—and Europe—well over the past four decades, and it would be foolish now to consider abandoning the firm commitment to the alliance that has brought us so much progress.
Mr. Tony Banks: Would the Minister consider favourably an application from the Soviet Union to join NATO?
Mr. Hamilton: As NATO was originally set up to oppose the Soviet Union's military power, things would have to change more than they have already before that was a serious proposition.
At the same time we, along with other allies, have made it clear that we see advantage in giving the conference on security and co-operation in Europe an increased role. Our ideas for a CSCE summit were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her speech to the Königswinter conference in Cambridge at the end of March. She said that the overall aim for the summit should be
"a major step towards the creation of a great alliance for democracy, which would stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond".
542
The summit should sign a CFE agreement and look ahead to the next steps in arms control in Europe. It should also further the principles of democracy, free elections and the rule of law; prosperity, the promotion of market-oriented economic reforms; and stability throughout Europe. CSCE will have an important role to play, but as an addition to, not a substitute for, the NATO alliance.
Nationally, as hon. Members will be aware, we are conducting a review of the options for changes in our force structures and levels, which is designed to ensure that our forces continue to be appropriate in radically changed circumstances. In conducting that, we are, of course, bearing it in mind that, in the transitional period ahead during which we expect the CFE agreement to be implemented and the Soviet withdrawals from eastern Europe to take place, there will continue to be uncertainty and dangers of instability.
In these times of extraordinary change and hope in Europe we should do well to remember that it is always easier to make reductions than to rebuild a capability once it is lost.
Mr. Derek Conway: Perhaps my hon. Friend could put some minds in the House at ease, as hon. Members may be concerned at reports about the future size of the Army, especially the number of infantry battalions deployed. Will he confirm that any changes that come about will definitely be open policy decisions, and that there will not be reductions in the number of infantry units on the basis of a reduction in recruitment programmes or advertising campaigns for new recruits into the Army? Back-door reductions in British infantry will not be tolerated.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is trying to draw me on more detailed work and on matters concerning options for change that have not yet been considered. We are still in the early stages of work on options for change, and I cannot be drawn further than that. We have much further to go before the sort of detail that my hon. Friend mentions can be examined.
Mr. John Browne: Further to that question about reductions, can my hon. Friend assure the House that whatever the size and level of the Army in the future—I quite understand that that has yet to be determined—the regimental system will be maintained, as opposed to the infantry corps system, which is common in some other armies?
Mr. Hamilton: I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking that we shall continue to have regiments in the British Army and that we shall not move over to an enormous army corps.
We must not be afraid to make changes, but we must ensure that we keep in step with the realities of security in Europe. We hope that it will be possible to reduce the numbers of British-stationed personnel, although we should, of course, do so only in full consultation with our allies. None the less, the continued presence of significant British forces in Germany, including a robust and efficient British Army of the Rhine, will be essential as a contribution to collective security.
We are therefore taking great care not to take decisions that could put at risk the Army's capability to do its job. We also continue to make improvements to the Army's organisation wherever we can, to make the most

543
cost-effective use of resources. In particular, we continue to examine how to make the most efficient use of our personnel, whom we can expect to become an ever more precious resource. Last but not least, we continue a comprehensive programme of modernisation for Army equipment to ensure that, whatever happens, the British Army remains both modern and capable.
If all goes well, the Army will, as I have said, be making some reductions in its holdings of certain types of equipment as a result of the negotiations on conventional forces in Europe. Furthermore, if we succeed in achieving security at somewhat lower force levels, we shall have to take account of the reduced density of any future battlefield.
These are early days, but it seems likely that there will be an increased emphasis on the need for flexibility and mobility. The Army of the future will also need to be able to hit hard and fast, and perhaps at greater ranges. Those requirements will be demanding and we shall need to take careful decisions to ensure that our mix of forces remains the most appropriate. Along with our allies, we shall also consider the scope for extending multinational integration in NATO forces.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for flexibility. Reading his mind, am I to understand that we are likely to invest more in helicopters than in armour in future?
Mr. Hamilton: It is almost impossible to make a reference to mobility without my hon. Friend making a pitch for helicopters. We shall take into account his point over the years about the superiority of the helicopter over the tank when we do more detailed work on options for change.
Extending multinational integration in NATO forces would provide a demonstration of political commitment and an opportunity for all nations to share the burdens of collective defence. Apart from the important political factors, multinational formations could offer scope for rationalisation and the effective use of resources, although the advantages of integration will have to be weighed against the operational penalties of differing languages, equipment and methods of operation. It will be important that we choose the right operational level at which formations should be multinational and ensure that the right balance is struck to maintain military effectiveness.
I know that the Army is looking forward to meeting the challenge that change will bring and that it will bring to the task the imagination, determination and professionalism for which the British soldier is rightly renowned throughout the world.
Dr. Godman: Is the Minister satisfied with the counselling provision and the financial assistance given to the widows and families of soldiers killed, for example, on active duty in Northern Ireland or in road accidents in Germany?
Mr. Hamilton: I know that the Army pays great attention to giving such support. If the hon. Gentleman has any reason to believe that those services are not working satisfactorily, he may like to write to me about individual cases. One cannot talk effectively in generalisations on that matter.
Mr. David Winnick: The Minister has given us a traditional, right-wing Tory speech. Will he bear
544
in mind another aspect? There is deep concern over the slaughter of service men by IRA units. Last week, there were the horrifying murders of the Army major in Germany and of the 19-year-old soldier in Lichfield in the west Midlands. How that brings about a united Ireland is wholly beyond my understanding or reasoning. As we recognise that the British Army is faced with a terrorist onslaught, I ask the Minister whether there are further ways to try to safeguard British service men. We all recognise the difficulties, but we should take steps to try to ensure that such innocent lives are not lost.
Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I shall come to Northern Ireland and security later. If there is any lesson to be learnt from IRA outrages, on how we can change our practices to ensure our people's safety, we must learn it. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept, that becomes more difficult when the strategy of the IRA changes from one outrage to another.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In view of the deeply felt and sensible view just expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), it is time that there was a consensus among all parties, including the Labour party, in favour of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It is wrong that we should continue to have divisions on the matter.
Mr. Hamilton: I share my hon. Friend's views on the matter. It is sad that the House continues to divide on that important measure, which does much to enhance security in Northern Ireland and which makes the difficult job of the Royal Ulster Constabulary slightly easier.
I have visited dozens of Army units throughout the United Kingdom and overseas during the past 12 months and I know from my meetings with the service men arid women that morale is high and the mood optimistic. The Army will, I know, maintain that spirit and build upon it in the years to come. I know that right hon. and hon. Members of all parties will wish to join me in praising the Army's dedication and achievements.
I shall now look at issues of security and operations in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland remains the Army's largest peacetime commitment. The current strength of the Army in Northern Ireland in support of the RUC comprises 10 Regular Army battalions—about 11,000 personnel—and nine battalions of the Ulster Defence Regiment—about 6,300 personnel. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force also continue to make a major contribution to security in Northern Ireland.
In March this year, there was a change in the way in which the Army is deployed in Northern Ireland. A fifth roulement, or short-tour battalion, was deployed to the Province in place of the resident battalion formerly based at Aldergrove, where accommodation had reach the end of its planned life. I can reassure the House that that change has not in any way reduced the level of support provided by the Army to the Chief Constable of the RUC.
I should like to take this opportunity to record my support for those courageous members of the UDR who continue to serve the community in combating terrorism from whatever quarter. The UDR makes a vital and valued contribution to the Army's support to the RUC-led anti-terrorist effort. That contribution has, on occasions, quite wrongly and unjustly been called into question. I am very pleased that Mr. Stevens's report, which, as the

545
House will be aware, was published on 17 May, concluded that the passing of information was restricted to a small number of individuals and was neither widespread nor institution-alised. As Mr. Stevens has reported, his inquiry was thorough and wide-ranging, and I hope that his findings will silence those who quite unjustifiably have criticised the UDR as a whole for the misdemeanours of a very few members. The IRA continues to murder and to maim.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I must make it clear that many of us with close knowledge of the Ulster Defence Regiment were already convinced of the conclusions at which Stevens would arrive long before they were published. Is not it unfortunate that, at one stage in his investigation, Mr. Stevens had 28 homes identified by having them searched by more than 300 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? The lives of 28 members of the UDR and of their families were placed in serious jeopardy. Is not it regrettable that at least one quarter of those people—and probably more—have had to move house because of the threat brought about by the bungling way in which that aspect of the investigation was carried out?
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will accept that it was important that the Stevens inquiry was seen to be carrying out its duties impartially and without any outside influence; otherwise, its findings would have been questioned. In those circumstances, it was important to give him the freedom to act as he thought right. I accept that it was regrettable and that, as a result of raids on people's homes, some people had to be moved, and it would have been better if that could have been avoided.
The IRA continues to murder and maim service personnel. During 1989, 11 Regular Army and two UDR soldiers were murdered by terrorists, and 190 were injured. This year has seen the murder of six UDR soldiers, four of whom were horrifically murdered by an IRA land mine on 9 April, and one regular soldier was murdered by the IRA on 5 May. This year, 70 Regular Army and UDR soldiers have been injured.
The IRA continues to extend its campaign of murder and violence to the mainland and the continent. To mention but a few of the cowardly attacks—11 Royal Marines bandsmen were brutally murdered in a bomb attack at Deal last September; and, during May, one soldier was killed, and one injured and seven civilians were injured in explosions in London. On the continent last year, a soldier was killed in front of his wife and children who were themselves injured; an RAF corporal and his six-month-old baby daughter were murdered; and a soldier's German-born wife was murdered. Those barbarities, horrendous in themselves, serve to illustrate the threat faced by the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, the people on whom the terrorists have inflicted their campaign of violent lawlessness for more than 20 years.
Last Friday night, the terrorists committed two further sickening atrocities—the callous shooting of three unarmed teenage soldiers at Lichfield railway station, killing one, and the ruthless murder of an Army major as he returned home to his family at a housing estate in Dortmund.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: One of the people to whom the Minister referred was my constituent, Private Robert Davies of Waun road, Pontarddulais, an 18-year-old—which is different from the press reports of a 19-year-old boy. He was savagely gunned down. I am privileged to be part of an armed forces parliamentary scheme this year, with the Royal Navy. As part of that scheme, I have been conscious of security problems. I shall certainly not identify them, but I should be very glad if the Minister again considered a review of security, to see not only what lessons can be derived from the shooting but what loopholes exist in security arrangements and what resources need to be diverted to protect our armed forces personnel, who do a marvellous job in peace and in war in protecting this country. The Minister will find that there will be major problems in attracting young men and women to the armed forces and retaining them unless those resources are provided fully to protect them on and off duty.
Mr. Hamilton: First, I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is on the armed forces scheme. I hope that he is finding it beneficial. Secondly, whenever there is an outrage such as this, we always look to see what lessons can be learnt from it. I do not think that there is anything to be achieved by a massive review of security because we are dealing with a changing pattern of terrorist outrages. Therefore, we must adjust our position as each outrage takes place and see whether there are lessons to be learnt. I shall refer to resources that have been dedicated towards that. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that they are massive and should do something to sort out the problem.
Ironically, the fact that the IRA is increasingly searching for so-called soft targets in Britain and on the continent is a measure of the unrelenting pressure being brought to bear on it by the security forces in Northern Ireland. It should be in no doubt, however, that it will be tracked down with similar determination on whichever side of the Channel it chooses to hide. I should like to take this opportunity to praise the rapid response of the West German police to the shooting of Major Dillon-Lee, whose murderers were very nearly captured at a road-block.
The protection of our service men and women is of the very highest priority, and we are continuing to improve security and introduce all practical and cost-effective measures to guard service men against attack wherever they serve and are at threat. As the House will be aware, an additional sum of £126 million was made available last year to fund a major package of security enhancements in Britain and on the continent, including the provision of guards and of physical security measures, such as fences and closed-circuit television and mirrors for searching under vehicles.
It was originally envisaged that the programme would take three years to complete. However, every effort has been made to speed up progress and, for the most part, implementation of the enhancements will have been compressed into two years. Indeed, the majority of the physical enhancements are already in place. For example, at Eltham, had it not been for the use of anti-shatter window film, the number of injuries would have been much greater. That attack demonstrated the effectiveness of such simple and unobtrusive measures.

547
Urgent consideration is currently being given to the further lessons that can be learnt from recent attacks and the measures that can be implemented against specific threats, although there is, of course, no absolute protection against a violent, determined and ruthless terrorist.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister finishes his remarks on Northern Ireland, will he clear up the question of what information about alleged sexual scandals in relation to the Kincora boys home was or was not passed on to Mr. Ian Cameron, a senior officer at headquarters in Northern Ireland? Perhaps in his winding-up speech the Minister will pay some attention to that question.
Mr. Hamilton: We have been endlessly over that ground. As the hon. Gentleman knows, two inquiries have dealt with Kincora and have gone into great detail. Despite the hon. Gentleman's efforts to continue to rake away at the matter, I do not believe that there is any evidence that suggests that evidence has been withheld that would have led to the conviction of the people responsible for those homosexual abuses any earlier than was actually done.
I should like to mention the Defence Select Committee's recent report on the physical security of military installations, which has been included on the Order Paper for this debate. We are grateful to the Committee for its inquiry and report and are pleased that it has recognised the difficulties of providing an effective defence against the terrorist threat. As one would expect, the Defence Committee has taken a rather more sensible view of security than some press commentators, and we shall be making a considered response to the Committee in the usual way.
I should stress again that complete security is unrealistic and that we have therefore to focus on risk management. Simply throwing money at the problem will not solve it. Our intention is that countermeasures against terrorists should be as effective as possible, subject to the requirement that life must, as far as possible, continue as normal. One of the options in providing security is the use of commercial security companies. The Committee had some criticisms of the performance of some of the companies that we use, and we have noted them. But commercial companies will remain one of the options available where they can demonstrate that they provide an adequate service. We continue to keep all contracts with commercial guard forces under the closest scrutiny and monthly reports on the performance of firms are made to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. Since the reviews have been instituted, three contracts have been terminated and a further three will not be renewed.
The callous murder of two Australian holidaymakers in Holland on 27 May has shown that terrorist attacks may also be directed towards the civilian community. In that particular case, the only "excuse" given by the terrorists was that the car had British number plates and they therefore assumed that the two men were soldiers. The House will recall that in 1988, I announced that we were scrapping the distinctive British Forces Germany number plates in favour of UK-style plates. I also said that we would keep the situation under constant review. Since then, with the ready co-operation of the Federal Republic
548
of Germany authorities, to whom we are most grateful, we have decided additionally to provide the choice of German-style number plates for the drivers of left-hand drive cars. I am sure that the House will understand why no advance announcement of our intentions was made. The plates are not being issued and a significant number are already being used. That change should provide a further valuable addition to our range of protective measures. We shall continue to keep the situation under the closest scrutiny.
There is one further point that I should like to cover before moving on. It has been said that the shooting in Roermond, and other similar so-called "mistakes" when the IRA has murdered or maimed civilians, demonstrate the depths to which the IRA has sunk. They are not new depths—the IRA has from the very outset shown that it has no compassion but only total disregard for life, soldier or civilian, man, woman or child. We have in hand a robust security education programme for service personnel and their families, underlining the need to be vigilant to the terrorist threat at all times. However, it is equally important that the civilian community should be alert and watchful. No one can be truly safe while those vicious men and women are at large.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister assure the House that no families of Army, Navy or Air Force personnel live outside the perimeter walls of barracks without security cover?
Mr. Hamilton: That depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "security cover". A number of people live outside the perimeter fences and we take security precautions for them in conjunction with the local police. I am not saying that they do not get any protection, but neither am I saying that they get very much.
Mr. Cryer: May I share the Minister's condemnation of the Provisional IRA and its unscrupulous and immoral acts of slaughter of innocent members of the public and innocent members of the armed forces? However, will he differentiate his moral condemnation of the IRA from his moral support for the retention and deployment of nuclear weapons, which involve the potential mass slaughter of millions of innocent men and women on the decision of a tiny handful of people? That seems at odds with his claims of morality.
Mr. Hamilton: I have never understood the hon. Gentleman's views on morality on this matter. A conventional war was fought in Europe between 1939 and 1945, in which millions of people died. There were no nuclear weapons there whatever. There is nothing particularly safe about conventional war and there should be no suggestion that in fighting a conventional war a minimal number of people will die. People die in their millions in conventional war. We are in the business of preventing war, and I believe that the nuclear deterrent in Europe has played a major role in ensuring that there has not been a third world war on European soil; and, as a result, millions of lives have been saved. I find that an extremely moral standpoint.
During 1989, 184 awards for gallantry or meritorious conduct were received by service personnel, including 29 awards for the UDR. Those awards are but one means of

549
illustrating the debt that we all owe to the bravery and devotion to duty of those who serve in the armed forces in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Richard Holt: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the IRA and Northern Ireland, will he reflect on the fact that Parliament recently voted to give an additional £40 per week to all those service widows whose husbands died before 1973? However, as a result of a quirk, widows whose husbands were killed in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1973 have had their ex gratia payments taken from them. Therefore, instead of receiving the full £40 each that Parliament intended, they are receiving considerably less. One of my constituents, whose husband was killed by the IRA in Northern Ireland, is only £12 per week better off. Will my hon. Friend please look into that matter because I am sure that what has happened was not the intention of the House or the Government?
Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was aware of people's difficulties, relating to the pre-1973 rule. What has happened was not what we were trying to achieve and I shall certainly look into the matter for my hon. Friend and write to him.
Last year, the armed services maintained a constantly high level of operations in support of the RUC, achieving notable successes against the merchants of death. During 1989, 327 weapons, 37,700 rounds of ammunition and 7·5 tonnes of explosives were seized by the security forces. Over the same period, 196 bombs were made safe and so far this year 61 bombs have been neutralised—an amazing testimony to the mettle and skill of the bomb disposal teams. Regrettably, it is clear that the IRA is still determined to carry out its campaigns of violence and intimidation, but there can be no doubt that the security forces' achievements that I have just mentioned allow the vast majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland to go about their normal business and have saved the lives of many civilians and service men who would otherwise have been added to the number already viciously murdered by the terrorists.
The terrorists continue to bring imprisonment and death down upon themselves. Last year, 233 people were charged, in Northern Ireland, with serious terrorist-type offences, of which 31 were for murder and 48 for attempted murder. In addition, two terrorists paid with their lives for their murderous activities, and one has done so up to this point in 1990.
For over 20 years now, those murderers have brought only death and destruction to Northern Ireland and that is all they bring. Hope for a peaceful future is not in their inventory, because they have nothing. They recognise that they have failed at the crucial instrument of democracy, the ballot box, and misguidedly pretend to believe that they can take power through murder, and maiming instead. We will not let that happen. We are determined to eliminate the awful threat that hangs over all the decent people of Northern Ireland.
As long as it is needed, the Army—this includes the UDR as an integral and major element—will continue to play its part in that vital task of maintaining the rule of law. Everyone in the House is keen to see the soldiers off the streets; it is only the terrorists who keep them there.
Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister agree that it is a fact that Provisional Sinn Fein has remained a minority within a minority, achieving too high a vote as far as I am concerned, but still remaining a minority within the Catholic and Nationalist community in Northern Ireland? As the Provisional IRA claims, however, to carry out what it is doing on behalf of the Irish people as such, is not it appropriate that when I met Mr. Adams and others in September 1983 as part of a parliamentary Labour party Northern Ireland delegation and asked him about where the Provisional IRA's mandate was to carry out its slaughter, he said that there was a mandate, but since then, Provisional Sinn Fein has contested two elections in the Irish Republic and on both occasions has received less than 2 per cent. of the vote? What sort of a mandate from the Irish people can the IRA claim to have?
Mr. Hamilton: That has always amazed and considerably worried me. The IRA has no effect through the ordinary democratic process and feels that the bomb is the only thing left to it. That concerns me. The IRA has no support in any measurable quantity from the people either north or south of the border, which makes its actions even more reprehensible.
In conclusion, the changing international situation gives us the opportunity to maintain our security and sustain our responsibilities with lower force levels, and that means at lower cost, too.
We are sensibly considering the possible options for change in defence taking into account changes in east-west relations, the question of resources and the future size and shape of the armed forces required to meet the future defence of our country. While we are doing that we must ask, "What is Labour doing?"
A fortnight ago, Labour published another policy document, somewhat grandiosely entitled "Looking to the Future"—and what a murky future it foretold. After all the leaks, we had been led to expect a policy document. Instead we found 20,000 words of evasion and generalisation, which was of more interest for what was omitted than what was included. But we know the reason—do we not?
Last year Labour attempted to persuade the country that it had had a change of heart over our nuclear deterrent. It decided that unilateralism was clearly an electoral liability and Labour wanted to persuade the British people that it had dropped it. So what does Labour offer now? Instead of giving Britain's nuclear weapons away on day one, it will now negotiate them away on day two. The means have changed but the result is the same in the end. Britain will have no nuclear weapons and the Soviets will be left with thousands.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) saying recently that, now that he no longer has a party to lead, he might return to the Labour party, as its policies have improved so much. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place—he often attends defence debates. However, I thought that the former leader of the SDP placed great importance on Britain having its own independent nuclear deterrent, and Labour is not offering that.
So I say to the right hon. Gentleman in his absence that there is no point in looking for sensible Conservative policies of market economics and strong defence in the

551
Labour party. Come to the party that really believes in those things. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will sign him up tomorrow.
5.59 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: I begin by apologising for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes). In last year's debate, mention was made of his illness and we hoped that he would be well enough to open the debate today. Unfortunately, that is not possible, but I understand that his recovery is continuing and we hope that he will return soon. I know that both Opposition and Conservative Members wish to convey their sincere wishes for a complete recovery.
As the Minister said, during the past year the Army has carried out its often difficult tasks in an exemplary manner. Labour Members join the Minister in paying a full tribute to our service people for their dedication to their chosen profession. With the Minister, I congratulate those who have received awards in the past year.
The past year has seen some extraordinary attacks of extreme cowardice on unarmed and unprepared service people and their families, often in their leisure time or on their holidays. Recently, innocent civilians were murdered in a so-called accident in the so-called glorious struggle. We join everyone in the House in condemnation of that and other attacks.
Since last September alone, outside of Northern Ireland, there have been 13 deaths in this country and 13 people have been injured. As the Minister said, seven people have been killed and five injured in Europe. The killings included the grotesque murder of a six-month-old baby. That can never be condoned, and no political aim can justify it.
To lose one's life on duty in an armed confrontation is unfortunately a hazard that is part of a soldier's life, but, outside of that, the completely unacceptable and cowardly way in which terrorists acts are committed add nothing to—indeed, they subtract from—the honour of the cause and of the country involved. In condemning those cowardly acts, we applaud the current talks between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the parties involved. I do not know whether there is any light at the end of that tunnel, but I hope that the talks succeed and that the unwanted division of the most kindly island of Ireland will soon cease.
I congratulate the service people in Northern Ireland who have to submit to the conditions there. In particular, I congratulate the brave members of the bomb disposal unit on the magnificent job that they do and also those in the civilian sector such as ambulancemen, policemen, doctors, nurses and firemen who participate in fighting the horrific problems that arise from the activities of terrorists.
I am glad that the Minister spent some time dealing with security and referred to the report of the Select Committee on Defence on the physical security of military installations. I keep wondering why the Select Committee has to carry out such investigations and highlight certain issues. Why does the Select Committee continually have to point out to the Minister problems which the Government know exist? Only when the scandal of the Committee's reports breaks do the Government decide to do something.
We welcome the changes made and the fact that the Minister spent £126 million last year on enhancing
552
security. But it is too little and too late. I congratulate all members of the Defence Select Committee on highlighting the alarming state of security and publishing such a powerful report.
Mr. Brazier: All hon. Members share equal anxiety on this matter and fully accept the hon. Gentleman's sincere comments about the hideous outrages that have occurred. However, this is not principally an issue of resourcing. The best way to prevent terrorist outrages is to identify, catch and convict through the courts the villains who perpetrate them. It is sad that we have seen no movement by the Labour Front Bench towards joining not only the Conservative Government but most other parties in the House in supporting the measures in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989. While the measures are certainly not fully effective, at least they provide some of the additional powers needed to identify the villains.
Mr. Rogers: If I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would make that silly point all over again, I would not have given way. It is a silly point. It shows that he does not understand what the issue is all about. The reason why we vote against the Act and why we want it to be reviewed every year is that the measures contained in it are fundamentally against civil liberties.
Mr. Brazier rose—
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman must listen. He posed a question. We accept—
Mr. Michael Mates: Murder is against civil liberties.
Mr. Rogers: Of course murder is against civil liberties. We say that in the hands of the wrong Government, the measures in the Prevention of Terrorism Act could lead us down the wrong alleyway. The reason why we emphasise that, vote against the Act and want it reviewed every year is that we hope that it will be a temporary measure and not a permanent part of the way of life of this country.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the Ministers especially should not scoff. The record of all Governments has not been good on implementing some of the measures in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Only recently, the courts had to free people who had spent 14 years in gaol after, as it was thought, being brought to book under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. For all the time that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been in force, it has not prevented terrorism. That is probably the greatest indictment of it.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must clarify the Labour party's position. Would it not review the Prevention of Terrorism Act if it came to power?
Mr. Rogers: We shall review all legislation that is extant operated by the present Government. What amazes me about Army and services debate is that, whenever constructive criticism is made, Conservative Members, especially those who spent a couple of years in the Army, wrap themselves in the union jack and say, "What marvellous people we are," and so on. Let us come on to specific resources for physical security and the report of the Defence Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). Let us discuss some of the issues and the penny-pinching of the Government, which has caused the deaths of many people.
Mr. Conway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rogers: I shall not give way now. I wish to make this point.
One issue highlighted by the Select Committee report was the employment of private security firms. The practice of using such firms has increased under this Government. The Defence Select Committee and the Ministry of Defence police in its submission said that the practice was increasing because the Government were attempting to save money. When 11 Marines were killed in Deal, the firm in charge of security at that barracks was Reliance Security Services. It employed people who had criminal records and people who were badly trained and who were paid about £2 an hour.
That is the Government's real service to the security of our armed forces. Conservative Members may scoff about the Labour party's attitude to security, but they would do better to support the Select Committee's attack on their Government for the lapse of security and the lack of money provided.
Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rogers: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
The employment of private security companies is simply an extension of the Government's ideological obsession of private is good and public is bad. The desire to save money has led to bad security arrangements in many establishments and perhaps resulted in needless deaths.
We firmly believe that private contracted security companies are not suitable for guarding Ministry of Defence establishments. We believe that private security firm employees lack adequate vetting, initial training, probationary periods and inter-organisation communication and information. The incidence of lax vetting was emphasised last year when it was revealed that a criminal with 500 convictions and a prison record for burglary, arson and violence was employed by the Reliance Security Services—the company employed at the Royal Marines barracks at Deal. I note that Ministers find this funny: obviously they are amused that service men have been killed when off duty and at leisure—
Mr. Archie Hamilton: Oh, come off it.
Mr. Rogers: I am not sure what Ministers are doing. One moment they are scoffing and complaining about the Labour party, but when I raise the issue of security all they can do is grin among themselves. We do not want the stress on financial savings to lead to false economies, thus creating a high turnover of private firms, a high failure rate and inadequate service.
Mr. Mates: Our report was carefully worded and it is critical in parts about certain situations the Select Committee found, but nowhere have we said that lives have been put at risk by that. In particular, no reference is made to the incident at Deal, simply because at the time our report went to press we had no report on it. We are awaiting that report and it is important to put that on record.
Mr. Rogers: I accept what the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, but from the evidence submitted it is clear that the company in charge of security at Deal was incompetent and should not have been employed. That evidence was known to the MOD police, and if that
554
information was available to the Government why did they not act on it? It is worth quoting to the Chairman of the Select Committee what he said in his report about vandalism committed by security guards. He said that it was not an isolated occurence:
"that the MOD should not be able instantly to remove the security guards for lack of a viable alternative beggars belief."
I do not believe that there has ever been a more savage criticism of a Government, certainly not since I have been here.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: I do not want to prejudge the report on Deal, but, given what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is important to establish that the private security firm employed at Deal was involved in checking people's cars and those people coming in and out through the entrance to the garrison. In addition, it undertook a number of daytime patrols, but it was not asked to undertake patrols at night. It seems highly likely that the bomb was put in place at night when the garrison was not the responsibility of the private security firm.
Mr. Rogers: I am grateful to the Minister, but I much prefer to leave the savage criticism of the Defence Committee to the House and let it judge the Government's stand.
The Minister began his speech at 5.6 pm and it was a long time before he sat down.
Mr. Conway: He gave way.
Mr. Rogers: In fairness to the Minister, he gave way a remarkable number of times. However, his historical analysis of changes in eastern Europe was claptrap. He stole the clothes of the people. He had not one word of credit for those who went out on the streets in eastern Europe and fought against the dictatorships that they had suffered for so many years. He said that the changes were all due to the Government. He had no word of credit for Mr. Gorbachev. At least Mr. Bush and Mr. Shultz had the decency to give Russia and Mr. Gorbachev credit for what has happened in eastern Europe—something the Minister did not have the decency to do.
The past year has witnessed profound changes politically and militarily in eastern Europe. Some of the arguments in last year's debate on the Army now convey a sense of unreality because of those great changes. The whole basis of strategic thinking and tactical consideration has altered. We are entering a new era which demands new thinking. We need to question fundamentally the role of our armed forces in that changed world. I was surprised that the Minister appeared to say that there would be no change. His remarks about our Army in West Germany and our role in NATO suggest that the Government are not looking to change the role of our armed forces.
We welcome the encouraging progress in the strategic arms reduction talks and the conventional forces in Europe talks. We fully support the call made by President Bush on 8 May to review the conventional and nuclear strategies. We believe that the alliance should take this opportunity finally to jettison the outmoded strategies of flexible response and forward defence. We also applaud the President's decision to cancel the Lance replacement and the modernisation of nuclear shells, especially given the alarming state of some of them.
There is no point repeating the political changes that have taken place about which we are all aware. There is hardly any need to repeat the effect of those changes on

555
military needs and responses. However, it is worth asking the Government what they propose to do in response to those changes.
The Minister completely missed the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). We now face the sorry sight of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement disagreeing about what to do. We are most interested to learn where the Minister of State for the Armed Forces stands in this quarrel. I presume that he is coming down on the side of the Secretary of State. He is a clever boy, but, in common with his colleague the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, he has probably had to repeat that he, too, is an old friend of the Secretary of State. I must warn the Secretary of State, however, that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had just finished a stint as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the headmistress, and he probably still has a key to her room.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is said to have written a paper that recommended a detailed number of cuts. He suggested a reduction in the number of infantry battalions from 55 to 32—a suggestion to which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham sought to draw attention—an expansion of the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment, and the abandonment of the anti-tank TRIGAT system and the multiple-launch rocket system. Because of that back-door missive, the Secretary of State is supposed to be in a dangerously exposed position. I am sure that he is very uncomfortable, but I am equally sure that his position is unassailable at the moment.
It is clear that there is considerable disagreement within the MOD as well as in Cabinet about how to react to the changing international situation. On the one hand, the Secretary of State argues that we should wait and see. That argument has been advanced in the foreword to the defence estimates—a purely reactive position. On the other hand, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is advocating a policy of cuts that appears to take no account of the new strategic realities or the need to draw up coherent and sensible plans. He appears to be going for a quick peace profit, no doubt to satisfy the Treasury's demand to fund the poll tax in the coming year.
The Secretary of State is, of course, a much wiser and older man—
Mr. Menzies Campbell: He just looks older.
Mr. Rogers: Yes, indeed. The right hon. Gentleman realises that there are substantial costs in many of the changes, particularly in manpower. He also realises that there is no quick peace profit for the poll tax.
The proposals of the Minister of State are of great concern, first because of his good connections with the Prime Minister and secondly because of the content of those proposals. His argument that we must adjust our defence posture to the more likely future conflicts in the third world and the far east seem to indicate that we desire to play a more positive role in those areas. That is an issue of great concern, considering our recent history of colonial involvements and the enormous cost in lives and money of those involvements and withdrawal from them.
It is obvious that, over the coming decade, British military forces in Germany will be cut to dramatically
556
lower levels, significantly further than the 10 to 15 per cent. reduction envisaged under the CFE treaty, seemingly the basis on which the Minister makes his proposals.
Those cuts will take place not only because of military rationalisation but because of political reality. A new united Germany will almost surely want to be rid of what will increasingly be seen as foreign troops on its soil. It seems ludicrous for the Minister to talk about East Germany not wanting Russian troops on its soil, without even considering that it will be part of a united Germany and that one can presume that, if Russian troops will be asked to get out of the eastern sector of the country, at some stage the West Germans will ask us to withdraw, or substantially lower, our presence there.
According to the argument of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, bringing our forces back to the United Kingdom will be a real option. But it will not be a cheap option. It will be expensive not just in transport costs but in relocation costs, even if barrack facilities, stores and workshops were available. To disband regiments quickly, as has been suggested, would also be an immediately expensive option, with substantial morale and social implications.
We welcome the opportunity that the reductions will provide to cut defence expenditure, but the changes must come about through a process of internationally negotiated and verified disarmament agreements, not by a Minister of State trying to get one over on the Secretary of State and looking for a peace profit to fund the poll tax. It is evident that, as force size is reduced, national forces will no longer be capable of fulfilling all their current roles and that unit costs will increase as the advantages derived from economies of scale are lost. So the Government—I was glad to hear the Minister's remarks on this issue—must commence discussions with our NATO partners on the development of multinational units. On an open basis, Ministers should embark on a full-scale defence review, instead of wasting their energies fighting among themselves over their secretive options for change.
The present size and shape of the British Army is determined largely by the existence of BAOR. If there are to be reductions, impending procurement decisions must. be altered too, for they are related not only to the size of the Army but to the perceived risk on what has hitherto been regarded as the central front.
At a recent Defence Question Time, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement disagreed with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and said that the next battlefield would not necessarily be found in central Europe. The Minister of State has a penchant for making peculiar statements, but it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which British or NATO forces could become involved in the unstable areas of eastern Europe—especially, say, in Romania, Yugoslavia and the Baltic—even as classical peace keeping forces.
The proposition that units brought home from Germany could form a new, highly flexible force, as outlined by the Minister today, poses as many questions as it answers, particularly in considering where they would be used. Even if they were to adopt such a new role, the equipment and weapons that they would require would be different from those now used in a central front tank-based role. The proposition of having an air-mobile, flexible, quick response force, for example, would demand an immediate decision on helicopter procurement, a decision which the Government seem reluctant to make.

557
The Opposition see the development of a lean, flexible, highly mobile defence force as a valid option for the future. Such a force would be superstructured on a substantial, properly equipped and highly trained reserve Army. It would be available, for example, for United Nations peace keeping duties and to assist in relieving natural disasters wherever they occur. It would always be available to defend our freedoms, democracies and traditions.
All that will not represent a quick fix, and almost certainly it will not be a cheaper option creating immediate huge savings. Savings will come, but not until after reorganisation. The new Army will come about only if some serious issues are addressed now by the Government, the problem of recruitment and retention being the most important, depending in turn on pay and conditions, restoring flagging morale, integrating ethnic minorities and re-identifying the role of women in the services.
The defence estimates again show a net outflow of personnel, with recruitment at 21,348 and an outflow of 24,056, a net loss of 2,608 in the last year. It is rightly said that those personnel represent a valuable investment in training and skills, and that we can ill afford to lose them.
The number of people applying for and taking premature voluntary release is rising again. Each year the Government say that they will introduce new measures, will carry out more surveys and will commission more reports. But still the PVR figures are rising. We appreciate that the problem is difficult, but it is not intractable. Given some of the difficulties that are causing premature voluntary release, the Government are compounding, rather than relieving, the problem, and the so-called wide measures which seek to improve the rate of retention are obviously not working.
I cite the example of service accommodation, about which hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned. According to the Secretary of State, increased funds will be made available for refurbishing service accommodation. The provision of good-quality service accommodation has always been difficult. For that reason, in 1978 the then Labour Government froze the level of accommodation charges, partly out of concern about the quality of accommodation. That concern still exists.
The report in 1988 of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body spoke of how the
"accommodation, particularly the single accommodation, is of poor quality, badly maintained, or both."
That body's latest report noted:
"Too many personnel will continue to occupy accommodation classed as Grade 4, well below the standard which would be regarded as acceptable in civilian life."
The Government acknowledge in the defence estimates that attention
"is being given to the problems that Service personnel face over housing."
Opposition Members have frequently expressed concern about the dreadful quality of some service accommodation. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) noted on a visit to Catterick camp that the condition of the houses was horrific. We know that, on 1 April 1989, the backlog of unavoidable repairs to married quarters was costed at £323 million. Perhaps the Minister can tell us about the current backlog of housing repairs. It is fairly obvious that the Government are just about the worst landlords in Great Britain. If any of our local authorities that the
558
Government love to bash managed their estates in the same way as the Ministry of Defence, the Government would soon push them into court.
Another important issue affecting morale is the ethnic composition of our armed forces, which still does not reflect the ethnic composition of our population. It is a complex problem and will continue to exist as long as the numbers coming into the forces are low. It is only as the numbers increase that the racism that exists in the services will decline.
The Peat Marwick McLintock report to which I referred in the Royal Air Force debate on 28 February said that the poor image of the services on racial issues was the single most important reason for low application rates. I hope that the Government will do more about that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether additional training for recruitment officers will be introduced. Will recruitment advertising be reorganised to present a more positive image of ethnic minorities? Above all, what steps do the Government propose to tackle racism in the services?
Another act of the Government which results in the loss of service personnel is the imposition of the poll tax on members of the armed forces. We have received a tremendous number of complaints. It is another example of the grotesque unfairness of the poll tax. A private soldier on about £7,600 a year will pay the same poll tax as a general on £72,000 a year. Service personnel on the same pay will pay widely differing rates of poll tax depending on where their barracks or married quarters are located. The quartering charges that were payable before 1 April have in many cases gone up more than tenfold. Service personnel in multi-room accommodation will pay the same as officers in single-room accommodation.
No one can tell me that the imposition of the poll tax on the members of our services is fair. Conservative Members have condemned the imposition of this charge on, for example, the Gurkhas. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East pointed to that grossly unfair demand on troops stationed in this country. That unfairness is compounded by the fact that foreign troops do not have to pay, but troops in the British service, even though they do not use many local authority facilities, have to pay the poll tax.
One of the most disturbing events in the past year, certainly for me and for other hon. Members who have a respect for our serving soldiers and who served in the Army, was the publication of the book "The New Model Army" by Michael Yardley and Dennis Sewell, who are former cavalry officers. Their claim of
"undeniable symptoms of moral decay"
in a system that rewards "ruthless careerism", and tolerates bullying in an organisation that contains
"the worst racial bigots in Society"
is extremely disturbing. [Interruption.]
Those criticisms are voiced by two former cavalry officers and not by the National Council for Civil Liberties or by someone from the Labour party. The criticisms come from two of the Army's own. I know that Conservative Members will feel vindictive towards those two officers, who have probably voted Tory all their lives, but they should at least listen to what those men have to say. I am not saying that their views are shared by me or any of my hon. Friends.
The two ex-cavalry officers say more philosophically

559
that the Army is
"divorced from the body of the nation … tolerated by the rest of the community either because we do not know what is going on or do not want to know."
Those are matters for debate, but they also accuse the Army of being a professionally competent but often brutalised elite which deliberately keeps aloof from the society it serves, and that is a matter of great concern. I am not quite sure about the motives of the two ex-officers in writing the book, but Conservative Members will applaud me when I say that I do not go along with their prescription for what they call a new model army.
The two ex-officers have come up with the idea of voluntary national service
"to keep youngsters off the dole queue"
in order to relate the Army more to the community that it serves. That would be accompanied by a home defence force, the members of which would keep their weapons and ammunition at home. That is said to be
"not dissimilar to the rifle volunteers of the late Victorian era."
I know that that will strike a chord with the Prime Minister, but it fills me and my hon. Friends with great alarm.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman earlier praised the Army for its proficiency, and he included other ingredients that made it what he thought was a thoroughly commendable institution. Does he agree with the criticisms that he has just read to the
Mr. Rogers: My experience of the Army goes back some 30 years, so I have to admit that perhaps in this context I am out of touch with the Army as it exists now. As I have said, these were comments not by the NCCL but by ex-cavalry officers. I understand that the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) served as a captain in the Army. He is aware of the structure of the Army and the elitism that exists within it. I should have thought that some of the criticisms are justified. Without saying whether I agree with them, I have to say that I am worried that they have been made. I am also concerned about the wall of silence surrounding the book. The Government have made no comment on it since it was published in September, and that is a little disturbing.
Many procurement issues are linked to the inevitable decline in the number of people in our Regular Army. One of the most important decisions will be that about the Challenger 2 tank. Its procurement will have to be critically examined, because it will reach its third milestone test in September, which is just 12 weeks away. The examination should be most urgent. I hope that the Government are aware of the severe economic and industrial consequences on the areas concerned that will flow from their decision. I hope that they will firmly consider the Challenger 2 over and above tanks from any other country.
Another procurement decision that causes concern relates to the third-generation anti-tank guided weapons system, the TRIGAT family. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is to happen about that. It seems that the future of the programme is in doubt, first on the ground that it may not have the ability or the capacity to penetrate some of the new types of armour that have been developed, and secondly, I understand, on the ground that the premise of great tank battles is no longer valid. There is no up-to-date
560
information about how the project is faring in meeting its milestones, or even what targets have been set. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about that.
Another uncertainty in procurement is the future requirement for military helicopters, including those for the Army. Originally, the need for greater air mobility was seen as a response to a specific Warsaw pact threat in central Europe and there was a widespread perception that this would require more and better helicopters for the Army. This threat has disappeared, but the case for air mobility and more helicopters is being presented as a response to the new situation—the development of a flexible, mobile Army. Perhaps the Minister can give us an idea of what the Government intend to do about helicopter equipment for all the forces.
As I said at the outset, change has been thrust upon us by the momentous events in eastern Europe. Change can take place in different ways—in a purely reactive manner, waiting for events to pressure the changes, a la the Secretary of State, or in a simplistic way, by drawing up a list, a la the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. It can also take place in a reasonable, structured and orderly fashion, attempting to maintain morale, to retain manpower, and to ease job and company losses in critical procurement sectors. The Opposition would choose that latter option. The sooner the Government get out and let us take the decisions on the country's defence, the better.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches will operate from 7 o'clock.
6.42 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a number of interesting points, some of which we can only profoundly disagree with. I am tempted to follow him down some of the paths that he has trodden so delicately, but I fear that I should outstay my welcome if I did, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I have a number of points that I wish to make on my own account. However, I was glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman does not expect any quick fix to the problems of defence or any quick peace dividend. I hope that that message will go as loud and clear from the Opposition Benches as it has from the Government Benches. It is important that the public understand this.
We all know that my right hon. and hon. Friends with responsibility for defence have a most difficult task. They have to determine how far it would be wise to reduce expenditure on defence or to reduce the size of the armed forces in a period of uncertainty and instability, as my hon. Friend the Minister called it. They must be seen to respond to the promising developments in eastern Europe, while still protecting the essential fabric and integrity of the armed forces. They must be aware that prudence will no doubt be denounced by people impatient for what they call a peace dividend. That is why I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Rhondda spoke as he did. They will be challenged by others to justify the continued existence of the NATO alliance. However, I am confident that, in laying their plans for the future, the Government—I hope that the Opposition will go along with them on this—will recognise that, at this time and for the foreseeable future,

561
to call for the demise of NATO would be short-sighted, unrealistic and ultimately damaging to the long-term cause of peace and stability.
If hon. Members think that that is going too far, let me remind them of the recent debate in plenary session of the North Atlantic Assembly, when delegates from 16 countries discussed the future of the alliance. There was overwhelming support—which embraced all sections of major political parties in western Europe—for a resolution stating that membership of a united Germany in NATO was essential for security in Europe. The German delegation agreed that Germany could not be neutral. It was led by one of Germany's senior spokesmen on defence matters, from the SDP.
Secondly, the resolution asserted that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has an indispensable role to play in Europe which should not be thought of as a substitute for the alliance, which remains essential to western security. Thirdly, the resolution advocated an enhanced political role in NATO in view of the decline of the military threat. We warmly support that. Fourthly, it called for the creation of a true European pillar within the alliance. Fifthly, it urged the assembly to establish ties with eastern European Parliaments and to contribute to the building of democracy. It also agreed on the necessity to have a north American presence. That is a substantial agenda for an organisation that has helped to preserve the peace of the world.
Mr. Tony Banks: The North Atlantic Assembly is bound to pass such a resolution. The desire for a united Germany in NATO might have been expressed by the representatives of the Federal Republic at the Assembly, but, according to the latest opinion polls in both East and West Germany, that is not the opinion of the German people, who would like a demilitarised zone around their country, with the withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he misunderstands the purpose of the North Atlantic Assembly. It is not composed of paid officials or of people who subscribe to the views of NATO. It is composed freely of representatives of the Parliaments who come there and debate solidly. All kinds of criticisms fly around, but it would be unwise of the hon. Gentleman to dismiss with contumely what I have said. The Government of the Federal Republic strongly believe in a united Germany and that that united Germany should be part of NATO. I regard the views expressed by Chancellor Kohl as carrying far more weight than the public opinion polls mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The German people are the very people who supported his idea for unity, knowing very well for what it is that he is asking.
We all know that there is room for manoeuvre and debate—we have all heard my hon. Friend the Minister—in respect of East Germany and what, when it becomes part of a united Germany, should be the position of the troops of the Warsaw pact, of the Soviet Union and NATO. That is a strong view. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, he should agree that a wide number of issues demand the continued presence of NATO. The hon. Gentleman should welcome rather than deplore the agenda that I set out.
562
We should not forget that one of the great benefits of NATO is that it is the only defence organisation in the world that has the integrated military structure, the resources and plans to enable it to take the prompt action necessary to protect the security of the nations that belong to it and, if necessary, the security of Europe as a whole. To dismantle it at this time in our history would undo all the progress that we have made in the past 40 years. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear little from Opposition Members, and certainly not from those on the Front Bench—I am glad to have the nodding head of agreement from the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes)—about dismantling NATO in the foreseeable future. At least there is one voice of agreement there, and we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman when he winds up for the Opposition.
I recognise that NATO will have to change as events develop. No one should say that it should be frozen as events were frozen during the cold war. If, as seems inevitable, nations move to smaller forces, this should increase the incentive to produce a more rational defence effort through such innovations as role specialisation. I understand that it is ludicrously expensive for nations to cover the gamut of their defence needs. They have to co-operate more closely with other nations. Therefore, in their options for change, I hope that the Government will develop their own ideas for a more effective distribution of roles and missions within the alliance.
My hon. Friend the Minister has already spoken about the formation of multinational units, and I am glad that he took such a positive approach to this. As he knows, NATO's integrated command structure is integrated not only at headquarters level but down to Army level. The creation of a multinational corps comprising several national divisions would, in my view, be practical. As is recognised by most people on both sides of the argument—it was certainly recognised by the hon. Member for Rhondda—too many reductions would mean a not very practicable force. The United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force provides us with a good model on which to base any further expansion.
When restructuring our forces, we should above all avoid making short-term salami cuts for the sake of economy. That would pose a danger that has caused chronic problems in most other countries that have faced the same difficulties. Such economies usually prove expensive in the long run: they demoralise the armed forces, and leave them thoroughly ill balanced and incapable of fulfilling any military role. The result is a shambles.
The Army has had to face some pretty drastic changes in the past. In 1957, when conscription ended, it became an all-volunteer force, relying on the Territorial Army for further expansion. It weathered the storm, but the 1960s and 1970s brought both amalgamations and disbandments. When the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), was a Back Bencher, he and I would carry into the House ballot box after ballot box loaded with requests for us to save the Argylls. Thank goodness we had the sense to do so. We do not want to go through that again if we can help it.
During the past 33 years—since the end of conscription—our all-volunteer Army has served us well. It has, on the whole, been well equipped and exceedingly well led, and its soldiers have attained the highest professional standards.

563
A criticism by two officers was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda; I do not know how an army with such a background could achieve the reputation that our Army has achieved, not only in this country but worldwide. The nation has every right to be proud of its bearing, and greatful for what it has done. We simply cannot afford to destroy the best of what we have built. Events may require a smaller Army, but it must nevertheless be capable of sustaining its skills.
Let me seek two specific assurances from the Government. The first concerns the best use of a demographically shrinking and increasingly valuable commodity—manpower and womanpower. The second concerns the need to prevent short-term financial measures from causing irreparable damage to defence research and development. Such programmes increasingly underpin the fighting capabilities of our armed forces. Their morale must not be harmed; they should have well-defined roles, and be capable of rapid expansion from a firm and stable base should conditions for preserving the peace deteriorate.
If all that is to be done, as economically as possible, our smaller Regular Army will depend more than ever on a rapid reinforcement capability, provided by a well trained and well equipped Territorial Army. I hope that the Ministers have considered the concept of integrating regular and TA units. They may also have considered providing more support units for the Regular Army from the TA. Such measures may help us to avoid having to disband overstretched regiments, with all the attendant pain, anguish and damage to Army traditions that we experienced in the 1960s and 1970s.
We must, of course, look to the Government to provide the necessary financial incentives for the TA and the reserve forces, but I believe that a trade-off will be possible. There will be a greater proportion of troops in the front-line combat formations in a smaller Regular Army, ready at short notice to carry out peacekeeping roles and to cope with emergencies before they escalate. A reduction in the Army's presence in Europe could lead to a recognition that we can play a stabilising and peacekeeping role in some areas outside Europe, along with our European allies. Unlike other hon. Members, I am thinking less of eastern Europe than of places perhaps more significant to our national interests: I have in mind the threats posed from the Gulf, the middle east and north Africa. Thinking along such lines could lead to important changes in the equipment and roles of our armed forces.
As I have said, my second point concerns research and development. The days when British forces kept the peace, or skirmished with lightly armed but intrepid fuzzy-wuzzies, are, of course, long past. Not so long ago—between the two world wars—we allowed not only the manpower of our army, but the quality and modernity of its equipment, to decline. The dismal result has been that, too often in our history, our men have had to fight using the weapons, tactics and ideas of a previous war.
Today—leaving aside the strength and quality of the Soviet armed forces, which will clearly remain prodigious for some time—quite minor powers are extremely well equipped, possessing superior, sophisticated conventional electronic equipment, chemical warfare weapons and ballistic missiles. In the not too distant future, we shall witness the application of artificial intelligence systems on the battlefield.
564
No doubt the Treasury has already fixed its jaundiced eye on the £450 million spent on research by the Ministry of Defence. We should accept that modern armies may not always have the gold-plated equipment that they so often desire, but R and D is the seedcorn: if I may change my metaphor, it cannot be switched on and off. Its future demands the most careful planning, not only for our Army's sake but for the sake of our defence-based industries. I hope that I shall not be accused of taking advantage of my connection with MEL, a defence subsidiary of Philips.
In today's more technical world, a smaller army will depend more than ever on the right scientific and technical back-up and will require its skills to be tested continually by the fruits of research. If Ministers must deny the Army the production orders that it seeks, I ask them to stand firm on the need for development—at least up to prototype stage—and for the technical demonstration tests that can do so much to decide whether a piece of equipment should be ordered.
If the Government adopt such measures, should technical innovation threaten the balance and efficiency of our forces or a new threat loom on the horizon, we shall be able to retain in the United Kingdom—or in conjunction with our NATO allies—a sound base on which to expand and meet the new conditions. I wish my right hon. Friends every success in their endeavour.
6.57 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the past year, single-service debates have given us the opportunity to consider some rather wider issues—as was eloquently demonstrated in the tour d'horizon with which the Minister favoured the House. The theme of his remarks was change, and the need for its acceptance—a prospect that perhaps bears more accurately on the Army than on the other two services.
The changes in Europe will undoubtedly result in a reduction in the British Army of the Rhine; undoubtedly, the purpose for much of our Army procurement and deployment will be overtaken by the substantial political and, subsequently, military changes that have occurred in Europe, especially in the past 12 months. If we are to have more mobile and flexible forces—forces that are leaner and meaner—the great debate about tanks versus helicopters will have to reach some conclusion.
Perhaps that conclusion will be provoked by the arrival of September, when we shall reach an important staging post in the determination of which tank is to be favoured. Perhaps, however, a more fundamental and radical question should be whether we should consider replacing the tank at all. That is one of the important issues that are undoubtedly being considered in connection with the options for change, to which I shall return shortly.
The much publicised desire of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to get £1 billion out of the defence budget is the wrong way to approach the changing landscape presented by defence issues. Would not the proper way be to assess the nature of the threat, determine the means necessary to meet it and then to budget to provide those means? Whether it is the Chief Secretary trying to get £1 billion off the defence budget or the annual conference of the Labour party voting to take £5 billion off it, each is as flawed as the other.

565
Approaching the issue from a budgetary viewpoint may result in precisely the sort of defects to which the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) eloquently referred. It was notable that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) placed great stress on the criticism of the options for change. That criticism would have had more force had it contained some recanting of the decision taken by the annual conference of the Labour party last September.
If the nature of the threat has changed, and if the threat is reduced—which is generally accepted—there appears to be a more widespread acceptance in the House that there is no guarantee that there will be an immediate financial dividend. If there is to be a meaner and leaner force, we shall be looking for better equipment and conditions. If we are endeavouring to meet the demands of the demographic trough, with the forces trying to attract people of the right calibre, good conditions—not just of housing, but of holidays and pay—will be important factors. The forces will have to be better trained, which will be relatively more expensive than it is now.
Those who claim that there is an immediate peace dividend and that money can be swapped from one column to another—that it can be spent on health, education or other areas thought to be more socially desirable—fail to address the considerable financial consequences that will undoubtedly follow the necessary restructuring of the forces.
I cannot understand why the Government will not embark upon a full-scale defence review, especially as NATO is about to embark upon such a review, in which the issues of flexible response and forward defence will be up for debate. During the next month or so, consideration will be given to whether to adopt a policy of no first use for nuclear weapons. Those would be fundamental changes in NATO's doctrine. Why, then, are the Government so reluctant to embark upon a parallel examination of the United Kingdom position through a full-scale defence review?
I do not doubt that, in the foreseeable future, the need for NATO will remain. I understand the aspirations of those who wish for a different architecture for the security of Europe to be created through the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. However, we must remember that that organisation, as currently constituted, has certain inherent defects. For example, it operates only if there is unanimity. It includes such great military powers as San Marino. In its present form, it is not qualified for the sort of tasks that many people wish it to undertake. Unless and until it becomes so qualified, NATO will have to remain, although not necessarily in its present form, with its present priorities and subject to its present doctrines. It is essential that NATO maintains a unanimity of purpose. It is essential that, as far as possible, we ensure that the 16 countries of NATO stay together in a unanimity of purpose on how security can best be maintained.
During the past two or three days, Mr. Gorbachev has been at pains to argue that we should not use the language of winners and losers in relation to NATO and the Warsaw treaty organisations. One could say, "He would, wouldn't he?" His organisation has collapsed; it is NATO that has been sustained. It is hardly surprising that he would like to devaluate NATO and to suggest that its
566
purpose has been achieved. There is no sensible option for the long-term security of Europe other than that a united Germany should remain in NATO.
There may be scope for imaginative protocols and arrangements that deal with the necessary steps to allay the apprehension and concern of the Soviet Union. In that, we may balance the question of how much we should give to ensure that Mr. Gorbachev does not come under unreasonable pressure. There are all sorts of sophisticated judgments to be made, but central to them and the basis on which they can properly be made is the general acceptance that a unified Germany within NATO will provide a keystone to the future security of Europe.
The issues that we are discussing should be the subject of a more open debate, as they are in the United States. Indeed, the defence periodicals from America tell us much about the Government's policies to which we do not have access in this country. There is a much publicised memorandum from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. I think that many of the assumptions in that memorandum are deeply flawed and I should like to offer my assistance to the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I believe that common sense would be sufficient to persuade the Minister that there are flaws in his memorandum. As a precursor to the annual debate on the defence estimates, I suggest that that much-publicised memorandum be placed in the Library, where we can all see it. It could then form the basis of an intelligent exchange of views so that we can all share in the thinking of Defence Ministers.
We are discussing extremely important issues that change their character almost daily. Many of the decisions that will be made in the United Kingdom during the next six to 12 months will have far-reaching consequences. That being so, they should be made against the background of an informed, constructive and, if necessary, noisy debate about where the best interests of the United Kingdom lie. In the resolution of these issues, there is little doubt that the British Army will continue to play an important role. I join others in paying tribute to its achievements, not least in Northern Ireland.
7.8 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: Because it is such a rare event, I must be careful not to be too enthusiastic in agreeing with one part of what was said by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I very much agree with what he said about the unfairness of the community charge on service men in general and on Ghurkas in particular. The Ghurkas are my constituents and my objections are well known and well publicised. I do not say that simply to criticise the Government. I hope that I am being constructive, because I know that it was not the wish of the Ministry of Defence. Unfortunately, the argument with the Department of the Environment and the Treasury was lost and, rightly, Defence Ministers must now live with that collective decision. However, as there is now a review of the community charge, I very much hope that, as a result of the debate and because of what I and my hon. Friends have said both publicly and privately, this matter will be put before it.
Unlike some of the other measures which seem to be needed for the community charge, this costs nothing and it will put right an injustice which has been strongly felt within the armed services, whose personnel are unique in

567
that they cannot choose where to live and, as a result of the circumstances in which they find their posting, are forced to pay the community charge. We should go back to an average share, which is what they paid under the old rating system, and which would be seen to be fair. Of course they must contribute, but a soldier may have a £500 fine attached to his posting which he cannot choose and that is seen as genuinely unfair. I hope that the Ministry will put that matter into the melting pot of discussions that are taking place at the moment.
Since we last had a service debate, the Select Committee has lost one of its members. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has left as result of his resigning the Labour Whip. Much as I deeply resent the personal attacks that he has made on me behind my back and to the press in articles which are patently untrue and which are the subject of a complaint to the Press Council, it would be churlish of me not to record his valuable service during six years on the Committee, where his experience and expertise and the diligence with which he carried out his duties have been much appreciated by all his colleagues on both sides of the Committee. We are sorry to see him go.
We welcome in the hon. Member's place the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I hope that he will be happy serving with us. He maintains the 75 per cent. of Scots on the Opposition side of the Committee, for reasons which are best known to the Labour party, and which I would not try to analyse. I think that the sole English Labour Member had hoped for a little reinforcement, but I have no doubt that he will be happy with what he has got.
I must make brief remarks about the sixth report of the Committee on the fiscal security of military installations in the United Kingdom. Much has been said of the terrorist threat and I do not need to go over the background, but it was in the light of the enhanced threat and, most particularly, following the explosion at the Royal Marines school of music at Deal on 22 September 1989 in which I I bandsmen were killed, that the Committee decided to follow up the report which the previous Committee had made in 1984. That report had concentrated on the future security arrangements for the royal ordnance factories and on the threat to the security of nuclear bases arising from protesters at that time which, thankfully, has now passed.
We devoted 20 paragraphs of our report to the security arrangements at royal ordnance factories, now under private ownership. We are not wholly satisfied with what we found. We doubt whether the Ministry of Defence was acting quite straightforwardly in 1988 in permitting MOD police to be replaced at Blackburn and Birtley by commercial security guards. We do not criticise the replacement of MOD police at Westcott and Bishopton by the new Royal Ordnance plc guard force, but we are anxious that the Ministry of Defence should take steps to remove the impression that the level of security has been lowered and that the Department should continue to take a close and informed interest in royal ordnance security arrangements.
Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mates: The 10-minute rule is in operation, but I shall give way.
Dr. Godman: In paragraph 75 of the report, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues talk about the need to monitor the quality of the police force at Bishopton. How would that monitoring take place?
Mr. Mates: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman at length now. I am sorry to be restricted in my remarks. However, my hon. Friend the Minister has heard what he said, and it is his job to do exactly that. If I may go on to answer some of the other recommendations that we have made, I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman.
That interest also applies to the other five royal ordnance factories, where both the Ministry and the police forces involved seek the continuation of an MOD police presence alongside a company guard force. Royal Ordnance has restricted the extra costs—around £1·2 million a year—which that would involve, but British Aerospace was well aware of the special position of MOD police at royal ordnance factories when it purchased the company. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure us that a proper solution has now been found to the question of security arrangements at royal ordnance factories and that the company has accepted the expert advice of the Ministry of Defence and local police officers.
However, our major concern is with the growing use by the Ministry of Defence of commercial security companies. So far as we were able to publish them, the facts are set out in the report. About 56 sites are commercially guarded, at an annual cost of about £5 million. That is not a major financial commitment, and the vast majority of MOD and service sites are not commercially guarded. It is important to keep the matter in perspective. Commercial guarding is primarily used to release service personnel for other tasks. As we say in the report,
"It is a fundamental part of the duties of service personnel to protect themselves and their bases."
That must not be overlooked.
However, such guarding duties mean that service personnel are not free to carry out other tasks for which they are trained. That makes the use of commercial security firms attractive. There are alternatives to replacing or supplementing service men with commercial security firms. Ministry of Defence police, who have full police powers and training, are already stretched and are expensive. The Royal Air Force has its own police force, over 3,000 strong. But the main policy choice lies between an expanded MOD civilian guard force and the wider use of contractors.
From our examination of the experience which the services and the MOD have had with commercial security companies and of the screening by such companies of potential employees, we cannot accept that further contracts should be awarded for commercial security guarding. As for existing contracts, many are apparently being satisfactorily performed, and the service directors of security showed no desire to lose the services of the companies concerned.
We would like tougher enforcement by the MOD of contractual sanctions against those companies which have not come up to scratch. At the moment, it seems that unsatisfactory levels of performance are tolerated for far too long because termination would leave a site unguarded. We recommend a searching review during the next few years of the security implications of using

569
commercial guards at every site where they are used and that consideration be given in every case to the possibility of replacement by an MOD guard force.
At the moment, the Ministry of Defence is getting what it pays for, no more and no less. In some cases it is a second-rate service and so a potentially dangerous one. Either it must spend more on getting a better service or provide it itself through direct employment of a guard force. As a politician and a former soldier, all my instincts point to the latter as the more sensible course of action.
I had hoped to make a few remarks on my own account about the wider scene as it affects the Army, but this is the first time that I have been caught by the 10-minute rule while having to speak on behalf of my Committee, to which I thought my first duty lay. Therefore, I shall simply say one thing.
A robust debate is going on inside and outside the Ministry of Defence about the options for the future, and that is right. I know, perhaps more than most at the moment, that everything that one reads in the newspaper about oneself is not true, and I am sure that that also applies to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. He has always had robust views on defence, some of which I have agreed with and some of which I have not, but all of which I have always enjoyed debating with him.
I advise one word of caution to everybody everywhere, inside and outside the House, when we are discussing the future structure of our services: do not let us forget or put in jeopardy the most precious asset that those services have—the men and women who serve in them. It is in that regard that talk of numbers, of battalions, of ships, of specific reductions long before we have had a chance maturely to decide what the residual threat is, if any, and where it is likely to occur, is putting the cart before the horse.
I am not alleging that my hon. Friend's remarks in that regard were correctly quoted: I make no comment about that, because I do not know. However, it behoves all of us to conduct the debate in a rational way, and that means to look at what is the residual threat, what it is that we shall need, the sort of way in which we must approach the matter and what the new NATO will look like. Then and only then should we start talking about numbers, places and people. To allow our service men to continue to operate in that area of uncertainty is bad for their morale, and bad for us as responsible people conducting this debate, and it serves nobody's interests.
7.18 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I want to argue this evening in favour of a radical review of, and eventually a radical reduction in, the defence budget and in NATO's overall defence budget. Now that the era of east-west confrontation is drawing to a close, we have a golden opportunity to begin to realise what has been referred to as the peace dividend. I take on board the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that it will be difficult to realise that dividend—which is why I go further than some of my hon. Friends might wish to go, and further than my party has gone in its latest policy document, "Looking to the Future".
570
The inevitable consequence of the radical reduction in defence spending now in prospect, combined with the increasing costs of military technology and development, is that the days of national armies in Europe are fast drawing to a close. Political logic and hard economics point to a future in which multinational armies will be trained and deployed together, use the same equipment, follow the same procedures and doctrines, and serve together as a single collective defence force.
In Europe, the natural focus for such a multinational defence force is the European Community. The long-term consequence—and by the long term, I mean the end of this decade or the beginning of the next century—of the ending of the cold war in Europe will be the establishment of what will be to all intents and purposes a European Community army backed up, as it must be, by common Community defence and foreign policy.
I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the officers and men of the various regiments of the Army and the Army Air Corps who played host to three parliamentary colleagues and myself over the past year, when we participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. The insight that I gained from that experience into the day-to-day workings and conditions of service men has proved invaluable. It certainly confirmed my admiration for the Army's high standards of professionalism and service. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for organising that scheme, and to the Minister and his officials at the Ministry of Defence, who helped the scheme along.
One strong impression that I gained from participating in that scheme was the huge impact of the poll tax on service men and the resentment that that is causing. Soldiers are experiencing the inequity and raw injustice of the poll tax in perhaps its starkest form. It is impossible to defend a situation in which a private soldier is expected to pay the same poll tax as a general. The Government will pay a high political price for that among many of their traditional supporters in the armed services.
Last month, I organised, together with the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), the first ever east-west conference of young elected politicians from almost all the countries of east, west and central Europe—including members of the USSR Supreme Soviet and politicians from north America. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces kindly attended and addressed that conference.
It was a great delight to spend time in the company of those young parliamentarians from the new democracies of eastern and central Europe. No one could do so without realising that the basic assumptions that previously underpinned British defence policy—based on the cold war and on confrontation between east and west—have collapsed. The great need now is to build a new policy on new foundations, based on a radical and searching review of our future defence requirements.
Everyone recognises the need for that—except, apparently, the British Government. Articles appear daily on that subject, and no intelligent debate on the armed forces could possibly take place without at least the outline of a fundamental defence review being sketched out—yet we are forced to conduct tonight's debate in a vacuum because of the Government's continuing and bizarre refusal even to acknowledge the need for such a review.
It is ironic that no country of the west needs the peace dividend more than the United Kingdom, because of its

571
traditionally high defence expenditure, yet no Government appears more reluctant to grasp that dividend than the present British Government. The strain on Britain's resources of sustaining a cold war military commitment over the past 40 years has been immense. In fact, it has been crippling. The cuckoo in the nest of our defence budgets has been our commitment to the central front. The cold war is over, the Warsaw pact is finished, and the USSR by itself no longer presents a realistic military threat to the west. Now is the time to begin to cast off our crippling burden of defence expenditure.
The Government plead the case for caution, yet other countries are forging ahead. The forthcoming United States defence budget will incorporate substantial cuts, and West Germany has announced a prospective reduction in its armed forces of almost 20 per cent. Those Governments recognise that, although there are worries surrounding the chaotic collapse of the Soviet empire, those worries are more for the Soviet peoples themselves than a realistic military danger to us.
As Jonathan Dean, the former United States ambassador to the MBFR talks recently argued, a 50 per cent. cut in NATO equipment and personnel over the next decade could realise defence budget savings of up to 30 per cent.—about $100 billion across NATO as a whole at today's prices. It is surely madness to tie up that money in arms and weapons one day longer than necessary when there are other, more urgent priorities to be met—particularly environmental priorities.
We ought to begin now the long-term withdrawal of the British Army of the Rhine as such and of RAF Germany from the central region. If British soldiers remain on the European continent into the next century, they should so so as part of a genuine European multinational force supported primarily out of Community funds. In that way, we could ensure that the future burden would be equally shared instead of falling disproportionately upon British taxpayers, as it has in the past.
That returns me to the need for closer European Community co-operation on defence. Even with today's inflated defence budgets, it is increasingly uneconomic for the nation states of western Europe to fulfil their procurement needs independently. It makes more and more sense to collaborate and procure jointly. At a time when defence budget cuts of 30 to 50 per cent. are being contemplated, individual national procurement policies will become simply impossible.
I realise that I am going further than my party's official policy and the views of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I believe that we need to enter in the future into an intimate collaboration of Community nations in both the procurement of weapons and the actual deployment of forces—including a possible single Community army. That will inevitably entail the convergence of national defence and foreign policies in Europe into a single Community policy. Such developments are not only inevitable because of the new context created by the ending of the cold war, and by the hard economic constraints that will be the direct consequence of major defence cuts, but are to he welcomed.
7.27 pm
Sir Antony Buck: The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) will forgive me if I do not follow him too much, save to comment that
572
I disagree profoundly with the proposition that he put forward. I disagree with it almost as profoundly as I suspect and hope that members of the Labour Front Bench disagree with it. Unilateral cuts of the magnitude suggested by the hon. Member for Western Isles would be catastrophic for our own defence posture and for that of NATO. We have had success in MBFR, and the START talks have offered considerable possibilities all the way through because we maintain a sensible and strong defence posture. I was gladdened that that was substantially on the basis of cross-party agreement. I suspect that views of the type expressed by the hon. Member for Western Isles are being increasingly adopted by Labour, which will cause it to be regarded with great suspicion, and rightly so, by the electorate generally.
I commend the fact that we are having this single-service debate. I was profoundly sceptical about the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence, with the abolition of single-service Ministers, because it seemed to be appropriate that there should be a Minister answerable in this place for each of the services. Those of us who did not like the reorganisation were reassured that there would be a single-service debate homing in on each of the three services—Navy, Army and Air Force—so that matters of relative detail could be aired on the Floor of the House from time to time, in the way that they ought to be aired.
I have the privilege of representing a substantial part of a garrison town—Colchester—which I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham). I am proud to represent that constituency, which contains such a strong military element. During the quarter of a century and more that I have had the pleasure to represent the area, I have received nothing but kindness from the military, which is exemplified by the fact that I was dined out by the military corrective training centre just before my recent marriage. I was given a party at the centre and they strongly advised that I stay under custody for the evening because they had every intention of getting me above the level of 80 mg per 100 ml. I think they only marginally succeeded, but it was an interesting place to spend a couple of nights before one's wedding.
Speaking more seriously, the military corrective training centre is a splendid organisation. One of the triumphs of the Government is that the centre has been rebuilt. When I first became the Member of Parliament for Colchester, the centre was in tin nissen huts. It was the last military establishment in such huts. For years I campaigned for it to be rebuilt, and at last we got it. The former Secretary of State, my right hon Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), opened the centre a couple of years ago and it was a splendid occasion.
I pay tribute to the work that the centre does. Considerable lessons are to be learnt by civilian prisons from the way in which it is organised. The centre has of course the advantage that all the soldiers under sentence are young and that there is a high ratio of soldiers under sentence to staff. My hon. Friends who are worried about the organisation of prisons should make an in-depth visit to the military corrective training centre, because there is much to be learned there.
It is a great privilege to represent Colchester, North. I have also been privileged to visit armed forces in all parts of the globe, wherever they serve. Some years ago I visited the Falklands as I led the first parliamentary delegation to the islands after the confrontation with the Argentinians.

573
I sought to go there on the task force, because there have always been parliamentarians actively involved where troops were in action. My father was in the 1914–18 war and he said that he could not understand a sudden disturbance in the trenches—it was a visit of parliamentarians in 1918.
The Whips prevented me from going on the task force because of the open-ended commitment that would be involved by my going there. None the less I had the privilege to visit the islands, leading the first parliamentary delegation after the confrontation.
The major lesson to be learned from the Falklands conflict is that it gave credibility to the whole of our western defence policy if the tough men of the Politburo were questioning whether "these so-and-so democracies" would ever do anything for democracy—would they just pass resolutions in the United Nations? We went to that massive expenditure of treasure and blood to defend the right of 1,800 people, mainly of British decent, to live in freedom. That demonstrated the western world's resolve, and also the sheer professionalism of our armed forces.
Let us remember our armed forces in the remoter parts of the world. I have also had the privilege of going to Belize. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will mention some of those areas which are outside NATO in his winding-up speech. We have a battalion and some Harriers in Belize. They maintain stability in the area and it is universally accepted that their presence helps to maintain peace there. Having visited the country, I realise that it also gives additional expertise to the armed forces, which have the opportunity to train in the different circumstances there.
The main burden of our armed forces is to maintain peace in Northern Ireland and our commitment to the British Army of the Rhine. I have always been sceptical whether we need a commitment of 55,000 troops to the British Army of the Rhine, and I remain sceptical. As long as there is a substantial commitment to the central European front, that is what is needed. We should not think that there would be immediate savings if we brought some of those market forces home. There would in fact be an immediate increase in the amount of money required because of the necessary refurbishment of barracks here and of re-equipment and the reinstallation of troops on the home front. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will mention the numbers of troops in the British Army of the Rhine.
One of the key issues for our defence forces and our defence posture is the maintenance of our links with the United States of America. I hope that a word may be said about the reciprocal arrangements with the American armed forces, because the link is very important. In any debate on defence we ought to pay tribute to the United States' commitment. It is remarkable that our allies in the United States maintain such a substantial number of troops in Europe. That should be acknowledged. The decoupling of the USA from the NATO alliance would be devastating to it.
I am constrained by the time limit imposed upon us in this debate and shall end as I began, by paying tribute to our armed forces. We are privileged that we have the opportunity to debate their affairs and to pay tribute to their professionalism and courage, and to the marvelous
574
support that they get from their families. Service in Northern Ireland and elsewhere places a great strain on their families. I like the way in which the armed forces always talk about "married families"—presumably as opposed to the others, the unmarried ones. That is a historic remnant. We are lucky in the professionalism of our armed forces and in the support that troops get from their families, not only in Colchester but throughout the United Kingdom. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
7.37 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis:I recognise that many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I am obliged to confine my remarks to that aspect of Army operations that I know best and with which I have been so closely associated, directly and indirectly, for the past 20 years: the internal security of this kingdom in the face of terrorism, especially the Provisional IRA.
Sadly, it has become almost routine for Ministers to have to address the House about casualties inflicted on the Army as it performs its onerous responsibilities, placing itself between the terrorists and the law-abiding civilian community in Northern Ireland, Britain and Europe. It is a role that our soldiers have carried out in the most difficult circumstances with a self-restraint which sets them apart from probably any other Army in the world. On behalf of my party, I acknowledge with gratitude the sacrifice that our serving men and women continue to make.
Early in the report by the Select Committee on Defence, "The Physical Security of Military Installations in the United Kingdom", the point is made that there is ever a choice to be made between security and value for money. I am realistic enough to appreciate that. However, I wonder how one measures value for money in terms of lives of our troops or ultimately our civilian population.
I must pose a question—is it Government policy to tackle terrorism in a proactive or a reactive manner? My experience has been that the latter is the case and that the Government, not in a premeditated manner, but de facto, pursue an "acceptable level of violence" policy for purely fiscal reasons. That caution is paid for in innocent lives and provides the terrorist with the time and opportunity to alter his tactics. Thus the element of surprise is a constant weapon in the armoury of the terrorist. Surely, with the easing of tension between east and west in Europe, we should be seeing more of our military resources channelled towards resolving the grave internal security problem with which we have wrestled for so long.
Has the Minister looked carefully at the constraints placed on the operational needs of our troops in Northern Ireland as a result of the dearth of adequate helicopter hours? Will he concede that more of the considerable resources presently based in Germany could be better deployed to give operational flexibility in Northern Ireland? If he considers the recent deaths of four members of an Ulster Defence Regiment patrol as they travelled in a Land-Rover, he will fully understand that point.
Operational commanders are often frustrated in their efforts to pre-empt and pursue terrorists because of logistical difficulties. Helicopters are extremely expensive, but they are no more expensive flying in Northern Ireland than in Germany. I do not want to labour the point further, except to say that I have yet to meet a battalion

575
commander who does not feel that he is operationally inhibited and that his men are forced to endure too many avoidable risks because of the lack of that resource.
On the UDR, how pleased I was to read the Stevens report on the leaks inquiry and to find myself wholly vindicated in my opinion that no evidence would be found of an organised or widespread conspiracy to furnish loyalist paramilitaries with confidential information. I have noted carefully the Minister's response to my earlier intervention and I suspect from what he said that he, like many others, including myself, believes that the Stevens operation in which 28 innocent UDR men were arrested in a massive early Sunday morning operation was a callous and ill-judged political stunt. I am sure that neither of us would wish to see such a dangerous blunder repeated.
As I have previously asserted, I have no personal experience of bad apples in the regiment, although some people would like to suggest otherwise for political reasons. Those people, either foolishly or maliciously, play into the hands of the Provisional IRA and help to prolong the suffering of our community. There are no bad apples, but I have known far too many bruised apples—those who, after facing the unrelenting threat of imminent murder over many years, become physically, mentally and emotionally drained. I welcome the provision for each permanent cadre soldier of a warrant for himself, his wife and young children so that they can go to Great Britain, the Isle of Man or the Channel islands for an annual holiday. I hope that that is the beginning of a new awareness of the need to care for those who constantly live under such stressful conditions.
I ask the Minister to give serious thought to extending that concession to the part-time UDR soldier, who probably lives an even more precarious existence, especially in his civilian employment. To start with, perhaps, the warrant could be given to those who have earned their annual bounty by carrying out the required operational duties, training and camp commitment. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the real need here.
I draw the Minister's attention to the lack in Northern Ireland of any "exercise executive stretch" scheme for employers of members of the Territorial Army. Indeed, the scheme could also be applied to the employers of members of the UDR. I understand the security difficulties, but I suggest that a similar scheme would be useful.
It would surprise many people if they knew how many serving soldiers in Northern Ireland, particularly part-time members of the UDR, have to sacrifice their annual summer holiday to attend camp. Although some have to do that for security reasons, so that they do not draw undue attention to their membership of the regiment, others find that after 20 years, bosses are not altogether amenable or co-operative. The sacrifice of a holiday week puts pressure on family time and can create domestic problems. I hope that that aspect of soldier welfare can be examined and that a subtle programme for re-educating employers can be undertaken. We should not expect even the stoutest and bravest soldiers to endure, as many have, 20 years of mental and often physical brutality from the terrorist and yet to remain unscathed.
As we have seen over the past 20 years, terrorism does not respond to reasoning or to concessions, no matter how generous or well intentioned. It will recede only if it faces a community that remains resolute to withstand what it knows to be evil. In this democratic society, we as a
576
community depend, in the last resort, on our Army acting in support of the civil power. It is therefore imperative, despite overall financial constraints, that we take adequate steps to ensure that the Army is not deployed in the Northern Ireland theatre in a purely reactive role. The adequate resourcing, welfare and morale of our forces, especially in Northern Ireland, must be seen to be primary and constant concerns of the House in general and of the Government in particular.
7.46 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: I want to open with a word of advice for the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), made a clear reference to what he would do about tanks. He said that he wanted an order placed for them and that he thought that there was also a good role for a mobile strike force. He was talking about increased expenditure and I advise him to be careful when he goes to his party conference this year. I suspect that the authentic voice of the Labour party will be talking far more about the peace dividend this year than he believes. Let him beware. We shall all watch with interest to see how the conference goes.
It is almost a year since we had our previous debate on the Army. As many hon. Members have said this evening, if one reads that debate it is incredible to see how far we are removed from our thinking last year. However, there is one inescapable fact. People talk about the Warsaw pact and the NATO Alliance as if they were both still in being. The fact is that the Warsaw pact is dead in military terms, it is dead in political terms and it has no relevance. With the greatest respect to Mr. Gorbachev, it is nonsense for him still to try to create the illusion of a balance between the two forces and for him to call, therefore, for a joint reduction. None of us should pay any attention to that.
It is logical that we should look at a reshaping of the structure and composition of our armed forces against the changes that have taken place in Europe. There is a diminished threat of a land battle in Europe and that must mean a total rethink of the composition of our armed forces in Germany and of NATO armed forces as well. I am not seeking to undermine the morale of our armed forces in saying that; it is a fact.
Whether one is serving with a tank regiment in Germany or with a parachute battalion in the United Kingdom, one knows that the chessmen on the board have moved. Therefore, we should react to that. The case for restructuring has been made. Also, a clear case has been made for an expansion of our air mobility strike force. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that we need a force that can hit hard and fast at longer ranges. That leads me to the inescapable conclusion that he must be talking about some form of airborne formation arid, I hope, an enlarged one.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: You would, wouldn't you?
Sir Jim Spicer: Indeed I would.
In that context, I am quite certain that Ministers and their advisers in the Ministry of Defence will have read with interest an article in The Times of 14 May by General Sir Geoffrey Howlett, the newly retired commander-in-chief of allied forces, north. He made the case for that new force to be built up not as an airborne brigade but as an

577
airborne division. His wealth of experience and his role as a NATO commander must lead us to take note of what he said. He called for 5 Airborne Brigade, 24 Air Mobile Brigade and the Commando Brigade to be brought together under one umbrella to form an air mobile division. Of course that will be costly—everyone accepts that—but, equally, there must be some offset in the changes that will inevitably take place on the land front in Europe.
There is not much point in thinking about such an organisation unless we also think of the back-up that will have to come from the Territorial Army. For the past 25 years we have relied on calling upon young men to join the TA because of the reality of a Soviet threat in Europe. To say the least, that threat has diminished over the past few months, and I hope that it will diminish even further. What will now be the incentive for ordinary young men willingly to join the TA? What will we say to them? Will we say, "You have a role—we have a need of you"? I would seek to link the new air mobile division, which I hope will be formed, to an enhanced role for the TA.
There is nothing new in defence terms. I was G3 of 16 Airborne Division when it was disbanded and it became 16 Para Brigade. I would love to see that division reformed, because in every major city in the United Kingdom there would be a parachute battalion that could easily be linked to its regular opposite number as a regular air mobile battalion. I have not expanded on this as much as I should like, but we would certainly get the recruits for such a division. We must offer young men adventure and the opportunity to travel. They would get that as TA soldiers within an airborne formation to a much greater extent than they would anywhere else.
There are people who say that we can exercise our options in the immediate future. I do not think that we can. We must assess the threat, as has been said on both sides. Who can say what the threat will be in one year, let alone in 20 years? Beyond that, until December, when the first elections in unified Germany are held, we must keep every option open. I say that because there is just an outside chance that the Social Democrats might win the election in Germany. If they did so, they would immediately form a coalition with the Greens and, as has been stated, there would be the possibility of a neutralised German state outside the NATO alliance. The thought of that fills me with fear.
Germany's membership of NATO is of supreme importance to the peace of the continent. I pay tribute to Chancellor Kohl for all that he has done in the past and I hope for his resounding success and that of his allies in the elections in a united Germany. For the sake of every person not only in this country but in the rest of the world, I hope and pray Chancellor Kohl will win the election and that we shall not have to live with the Greens and Social Democrats in government.
7.55 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Unlike the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) I should have thought that a neutral Germany was something that we could look forward to with great pleasure rather than
578
fear. The history of Europe shows that the level of arms in Germany, rather than the prospect of it being neutral, has frightened people for most of this century.
The question that I ask has been posed in every debate on the armed services and on the defence estimates. Have the Government a defence review or not? The official position is that the Government are not carrying out a defence review; they are looking for options for change. Who is in charge of options for change? Is it the Secretary of State or the Minister of State? The worst aspect is that the debate seems to be conducted by leaks and counter-leaks rather than discussion of the future of our defence forces.
I understand the arguments that were deployed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and one or two other hon. Members, about the effect that a full review would have on morale. The morale of our armed forces will be damaged far more if personnel learn about what is happening through leaks. They listen to rumours and, on the whole, they are kept in the dark. I make a strong plea that we want the most open public debate about what our armed forces are supposed to do in the future, what options they have, and how we can most effectively respond. We must get away from the idea that most of our defence policy can be conducted and discussed in secret rather than in proper public debate.
It is typical of the Government's approach that they believe in deceit and duplicity. They publicly welcome the removal of cruise missiles from Greenham Common but, at the same time, encourage the Americans to bring back those same missiles as sea-launched weapons.
I wish to raise three specific matters, the first of which relates to troops. Several hon. Members have said that we shall find it increasingly difficult to recruit 18-year-olds into the armed forces simply because there are far fewer 18-year-olds and competition for them will be increasingly strong. We shall need far fewer 18-year-olds if we can get troop reductions in West Germany. Obviously, by 1997, we shall also have fewer troops in the far east and Hong Kong. However, there will still be major recruitment problems, so we must look at the balance.
At the moment, our troops spend time in West Germany, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. As we reduce our commitment for troops outside the United Kingdom we must look at the proportion of time that they will serve in Northern Ireland and, in particular, take into account the effect on their families, wives and parents and the possible pressure on them not to complete a long stint abroad. As part of the review we must look at the role of the Army in Northern Ireland and, possibly, the training of Army personnel if they are to spend most of their time in a role in Northern Ireland rather than in a combat role.
My second point relates to an issue that has already been referred to—the future of the tank. Hon. Members have questioned whether there is now any prospect of tanks rolling across the plains of Europe from the east and have wondered what our response should now be. There is also the question whether we can do the same things much more effectively using helicopters rather than tanks. We must also consider the number of orders that might be placed for a new generation of tanks.
However, my main point relates specifically to the training of the people who will use the tanks. In recent years there has clearly been growing resentment in West Germany about the training there of our people in our tanks. I believe that the continuation of such training will

579
now be totally unacceptable to the West Germans. Indeed, I am amazed that people have put up with the nuisance and the difficulties caused by that training. It is almost certain that we shall have to look elsewhere for those training facilities.
Have the Government considered whether the level of tank training that now takes place in West Germany would be acceptable in the United Kingdom? We must bear in mind the amount of land that will be required for any such future tank training.
That brings me to a question that I have raised many times in the House—the amount of land that is owned by the military in the United Kingdom, and the use to which it is put. I believe that the military still has 250,000 hectares, much of which was grabbed during the first and second world wars, when no one really questioned whether it was essential. Since then, evidence has continued to suggest that the military has far more land than is absolutely necessary.
There was a lot of pressure in 1968 and 1969 to set up an inquiry into defence land. There was also the Nugent committee review between 1971 and 1973. Considering that that committee comprised many people from the Ministry of Defence and was perhaps biased towards their point of view, it came up with some fairly strong recommendations for the release of a great deal of the defence land. I accept that since then some of the land has been released, but a lot more land could be. Much of the land that has been released has been on the urban fringes rather than in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The Ministry of Defence now seems to be considering ways in which it can get a bit of extra land. It put forward proposals for an extra range at Luddesdown in Kent and blew its proposals for bagging a large area of extra land at Knoydart in Scotland. On both occasions the Government seemed to back off—first because of a public inquiry, and secondly because of public pressure. Some of the current leaks suggest that if troops return from Germany, the Government will need to look for extra land. Worryingly, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces made it clear that the Ministry of Defence is looking for extra land. However, I would argue strongly that it should be looking to release land, especially in Pembroke and in the Pennines.
I realise that there are major problems with some of those areas of land, because they contain unexploded ammunition and bombs. However, I plead with the Government to work hard at speeding the process of removing and disposing of that ammunition and those bombs from such areas, and then returning the land to public access.
All the evidence relating to the options that the Government are considering suggests that defence expenditure on equipment will be reduced over the next three or four years. If that is the case, it has serious implications for the defence contractors in this country. We should be considering an arms conversion agency. In the changing circumstances, we cannot justify this country continuing to spend so much on arms and we cannot expect other countries to continue to spend as much with our arms manufacturers.
I do not want to see people put out of jobs. I do not want people to have to face the choice of continuing to produce further useless weapons or becoming unemployed, because I know the choice that most people would make. I want to ensure that those people can make useful
580
things and that we do get a peace dividend not simply for the Government, but for those who have worked in armaments who should be enabled to work in other areas.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), I firmly believe that the message that the Government—and my own Front Bench—must now accept is that over the next few years the British people will be looking for a peace dividend. They do not accept that, if the United States can start cutting ․17 billion from its defence expenditure and there can be a 20 per cent. cut in arms in West Germany and substantial peace dividends in East Germany and the Soviet Union, there cannot be a peace dividend in the United Kingdom—
Mr. Rogers: I must advise my hon. Friend that I said that there would be a peace dividend, but not an immediate one. The changes that need to take place to adapt to the new political—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is already out of time.
Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) rose to intervene, I noted that I had another minute to go, in which I would have emphasised that, yes, we want a peace dividend and it must be planned. We must ensure that we get a peace dividend over the next few years and that we do not pass up that opportunity.
8.5 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is completely wrong about military land. I was partly responsible for the approach on the Knoydart peninsula, when the new Secretary of State's first decision was that we should not proceed. The estate was subsequently broken up and access is restricted. The Ministry of Defence would have served the hon. Gentleman's interests far better than he perhaps appreciates.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the debate being about leaks. There are two sorts of secrets in the Ministry of Defence—the military secrets, which are kept impeccably, and the other secrets, which seem to get out according to whose interests might be served by ensuring that they get into whatever newspaper might suit. I assume that the rumour that the Treasury is looking for a cut of £1 billion as a peace dividend came from the Treasury, so I do not accuse the Ministry of Defence of that. The rumour smacked of Treasury tricks of the worst order. I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or his officials will read the Hansard report of this debate with care because there is a surprising unanimity—certainly among Conservative Members—about how we should treat the changing events in relation to finance.
I have attended these service debates for many years now and I am sure that my colleagues who are also regular attenders will agree that there has been a complete change of tone in this debate. It has been a much more thoughtful occasion, in which there has been much closer agreement between hon. Members of all parties. That is commendable and in the national interest.
The second leak that we seem to be debating is that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has made some suggestions that are now circulating within the Ministry of Defence, and that in some way that

581
represents a split and an outrageous difference of opinion within the Ministry. One of the saddest things is that it is extremely difficult for Ministers to put out their original thoughts if those thoughts are subsequently leaked. There must be debate within Departments. There must be thought and there must be an appreciation of change.
If my hon. Friend's paper has been properly reported, I must confess to disagreeing with quite a bit of it and I should be happy to debate it, but I hope that all Ministers are putting forward their own ideas—not only in the Ministry of Defence. This is a moment of change, and change must be debated both within and without Government, and in the House. It is extremely important that the House should give its opinions.
Something that worries me is that, from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, we have unstable Governments in the very countries that have caused us most of the wars in Europe for the past 2,000 years. It would be lunacy to imagine that, simply because the Warsaw pact has collapsed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) has pointed out—we should now drop our guard. The threat may well come in some different and unknown way. The history of warfare shows that that is often the case.
For ourselves, pulling out of Germany will be a long and expensive business, as will be the case for the Russians when they pull out of the Warsaw pact. Without a substantial reduction in numbers, we do not have the accommodation to bring the British Army of the Rhine back to the United Kingdom at present. We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on building the Germans some fine barracks, hospitals and workshops, but that is history and we must live with it.
I was more sorry to hear that some exercises had been cancelled as a result of the changes. That is neither good for morale nor a sensible economy. It is not fair on the troops. I do not know the details, but I ask Ministers to be careful before changing the carefully organised routine of BAOR. I note that the Secretary of State said on 9 March at the Royal United Services Institute:
"there could be a need for flexible and more mobile forces, properly equipped, well trained and well motivated".
Many of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members have said that that is the future.
It will come as no surprise to Ministers to learn that I believe that helicopters are an extremely important part of any Army, whether we remain as we are or change our position. The Defence Select Committee report on the EH101 said:
"MOD's consideration of the requirement for support helicopters, and the way in which such a requirement should be met, stretches back to the mid 1970's and the matter needs urgent resolution. Indeed, MOD have in the past contributed to their own difficulties, as a result of their inability to bring themselves to a position where their philosophy for mobility on the battlefield of the 1990's and beyond could be stated, and thus a firm requirement determined."
That puts it in a nutshell. The military has never made up its mind. It is ready to blame Westland. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and I have many Westland employees in our constituencies. I have no doubt that Westland is often incompetent, but it certainly deals with a difficult customer. If only the Government
582
could take the military, shake it hard and say, "What do you really want? Get on and order it," we might make some progress.
The 24 Air Mobile Brigade is no more mobile than a bicycle battalion. If we took enough helicopters to give 24 Brigade as many helicopters as its United States, French or German equivalent, there would be no helicopters left in the Air Force or the Army. That is the state of play of our air mobility.
While I entirely welcome the statement made in the Navy debate by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement that he proposes to go ahead with the EH 101 naval version, I hope that the promise of the then Secretary of State for Defence that
"the Government have decided to introduce the Utility EH101 to meet that requirement"—[Official Report, 9 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 471.]
will be met. That was three years ago. We were all pleased to have that announcement, but nothing further has happened.
I entirely share the view of many of my hon. Friends that the Territorial Army must have a brighter future. It must have a larger proportion of the Army's total budget. Its share is still small. The TA is tackling the problem of officers to some extent. The problem varies from one end of the country to the other, but the fact remains that busy young men who are the sort of leaders needed to keep the TA on the road are the very people who are keeping industry and commerce going. While it is not difficult to recruit in London, in many parts of the country finding the right grade of officers and keeping them is a problem.
Whatever the mythology may be, pay matters. Paying all sections of the TA generously would be no bad thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said that the TA could perhaps become part of Regular Army units. That is an interesting idea, which should perhaps be pursued. Until the Regular Army takes the TA more seriously, the TA will have problems. I suggest again that recruiting for the TA should become the responsibility of the Regular Army. That would concentrate the mind of the Army. It would be its money and it would see at first hand why young soldiers do not stay in the TA.
I am delighted, as we all are, with the political changes that have taken place recently, but I do not feel any more secure militarily speaking than 12 months ago. This is no time to drop our guard.
8.13 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: One thing on which we can all agree this evening, if on nothing else, is that this debate takes place against an amazing backdrop of momentous events in eastern Europe and, indeed, western Europe. For the first time, the map of Europe is being redrawn peacefully. It is not being done by force of arms; it is not coming about as a result of a military defeat or a military victory. It is absolutely breathtaking. Events are moving so fast that it is difficult for us to keep up with them.
Among all those who never predicted the changes, there seems to be a welter of experts telling us how they took place and why. Ministers are among the worst offenders in that respect. The Minister's opening speech was an example of it. We heard that it is all effectively the result of the nuclear weapons of the west bringing the Soviets to their senses. That is a one-dimensional, simplistic

583
approach. The theory is particularly prevalent among the right wing of the military establishment, both in Britain and in the United States. If I remember rightly, they are the same people who were for ever telling us how far the west was behind the Soviets in terms of nuclear warheads, conventional weapons and technology. The Minister himself said that, although the Soviets were withdrawing from central Europe, we must bear it in mind that they have enormous strength in conventional weapons, far greater than ours, so we must keep our conventional defences.
How the hell will the Soviets get to us if we have a conventional war? Will they have to fight their way across Poland, Czechoslovakia and a united Germany before they make contact with us? The completely different scenario must be taken into account by the Government when considering the balance of conventional forces.
The Prime Minister claims some sort of fame for having discovered Mikhail Gorbachev. She is like a political equivalent of Hughie Green on "Opportunity Knocks." She says, "We discovered this man." Mikhail Gorbachev is certainly the political catalyst for all the enormously important events that are unfolding around us. If anyone qualifies for Hegel's definition of a world spirit or as a world historical figure, it must be Mikhail Gorbachev. He opened up visions of a new order that were unimaginable even a year ago when we had the Army debate.
For so dramatically changing the world order, Mikhail Gorbachev is paying a great price. He might even pay the price of his life. That is always a possibility, given the tension within the Soviet state. Certainly, he could pay the lesser price of losing his political office. Whatever happens to him, nothing can alter the fact that he has enabled the single most important event in Europe since the Russian revolution of 1917 to take place. Whatever else happens, his legacy will undoubtedly outlive him.
What has been our response? It has been pathetic. Gorbachev has risked everything. We in the west have offered little or nothing. In the United States at the summit, President Bush denied the Soviets favoured nation status on trade, something that they desperately need. He denied the Soviets that on the same day as he reconfirmed it for China, which was celebrating the first anniversary of the Tiananmen square massacre. What message does that send back to the people in the Soviet Union?
Gorbachev was lectured by the Senate on the position of Lithuania, but the Senate approved the invasion of Panama. A great deal of hypocrisy is flying around as Mr. Gorbachev tries to work wonders. We stand back and say, "If you succeed, that will be great. If you fail, it will be unpleasant but don't expect us to do much to help you." That is no response to the momentous events that we are witnessing.
The Prime Minister seems to like Mr. Gorbachev, but she uses him for photo opportunities rather than offering to take radical steps in this country to match what he is doing in his. Mr. Gorbachev risks all and we risk absolutely nothing. There is no imagination or vision in British politics at present. Our response is pathetic. Everyone says that we must not take any chances. There is a man in the Soviet Union taking enormous chances, but we are not prepared to take any. Why do we not catch the infectious spirit of optimism and say, "We might run some risks, but they are not the risks that Gorbachev is running or that the people of the east are running"?
584
The Warsaw pact is crumbling and now it is no threat to the west. Many of us never saw it as a threat, but we were laughed at and scorned when we said so. On the Government Front Bench there is only one politician of rank who is going some way to respond to the new situation the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. At least he is trying. I hope that I am not doing his glittering political career any terminal damage by saying so. I listened to his Radio 4 interview, which was good and intriguing. He talked about "very substantial savings" as a result of events in the east.
I understand that the paper produced by the Cabinet defence and overseas policy committee makes a number of radical proposals, which deserve a wide audience. They should be considered sympathetically by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. At least the hon. Gentleman has made a start and has gone some way to match the great events in the east. We must congratulate him on being so courageous among such a timorous group of colleagues in such a timid Cabinet.
I have some modest proposals for redrawing our defence strategy. Everyone understands that we shall have a united Germany. I said that when I was in the United States talking to all the clever think tanks. The Americans said that that would not happen, and the Soviets said that they were not prepared to allow it. I asked what they would do if the people voted with their feet—would they send the tanks in? Unfortunately, many people in this country, in the United States and in the Soviet Union were unable to predict the united Germany.
The united Germany should be outside NATO and the Warsaw pact and it should be declared a demilitarised zone. I do not know what Conservative Members might think, but the opinion polls of East and West Germany show that that is the desire of the majority of Germans. Their views should at least be considered.
I noted what the Minister said about the withdrawal of Russian troops from central Europe, but why are we talking about the maintenance of the British Army of the Rhine? There is no short-term requirement for British troops to remain on German soil.
I believe that NATO should be disbanded as a military organisation and that it should become more of a political one based on the Western European Union or the North Atlantic Assembly.
Mr. Conway: Oh!
Mr. Banks: Obviously the hon. Gentleman does riot have much time for the WEU, but I am a member of it and I am going there tomorrow—perhaps that is why he does not like it. At least the WEU attracts people with some imagination, which is more than can be said for the pedants on Conservative Benches.
We should also consider the withdrawal of nuclear weapons and bases from European soil. The defence of Europe must be a European responsibility, and I want the European defence dimension taken into account. As the European Community moves towards political union, it should take on defence responsibilities with the eventual objective of a European Community stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals—the common European home talked of by Gorbachev and others.
The people of the United Kingdom, of east and west Europe and of north America accept that there is a peace dividend. There are many social pressures here and in

585
other countries that must be addressed, but while the military is eating up so much of our budgets those pressures cannot be lessened. That is why the peace dividend must be seized, and that is why I hope that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have his day.
Enormous, wonderful events have taken place. This is a time of imagination, verve and elan, but I see none of that on the Conservative Benches but for one single exception. I hope that the Minister will be joined by some allies when Ministers come to discuss in detail how the British Government will redefine our defence policies.
8.23 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: Nearly half the Labour Members who have spoken today said that there should be an immediate defence review. I am sure that a major defence review is going on right now, but it is different from the previous great defence review that was carried out in 1981.
I remember the 1981 defence review very well, because certain misguided individuals in the Ministry of Defence suggested that drastic cuts should be made in the British Army of the Rhine. I was the Army Minister at that time and it was fairly easy to repel those arguments. First, we did not have the barracks or the trainee areas in this country to take back 30,000 men, particularly as the bulk of our armoured regiments and our gunner regiments served in Germany and had particularly heavy requirements for training areas. Secondly, it would have cost money to impose those cuts because of the redundancy terms that were in force. The extra cost of demobilising men as they stepped off the ferry would have been carried for about seven years. Therefore, BAOR remained unscathed.
Now, as the Warsaw pact has disintegrated and as German reunification will soon be completed, it is only too easy to imagine that we should be required to reduce the size of our forces in Germany from their present level of about 60,000 to about 20,000 in nine years' time. Nine years ago it was difficult to imagine that BAOR could cease to be our main defence commitment. Now it is difficult to imagine that it could possibly continue at anything like its present size for another nine years.
It is clear that any change will have a profound impact on the size, structure and life of the Army. For the first time in living memory it will mean that the bulk of the Army will be stationed at home. On 1 April last year, 66,000 out of 140,000 trained soldiers in our Army were serving overseas. That was a normal proportion. In the past 40 years, more than half our trained soldiers have regularly served overseas and that has meant that domestic turbulence has been normal. It is now probable that, in the comparatively near future, four fifths of our Army will be stationed regularly at home. That will have a profound impact on the way in which the Army receives a great deal of its professional support.
An Army largely based overseas needs special hospitals, schools and large legal departments to deal with foreign nationals. That has led to the swelling of specialist corps. An Army stationed at home will still need a great deal of professional support, but I am sure that some of our specialist corps could be cut drastically. Fighting units will
586
always need doctors who are trained to go into combat, but I should be astonished if, in 10 years' time, we needed a Royal Army Medical Corps and even today I doubt whether we need a separate Royal Army Dental Corps.
I was glad to read reports—I hope that they are accurate and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can confirm this—that plans are being drawn up to merge some of the smaller corps such as the Royal Army Pay Corps and the Royal Army Veterinary Corps into a new Adjutant-General's Corps. That is a sensible administrative move. There may also be scope for setting up a quartermaster-general's corps, which could include the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the Royal Corps of Transport and the Royal Army Ordnance Corps.
There will certainly be a need to revise the future equipment requirement of the Army. As the threat of a major armoured battle on the central plains of Europe recedes, so does the need for a brand new Army battle tank. There are solid diplomatic grounds for not cancelling re-equipment projects while the discussions on the future of Germany are at a crucial phase and while problems have arisen in the CFE negotiations, but the Ministry of Defence has had ample experience of delaying contracts, and cutting costs must take priority over speed of delivery.
Research into new forms of armament and gunnery must continue. It would be a pity if the Iraqis were to have a monopoly on that sort of long-range development. In a world that will continue to be a dangerous place, we must maintain an Army that is versatile and flexible. As many of my hon. Friends have said, that means keeping the largest possible number of infantry battalions. Those battalions need not all have the same role and the same training.
We shall need well-equipped, highly trained forces capable of rapid deployment inside and outside Europe. There is almost a majority of hon. Members present tonight who served in the Parachute Regiment. I too believe that that force must be based on the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marine Commandos. The need for the Special Air Services is also likely to grow rather than diminish.
However, some battalions will have a more limited role and some of them could become hybrid, half regular and half reserve. The reservists in such hybrid battalions should have a commitment similar to the old ever-readies. Some of my hon. Friends will remember that the ever-readies in the 1960s had a higher training commitment than the normal Territorial Army volunteers and could be called up at short notice. For that commitment, the ever-readies received substantial extra annual funding.
The new ever-readies could be required to do a short period of basic training with the Regular Army. Indeed, in practice I expect that many of the new ever-readies would be ex-Regular soldiers. They would be expected to serve a month or two each year with their regular unit. They would have a high call-up ability and would be paid at least £1,000 a year for that commitment. While doing their annual training with their battalion, they would also receive Regular Army pay. Such an expanded reserve service will become possible once the bulk of the Army is stationed at home and it becomes unusual for battalions to move far from their home bases.
I wish Ministers well in their study of options for change and I hope that their thorough-going review will

587
take into account the need to improve the quality of our reserve forces. The Territorial Army has served us well for the past 40 years. It has a great role in the future.
8.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish at the outset to thank the private office of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for handling a particularly tragic constituency case.
My speech will be about the accountability of the security services, and it will be partly about the proposition that, if sexual abuse of boys in care is known to the state and to the British military, it is simply unacceptable to do nothing about it and to allow it to go on. In my view, the situation is somewhat worse than the security services smearing politicians.
I watched, as did a number of colleagues, on the night of 1 June a BBC programme in which a former Army intelligence officer at Lisburn, a captain, passed on information about the scandal at Kincora to a senior MI5 officer, Mr. Ian Cameron, at HQ Northern Ireland in 1975, only to be told in the strongest possible terms to desist from further investigation into alleged sexual assaults on children in the home. Do Minister accept that view of events that will have been brought to their attention?
Furthermore, the captain also purported to point out that, when he was interviewed by the Terry inquiry in 1982, he gave the police officers carrying out the investigation details of the information that he had passed on to MI5 seven years earlier. Not a word about the captain's knowledge of the scandal appears in the information supplied to Parliament by the Terry report, and it is clear that all details of MI5 and intelligence information about the affairs were deliberately suppressed by the authorities to avoid the inevitable parliamentary demands for a proper judicial inquiry into what had taken place.
A number of important questions that should be answered have been put to the Prime Minister.
First, why did MI5 order this captain to stop his investigation into what has now been established as one of the most notorious cases of child sex abuse in Britain in recent years?
Secondly, did either Detective Superintendent Caskey of the RUC or Detective Superintendent Harrison of the Sussex police inform Sir John Hermon and/or Sir George Terry that MI5 was refusing to answer their questions about Army intelligence knowledge of Kincora?
Thirdly, did Sir John Hermon or Sir George Terry inform the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that MI5 was failing to answer questions put by the police officers carrying out the inquiry?
Fourthly, if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was informed about the obstruction, what steps did he take to ensure MI5's co-operation and why did he give in Parliament such fulsome praise to Sir George Terry's inquiry?
Fifthly, bearing in mind that the Terry inquiry was set up by the Government, why did no Minister intervene and insist that MI5 assist the police in the matter?
Sixthly, when Parliament was being repeatedly misled by the conclusions of the Terry report over Army intelligence knowledge of the scandal, why did none of
588
those who knew about MI5's refusal to co-operate with the inquiry bother to bring that to the attention of the House of Commons?
Sixthly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Seventhly."] I should have said seventhly—what is the earliest known recorded date of a reference made to Clockwork Orange in Ministry of Defence files? If Conservative Members are sceptical, I remind them that my contribution to the last Army debate on 8 June, according to Hansard, prompted the Ministry of Defence eventually to give more details of what actually happened in the case of Colin Wallace.
Eighthly, what became of the copy of Clockwork Orange which was typed by Miss Penny Sadler at Army HQ Northern Ireland and which Colin Wallace gave to Lieutenant-Colonel Jeremy Railton on leaving Northern Ireland in February 1975?
Ninthly, who authorised Miss Sadler to undertake work on the Clockwork Orange project? Tenthly, in the light of public statements allegedly made by some of those who took part in the raid by members of the Army information services on Aldergrove airport, will the Secretary of State reconsider his earlier statement on this matter and say whether captured IRA weapons and explosives were carried by those who took part in the raid and whether a bomb was planted on that occasion in the Ulster Defence Regiment headquaters in Antrim?
Following the receipt of documents from the file which Mr. Colin Wallace sent to the Prime Minister on 1 November 1984, was the Director of Army Security, Major General Garrett, consulted about their contents and about the role of Mr. Wallace at HQ Northern Ireland? Bearing in mind the fact that the documents written by Mr. Peter Broderick and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and enclosed with the file which Colin Wallace sent to the Prime Minister on 1 November 1984 clearly contradicted Government statements to Parliament during that period, what steps were taken by the Ministry of Defence to establish the reasons for the obvious conflict between those accounts and the Government's version of the same events?
Why were Mr. Peter Broderick, Mr. Michael Taylor and Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Railton not interviewed by the authorities as a result of the information contained in the file which Mr. Colin Wallace sent to the Prime Minister on 1 November 1984? Following the discovery of documents relating to Mr. Wallace's case in 1989, why was Mr. Peter Broderick not consulted by the MOD as to Mr. Wallace's allegations and the nature of his employment in the information policy unit at Army HQ Northern Ireland? What is the earliest known recorded date when the Kincora boys home was mentioned in MOD files?
In the light of the Minister of State's statement to the House on 30 January, will the Secretary of State comment on the contents of the letter from Brigadier Rous, Director of Army Public Relations, to Mr. Robert Parker of Channel 4 on 23 July 1987 regarding Colin Wallace? On what date did Mr. Peter Broderick write to Major-General Peter Leng asking for the release of information for use in the Clockwork Orange project?
To which Government Departments was Mr. Wallace's document entitled "Political and Security Implications Regarding the Disclosure of Security Classified Information to Assist in the Investigation of the Allegations Relating to the Kincora Boys Hostel, Belfast" circulated between 1984 and 1989? What criteria were used when separating papers relating to Mr. Wallace's case

589
between the office of the Permanent Under-Secretary and the Deputy Under-Secretary, CM? Was the information policy unit at Army HQ Lisburn responsible for planning and implementing psychological operations in Northern Ireland and, if so, who authorised the setting up of its terms of reference?
Bearing in mind the repeated assurances given to Parliament by Ministers, that over the years there have been the "most thorough inquiries" into the allegations, did such inquiries actually take place? If thorough inquiries did not take place, then either Ministers were misled by their advisers into believing that they did, or Ministers knew that such inquiries did not take place and deliberately misinformed the House. On the other hand, if thorough inquiries did take place, one must conclude that either the full facts of the matter were discovered and deliberately withheld by officials from Ministers, who then unwittingly misled Parliament, or Ministers were given the correct facts but deliberately withheld the correct information from the House. It is clear that a number of senior staff who were employed at the MoD when Ministers were giving misleading answers to Parliament had direct personal knowledge of the events in question. Did none of those individuals bring the correct facts to the attention of the Government and, if not, why not?
8.44 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). If any hon. Member deserves to be called tenacious, it is the hon. Gentleman. No one is more fitted to that description and it is important to have the hon. Gentleman on one's side, as I found to my pleasure when he supported me during the passage of my Computer Misuse Bill. I thank him for that support, but, of course, I cannot take up any of the points that he made today in his typical way.
The debate takes place in a new, unexpected and welcome political situation. We are no longer eyeball to eyeball with our potential enemies across the iron curtain. The cold war may not have been very pleasant but at least it was a stable situation and now in a defence sense we are operating in an unstable situation. In these uncertain times, we need stronger and not weaker defences and strong and resolute leadership.
Hon. Members have spoken about the peace dividend. Surely that arises as a result of the strength investment. If we cut that investment too much, we will put at jeopardy the peace dividend. We are operating in a very different defence scenario. The Warsaw pact force is redundant because it is an unworkable organisation. It used to mobilise in two days, but that now takes two months. The whole idea of massive armoured and infantry assaults across Europe is ludicrous. In the Soviet bloc, morale in the armed forces has gone and I understand that draft dodging is as high as 10 per cent.
The peace that we are enjoying is brittle; we should not jump to the conclusion that all is sweetness and light. There are some hard and reactionary men in the Kremlin, and if things go wrong with perestroika they could be back in charge. There is no doubt that, as the Soviet economy collapses, there is a considerable likelihood of Soviet
590
withdrawals from central Europe, although I have no idea what the Soviet Union would do with the millions who would be unemployed as a result of such demobilisation.
The President of the United States is under considerable pressure to deal with his twin deficits of budget and trade, and he will also be tempted to withdraw. If the need then arises to reoccupy central Europe, we should bear in mind what I have described as the two Georgias comparison. To deploy troops from Georgia in the USSR to Berlin takes 15 days but to deploy troops from Georgia in the United States to Berlin takes 90 days and they have to cross the Atlantic ocean. We should consider that when we are talking about withdrawals by either side.
I welcome the Government's review of the defence structure in their options for change. As some hon. Members have said, it is not a full-scale defence review. It is far too early for that, because the situation is too fluid. I support the priorities of the Secretary of State for Defence, among which is the maintenance of a credible nuclear deterrent, because that is our best insurance as it has been for the last 40 years of peace. I also support the adoption of policies that give greater flexibility and mobility.
When he addressed the Select Committee on Defence, the Secretary of State acknowledged that some thinning out of forward forces and great emphasis on rapid reinforcement and flexibility were necessary. He laid particular stress on getting better equipment for more flexible mobile forces in the 1990s and he concluded his evidence to the Select Committee by saying:
"One of the most urgent requirements now is for a new force of battlefield helicopters,".
I should like to speak about helicopters. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said when he drew attention to the undertaking by the then Secretary of State for Defence my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on 9 April three years ago when he announced an order for 25 support utility helicopters, the Anglo-Italian EH101 made by Westland and Augusta. The EH101 comes in two versions—the maritime version and the battlefield version. This being an Army debate, I shall deal with the battlefield version. The Secretary of State, when he made his announcement to the House, acknowledged that, in terms of the numbers deployed in Europe, Britain compares badly with both the French and the Germans, as it does with the Americans. When British troops are being moved about the theatre, we rely heavily on the United States to lift them.
The tactical support helicopter, the EH101, will be able to carry out various missions. It will be able to transport men and materials, and that includes light vehicles carried either internally or externally, to and from and within the battlefield. Artillery pieces can also be underslung. It can act as a mobile command post. It can be used as a platform for electronic warfare or airborne early warning. It is used for logistic purposes with either internal or underslung loads, and it has a self-ferrying capability, its range being 1,115 nautical miles. It is an extremely flexible aircraft and can be powered by a wide variety of Rolls-Royce engines—variations of the RTM 322. The EH101 is available to the British armed forces in four different variations, which shows its design flexibility.
Over the past year, there has been much debate about the pros and cons of the EH 101 as a support helicopter

591
and the Black Hawk. The former has been criticised for being too large to operate successfully in the hostile environment expected in general war in central Europe. However, the rapidly changing situation in that area should cause the detractors of the EH101 to think again. This aircraft has a greater range than the Black Hawk. It can ferry itself to an operational deployment zone. Given the limited manpower ceiling of aircrew and maintenance staff, a force of EH 101s will carry three times as many troops as a similar number of Black Hawks. The tasks for the mobile forces are likely to take place in a less hostile environment than those that were expected in central Europe, so the larger and less hardened EH 101 should be much more effective than the Black Hawk and better in terms of cost-effectiveness.
For all those reasons, the EH 101 is the right choice for the defence forces, but that raises the question of who will fly them. I know that there has been considerable debate as to whether this should be a task for the Royal Air Force or for the Army Air Corps or even for the Royal Corps of Transport, which is equally capable of carrying it out. That debate should be reopened because as we, I hope, start deploying more helicopters, we shall have to boost the strength of the Army Air Corps and run down the role of the RAF. In that task, we want to see them flying British-Italian aircraft rather than American Chinooks.
Several hon. Members have referred to the need for newly defined roles for our Army units. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said about an air mobile division. I am conscious that, with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) here as well, this debate has been enlivened by the Parachute Regiment lobby. Guardsmen have also been known to hurl themselves out of aircraft on the ends of parachutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and I have both indulged in the pastime. Within the air mobile division that has been suggested, there could be a special role for the Foot Guards as part of a rapid deployment corps, perhaps one that is helicopter-borne and specially trained for that purpose.
I hope that there is no thought in the Minister's mind that specialist ceremonial troops should be stationed in London, because that would be a disaster. If troops were stationed in central London, it would be much better to train them for helicopter operations so that they could fly from central London to training zones and back again. This makes a great deal of sense. There is a good case for a territorial unit within the Brigade of Guards, and if there was one, I should join it.
I have said nothing about attack helicopters, which are the subject of another debate. We have the utility Lynx with strapped-on armaments, which is far from satisfactory. We should have a tailormade battlefield helicopter. The urgent requirement is for greater mobility; that is why my hon. Friend the Minister must tell the House when decisions will be made about supplying the Army with the mobility and flexibility that it requires, and would have if more helicopters were ordered. The Government have acknowledged this.
The Secretary of State has already said that he will order 25 utility versions of the EH101. We should like to hear confirmation of that order, and we should like to hear what additional helicopters the Government intend to order so that the Army can fulfil its new operational roles.
8.56 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I apologise to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). He kindly gave way to me during his speech. It was remiss of me to intervene, given that, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, he had to make an important contribution to the debate in only 10 minutes.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) referred to certain military establishments in Colchester. I did my national service in the Royal Military Police and he brought back memories of that establishment and of another, based in Shepton Mallet. However, now is not the time to talk about such institutions.
As a young military policeman based in Germany, not far from the border, I found that even the most riotous Saturday night involving certain Scottish regiments did not face me with anything like the dangers that our young soldiers now face in Ulster and elsewhere. As a Member of Parliament representing the lower Clyde, I have almost a front-line seat on developments in Northern Ireland. Many Scottish soldiers serve with regiments that go across there for tours of duty.
In the days before I entered the House, I always thought that it was a mistake to send Scottish regiments to the Province, because of the intimate historical relationship between the Province and Scotland. The dangers faced by those magnificently brave young men were brought home to me plainly on 9 April this year, when four young men from the Ulster Defence Regiment were so savagely murdered. One was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Bradley of Port Glasgow—Lance-Corporal John Bradley—who, because of that vicious and dastardly attack, has left a young widow in Belfast with two young children, one of whom was only three months old when his father was so brutally murdered. That may explain why I asked about the counselling and welfare provisions offered by the armed forces to the widows of soldiers who have been murdered in such a brutal and cowardly way.
One Bill gives us an opportunity to discuss those welfare provisions for soldiers' families—the Armed Forces Bill. I believe such Bills are a quinquennial event in the house, which last passed an Armed Forces Bill in 1986. Will we be debating an Armed Forces Services Bill early next year? If so, as experienced hon. Members know, a Select Committee will be set up. I had the honour to be on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces in 1986, and I found it useful to cross-examine senior military personnel about the provision of welfare facilities for soldiers.
Let me draw the Minister's attention to the excellent report produced by the Select Committee on Defence: I am concerned about some constituency matters. I refer the Minister to paragraph 74, on page XXV of the report, which refers to
"the completion of certain physical improvements"
to the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton. Given that the Ministry of Defence police have been pulled out of Bishopton and that there is to be a civilian defence force, is the Minister satisfied with the recent developments at Royal Ordnance Bishopton? The chief constable of the Strathclyde police has said that he could provide a quick armed response if Bishopton was attacked in any way.
In paragraphs 74 and 75, the Select Committee said that it shared the anxiety of local people and others, including

593
the Defence Police Federation spokesman, about standards of security at RO Bishopton. In paragraph 75, the Select Committee report said:
"there is still some anxiety, which we share, about an apparent lowering of the standards of security arrangements for guarding a site where ready-to-use explosives are stored,."
We are told by various pundits in the media that the IRA has a large store of Semtex. A goodly number of my constituents are employed at RO Bishopton.
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), I feel that it is right and proper for me to demand an assurance from the Minister that the changeover at the Royal Ordnance factory from a Ministry of Defence police to a civilian guard will not in any way infringe the security of our constituents who work there, or the security of the communities in and around that plant. Paragraph 75 recommends that the number and quality of the forces deployed at Bishopton must be closely monitored. Which institutions will monitor the guarding of that plant?
Mr. Mates: The Ministry of Defence.
Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has answered the question, but for the public record I should still like an answer from the Minister. Will it be the Ministry of Defence, will it be the Strathclyde police or will they work in tandem? What form will the monitoring take? Of course, there may be security reasons that prevent the Minister from providing answers. However, on behalf of my constituents employed at Bishopton and the communities in Renfrewshire, I seek an assurance that the Minister is confident that there will not be a lowering of the quality of the guard provided at that plant. Those are important considerations for the people of Renfrewshire, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
9.6 pm
Mr. Derek Conway: I shall curtail my speech in the hope that other hon. Members may have an opportunity to contribute, even at this late hour.
I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I very much endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) about the effect of the community charge on the regular forces. There are some anomalies that could be easily addressed without great cost to the public.
My hon. Friend the Minister listed some of the victims of the IRA this year, not only civilians, but members of the armed forces. They were mostly soft targets, which we know is the cowardly way in which the IRA operates. Perhaps we expect little else of it. However, I hope that, especially on the mainland, we expect slightly more of some of our television producers. Should anyone be listening, I say to Yorkshire Television that its recent actions have given a great deal of encouragement to the forces of terrorism. Would that those television producers, either BBC or ITV, gave as much attention to the impact of terrorism on those widowed and left fatherless as they do to the terrorists. That would be a different story.
The review is taking place against the background of great changes, and that has been commented on by hon. Members from both sides of the House. It was a little churlish of the Opposition, especially the hon. Members
594
for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), to be so sarcastic about the role of the Government's policies in the events that have so radically changed the map of Europe.
I believe that, once the bosses of the Kremlin realised that NATO forces, especially in the United Kingdom, would not roll over quietly, that brought about the great changes that Mr. Gorbachev managed to instigate. I have not the slightest doubt that military history will show that the decision to deploy cruise—with considerable objection from the Opposition—against the deployment of SS20s by the Soviet Union was fundamental in bringing about that realisation.
I am not sure about the purpose of these debates, other than perhaps to fire the odd warning shot across the bows of departmental Ministers. In that sense, there have been many warnings during the debate that any decision to cut dramatically what press reports suggest may be as much as 40 per cent. of our infantry battalions will not go without challenge in the Conservative party. I am sure that my colleagues will not present us with any ultimatum or fast plan and that there will be considerable consultation about any movement.
We must realise the need for an army in Britain, and the debate must be about its size and the location of its units. Military presence and, indeed, military experience is good for the nation. Units with widespread community and civic life play a good part on behalf of the Regular Army. My criticism of past policies has been the determination to centralise so much of military training and take the armed forces away from the community.
I regularly plug the Territorial Army hobby horse, and it has been encouraging in this debate to see how many colleagues have mentioned the need for increased Territorial Army activity. Taking up 3·5 per cent. of the Army's budget as it does, it clearly does not require a huge expenditure, but the Government receive a great deal in return and so does the Territorial Army. Not only do those taking part have the opportunity for personal development and to acquire team skills; they also have the challenge of physical activity and a variety of training, particularly the use of helicopters and other things which, in civilian life, would not be open to them. What saddens me is that adventure training is still not classified and officially sanctioned, so it is difficult to organise. Future training for the Territorial Army and the Regular Army may have to concentrate on personal skills and challenges.
I hope to see a great expansion of the Territorial Army. I still believe that the Swiss conscription period of 14 days per annum is an ideal way of giving the general young population an experience of military life. The hon. Member for Rhondda rather mocked the idea of people having experience of military service, but young people aged between 16 and 24 in Britain are not yet ready for middle age, mortgage and children, and God help the nation if they are. An experience of military life would do them the world of good and would be greatly welcomed.
The Army epitomises loyalty, comradeship and effectiveness, and I hope that our Government will not throw that away.
9.11 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: On the Saturday evening of the last bank holiday weekend, there was an intrusion by the Army into my constituency which was

595
unwelcome, unexpected and frightening. The Rogerstone power station, which has closed down, was attacked in what is believed to have been an Army exercise. There was no warning to the police, who were confused by what was going on, and there was no warning to the Member of Parliament. It was frightening because helicopters were used, with searchlights coming down from the sky illuminating a wide area. Thunderflashes were used and there was the sound of machine-gun fire. At least one claim is coming in for a car which was damaged by a thunderflash that went astray.
As there was no warning in the area, when complaints were made and inquiries were made of me and the police, nobody could provide an answer. However, there appears to have been some information at police headquarters which was not available in Newport. As one would expect, rumours spread that there was an IRA attack and, most persistently and widespread, that there was a gunman on the loose, as has happened, sadly, in many other places. The people of Newport are sensible and they realise that the special services have to exercise and in circumstances that are as realistic as possible, but the question remains whether that was wise.
May we have some assurance from the Minister that, since every exercise is artificial to some degree, it would not noticeably affect the value of the exercise if full warnings were given to the local population? Will he also tell us that never again will there be the combination of hazards that took place at Rogerstone that night, where helicopters were left hovering for prolonged periods between two hills at night at low altitude?
I have been in contact with the Minister's office and there is an apologetic tone coming from there. I understand that the Minister has been abroad and has not managed to respond fully so far. But the people of Newport are considerably angered that the exercise took place under such deplorable circumstances and we look for assurances that there will be no repetition in Gwent or elsewhere.
9.14 pm
Sir Alan Glyn: I am sorry to hear of the events described by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I am sure that adequate warnings will be given in future.
I endorse fully my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's views expressed on page 5 and all that goes with that. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State who endorsed my right hon. Friend's policy. We sat back as NATO and the Warsaw pact faced one another, and thought that everything was all right—but suddenly things changed. The Warsaw pact is disintegrating, and we are left with NATO. It is important that we should build and strengthen it, because we never know what will happen, and adjust our forces with that in mind. However, we cannot do so immediately, because we do not know how far Gorbachev's changes will go. Nor do we know what precisely will be the outcome of his recent talks in America.
We are left with a situation that is so fluid that it is almost more dangerous than when NATO and the Warsaw pact were facing one another. Anything might happen at any time. I am sure that all right hon. and hon.
596
Members recognise that the situation today is not more secure but more uncertain—but given strength of will, we shall succeed.
The Bush negotiations were welcome, but difficult, because they changed the composition of nuclear forces. Again, we shall have to plan for the consequences. We need a highly mobile force, making use—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said—of helicopters, and to adopt a completely new attitude to our forces in Europe. I was particularly glad that the Minister of State paid tribute to the British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as they render marvellous service in the most difficult circumstances.
One of the most important issues we must confront is that of the Territorial Army, which may not have the strength currently that was once anticipated. It is important to recruit more men and women into the TA, which takes on even greater importance if there are to be cuts elsewhere. In an emergency, members of the Territorial Army and reserves can always be called up.
It is important that TA members should be accorded proper treatment, be respected by members of the Regular Army and become almost a part of it. Employers should, where possible, be compelled to allow their staff to take leave for the purpose of giving TA service. I understand that 820 employers currently co-operate, but they are mainly large firms. More should be trained, to serve side by side with the Regular Army. They should also be given proper equipment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) said, an incentive should be provided to join the TA. If there is a problem of recruitment, I am sure that it can be overcome.
We must bear in mind always the fact that the scene can still alter. Gorbachev could fall and there could be changes in the Soviet Government. Our nuclear deterrent remains absolutely essential and must be retained not only to ensure peace in Europe but to serve as a deterrent against countries that are themselves developing nuclear weapons. We must retain our nuclear deterrent, whether we like it or not.
Whatever happens, it is the duty of this Government, and of any future Government, to ensure that the defence of this country is adequate and sufficient.
9.21 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to the Front-Bench spokesmen for reducing their time and I shall allow a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
The changes that have taken place in eastern Europe have been referred to again and again. I remind the House of the old adage that military planners must base their calculations not on intentions but on capabilities. The dissolution of the Soviet Union's allies in the Warsaw pact, while considerably affecting ground forces in Europe and changing warning times from days to weeks, has had no significant effect on nuclear forces and precious little on naval and air forces. A tremendous imbalance still exists between the Soviet Union as a single power and the combined forces of NATO.
For that reason, even if President Gorbachev's position were unassailable, if there were no political unrest in the Soviet Union, and if we were convinced that perestroika is absolutely set fair, we should still be cautious. I know that

597
there are enthusiasts for defence roles for the European Community and the Western European Union in the House, as we hear them mentioned from time to time, but it is important that we remember that the only structure which offers the co-ordinated political framework, intelligence framework and command structure necessary for deterrence is still NATO.
I find it worrying that last weekend President Gorbachev was unable to endorse President Bush's simple statement that membership of NATO by a combined Germany should be a matter for the Germans. It is worrying that President Gorbachev should find it necessary to say that if Germany chose to stay in NATO it could have a profound effect on the progress of conventional arms reduction talks and, by implication, on the Soviet Union's willingness to withdraw from East Germany. I do not speak critically of President Gorbachev; it is a sad reflection on the continuing reality of power in the Soviet Union that it is not possible for the present leader to dismantle the Soviet military structure and posture as quickly as he might like.
Other hon. Members have referred to potential problems in the third world and I shall not reiterate what they said, except the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—that if we should ever become involved in one of the many trouble spots in the third world, where vital western interests as well as world peace could be threatened, we have to remember that those countries, to a large extent, have both heavy and sophisticated weapons. The idea that a handful of small lightly-armed forces can whiz off and sort them out simply belongs to 30 years ago.
Our Regular Army has a profoundly different structure from armies in the rest of the major countries in European NATO because it is an all-volunteer Army. Even Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have conceded that that makes it difficult to compare our spending patterns to those in the other NATO countries, where there is an enormous contribution in kind by using conscript soldiers, whereas we have to offer competitive rates of pay. For that reason we already have by far the smallest Army of any major European NATO country.
I read in this morning's Daily Telegraph that we may be contemplating substantially reducing numbers of troops—by as much as 40 per cent. Quite apart from the overall wisdom of that, and I would certainly be cautious about making cuts of that size, even if there were a successful outcome to the Vienna talks—which seems to be in question at the moment—we must recognise that it would still be an expensive Army, because we have chosen to go down the volunteer and professional route. That has paid off in a number of ways, not least of which is the conduct of our soldiers in Ulster, which is something that none of our European allies could have matched.
We have gone down an expensive route, and it is no good trying to persuade ourselves that we can get our armed forces on the cheap while our regular forces are all professional. My second point about the Regular Army is that the concomitant of that and the reason why it is expensive is that, if one wants to continue to retain and attract young men and women of calibre into those professional forces, one has to be willing to offer them a standard of living comparable to that in civilian life. We
598
have done well on the salary side and I am not critical of the level of salaries in the armed forces. However, I must be critical of some of the fringe areas, which are important and I will concentrate on three in particular.
I have frequently mentioned house purchase. I will quote one paragraph from the continuous attitude survey of high fliers at the junior division of the staff college. The paragraph says:
"The area causing by far the greatest degree of dissatisfaction, however, was assistance with house purchase, where some 84·9 per cent. of respondents expressed some dissatisfaction, with 58·8 per cent. reporting they were 'very' dissatisfied."
Secondly, I do not have time to go into the complexity of the question of wives' careers. We have improved the number of wives with jobs in the Army, but they are overwhelmingly low-grade jobs. I suggest to Ministers that there is a cheap solution to that—by setting up integrated business centres with decent telecommunications facilities in our major bases in which wives with professions could rent spaces. There is already an organisation in my constituency which very effectively runs a complete City money-broking operation from a village 70 miles from the City.
Thirdly, education is also a complicated subject in an organisation in which families are moving all the time. It is unfair that tax is charged on boarding school allowances for those who send their children to boarding school to give them a continuous education. The standards in service schools are also starting to slip badly behind their civilian counterparts.
We must be careful about NMS—the new management strategy. It is yielding dividends in the civilian area and in some of the support areas, but in applying it to operational units, we must never forget that the task of a fighting unit is to prepare for war. That can never be fully encapsulated in the objectives that one produces in management strategies in civilian life. It is important that we do not become so carried away in trying to achieve accountability down the line that we convert leadership into bureaucracy.
I am proud to be a serving officer in the Home Service Force unit of the Territorial Army, which is affiliated to 10 Para. However, we must be cautious in what we can expect from the Territorial Army. There are many excellent units in the Territorial Army and I like to think that I belong to one of them. However, the bulk of the Territorial Army suffers from the same problem that Churchill's diaries identified in 1940. It is seriously short of adequate grade officers and non-commissioned officers.
That problem brings about the secondary problem—that there is too much turnover in the lower ranks because they become bored where there is a lack of leadership. The problem is best tackled through the effective employers' initiative which the Government have started. My own unit, 10 Para, sponsored Exercise Executive Stretch two weeks ago. We will reverse the trend by convincing employers that the Territorial Army is a worthwhile enterprise and not by pouring money into pay and allowances.
We must be realistic about the Territorial Army. It is a splendid organisation with an important role to play. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on a better role for airborne forces in the Territorial Army, because airborne units tend to be well recruited. However, we must remember that there is a limit to how much we can use the territorial

599
forces. The Israelis discovered to their cost that one cannot keep mobilising civilian reserve forces in the face of an enemy mobilisation. Eventually, pressure from employers will force a Territorial Army to demobilise. I stress again that this is not the time to be lowering our guard.
9.28 pm
Mr. John McFall: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for a two-minute peroration. I shall concentrate solely on the report on the physical security of military installations by the Select Committee on Defence. We undertook the report as a result of events at Mill Hill and Deal. We said in the report that, with the passage of time, the threat has not been reduced. That is even more relevant today than when we commenced our report.
The Minister mentioned Deal in his opening remarks and made one or two comments that are not on public record at present. My information is that the report on Deal went to the Secretary of State for Defence on 8 December 1989. That report has been lying on the desk of the Secretary of State for Defence for more than six months. When are we going to get the report and when can we discuss it? The report must be produced quickly. I should like the Minister to refer to that matter.
The Select Committee examined many aspects of security. We concluded that the buck stops at the Ministry of Defence and on the Secretary of State's desk. During a public examination, a question about policy was put to a senior Ministry of Defence official. We were informed that it was ministerial policy to introduce privatisation and contracting. When he was pressed on that point, the senior civil servant said that Ministers who are told by officials that their policies are not working very well are inclined to doubt the enthusiasm of the officials for the policy. In other words, the messenger is shot.
Our enthusiasm is doubted because the policy is not working and because it is based on cost cutting. A policy that is based on saving money endangers lives. With private security firms, the usual vetting procedures and scrutiny are not available. Ministers must answer that. The buck stops with Ministers. Let the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement answer why, in the face of advice, he is going ahead with cost cutting and providing a lower level of security than before. Cost cutting endangers lives. That is the most poignant message in the report by the Select Committee on Defence.
9.30 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: This debate is extremely important, for it may be the only chance to have a public airing of major questions about the future of the Army before the Secretary of State puts his signature at the bottom of the secret review of defence policy that has been going on in Whitehall for some months now.
Last week, in an extraordinary interview on the BBC "Today" programme with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, we heard how the options being considered in the defence review were "very, very secret" so there could be no public debate until Defence Ministers had decided what the options were. That is a contemptuous attitude. The changes that are under way in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union have overwhelming implications for British foreign and defence policy.
600
Ultimately, they may call into question the purpose and utility of military force itself, at least in Europe, and they certainly presage some major changes in the relationship between the state, the armed forces and civil society.
In the circumstances, the British public deserve a great deal more than the usual treatment that they get from the Government—a few leaked documents from Ministers or civil servants who know that they will not get their own way in the end because they must ultimately face the steamroller from No. 10, followed by a fait accompli decision about any opportunity for real debate.
I can hear Ministers say that this is a free country and that people can and do say what they like about the future of Britain's defence policy in the newspapers, on television and so on. But any such debate will take place in a complete vacuum if we are not even permitted to know what the agenda is inside Government. If the Government insist on maintaining their ridiculous secrecy, they are effectively saying to the public that defence is not a matter for them.
That may be all very well in a climate in which public support for defence spending can be relied on, but with more and more people questioning the need for large military forces and expensive equipment, a policy of closing off debate will simply reinforce the public belief that the military is an anachronism and that secrecy is merely a ploy to protect overblown budgets and pet projects from cuts. The result will be a further decline in the military's legitimacy in the eyes of taxpayers. The public will simply see no need for military spending and will not vote for it.
Opposition Members have always expressed the view that defence reviews should be open and honest. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who conducted such an open defence review in the 1960s, knows only too well that the price of openness can be stinging public criticism from those who have interests to defend, but that is the nature of debate and the Government should not be afraid to face it.
I wish to ask the Minister a few questions, which I realise that he might not answer this evening, so I am prepared to accept his replies in writing. How much is the review costing? Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office been involved? Have the three service chiefs been involved? Have NATO partners been consulted? What considerations have been given to the industrial and economic consequences of the review, especially in terms of jobs? What are the spending priorities for any cash that is saved, as suggested by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement?
In any review of defence policy, the growing build-up of non-nuclear, but highly provocative and deadly, weapons systems in the third world must be considered. The proliferation of advanced weapons systems is of great concern. They include ballistic and chemical weapons, and the use of cluster bombs, launched from a 20-mile-range missile, causing damage over a 40-acre area. The advanced countries either sell those weapons directly or sell the technology.
One cannot really talk about military policy in the third world without considering chemical weapons. While a generation of British soldiers have been trained on how to fight on a chemically contaminated battlefield in central Europe, the real threat from chemical weapons is in the third world. No one can deny that chemical weapons proliferation is a problem, having seen the awful scenes of

601
the Iran-Iraq war. It now seems that the brief phase of chemical rearmament of the mid-1980s may be over. Opposition Members wholeheartedly welcome the agreement that was reached last week between the Soviet Union and the United States of America, which will lead to the Americans joining the Soviets in stopping chemical weapons production, and to the cutting of the stockpiles to 20 per cent. of the current United States levels. However, we are disappointed that the Americans have thought it necessary to retain substantial, newly modernised chemical weapons, as that will be a major disincentive to other possessor countries to give up their stocks during the global chemical weapons convention.
There is great concern that some biological and chemical weapons are not quite right. We have reached a stage of genetic engineering of chemical weapons and can make tailormade bugs at the same time as providing vaccines for our own troops.
Britain could be in a strong positon to argue the case. If the Americans and now the Soviets want to keep chemical weapons on the ground that they are a deterrent against, say, the Libyas, the Irans and the Iraqs of the world, they are subscribing to the hoary old myth of like-for-like deterrence.
Back in 1983, when a debate was going on within the Ministry of Defence about whether Britain should consider restarting chemical weapons production, the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was quoted as saying that NATO doctrine rested on the belief that the west's conventional and nuclear weapons were a sufficient deterrent against chemical attack, and that NATO consequently did not need its own chemical stocks.
That argument now goes even further. Since Germany will never accept chemical weapons on its soil after the current United States stocks are removed, the new United States binary weapons can hardly be regarded as a credible deterrent against the Soviet Union. Since United States policy has specifically referred to other chemical weapons possessor countries, does that mean that the USA is prepared to use chemical weapons against countries such as Libya?
Are chemical weapons really a deterrent? The United States' possession of chemical weapons and the presence in the Gulf of aircraft carriers capable of launching airborne chemical attacks did not stop either Iran or Iraq from using poison gas on each other. The fact is that there are no conceivable circumstances in which the USA could or would drop chemical or biological gas on people in the third world without creating a storm of negative if not hostile reaction.
The truth is that super-power chemical stocks have no military utility. Any threat to use them is empty. Britain should therefore argue strongly for the USA and Soviet Union—and, indeed, France—to abandon all their stocks at the earliest possible date as part of a global ban, reached through the chemical disarmament talks.
I accept that there are severe problems in getting the mavericks—Hussein, Gaddafi and so on—to join a global ban. That will be one of the foremost tasks of those negotiating the chemical weapons convention. One thing is
602
certain. As long as the United States, the Soviets and the French keep their chemical weapons, there will be no incentive for anyone else to give them up.
Britain should go back to its long-held position, established when we abandoned our offensive capability in the 1950s. That is that one does not need chemical weapons to deter a chemical attack. The Government have stressed for some years that the Soviet Union has a massive chemical stockpile. On several occasions they stated publicly that they believed that the Soviet Union's stockpile was about six times greater than the 50,000 tonnes now claimed. Although this year's defence estimates are rather more coy about the figures, they restate that position and say that the Government believe that the Soviet stockpile
"exceeds that claimed in their public statements."
Only the week before the 1990 defence estimates were published, the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces said in another place:
"our current estimate of the stock of chemical weapons in Russia is about 50,000 tonnes."
After all the accusations of lying and cheating, the Government now believe the Soviets' own figures. Moreover, the Minister went on to say:
"we arc not aware of any recent significant changes in the Soviet Union's chemical warfare capability."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 1990; Vol. 517, c. 963–4.]
I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is indeed the Government's new position and will explain why his intelligence has suddenly cut the estimate to one sixth of the previous estimate.
I intended to speak about NATO and the Warsaw treaty. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), who is not in his place, said that the Warsaw treaty organisation barely exists. That provides an opportunity for a transition to forms of international politics in Europe that are not predicated on the ever-present threat of unleashing mass destruction. As long as we feel that we cannot trust each other, our attempts to solve serious political problems will always be based on threats of violence. If the institutions that we use to seek solutions are themselves founded on the concept of political coercion by threatening violence, we shall have narrowed the options from the start.
Perhaps NATO has a transitional role and will help to shape new ideas for the security of Europe. But as Sir Michael Howard said in a lecture at King's college in March:
"There is a need for thinking as bold and innovative as that called for 40 years ago if NATO is not to be seen as a dinosaur, an obstacle to rather than an instrument for the remaking of Europe."
That bold new thinking must take account, initially at least, of the established co-operation of the CSCE process. That offers us a proven working forum that has some potential to move beyond bloc-to-bloc relations. It also has the advantage that it can deal effectively with military questions as well as economic, cultural and political issues.
There is now an opportunity for discussions about how the CSCE process could be used to develop a new European security order. It does not follow that that involves the immediate dismantling of NATO. As Manfred Wörner said on television today, NATO could be one of the props in the CSCE process. There are risks as well as opportunities in the CSCE process. However, the climate is being created in which those matters can be considered seriously. We are approaching a time when east

603
and west must mutually consider the role of the military in Europe beyond non-provocative defence. Out of CFE we must build up confidence on both sides through verification processes by an agreed inspectorate, which would lead to exchanges of information.
Whatever the reality or, indeed, the perception of the Soviet threat, we cannot escape the fact that the CFE treaty and political trends in Germany—whether it is unified or not—could mean a major cut in the British Army of the Rhine. Of course, that will be a major topic of discussion in the two-plus-four talks.
In common with Conservative Members, we pay tribute to the skill, professionalism and dedication of our armed personnel in all ranks, many of whom are often at risk. Unfortunately at this time those at risk regrettably include their wives and children. Not only the politicians, but the Army must recognise the significance of the change in the nature of the threat. Inevitably that will lead to a slimmed-down Army. The Army must still be provided, however, with the most up-to-date equipment and the trained personnel to carry out efficiently and effectively whatever task it is asked to undertake by the nation.
9.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave a positive message. The dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe have profound and complex implications for European security. Their full import is not yet clear, nor will it be for some time ahead. What is clear is that there is much to be resolved and negotiated. Our primary aim is, as it always has been, to maintain our security. We hope that the changes in Europe mean that we can achieve this aim at lower force levels and at reduced cost.
This changing scene naturally raises much speculation and uncertainty about the future role and structure of the three services. That uncertainty is, of course, felt within the services and, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) observed, especially by the Army. The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently examining the options for the United Kingdom's defence policy for the 1990s and the next century, and the structures that would be needed to support them. Hon. Members would not expect me to comment on those considerations tonight. It follows from that that it would be premature for me to speculate on how the Army itself may change, but, whatever happens, we will still need the Army's traditional strengths of versatility and flexibility.
The House will be grateful to all those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. So numerous were they that the majority of speeches had to be time-limited, including the concluding speeches from the Front Benches. I shall endeavour, of course, to attempt to address some of the many points that have been raised today and to ensure that others are answered in writing. I also hope to say something myself if time allows.
As usual, the debate has benefited from Members' experience and expertise. It was welcome to hear the comments of the hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Gower (Mr. Wardell) about their
604
experience of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That is one contribution to a greater understanding of the part the services play in the defence of our nation.
The first issue that I want to address was raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) who opened the debate for the Opposition. To be the Opposition spokesman on defence deserves some small compensations or it would be a thankless task in the extreme. He mentioned what the Defence Committee report said about commercial security guards. At Deal, Reliance did not employ any personnel with criminal records. All commercial guards are vetted by the Ministry of Defence. The competence of Reliance was not in question and it was supported by armed Royal Marines guards.
The individual with the alleged 500 criminal convictions was taken on by Reliance, but was not employed by it as he quit when he realised that his record was under investigation by the company. He was never part of the Deal complement. Commercial guards are not used solely to guard military installations where service men work and sleep—they are used to augment the Ministry of Defence police and service guards who may be armed.
Mr. Rogers rose—
Mr. Neubert: Before the hon. Gentleman rises to intervene on this subject again, I counsel him to observe the advice of the Select Committee on Defence—that one should not prejudge the lessons to be learnt from the incident at Deal without knowing the full facts.
Mr. Rogers: I do not want to prejudge anything in relation to Deal, but it is important to be clear about who was employed by Reliance Security Services. As I understand from the evidence given to the Select Committee, the man with 500 convictions was recommended to the job by a man with whom he served in prison, who was working with Reliance and told him that he should join the company. The Minister should check that, as his information may be wrong. The man may not have been employed at Deal, but he was certainly employed as a commercial security guard by the MOD.
Mr. Neubert: The hon. Member is incorrigible and I shall not attempt to instruct him further on that point.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of service accommodation. Again, the figure that he quoted is not recognised by my officials and we shall have to look into the matter further to identify which figure he wants updated. I assure him that there is a substantial programme of works to upgrade married quarters and single accommodation in our older property, and new building produces some very desirable residences indeed.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from a book, apparently published last September, which was critical of today's Army. He was careful not to endorse the criticisms, but he gave them wide publicity by including them in his speech. Included among the phrases he quoted was the term "ruthless careerism." I cannot see how that could be applied so much to the Army as to the occupants of the Labour Front Bench, who are prepared to deny their deepest, innermost socialist convictions in public in a futile attempt to persuade the British public to vote Labour at the next general election. They will fail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), the incorrigible hon. Member for Rhondda and others mentioned the Defence Committee's sixth report.

605
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, we welcome the report and will be responding in the usual way. I will not prejudge that response now, but, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East about Ministry of Defence police at Royal Ordnance factories, I can say that we are having discussions with British Aerospace and other interested parties, and we hope to reach a satisfactory outcome.
On the point about Bishopton raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I can report that the Ministry of Defence police force at the site will be withdrawn during this month. It is being replaced by Royal Ordnance plc guard force personnel, who are being trained by personnel from Strathclyde police force. The chief constable of Strathclyde is satisfied with those arrangements, entered into in consultation with the Ministry of Defence and the company. His police force will supply the armed response if required.
Crucial to the effectiveness and efficiency of the services are their men and women, both in terms of their quality and quantity—
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Neubert: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have little time left.
It is on personal issues in the main that I intend to focus in my speech. The interests of service personnel are close to the hearts of many hon. Members.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Hon. Member: Sit down.
Mr. Neubert: I really must get on.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister is supposed to be answering the debate.
Mr. Neubert: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will answer the debate. Only a few minutes remain. I have much to say, without the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raising further questions. He spent the whole of his 10 minutes asking a series of questions, and he should be satisfied with that.
We seek to offer an attractive opportunity for a worthwhile career for both officers and soldiers—
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.
Mr. Neubert: We seek to offer an attractive opportunity for a worthwhile career for officers and soldiers which provides plenty of challenge and job satisfaction and is well supported and properly rewarded in financial terms. Only in that way will we persuade the right calibre of people to commit themselves to a career in the Army.
As the House is aware, we have for some time been increasingly concerned by an inability to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of young people in the services, especially in the Army, which is by far the most manpower-intensive. The key points that influence us are, first, that manpower is our most precious asset—slightly more than half the Army's total budget is spent on pay and manpower-related matters—and secondly, that our serving men and women are expensively trained and
606
skilled in a world in which skill shortages are increasing. They are also well disciplined and well motivated. They are, in consequence, highly attractive to outside employers.
Future requirements will be influenced by decisions about the shape and size of the Army. In that Army, air mobility may well have an important part to play. I cannot respond to the points made by my hon. Friends, but I can confirm that the House of Commons air mobile brigade is well staffed by my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), and there may be others. But whatever the eventual outcome, it is clear that recruiting will become that much more difficult with the onset of the demographic trough.
As the House is well aware, the fall in the number of young people has already begun and will continue for some years. The resulting competition from other employers for that falling number of potential employees is making it ever more difficult to recruit and retain all the men and women for the Army that we would like. The Army succeeded in recruiting just over 22,000 officers and soldiers last year—a record achievement, reflecting the sterling effort put into the work. Nevertheless, it was about 5,000 under the trained strength requirement at 31 March this year.
In contrast with that success on the recruitment front, outflow remains far higher than we would like and led to an increase in the Army's undermanning. About 25,000 people left the Army last year. We propose to introduce a wide-ranging strategy to improve manning. Retaining expensively trained manpower is essential, and the principle of maintaining comparability of pay plays a vital part in this. Once again, the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, giving the armed forces an average increase in pay of 9·4 per cent. with three quarters of the award coming from 1 April last and the remainder from 1 January next year. We have also accepted the review body's recommendation that the service X factor should rise by 0·5 per cent. to compensate for the special difficulties of life in the services. The full increase in the pay bill this year is 10·9 per cent.
We are directing our spending particularly towards improving the retention of trained Army personnel. With effect from January next year, committal bonuses are being introduced for both officers and soldiers. Officers will be paid a bonus of £6,500 on promotion to captain and a further bonus of £6,500 on promotion to major. Payment will be made on completing six years service for captains and nine years for majors. In return, those accepting bonuses will be expected to complete at least three further years service. For soldiers, those completing five or eight years service on or after January 1991 will be paid a bonus of £2,000 subject to a commitment to serve for at least a further 12 months. New entrants will join after 1 January next year on new terms of engagement, and will be eligible for bonuses after five and eight years service.
I was sorry to miss the speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) and to hear about his experience at the military correction training centre. I shall read it with pleasure in Hansard tomorrow.

607
I should like to respond to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) by confirming that we have proposals for the formation of an Adjutant-General's Corps. Further work is under way to give effect to the decision already announced and to establish which existing corps functions should be included in the new corps. We are considering the Royal Army Chaplain's department, the corps of the Royal Military Police, the Royal Army Pay Corps, the Military Provost Staff Corps, the Royal Army Education Corps and the Army Legal Corps. In addition, the staff clerk functions currently carried out by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Women's Royal Army Corps will be considered for inclusion in the new corps. About 6,500 uniformed personnel are involved. It is obviously too early for me to be able to report to the House on the precise size and composition of the new corps, but I hope that the necessary work can be completed and decisions taken by the end of the year.
Several of my hon. Friends warmly commended the Territorial Army. I confirm that the contribution made by the Territorial Army to our defence capability is substantial. Over 76,000 TA volunteers, including members of the Home Service Force, form an integral part of our mobilised order of battle. Beyond that, about 180,000 ex-Regular reservists form a vital pool from which TA and Regular Army units can be reinforced, and are a valuable source of military expertise.
I was interested in the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), which was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham about mixed units of Regulars and reservists. That will be considered. As I have said, Regular Army units can be reinforced. Like the rest of the armed forces, the TA has suffered from manning problems, especially retention, but we have seen a most positive response to our volunteer reserve forces campaign. That was aimed at securing a wider public understanding of the volunteer reserves, with over 800 major firms pledging support. Employers understand the benefits that their own organisations can reap from supporting their employees joining the TA, a point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
Membership of the TA not only trains a man or woman to be a good soldier but develops qualities such as leadership, responsibility, discipline and self-confidence, which are just as valuable in the commercial world. For the future, I am confident that the TA is in good shape and well poised to meet the changes likely to take place in the years ahead. There is no question but that it will continue to play a vital role in the future and will prove able to meet the challenging operational and technical requirements of the years to come.
The changing international climate presents great challenges and holds out prospects of great promise. Some uncertainty is inescapable, but in the meantime, the Army's contribution to maintaining stability and security for the nation is vital. We can be confident that the Army will be equal to the task.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Miss Carol Dempster
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
10 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I rise to put a constituency case, that of Miss Carol Dempster, aged 25, who was involved in a traffic accident in October 1988. This accident was first with a black Sierra travelling in the opposite direction from her and then with a police car. Despite the circumstances of the accident and the seriousness with which I and people in the Home Office view this, the Metropolitan police refuse to pay her compensation.
Carol Dempster was travelling along Barnet lane near my constituency in the direction of the A I on a Friday evening at approximately 9.30 at night. A black Ford Sierra came round the bend travelling at high speed. She said that she knew that he would hit her so she pulled the car into the left hand side of the road, turning the bonnet into the kerb. The black Sierra hit her car on the side of the front wing and the door and then carried on up the road. By this time, as far as she knew, Miss Dempster was stationary or moving only slowly.
Just after that, a police Rover came round the bend travelling at high speed. There is some question whether it was doing 70 or 90 mph, but both are high speeds. The car then hit the rear wing and wheels of her car, doing extensive damage. Miss Dempster's car may have been slightly over the white line or just touching it, but it could not have been far over, as the boot of a Triumph Spitfire is quite small.
The response of the police after this accident comes into several categories. First, when Miss Dempster was wandering around dazed and injured—luckily, only slightly—she received no help from police who were around at the time. To be fair, the police have since apologised for that. When Miss Dempster sought compensation from the police, she met with a shocking response. In a letter from the claims officer of the Metropolitan police claims branch to her solicitor on 22
February 1989, Mr. J. M. Comer said:
"Your client took evasive action but, unfortunately, ran into the oncoming police vehicle causing injury to the occupants of both vehicles."
That statement cannot possibly be true and should never have been made by an official of the Metropolitan police.
After the representations that I made to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, to the receiver and to the Home Office, the Home Office wrote to the receiver suggesting that compensation be paid to Miss Dempster. The letter said:
"The Lord Ferris would be grateful, however, if you could review the decision in this case in the light of the points which were made by Mr. Hughes and if you would consider the possibility of making some payment to Miss Dempster in order to compensate her for the loss which she sustained through no fault of her own."
That has been met with a blanket "no" from the receiver of the Metropolitan police.
Why do I raise this case, as distinct from the three years of cases that I—like other hon. Members—have encountered in my constituency advice bureaux? It is not just because of the seriousness of the loss that Carol

609
Dempster has suffered, but because I believe that it is an indicator of a wider problem. High-speed police chases are controversial, both nationally and locally in Harrow.
I attended a meeting of the police consultative committee in Harrow, where the topic was discussed over a long period. Many people took the view that the police should not be allowed to travel at high speed to chase criminals. I did not share that view; I took the view then—as I do now—that if the police, for operational reasons known only to themselves, believe that they should chase someone at high speed—although we know the practice to be dangerous—they should retain the right to do so. What is more, they should have the support of hon. Members in carrying out that difficult work.
The police need our support, but until the case was brought to my attention I believed—as, I think, would other hon. Members—that in the event of an accident in which property was damaged or an individual was unfortunately hurt, the police would take a generous attitude in compensating the person, recognising that they needed to carry out their work. My concern is not just for the unfortunate plight of my constituent, Carol Dempster, but for the wider issue of support for the Metropolitan police.
The attitude taken by the receiver of the Metropolitan police does no favours to the policeman on the beat, or to policemen who have been—or will be—engaged in high-speed pursuit. People will think twice before backing the police in such circumstances, or in other circumstances involving difficult or dangerous police work, if they suspect an ungenerous attitude will be taken by the Metropolitan police in the event of an accident.
There should be a review of the general Metropolitan police policy that
"Where (as here) a car is being pursued by police in the execution of their duty and an accident occurs the clear principle which applies is that unless there is evidence that police action could not be justified in the public interest or did not conform to a reasonable standard of care, then no legal liability falls upon the police to pay compensation."
That is not good enough, either for the policemen carrying out the work or for the public who would want to suppport them.
I am asking for two things. First, I am firmly of the opinion that the police should make at least an ex gratia payment to Carol Dempster for her loss: to a 25-year-old, £1,000 is a great deal of money. Secondly, there should be a new look at policy. Why should the police take such an ungenerous attitude? I have been informed that the position would be different had the incident occurred outside London; the Metropolitan police are operating differently from other police forces. I should like them to examine the matter. I also ask my hon. Friend the Minister to see whether moves can be made by the Home Office to see whether that policy can be changed.
My constituent is £1,000 worse off. She had no comprehensive insurance; which of us had at that age? For her sake, and for the sake of others in London, there should be a review. I urge the Minister to examine the facts that I have laid before the House, and to see whether anything can be done to ensure that when such an unfortunate accident happens again—as, inevitably, it will
610
—the public will know that they will be compensated by the Metropolitan police, to keep their good name and the support of the public.
10.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on taking the trouble to secure this debate and he explained forcefully why he did. He drew attention to the widespread concern about the danger to innocent members of the public who are caught up in police pursuits and suggested that there may be a need to provide some public indemnity against loss through personal injury or damage to property if good public-police relations are to be maintained.
My hon. Friend's constituent, Miss Carol Dempster—with whom we all have great sympathy—was, as he has clearly shown, just such an innocent member of the public who had the misfortune to be caught up in a police car chase. As a result, her car was badly damaged. She looks, not unnaturally, to the police for compensation, but finds, alas—as my hon. Friend correctly recounted—that they disclaim legal liability. My hon. Friend has expressed his view that the police have a moral responsibility to recompense an innocent member of the public in such circumstances.
It might be helpful if I, too, set out the facts of the case and identify the areas of dispute before discussing the way in which the case has been handled. On the evening of Wednesday 26 October 1988, a police officer stationed at Borehamwood police station saw a Ford Sierra motor car in St. Albans being driven by a man whom he knew to be disqualified from holding a licence. The police officer obtained a warrant for the man's arrest. Two days later, on 28 October, the driver of the Sierra, who has a record of theft from motor vehicles, went drinking at a number of public houses in Borehamwood, and broke into and stole property from two motor cars.
At about 9.35 pm the car was spotted in a hotel car park by the same officer who had seen him on the Wednesday evening. The man failed to stop when required to do so and drove off at speed, followed by the police vehicle. The Sierra was driven at speeds in excess of 70 mph in a 30 mph zone, with apparent reckless disregard for the safety of others. It swerved from side to side and hit one vehicle in the course of the pursuit. In Deacons Hill road, Borehamwood, the driver lost control of his vehicle, crossing into the path of Miss Dempster's car before crashing into a telegraph pole. Miss Dempster took avoiding action, but her car was hit by the Sierra. That, I understand, spun her car round before it was hit by the police pursuit car.
The driver of the Sierra was arrested and subsequently convicted of driving while disqualified, theft, possession of an offensive weapon, driving while unfit through drink, failing to provide a specimen and using a motor vehicle while uninsured.
Miss Dempster claims that, after she took action to avoid the Sierra, her car remained on the correct side of the road where it was hit by the police car, which had crossed into her carriageway. The police officer on the other hand alleges that Miss Dempster swerved to his side of the road, where the collision took place. As my hon. Friend knows, it is not unusual following a car accident for the drivers to

611
dispute the exact sequence of events. That matter is usually left to be settled between insurance companies. If agreement cannot be reached, the matter can be resolved in the courts. Once liability is determined, any claims can be settled.
Unfortunately, Miss Dempster, as she was perfectly entitled, had chosen not to take out a comprehensive policy of insurance and was insured only against third party risk. As my hon. Friend remarked, premiums for young people can be high and some prefer to make a saving and accept the risk of carrying the cost of any repairs or replacement of their vehicles if they are damaged. She was also, of course, unable to obtain the support of an insurance company in arguing her case that the Metropolitan police have legal liability.
However, legal liability could be established only if it could be shown that the police action in pursuing the car either could not be justified in the public interest or did not conform to a reasonable standard of care. The Metropolitan police carry their own risks and the force's accident claims branch acts, in effect, as an internal insurance compay for the receiver for the Metropolitan police district. If the branch concludes, on a consideration of all the facts of a case, that no legal liability rests upon the force, compensation is not paid. When an accident involves a car being pursued by the police in the execution of their duty, the branch must be additionally satisfied that the police action can be justified in the public interest and that it conformed to a reasonable standard of care.
A police officer faces a genuine dilemma, as I think that my hon. Friend was suggesting, in maintaining a balance between the apprehension of an offender and the safety of the public. If a driver fails to stop, the officer does not know whether he is dealing with a trivial matter or a serious offence. He has to make a very quick decision.
Responsibility for the manner in which a pursuit is undertaken rests solely, as it must, with the driver of the police car. While he is legally exempt from the observance of the speed limits and certain traffic lights and signs, he is not exempt from other requirements of traffic law. Crossroads, side roads and pedestrians must be carefully watched. The police driver is liable for the quality of his driving in the same way as any other driver.
The driver of the Sierra was wanted on a warrant for driving while disqualified. He refused to stop when required, and his actions throughout confirmed that he had no intention of stopping when required to do so by the police. Furthermore, the police driver was an experienced driver who had qualified as an advanced driver, which enabled him to drive at high speed with as much safety as possible in the circumstances.
The accident claims branch has considerable experience of motor accident claims and dealt, in the 1988–89 financial year, with more than 1,500 claims and payments totalling nearly £1 million. Therefore, there are many occasions when the police do pay out when they consider that they have a liability. The claims branch is satisfied that the evidence in this case is consistent with the Sierra driver forcing Miss Dempster's car into the path of the police vehicle while the latter was being driven on the correct side of the road, and that no liability rests with the Metropolitan police.
612
The accident claims branch, following the intervention of my hon. Friend, agreed to refer the papers to an independent solicitor specialising in civil liability cases for advice on the strength of the case. The solicitor was satisfied that the action of the police driver was fully justified and that on the facts it may be assumed that Miss Dempster's car verged into the path of the police car. He advises that her loss arose only as a result of the Sierra driver's action.
My hon. Friend suggests that the attitude of the Metropolitan police is rigid, whatever the legal liability, and that there is a moral duty to compensate his constituent. I sympathise with his view, but the receiver for the Metropolitan police has a duty to make payments from the Metropolitan police fund only when he has clear authority, and he must account for all payments.
In so far as Miss Dempster did not have comprehensive cover for her car, the receiver is in the same position as any insurance company, or for that matter any private individual, who finds that a vehicle for which he has responsibility is involved with a vehicle driven by a person who has only third party insurance and is aggrieved that his claim for compensation is refused. It may seem hard, but the fact is that a person who decides to have only limited insurance cover does take the risks that that carries.
What I have said, I know, offers no comfort to Miss Dempster, but it remains open to her to pursue a civil claim against the driver of the Sierra or against the receiver. That is of course a matter on which she will wish to take legal advice. But the wider issue raised by my hon. Friend about whether compensation should be payable to the innocent victims of police car pursuits. there have been developments since his constituent's accident.
For accidents that have occurred since 1 January 1989, the Motor Insurers Bureau operates a scheme that enables the victim of an uninsured driver to claim compensation. The bureau will meet any award made by a court if it remains unpaid. That scheme will not meet all cases uncovered by motor accident insurance, but it will close the gap. I regret that it offers no comfort to Miss Dempster, who must feel that, whichever way she turns, there is a barrier to settlement of her claim.
My hon. Friend will, I fear, continue to regard the attitude of the Metropolitan police as mean and rigid, but we must be careful not to establish a requirement on the police to pay compensation where adequate insurance arrangements already exist or to depart from the practice of linking payments to some sort of legal liability. However, I listened, as my hon. Friend asked, to the points that he made very cogently. I shall reflect carefully on his arguments both general and particular, but I am afraid that I would be misleading my hon. Friend and his constituent if I were to leave him with the impression that the current rules provide real scope for a change of approach in this case.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Old Cross, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the restoration scheme of the Old Cross, Newtownards is completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The work was completed on 30 May 1990.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement (Secretariat)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what nationality the present head of the British delegation at the Anglo-Irish Agreement secretariat at Maryfield has.

  Mr. Brooke
  The present head of the British side of the Anglo-Irish secretariat is a British citizen, as are all other members of the British side.

  Aliens
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many aliens are currently registered with the Royal Ulster Constabulary under the Immigration (Registration with Police) Regulations 1972, as amended.

  Mr. Cope
  A total of 552 as at 24 May 1990.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, with regard to the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance, Her Majesty's Government are required to designate sites under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands Order 1985 prior to designation under the Ramsar convention.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is not a requirement of the Ramsar convention that wetland sites of international importance should be designated under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 prior to designation under the Ramsar convention. It is United Kingdom Government policy to declare Ramsar sites after the areas have been given full protection under domestic legislation.

  Development (Castlereagh East)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many development projects are under construction without final planning permission in the electoral area of Castlereagh East; on what date each case came to his attention; on what date he made representations to each offending developer; and what action he has proposed in each case.
  386
  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Grant-aided Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools in Northern Ireland are grant-aided.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 1,344.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools in Northern Ireland do not receive grant aid; and on what grounds these schools fail to qualify for grant aid.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are presently 19 independent schools registered with the Department of Education. These schools have been established outside the grant-aided system and so, by definition, do not receive assistance from public funds. The question of failing to qualify for grant aid does not therefore arise.

  North Eastern Education and Library Board
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish relevant references to the North Eastern education and library board from the Roy report into the financial end of maintenance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the report of the examination in late 1985 into practices and procedures in the engineering section of the North Eastern education and library board's architect's department. This report was commissioned by the board and presented to the board in 1985. The question of publication is therefore a matter for the board.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Anton Piller Orders
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has any plans to review and propose amendments to the operation of Anton Piller orders; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Clause 3 of the Courts and Legal Services Bill will allow a county court to make any order available in the High Court, subject to prescribed exceptions; but the Lord Chancellor intends to bring forward regulations under this clause in general restricting the power to grant Anton Piller orders to High Court judges.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Attorney-General what were the value-for-money savings in the Law Officers' Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  The Attorney-General
  In the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the legal secretariat to the Law Officers the improvements resulting from inquiries and studies of the kind the hon. Gentleman mentions are taken into account in the setting of annual budgets and internal targets.
  387
  The Crown prosecution service was not created until 1986–87 and up to 1988–89 audit and consultants were mainly concerned with the setting up of effective systems for the service. Value-for-money savings identified and achieved on total running cost expenditure of £90 million in 1988–89 were small, but included purchasing savings estimated at £210,000.

  The Serious Fraud Office became fully operational only in April 1988, and no such savings had been specifically identified during the period ending 31 March 1989.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Attorney-General what mechanisms exist in the Law Officers' Departments for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in their operations.

  The Attorney-General
  In the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the legal secretariat to the Law Officers the mechanisms for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings include internal audit and staff inspection. In the Crown prosecution service they include internal audit, staff inspection, a system of performance indicators, returns from operational areas to HQ for public expenditure survey and estimates purposes, investment appraisal of information technology and capital projects, purchasing information systems, and monitoring by a new field directorate.

  The Serious Fraud Office became fully operational only in April 1988, and work is still in progress to develop performance indicators and other work measurement procedures to assist in identifying and achieving value-for-money savings.

THE ARTS

  Public Libraries
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to increase funding of public libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government do not plan local authority spending on public libraries or on other services. Revenue support grant is paid in support of local authorities revenue expenditure generally. Within the "Other Services" block, local authorities estimate a total spend on public libraries of £488 million in 1990–91, an estimated increase of 4 per cent. over 1989–90.

  Cryptogramic Botany
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of the Arts (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the remit of the diatom section of the department of cryptogramic botany in the British Museum (Natural History);

  (2) what assessment he has made of the consequences for current work on atmospheric pollution of the closure of the diatom section of the department of cryptogramic botany of the British Museum (Natural History);

  (3) if he will list the recent research achievements of the publications produced by the diatom section of the department of cryptogramic botany in the British Museum (Natural History).

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that there has never been a separate department of cryptogramic botany at the Natural History Museum, but always a single department of botany. I am also informed that future work on diatoms is planned as follows:388

  (a) Curation. Maintaining the collections and making them available to research workers worldwide. The museum recognises that it holds the finest collection of diatoms in the world, and it is vital that it is available for use by workers undertaking both environmental studies and basic research.

  (b) Advisory Services. Assistance will continue to be given to researchers requiring advice on identification and associated literature.

  (c) Research. Within the overall umbrella of the science departments, research on all protista (including diatoms) will be continued, but with a remit to examine inter-relationships between the different members of the group, to undertake marine stratigraphical analysis and to provide taxonomic information for the assessment of water quality in relation to ground-water studies and sewage treatment.

  In addition, I understand that work on atmospheric pollution has been undertaken primarily in universities and has concentrated on examining the acidification of freshwater bodies. The Natural History Museum has acted either in an advisory capacity or has made the collections available for examination. The museum will continue to support such activities.

  I understand that recent achievements in diatom research have been predominately taxonomic, including descriptions of new species and revisions at the family and generic level. This has included the development of new approaches to evolutionary studies of diatoms based on the interpretation of molecular data, which has indicated new ways of examining fundamental questions regarding the protista. This work is being expanded into a more general review of phylogeny of the group.

  I detail in the table the 53 publications produced by the Natural History Museum diatom section since 1985.

  Publications of the diatom section of the Natural History Museum 1985–1990.

  Paddock, T. B. B. (1985). Observations and comments on the diatoms Surirella fastuosa and Campylodiscus fastuosus and on other species of similar appearance. Nova Hedwigia 41: 417–444.

  Paddock, T. B. B. (1986). Observations on the genus Stauropsis Meunier and related species. Diatom Research 1: 89–98.

  Paddock, T. B. B. (1988), Plagiotropis Pfitzer and Tropidoneis Cleve, a summary account. Bibliotheca Diatomologica, 16, 152pp, 38 pls.

  Kemp, K. D. and Paddock, T. B. B. (1988). Observations on the diatom genus Stigmaphora G. C. Wallich and two species of Mastogloia Thwaites ex W. Smith. In: F. E. Round (Editor), Proceedings of the 9th International Diatom Symposium, Koenigstein & Biopress Ltd, Bristol.

  Paddock, T. B. B. (1988). A description of some new species of the diatom genus Mastogloia Thwaites ex Wm. Smith with further observations on M. elegans Lewis and M. goessii (Cleve) Cleve. Diatom Research, 3: 109–121.

  Paddock, T. B. B. and Sims, P. A. (1988). Micromorphology and evolution of the keels of raphe-bearing diatoms. Systematics Assiociation Special Volume

  Kemp, K. D. and Paddock, T. B. B. (1989). Chambers within the valve of Diadema, gen. nov. Diatom Research, 4: 39–45. Goldman, N., Paddock, T. B. B. and Shaw, K. M. (1990). Quantitative analysis of shape variation in populations of Surirella fastuosa. Diatom Research,

  Hasle, G. R. and Sims, P. A. (1985). The morphology of the diatom resting spores Syringidium bicorne and Syringidium simplex. British Phycological Journal, 20: 219–225.

  Ross, R. and Sims, P. A. (1985). Some genera of the Biddulphiacea (diatoms) with interlocking linking spines.

  Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Botany) 13: 277–381.

  Fryxell, G. A., Sims, P. A. and Watkins, T. P. (1986). Azpeitia (Bacillariophyceae): related genera and promorphology. Systematic Botany Monographs 13, 74pp.
  389
  Hasle, G. R. and Sims, P. A. (1986). The diatom genus Stellarima and Symbolophora with comments on the genus Actinoptychus. British Phycological Journal 21: 97–114.

  Schoemam, F. R. and Archibald, R. E. M. and Sims, P. A. (1986). Observations on Amphora species (Bacillariophyceae) in the British Museum (Natural History). IV. Some species from the subgenus Diplamphora Cleve. Cryptoganie, Algologie 7: 9–21.

  Hasle, G. R. and Sims, P. A. (1986). The diatom genus Coscinodiscus Ehrenb. C. argus Ehrenb. and C. radiatus Ehrenb. Botanica Marina 29: 305–318.

  Sims, P. A. (1986). Sphynctolethus Hanna, Ailuretta gen nov., and evolutionary trends within the Hemiauloideae, Diatom Research 1: 241–269.

  Ross, R. and Sims, P. A. (1987) Further genera of the Biddulphiaceae (diatoms) with interlocking linking spines. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) ( Botany) 16: 269–311.

  Hendey, N. I. and Sims, P. A. (1987). Examination of some fossil Eupodiscoid diatoms with descriptions of two new species of Craspedoporus Greville. Diatom Research 2: 23–34.

  Sims, P. A. and Hasle, G. R. (1987). Two Cretaceous Stellarima species: S. steinyi and S. distincta; their morphology, palaeogeography and phylogeny. Diatom Research 2: 229–240.

  Hasle, G. R., Sims, P. A. and Syvertsen, E. E. (1988). Two recent Stellarima species: S. microtrias and S. stellaris (Bacillariophyceae). Botanica marina, 31: 195–206.

  Sims, P. A. and Ross, R. (1988). Some Cretaceous and Paleogene Trinacria (diatom) species. Bull, Br. Mus. nat. Hist. ( Bot.), 18: 275–322.

  Sims, P. A. (1988). The fossil genus Trochosira, its morphology, taxonomy and systematics. Diatom Research, 3: 245–257.

  see also Paddock, T. B. B. and Sims, P. A. (1988).

  Sims, P. A. (1989). Some cretaceous and paleocene species of Coscinodiscus: A micromorphological and systematic analysis. Diatom Research, 4: 351–371.

  Sims, P. A., Fryxell, G. A. and Baldauf, J. G. (1989). Critical examination of the diatom genus Azpeitia: Species useful as stratigraphic markers for the Oligocene and Miocene epochs. Micropaleontology, 35: 293–307.

  Sims, P. A. and Hasle, G. R. (1990). The formal establishment of the family Stellarimaceae Nikolaev ex Sims and Hasle. Diatom Research,

  Sims, P. A. and Ross, R. (1990). Triceratium pulvinar and T. unguiculatum, two confused species. Diatom Research,

  Hendey, N. I. and Sims, P. A. (In press). Some observations on variation in the valve structure of Asterolampra schmidtii Hajos, a useful stratigraphic marker for the early Oligocene. Nova Hedwigia, Beih.

  Crawford, R. M. and Sims, P. A. (1990). The morphology and taxonomy of the centric diatom genus Paralia. Paralia siberica comb. nov. Diatom Research, 5.

  Sims, P. A. (1990). The fossil diatom genus Fenestrella, its morphology, systematics and palaeogeography. Nova Hedwigia, Beih.

  Williams, D. M. (1985). Morphology, taxonomy and inter-relationships of the ribbed Araphid diatoms from the genera Diatoma and Meridion (Diatomaceae: Bacillariophyta). Bibliotheca Diatomologica 8: 1–228.

  Williams, D. M. (1985). Bacillariophyta. In:—Observations on the phytobenthos of the freshwater Thames. II. The floristic composition and distribution of the smaller algae using artificial surfaces. Arch. Hydrobiol. 103: 95–96.

  Hartley, B. (1986). [In collaboration with Ross, R. and Williams, D. M.] A check-list of the freshwater brackish and marine diatoms of the British Isles and adjoining coastal waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association, U.K. 66: 531–610.

  Williams, D. M. (1986). Comparative morphology of some species of Synedra with a new definition of the genus. Diatom Research 1: 131–152.

  Williams, D. M. (1986). Proposal to conserve the generic name Tetracyclus against Biblarium (Bacillariophyta). Taxon 35: 730–731.

  Williams, D. M. and Round, F. E. (1986). Revision of the genus Synedra Ehrenb, Diatom Research 1: 313–339.
  390
  Kociolek, J. P. and Williams, D. M. (1987). Unicell ontogeny and phylogeny: examples from the diatoms. Cladistics 3: 274–284.

  Williams, D. M. and Round, F. E. (1987). Revision of the genus Fragilaria. Diatom Research 2: 267–288.

  Williams, D. M. (1987). Observations on the genus Tetracyclus Ralfs (Bacillariophyta) I. Valve and girdle structure of the extant species. Brit. J. phycol. 22: 383–399.

  Williams, D. M. and Round, F. E. (1988). Phylogenetic Systematics of Synedra. In: F. E. Round (Editor), Proceedings of the 9th International Diatom Synposium, Koenigstein and Biopress Ltd., Bristol.

  Williams, D. M. (1988). Tabulariopsis, a new genus of marine araphid diatom, with notes on the taxonomy of Tabularia Williams et Round. Nova Hedwigia, 47: 247–254.

  Williams D. M. (1988). An illustrated catalogue of the type specimens in the Greville diatom herbarium. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Bot.), 18: 1–148.

  Williams, D. M., B. Hartley, S. Juggins, R. Ross, M. Munro and R. W. Battarbeee. (1988). A coded check-list of British diatoms, Ensis Publishers.

  Williams, D. M. and F. E. Round. (1988). Fragilariforma, nom. nov., a new generic name for Neofragilaria Williams and Round. Diatom Research 3: 265–266.

  Williams, D. M. (1989). Cavitatus D. M. Williams, nov. gen.: A new genus of fossil diatom (Bacillariophyta) based on Synedra jouseana Sheshukova-Poretskaya. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol., 58: 357–362.

  Williams D. M. (1989). Publication of new and revised taxa: A guide to the International Code of Botanical nomenclatural. J. Palaeolimnol., 2: 55–59.

  Williams, D. M. (1989). Observations on the genus Tetracyclus Ralfs (Bacillariophyta) II. Morphology and taxonomy of some species from the genus Stylobiblium. Brit. phycol J., 24: 317–327

  Kociolek, J. P., Theriot, E. C. and Williams, D. M. (1989). Inferring diatom phylogeny: A cladistic perspective. Diatom Research, 4: 289–300.

  Williams, D. M., R. W. Scotland, and S. Blackmore. (1990). Is there a direct ontogenetic criterion in systematics? Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 39: 99–108.

  Williams, D. M. and Li Jiaying. (1990). Observations on the genus Tetracyclus Ralfs (Bacillariophyta) III. Description of two new species from Chinese fossil deposits. Brit. Phycol J..

  Williams, D. M. (1990). Examination of auxospore valves in Tetracyclus from fossil specimens and the establishment of their identity. Diatom Research,

  Williams, D. M. (1990). Distrionella D. M. Williams, nov. gen. a new araphid diatom genus related to Diatoma Bory. Arch. Protist.,

  Williams, D. M. (1990). Cladistic analysis of some freshwater araphid diatoms with particular reference to Diatoma and Meridion. Plant Syst. Evol.

  Williams. D. M. (1990). Phylogenetic relationships among the Chromista: A review and preliminary analysis. Cladistics.

  Williams. D. M. Submitted. Phylogenies in the algal kingdom Chronista: Evidence from molecular data. Mol. Evol. Biol.

  British Library
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is to be the future of the new British Library at St. Pancras.

  Mr. Luce
  I announced yesterday that the exercise to design a concluding phase to the new British Library building at St. Pancras within £90 million at 1988 prices has been successfully achieved. Construction of some elements of the completion phase will commence almost immediately and the whole will be ready for occupation in 1996.

  Included in the design is a magnificent new setting for George III's "King's Library" in a six storey glass-fronted bookcase set in the focal point of the building, where it will be visible from all sides. A model and artist's impressions of the completed building will be on display in the summer

  391
  exhibition of the Royal Academy. For the next few months, there will also be an exhibition in the portico of the building at the St. Pancras site.

  The authorised cost of the completion phase will in cash terms be about £150 million, which includes allowances for inflation. Together with the £300 million already authorised for the first phase of the building currently under construction, this will bring the total cost of the British Library project to about £450 million. This clearly demonstrates the Government's continued dedication to excellence in the arts. The funding of the new British Library at St. Pancras does not have any effect on Government funding of the remainder of the arts.

  The British Library will start to move books into the basement bookstacks at St. Pancras by the middle of 1991, the first reading room will open in early 1993 and the first phase of the building will be operational by the middle of 1993. The completed building will be fully operational by mid-1996 and the board of the British Library has confirmed that it will meet the library's key requirements.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what are the admission figures for the Natural History Museum for any convenient period since 1 January.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: I am advised that the monthly admission figures for the Natural History Museum since 1 January 1990 are as follows:-

  Number

  January

  86,200

  February

  153,000

  March

  103,000

  April

  128,000

  Gelman Collection
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has made of the possibility of the Gelman collection currently on show at the Royal Academy staying in Britain.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: I understand from the Royal Academy, which has been responsible for the arrangement for the current exhibition, that the Gelman collection has proved to be very popular and will be shown until 15 July. I was pleased to cover the insurance requirements under my Government indemnity scheme. Any further arrangements will, of course, be a matter for the owner of the collection, Mrs. Gelman.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether there have been any additions to the list of candidates for agency status in the last five months.

  Mr. Luce
  During the last five months two new activities, social security contributions and the Chessington computer centre, have been added to the list of candidates for agency status. In the same period 21 candidates from the list have been set up as agencies. There are now 31 established agencies and 24 announced candidates. The project manager will continue to work with Departments to identify other suitable candidates.
  392
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if there have been any new agencies set up since he last reported to the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to announce that since I last reported to the House the Ordnance Survey has been launched as an executive agency. This brings the total set up to 31, covering nearly 70,000 staff.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects that the current list of candidates for agency status will have been converted into agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Target dates for the establishment of announced candidates as executive agencies are a matter for the Minister concerned. However, generally we continue to make good progress in implementing this initiative and I would expect that by the end of 1991 "next steps" will have been applied to at least half the civil service.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what mechanisms exist in the OMCS for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Luce
  The search for year-on-year efficiency gains is an integral part of the OMCS annual planning and budgeting exercise. The system also allows for regular monitoring of progress towards targets, and their achievement.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Luce
  The identification of value-for-money targets is an integral part of the annual OMCS planning and budgeting exercise even though those targets have not always been expressed in purely financial terms. Value-for-money improvements, including purchasing savings, of £3·015 million have been achieved between 1985–86 and 1988–89, although it is not possible to identify the separate contributions made by each of the means of study mentioned.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Education Conference, Thailand
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the conclusions made at, and outcome of, the world conference on education for all, held in Thailand on 5 to 9 March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ultimate goal affirmed by the world declaration on education for all is to meet the basic learning needs of all children, youth and adults. Countries have been advised of a variety of interim targets towards this end taking account of local circumstances. The
  393
  conference was a constructive one with a general emphasis on the importance of the role of education throughout the whole range of social, technical and economic development. The World Bank, the United Nations international children's emergency fund, and the United Nations development programme, to all of which her Majesty's Government are a major contributor, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation have all agreed to increase support for education especially at the basic level.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitment Her Majesty's Government have made towards achieving the goals of basic primary education for every child, and reducing worldwide levels of illiteracy in response to the world conference on education for all held in Thailand in March; what is the current funding for such goals; and what intention there is to increase funding for these purposes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In addition to the use of its contributions to the World Bank, the United Nations international children's emergency fund and the United Nations development programme, Her Majesty's Government are ready to respond to the wishes of developing country Governments, who are themselves responsible for deciding the priority they wish to give to expenditure on basic education in relation to other priorities they may have.

  In 1988, the latest year for which final figures are available, £6·5 million of capital aid from our bilateral aid programme was spent on education, with £1·1 million specifically on primary education. In the same year further expenditure on technical co-operation (for example staff, training and books) and including some £45 million provided to the British Council, was about £95 million, with £2·6 million specifically for primary education and adult literacy. Help given across the whole spectrum of education by, for example, the provision of key personnel in a Ministry of Education, will have a considerable effect on individual sectors. It is likely that the consequences of the conference on education for all will, by encouraging developing country Governments to give higher priority to basic education, enable us to expand more easily our bilateral support for primary education and adult literacy programmes, the latter with a particular emphasis on education for women.

  Tropical Forestry Action Plan
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the tropical forestry action plan was last reviewed at a meeting of Economic Community Development Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  On 29 May, European Community Development Ministers discussed the preservation, rehabilitation and sustainable development of tropical forests, including the role of the tropical forestry action plan. The final resolution welcomed the review of the TFAP now under way, and at my suggestion was amended to ensure that at a future meeting Ministers will consider the results of the review and how the TFAP can be made more effective.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to meet the Prime Minister of Greece to discuss the current situation in Cyprus.

  The Prime Minister
  I reviewed the situation in Cyprus with Mr. Mitsotakis, the Prime Minister of Greece, during his working visit to London on 16 May.

  European Council
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what issues she intends to raise at the next meeting of the European Council; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect discussion of a range of issues, including developments in eastern and central Europe, the 1992 single market programme, institutional questions, and co-operation on drugs and the environment.

  Engagements
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

  Secretary of State for Energy
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the full duties of the Secretary of State for Energy in April 1990; and what additional responsibilities have now been given to him.

  The Prime Minister
  In April 1990 the Secretary of State for Energy had overall responsibility for the work of the Department of Energy. He now has additional responsibility for co-ordinating the development of the presentation of Government policies.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what are to be the new cross-departmental co-ordination functions of the Secretary of State for Energy; how many civil servants will assist him in this work; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 24 May at column 286.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister whether there have been any periods of defence plutonium production subsequent to that mentioned in her reply to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 19
  395
  February 1985, Official Report, columns 406–07; and whether the policy outlined in her answer continues to be that of Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  The policy of Her Majesty's Government remains unchanged. Production of plutonium for defence purposes is kept at the minimum level required to meet defence needs. It would not be in the national interest to give details.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the sums being expended by the European Economic Community on the growth and export of high-tar tobacco.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are concerned at the grave consequences on health of smoking cigarettes and other forms of tobacco both in Europe and in the Third world.

  We have long been critical of the Community's CAP tobacco regime. We have consistently argued that support for this crop should be reduced. We were successful in securing the introduction in 1988 of measures to reduce expenditure and discourage the production of the less-marketable and higher-tar varieties, for example through the stabiliser mechanism. Further reductions in support for certain of the less marketable varieties were agreed in this year's price-fixing negotiations.

  Our objective is less production, reduced intervention and less subsidised export of the higher-tar varieties. We shall take every opportunity to continue to pursue this policy in future negotiations.

  Advisers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will introduce legislation to provide opposition parties with funds for the payment of advisers comparable with those sums spent by the Cabinet Office on advisers who are not career civil servants.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Opposition parties are already given financial assistance for support in respect of their parliamentary duties.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what restrictions exist on the spending of public money on prime ministerial advisers who are not career civil servants; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Such costs, like the other costs of my office, are kept under close scrutiny and are restricted to what is necessary.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many whole-time equivalent civil servants are currently employed; and how many whole-time equivalent workplace nursery places are currently provided for children of civil servants.

  The Prime Minister
  On 1 October 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 565,075 whole-time civil servants. On 20 March this year the Department of Social Security opened a workplace nursery in Hertford which offers 12 whole-time places. Six more nurseries are expected to open later this year.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give the number of dedicated energy managers in the Cabinet Office and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  The Prime Minister
  In most buildings occupied by the Cabinet Office other Departments are the main occupiers and have their own staff responsible for energy management within the building. The Cabinet Office itself has one part-time energy manager.

  Mr. Frank Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give the number of energy audits carried out in the Cabinet Office in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  The Prime Minister
  No energy audits have so far been undertaken, but three are currently under consideration for buildings where the Cabinet Office is the major occupier.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by the Cabinet Office, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  The Prime Minister
  The figures requested are available only in cash and 1978–79 money terms and only for the following years:

  Electricity

  Gas

  Liquid Fuel

  £

  £

  £

  1987–88

  268,523

  74,797

  56,511

  1(130,870)

  (36,454)

  1(27,542)

  1988–89

  294,485

  53,904

  39,906

  1(133,982)

  (24,525)

  (18,156)

  1989–90

  295,126

  56,575

  242,000

  1(125,078)

  1(24,169)

  1(17,942)

  1 Denotes 1978–79 money terms.

  2 Estimate.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to reply to the letter to her, dated 23 April, from Mr. Colin Wallace, on Clockwork Orange.

  The Prime Minister
  A reply has been sent on my behalf.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the value-for-money savings in operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements, by external audit and by management consultants retained by her office between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what was the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  The Prime Minister
  The information for my office is not held separately, but is contained in the overall figure for the office of the Minister for the Civil Service. The identification of value-for-money targets is an integral part of the annual OMCS planning and budgeting exercise even
  397
  though those targets have not always been expressed in purely financial terms. Value-for-money improvements including purchasing savings, of £3·015 million have been achieved between 1985–86 and 1988–89, although it is not possible to identify the separate contributions made by each of the means of study mentioned.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister what mechanisms exist in(a) her office and (b) the Cabinet Office for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in their operations.

  The Prime Minister
  The search for year-on-year efficiency gains is an integral part of the planning and budgeting system in both my office and the Cabinet Office. The system also allows for regular monitoring of progress towards targets, and their achievements.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the long-term and short-term capital account of the balance of payments deficit;

  (2) if he will include in the balance of payments figure either monthly or quarterly the long-term capital account deficit;

  (3) if he will make available to hon. Members figures on the long and short-term capital account deficit when they are available to the Treasury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information on the main categories of financial transaction in the capital account of the balance of payments are published regularly each quarter by the Central Statistical Office in the balance of payments press notice and in Economic Trends; both publications are available in the Library. It is not particularly meaningful to distinguish between long-term and short-term capital flows.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the relative impact on exchange rates and the balance of payments of(a) capital flows and (b) trade flows; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the absence of measurement error, capital flows and flows on the current account necessarily sum to zero. The effects, if any, of such flows on the exchange rate will depend on present and expected future policies.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the deficit on the basic balance of the balance of payments.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information on the United Kingdom balance of payments, covering both the current account and the main categories of financial transactions in the capital account, is published in the Central Statistical Office's quarterly press notice on the balance of payments and in Economic Trends, both of which are available in the Library. The concept of a basic balance is not particularly meaningful.
  398
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total private sector deficit accumulated since 1979 because of trade imbalance on the balance of payments.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Figures relating to the private sector and public corporations in respect of the balance of invisibles are published in tables A4 (trade in services and investment income) and A7 (transfers) of Economic Trends, March 1990 (pages 82 and 87), which is available in the Library. With the exception of defence equipment (mainly imported), most of visible trade (table A2 of the above publication) is undertaken mainly by the private sector and public corporations.

  Investment Levels
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of manufacturing investment was in the first quarter of the current year.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of manufacturing investment was in the first quarter of 1990.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The provisional estimate of manufacturing investment in the first quarter of 1990 is £3,091 million, at 1985 prices and seasonally adjusted. This is 1 per cent. higher than the previous quarter and 9 per cent. higher than the first quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Confederation of British Industry; and whether levels of investment were discussed.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor addressed the CBI's annual dinner on 17 May at which a range of subjects were discussed. This speech referred to the record rise in investment over the last three years, which he naturally welcomed. While he recognised the difficulties of the current slowdown in demand and output, he took the opportunity to urge British business to invest wherever it can.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to assess potential effects on British exports to the European Community of full membership of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We will join the ERM when the Government's conditions have been met. All the potential effects of membership are, of course, kept under review.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the United Kingdom manufacturing export figures for the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Exports of manufactured goods on a balance of payments basis for the past two years were:

  £ billion

  1988

  64·9

  1989

  75·2

  Exports of manufactures have continued to grow strongly in 1990: in the first quarter they were 15 per cent. higher by value than in the same quarter a year earlier.

  Manufacturers' Output Prices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the causes of the increase in manufacturers' output prices during 1989 and of the effect of the price rises on the economy.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The increase in manufacturers' output prices reflects exceptional growth of demand over the last two years. Inflation damages the economy by increasing uncertainty, discouraging investment, and reducing profitability. It undermines industrial relations and reduces confidence in the management of the economy, at home and abroad. The Government's tight monetary and fiscal policy will ensure that inflation falls.

  Non-North Sea GDP
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of non-North sea money, gross domestic product, non-North sea taxes, national insurance contributions and the poll tax represented in 1989–90; and what is the planned proportion in 1990–91.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that non-North sea taxes, national insurance contributions and community charge in 1989–90 amounted to 36¾ per cent. of non-North sea GDP (adjusted to remove the distortion due to the abolition of domestic rates). The Budget forecast for the comparable figure in 1990–91 is 37 per cent.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Ryder
  The number of industrial and non-industrial staff employed by the Treasury (including the Civil Service Catering Organisation) totalled 3,181 on 1 April 1989. The proportion employed in each standard region is as follows:

  Per cent

  South-East

  81·8

  South-West

  3·7

  West Midlands

  0·4

  North-West

  1·5

  Northern

  0·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0·7

  East Midlands

  0·3

  East Anglia

  5·8

  Wales

  1·9

  Scotland

  3·0

  Northern Ireland

  0·0

  Elsewhere (abroad)

  0·1

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Madrid conditions for exchange rate mechanism participation to be satisfied.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 26 April,Official Report, column 475.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with 400
  European Community Governments concerning United Kingdom entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly discusses a wide range of economic matters with European Community Governments.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his estimates of the number of individuals presently paying income tax in(a) England and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Lilley
  The estimated number of individuals resident in England and liable to income tax is 20·4 million for 1987–88, the latest available year. The corresponding estimate for Wales is 940,000. Married women are included where their earned income exceeds the wife's earned income allowance and any personal allowances and reliefs unused against the husband's income.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the percentage of the population of the United Kingdom who do not pay any income tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  In 1990–91 it is estimated that about 45 per cent. of those aged 18 and over in the United Kingdom are not liable to pay income tax. Some may, however, receive interest on deposits in banks and building society accounts on which non-reclaimable composite rate tax has been paid. The estimate is based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal income and is provisional.

  Trading and Capital Account Deficit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the total trading and capital account deficit which has accumulated since 1979 has been financed.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information on the current account (trade in goods and services, investment income and transfers) and on the capital account (transactions in external financial assets and liabilities) of the balance of payments are given in table A 1 of Economic Trends, March 1990 (page 79), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total deficit accumulated since 1979 because of capital account deficits on the balance of payments.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information on the capital account of the balance of payments (transactions in external financial assets and liabilities) is given in table A8 of Economic Trends, March 1990 (page 88), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Contract Cleaners
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the average wages of service contract cleaners for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Ryder
  The average rate for those on contract to Government Departments is a matter for the contractor concerned and will depend on a number of factors.
  401
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received the NUCPS report entitled, "Contract Cleaners—the Lowest Paid"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The NUCPS report "Contract Cleaners—the Lowest Paid" has not yet reached the Treasury.

  Taxation (Savings)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those taxes which apply to savings with the tax take in each case for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  The tax liability in 1990–91 on investment income received by individual savers, including interest received on bank and building society accounts, national savings and dividends received from companies, is estimated at £10·5 billion. Tax reliefs on debt interest, for example mortgage interest relief, are excluded.

  Other taxes relevant to savings are capital gains tax, inheritance tax and stamp duty. Forecasts of receipts in 1990–91 for each of these taxes are in table 1·2 of the 1990–91 Financial Statement and Budget Report. Not all these yields are derived from savings.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the cost to the Treasury of providing tax relief for first-time buyers on their mortgages at double the present rate of relief, at current prices.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that information on mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers is not available.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to the Treasury of mortgage tax relief for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates for financial years are as follows:

  Value of Mortgage interest relief

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  4,900

  >11988–89

  5,400

  11989–90

  6,900

  1 Provisional.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working families with children receive more in child benefit than they pay in income tax, distinguishing between two and one-parent families.

  Mr. Major
  In 1990–91 an estimated 900,000 families with heads in full or part-time employment will receive more in child benefit than they pay in income tax. Almost half the families have insufficient income to be liable to income tax. A total of 600,000 are two-parent families and 300,000 are single parents. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987 family expenditure survey and are subject to revision.

  EC Contributions
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total net contributions to the European Economic Community was borne by the United Kingdom in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and if he will publish a table showing the net contributions or net receipts in respect of each member state.

  Mr. Ryder
  The "Statement on the 1990 Community Budget" (Cm. 1059) includes an estimate of £2,175 million for the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Economic Community in 1990. It is not possible to express this amount as a percentage of total net contributions as the net balances of member states will sum to zero after allowance is made for unallocated expenditure (mainly aid and some administration), miscellaneous revenue and budget surpluses.

  Comparable information about the net balances of other member states is not available.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Richard Ryder
  I gave the hon. Member the figures for 1989 in current terms in my answers of 30 April,Official Report, column 444, and 14 May, Official Report, column 274. Figures for previous years are not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Ryder
  Energy management responsibilities form part of the duties of several officials with the major co-ordinating role being undertaken by a senior executive officer. The total time devoted to these duties is currently estimated to be 0·2 man years per year. This figure is expected to increase.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount lost to the Exchequer by tax evasion in each of the main categories of taxation; and what this is expressed as a number of pence on the basic rate of tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  Reliable estimates of tax lost through evasion are not possible.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish in draft form the regulations provided for in clause 60 of the Finance Bill (capital movements between residents of member states); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Board of Inland Revenue announced in a press release on 19 April 1990 that it was hoped to
  403
  publish the regulations governing the reporting requirement introduced by clause 60 of the Finance Bill (for certain transactions) shortly. I have today authorised the publication of the draft regulations. The Inland Revenue is issuing a press release giving further details.

  South Africa
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the International Monetary Fund about the need for further debt reduction for front-line states in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has made no such representations.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to meet representatives of the front-line South African states to discuss debt reduction.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet representatives of the front-line South African states.

  United Kingdom manufacturing investment (including leased assets) £ million 1985 prices

  Year

  Actual investment

  Difference from 1978–79 average

  1979 investment projected at 1974–79 average rate of change (2·1 per cent.)

  Difference from actual level

  1979 investment projected at year on year percentage changes1 for:

  (a)

  (a)—£10,937

  (b)

  (a)—(b)

  Japan

  France

  USA

  West Germany

  OECD2

  1979

  11,158

  +221

  11,158

  —

  3—

  11,158

  11,158

  11,158

  3—

  1980

  9,920

  -1,017

  11,392

  -1,472

  3—

  11,950

  11,301

  11,939

  3—

  1981

  7,735

  -3,202

  11,631

  -3,896

  3—

  11,102

  10,205

  11,383

  3—

  1982

  7,603

  -3,334

  11,875

  -4,272

  3—

  10,447

  8,368

  10,302

  3—

  1983

  7,541

  -3,396

  12,125

  -4,584

  3—

  10,165

  9,849

  10,446

  3—

  1984

  8,922

  -2,015

  12,379

  -3,457

  3—

  10,297

  11,100

  10,300

  3—

  1985

  10,264

  -673

  12,639

  -2,375

  3—

  10,966

  9,990

  11,680

  3—

  1986

  9,654

  -1,283

  12,905

  -3,251

  3—

  11,317

  10,070

  12,789

  3—

  1987

  10,142

  -795

  13,176

  -3,034

  3—

  12,087

  —

  —

  3—

  1988

  11,334

  +397

  13,453

  -2,119

  3—

  —

  —

  —

  3—

  1989

  12,043

  +1,106

  13,735

  -1,692

  3—

  —

  —

  —

  3—

  1 Source: OECD National Accounts Volume 2 1974–87. The percentage changes are based on figures, at 1980 prices, of gross fixed capital formation by owners engaged in manufacturing. The coverage is therefore not exactly comparable to the United Kingdom figures which differ, in particular, by the inclusion of leased assets.

  2 Figures of gross fixed capital formation in manufacturing are not available for a number of OECD countries. It is not possible to produce average change figures covering the group of countries for which figures are available because all figures are expressed in national currencies.

  3 Not available.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures for 1979–80 and each subsequent year on(a) the cost of the civil service and (b) the average cost for each civil servant; and if he will break down the average cost for each civil servant into pay, national insurance, superannuation, and other costs such as office space, heating, lighting, car allowance, travel allowance, etc.

  Table 1

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Departmental running costs in £ million1

  6,800

  7,700

  8,400

  9,650

  10,200

  10,700

  11,352

  12,009

  12,698

  13,680

  Average full-time staff included in running costs2 of which:

  712,200

  693,900

  675,100

  654,900

  639,300

  633,700

  634,700

  622,500

  608,000

  602,900

  Civil Service

  625,600

  608,700

  590,900

  571,400

  556,300

  550,600

  551,600

  540,300

  527,200

  525,700

  Armed Forces

  58,000

  58,000

  58,000

  58,000

  58,000

  58,000

  58,000

  57,000

  56,000

  53,000

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  28,600

  27,200

  26,200

  25,500

  25,000

  25,100

  25,100

  25,200

  24,800

  24,200

  Running costs £ per head

  9,548

  11,097

  12,443

  14,735

  15,955

  16,885

  17,886

  19,292

  20,885

  22,690

  1 Departmental running costs comprise pay and national insurance costs, personnel overheads (including travel allowances), accommodation costs, office and other services. They do not include notional accruing pensions liability, pensions in payment or capital expenditure.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) at 1989 prices, how much higher or lower manufacturing investment would have been in each year since 1978–79(a) had the level of 1978–79 been maintained and (b) had the average rate of change from 1974 to 1979 been maintained;

  (2) at 1989 prices (a) what manufacturing investment would have been had it maintained 1978–79 levels in each subsequent year, (b) what manufacturing investment would have been in each year since 1978–79 had it changed at the same rate as in (i) Japan, (ii) the United States of America, (iii) West Germany, (iv) France and (v) OECD average level; and (c) what manufacturing investment was in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: A 1989 constant price series for manufacturing investment is not available. The table provides the available information at 1985 prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: Civil service running costs control was introduced only in 1986–87 and these costs have not been recorded to the level of detail requested. Due to coverage changes, comparable figures prior to 1980–81 are not available, and those for the years prior to 1986–87 have had to be estimated to the nearest £50 million. Table 1 sets out total running costs on current coverage, the number of full-time staff covered and the cost per head for the year indicated.
  405
  2Figures for average levels of full-time staff in post across the year. They exclude staff in trading funds for example HMSO, and other areas now exempted from gross running cost control (Cm. 1021 Ch. 21.3.16 refers). Although most of the armed forces are also outside running costs, those personnel engaged in headquarters and support activities are included.

  Table 2 shows the average man-year cost for the years from 1986–87 when casual staff and overtime are added, and analyses the cost by major components.

  Table 2

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1988–89

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Running costs per man year

  15,532

  16,851

  18,172

  19,470

  Comprising: Pay costs

  9,874

  10,751

  11,633

  12,338

  Personnel overheads

  1,276

  1,456

  1,516

  1,580

  Accommodation costs

  1,867

  1,938

  2,181

  2,501

  Office services (eg telecommunications)

  1,222

  1,379

  1,416

  1,584

  Other services (eg contract services)

  1,293

  1,327

  1,426

  1,467

  Public Sector Labour Costs
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures available for the total annual cost and the average annual cost of full-time equivalent posts in(a) the National Health Service, (b) the civil service, (c) local government and (d) all remaining public sector work forces, including nationalised industries; and if he will break down the average cost for a full-time equivalent post into pay, national insurance, superannuation and other costs.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: Figures for the total annual cost and the average annual cost of full-time equivalent posts in the civil service, together with an analysis of average civil service man-year costs is given in another question tabled by my hon. Friend which I am also answering today. Comparable information for the National Health Service, local government and all remaining public sector work forces is not available.

  The CSO publication "United Kingdom National Accounts" shows expenditure on income from employment (wages and salaries, including employers' contributions to national insurance and superannuation) for local authorities and public corporations in table 2·5. For the National Health Service this information is shown under "Health" in table 9·4.

  Information on the number of employees on a full-time equivalent basis in each sector is given in an article in Economic Trends, December 1989 edition.

  Any broad averages of per capita remuneration costs derived from these sources must be interpreted with great caution. Cost and employment figures are subject to differences in definition and coverage.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Details of appointments made by the Treasury are published annually in "Public Bodies" and "Women into Public Appointments". "Public Bodies" is available in the Library of the House. The latest edition of "Women into Public Appointments" is to be published next month. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Education, Police and Fire Services
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to questions from the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), of 27 April,Official Report, columns 355–56, if he will break down the figures given for the effect on (a) income tax and (b) value added tax of transferring services from local government to central Government between (i) education, (ii) police and (iii) fire.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Pursuant to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) of 27 April, the total costs of education, the police and the fire service (including civil defence) in 1990–91 would be around £18 billion, £5 billion and £1 billion respectively, if local authorities spent in line with total standard spending in England and Wales and total current expenditure in Scotland. If this expenditure were transferred to central Government, with no change to revenue support grant and specific grants for the police and fire service eliminated, this would imply additional expenditure of around £18 billion on education, £2·4 billion on police and £1 billion on fire and civil defence. These sums are equivalent to increases of around 12p, 1½p and ½p respectively in the basic rate of income tax or to increases of 9, 1 and ½ percentage points respectively in the VAT rate.

  Income
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table giving the percentage increase in (a) income from employment, (b) income from self-employment, (c) rent, dividends and interest, (d) social security benefits and (e) personal disposable income, between 1978–79 and 1989–90, giving the contribution of each towards personal disposable income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: Estimates in respect of the first quarter of 1990 will be published in late June. The most up-to-date comparison available, for calendar years 1978 to 1989, gives the following percentage increases and percentages of personal disposable income:
  407

  Percentage change 1989 on 1978

  As a percentage of personal1 disposable income

  1978

  1989

  Income from employment

  +183

  87

  82

  Income from self-employment

  +255

  12

  14

  Rent, dividends and interest

  +258

  11

  13

  Social security benefits

  +191

  14

  13

  Personal disposable income

  +202

  1 Personal disposable income is total personal income less taxes, social security contributions and certain transfer payments.

ENERGY

  Overhead Power Cables
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessments have been made of the environmental hazards of overhead power cables for those who live directly beneath; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand there has been a very small number of cases over many years of overhead line conductors breaking and falling across houses without causing any injury.

  Any electrical conductor, whether forming part of an overhead line, underground cable, or the wiring and appliances in the home creates an electric and magnetic field in its vicinity. Some scientists have claimed that these fields affect human health. Research on this has been going on worldwide for over 10 years and to date has not identified any serious risk.

  In the United Kingdom a major research programme is continuing which is being funded and carried out by the National Grid Company. previously part of the CEGB, mostly using independent laboratories.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those matters relating to the work of Nuclear Electric on which it is his policy to answer parliamentary questions; and how this differs from his former policy in relation to the work of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My policy is unchanged. Questions which relate to the operational management of Nuclear Electric plc remain a matter for the company.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of the saving in electricity demand which would result from insulation to the highest standards being advocated by his Department of(a) 33 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 66 per cent., (d) 75 per cent. and (e) 90 per cent. of all homes in England and Wales.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A recent estimate has indicated that if all cost-effective insulation measures were applied, where relevant, to the housing stock in England and Wales 5·5TWh of electricity, used in space and water heating, could be saved. This represents 2·4 per cent. of the total electricty consumed in England and Wales.

  However, householders are likely to opt at least in part for greater warmth rather than simply saving energy.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when the vitrification plant for the solidification of high-level radioactive waste, presently under construction at British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield, will be completed and commissioned; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when the store for receipt of the sealed canisters of vitrified high-level radioactive waste at British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield, will be completed and commissioned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from British Nuclear Fuels plc that the vitrification plant will be completed during June this year and that commissioning is expected by January 1991. The vitrified product store has already been completed and commissioning is expected by October 1990.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the neutron and alpha/beta/gamma components of surface radiation dose equivalent rates, in milliSieverts per hour, for vitrified high-level waste containers for both Magnox and light water reactor/ advanced gas-cooled reactor oxide fuels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from British Nuclear Fuels plc that the vitrified waste will be produced and stored in stainless steel welded containers and the process carried out remotely behind concrete shielding. Average dose rates in areas to which the operators have access will be approximately 0·001 milliSieverts per hour.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the approximate overall dimensions, capacity and design features of an approved single vitrified high-level radioactive waste capsule or canister.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from British Nuclear Fuels plc that each vitrified high-level radioactive waste container is approximately 134 cm high and 43 cm in diameter and weighs approximately 75 kg. Its volumetric capacity is approximately 170 litres and each canister holds approximately 400 kg of vitrified waste.

  These canisters are made from stainless steel and designed for easy lid placement and welding when full, for safe and reliable handling, and for the ability to withstand stresses arising during filling, handling and storage. The safety case for the on-site storage of these canisters has to be agreed by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate before the plant can be operated.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give an estimate of the anticipated volume of high-level radioactive waste to be returned to customers overseas after reprocessing by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from British Nuclear Fuels plc that the latest estimate of high-level radioactive waste to be returned to overseas customers following reprocessing under contracts with return of waste options is 300 cu m.

  Energy Consumption Coal
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to require all companies contracted to provide goods and services to his Department to conduct a regular energy audit of their operations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Contractors will continue to be chosen on the basis of competitive tenders, and their efficient use of energy will lead to lower unit costs.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  An energy manager in the Department's headquarters building, together with local energy managers in five other premises in which the Department is an occupant, expects to devote around one third of a man year of effort to energy management.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Wakeham
  An energy audit was not considered cost-effective in our former headquarters, because the Department had been under notice to quit since before 1985.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I regret that information on energy consumption in buildings occupied by my Department over this period is not available. Under new arrangements for direct billing this information will be available from 1990–91 onwards.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department last conducted a full energy audit of its own building stock.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Department regularly monitors energy usage in its new headquarters building, of which it is the sole occupier and into which it moved in September last year. The building has an up-to-date electronic building energy management system. The Department is discussing with the Department of the Environment (Property Holdings) the potential for its commissioning energy management contracts aimed at improving overall energy efficiency on the civil estate, including my Department's headquarters building. These would include full energy audits. The Department has appointed energy managers to monitor energy consumption in all the other buildings on the common user estate where it is an occupant.

  Coal
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the average difference in percentage ash content between the medium sulphur coals presently being burned in British power stations and the coals of low-sulphur content.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The ash content of coal, as sold, typically varies up to about 20 per cent. There is no particular association with sulphur content.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated increase in the percentage of fine dust released to the atmosphere as a result of replacing existing coal used with low-sulphur coal by the percentage required to meet European Community standards.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government are committed to achieving the reductions in emissions specified in the EC large combustion plants directive. It is for the electricity industry to plan how it will achieve its share of these reductions.

  Dust emissions from power stations are subject to limits set by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The limits set for existing power stations will continue to apply irrespective of the type of coal used.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the environmental implications of the imports of low-sulphur coal, in respect of any consequential need for large storage dumps alongside power stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government are committed to achieving the reductions in emissions specified in the EC large combustion plants directive. It is for the electricity industry to plan how it will achieve its share of these reductions.

  Any request for extensions to power stations would be subject to the consent procedure set out in section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Oil Spillage, Mersey
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will place in the Library a copy of the pipelines inspectorate's interim report on the release of oil into the Mersey from the Shell pipeline.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The pipeline inspectorate report into the failure of the Mersey oil pipeline on 19 August 1989 is being prepared under the instruction of the Health and Safety Commission. Subject to the agreement of the commission, I intend to publish the report.

  Collieries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will discuss with the chairman of British Coal the scope for re-opening pits capable of producing low-sulphur coal which have been closed since 1984.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions on the operation of individual collieries in relation to market demand are a management matter for British Coal.

  National Grid Company
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's latest estimate of the value of the grid company.
  411
  Mr. Wakeham
  The value of the National Grid Company in the flotation of the 12 regional electricity companies will depend on a wide range of factors, including its profitability, capital structure and future prospects and market conditions at the time of the sale.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what mechanisms exist in his Department for indentifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The mechanisms are:Annual plans and reports prepared by heads of division on their objectives, activities, use of resources and intended value for money improvements over the next public expenditure survey period;
  A management plan for efficiency gains in administrative expenditure covering the same period;
  An administrative budgeting scheme under which budgets for the financial year ahead for staff and associated costs are delegated to senior line managers;
  Annual targets for and savings made in purchasing and stockholdings; and
  Annual programmes of work to be carried out by the Department's internal consultancy, inspection and review services.

  All these mechanisms are subject to approval by and carried through under the general direction of the Permanent Under-Secretary and his immediate colleagues.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Over the period 1985–86 to 1988–89, my Department secured value-for-money savings in its operations totalling some £9·4 million. Savings in office space, from keen purchasing of goods and services, from staff inspections and from other internal efficiency measures all contributed to the total.

  The value of savings secured in 1983–84 and 1984–85 is not readily available. The systems now in place to target as well as deliver these savings were introduced at various times over the period, so no useful comparison with savings identified by these systems can be given.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Pop Concert, Brighton
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on how many people were injured at the recent New Kids on the Block concerts on 28 April at Whitley Bay and 29 April at the Brighton centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from the police that, in addition to those people who received minimal first aid treatment at the events themselves, three people were referred to hospital during the concert which took place at Whitley Bay ice rink on 27 April with what could be termed injuries and another four during a second concert at the same venue on 28 April. Fifteen people were referred to hospital during the concert at Brighton on 29 April, but this was a precautionary measure on a very hot day and 412
  none had any appearance of injuries. All were discharged later that night. Responsibility for the licensing of public musical events of this kind, including the stipulation of appropriate measures to ensure crowd safety, is a matter for local authorities in conjunction with the police and the fire authority. The Health and Safety Executive is currently working on new guidance on safety at pop concerts.

  Prison Disturbances
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the current year to date, and by location, the number of prison disturbances, showing in his answer(a) how long the disturbance lasted, (b) how many inmates were involved, (c) how many inmates received injuries and (d) how many prison staff received injuries.

  Mr. Mellor
  The most serious incidents, involving a substantial number of inmates acting in concert and the use of violence towards staff or property, occurred at the following establishments:

  Duration

  1Number of inmates injured

  2Number of staff injured

  HMP Blundeston

  Commenced at 1920 on 11 January, ended at 0620 on 12 January

  —

  —

  HMP Manchester

  1100 on 1 April—1820 on 25 April

  75

  197

  HMP Long Lartin

  2100 on 2 April—1100 on 3 April

  1

  6

  HMYOI Glen Parva

  1930 on 6 April—0304 on 7 April

  —

  5

  HMP Dartmoor

  1445 on 7 April—1645 on 8 April (although 1 prisoner remained on roof until mid-day on 14 April)

  9

  —

  HMP Cardiff

  0830–1210 on 8 April

  1

  5

  HMP Bristol

  1529 on 8 April—1430 on 9 April

  12

  25

  HMYOI Stoke Heath

  2025 on 8 April—1315 on 9 April

  —

  3

  HMRC Pucklechurch

  1835 on 22 April—1340 on 23 April

  35

  41

  HMP Winchester

  2130 on 11 May—0932 on 12 May

  —

  —

  Other incidents involving groups of inmates acting in concert and using a significant amount of violence towards staff or property occurred at the following establishments:

  Duration

  1 Number of inmates injured

  2Number of staff injured

  HMP Dartmoor

  1035 on 13 January—1135 on same day

  1

  1

  413

  Duration

  1Number of inmates injured

  2 Number of staff injured

  HMP Kirkham

  2025 on 1 April—2045 on same day

  —

  —

  HMP Brixton

  1136 on 8 April—1220 on same day

  —

  4

  HMP Hull

  1505 on 8 April—1610 on same day

  —

  1

  HMP The Verne

  0220 on 8 April—0207 on 9 April

  —

  —

  HMYOI Everthorpe

  1945 on 9 April—2245 on same day

  4

  5

  HMYOI Portland

  1945 on 12 April—2040 on same day

  —

  —

  It is impossible to be precise about the number of prisoners who were present in the particular parts of the establishments where incidents took place who were active participants. As regards the

  Number of seizures and weight in grams of "crack" in 1990 to date by Police region in which seized and month of analysis

  Police region

  January

  February

  March

  April

  1May

  Seizures

  Grams

  Seizures

  Grams

  Seizures

  Grams

  Seizures

  Grams

  Seizures

  Grams

  1. Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire, North Wales

  —

  —

  1

  1·80

  6

  10·95

  5

  14·29

  2

  4·75

  2. North East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3. Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire

  1

  0·05

  2

  2·50

  —

  —

  1

  7·88

  1

  0·10

  4. West Midlands

  3

  3·35

  1

  0·13

  —

  —

  4

  51·21

  2

  3·12

  5. Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0·18

  1

  Trace

  —

  —

  6. Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0·09

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7. Avon and Somerset, Dorset

  1

  8·00

  —

  —

  3

  2·09

  —

  —

  1

  5·04

  8. South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9. Metropolitan Police

  5

  20·12

  8

  102·30

  16

  9·43

  17

  3·92

  14

  7·49

  10. Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  10

  31·52

  12

  106·73

  27

  22·74

  28

  77·30

  20

  20·50

  1Provisional figures to 29 May 1990.

  Broadcasting Bill
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning the Broadcasting Bill and religion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received representations from a number of groups and individuals about religious broadcasting. The Broadcasting Bill as introduced would liberalise the regulation of religious broadcasting in a number of ways: for instance, the automatic ban on religious advertising in schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1981 would be lifted. The Bill has subsequently been amended to require Channel 3 and 5 licensees to give a sufficient amount of time to religious programming, and to enable the ITC to allow religious groups to own cable and non-DBS satellite channels where satisfied that this would be appropriate. Content safeguards are needed against possible abuse of religious broadcasting, but, as indicated during the Commons Report stage on 8 May 1990,Official Report, column 158, we are reviewing the relevant requirements in the Bill with a view to ensuring that they are both adequate and not unnecessarily restrictive.
  414
  incidents at Blundeston and Winchester, 25 inmates and seven inmates respectively were positively identified as being actively involved.

  1 The figures for inmate injuries do not include the prisoner who died during the incident at Manchester nor the prisoner who was found dead after a fire in his cell at Dartmoor.

  2 In addition, one officer died at the time of the incident at Manchester.

  Crack (Seizures)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of seizures of crack in Britain for each month of 1990, stating the street value and the places where the seizures took place.

  Mr. Mellor
  Forensic science service figures for the number and weight of seizures of crack in 1990, by police region and month of analysis, are set out in the table. The estimated street value of crack varies according to time and place and is not routinely assessed for each seizure. The estimated current street value of the total amount seized in 1990 to date (258·79 grammes) is in the region of £32,500.

  There have been no known seizures of crack by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1990 so far. Crack is not generally imported but produced in the United Kingdom from cocaine.

  Prisons (Mother and Baby Units)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places there are in each of the three prison mother and baby units.

  Mr. Mellor
  The three prison mother and baby units provide accommodation for a total of 39 mothers with their babies. Her Majesty's prison Holloway and Her Majesty's prison and young offender institution Styal each has 12 places and Her Majesty's prison Askham Grange has 15 places.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many babies were in each of the three prison mother and baby units on the most recent available date; and what were their ages.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 23 May 1990 there were a total of 30 babies in the three prison mother and baby units. The number and ages of
  the babies in each unit is as follows:
  415

  Holloway

  Styal

  Askham Grange

  Aged under one month

  1

  1

  1

  Aged 1–2 months

  —

  2

  1

  Aged 2–3 months

  —

  1

  —

  Aged 3–4 months

  1

  3

  1

  Aged 4–5 months

  1

  —

  —

  Aged 6–7 months

  1

  —

  2

  Aged 7–8 months

  2

  —

  4

  Aged 9–10 months

  1

  1

  1

  Aged 11–12 months

  —

  —

  2

  Aged 12–13 months

  —

  —

  1

  Aged 13–14 months

  —

  —

  2

  Total number of babies in each unit

  7

  8

  15

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown of the offences committed by women who spent time in prison mother and baby units during 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  During 1989, a total of 101 women served all or part of their sentence with their babies in the prison mother and baby units. Of these, 34 had been convicted of offences of theft or fraud; 33 had been convicted of drugs offences; 12 had been convicted of offences of violence against the person; eight had been convicted of burglary offences; eight had been convicted of robbery offences; six had been convicted of other indictable offences.

  Where a woman had been received on sentence for several offences, only the principal criminal offence has been stated.

  Cats
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any recent representations on the theft of pet cats, for use in fur coats, animal experimentation and pit-bull baiting.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have received several recent representations on the alleged theft of pet cats. The representations have expressed general concern about the fate of the pets concerned, in particular their use in the fur trade.

  Young Offenders Institution Lichfield (Incident)
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to what police resources in the form of officers, cars and dogs were involved in the search on 14 May when two inmates absconded from Her Majesty's young offenders institution, Lichfield; what was the cost of the operation; from what budget this will be paid; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) for what purpose a helicopter was deployed following the incident at Her Majesty's young offenders institution, Lichfield, on 14 May; and what was the cost incurred.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These are operational matters for the chief constable. I understand from him that no additional costs were incurred.

  Multi-agency Panels
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many multi-agency panels are now operating, including magistrates and probation officers.

  Mr. John Patten
  A number of probation areas indicated their intention to establish such panels in response to the 1988 paper "Tackling Offending: an Action Plan". In some cases these panels have built on existing arrangements for discussions between the chief officers of the various agencies in each area. We do not yet know how many panels are operating nationally.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many multi-agency panels, including members of magistrates' benches and probation officers, are now operating in the Merseyside area; and in which areas these are.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that three multi-agency panels following the recommendations of the 1988 paper "Tackling Offending: an Action Plan", are operating in the Merseyside area, in the petty sessional divisions of St. Helens, Knowsley and Sefton. They include representatives from the probation, social and education services, the police and the voluntary sector, but no magistrates.

  Probation (Drug Users)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of young people under 21 years on probation are known to be hard drug users.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not recorded centrally.

  Extradition
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Her Majesty's Government expect to ratify the European convention on extradition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Government hope to make the necessary Order in Council shortly before the summer recess, with a view to ratification of the convention as soon as possible thereafter. The convention provides for 90 days to elapse between ratification and the provisions coming into effect.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons were extradited to the United Kingdom from each country of the European Community in each of the last five years; and what were their nationalities;

  (2) how many persons were extradited from the United Kingdom to each of the other countries of the European Community in each of the last five years; and what were their nationalities.

  Mr. Waddington
  The tables give the number of persons extradited to and from the United Kingdom in respect of the other countries of the European Community. The United Kingdom does not distinguish between extradition requests in respect of its own nationals and nationals of other countries. For this reason, the nationalities of those whose return is sought is not centrally recorded.
  417

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Extradition to an EC country from the United Kingdom

  Belgium

  1

  —

  126

  —

  1

  Denmark

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  France

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Federal Republic of Germany

  5

  7

  2

  3

  5

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Republic of Ireland3

  15

  9

  13

  17

  2—

  Italy

  3

  4

  1

  —

  1

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  1

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  18

  130

  5

  9

  Extradition from an EC country to the United Kingdom

  Belgium

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Denmark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  France

  —

  1

  1

  3

  2

  Federal Republic of Germany

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Republic of Ireland3

  17

  2

  3

  6

  2—

  Italy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  1

  4

  2

  Total

  4

  4

  8

  7

  4

  1 Includes 25 Heysel stadium football supporters.

  2 Not yet available.

  3 The return of fugitives to and from the Republic of Ireland takes place under reciprocal backing of warrants legislation, rather than under an extradition treaty.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which European Community countries do not permit the extradition of their own nationals.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to a question from the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 18 April 1990 at columns 910–11. The limitations on the ability of particular Community countries to extradite their own nationals, described in that reply, apply irrespective of the nature of the offence.

  In the third paragraph of the earlier reply, mention is made of an amendment to Dutch domestic law that took place in "1981". This should have read "1988".

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the last representations he received from the Data Protection Registrar concerning the sale of electoral registers for other than electoral purposes; and what was his response.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Data Protection Registrar wrote to me in February about the different provisions governing the supply of the electoral and community charges registers. In reply I reaffirmed the Government's policy on the sale of the electoral register and explained that, since the two registers are different in purpose, different considerations apply to their availability. The registrar has since proposed that electoral registration officers should publish lists of the names and addresses of those to whom copies of the electoral register have been supplied; we are considering the proposal.
  418
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information the Data Protection Registrar holds about computer interlinks between community charge registers and electoral registers.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that the Registrar holds no such information. He will investigate any evidence of a breach of the Data Protection Act 1984, which he has the responsibility of enforcing.

  Belmarsh Prison, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff employed at Belmarsh prison, Woolwich will be housed within the development and how many transferred from other areas will be seeking accommodation in the vicinity.

  Mr. Mellor
  No quarters will be provided for prison officer grades at this establishment. It is too early to say how many of our staff will look for accommodation in the area.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects Belmarsh prison, Woolwich, to be operational.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is hoped that HMP Belmarsh will be ready to admit prisoners in April 1991.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approaches have been made to housing authorities in the area to provide accommodation for staff to be employed at Belmarsh prison, Woolwich.

  Mr. Mellor
  Home Office officials have contacted a number of housing authorities in the area and discussions are continuing. This is just one of a number of options that are currently being pursued with the aim of assisting staff moving into the Belmarsh area.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff will be employed at Belmarsh prison, Woolwich, when it is fully operational; in what grades; and how many of these will be locally recruited.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of staff who will be employed at Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh is still under consideration. It is too early to say how many of these staff will be locally recruited.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Batle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider the remaining scientific evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case, in the light of the statements to the May inquiry that forensic evidence in the Maguire case can no longer be considered reliable.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has said on many occasions that he will consider any new evidence which appears to call into question the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six. He will of course take into account any evidence presented to the May inquiry which may be relevant to these convictions.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that material in police or other official archives relating to the Birmingham pub bombings case will not be destroyed.
  419
  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the West Midlands police
  and the Devon and Cornwall constabulary have made arrangements to ensure that all material in their possession relating to the Birmingham pub bombings case is stored in secure conditions pending the outcome of further inquiries into the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six. Relevant papers in the possession of the Home Office will also be preserved.

  Prisoners (Cell Confinement)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes to be able to reduce the number of hours each day during which prisoners are confined to their cells.

  Mr. Mellor
  The improvement of the regime for prisoners, which includes reduction of the hours spent locked in cells, is a continuing objective of the Prisons Board. Last year the average time prisoners spent on regime activities increased by three hours per week.

  South African Passport Holders
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances holders of South African passports are eligible to vote in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Holders of South African passports resident in the United Kingdom who are not otherwise disqualified can register as electors and vote at parliamentary, European parliamentary and local government elections only if they also hold British citizenship, the citizenship of another Commonwealth country or of the Republic of Ireland. Holders of South African passports living outside the United Kingdom can register as overseas electors and vote at parliamentary and European parliamentary elections here only if they are British citizens, and fulfil the other criteria for registration.

  Criminals (Royalties Payment)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prevent the payment of royalties to criminals for artistic products arising from their criminal activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 9 May at column 143 to his question about the payment of money to people convicted of murder by those making films about their crimes.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Waddington
  Sixteen energy audits were carried out in the Home Office in the last five financial years. The main conclusions for each audit were as follows:
  420
  Establishment and Main conclusions

  Abell House

  Automatic lighting control.

  Switching off all non essential equipment.

  Switching off of Boiler Plant.

  Reduction of heating levels.

  Cleland House

  Automatic lighting control.

  Improved heating control.

  Reduction of heating levels.

  Branston Store

  Installation of fast operating loading doors.

  Removal of all non perishable goods to one building.

  Insulation to roofs.

  Occupancy sensors.

  Improve heating controls.

  Steventon Store

  Prevent ingress of cold and damp into plant rooms.

  High Speed doors to well used warehouses.

  Lighting controls in warehouses.

  Replace tungsten lamps with latest fluorescent fittings.

  Lunar House

  Better thermostatic control.

  Improve insulation on flow and return pipes.

  Reduce air infiltration to main entrance by improving door mechanisms.

  Door draught stripping.

  Fire Service College

  Provide alternative fuel for planned replacement of boiler plant.

  Supply a swimming pool cover.

  Replace electric heating in one building.

  Insulate walls of selected buildings.

  Modify heating controls in study blocks.

  Queen Anne's Gate

  Replace tungsten bulbs with compact fluorescent fittings.

  Install automatic lighting controls where appropriate.

  Extend use of Building Management System.

  Modify air handling to several areas.

  Horseferry House

  Re-set thermostatic radiator valves.

  Install automatic lighting controls where appropriate.

  Install more efficient luminaires.

  Install more efficient fluorescent lamps.

  Draught proof windows.

  Install power factor correction equipment.

  Improve housekeeping.

  Changing from a rated water supply to a metered water supply would save approximately £39,000 pa.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Send

  Energy consumption is reasonable given the current site conditions.

  Many roofs are currently unlagged, improvement will not be cost effective on energy savings alone.

  Consideration was given to combined heat and power plant but site is not considered suitable.

  A building management system will not be a cost effective measure.

  Her Majesty's Prison, The Verne

  Install cavity wall and roof insulation.

  Fit compensator controls where appropriate.

  The establishment has already modified the external lighting as far as possible to make energy savings.

  All tungsten luminaires should be changed to high frequency control gear type.

  Fluorescent luminaires should be changed to high frequency control gear type.

  421
  Her Majesty's Prison, Brixton

  Install an energy management system.

  Fit Krypton tubes in existing fluorescent fittings.

  Delegate officers to switch off unwanted lights in areas under their control.

  Fit Krypton tubes to fluorescent fittings.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Cookham Wood

  The buildings are insulated to an acceptable standard and additional insulation would not be cost effective. Energy consumption is reasonable and high energy savings cannot be expected.

  Minor modifications to the heating system should be made.

  A building management system would not be cost effective.

  It may be possible to reduce the installed lighting load by using energy efficient Krypton tubes.

  An officer in each area should be delegated to control lighting.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Coldingley

  The fuel should be changed from heavy fuel oil to dual fuel, gas/light oil.

  LPHW boilers should be installed in the main accommodation block, works complex, administration block and industrial workshops.

  Replace the steam boilers in the boiler house with steam generators.

  Sequence the operation of the laundry machinery.

  Install a building management system.

  Provide power factor correction equipment.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Long Lartin

  Install heat recovery equipment in the laundry.

  Fit SON luminaires in workshops etc. and consider their use for external security lighting.

  Install a building management system.

  Consider the decentralisation of the heating system.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Leyhill

  Install heat recovery equipment in the laundry.

  Use high efficiency luminaires for external lighting.

  Install a building management system.

  Consider the installation of a water treatment plant.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Cardiff

  Install heat recovery equipment in the laundry.

  Fit SON luminaires in workshops etc.

  Install a building management system.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Waddington
  There are four dedicated energy managers in the Home Office. In 1989–90 a total of 5·33 person years were devoted to energy management.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Waddington
  No information is available on energy consumption in prison service establishments for financial years prior to 1982–83 and for other Home Office buildings for financial years prior to 1985–86. For later years, the information requested is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will show for each police authority for 1990–91 the level of bids received for capital resources, the amount of supplementary credit approvals issued and the amount of capital grants approved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ millions

  Police Authority

  Capital Bids

  Capital Grant Approved

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  Avon and Somerset

  9·405

  3·953

  2·1545

  Bedfordshire

  0·709

  0·143

  0·053

  Cambridgeshire

  2·048

  0·338

  0·007

  Cheshire

  2·514

  0·656

  0·384

  City of London

  1·086

  0·322

  0·062

  Cleveland

  2·763

  0·460

  0·095

  Cumbria

  2·735

  0·579

  0·247

  Derbyshire

  1·962

  0·402

  0·149

  Devon and Cornwall

  4·267

  1·087

  0·421

  Dorset

  2·951

  0·606

  0·435

  Durham

  2·596

  0·328

  0·113

  Dyfed-Powys

  1·395

  0·298

  0·076

  Essex

  5·259

  1·100

  0·225

  Gloucestershire

  3·941

  0·701

  0·148

  Greater Manchester

  17·377

  2·754

  0·186

  Gwent

  3·772

  1·602

  1·308

  Hampshire

  5·525

  1·039

  0·277

  Hertfordshire

  2·611

  0·809

  0·503

  Humberside

  4·070

  0·799

  0·211

  Kent

  3·922

  0·654

  Nil

  Lancashire

  6·529

  1·431

  0·623

  Leicestershire

  7·510

  2·847

  1·906

  Lincolnshire

  2·655

  0·707

  0·109

  Merseyside

  6·324

  1·194

  0·336

  Norfolk

  0·831

  0·150

  0·048

  Northamptonshire

  1·972

  0·435

  0·138

  Northumbria

  12·719

  3·505

  2·175

  North Wales

  2·423

  0·406

  0·158

  North Yorkshire

  2·470

  0·446

  Nil

  Nottinghamshire

  5·083

  1·261

  0·747

  South Wales

  3·265

  0·627

  0·340

  South Yorkshire

  8·320

  1·939

  0·902

  Staffordshire

  3·906

  1·502

  1·237

  Suffolk

  2·322

  0·381

  0·057

  Surrey

  5·331

  1·621

  0·283

  Sussex

  5·567

  1·968

  1·289

  Thames Valley

  10·694

  3·096

  1·376

  Warwickshire

  1·309

  0·307

  0·019

  West Mercia

  12·716

  3·747

  2·262

  West Midlands

  18·493

  4·940

  2·641

  West Yorkshire

  17·429

  4·020

  1·722

  Wiltshire

  2·512

  0·572

  0·192

  Total

  221·288

  55·730

  26·106

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Waddington
  Seeking and achieving such savings are an integral and established part of planning and the annual setting of budgets in the Home Office. I regard the pursuit of value for money as crucial to all Home Office spending.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the value-for-money savings in his
  423
  Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Waddington
  The improvements resulting from inquiries and studies of this kind are taken into account in the setting of annual budgets and internal targets. More specific information about contributions to value for money is not collected centrally within the Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Extradition
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (1) those countries within the European Community which will extradite their nationals to the United Kingdom when charged with fraud-related offences committed here and (2) those countries within the European Community to which the United Kingdom would extradite British nationals resident here to face charges of fraud committed in those countries.

  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 April 1990, c. 910–11]: I regret that in the third paragraph of my reply reference was made to an amendment to Dutch domestic law that took place in "1981". This should have read "1988".

DEFENCE

  Warheads (Plutonium Recycling)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the recycling of plutonium from warheads being decommissioned for subsequent use in other nuclear weapons; and if it is the Government's intention to reuse the plutonium from decommissioned Polaris A3-TK warheads in the Trident D-5 programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is the policy of her Majesty's Government to recover all reusable materials, including special nuclear materials, from nuclear warheads which have been returned form service. It would not be in the national interest to give details on the sources and application of fissile materials used in specific defence nuclear programmes.

  Trident
  Mr. Sean Highes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proportion of the cost of the re-entry vehicles for the Trident programme will be incurred in the United States;

  (2) what proportion of the cost of the warheads for the Trident programme will be incurred in the United States.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 17 January 1990,Official Report, column 298

  Army Personnel (Skills)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the percentage of Army personnel who had(a) mechanical engineering skills, (b) electrical engineering skills, (c) civil engineering skills, (d) mechanical transport skills and (e) communications skills in each year since 1985;

  (2) what is the current percentage of Army personnel who have (a) mechanical engineering skills, (b) electrical engineering skills, (c) civil engineering skills, (d) mechanical transport skills and (e) communications skills;

  (3) for each financial year since 1985–86 how many of those Army personnel who left the service prematurely had (a) mechanical engineering skills, (b) electrical engineering skills, (c) civil engineering skills, (d) mechanical transport skills and (e) communication skills.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following information is based upon personnel numbers in the relevant corps. The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) employ personnel with both mechanical and electrical engineering skills. The Royal Engineers (RE) employ personnel with civil engineering skills; the Royal Corps of Transport (RCT) employ personnel with mechanical transport skills; and the Royal Signals (R Sigs) employ personnel with communications skills.

  (a) Strength as at 31 March 1990, of REME, RE, RCT and R Sigs as a percentage of whole Army1

  REME

  RE

  RCT

  R Sigs

  10·4

  9·9

  6·9

  8·3

  (b) Strength of REME, RE, RCT and R Sigs as a percentage of whole Army 1985–86 to 1989–90

  REME

  RE

  RCT

  R Sigs

  1985–86

  10·0

  9·7

  7·3

  8·8

  1986–87

  10·0

  9·8

  7·2

  8·9

  1987–88

  10·2

  9·8

  6·9

  8·8

  1988–89

  10·3

  9·8

  6·8

  8·5

  1989–90

  10·4

  9·8

  6·9

  8·3

  (c) Premature voluntary release exits of trained male Army and of REME, RE, RCT and R Sigs: 1985–86 to 1989–90

  Whole Army

  REME

  RE

  RCT

  RSigs

  1985–86

  3,587

  320

  408

  259

  259

  1986–87

  3,224

  335

  319

  230

  235

  1987–88

  3,905

  332

  409

  371

  317

  1988–89

  4,545

  379

  505

  369

  473

  1989–90

  4,773

  495

  557

  429

  348

  1 Figures relate to trained male strength.

  Recruitment
  MR. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many men and women were recruited into the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in the financial year 1989–90; and how many left each of the services prematurely.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total intake in to the United Kingdom regular forces in the financial year 1989–90 is shown in table 1. The total number of exits form the services under premature wastage outflow categories during the same period is shown in table 2. The categories
  425
  included in the outflow numbers correspond with those listed in table 4.18 of Volume of the "Statement on Defence Estimates" with the exception of "time and age

  Table 1: Intake to United Kingdom Regular Forces from civilian life: 1989–90

  Number

  Total

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Officers

  Servicemen

  Total

  Officers

  Servicewomen

  All Services

  36,412

  32,337

  2,599

  29,738

  4,075

  376

  3,699

  Royal Navy

  5,556

  4,696

  516

  4,180

  860

  42

  818

  Royal Marines

  1,063

  1,063

  45

  1,018

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  22,084

  20,398

  1,377

  19,021

  1,686

  177

  1,509

  Royal Air Force

  7,709

  6,180

  661

  5,519

  1,529

  157

  1,372

  Table 2: Premature outflow from United Kingdom Regular Forces: 1989–90

  Number

  Total

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Officers

  Servicemen

  Total

  Officers

  Servicewomen

  All Services

  27,184

  25,006

  2,460

  22,546

  2,178

  184

  1,994

  Royal Navy

  5,153

  4,766

  659

  4,107

  387

  21

  366

  Royal Marines

  851

  851

  65

  786

  —

  —

  —

  Army

  15,770

  14,896

  1,835

  13,061

  874

  71

  803

  Royal Air Force

  6,192

  5,275

  683

  4,592

  917

  92

  825

  Accommodation Charges
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average level of that element of the accommodation charge that was set in lieu of rates in Scotland in the year prior to the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The charges were £359 per married quarter and £101 per unit of single accommodation.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average level of that element of the accommodation charge that was set in lieu of rates in England and Wales in the year prior to the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The charges were £408 per married quarter and £115 per unit of single accommodation.

  Pilots
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pilots expressed as a percentage of the total number in the Royal Air Force left at their 38/16-year option date, during the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989; and what percentage retired prematurely and voluntarily prior to this option during the above mentioned years, having completed their flying training and either having reached their squadrons or been accepted for training as instructors.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The proportion of Royal Air Force pilots, expressed as a percentage of the total pilot trained strength at 1 January each year, who left at their 38/16-year optional exit point was as follows:

  Percentage

  1986

  1·0

  1987

  0·8

  1988

  1·2

  1989

  1·3

  426
  expiries or exercise of rights at option point" and, for service women only, "By exercise of right to give 18 monts notice".

  The proportion of pilots aged 38 and under who left on premature voluntary release during the same four years was:

  Percentage

  1986

  0·4

  1987

  0·4

  1988

  1·2

  1989

  0·9

  Low Flying
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the accident involving an 1F15 aircraft during the recent low flying exercise Elder Forest.

  Mr. Neubert
  A United States Air Force F25 aircraft, participating in the United Kingdom defence exercise, Elder Forest, crashed into the sea approximately 20 miles east of Grimsby on 25 April 1990. The pilot ejected successfully. A United States Air Force accident investigation has been convened in the normal way. It would be premature to speculate about the possible causes of the accident.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not held in the form requested. However, section 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" for the years 1980–81 onwards gives details of energy consumption, on the defence estate, in terms of petajoules or volumes of oil. Figures for expenditure on consumption of non-operational fuel are available for the years 1985–86 onwards only, and are as follows:
  427

  £ thousands

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Electricity

  130,974

  141,196

  137,713

  Gas

  43,681

  46,885

  41,321

  Solid Fuel

  10,350

  11,614

  10,618

  Liquid Fuel

  97,668

  49,340

  42,994

  For details of the expenditure on fuel consumption for the financial year 1988–89, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 10 May 1990, Official Report, column 213.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are 15 full-time energy managers in the Ministry of Defence with a much larger number employed as energy wardens at units and establishments on a part-time basis. As the proportion of energy wardens' time devoted to energy management in the last year is not recorded, I am unable to give the total number of person years devoted to energy management.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has carried out 295 energy audits over the last five years. It is not practicable to summarise the findings of this number of audits; however, the potential for a savings on energy consumption of 15 to 20 per cent. has been identified in most cases.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements, and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The improvements resulting from inquiries and studies of the kind mentioned are taken into account in the setting of annual budgets and internal targets. The results are not collated centrally within the Department.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Department maintains a general efficiency programme, as well as other mechanisms for ensuring that its activities are conducted in an economic, efficient and effective manner. Each of the systems has appropriate monitoring and follow-up procedures. These are not designed to identify value-for-money savings separately from other improvements, not all of which are quantifiable.

  Radiation
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what special means there is of shielding, blocking or attenuating the neutron emission from the Chevaline warhead during storage; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what special means there are of shielding, blocking or attenuating the neutron emission from the Chevaline warhead during transportation to and from the royal naval armaments depot at Coulport to and from the Royal Ordnance factory at Burghfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: No special measures beyond the laid down working procedures and MOD's normal radiological protection practices are necessary.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which component of the Chevaline warhead assembly gives rise to the neutron emission radiation dose equivalent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The fissile material within the warhead assembly.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average recorded or assessed neutron radiation dose equivalent exposure received by members of the general public due to the road transportation of the Chevaline warhead on any one journey or throughout any transit period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: Attributable doses to members of the public from warheads involved in transport operations are zero.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average recorded or assessed neutron radiation dose equivalent exposure received by road transportation personnel during carriage of the Chevaline warhead on any one journey or throughout any transit period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: Attributable doses to transportation personnel from the Chevaline warhead during carriage on any one journey or throughout any transit period are zero.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any neutron emission radiation dose equivalent exposure has been recorded for personnel at(a) Royal Ordnance factory, Llanishen, (b) atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston, (c) Royal Ordnance factory, Burghfield, and (d) the facility at Donnington; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: There are low levels of neutron exposure to some workers in the atomic weapons establishment stations at Aldermaston and Burghfield, but not at the other locations. These are determined and recorded and the consequential effective (whole body) dose equivalents are such that the total doses sustained by the individuals from radiations arising from their work activities are within the relevant MOD and United Kingdom limits and are as low as reasonably practicable.

  Radiation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 2 May,Official Report, column 594, concerning records of individual radiation dose records, whether he will publish such information in anonymised form.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not considered appropriate to present this detailed information to the House. It could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will provide the numbers of health physics monitors employed on monitoring the radiation exposure of the civilian population in Ministry of Defence areas;

  (2) if he will provide the number of health physics monitors employed directly on the monitoring of radiation exposure of workers in each Ministry of Defence and privatised Ministry of Defence establishment since 1960;

  (3) if he will provide the number of supervisors, by grade, supervising the monitoring of radiation exposure of workers by health physics monitors in each Ministry of Defence and privatised Ministry of Defence establishment since 1960.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The information requested could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. Ministry of Defence establishments ensure that work with ionising radiation is supervised, and exposure monitored, to the extent necessary to enable that work to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985.

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that no relevant equipment be moved out of the area of application of the proposed treaty on conventional forces in Europe before such a treaty comes into effect in order to(a) deploy the equipment elsewhere or (b) sell the equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Pre-emptive withdrawal from the area of application of the proposed CFE treaty of equipment of categories likely to be limited under it can undermine the treaty's objectives. We would be seriously concerned at any such redeployment especially where the intention appeared to be to hold the equipment just outside the area of application of the treaty.

  Missile Technology Control Regime
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is considering lowering the range and warhead weight governed by the missile technology control regime; what talks he proposes to have on the regime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no plans to lower the MTCR range and warhead parameters. A meeting of the MTCR partner countries will take place in Ottawa soon.

  Iraq (Chemical Weapons)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any information about the involvement of the Salman Pak underground plant, 35 miles from Baghdad, in work related to chemical and biological weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Iraq has used chemical weapons on a number of occasions in the past, indicating that it has a production capability. We are aware of recent media reports concerning the Salman Pak facility. It is not our practice, however, to comment on information which may be available to us on such matters.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any information regarding the possession by Iraq of the anti-personnel biological agents tularemia, anthrax and equine encephalitis; whether these agents have been weaponised; and what discussions have been held with the United States administration on these matters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are aware of recent media reports alleging Iraqi development of biological weapons. Iraq has signed but not ratified the 1972 biological weapons convention which prohibits such weapons. It is not our practice, however, to comment on information which may be available to us on such matters. We have regular consultations with the United States on a full range of issues including chemical and biological weapons.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Tampons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review his decision not to require further warning labels, additional to those referred to in his answer of 5 April,Official Report, column 804, to be compulsorily provided on the packaging of tampons.

  Mr. Forth
  No. Toxic shock syndrome is a very rare illness and I am not prepared unnecessarily to frighten women off buying tampons by asking the industry to put a warning about toxic shock syndrome on the outside of the packet. I am however asking it to put a warning on the leaflet inside the packet on how to recognise the symptoms of TSS and the fact that very occasionally it can be fatal: and to put on the packet itself guidance as to what degree of absorbancy should be used.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many pbhzcutions have been initiated by the solicitors' office of Companies house against companies for failure to file accounts by the due date during(a) 1 January to 1 February, (b) 1 February to 1 March, (c) 1 March to 1 April and (d) 1 April to I May.

  Mr. Redwood
  Prosecutions for failure to file accounts are initiated against directors, not companies. The table gives details of those commenced by the Department's solicitor since I January 1990.
  431

  Period in 1990

  Prosecutions commenced

  January

  1140

  February

  80

  March

  335

  April

  265

  1 Estimated.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the contracts arising from the April 1989 international exhibition for military production in Baghdad.

  Mr. Redwood
  We do not have this information, the publication of which would be a matter for the firms concerned.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department has issued any export licences for vacuum pumps to Iraq.

  Mr. Redwood
  No licences have been granted for the export of vacuum pumps to Iraq in the last year. Information on licences granted prior to this is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 365, of the trade delegations that visited Iraq with Government support in 1989–90, 1988–89, 1987–88 and 1986–87, how many companies which made up the delegations have, or had, contracts with the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: One hundred and seventeen of the companies in question appear in the records the Ministry of Defence keeps of firms currently or formerly qualified to bid for defence contracts. It would involve disproportionate cost to identify the number of firms which were awarded contracts.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 365, of the trade delegations that visited Iraq with Government support in 1989–90, 1988–89, 1988–88 and 1986–87, how many companies and from which sectors of industry made up the delegations.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: Two hundred and ninety-two companies participated in officially supported events in the years in question. They were drawn from a wide range of industries, which our records broadly classified as: healthcare, energy-oil field equipment, electrical-electronic engineering, water technology, automotive transport, domestic appliances-consumer goods, scientific-environmental equipment and mechanical engineering.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department took to satisfy itself that the 10,000 protection kits exported to Iraq were to be used only for non-military purposes.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is the practice to retain records of export licence applications for no longer than seven years. No information is therefore available on any exports to Iraq which may have taken place before 1983.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Forth
  I am sorry that the information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Forth
  No full energy audit has been carried out in my Department in the past five years, but energy usage is closely monitored. The Department is investing in energy saving projects with the aim of saving 15 per cent. of energy costs over the next five years.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Forth
  Twenty staff are designated energy managers as part of their duties. The Department devoted about three person years to energy management last year. This does not include the resources deployed by the Property Services Agency in our buildings.

  Audit Committees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any information on the number of companies which have audit committees.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. There is no requirement to notify the Department of the establishment of an audit committee.

  Investment (Cumbria)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set up an inquiry into the level of inward investment inquiries being referred by the regional office of his Department to the industrial development authorities in Cumbria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. All inward investor inquiries are sent routinely to all regions of the United Kingdom, where the regional development body, INWARD in the case of the north-west, maintains information on local site availability and conditions through regular contact with local authorities and other development bodies. Inquiries are then forwarded to those localities which have indicated their ability to meet the specific needs of the investor.

  Hungary
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts his Department is making to encourage joint ventures between British and Hungarian companies and between British companies and Hungarian state enterprises.
  433
  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is doing a great deal. We are providing companies with information about the legislative and fiscal framework for investment in Hungary. My Department also makes available to British business information about specific investment opportunities and details of Hungarian enterprises seeking joint venture partners.

  DTI Ministers are actively involved. I myself have led a trade mission to Hungary, and the Secretary of State expects to visit the country next month with a group of business men. Together with the Foreign Secretary, I participated in a major conference on 22 May sponsored by my Department, the CBI and others to draw companies' attention to business and investment opportunities arising from western economic assistance to eastern Europe.

  ECGD's investment insurance scheme has recently been expanded to cover eastern Europe; and the Government's know-how fund can now be used to provide support for pre-investment feasibility studies and training of prospective joint venture partners.

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the members of the Financial Reporting Council, together with information as to their experience, directorships and partnerships.

  Mr. Redwood
  The membership of the Financial Reporting Council was announced in a press release issued by the council on 17 May, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  CFCs and Halons
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the study commissioned by his Department into the use of chlorofluorocarbons and halons in the United Kingdom and the scope for their recovery for recycling and destruction.

  Mr. Forth
  I have today published this study in a report entitled "CFCs and Halons: Alternatives and the Scope for Recovery for Recycling and Destruction". Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The report is available on sale from the publishers HMSO.

  The Government have made it clear that they are fully committed to the elimination of ozone-damaging CFCs as soon as practically possible, and certainly by the year 2000.

  The report finds that by adopting alternatives and developing cost-effective recycling, it would be possible to eliminate virtually all consumption of ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the UK by 1997. It also finds that similar action, particularly on recycling, could allow consumption of halon fire-extinguishing agents to be similarly reduced by the year 2000.

  In examining current levels of CFC use, the report finds that the UK halved its consumption of CFCs between 1986 and 1989, thus meeting the controls on consumption in the present Montreal protocol almost 10 years ahead of requirements. The Montreal protocol is to be strengthened at a conference in London at the end of June, against a background of strong calls for complete phase-out of CFCs by the year 2000. This report provides further evidence that UK industry is responding well to this
  434
  particular environmental challenge and is well placed to meet a more stringent regulatory regime over the next 10 years.

  This will, however, require greater recycling of ozone-damaging substances, particularly in the refrigeration, fire-extinguishing and solvent areas. I urge all those involved in producing or using products made with CFCs or halons to increase their level of recycling. This action needs to form part of each company's overall strategy for reducing their use of these substances.

  Local authorities and the private sector also have a role to play in the safe disposal of CFCs from domestic refrigerators. The report highlights a number of successful recovery and recycling schemes that have been set up. I hope that this report will encourage others to follow this lead.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade arid Industry if he will list the support being given by his Department to the newly emerging democracies in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department seeks to help the process of reform in these countries by encouraging the involvement of British companies in their economic transformation and reconstruction. In particular we provide information on opportunities for direct investment, including joint ventures and other forms of industrial co-operation; for increased exports of goods and services; and for consultancy and management training.

  DTI Ministers play their part by receiving incoming delegations and by taking with them groups of business men on visits to those countries. In recent months, the Secretary of State and I have led parties of business men to the USSR, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia arid Romania. I shall shortly be taking a group of business men with me to the GDR. The Minister for Trade visited the Leipzig fair in support of British exhibitors and attended the recent CSCE conference in Bonn on economic co-operation in Europe.

  My Department also encourages British business to take full advantage of the several United Kingdom, EC and multilateral schemes introduced to assist projects of reform and reconstruction in the emerging countries of eastern Europe, including the United Kingdom know-how funds.

  The DTI co-sponsored a major conference in London on 22 May which sought to alert British companies to the possibilities of winning aid-financed business in eastern Europe. A DTI official was recently seconded to the joint assistance unit in the FCO to help in the administration of the United Kingdom know-how fund.

  In addition the Department continues to offer its established export services and to finance the activities of the East European Trade Council, the BOTB's area advisory group for eastern Europe.

  Bankruptcies
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will institute an inquiry or take any other steps to ascertain the reasons for the increase in bankruptcies.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: No.

  Environmental Policies
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any proposals to ensure that United Kingdom trade promotes the goal of sustainable development.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: I shall continue to consider the links between trade and environmental policies and their relationship to promoting sustainable development.

  Maccorp Holdings Ltd.
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will appoint inspectors to inquire into the affairs of Maccorp Holdings Ltd. and to establish the extent to which the prospectus issued by the company contained false and misleading information about the position and experience of director Arden McClelland.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]My Department is prepared to consider any information my hon. Friend may provide which might warrant an inquiry.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to increase from £750 the minimum level of debt in respect of which a creditor may in terms of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 petition for the sequestration of his debtor.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no current plans to increase this figure.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will instigate a review of all aspects of the scheme of payment from public funds to trustees in sequestrations under the provisions of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  Insolvency service officials are currently undertaking an evaluation of the Scottish bankruptcy system with particular regard to funding.

TRANSPORT

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if his Department is currently assessing the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. approved design for the transportation of vitrified high-level waste; if compliance with this design is required for transportation by road, rail and ship; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to allow the transportation of vitrified high-level radioactive waste flasks (i) through the channel tunnel and (ii) overland by rail from Sellafield to shipping ports including Dover; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if it is his policy to agree in advance the overland and sea routes of future exports of vitrified high-level radioactive waste flasks.

  Mr. Freeman
  Shipments of vitrified high-level waste by any mode of transport will be required to be carried in containers which have been certified by my Department as 436
  fully complying with stringent and national and international safety regulations which require safety to be built into the design. Safety does not depend on the choice of route used which is a matter for the carrier.

  I understand that a package design is currently under development by British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) but that it may be some months before this design is submitted to the Department for assessment and subsequent approval.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken by the marine directorate to satisfy itself that the type of ship used by Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd. to transport vitrified high-level radioactive waste is appropriate to that function; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The ships used by Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd. are dedicated to the transport of nuclear materials. They operate under schemes of work approved by the Department, which ensure that crew members benefit from national and international radiation protection standards.

  The Department has not yet received an application from British Nuclear Fuels plc for the transport of vitrified waste on these ships. Their suitability for carrying this material will be assessed by the marine directorate as part of the Department's approval and certification process.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what circumstances radioactive material is kept overnight in parked vehicles at Swynnerton, Stoke-on-Trent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to military vehicles parked at the Army training area at Swynnerton, Staffordshire. As he will appreciate, however, it is the longstanding policy of this and previous Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear materials at particular military locations, or to comment on their methods of transport.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether shipments of plutonium nitrate from Dounreay to Workington will cease following the recent decision to abandon fast breeder reactor research at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what type of irradiated fuel flask is used for the shipment of plutonium nitrate from Dounreay to Workington; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when was the first shipment of plutonium nitrate from Dounreay to Workington.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Shipments of plutonium nitrate are carried in containers to design No. 1763 and have been certified by my Department as fully complying with stringent international safety regulations. The first such shipment took place in June 1981.

  The decision as to whether such shipments will continue is a matter for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of the marine directorate in respect of the transportation of radioactive waste.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine directorate enforces the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1981,
  437
  as amended, under which the transport of radioactive waste by ships is regulated. The carriage requirements follow the international maritime dangerous goods code published by the International Maritime Organisation which in turn incorporates recommendations issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The radioactive materials transport division represents the Department in this agency.

  A30
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate his best estimate of the relevant timings of events concerned with the routing and construction of the replacement A30 between Honiton and Exeter.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department expects to publish its proposals at about the end of the year. A public inquiry, which will, no doubt, be necessary, could be held in 1991. Subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures I expect construction work to start in 1993 and then to take up to two years to complete.

  EUROSID
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution he is making to the EUROSID project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has taken a major role in the development of the EUROSID side-impact test dummy through the transport and road research laboratory. Researchers from TRRL have led the working group within the European experimental vehicles committee which has designed, developed and tested EUROSID. TRRL was responsible for the development of the important thorax of the dummy. The dummy is now fully tested and in production through Ogle Design Ltd. of the United Kingdom.

  The Department has similarly taken a lead in development of the full-scale side-impact test procedure for cars. The United Kingdom is pressing for early agreement within the European Community on a side-impact directive incorporating this test. This work is expected to be completed in the next two to three years. When implemented, this should ensure that cars are designed to offer better protection to their occupants in collisions to their sides, saving considerable life and injury. EUROSID is a central requirement of the test, since it measures the likely injury to the occupants.

  Northern Line
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make an official journey on the southern section of the Northern line; and if he will invite hon. Members from those areas of London to accompany him on his visit.

  Mr. Freeman
  I hope to visit the southern section of the Northern line at the end of this month. I would be glad to do so with the hon. Member.

  Travel (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has undertaken any survey of reasons for travel in London; and if he will make a statement.
  438
  Mr. Atkins
  The most recent comprehensive source of information on reasons for travel in London is the 1981 Greater London transportation survey carried out by the Greater London council. My Department is planning to conduct a major new survey in 1991 in collaboration with the London Research Centre, British Rail and London Transport.

  Information on reasons for travel is also collected in the national travel survey and although this survey does not identify where the travel took place it does provide figures for travel by people resident in London. Some results are given in "Transport Statistics for London", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Atkins
  A full answer cannot be provided. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1989–90 the Department devoted approximately 2·5 person years to energy management. This included the time of a central energy manager.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of energy audits carried out in the Department of Transport were:

  Number

  1985–86

  0

  1986–87

  1

  1987–88

  7

  1988–89

  4

  1989–90

  1

  In each case a variety of measures to produce energy savings were recommended and have been implemented.

  Buscough and Ormskirk Bypasses
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will appoint traffic consultants to advise his Department on the line of the Buscough bypass on the A59; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will appoint traffic consultants to advise his Department on the line of the Ormskirk bypass on the A570; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We shall be inviting competitive offers from selected consultants within the next two months for the design of three schemes in the Liverpool-Preston corridor; the A59 Ormskirk-Walmer bridge improvement (which will incorporate a bypass of Buscough); the A570 Ormskirk bypass; and the A570 Scarisbrook and Pinfold bypass.

WALES

  Brymbo Steelworks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Brymbo steelworks.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have recently had meetings with both the owners of Brymbo and their work force, but I have no present plans to visit the steelworks.

  1979

  1984

  1988–891

  Average daily available beds

  Percentage Total beds

  Average daily available beds

  Percentage Total beds

  Average daily available beds

  Percentage Total beds

  Clwyd

  626·7

  20·5

  577·4

  20·0

  529·9

  20·7

  East Dyfed

  416·7

  19·9

  406·0

  22·6

  401·8

  24·8

  Gwent

  715·2

  18·4

  984·2

  26·8

  952·1

  28·5

  Gwynedd

  402·9

  25·7

  405·9

  26·3

  456·9

  28·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  822·8

  16·6

  895·4

  18·9

  797·2

  18·8

  Pembrokeshire

  139·8

  30·0

  137·3

  29·2

  128·1

  27·4

  Powys

  247·6

  19·6

  247·4

  22·8

  216·6

  22·8

  South Glamorgan

  448·6

  12·5

  460·5

  13·0

  451·6

  13·5

  West Glamorgan

  464·8

  17·9

  462·2

  18·1

  468·4

  19·8

  Wales

  4,285·0

  18·3

  4,576·3

  20·5

  4,402·6

  21·5

  1 Latest available information.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hearing therapists are employed in each of the district health authorities in Wales; and how many are bilingual.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure proper training and recruitment of bilingual speech therapists in each district health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has encouraged all health authorities in Wales to undertake, as part of their annual manpower resource plans, an assessment of their requirements for bilingual staff and of posts where the ability to practise through the medium of English and Welsh is required. Recruitment to particular posts is an operational matter for individual health authorities. The extent, format and location of education and training for health care professional groups in Wales is being considered within the context of the Department's consultation document "The Health Service in Wales. Towards 2000: Manpower Planning, Education and Training", responses to which are currently being considered.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners there are in each of the district health authority areas in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest available information is published in "Health and Personal Social Service Statistics for Wales No. 16" a copy of which is in the Library.

  Geriatric Beds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of geriatric beds in each district health authority area in Wales in the National Health Service and as a percentage of total beds for 1970, 1979, 1984 and 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  Available information on the number of beds in specialities designated as geriatric, psycho-geriatric and elderly mentally infirm and as a percentage of total beds is given in the following table; comparable information for 1970 is not available.

  Home Renovation Grants
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the estimated(a) spending and (b) spending in real terms on mandatory home renovation grants by each local authority for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  Since 1979 four types of home renovation grant have been available:

  i. Improvement/conversion grants

  ii. Repair Grants

  iii Intermediate grants

  iv Special grants

  All intermediate grants are mandatory, as are those special grants and repair grants for works carried out in compliance with statutory notices served under housing legislation. It is not possible from data available centrally to estimate the total breakdown between mandatory and discretionary grants.

  However, some information on the amounts paid on completed grants by type and by local authority is published for the years 1983 to 1988 in "Welsh Housing Statistics" Nos. 4 to 9, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  St. David's Airfield, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire;and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of new private residential homes for the elderly established in Wales in each of the last four years, by local authority district.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers are as shown in the table:
  441

  During the year to 31 March

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Clywd

  17 (2)

  17 (1)

  16

  7

  Dyfed

  21 (4)

  6

  7

  15

  Gwent

  3 (1)

  7 (2)

  7

  2

  Gwynedd

  8

  10

  11

  13

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  4 (1)

  9

  3

  Powys

  1 (1)

  4

  1

  3

  South Glamorgan

  22

  9 (1)

  6

  7

  West Glamorgan

  4 (1)

  3

  4

  1

  Wales

  80 (9)

  60 (5)

  61

  51

  The figures in brackets indicate the number of these homes which have subsequently either closed or ceased to function as primarily private residential homes for elderly people. The number of homes which may have closed from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 is not yet available.

  Ambulance service: emergency calls during 1988–89

  Calls responded to within eight minutes

  Calls responded to within 20 minutes

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Clwyd1

  8,647

  61·8

  13,774

  98·5

  East Dyfed

  4,182

  55·0

  6,996

  92·0

  Gwent

  15,264

  73·4

  20,537

  98·7

  Gwynedd

  4,563

  54·3

  7,996

  95·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  15,553

  45·0

  32,834

  95·0

  Pembrokeshire2

  2,314

  44·3

  4,576

  87·6

  Powys

  1,545

  44·0

  2,929

  83·5

  South Glamorgan

  8,176

  65·7

  12,346

  99·3

  West Glamorgan1

  8,324

  55·4

  14,151

  94·3

  11987–88 figures as later figures are not available.

  2 Estimates using a four-week sample.

  Education Spending
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the estimated(a) capital spending and (b) capital spending in real terms on educational facilities by each local authority for each year since 1979.

  Gross capital expenditure on education

  £000

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cash prices

  Clwyd

  4,214

  5,482

  5,516

  5,410

  5,366

  5,708

  5,755

  6,367

  7,877

  7,323

  Dyfed

  2,308

  2,997

  2,809

  4,153

  4,436

  3,551

  2,853

  4,136

  6,513

  9,030

  Gwent

  4,383

  6,442

  4,814

  5,201

  6,709

  6,950

  5,707

  5,869

  7,624

  8,019

  Gwynedd

  1,345

  2,376

  1,990

  1,315

  1,584

  1,660

  1,986

  2,051

  2,434

  2,642

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,402

  7,985

  7,810

  7,136

  7,752

  7,460

  4,532

  6,693

  9,595

  9,822

  Powys

  2,269

  2,905

  2,255

  2,193

  3,015

  1,989

  1,410

  3,270

  3,370

  2,358

  South Glamorgan

  2,241

  2,808

  2,132

  3,896

  3,071

  2,954

  1,889

  3,876

  4,567

  8,278

  West Glamorgan

  1,977

  5,270

  4,459

  5,142

  4,267

  3,326

  4,911

  6,710

  8,325

  5,848

  Total counties

  24,140

  36,264

  31,785

  34,446

  36,200

  33,597

  29,042

  38,972

  50,305

  53,320

  1988–89 prices1

  Clwyd

  7,933

  8,718

  7,989

  7,309

  6,925

  7,018

  6,715

  7,186

  8,438

  7,323

  Dyfed

  4,345

  4,765

  4,068

  5,610

  5,726

  4,366

  3,329

  4,668

  6,977

  9,030

  Gwent

  8,251

  10,244

  6,973

  7,026

  8,659

  8,545

  6,660

  6,625

  8,167

  8,019

  Gwynedd

  2,531

  3,779

  2,882

  1,776

  2,044

  2,041

  2,318

  2,315

  2,607

  2,642

  Mid Glamorgan

  10,168

  12,698

  11,311

  9,640

  10,005

  9,172

  5,289

  7,554

  10,278

  9,822

  Powys

  4,271

  4,619

  3,267

  2,963

  3,891

  2,446

  1,646

  3,691

  3,610

  2,358

  South Glamorgan

  4,218

  4,465

  3,088

  5,263

  3,964

  3,632

  2,204

  4,375

  4,892

  8,278

  West Glamorgan

  3,721

  8,380

  6,458

  6,945

  5,507

  4,089

  5,730

  7,574

  8,918

  5,848

  Total counties

  45,438

  57,668

  46,036

  46,531

  46,720

  41,309

  33,892

  43,986

  53,887

  53,320

  1 Adjusted to a constant price basis using the GDP deflator.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on BSE in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  At 18 May, a total of 948 cases of BSE had been confirmed on 681 farms in Wales. All necessary steps have been taken by the Government to deal with this disease and the consumer can have every confidence in the safety of beef as a wholesome and nutritional food.

  Ambulance Service (Emergency Calls)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each Welsh ambulance service area the number and percentage of emergency calls answered within(a) eight minutes and (b) 20 minutes.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest available information is given. in the table:

  Mr. Roberts
  The information requested is shown in the tables:

  Private Hospital Beds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many private beds were available, and how many consultant hours were worked in association with these private beds by consultants employed by the National Health Service in Gwynedd in the most recent available year.

  Mr. Grist
  On 31 March 1989, the latest date for which information is available, there were 52 beds in private 444
  hospitals in Gwynedd. I have also authorised that a maximum of 2,920 bed days may be used by private patients in National Health Service hospitals in Gwynedd in any one year. Information on the number of hours worked by National Health Service consultants in association with these beds is not available centrally.

  Local Authority Capital Expenditure
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the estimated(a) investment in real terms, and (b) capital investment on capital programmes other than new build and renovation, by each local authority for each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is shown in the following tables. Information for 1979–80 and 1980–81 was not collected on a comparable basis and is therefore not included.

  Capital payments 1981–82 to 1984–85: Cash prices1

  £000

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,560

  1,915

  897

  1,503

  Colwyn

  725

  1,639

  1,417

  977

  Delyn

  1,522

  3,358

  4,215

  6,131

  Glyndwr

  394

  498

  323

  317

  Rhuddlan

  581

  648

  1,183

  1,057

  Wrexham Maelor

  2,548

  2,206

  2,975

  2,551

  Carmarthen

  824

  1,248

  1,367

  665

  Ceredigion

  1,025

  1,255

  1,484

  1,335

  Dinefwr

  242

  531

  596

  401

  Llanelli

  3,232

  3,469

  2,890

  3,454

  Preseli

  825

  1,470

  1,376

  2,413

  South Pembroke

  651

  864

  935

  1,627

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,105

  4,627

  3,401

  4,246

  Islwyn

  1,293

  596

  1,548

  2,683

  Monmouth

  875

  742

  686

  900

  Newport

  2,518

  4,728

  6,431

  4,394

  Torfaen

  1,103

  2,308

  2,236

  1,874

  Aberconwy

  1,183

  996

  1,032

  563

  Arfon

  1,572

  1,066

  962

  1,011

  Dwyfor

  481

  604

  487

  582

  Meirionnydd

  746

  644

  2,428

  427

  Ynys Môn

  1,315

  1,289

  1,618

  1,205

  Cynon Valley

  1,044

  1,113

  1,502

  1,653

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,768

  2,496

  2,374

  1,870

  Ogwr

  2,786

  3,145

  3,956

  5,528

  Rhondda

  2,431

  4,839

  4,970

  3,499

  Rhymney Valley

  1,901

  2,263

  2,826

  2,319

  Taff Ely

  2,039

  3,239

  2,212

  2,734

  Brecknock

  936

  860

  507

  684

  Montgomeryshire

  713

  598

  451

  264

  Radnorshire

  206

  6

  361

  377

  Cardiff

  11,486

  9,126

  8,162

  12,945

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,270

  2,185

  4,000

  3,718

  Port Talbot

  808

  1,042

  823

  850

  Lliw Valley

  938

  3,343

  798

  1,632

  Neath

  681

  1,520

  1,871

  1,506

  Swansea

  5,140

  14,228

  10,957

  9,128

  Clwyd

  10,228

  11,917

  15,214

  15,716

  Dyfed

  9,821

  13,521

  12,851

  9,834

  Gwent

  21,248

  32,934

  25,644

  24,353

  Gwynedd

  7,300

  11,353

  8,664

  9,172

  Mid Glamorgan

  15,402

  17,969

  19,697

  21,400

  Powys

  6,013

  5,707

  6,347

  5,653

  South Glamorgan

  17,213

  19,978

  20,869

  17,843

  West Glamorgan

  13,035

  15,289

  12,489

  11,502

  Total districts

  63,467

  86,704

  86,257

  89,023

  Total counties

  100,260

  128,668

  121,775

  115,473

  Total Wales

  163,727

  215,372

  208,032

  204,496

  1 Excluding building of dwellings, renovation of local authority dwellings and renovation grants from local authorities to the private sector.

  Capital payments 1985–86 to 1988–89: Cash prices1

  Local authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,465

  2,166

  2,126

  1,762

  Colwyn

  1,076

  1,191

  1,212

  1,238

  Delyn

  5,869

  5,909

  3,813

  4,080

  Glyndwr

  461

  767

  492

  414

  Rhuddlan

  1,185

  2,692

  2,735

  3,665

  446

  Local authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Wrexham Maelor

  2,586

  4,212

  5,523

  4,004

  Carmarthen

  1,132

  1,359

  2,213

  2,992

  Ceredigion

  1,312

  1,731

  1,368

  1,772

  Dinefwr

  718

  886

  1,063

  1,375

  Llanelli

  2,307

  2,211

  4,366

  3,440

  Preseli

  2,259

  996

  1,402

  2,844

  South Pembroke

  2,101

  1,503

  3,098

  2,167

  Blaenau Gwent

  3,454

  5,311

  7,048

  7,008

  Islwyn

  2,628

  5,160

  4,636

  4,941

  Monmouth

  736

  1,773

  1,268

  2,155

  Newport

  6,128

  7,036

  7,350

  9,357

  Torfaen

  2,049

  2,079

  2,724

  5,476

  Aberconwy

  591

  562

  908

  1,157

  Arfon

  1,200

  997

  1,756

  3,834

  Dwyfor

  1,421

  2,087

  2,085

  1,308

  Meirionnydd

  309

  467

  1,377

  1,694

  Ynys Môn

  1,763

  3,198

  3,080

  4,118

  Cynon Valley

  1,478

  3,499

  4,671

  4,088

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,225

  1,490

  2,921

  4,293

  Ogwr

  4,187

  6,667

  6,697

  6,714

  Rhondda

  4,691

  7,734

  7,997

  8,778

  Rhymney Valley

  2,291

  2,831

  5,411

  4,518

  Taff Ely

  1,833

  2,048

  2,524

  2,408

  Brecknock

  1,017

  1,404

  2,452

  2,604

  Montgomeryshire

  794

  485

  885

  1,627

  Radnorshire

  337

  341

  806

  1,017

  Cardiff

  11,000

  11,367

  13,529

  13,632

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,288

  4,192

  4,190

  2,541

  Port Talbot

  2,895

  3,866

  2,014

  1,853

  Lliw Valley

  1,143

  2,112

  1,852

  1,704

  Neath

  3,026

  2,612

  4,261

  3,077

  Swansea

  7,398

  7,805

  9,248

  11,955

  Clwyd

  17,072

  17,009

  22,248

  21,871

  Dyfed

  12,003

  16,074

  16,001

  19,122

  Gwent

  14,373

  17,678

  25,236

  20,657

  Gwynedd

  12,161

  9,355

  10,058

  9,213

  Mid Glamorgan

  19,437

  24,144

  28,217

  29,765

  Powys

  5,394

  8,477

  7,278

  8,629

  South Glamorgan

  25,145

  26,687

  37,585

  34,889

  West Glamorgan

  17,081

  19,304

  23,862

  19,496

  Total Districts

  89,353

  112,746

  131,101

  141,610

  Total Counties

  122,666

  138,728

  170,485

  163,642

  Total Wales

  212,019

  251,474

  301,586

  305,252

  1 Excluding building of dwellings, renovation of local authority dwellings and renovation grants from local authorities to the private sector.

  Capital Payments 1981–82 to 1984–85: 1988–89 Prices1 2

  £000

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,259

  2,587

  1,158

  1,848

  Colwyn

  1,050

  2,214

  1,829

  1,201

  Delyn

  2,204

  4,536

  5,440

  7,538

  Glyndwr

  571

  673

  417

  390

  Rhuddlan

  841

  875

  1,527

  1,300

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,690

  2,980

  3,840

  3,137

  Carmarthen

  1,193

  1,686

  1,764

  818

  Ceredigion

  1,485

  1,695

  1,915

  1,641

  Dinefwr

  351

  717

  769

  493

  Llanelli

  4,681

  4,686

  3,730

  4,247

  Preseli

  1,195

  1,986

  1,776

  2,967

  South Pembroke

  943

  1,167

  1,207

  2,000

  Blaenau Gwent

  3,049

  6,250

  4,389

  5,221

  Islwyn

  1,873

  805

  1,998

  3,299

  Monmouth

  1,267

  1,002

  885

  1,107

  Newport

  3,647

  6,387

  8,300

  5,403

  Torfaen

  1,598

  3,118

  2,886

  2,304

  Aberconwy

  1,713

  1,345

  1,332

  692

  Arfon

  2,277

  1,440

  1,242

  1,243

  Dwyfor

  697

  816

  629

  716

  Meirionnydd

  1,080

  870

  3,134

  525

  Ynys Mon

  1,905

  1,741

  2,088

  1,482

  Cynon Valley

  1,512

  1,503

  1,938

  2,032

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,561

  3,372

  3,064

  2,299

  447

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Ogwr

  4,035

  4,248

  5,106

  6,797

  Rhondda

  3,521

  6,537

  6,414

  4,302

  Rhymney Valley

  2,753

  3,057

  3,647

  2,851

  Taff Ely

  2,953

  4,375

  2,855

  3,362

  Brecknock

  1,356

  1,162

  654

  841

  Montgomeryshire

  1,033

  808

  582

  325

  Radnorshire

  298

  8

  466

  464

  Cardiff

  16,636

  12,328

  10,534

  15,916

  Vale of Glamorgan

  4,736

  2,952

  5,162

  4,571

  Port Talbot

  1,170

  1,408

  1,062

  1,045

  Lliw Valley

  1,359

  4,516

  1,030

  2,007

  Neath

  986

  2,053

  2,415

  1,852

  Swansea

  7,445

  19,220

  14,141

  11,223

  Clwyd

  14,814

  16,098

  19,635

  19,323

  Dyfed

  14,224

  18,265

  16,586

  12,091

  Gwent

  30,775

  44,489

  33,096

  29,943

  Gwynedd

  10,573

  15,336

  11,182

  11,277

  Mid Glamorgan

  22,308

  24,273

  25,421

  26,312

  Powys

  8,709

  7,709

  8,191

  6,951

  South Glamorgan

  24,930

  26,987

  26,934

  21,938

  West Glamorgan

  18,879

  20,653

  16,118

  14,142

  Total districts

  91,923

  117,123

  111,324

  109,456

  Total counties

  145,212

  173,810

  157,164

  141,977

  Total Wales

  237,134

  290,933

  268,487

  251,434

  1 Excluding building of dwellings, renovation of local authority dwellings and renovation grants from local authorities to the private sector.

  2 Adjusted to a constant price basis using the GDP deflator.

  Capital payments 1985–86 to 1988–89 1988–89 prices1 2

  £000s

  Local authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,710

  2,445

  2,277

  1,762

  Colwyn

  1,256

  1,344

  1,298

  1,238

  Delyn

  6,849

  6,669

  4,085

  4,080

  Glyndwr

  538

  866

  527

  414

  Rhuddlan

  1,383

  3,038

  2,930

  3,665

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,018

  4,754

  5,916

  4,004

  Carmarthen

  1,321

  1,534

  2,371

  2,992

  Ceredigion

  1,531

  1,954

  1,465

  1,772

  Dinefwr

  838

  1,000

  1,139

  1,375

  Llanelli

  2,692

  2,495

  4,677

  3,440

  Preseli

  2,636

  1,124

  1,502

  2,844

  South Pembroke

  2,452

  1,696

  3,319

  2,167

  Blaenau Gwent

  4,031

  5,994

  7,550

  7,008

  Islwyn

  3,067

  5,824

  4,966

  4,941

  Monmouth

  859

  2,001

  1,358

  2,155

  Newport

  7,151

  7,941

  7,873

  9,357

  Torfaen

  2,391

  2,346

  2,918

  5,476

  Aberconwy

  690

  634

  973

  1,157

  Arfon

  1,400

  1,125

  1,881

  3,834

  Dwyfor

  1,658

  2,355

  2,233

  1,308

  Meirionnydd

  361

  527

  1,475

  1,694

  Ynys Môn

  2,057

  3,609

  3,299

  4,118

  Cynon Valley

  1,725

  3,949

  5,004

  4,088

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,430

  1,682

  3,129

  4,293

  Ogwr

  4,886

  7,525

  7,174

  6,714

  Rhondda

  5,474

  8,729

  8,567

  8,778

  Rhymney Valley

  2,674

  3,195

  5,796

  4,518

  Taff Ely

  2,139

  2,311

  2,704

  2,408

  Brecknock

  1,187

  1,585

  2,627

  2,604

  Montgomeryshire

  927

  547

  948

  1,627

  Radnorshire

  393

  385

  863

  1,017

  Cardiff

  12,837

  12,829

  14,492

  13,632

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,837

  4,731

  4,488

  2,541

  Port Talbot

  3,378

  4,363

  2,157

  1,853

  Lliw Valley

  1,334

  2,384

  1,984

  1,704

  Neath

  3,531

  2,948

  4,564

  3,077

  Swansea

  8,633

  8,809

  9,907

  11,955

  Clwyd

  19,923

  19,197

  23,832

  21,871

  Dyfed

  14,007

  18,142

  17,141

  19,122

  Gwent

  16,773

  19,952

  27,033

  20,657

  Gwynedd

  14,192

  10,558

  10,774

  9,213

  Mid Glamorgan

  22,683

  27,250

  30,226

  29,765

  448

  Local authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Powys

  6,295

  9,568

  7,796

  8,629

  South Glamorgan

  29,344

  30,120

  40,262

  34,889

  West Glamorgan

  19,933

  21,787

  25,561

  19,496

  Total districts

  104,273

  127,250

  140,437

  141,610

  Total counties

  143,149

  156,574

  182,626

  163,642

  Total Wales

  247,423

  283,824

  323,063

  305,252

  1 Excluding building of dwellings, renovation of local authority dwellings and renovation grants from local authorities to the private sector.

  2 Adjusted to a constant price basis using the GDP deflator.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons were directly employed as staff in the National Health Service for the whole of Wales in(a) 1979, (b) 1984, (c) 1987 and (d) the latest available date.

  Mr. Grist
  The whole-time equivalents of staff directly employed by the NHS in Wales, including the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, is given in the table:

  Staff in post as at 30 September

  Numbers

  1979

  50,320

  1984

  54,528

  1987

  55,882

  19891

  55,679

  1 Provisional.

  These figures are not adjusted to take into account the change in nurses' hours from 40 to 37·5 in 1980.

  Social Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much each of the county councils in Wales spent on social services(a) in total and (b) per head for 1979, 1984 and 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  The information available is given in the following tables. Information for 1979–80 has been given in place of 1978–79 which is not available.

  Total county council expenditure on personal social services1

  1979–80

  1983–84

  1988–89

  £ thousand

  £ thousand

  £ thousand

  Clwyd

  9,319

  15,508

  22,245

  Dyfed

  7,988

  11,826

  19,004

  Gwent

  10,326

  15,828

  24,675

  Gwynedd

  7,143

  10,356

  14,731

  Mid Glamorgan

  17,259

  26,037

  36,258

  Powys

  3,335

  4,118

  6,360

  South Glamorgan

  11,456

  18,360

  26,917

  West Glamorgan

  9,346

  16,409

  23,503

  Total Counties

  76,172

  118,441

  173,693

  £ per head

  £ per head

  £ per head

  Clwyd

  23·8

  39·2

  54·6

  Dyfed

  24·0

  35·3

  54·5

  Gwent

  23·4

  36·0

  55·4

  Gwynedd

  31·0

  44·6

  61·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  31·8

  48·5

  67·7

  Powys

  30·5

  37·2

  55·4

  South Glamorgan

  29·3

  46·9

  66·7

  West Glamorgan

  25·1

  44·8

  64·8

  Total Counties

  27·1

  42·2

  60·8

  1 Includes gross capital expenditure and net current expenditure.

  Factory and Business Rents
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the commercial level of rents on new factory and business lettings in Wales against the rents currently set by the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The assessment and negotiation of rents to be charged to tenants of the Welsh Development Agency is a matter for the agency.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors are taken into account in the setting of rent levels for new lettings of Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales are responsible for assessing and negotiating the level of rent charged to their tenants and in general they seek to obtain full market value. A variety of factors influence rent levels charged by the agencies. These include location, size, and age of premises, as well as rent levels achieved by the private sector and other public sector landlords.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the increase in rents experienced by sitting tenants in Welsh Development Agency properties sold to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None. Rents paid in the private sector are a matter for the parties concerned.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on the basis of the latest available information in Wales, what proportion of patients currently treated in community hospitals would have to be treated in general hospitals in the event of community hospital beds not being available; and if he will fund a study into this matter similar to that undertaken by Kenrick and Davies and published in 1976.

  Mr. Grist
  During the financial year 1988–89 approximately 11 per cent. of in-patient cases in Wales were treated in community hospitals (hospitals other than teaching, acute 1 and 2, mental illness, mental handicap and speciality hospitals). Their treatment in the event of community hospital beds not being available would be an operational matter for the district health authority concerned on which it is not possible to speculate. A review of the role of community hospitals in Wales was undertaken in 1989 by a working party of the Welsh Medical Committee. Its findings are expected to be presented to my right hon. Friend in the near future. No further studies are intended.

  Financial Management
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 8 May,Official Report, column 55, and 21 May, in what ways the financial consequences of the delay of the completion of the IBM contract with the Welsh Office of August 1986 were taken into account.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As I told the hon. Gentleman on 8 May, the details of the settlement between my Department and IBM (UK) Ltd. are in confidence for commercial reasons.

  Hip Surgery
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to help those with a need for hip surgery in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The provision of hip surgery is a matter for district health authorities in the first instance. In addition, residents of Clwyd who have been on an in-patient waiting list for a hip replacement operation for more than four months and who are willing to travel to South Glamorgan may be referred for surgery at the all-Wales orthopaedic treatment centre in the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar.

  Tourism
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce legislation in order to enable the Wales tourist board to market Wales overseas.

  Mr. Roberts
  Following consideration of the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in 1987, improved working arrangements were established as between the British Tourist Authority, the Wales tourist board and the trade, for promoting Wales in overseas tourism markets. We have no plans to introduce new legislation.

  Polytechnic of Wales
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the consultants appointed to examine the management and financial control arrangements at the polytechnic of Wales to report.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have now received the report which my predecessor commissioned from Price Waterhouse. I am placing a copy of the report in the Library.

  The report identifies a number of management, budgeting and financial control deficiencies which call for immediate action by the polytechnic or Mid Glamorgan county council to improve the running of the polytechnic and its interface with the local authority. Copies of the report have been made available to the polytechnic and the local authority and I look to them to take early action to consider and put these recommendations into effect.

  The consultants have also reported that effective dialogue between the polytechnic and its maintaining authority have come close to breaking down at most levels. That is a very serious situation, one which the consultants consider is highly detrimental to the efficient and effective operation of the polytechnic and potentially damaging to its image in the higher education market place. The report considers the options for the future status of the polytechnic against this unsatisfactory background and recommends that my Department should take over responsibility for its funding.

  I will be giving careful consideration to the recommendation that there should be a change in the polytechnic's status as a local authority maintained institution. In doing so I shall be taking account of the polytechnic's special position as the largest higher education institution in the local authority sector in Wales and considering the implications of such a step for the rest of the sector.

  All-Wales County Council
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost of creating and running a new county council for all of Wales with 26 councillors and remit to administer the functions now carried out by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I find the proposal in question insufficiently well developed to justify asking my Department to attempt such an estimate.

  Europartenariat 90
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial contribution is being made to Europartenariat 90 by(a) Welsh Development Agency, (b) Welsh Office and (d) local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Europartenariat 1990 is sponsored by the European Commission which will be meeting two thirds of the estimated total cost of £750,000. The remaining third is the responsibility of the host region and will be met by the Welsh Development Agency. Local authorities are not making direct financial contributions, but South Glamorgan county council is sponsoring a lunch for delegates on 14 June.

  I am delighted that Wales has the honour to host this major event which will provide an excellent showcase for small Welsh companies and the opportunity for them to meet potential business partners from other parts of the European Community.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and

  Table I

  Wastage of Maintained Nursery, Primary and Secondary School Teachers

  Leaving between 31 March 1985 and 31 March 1986

  Leaving between 31 March 1980 and 31 March 1981

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Wastage among teachers:

  Within 2 years of qualifying

  52

  12·5

  65

  10·2

  Within 5 years of qualifying but after 2 years

  243

  10·7

  433

  9·2

  Within 10 years of qualifying but after 5 years

  304

  6·6

  409

  6·9

  More than 10 years after qualifying

  1,328

  7·0

  1,110

  6·4

  All teachers

  1,927

  7·3

  2,017

  7·0

  1 As a percentage of all in service in specified group at March 1985.

  2 As a percentage of all in service in specified group at March 1980.

  Table II

  Wastage of Maintained Nursery, Primary and Secondary School Maths and Physics Graduate Teachers

  Leaving between 31 March 1985 and 31 March 1986

  Leaving between 31 March 1980 and 31 March 1981

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Wastage among Maths graduates:

  Within 2 years of qualifying

  4

  8·3

  1

  4·8

  Within 5 years of qualifying but after 2 years

  10

  9·1

  11

  10·6

  452
  internal efficiency arrangements and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date;

  (2) what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Officials engaged on staff inspection, management services and market testing work have identified possible value-for-money and efficiency savings of £2,368,000 in the period 1983–84 to 1988–89. While it is not always possible to achieve these savings in full because of changes in circumstances or other factors, and it often takes time to secure them in full, savings of £1,842,000 from this source were realised during the period.

  Value-for-money savings are also identified in a number of other ways, for example, for audits, efficiency scrutinies, ad hoc reviews, the employment of consultants and the introduction of information technology. In addition, line managers seek savings and efficiency gains when preparing their annual management plans and in the course of their day-to-day activities. Line managers have prime responsibility for realising potential savings identified in these ways, and the results are not collected centrally within my Department.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will disaggregate for Wales the data contained in tables I, II and III of the Department of Education and Science memorandum contained in the second report of the Select Committee on Education HC 208-II, pp 10–12, session 1989–90.

  Mr. Roberts
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: The information requested is given in the tables.
  453

  Leaving between 31 March 1985 and 31 March 1986

  Leaving between 31 March 1980 and 31 March 1981

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Within 10 years of qualifying but after 5 years

  11

  9·4

  4

  3·0

  More than 10 years after qualifying

  21

  5·2

  20

  5·9

  All Maths graduates

  46

  6·8

  36

  6·0

  Wastage among Physics Graduates:

  Within 2 years of qualifying

  0

  0

  1

  14·3

  Within 5 years of qualifying but after 2 years

  5

  15·6

  4

  9·1

  Within 10 years of qualifying but after 5 years

  2

  4·3

  5

  6·1

  More than 10 years after qualifying

  14

  4·9

  7

  3·6

  All Physics graduates

  21

  5·6

  17

  5·0

  1 As a percentage of all in service in specified group at March 1985.

  2 As a percentage of all in service in specified group at March 1980.

  Table III

  Unfilled vacancies in secondary schools by subject January 1984–1988

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19881

  Percentage vacancies2

  Mathematics

  18

  18

  21

  7

  6

  0·4

  Computer Studies

  0

  8

  7

  5

  3

  1·3

  Chemistry

  3

  0

  4

  2

  0

  0·0

  Physics

  8

  5

  7

  4

  3

  0·7

  Biology

  4

  6

  2

  1

  4

  0·8

  Other Science

  8

  9

  6

  3

  7

  1·1

  French

  5

  4

  11

  4

  5

  0·8

  German

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0·7

  French/German

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  n.a.

  Spanish

  n.a.

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0·0

  Welsh and other languages3

  9

  4

  8

  2

  7

  1·1

  English

  16

  12

  15

  10

  14

  1·1

  Drama

  n.a.

  0

  4

  2

  1

  1·1

  History

  3

  6

  10

  1

  1

  0·2

  Social Studies

  1

  1

  5

  0

  1

  0·8

  Geography

  4

  2

  13

  4

  3

  0·4

  Religious Education

  3

  8

  4

  1

  0

  0·0

  CDT

  3

  8

  16

  1

  7

  0·9

  Commerce/ Business

  3

  6

  5

  5

  3

  1·1

  Art/Light Craft

  3

  2

  4

  1

  4

  0·7

  Home Economics/Needlework

  7

  7

  8

  2

  4

  0·6

  Music

  1

  5

  5

  3

  2

  0·5

  P.E.

  5

  6

  11

  3

  3

  0·4

  Remedial

  2

  7

  11

  6

  5

  1·0

  Careers

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Other main subjects

  6

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0·5

  Combined subjects

  5

  3

  2

  0

  1

  0·5

  Total

  118

  135

  181

  69

  87

  0·7

  Head vacancies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Deputy Head vacancies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Total vacancies (1988)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  91

  —

  1Separately identified figures for heads and deputy heads were collected for the first time in 1988 possibly resulting in undercounting in previous years. But to the extent that they were recorded prior to 1988 they will have been allocated to a teaching subject, slightly inflating the number of vacancies in individual subjects relative to their 1988 values.

  2Percentage vacancy estimates are based on 1988 figures. 1988 subject teacher numbers have been derived by applying 1989 Secondary School Staffing Survey rates on subject teacher numbers to the teacher numbers recorded at January 1988.

  3Vacancy rates are recorded on the Form 618G and vacancies for Welsh teachers are combined with vacancies in other languages.

  454

EMPLOYMENT

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the sale of the skills training agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  The delayed sales of the training businesses at Barking, Southampton and Wolverhampton skill centres (including Telford outreach) to Astra Training Services Ltd. were completed on 31 May. This completes the sales of training businesses to the private sector. Fifty one of the 60 skill centres, plus the STA's head office, mobile training service, sales teams and colleges have transferred to the private sector, providing a network of training provision covering the major centres of population in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the name and address of each training and enterprise council to be established in Nottinghamshire; and what geographical area each covers.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are two training and enterprise councils to be established in Nottinghamshire. The addresses and geographical areas covered by each are as follows:

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  Edwinstowe Hall Cottage

  Church Street

  Mansfield

  Nottingham NG21 9QA

  Boundaries: local authority districts of Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Newark and Sherwood Ashfield.

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  c/o Employment Department: The Training Agency Nottinghamshire Area Office

  Lambert House

  Talbot Street

  Nottingham NG1 5GL

  Boundaries: local authority districts of Broxtowe, Nottingham, Gedling and Rushcliffe.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Czechoslovakia;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the programme of assistance to Czechoslovakia, recently agreed with his Czech opposite number.

  Mr. Howard
  I visited Czechoslovakia from 13 to 15 May at the invitation of the Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Mr. Peter Miller, during which time I also had talks with the Prime Minister, Mr. Calfa, other Federal Government Ministers, industrialists and a trade union leader.

  Discussions focused on the importance of creating the right climate in which enterprise can flourish, and the more immediate practical help and advice my Department can provide.

  On 14 May Mr. Miller and I signed a joint statement on co-operation between our two countries in the labour market area.

  We agreed a programme of immediate assistance which will include advice and practical help in establishing
  456
  arrangements for the training and retraining of adults and in the development of small firms and employment services. We also agreed to set up a joint planning group to co-ordinate assistance and to develop proposals for further projects.

  In addition, I have agreed to second a senior official from my Department to the Czechoslovakian Prime Minister's office to provide advice as Czechoslovakia introduces its economic reforms and moves to a market economy, including advice on labour market aspects.

  I am very pleased that the Czechoslovak Government have asked my Department for assistance and that we have been able to agree a programme of co-operation. I look forward to the development of a rewarding and beneficial relationship between our respective Ministries.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) YTS training providers and (b) YTS training agencies operating in Nottingham.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many small businesses were established in 1989, by region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest available information, based on VAT data, is for 1988 and is given in the table. However, early indications from data collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are that there was a net increase in 1989 in the United Kingdom as a whole of 1,500 a week on average, compared with 1,200 a week in 1988.

  Value added tax registrations, deregistrations and net change in 1988

  Registrations (thousand)

  Deregistrations (thousand)

  Net change (per cent.)

  South East

  91

  61

  6

  East Anglia

  9

  6

  4

  South West

  22

  15

  5

  West Midlands

  19

  14

  4

  East Midlands

  15

  11

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17

  13

  4

  North West

  21

  18

  2

  North

  8

  7

  2

  Wales

  11

  8

  4

  Scotland

  14

  11

  3

  Northern Ireland

  3

  3

  2

  United Kingdom

  230

  166

  4

  Workers' Co-operatives
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline the measures he has taken to encourage workers' co-operatives.

  Mr. Eggar
  The national Co-operative Development Agency, during its period of sponsorship by the Employment Department, has done excellent work in supporting and advising co-operatives. Much of this work is now carried out by other support bodies.

  Like any other eligible business, workers' co-operatives can benefit from a number of schemes introduced by the Employment Department to help and encourage small businesses. The loan guarantee scheme, the enterprise

  457
  allowance scheme and information and counselling from the small firms service are all examples of the support provided by the Department.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department has spent on vocational training in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  Records are kept on the basis of the standard financial year for Government expenditure, which runs from 1 April to 31 March.

  The total expenditure on vocational training by the Employment Department Group Training Agency (and its predecessors, the Training Commission and the Manpower Services Commission) in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  1,278·0

  1986–87

  1,461·6

  1987–88

  1,633·6

  1988–89

  2,042·4

  1989–90

  2,669·5

  Figures are shown at cash prices and include administration costs net of receipts.

  Figures for 1989–90 are provisional and unaudited.

  TVEI
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the expansion of the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mr. Howard
  At present there are 81 LEAs in TVEI extension. A further 22 LEAs will begin their extension in September 1990. These authorities have now received an offer of funding for 1990–91. The total budget available to my Department for expenditure on TVEI in 1990–91 is £134 million.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the criteria which are being used in assessing the viability of the Neasden Health and Safety Executive office.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Decisions about the location of offices from which inspectors' work are taken by the Health and Safety Executive on the basis of providing effective coverage as economically as possible.

  Underpayment
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average level of hourly underpayment in all wages council industries(a) by worker and (b) by establishment for 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Self-employed People
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the latest figures of self-employed people in the Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency.
  458
  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest figures available are for census day in April 1981. In the census returns 1,803 men and 458 women living in the Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency said that they were self-employed.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) scientists, (b) technologists and (c) engineers are currently unemployed; and how many in each category are currently in work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is available from the labour force survey (LFS) on the occupation of people in employment in the survey reference week; and the occupation in their previous job of people who were unemployed (on the international ILO definition) and who had left that job less than three years before the survey. The preliminary results of the 1989 LFS with respect to occupation are currently being re-examined, and I will write to the hon. Member when the correct figures are to hand. The available figures from the 1988 LFS are given in the following table:

  Spring 1988. Great Britain

  Thousand

  Unemployed (ILO definition)

  In employment

  Scientists, physicists mathematicians

  1—

  118

  Engineers and technologists2

  1—

  443

  1 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate (less than 10 thousand)

  2 It is not possible to separate the figures for engineers and technologists

  Workers' Co-operatives
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider new arrangements for national insurance contribution rates to be paid by workers in workers' co-operatives.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to introduce new arrangements for these workers.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Office Accommodation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he estimates that every hon. Member who wishes will have an office of his own.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Services Committee's second report of Session 1986–87 (HC 378) and first report of Session 1987–88 (HC 561) both recommended that every hon. Member who so wished should have a room of his own by 1995. That objective remains, but its achievement will depend in part upon the effect on plans for the further development of the Bridge street site of London Underground's proposals to extend the Jubilee line through Westminster. The New Building Sub-Committee has now completed its inquiry into this matter, and its report is expected to be published on Friday 8 June (third report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) (HC 334)).
  459
  Meanwhile, an additional 60 Members' offices (and space for about 100 Members' staff) will become available in phase 1 of the new parliamentary building during 1991, and plans at present under consideration for the conversion of other space in the Palace of Westminster will, if implemented, provide a significant further number of Members' offices in the main building during the 1992–93 Session of Parliament.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in the Privy Council Office in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions;

  (2) if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in the Privy Council Office and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Privy Council Office does not operate a system of energy audit, and has no dedicated energy managers.

  Members' Expenses
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list(a) the different expenses and administrative allowances available to hon. Members and (b) similar financial provisions in the parliamentary assemblies of (i) the United States of America, (ii) the Federal Republic of Germany, (iii) France, (iv) Spain and (v) the European Parliament, specifying the different cash amounts in sterling terms.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Parliamentary allowances

  Country

  Allowance

  SUBSISTENCE AND CONSTITUENCY COSTS

  United Kingdom—Member of the House of Commons

  Additional costs allowance of up to £10,138 for those with constituencies outside London for cost of maintaining second home

  Local allowance of £1,222 for those with constituencies in London

  United States—Member of the House of Representatives

  —

  Federal Republic of Germany—Member of the Bundestag

  Constituency costs of 1DM 5,274 (£1,864) per month, (DM 63,288 (£22,367) per annum) covering:

  —postage

  —mileage costs

  —cost of second home

  Hotel room bills paid when overnight stays necessary

  Accommodation and subsistence (variable depending on country visited) paid on official trips abroad

  France—Deputy in the National Assembly

  Housing allowance of F Fr 848·20 (£89) per month (F Fr 10,178 (£1,068) per annum)

  Subsistence of F Fr 7,280·36 (£764) per month (F Fr 87,365 (£9,165) per annum)

  460

  Country

  Allowance

  Spain—Member of Congress of Deputies

  —

  Member of the European Parliament

  Subsistence allowance of ECU 162 (£118) per day for attending meetings within the EC territory and ECU 81 (£59) per day plus cost of over night accommodation etc for attending meetings outside territory

  TRAVEL

  United Kingdom—Member of the House of Commons

  Free travel to and from House and on parliamentary business in United Kingdom and/or motor mileage allowance of up to 20,000 miles

  Further mileage

  l,300cc

  23·3p

  12·7p

  1,301cc-2,300cc

  35·4p

  16·7p

  2,301cc +

  56·0p

  28·0p

  United States—Member of the House of Representatives

  See official expenses allowance

  Federal Republic of Germany—Member of the Bundestag

  Free first class season ticket for rail travel, including sleeper tickets2

  Free first class air travel for official internal flights

  Free use of the Bundestag fleet of official cars for trips within 20 km around Bonn and to Bonn-Cologne airport

  Free first class flights and local transport costs for official trips abroad

  France—Deputy in the National Assembly

  Free railway pass for first class and sleeper carriages

  40 free internal return flights

  Spain—Member of Congress of Deputies

  Free travel between constituency and Congress

  Congressional charge card provided to pay for 1st class train or Club class air travel using national carriers

  Car travel allowance of 70 Pesetas (£0·40p) per kilometre

  Member of the European Parliament

  Flat rate travel allowance of ECU 0·62 (£0·45p) per kilometre for the first 400 km and ECU 0·31 (£0·23p) for additional mileage for travel within the community to attend meetings

  Reimbursement of the return air fare by the most direct route for travel outside EC territory to attend meetings

  Travel allowance of up to ECU 2,500 (£1,813) per annum for travel in performance of duties other than to attend meetings

  OFFICE AND SECRETARIAL ASSISTANCE

  United Kingdom—Member of the House of Commons

  Office costs allowance of up to £24,903 (+10 per cent. for pension contributions of any staff employed)

  461

  Country

  Allowance

  United States—Member of the House of Representatives

  Clerk hire allowance of US $441,120 (£260,525) to hire up to 18 permanent and 4 non-permanent staff

  Official expenses allowance of between US $104,000 (£61,422) and US $302,000 (£178,360) calculated according to Member's districts distance from Washington. The average is US $146,000 (£86,227). Covers travel, office equipment, district office lease, stationery, telecommunications, mass mailing, postage, computer services, and official expenses in general3

  Federal Republic of Germany—Member of the Bundestag

  Secretarial and research costs of DM 11,600 (£4,100) per month (DM 139,200 (£49,196) per annum) for one secretary in Bonn, one in constituency and one researcher

  Stationery costs of DM 2,063 (£729) per annum

  France—Deputy in the National Assembly

  Secretarial Allowance of F Fr 18,956 (£1,989) per month (F Fr 227,472 (£23,862) per annum)

  Contribution towards cost of research assistants etc. F Fr 21,460 (£2,251) per month (F Fr 257,520 (£27,014) per annum)

  Spain—Member of Congress of Deputies

  No provision for individual Deputies. Instead, allowances given to each parliamentary group, pro-rated according to number of seats held, to cover office expenses including rental. Each deputy will soon be provided with own office but no secretarial help will be provided

  Member of the European Parliament

  General expenditure allowance of ECU 2,342 (£1,699) per month for office management costs, telephone, postage and travel within their Member states4

  Secretarial assistance allowance of up to ECU 4,530 (£3,285) per month

  Communications allowance of up to ECU 1,000 (£725) a year towards purchase and running costs of data processing and transmission equipment and a fax machine in the Member's constituency

  POSTAGE

  United Kingdom—Member of the House of Commons

  Free inland postage

  United States—Member of the House of Representatives

  See official expenses allowance

  Federal Republic of Germany—Member of the Bundestag

  Free postage from Bonn (constituency postage is met from constituency costs)

  France—Deputy in the National Assembly

  Free postage

  462

  Country

  Allowance

  Spain—Member of Congress of Deputies

  Free postage

  Member of the European Parliament

  See general expenditure allowance

  TELEPHONE CHARGES

  United Kingdom—Member of the House of Commons

  Free inland telephone charges

  United States—Member of the House of Representatives

  See official expenses allowance

  Federal Republic of Germany—Member of the Bundestag

  Free telephone calls from Bonn (worldwide)

  France—Deputy in the National Assembly

  Free inland calls from Assembly or constituency

  Spain—Member of Congress of Deputies

  Free telephone calls

  Member of European Parliament

  See general expenditure allowance

  1 To be reviewed on 31 May along with Bundestag salaries.

  2 Provided without charge by the Federal Railway but set to change. It is unclear whether the Bundestag or Members will pay.

  3 A Member may allocate up to US $50,000 (£29,530) from the clerk hire allowance to supplement the official expenses allowance and vice versa.

  4 Halved in respect of Members who, for no valid reason, have failed to attend at least half the number of plenary sittings.

  Note: The sterling figures calculated using rates of exchange at the close of business on 29 May 1990

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  El Salvador
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a full report will be made public on the findings of the Scotland Yard detectives who have been helping the El Salvadorean authorities with their investigations into the murder in November 1989 of six Jesuit priests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 21 May, Vol. 173, column 33.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports and assessments Her Majesty's Government have received on the scope, effectiveness and professionalism of the investigation by the El Salvadorean authorities into the murder in November 1989 of six Jesuit priests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We receive regular reports from our embassy, and have seen reports from a number of other sources, on the progress of the investigation into the killing of six Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter on 16 November 1989. The investigation is not yet complete. Meanwhile, eight members of the armed forces in El Salvador remain in detention.

  South Africa
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received urging maintenance of all forms of pressure against South Africa.
  463
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We regularly receive representations on a wide range of issues relating to South Africa from organisations, from members of the public, and from hon. Members of this House.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many British passport holders there are in South Africa;

  (2) how many residents of South Africa are eligible for British passports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimates that there are between half a million and 1 million people living in South Africa eligible to hold British passports. The majority have the right to live in the United Kingdom.

  Front-line States
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit southern Africa-front-line states to discuss their political and trade relationships with South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no present plans to do so.

  European Commission
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to increase the proportion of British citizens employed by the European Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  Following a recent review of the staffing situation in Community institutions, we have agreed with the Commission a package of measures to improve the recruitment of British nationals. There should be improved publicity on vacancies, competitions and recruitment procedures. We are also establishing a special unit in the Cabinet Office to co-ordinate the recruitment effort and pursue individual issues with the Commission.

  Rights of the Child
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to act upon the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The declaration on the rights of the child was the forerunner of the convention on the rights of the child. The United Kingdom signed the convention on 19 April and will ratify it as soon as possible.

  Middle East
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to meet the Government of Israel to discuss the middle eastern peace process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We regularly discuss with the Israelis the urgent need for peace in the middle east. They are well aware of our view that direct negotiation between Israel and Palestinians is an essential component of the peace process.

  China
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Chinese Government on the subject of human rights since the events in Tiananmen square in June 1989.

  Mr. Maude
  We, either on our own account or acting together with our European partners, have made numerous representations, both formally and informally, to the Chinese Government on the subject of human rights since June 1989. The Chinese Government can be in no doubt of our views on this issue.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to(a) the Indian Government, (b) the Pakistan Government and (c) the United Nations concerning the state of Kashmir.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are in regular contact with both the Indian and Pakistan Governments concerning Kashmir.

  We have not made representations to the United Nations.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest contacts with Argentina over the future of the Falklands.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 18 April, volume 170, column 845.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received from(a) the Lithuanian association of Great Britain, (b) the Baltic Council based in the United Kingdom and (c) News from Estonia, on the Helsinki accord and its relevance to recent events in the Baltic states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received two letters from the Lithuanian Association of Great Britain, one from the Baltic Council and one from News from Estonia about the relevance of the Helsinki final act to recent events in the Baltics. The question has also been raised in meetings between our officials and representatives of these organisations.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions have to be met to enable Her Majesty's Government to establish full diplomatic relations with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Before we can establish full diplomatic relations with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, these republics would need to fulfil our criteria for the recognition of an independent state, which were set out in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 19 March, vol. 169, col.447.

  European Community
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet European Economic Community Foreign Ministers to discuss relationships with non-European Community countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs next expects to meet EEC Foreign Ministers at the EC Foreign Affairs Council on 18 and 19 June. The agenda is likely to include discussion of relations with certain non-EC countries.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what conferences or other international fora Britain is presently involved to secure arms control and weapons system reductions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United Kingdom is a participant in the two sets of conventional arms control negotiations currently under way in Vienna, and in the chemical weapons negotiations at Geneva. Although the CFE negotiations have made less progress in recent months than NATO would have wished, our aim is still to reach the target of agreement this year.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom will apply to be part of the Schengen agreement once it has been ratified by the five original signatories.

  Mr. Maude
  No. Many of the provisions of the Schengen agreement could not be applied to an island.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the international and strategic circumstances in which all British nuclear weapons could be negotiated away.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Peace has been maintained in Europe as a result of the possession of both nuclear and conventional forces by the United Kingdom and our NATO allies. There can be no question of negotiating away our nuclear deterrent while other states possess or are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon capability that could pose a threat to this country.

  Visa Applications
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the longest and shortest length of time between a male fiancé applying for a visa in Bombay and receiving an interview over the last six months; and what is the average length of time such an applicant has to wait.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The average waiting time to interview for all fiancé(e)s applying for entry clearance at the deputy high commission in Bombay throughout the last six months has been nine months. The information requested 466
  on the longest and shortest waiting time is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Panama
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement with regard to the Panamanian human rights record.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Although there are continuing problems of law and order, our information is that the recently restored democratic Panamanian Government observe normal internationally accepted practice on human rights issues.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the recommendations made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to the Hong Kong authorities in respect of(a) minimum internal space for asylum seekers, (b) food and nutrition standards and (c) water and sanitation standards in Hong Kong; and what progress has been made in implementing each recommendation.

  Mr. Maude
  UNHCR has recommended:

  (a) A living space standard of 3·5 square metres per person;

  (b) A minimum of 2,000 kilo-calories and 50 grams of protein per adult per day;

  (c) A water supply standard of 15 to 20 litres of water per day plus sanitation;

  (d)Toilet provision on the basis of one for every 20 persons.

  Wherever possible UNHCR's recommendations have been accepted. Dietary scales have been drawn up by Hong Kong Government dietitians in consultation with UNHCR technical advisers, with supplementary feeding programmes for vulnerable groups, such as children, pregnant women and the sick. In 1989 the per capita water consumption was about 235 litres per day.

  It has not been possible to meet UNHCR's recommendations on space standards and the provision of toilets. Hong Kong's high population density makes the 3·5 square metres per person difficult to achieve. On toi]let provision the current standard is 50 people per toilet, which is the standard used in the design of temporary housing for Hong Kong residents.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present number of Vietnamese boat people held in detention in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 1 June 1990 there were 54,725 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. Of these, 10,681 have refugee status and are accommodated in open centres. The remainder are held in detention and consist of 8,956 people determined after the full screening procedure not to be refugees, and 35,088 either awaiting screening or the screening results.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing
  467
  the figures in (a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not possible to provide the information in the detail requested. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office assumed direct responsibility for its fuel and utilities accounts in April this year. Before that, accounts were paid by the Property Services Agency. The data provided in our answers of 30 April and 10 May was obtained from Property Services Agency records.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A full-time energy manager post was created in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in October 1989. Before that, about half a person year had been devoted to energy management.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  An energy survey, including an energy audit, of the main Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Whitehall was conducted between January and April this year. The consultant's report is due to be presented shortly.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Vietnam about the opening of a Vietnamese consulate in Hong Kong to help cope with the boat people; what was his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Upgrading Vietnam's representation in Hong Kong was discussed during the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Hanoi from 18 to 21 February in the context of a satisfactory overall settlement to the problem of returning all non-refugees from Hong Kong to their country of origin.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the request from the Government of Vietnam for establishing diplomatic relations with the European Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We keep this under continuing review. We need to look at a number of factors, one of which is the extent to which Vietnam accepts its obligations under international law to accept back its own citizens.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Vietnam about a bilateral agreement on trade and investment; what is his policy on this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A bilateral agreement on trade and investment was discussed during the visit of my hon.468
  Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Hanoi from 18 to 21 February. For the time being, there are no plans to conclude such an agreement.

  Mr. Gordon Glass
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government of Iraq are properly investigating the death of British engineer Mr. Gordon Glass; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will call for a report from Her Majesty's ambassador in Baghdad on the circumstances of the death of British engineer Mr. Gordon Glass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Her Majesty's embassy at Baghdad is in close touch with the Iraqi authorities who are investigating Mr. Glass's death. The embassy provides regular reports on the situation to the consular department. We will continue to monitor the case.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the FCO (diplomatic wing) specific value-for-money targets for the last two financial years have already been notified to Parliament in evidence on the public expenditure White Paper, together with staffing savings produced by the 1988–89 top management round. In addition, internal audits and inspections achieved value-for-money savings in 1988–89 of over £2 million. Total VFM savings have been calculated only from 1989–90 onwards. Figures for earlier years are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In the ODA, value-for-money savings in departmental running costs and value-for-money achieved on aid-financed goods and services are set out in the annual public expenditure White Paper. On services, savings achieved were £3·5 million in 1986–87; £5·7 million in 1987–88 and £8·41 million in 1988–89. Figures for earlier years are not readily available.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the diplomatic wing of the FCO, targets for value-for-money savings are set each year by budget-holding departments at home and posts overseas. The ODA also sets such targets. Progress towards meeting targets is reviewed through the year. Inspectors and internal auditors also identify value-for-money savings as well as evaluating the controls established by management to secure VFM. Tables of VFM targets for the last and current financial years have been presented to Parliament in the diplomatic wing and ODA evidence on this year's public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Jonathon Moyle
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 30 April,Official Report, column 402, if he will make a further statement on the investigations into the death of Mr. Jonathon Moyle.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 30 April. Investigations by the Chilean authorities into the death of Mr. Jonathon Moyle are continuing. British consular officers in Santiago remain in close touch with those authorities. They stand ready to assist in any way they properly can.

  Ambassadors (Grading)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are taken into account in determining the grading of ambassadors.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In determining the grading of ambassadorial posts account is taken of the extent of British interests—political, commercial, financial and defence—at stake in the country of accreditation. The nature of inter-governmental business transacted by the head of mission, the level of demand from Whitehall Departments for policy advice and reporting and the degree of access to the leadership of the country are also important. The size of the mission and the consequential management role are further elements in the consideration of grading.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 8 May,Official Report, columns 26–27, how much of the ivory seized was (a) being exported (b) being imported and (c) neither; and what was the estimated number of elephant tusks represented by the 769·9 kg of raw ivory.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: None of the ivory seized was being exported from Hong Kong; 702·5 kg were seized while in transit through Hong Kong. The remainder were import seizures. The Hong Kong authorities estimate that the 769·9 kg of raw ivory seized represented approximately 250 tusks.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current tradeable ivory stock held in Hong Kong; and to which countries ivory has been exported since he last answered a similar question.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: On 11 May 1990 the tradeable ivory stock held in Hong Kong was 353 tonnes (to the nearest tonne). In the period between 30 March 1990, when I last answered a similar question from the hon. Member, and 11 May 1990, the Hong Kong CITES management authority has been notified of the following exports:

  Kilogrammes

  China

  2,339·7

  South Korea

  6·6

  Mexico

  9·8

  Taiwan

  1·9

  Saudi Arabia

  8·8

  470
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a list of all countries for which ivory export permits have been issued by the authorities in Hong Kong since the entering of the reservation in respect of ivory trade.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: In the period since the entering of the reservation up to 19 May 1990 licences have been issued for the export of ivory to the following countries: China, South Korea, Mexico, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 8 May Official Report columns 26–27, what were the countries of export of ivory seized by the Hong Kong authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: The countries of export of the seized ivory in question were Singapore, Canada, Taiwan, China, Thailand, India and Korea.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any mammoth ivory has been imported into Hong Kong in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: The Hong Kong Government's trade statistics do not indicate whether any mammoth ivory has been imported into Hong Kong in the past 12 months. Nor does the CITES management authority have this information since mammoth ivory is not controlled under CITES.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 8 May, Official Report, columns 26–27, what was the intended fate of the (a) monkey, (b) live pangolin and meat, (c) parrots, (d) great salamander and (e) live owl.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: As I stated in my answer to the hon. Member on 5 April, confiscated endangered species are disposed of by the Hong Kong authorities by one of the following methods: live animals are released to the wild; specimens are sent to zoos, educational and scientific institutions or other CITES authorities; and perishable items are incinerated.

  Youth Exchanges
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out his policy regarding the encouragement of youth exchanges between the United Kingdom and(a) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and (b) other countries in eastern Europe in the light of recent developments in those countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: We believe youth exchanges are an important vehicle for improving international understanding and relations between people at an individual level.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many young people were assisted financially, directly or indirectly, by the Government(a) individually or (b) as members of

  471
  organised groups, to participate in youth exchange visits between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during each of the past 10 years;

  (2) how many young people were assisted financially, directly or indirectly, by the Government (a) individually or (b) as members of organised groups, to participate in youth exchange visits between the United Kingdom and the countries of eastern Europe including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: No figures are available for individual youth exchange visits between the United Kingdom and the USSR and countries of eastern Europe. The following figures for organised groups are available only from 1985 when the youth exchange centre was set up. Figures for the past 10 years could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  USSR

  E Europe and USSR

  1985–86

  263

  1,609

  1986–87

  344

  1,840

  1987–88

  382

  1,724

  1988–89

  352

  1,853

  1989–90

  819

  2,822

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much money was(a) budgeted and (b) paid out by his Department in respect of youth exchange visits between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in each of the past 10 years;

  (2) how much money was (a) budgeted and (b) paid out by his Department directly or via intermediary bodies in respect of youth exchange visits between the United Kingdom and the countries of eastern Europe, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: We have statistics only for the youth exchange centre (YEC) which is funded by FCO (80 per cent.) and DES (20 per cent.) and administers youth exchanges on our behalf. The following figures are available only from 1985 when the YEC was set up. Figures for the past 10 years could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Budgeted for Eastern Europe, including USSR

  Paid out for Eastern Europe, including USSR

  £

  £

  1985–86

  74,000

  81,000

  1986–87

  74,500

  87,000

  1987–88

  65,000

  90,000

  1988–89

  63,000

  95,000

  1989–90

  63,000

  179,000

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much money has been budgeted for the present year and how much is projected for 1991(a) for the promotion of youth exchange visits and (b) to directly assist such exchanges between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;

  (2) how much money has been budgeted for the present year and how much is projected for 1991 (a) for the
  472
  promotion of youth exchange and (b) to directly assist such exchanges between the United Kingdom and the countries of eastern Europe, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: For the financial year 1990–91, £653,000 has been budgeted for the promotion of youth exchanges throughout the world, of which £90,000 has been set aside for the countries of eastern Europe, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Similar figures are not available for the financial year 1991–92.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, 11 May, columns 249–50, what volumes of radioactive waste are produced each year at each United Kingdom establishment in each territory to which it makes reference; and what form of transport is used to return these wastes to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) gave on 20 January 1988, at columns 762–63, 25 January 1989, at column 653, and 13 July 1989 at column 589.

  The form of transport used would be that most appropriate to the circumstances, but would always conform with the Secretary of State's assurances that conditions would be no less stringent than those applying internationally to the movement of civil radioactive material. It is not our practice for reasons of national security to give a complete breakdown of radioactive waste arisings at all our defence establishments.

  European Community
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current negotiations Her Majesty's Government are having with other European Community countries concerning visa requirements for non-EEC nationals after 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The position remains as stated in my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) on 20 December at column 276 following the last meeting of Immigration Ministers. In the usual way my right hon. and learned Friend will report the outcome of the next meeting later this month.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a breakdown of the costs of the Government's "Keeping your Vote When Living Abroad" campaign for each of the countries in which this campaign is being run.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 30 April at columns 396–98.

  British Antarctic Bases
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any British Antarctic bases are presently under reconstruction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The British Antarctic Survey's Halley base is presently being reconstructed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish(a) the 1990–91 standard spending assessment and (b) the actual budget announced for 1990–91 for each major service block for each authority in Northamptonshire.

  Mr. Chope
  The available information is as follows:

  Comparison of Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) and 1990–91 Budgets

  SSA

  Budget

  £'000

  £'000

  Corby

  Education

  0

  0

  Personal Social Services

  0

  0

  Police

  0

  0

  Fire and Civil Defence

  0

  0

  Highway Maintenance

  0

  68

  Other Services

  3,499

  4,398

  Interest Receipts

  -427

  -504

  Other Capital Financing

  887

  1,538

  Total SSA/Net Revenue Exp

  3,959

  5,500

  East Northampton

  Education

  0

  0

  Personal Social Services

  0

  0

  Police

  0

  0

  Fire and Civil Defence

  0

  0

  Highway Maintenance

  0

  17

  Other Services

  3,877

  2,833

  Interest Receipts

  -253

  -832

  Other Capital Financing

  360

  1,946

  Total SSA/Net Revenue Exp

  3,985

  3,964

  Kettering

  Education

  0

  0

  Personal Social Services

  0

  0

  Police

  0

  0

  Fire and Civil Defence

  0

  0

  Highway Maintenance

  0

  334

  Other Services

  4,928

  4,965

  Interest Receipts

  -347

  -1,090

  Other Capital Financing

  523

  630

  Total SSA/Net Revenue Exp

  5,104

  4,839

  Northampton

  Education

  0

  0

  Personal Social Services

  0

  0

  Police

  0

  0

  Fire and Civil Defence

  0

  1

  Highway Maintenance

  0

  887

  Other Services

  13,325

  15,829

  Interest Receipts

  -1,001

  -5,041

  474

  SSA

  Budget

  £'000

  £'000

  Other Capital Financing

  1,617

  5,162

  Total SSA/Net Revenue Exp

  13,941

  16,838

  Wellingborough

  Education

  0

  0

  Personal Social Services

  0

  193

  Police

  0

  0

  Fire and Civil Defence

  0

  0

  Highway Maintenance

  0

  178

  Other Services

  4,382

  3,694

  Interest Receipts

  -315

  -760

  Other Capital Financing

  481

  -788

  Total SSA/Net Revenue Exp

  4,549

  2,517

  Northamptonshire

  Education

  179,549

  190,270

  Personal Social Services

  34,231

  40,631

  Police

  18,550

  20,205

  Fire and Civil Defence

  8,662

  8,862

  Highway Maintenance

  20,428

  20,512

  Other Services

  18,425

  17,827

  Interest Receipts

  -8,496

  -6,534

  Other Capital Financing

  25,606

  22,056

  Total SSA/Net Revenue Exp

  296,955

  313,829

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he estimates would be the saving in public expenditure if the several services administered by county councils were transferred to district councils assuming that expenditure continued to be related to the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: It is not possible to estimate. The only information available is the savings resulting from the abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC in April 1986. The overall manpower saving achieved immediately following abolition was estimated at some 6,300 posts. The projected long-term annual savings resulting from those staff savings were estimated to be some £100 million. Since the share county councils are responsible for such major services as education and social services, which the GLC and metropolitan county councils were not, the information is of little direct relevance.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East on 15 May, if he will give the population for each of the local authority areas listed in his reply, together with details of their central Government financial support for 1990–91, under the headings(a) revenue support grant, (b) non-domestic rates, (c) current specific grants within aggregate Exchequer finance, (d) current specific grants outside aggregate Exchequer finance, (e) credit approvals, (f) capital grants and (g) the totals of these categories.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The information is given in the table. Capital grants information is not available except for transport supplementary grants.
  475

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Relevant

  Revenue

  Non

  Current specific grants

  Basic

  Transport

  Total of

  population

  support grant

  domestic rates

  within AEF

  outside AEF

  credit approvals

  supplementary grant

  columns (a) to (e)

  '000s

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Avon

  711·5

  111·8

  208·1

  112·7

  48·4

  6·7

  487·7

  Buckinghamshire

  469·7

  97·3

  137·4

  34·5

  41·5

  21·1

  1·2

  333·0

  Derbyshire

  714·0

  100·3

  208·8

  46·7

  90·5

  45·0

  0·6

  491·9

  Dorset

  502·7

  46·4

  147·0

  35·0

  64·8

  18·4

  2·9

  314·5

  Durham

  456·1

  82·2

  133·4

  32·8

  61·1

  30·1

  2·4

  342·0

  Isle of Wight

  98·7

  15·8

  28·9

  5·4

  14·1

  6·5

  0·4

  71·1

  Kent

  1,146·1

  220·1

  335·3

  72·6

  123·0

  55·9

  12·6

  819·5

  Lincolnshire

  452·5

  79·0

  132·4

  29·4

  49·5

  21·6

  1·6

  313·5

  Northumberland

  229·2

  41·9

  67·0

  40·5

  13·2

  1·5

  1·641

  Surrey

  782·7

  83·3

  228·9

  40·9

  74·4

  19·5

  6·3

  453·3

  Warwickshire

  364·9

  48·0

  106·7

  74·2

  11·7

  0·5

  241·1

  West Midlands

  1,888·4

  785·1

  552·4

  538·3

  175·9

  16·7

  2,068·4

  West Sussex

  546·8

  55·0

  159·9

  32·6

  54·6

  22·9

  4·5

  329·5

  Wiltshire

  419·8

  64·3

  122·8

  27·8

  47·1

  26·4

  3·0

  291·4

  The total of current specific grants is given where the breakdown requested is not available.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions he met Lady Porter in December, January, February and March to discuss matters relating to the community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  There was one meeting between the Secretary of State and Lady Porter during that period at which a wide range of issues was discussed including matters relating to the community charge.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions officials from his Department met officials of Islington council in December, January, February and March to discuss matters relating to the community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent consideration of enhanced population in departmental calculations of community charge levels in Westminster is influenced by revenue from car parking.

  Mr. Portillo
  The weight given to the enhanced population indicator in the standard spending assessment for "All Other Services" is informed by statistical analysis of the variation in past expenditure by authorities on these services. The measure of expenditure used for this analysis excludes any income from car parking charges for all authorities including the City of Westminster.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his written answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East of 21 May, if he will publish in the Official Report equivalent figures for each local authority area in England for 1990–91 with the estimates of the actual sums raised from items (i), (ii) and (iii) also being presented in appropriate percentage terms.

  Mr. Chope
  Information is not yet available for each local authority area in England. The proportions of revenue support grant, non-domestic rates and current specific grants for the areas listed in the Official Report for 21 May in answer to the hon. Member's question, are as follows:
  476

  Revenue support grant

  Non domestic rates

  Percentage current specific grants

  Avon

  25·8

  48·1

  26·1

  Buckinghamshire

  31·3

  44·2

  24·5

  Derbyshire

  22·5

  46·8

  30·7

  Dorset

  15·8

  50·1

  34·1

  Durham

  26·6

  43·1

  30·3

  Isle of Wight

  24·6

  45·0

  30·4

  Kent

  29·3

  44·6

  26·1

  Lincolnshire

  27·2

  45·6

  27·2

  Northumberland

  28·0

  44·8

  27·2

  Surrey

  19·5

  53·5

  27·0

  Warwickshire

  21·0

  46·6

  32·4

  West Midlands

  41·9

  29·4

  28·7

  West Sussex

  18·2

  53·0

  28·8

  Wiltshire

  24·5

  46·9

  28·6

  Actual values are given in the reply of 21 May.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consultations he has had with disability organisations on the effects of the community charge on physically disabled people and their carers;

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the effects of the community charge on physically disabled people and their carers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I am not aware of any recent consultations with such organisations but I continue to receive representations on a number of aspects of the community charge. The position of the physically disabled and their carers is taken into account in the community charge system. Those who are resident and receiving care or treatment in a hospital, residential care home, nursing home, mental nursing home or hostel, as defined in community charge legislation, are exempt from the personal community charge. Certain low-paid care workers are also exempt. Those who leave their own homes to care for a disabled person, or to receive care, will not be liable to pay the standard community charge for at least a year after leaving their homes. Many disabled people subject to the personal community charge will qualify for community charge benefit which may reduce bills by up to 80 per cent. Income support has been adjusted with respect to the remaining 20 per cent. liability its recipients will face. The rules for community charge benefit and income support both make special allowance for the disabled and there is additional help within the transitional relief scheme for those pensioners and disabled people who were not former ratepayers.
  477
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average domestic rates bill per household in(a) 1979–80 and (b) 1988–89 for Blyth Valley, North Tyneside, Newcastle and Wansbeck.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures are:

  1979–80

  1988–89

  £

  £

  Blyth Valley

  134

  430

  151

  485

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  175

  452

  Wansbeck

  120

  375

  Dog Registration
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider introducing compulsory dog registration for those breeds of dog known to be potentially dangerous and used as guard dogs.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have no such proposals.

  FA Cup Final (Replay)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider the implications for crowd control of the allocation of tickets for the Football Association cup final replay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Each finalist received an allocation of 28,750 tickets for segregated areas of the ground. The remaining tickets were sold on a segregated basis under the supervision of the police who were content with these arrangements.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress Her Majesty's Government have made in using recycled papers for document production by (i) Government Departments, (ii) public inquiries and (iii) other quasi-governmental organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The policy on the use of recycled paper in Government Departments and other organisations is for each to determine in the light of their own needs. My Department is currently testing recycled photocopying paper and additional tests are to be conducted on offset litho paper and computer listing paper. If the trials are successful these uses will be added to the existing use of recycled paper for envelopes and letterheaded paper. The Government's recycling advisory group has been examining the broader market issues that affect the wider use of recycled paper and Ministers are considering further action that could be taken by Government and other public bodies.

  Peat
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the timetable for the Nature Conservancy Council's national peatland resource inventory.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Nature Conservancy Council's national peatland resource inventory is being 478
  undertaken as a phased programme. The results of an inventory of peat soil resources will be published in the latter part of this year, as will those of sample studies of living lowland bogs. The report on the full inventory and broad classification of living upland bogs will be available in early 1991, while a companion full report on living lowland bogs may not be available until 1996.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the total number of inspections carried out by inspectors within Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, in each year since its commencement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Details of inspection visits carried out in 1987–88 and 1988–89 are contained in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's MINIS 9 and MINIS 10 returns, available in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave details of inspections in 1989–90 in the answer he gave on 22 May 1990 to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).

  Carver Report
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whom he has consulted and what was discussed in forming the Government's response to the Carver report.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department has given careful consideration to all aspects of the recent report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee on the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council. The continuing discussions between the Government, the existing agencies and the chairman designate of the successor bodies have taken full account of the recommendations in the report. The Government's response to the report was published on 17 May and I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. (Mr. Colvin) on Thursday 17 May at column 512.

  Hazardous Waste
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how producers of significant quantities of special waste will be covered by an authorisation through integrated pollution control; how he intends to define the circumstances when producers of significant amounts of special waste will be encompassed by integrated pollution control; what sectors of industry will be so covered; and how many firms will be involved;

  (2) how many of each type of plant will be covered by integrated pollution control; and how often he envisages Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution staff will be inspecting such plants.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Regulations made under clause 2 of the Environmental Protection Bill will prescribe processes for integrated pollution control (IPC). Processes prescribed for control will generally be those which are the most potentially polluting and will therefore include those releasing significant quantities of special waste. Such processes will need a prior authorisation from HMIP which will set out specific conditions relating to the
  479
  operation of the process. The use of the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost will be required to prevent or minimise the release of prescribed substances and render all releases harmless.

  IPC processes may release prescribed substances to more than one environmental medium. It is not possible to provide a separate figure for the number of processes prescribed on the grounds of their special waste releases. A list of processes which it is proposed to prescribe for IPC was placed in the Library of the House on 27 April, in response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), at column 343. Some 5,000 installations in England and Wales are estimated to fall within the proposed categories.

  The frequency of inspection will be judged individually for each installation according to its nature, potential for release and other factors.

  Departmental Grants
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the non-governmental organisations in receipt of grants from his Department in 1989–90, and the size of each grant.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have today placed the information in the Library.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will place in the Library a list of all sites of special scientific interest his Department considers to be of national importance.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. Such a document could be produced only at disproportionate cost. SSSIs are notified by the Nature Conservancy Council on the basis that the series of sites as a whole should contain adequate representation, in the form of the best examples, of the total countrywide range of natural wildlife habitats, geological features and landforms. These may be of local, national or international significance.

  Pollution
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will take steps to require disclosure of information about the nature of pollution incidents within two weeks after they occur;

  (2) if he will amend legislation on trade secrets so that waste disposal authorities are required to disclose specific information about the nature of industrial wastes;

  (3) if he will publish the results of the monitoring of chemical discharges into sewers.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information about releases from industrial processes coming under part I of the Environmental Protection Bill, including pollution incidents, discharges into sewers and the nature of industrial wastes, will be placed on public registers of information as a matter of course. The terms of an EC directive on public access to information which the United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating will also require environmental information to be made available on request.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution 480
  will publish the identities of waste disposal authorities which fail to meet standards and local authorities which accept hazardous waste into dumps in contravention of their licences.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is currently undertaking trial audits of a small number of waste disposal authorities. Once the results of these have been evaluated, a planned programme of audits is to be introduced and it is the inspectorate's intention that the reports of these will be published. The reports will clearly identify any perceived inadequacies by the authorities concerned.

  Waste disposal authorities are currently responsible for ensuring that all operations, including those carried out by the authorities themselves, are properly controlled. There are no central records of occasions when licence conditions are breached. The Environmental Protection Bill contains provisions that records of enforcement action taken by the waste regulation authorities, which will be created by the Bill, will be contained on registers available to the public, and that the authorities must publish annual reports on their inspection and enforcement activities.

  Housing
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many private and public authority homes were built in each of the past five years in the London borough of Greenwich;

  (2) how many private and public authority homes were built in each of the past five years in the constituency of Peterborough;

  (3) how many (a) private and (b) public authority homes were built in each of the past five years in the constituency of Wiltshire, North.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department collects housebuilding statistics for local authority areas. Information is available for the London borough of Greenwich, Peterborough city council, which includes the constituency of Peterborough, and parts of two others and North Wiltshire district, which covers the same area as the constituency. Figures for dwellings completed for the years 1985 to 1987 appear in tables 1.6 and 1.8 of "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas 1980 to 1988", and the latest figures for 1988 and 1989 in table 1 of "Local Housing Statistics No. 93". Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private and public authority homes were built in each of the past five years in the constituency of Northavon.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department collects housebuilding statistics for local authority areas. Information is available for Northavon district council area which includes the constituencies of Northavon and part of Bristol, North-West. Figures for dwellings completed in the years 1985 to 1987 appear in tables 1.6 to 1.8 of "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority areas 1980 to 1988", and the latest figures for 1988 and 1989 are in table 1 of "Local Housing Statistics No. 93". Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals refused by local authorities were granted by the inspector on public inquiry in 1979, 1984 and 1989 where(a) no structure or unitary development existed and (b) a structure or unitary development plan had been agreed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I regret that the information requested is not available for 1979 and 1984 cases and could be obtained only at disproportionate expense for 1989 cases.

  London Borough of Ealing
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any formal communications from the leader of the London borough of Ealing since 10 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I am not aware of any formal communications from the leader of the London borough of Ealing since 10 May, but I recently met him for an informal discussion and congratulated him upon his success in the recent local government election.

  Action for Cities
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the action for cities anniversary event he hosted in Cleveland on 28 February; and what was the cost of these events on a national level.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 4 April. The locally incurred cost of the action for cities anniversary event in Cleveland on 28 February was £6,200.

  Water Tables
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much on average water tables have fallen since 1968 in each water authority area.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not held centrally.

  Domestic Sewage
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what feasibility studies have been undertaken by his Department regarding the use of domestic sewage as a substitute for agrochemicals and peat by removing toxic elements in sewage sludge at source.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No feasibility studies have been carried out by my Department into the use of sewage sludge as a substitute for agrochemicals and peat. Some 49 per cent. of sewage sludge is applied to agricultural land in England and Wales.

  Sulphur Dioxide (London)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much sulphur dioxide there is on average and at maximum levels in the air in London.

  Mr. Trippier
  As part of the national pollution monitoring network, SO2 is measured at two sites in
  482
  London. The provisional annual mean and peak concentrations (in parts per billion) for 1989–90 are as follows:

  Site

  Annual mean

  Peak

  Cromwell Road

  16·6

  185

  Central London

  10·7

  226

  Data for peak values should be viewed in the context of international agreements protecting human health, which specify mandatory concentration limit values linked to exposure for a period of time. SO2 concentrations are controlled by EC directive 80/779; the limit values it specifies have never been breached in London since the directive came into force.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many cases during the past 12 months toxins have been found in drinking water in England and if he will analyse these to specify(a) any recognised or suspected carcinogens, (b) any recognised or suspected co-carcinogens and (c) any recognised or suspected mutagers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Traces of many chemicals have been detected on occasion in water supplies, but their presence could not always be quantified because of their low concentrations. Medical advice has been that at these low concentrations, if any risk to health existed, it was likely to be extremely small. A sufficiently large and lengthy exposure to some of those chemicals has been shown to be toxic, carcinogenic or mutagenic in appropriate test systems, but there is no evidence that water consumers have been subject to such exposure during the past 12 months.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider his decision to withdraw funding from National Debtline, in the light of rising mortgage defaulters.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This year we have trebled the funds available under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to £2 million. Half will go to a new homelessness advice service involving CABs, SHAC and Shelter. A key aim of this service is to prevent homelessness cases from occurring through timely and accurate general advice on debt and financial planning. The remaining £1 million goes to a total of 27 bodies providing direct assistance and practical help to single homeless people and rough sleepers. I have received a number of representations on behalf of National Debtline, the Birmingham Settlement's Housing Debtline, but I will not raise hopes of further funding this year: all the funds are earmarked.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the reasons why his Department discontinued a section 73 grant to Homes for Homeless People.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This year £2 million has been allocated to voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness—three times last year's total. Half will go to a new national homelessness advice service based on citizens'
  483
  advice bureaux and involving Shelter and SHAC, and half to a total of 27 bodies providing direct assistance and practical help to single homeless people and rough sleepers. Priority in choosing successful applications has been given to projects which will either take single homeless people off the streets or work directly with young people, persuading them not to leave home and/or come to London.

  Jones Brothers Building
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the reasons for his Department's refusal of the urban development grant application submitted jointly by the John Lewis Partnership and the London borough of Islington in respect of the Jones Brothers building in Holloway road, London N7.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The application for urban development grant towards the refurbishment of the department store was rejected in August 1985 on the ground that the project did not offer good value for money in terms of the new jobs and other benefits likely to arise.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the cost of exempting from the uniform business rate any business the sole owner of which is principally resident in the same premises from which the business is conducted.

  Mr. Chope
  The information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available. However, the cost of exempting from non-domestic rates all composite hereditaments (that is, properties which are partly non-domestic and partly domestic) would be £910 million a year in England, without the transitional arrangements.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department currently has one dedicated energy manager and three other officials who contribute to energy conservation. The total staff effort, which does not include that available from the Property Services Agency, represents an approximate total of 1·5 person years.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  A total of eight energy audits of offices and specialised sites in London and the regions carried out by external consultants have been initiated by my Department within the past five years. The majority of recommendations have concerned good housekeeping and other no-cost/low-cost measures which have been, or are in the process of being, implemented where practicable.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department has a range of consultancy, inspection and review mechanisms designed to improve financial and management performance. These include internal audit and staff inspection, and an extensive range of targets and performance measures. In addition, it conducts efficiency scrutinies as part of a programme co-ordinated by the efficiency unit, and has a policy of market testing to achieve operational savings.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements, by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Improvements resulting from audits, inspections and reviews are taken into account in the setting of annual budgets and performance targets. My Department estimates that it has achieved efficiency savings averaging in excess of 1·5 per cent. a year since 1984–85. The contribution of each of the review mechanisms to this overall saving is not separately recorded.

  Langland Bay, Gower
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the results of the investigations in September 1989 by the water research centre of health hazards associated with bathing in the polluted waters of Langland bay, Gower.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: The water research centre report is expected soon.

  Local Authority Officers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions there are on local authority officers making statements which may have or be construed to have a political context in their capacity as lay preachers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: The Local Government Officers ( Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990 are intended to uphold the tradition of political neutrality among senior local government officers. They accordingly place restrictions on their public political activity. A politically restricted officer who was a lay preacher would not be in breach of the regulations if he were to make statements referring to a political party, a person identified with a political party or promoting or opposing a point of view identified with a political party provided there was no apparent intention to affect public support for a political party.

  Landfill
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered the value of a landfill tax to provide revenue for use in the promotion of recycling as an alternative to landfilling.
  485
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: We are considering all effective means of encouraging waste recycling.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider the introduction of a financial incentive to waste authorities which initiate landfill mining and reclamation through recycling.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Any financial incentives to waste authorities that initiate landfill mining and reclamation through recycling would be contemplated only after an in-depth study of the concept and in the light of any incentives which may or may not be afforded following the current joint DOE/DTI proposals on recycling.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will make a study into the technology available at the present time and in the immediate future to recycle the contents of landfill sites in England and Wales.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: This subject is one of a number in connection with waste disposal and recycling currently under review by this Department's research and development group.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has made a study into the implications of landfill content in the event of the removal of(a) glass, (b) paper, (c) metals, and (d) other solids by source separation; what new regulations his Department will be considering to counter the increased problem of methane that may result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: This Department has not yet made a study of the implications of landfill content in the event of removal of glass, paper, metals and other solids by source separation. The removal of metals and glass would have minimal influence on the production of methane in landfill. Paper, however, degrades in landfill to produce methane and its removal would therefore diminish the overall gas potential.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will initiate a comprehensive study into the potential of landfill mining through recycling; and what incentives his Department intends to offer the development of such schemes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: This Department will initiate a study into the potential of landfill mining through recycling if it is considered to be a viable option by the Department's research and development group. The question of incentives would be considered subsequent to any decision made.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has made a study of the technology now available in the private sector to recycle the contents of landfill sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: This Department has not made a specific study of the technology available in the private sector to recycle the contents of landfill sites.
  486
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of lining requirements for landfill sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Any decisions with regard to the lining of landfill sites are for operators in pursuit of obtaining a site operation licence or for operational reasons or for the waste disposal authority in respect of the issue of a site operation licence in consultation with the National Rivers Authority.

  My Department has produced guidance documents—waste management paper 26, Iandfilling wastes and waste management paper 27: "The Control of Landfill Gas"—to provide assistance to site operators and licensing authorities in installing management systems and in setting licence conditions.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when officers of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution last met officials of East Sussex county council to discuss disposal of low-level radioactive waste; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Since the inception of HMIP in 1987 there have been no formal meetings between its officers and officials of East Sussex county council to discuss disposals of low-level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sites in east Sussex permitted to accept low-level radioactive waste, giving t he maximum permitted quantity in each case, as determined by the radiochemical inspectorate branch of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Any waste disposal site licensed by a waste disposal authority under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA) may receive low-level radioactive waste where such a disposal method is authorised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Waste disposal authorities maintain registers of all disposal sites licensed under COPA in their areas.

  The Department does not maintain a central record of quantities of low-level radioactive waste disposed of through local disposal routes. However, a condition of authorisation requires waste producers to keep proper and detailed records relating to their disposals. These records are subject to scrutiny by HMIP inspectors and in cases where a disposal requires special precautions to be taken, both HMIP and the local waste disposal authorities are notified by the operator of the nature and destination of individual consignments of radioactive waste due for disposal.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding resources for the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: We are in discussion with the National Rivers Authority about resources and will be examining its future requirements in the context of considering the authority's first corporate plan.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what methods other than source separation of waste would enable his Department to achieve its target of 50 per cent. domestic waste recycling by the year 2000.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The 50 per cent. recycling target can be achieved only by joint action by all those involved in recycling: first, by manufacturers using recycled materials and designing recyclability into their products, cutting down on the amount of unnecessary packaging and pricing recycled products competitively; secondly, by consumers knowing about and choosing recycled products and making use of recycling facilities provided by local authorities, retailers and voluntary groups; thirdly, by local authorities and retailers substantially increasing their commitment to providing recycling facilities so that the majority come up to the standard of the best; and, fourthly, by the Government setting the right waste management framework through legislation so that the real costs of alternative disposal methods are apparent and the benefits of recycling accrue to those who bring it about, co-operating with efforts to inform the public about the benefits of recycling, and bringing forward other measures such as encouraging public sector purchasing of recycled materials and promoting relevant research and monitoring studies.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation giving equal status and support to authorities when looking at the options of(a) source separation and (b) mechanised separation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The Government do not intend at present to legislate for or against any method of domestic waste separation.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has held talks with any other organisations or authorities in relation to funding, directly or indirectly, the creation of a source separation infrastructure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment have received advice and information about domestic waste collection and sorting methods from a wide range of sources including the advisory group on recycling, interested local authorities, voluntary groups and trade associations, and have had discussions from time to time about a number of matters relating to recycling and waste management, including the possible means of funding and managing different waste separation systems.

  Low-level Ozone
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to combat the rise in low-level ozone.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: Low-level ozone is produced by the action of sunlight on oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The Government are acting to reduce emissions of both
  488
  classes of compound. The main sources of NOx in the United Kingdom are motor vehicles and power stations; the main sources of VOCs are motor vehicles, industrial processes and solvents. Tight new standards for new cars, which will come into effect by the end of 1992, will cut their emissions of both NOx and VOCs by at least 80 per cent. We are pressing the Commission for tight standards on NOx emissions from heavy diesels. We are committed by the EC large combustion plant directive to reducing NOx emissions from existing power stations and large industrial boilers by 15 per cent. by 1993 and 30 per cent. by 1998 against a 1980 baseline.

  NOx and VOCs travel long distances and United Kingdom ozone episodes can be exacerbated by pollutants from abroad. It is therefore essential to tackle these problems internationally. The United Kingdom is strongly supporting Commission proposals for a directive requiring monitoring of ozone levels and is actively contributing to negotiations within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe convention on long-range transboundary air pollution aimed at reducing VOC emissions from all sources.

  Overhead Power Cables
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to acquaint himself with the results of studies into the possible links between overhead power lines and childhood cancers which have been carried out in Sweden and elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The National Radiological Protection Board is under a statutory duty to advise Government and others on possible hazards to health from ionising and non-ionising radiation. The board is currently conducting a review of epidemiological studies on an international basis (including the one carried out in Sweden) on possible effects on human health from exposure to non-ionising electro-magnetic fields. The board expects to publish its advice later this year.

SCOTLAND

  Earnings
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of Highland, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles(a) average earnings, (b) median earnings, (c) average hours including overtime and (d) overtime hours.

  Mr. Lang
  For the area in question the average gross earnings in April 1989 of all full-time employees on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence was £209·8 per week. To obtain the precise figure of median earnings would involve disproportionate cost, but the figure for all full-time employees in the sample on adult rates lies in the range of £170 to £180. Average total weekly hours were 40·7 of which overtime was 2·9.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of Highland, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles, the figures for female
  489
  part-time workers (a) average gross weekly earnings, (b) average weekly hours, (c) average gross hourly earnings, (d) median gross hourly earnings, (e) lowest decile of gross hourly earnings and (f) highest decile of gross hourly earnings (i) in total and (ii) broken down by the standard industrial classifications;

  (2) if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of Highland, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, the distribution of gross hourly earnings for female part-time workers, giving the percentage of female part-time workers, with hourly earnings less than (a) £3·00, (b) £3·20, (c) £3·60, (d) £4·00 and (e) £4·20 (i) in total and (ii) broken down by the standard industrial classifications.

  Mr. Lang
  Because of the small samples in the areas concerned, reliable information for female part-time employees is not available.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of Highland, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, the earnings of full-time workers on adult rates of pay broken down by(a) male manual, (b) male non-manual, (c) all males, (d) female manual, (e) female non-manual, (f) all females and (g) all workers.

  Mr. Lang
  The available information from the 1989 new earnings survey is as follows:

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates, pay not affected by absence; April 1989

  £ per week

  Manual males

  205·1

  Non-manual males

  294·0

  All males

  239·1

  Manual females

  119·3

  Non-manual females

  172·7

  AH females

  157·1

  All employees

  209·8

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of Highland, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, the distribution of earnings for those earning under(a) £120, (b) £150, (c) 160, (d) the point below which 10 per cent. of earners fall and (e) the point which 10 per cent. of earners exceed, broken down by (i) male manual, (ii) male non-manual, (iii) all males, (iv) female manual, (v) female non-manual, (vi) all females and (vii) all workers, in total and by the standard industrial classifications;

  (2) if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of Highland, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles (a) average earnings, (b) median earnings, (c) average hours including overtime and (d) overtime hours, broken down by the standard industrial classifications into (i) males, (ii) females and (iii) all workers.

  Mr. Lang
  Only a limited amount of reliable information could be compiled in each case and the cost of doing so would be disproportionate.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show from each year since inception of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 the number of persons made bankrupt in respect of cautionary obligation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately recorded.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many sequestrations the Accountant of Bankruptcy accepted for payment accounts submitted to him by trustees in terms of section 53 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 containing hourly rates of remuneration in excess of £62·50 during the year ended 31 March.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately recorded.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a) the maximum, (b) the minimum and (c) the average amount yet paid to a trustee for any one case of sequestration in terms of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In those cases where the final outcome is known the amounts paid to trustees from public funds, excluding refunded outlays, were as follows:

  £

  (a) Maximum

  17,866·38

  (b) Minimum

  258·25

  (c) Average

  2,889·00

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since inception the names of the 10 trustees who received the largest aggregate total sum for work carried out under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and for each of the top 10 the sum received in each year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For commercial reasons it would not be appropriate to provide details of the level of payments made to individual practitioners.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many sequestrations the payment of fees from public funds to the trustee has exceeded the total debt of the bankrupt person; and in how many it has exceeded 50 per cent. thereof.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In those cases where the final outcome is known the fees paid to trustees have exceeded 50 per cent. of the total debt in 15 cases and of these in five cases the fees paid to the trustee exceeded the total debt.

  Cleancare Ltd.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the contract of Cleancare Ltd. in the light of its employment of persons under 16 years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  All contracts for cleaning Scottish Office buildings are kept under continual review.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Government properties Cleancare Ltd. has been contracted to clean.
  491
  Mr. Rifkind
  The Scottish Office properties, which are all in Edinburgh, are New Register house; Pentland house; Saughton house; 16 Waterloo place; and the Ancient Monuments depot, Edinburgh castle.

  West Register House (Files)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the steps his Department has taken to ensure that cleaners or other unauthorised people do not have access to personal files in West Register house and other Government offices.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The measures to protect official information are in accordance with standards laid down for application throughout Government Departments.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what personal information is held on files in West Register house.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  West Register house is a branch repository of the Scottish Record Office. Its main contents are the records of Government Departments, non-departmental public bodies, nationalised industries and courts in Scotland from the 17th century to the present day, many of which contain personal information.

  Town and Country Planning
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those district councils which have made representations concerning the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 147) of 27 March 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following district councils have made representations:

  Angus district council

  Clydebank district council

  Eastwood district council

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the effects on local amenities of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 147) of 27 March 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The effects on local amenities of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1989 were given careful consideration as part of the consultation process prior to the order coming into force. In response to the comments made on the consultation paper and to protect local amenities we removed public houses and other licensed premises from the food and drink class.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to meet the United Kingdom's obligation to protect those areas of montane habitat which meet the criteria for designation under the Ramsar convention or the European Community directive of the conservation of wild birds; and if he will list those montane sites which have yet to be so designated.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All the potential and possible sites which meet the criteria for designation under the Ramsar convention or the European Community 492
  directive for the conservation of wild birds have been identified by the Nature Conservancy Council and are listed in tables 3.1 and 3.2 of "Protecting internationally important bird sites." Scottish Development Department circular 1/88 advised local authorities to treat such sites as if they had already been designated in considering any planning application. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library. All have been or will be notified as sites of special scientific interest. The Nature Conservancy Council prepares a detailed submission for each site in recommending that my right hon. and learned Friend should designate either as a special protection area under the wild birds directive or as a Ramsar site.

  The montane sites which have been proposed but not yet designated as special protection areas are the Cairngorms, Caenlochan, Drumochter hills, North Harris mountains, Affric-Cannich hills and glens and the North Arran mountains.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A part-time energy manager has been appointed. A meaningful estimate of the number of person years cannot be made, but a large number of staff devote part of their time to energy management.

  This information does not relate to the Scottish prison service and the minor Scottish Departments.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Twenty-seven. The large number of recommendations made were mainly of a technical nature designed to improve energy efficiency.

  This figure does not relate to the Scottish prison service and the minor Scottish Departments.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements, and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Departments for which I am responsible pursue value for money in all their activities.

  The improvements which result from inquiries and studies of the type mentioned by the hon. Member are

  493
  taken into account in the setting of annual budgets and internal targets. Consistent figures for savings for the period 1983–84 to 1988–89 are not available as central records are not kept of the many improvements in efficiency which managers identify and implement.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Individual units in all the Departments for which I am responsible are required to identify value-for-money savings as part of the management planning process. These plans are brought together each year in a departmental management plan which identifies the tasks facing the departments during the public expenditure survey period and the resources required to carry them out.

  In addition, the Scottish Office efficiency unit maintains a continuous programme of reviews of individual areas which identifies savings. A recently formed purchasing and supply unit also has value for money as one of its main objectives.

  In all cases, responsibility for actual delivery of savings identified lies with budget managers who have substantial delegated powers for running costs.

  National Heritage Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Her Majesty's Government will introduce legislation to establish a natural heritage agency to redefine the remits of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Forestry Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to pay closer regard to the sustainable use of natural resources.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: We propose to bring forward legislation in due course to establish a natural heritage agency for Scotland. We intend to publish shortly a consultation paper inviting views on our proposals, including the remit of the new body and its relationship to other public bodies. I will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a copy.

  Rivers
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on measures being undertaken by the river purification boards within Scotland to improve water quality.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The seven Scottish river purification boards, which are responsible for issuing consents for the discharge of trade and sewage effluent, setting appropriate conditions and reviewing these from time to time, carry out extensive monitoring of the waters for which they are responsible. Where necessary they refer cases of pollution to the procurator fiscal for consideration of prosecution. The boards may commission and undertake research and provide advice.

  The river purification boards are required by statute to submit annual reports containing comprehensive details of their activities to my right hon. and learned Friend. Copies of these reports are placed in the Library of the House. In
  494
  addition, officials of the Scottish Development Department maintain close liaison with officers of the boards regarding their work.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to improve water quality levels on Scottish designated bathing beaches.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: Of the 23 identified bathing waters in Scotland, 16 met the standards for total and faecal coliforms set in the EC bathing waters directive in 1989. Where failure is caused by discharges from public sewers, it is for regional councils to plan and execute improvement works in line with the requirements of the river purification boards. Improvement schemes are included in the regional councils' capital expenditure programmes. Further measures will be necessary to implement the decision, announced to the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 5 March, Official Report, column 452, that all significant discharges of sewage will require to receive treatment.

  Agricultural Development Programme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest administrative cost of the ADP scheme incurred by DAFS and the colleges of agriculture, respectively.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The administrative costs (including overheads) of the agricultural development programme incurred by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to the end of March 1990 are estimated to be 1.103 million. There has been negligible expenditure on administration of ADP at the colleges, whose principal contribution is the provision of advisory services.

  A74
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated route rate of return currently anticipated from the upgrading of the A74 from existing dual carriageway to motorway.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: Of the length of the A74 to be upgraded, three sections have so far been appraised in detail. The rate of return on these three sections together is estimated at approximately 14 per cent. in real terms, that is, 14 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 21 May,Official Report, column 84, (1) whether the cow aged 22 months came from a herd where cases of BSE had already been confirmed; whether this cow's mother had contracted BSE; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on what date BSE was confirmed in a cow aged 22 months; and if he will make a statement.
  495
  Mr. Gummer
  BSE was confirmed in the 22-month old cow on 28 November 1989. The disease had not been previously confirmed in the herd or its dam.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the published papers on scrapie produced by each member of(a) the Southwood and (b) Tyrrell agricultural committees;

  (2) if he will list the published papers on bovine spongiform encephalopathy produced by each member of (a) the Southwood and (b) the Tyrrell committees.

  Mr. Gummer
  The members of the Southwood working party who were chosen to provide advice on bovine spongiform encephalopathy because of their eminence and experience in a variety of scientific fields under its chairman, Sir Richard Southwood, linacre professor of zoology at Oxford university, were Sir John, now Lord Walton, formerly professor of neurology at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne and a recent president of the General Medical Council and the Royal Society of Medicine; Professor M. A. Epstein, emeritus professor of pathology, university of Bristol; and veterinary microbiologist Dr. W. B. Martin, formerly director of the Moredun Research Institute in Edinburgh which undertook research into sheep diseases including scrapie.

  The working party took evidence from various scientific experts, including Dr. R. H. Kimberlin, formerly director of the MRC/AFRC neuropathogenesis unit in Edinburgh. Dr. Kimberlin has conducted extensive research into scrapie and the other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies for nearly 30 years and has published more than 150 papers. He is a member of the new Tyrrell committee.

  The Tyrrell committee's other members, under the chairmanship of Dr. D. A. Tyrrell of the Medical Research Council, who is a virologist with wide knowledge and experience of viruses affecting man, are, at present, Dr. R. G. Will, consultant neurologist at Western general hospital, Edinburgh, who has researched the epidemiology of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease; Dr. W. A. Watson, formerly director of the central veterinary laboratory and chairman of the Ministry's scrapie working party; and Professor F. Brown, an animal virologist who has served in an advisory capacity on a number of committees, including AFRC scrapie advisory committee.

  It would be impractical to list in the Official Report all the papers published by these experts.
  496
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list all the establishments which are(a) investigating and (b) have confirmed spongiform encephalopathy in cats or dogs;

  (2) how many (a) cats and (b) dogs have been (i) confirmed and (ii) suspected of having spongiform encephalopathies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since recent widespread publicity and MAFF recommendations to look out for spongiform encephalopathies, there is bound to have been an increased number of investigations. I understand that investigations are being, or have been, conducted on 22 cats at a number of Ministry veterinary investigation centres, a private laboratory, and the universities of Bristol and Liverpool. Disease has been confirmed in one cat in Great Britain and in one cat in Northern Ireland. There are no suspect cases in dogs. There is not yet any indication as to whether this condition has been long present in cats or not.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date the Southwood committee gave him specific advice that he should be particularly alert to the possible occurrence of encephalopathies in household pets.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report of the Southwood working party was received by the Government on 9 February 1989.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards the disposal of BSE carcases; and whether he intends to review this policy;

  (2) if he has investigated the environmental, and animal and human health consequences of dumping BSE carcases on refuse sites.

  Mr. Gummer
  Carcases are disposed of either by incineration or burial, depending upon local circumstances and available facilities. Both are safe methods of carcase disposal and carried out in accordance with sound veterinary practice. Currently around two thirds are burnt and one third buried. However, the objective is to secure incineration facilities for all carcases.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the refuse sites which are being used to dump BSE carcases listing the county in which they are found.

  Mr. Gummer
  This information is not held centrally.
  497
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total number of bovine spongiform encephalophathy cases that have been confirmed by county basis in the current year until the end of May.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information for Great Britain is as follows:

  County

  Number

  Avon

  104

  Bedfordshire

  11

  Berkshire

  17

  Borders

  6

  Buckinghamshire

  40

  Cambridgeshire

  23

  Central

  6

  Cheshire

  141

  Cleveland

  9

  Clwyd

  48

  Cornwall

  366

  Cumbria

  93

  Derbyshire

  72

  Devon

  507

  Dorset

  416

  Dumfries

  39

  Durham

  20

  Dyfed

  206

  Essex

  26

  Fife

  18

  Mid Glamorgan

  10

  South Glamorgan

  1

  West Glamorgan

  2

  Gloucestershire

  140

  Grampian

  45

  Gwent

  34

  Gwynedd

  11

  Hampshire

  205

  Hereford and Worcester

  101

  Hertfordshire

  30

  Highland

  11

  Humberside

  28

  Isle of Wight

  30

  Kent

  108

  Lancashire

  111

  Leicestershire

  129

  Lincolnshire

  40

  London

  3

  Lothian

  5

  Manchester

  5

  Norfolk

  79

  Northamptonshire

  33

  Northumberland

  15

  Nottinghamshire

  34

  Orkney

  3

  Oxfordshire

  95

  Powys

  52

  Shropshire

  118

  Somerset

  401

  Staffordshire

  103

  Strathclyde

  58

  Suffolk

  57

  Surrey

  57

  East Sussex

  65

  West Sussex

  118

  Tayside

  13

  West Midlands

  5

  Warwickshire

  69

  Wiltshire

  299

  North Yorkshire

  210

  South Yorkshire

  20

  West Yorkshire

  25

  5,146

  Food Advisory Committee
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is his policy to circulate all written representations made to the Food Advisory Committee to the members of the committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  All representations of significance are drawn to the attention of members of the committee and arrangements have been made for all written representations arising from the announcement of the committee agenda to be made available for members to see at each meeting.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list consumer organisations, manufacturers and individuals who have made representations to the Food Advisory Committee since 1 January 1988, giving their names and the month in which the representations were received.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department receives a considerable number of representations on matters relating to the work of the Food Advisory Committee and they are brought to the committee's attention as appropriate. Those who have made written representations received by the committee secretariat as a direct result of the committee's own press releases announcing the agenda for its meetings, which were first issued in August 1988, are listed in the following table.

  Committee Meeting

  Organisations/individuals

  15 September 1988

  Beecham Products Co-operative Union Ltd. Dairy Crest Milk Marketing Board Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards (LACOTS) Spice Trade Association

  8 December 1988

  Co-operative Union Ltd. LACOTS

  25 May 1989

  LACOTS

  7 July 1989

  The Food and Drink Federation National Office of Animal Health Ltd. Consumers' Association

  8 September 1989

  The University of Sussex

  19 October 1989

  Dairy Trade Federation

  7 December 1989

  National Farmers Union British Meat Manufacturers Association

  9 March 1990

  Milk Marketing Board

  4 May 1990

  LACOTS

  Herbs and Spices
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration his Ministry has given to the steam pasteurisation process for herbs and spices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I understand that two commercial companies claim to have developed steam pasteurisation processes for reducing microbiological contamination of' herbs and spices. It is too early to say, however, whether
  499
  either of these processes will provide a satisfactory replacement for chemical treatment in all circumstances. Neither process involves the sort of radically new technology which might warrant consideration by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

  Hounds
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations exist to control the meat fed to hounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  There is no legislation which specifically controls meat fed to hounds. Hunt kennels may accept whole carcases, but they must not take unfit meat or specified bovine offal unless it has been sterilised. They may not of course receive carcases of animals suspected of having BSE, as these must be buried or incinerated.

  Caseous Lymphadenitis
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the incidence of caseous lymphadenitis; and how many cases have been reported in the last six months in(a) goats and (b) humans.

  Mr. Curry
  Prior to 1990 caseous lymphadenitis had not been recorded in animals in the United Kingdom for many years. It has, however, been confirmed in three goat herds in England in the last six months all linked by the movement of stock to the same import consignment. There have been no reported cases of human infection in the United Kingdom in the same period.

  The disease is found in a number of European countries and elsewhere in goats and sheep, but there are no accurate

  Variety

  1985 Harvest (Ecu/kg)

  1986 Harvest (Ecu/kg)

  1987 Harvest (Ecu/kg)

  1 2 Average price received for 1985, 1986 and 1987 Harvests4 (Ecu/kg)

  Basmas

  30·60

  0·45–0·61

  0·31–0·37

  0·47

  Katerini

  30·27

  0·14–0·59

  30·37

  0·34

  Bright

  30·09

  0·41–0·66

  0·24–0·41

  0·41

  Burley Gr

  0·07–0·60

  0·14–0·37

  30·37

  0·16

  Burley It

  0·13–0·14

  0·28–0·39

  30·28

  0·22

  Badischer Geudertheimer

  5

  0·42

  6

  0·42

  Kaba Koulak Classic

  0·16–0·26

  0·14–0·20

  30·59

  0·23

  Forchheimer Havana

  30·09

  0·16–0·66

  0·28–0·41

  0·31

  Tsebelia

  5

  0·20–0·37

  0·33–0·36

  0·33

  Mavra

  5

  0·14–0·16

  0·31–0·41

  0·23

  1 Prices converted from drachma/lire/to Ecus at market rates applying on the date the offer was accepted.

  2 Average prices weighted by volumes involved in tenders.

  3 Range not available since only one tender held.

  4 No tobacco from the 1988 harvest has been sold.

  5 No intervention stocks.

  6 No sales from this harvest of this variety.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Curry
  Informal assessments of energy usage and economy are a continuing process in the Department. In addition, two specific larger-scale energy audits have been carried out in the last five years; one was at the central veterinary laboratory, which is the Department's largest single user of energy. The consultants' report, in 1987,
  500
  figures on the numbers of confirmed cases in animals throughout the world. Human infection has been reported on very rare occasions worldwide over a number of years, usually of an occupational disease as a result of close contact with infected animals.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much tobacco was imported into the United Kingdom from other parts of the European Economic Community in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  During 1989 a total of 11·977 tonnes of raw tobacco was imported into the United Kingdom from other parts of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what price is received by tobacco manufacturers for production in the European Economic Community; and what price is charged by the intervention boards for export of such tobacco to nations outside the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Curry
  There is no information available on the price received by tobacco manufacturers for products containing Community-grown tobacco. A wide range of prices is received by the intervention boards for tobacco sold out of intervention by tender. These prices depend on the tobacco varieties involved as well as on their quality. The following table shows the range of prices received for these tobacco varieties most frequently sold into intervention.

  recommended some additional metering and controls and a range of housekeeping and staff energy awareness measures, but it drew attention to the poor thermal integrity of the buildings and concluded that the major expenditure required to improve this could not be justified on energy conservation grounds alone. The other audit was of four establishments in the Ministry's south-west region, where the consultants' report, in 1989, recommended the replacement of a boiler at one of the sites and a number of smaller measures, including the installation of energy-efficient lighting tubes, more pipe insulation and additional automatic heating controls.
  501
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Curry
  None, in the sense of full-time officials, although a departmental energy efficiency manager has been appointed who spends approximately half his time on this function. A substantial number of staff throughout the country are responsible for good energy management as part of their overall buildings management duties. The time spent is linked with other work and cannot be quantified separately.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not available for the period in question. As regards the 1989–90 financial year, I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on 30 April,Official Report, col. 458 and 10 May, Official Report, col. 226.

  EC Surplus Food
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to extend the scope of the European Community surplus food scheme to all pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We have no plans to extend the EC surplus food scheme beyond its present scope. European legislation requires that the food made available be distributed only to the most deprived citizens of the Community. Not all pensioners can be described as "deprived"; but those who fall into one of the categories of person eligible under this scheme may, of course, receive produce. To extend the distribution to include all pensioners would spread the limited amounts of food available so thinly as to be of little benefit to anyone.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many valid applications were received for each of the four categories of people who qualified for this year's European Community surplus food scheme; and what(a) quantity and (b) value of differing foodstuffs is being distributed into each of these categories.

  Mr. Curry
  Over 500 applications to participate in the 1990 EC surplus food scheme have been received from charitable and other non-profit-making organisations throughout the United Kingdom. These applications are currently being considered and I will make a statement once a decision has been reached. Approximately 3,800 tonnes of butter and 3,000 tonnes of beef are available for distribution this year. It is not possible to distinguish the amounts or value of produce by category as many of the organisations which have applied intend to distribute to more than one of the groups of people eligible under this scheme.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Curry
  Apart from their normal responsibilities to seek value for money in their respective areas, line managers are involved with regular reviews and evaluations of Ministry policies, efficiency scrutinies and staff inspections, all of which contribute towards identifying improvements in value for money. The Ministry's planning and budgeting processes enable savings to be taken up.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements, and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the principles of the financial management initiative responsibility for achieving value for money is largely the responsibility of line managers, and there is no central record of savings achieved over the period 1983–84 to 1988–89.

  Poultry Meat
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much poultry meat is imported into the United Kingdom from Spain.

  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom imported 1,124 tonnes of poultry meat from Spain in 1989 and a further 480 tonnes in the first four months of this year.

  Sewage Sludge Disposal
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent information he has received with regard to marine mammal problems caused by industrial and radioactive contaminants.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A series of studies are under way or planned on contaminant levels in marine mammals, and I hope to announce shortly new studies on strandings and contaminant levels in small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises). From the studies reported so far, including those carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the sea mammal research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council, it appears that pollutant levels in seals are at the lower end of the reported range for the North and Baltic seas and no deleterious effects have been observed which can be directly attributed to pollution.

  Further studies commissioned by my Department have been designed to examine the relationship between contaminant burdens in seals and their feeding sites by studying a group of breeding female grey seals over a number of years. Breeding performance is also being monitored and preliminary results are expected soon.

  In addition, the sea mammal research unit, together with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, has recently carried out a study of the level of radionuclides in grey

  503
  seals. The full report is to be published shortly but preliminary results show that levels of radionuclides were generally low and often below detection limits and that there were no differences between samples taken from seals in the North sea and north-east Atlantic.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Lecturers' Earnings
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the real increase in the average earnings of(a) polytechnic lecturers and (b) university lecturers over the period April 1980 to April 1990; and what were the cash figures in each case.

  Mr. Jackson
  The real increase in the average earnings of(a) polytechnic lecturers and (b) university lecturers over the period 1 April 1980 to 1 April 1990 is set out in the table. The choice of dates colours the picture: if the period to 1 May 1990 is considered the university lecturers' real-terms increase is 8·7 per cent.

  Percentage increase

  Cash increase5

  £

  University lecturers1

  0·3

  9,6883

  Polytechnic lecturers2

  6·1

  410,293

  1 Based on maximum of university lecturer scale, excluding discretionary points.

  2 Based on maximum of polytechnic senior lecturer scale, from 1 April 1989. Prior to that date, based on maximum of Further Education senior lecturer scale.

  3 Excludes settlement agreed between employers and Association of University Teachers effective from 1 May 1990. This would provide a real increase of 8·7 per cent. (£11,530 in cash) over the period 1 April 1980–1 May 1990, assuming the annual rate of inflation remains unchanged from the April level of 9·4 per cent.

  4 The latest polytechnic lecturers pay settlement covered the period 1 April 1989–31 August 1990.

  5 The figures given exclude non salary earnings.

  Student Accommodation, London
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average cost of rented accommodation for university students studying in central London for whom in-college accommodation is not available.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the rents paid by students is not collected in the form requested. However, a survey of student income and expenditure conducted by Research Services Ltd in the 1988–89 academic year contains some information about accommodation costs faced by students living in London. A copy of the survey report is in the Library.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide details of (i) the total expenditure of INSET by each local education authority, (ii) the average expenditure per teacher for INSET by each local education authority, (iii) the national average expenditure per teacher for INSET, and (iv) the total number of teachers in each local education authority who attended INSET within both the primary and secondary sector for the year 1989–90, or the year for which most recent figures are available.
  504
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The latest available information for the year 1989–90 is set out in the table. It refers to estimated total expenditure, from all sources, for INSET for school teachers. My right hon. Friend expects all school teachers to have received some INSET during the five non-contact days provided for in teachers' conditions of service.

  LEA

  Total Expenditure1

  Average Expenditure per teacher1

  £

  £

  Barking

  598,000

  431·89

  Barnet

  1,675,000

  643·61

  Bexley

  869,000

  479·58

  Brent

  1,463,000

  548·82

  Bromley

  1,294,000

  631·28

  Croydon

  1,815,347

  697·67

  Ealing

  765,000

  317·55

  Enfield

  2,374,220

  1,028·16

  Haringey

  974,200

  513·79

  Harrow

  1,169,000

  772·74

  Havering

  1,153,000

  531·36

  Hillingdon

  1,058,000

  566·59

  Hounslow

  1,328,400

  681·55

  Kingston Upon Thames

  1,038,255

  955·24

  Merton

  1,146,000

  866·02

  Newham

  676,800

  291·28

  Redbridge

  1,296,800

  756·81

  Richmond Upon Thames

  931,050

  950·63

  Sutton

  960,090

  738·02

  Waltham Forest

  1,602,000

  679·16

  Birmingham

  6,234,201

  623·16

  Coventry

  1,338,700

  446·71

  Dudley

  2,460,000

  888·47

  Sandwell

  1,575,400

  530·47

  Solihull

  1,275,560

  662·94

  Walsall

  1,115,500

  378·37

  Wolverhampton

  1,105,200

  409·03

  Knowsley

  664,900

  375·16

  Liverpool

  1,752,000

  355·35

  St. Helens

  1,280,784

  683·12

  Sefton

  1,263,900

  512·51

  Wirral

  1,854,200

  605·63

  Bolton

  1,304,712

  497·28

  Bury

  1,325,250

  855·88

  Manchester

  1,787,954

  376·36

  Oldham

  1,201,970

  514·87

  Rochdale

  1,720,977

  754·55

  Salford

  1,490,810

  678·23

  Stockport

  1,037,209

  404·72

  Tameside

  1,638,172

  847·61

  Trafford

  746,912

  423·11

  Wigan

  1,598,638

  471·31

  Barnsley

  1,605,000

  782·20

  Doncaster

  2,050,209

  711·11

  Rotherham

  1,717,771

  669·15

  Sheffield

  2,739,000

  580·60

  Bradford

  4,456,000

  845·46

  Calderdale

  1,589,420

  850·46

  Kirklees

  2,827,985

  750·95

  Leeds

  3,428,000

  504·13

  Wakefield

  1,832,408

  622·10

  Gateshead

  1,026,200

  540·76

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  1,300,376

  493·45

  North Tyneside

  965,226

  453·16

  South Tyneside

  1,128,900

  776·94

  Sunderland

  1,697,500

  585·12

  Isles of Scilly

  12,000

  442·80

  Inner London

  12,650,000

  595·85

  Avon

  3,564,685

  479·69

  Bedfordshire

  2,124,300

  434·04

  Berkshire

  3,247,500

  537·38

  Buckinghamshire

  4,373,000

  848·17

  Cambridgeshire

  3,776,682

  717·07

  Cheshire

  4,510,220

  528·70

  Cleveland

  2,964,000

  515·97

  Cornwall

  3,141,948

  835·05

  505

  LEA

  Total Expenditure1

  Average Expenditure per teacher1

  £

  £

  Cumbria

  2,477,796

  555·78

  Derbyshire

  6,586,200

  762·24

  Devon

  3,223,811

  439·41

  Dorset

  3,200,435

  691·64

  Durham

  2,457,000

  484·90

  East Sussex

  2,518,900

  544·13

  Essex

  5,730,000

  468·91

  Gloucestershire

  3,418,100

  777·42

  Hampshire

  5,000,000

  413·86

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,089,300

  564·84

  Hertfordshire

  4,664,000

  511·48

  Humberside

  3,607,667

  446·44

  Isle of Wight

  1,011,500

  1,006·37

  Kent

  5,670,200

  466·13

  Lancashire

  5,863,000

  477·58

  Leicestershire

  5,983,000

  761·70

  Lincolnshire

  2,520,233

  535·87

  Norfolk

  3,799,000

  675·76

  North Yorkshire

  3,494,000

  616·57

  Northamptonshire

  3,861,036

  714·05

  Northumberland

  1,551,263

  552·52

  Nottinghamshire

  7,665,460

  847·68

  Oxfordshire

  3,429,360

  810·17

  Shropshire

  2,973,000

  811·47

  Somerset

  1,904,610

  549·75

  Staffordshire

  5,521,950

  615·35

  Suffolk

  3,130,000

  623·44

  Surrey

  4,504,020

  624·15

  Warwickshire

  2,631,721

  617·28

  West Sussex

  3,524,000

  710·40

  Wiltshire

  3,164,222

  706·33

  England Total

  246,863,225

  594·78

  1 1989–90 (estimated).

  Training Grants
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list for each local authority (i) the proposed bid made for the local education authorities training grants scheme, (ii) the indicative maxima, (iii) the actual grant allocated and (iv) the national average level of grant allocated for both national and local priority expenditure on the primary sector for the year 1990–91.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In most of the areas of training which DES circular 20/89 specified as national priority areas for 1990–91, and in the local priority area for the same year, allocations of the amounts of expenditure eligible for support were made on the basis of mathematical formulae reflecting the size of the relevant pupil or student population. For training of articled teachers, allocations were determined through a process of negotiation with those consortia of authorities which had expressed an interest in participating in the scheme. Initial bids for the remaining areas are shown in table A.

  The indicative maxima for 1990–91 are shown in table B. Final maxima, as notified to authorities in December 1989 or March 1990, are shown in table C. This includes all areas of the scheme except training of educational psychologists, where maxima are yet to be determined.

  It is for individual local education authorities to determine what proportion of their allocations should be spent on the primary sector, since they are best placed to identify the particular patterns of training needs in their own areas. In 1990–91, however, there are three national priority areas specifically directed towards training in the
  506
  primary sector. These areas provide support for a total of almost £11·7 million of expenditure, allocated on a per capita basis.

  Table A: LEATGS Bids, 1990–91

  (£000s)

  Local Education Authority

  NPA5 SEN: Hearing

  NPA6 SEN: Sight

  NPA7 SEN: SLD

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  22

  22

  22

  Bexley

  23

  18

  29

  Brent

  12

  12

  12

  Bromely

  13

  9

  9

  Croydon

  21

  14

  14

  Ealing

  5

  —

  5

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  23

  —

  23

  Harrow

  21

  7

  14

  Havering

  14

  —

  21

  Hillingdon

  10

  13

  18

  Hounslow

  20

  8

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  7

  12

  Merton

  —

  —

  21

  Newham

  35

  7

  21

  Redbridge

  13

  —

  22

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  27

  Sutton

  —

  —

  21

  Waltham Forest

  10

  49

  39

  Camden

  32

  10

  17

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  15

  —

  45

  Hackney

  16

  16

  6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  20

  20

  12

  Islington

  20

  20

  40

  Kensington and Chelsea

  20

  20

  —

  Lambeth

  40

  25

  12

  Lewisham

  30

  30

  30

  Southwark

  2

  1

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  18

  14

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  Westminster

  6

  —

  45

  Birmingham

  79

  86

  65

  Coventry

  7

  —

  18

  Dudley

  7

  15

  22

  Sandwell

  28

  14

  42

  Solihull

  13

  4

  19

  Walsall

  15

  15

  15

  Wolverhampton

  —

  13

  1

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  33

  Liverpool

  9

  13

  47

  St. Helens

  12

  —

  12

  Sefton

  29

  —

  10

  Wirral

  24

  —

  12

  Bolton

  7

  15

  19

  Bury

  7

  —

  19

  Manchester

  36

  36

  72

  Oldham

  30

  14

  30

  Rochdale

  18

  18

  18

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  —

  —

  6

  Tameside

  10

  2

  16

  Trafford

  24

  10

  41

  Wigan

  18

  12

  12

  Barnsley

  7

  —

  8

  Doncaster

  30

  —

  36

  Rotherham

  21

  4

  15

  Sheffield

  56

  22

  56

  Bradford

  32

  59

  46

  Calderdale

  20

  20

  20

  Kirklees

  32

  20

  12

  Leeds

  54

  33

  29

  Wakefield

  4

  11

  19

  507

  Local Education Authority

  NPA5 SEN: Hearing

  NPA6 SEN: Sight

  NPA7 SEN: SLD

  Gateshead

  14

  6

  60

  Newcastle

  50

  6

  40

  North Tyneside

  20

  20

  12

  South Tyneside

  22

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  23

  20

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  Avon

  29

  29

  59

  Bedfordshire

  9

  19

  32

  Berkshire

  53

  7

  18

  Buckinghamshire

  7

  3

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  29

  15

  37

  Cheshire

  46

  39

  46

  Cleveland

  14

  23

  86

  Cornwall

  6

  —

  20

  Cumbria

  60

  10

  10

  Derbyshire

  66

  28

  73

  Devon

  25

  —

  27

  Dorset

  23

  23

  23

  Durham

  27

  20

  53

  East Sussex

  62

  17

  33

  Essex

  100

  21

  260

  Gloucestershire

  21

  21

  85

  Hampshire

  30

  34

  45

  Hereford and Worcester

  45

  63

  46

  Hertfordshire

  25

  7

  43

  Humberside

  45

  12

  39

  Isle of Wight

  17

  16

  27

  Kent

  62

  62

  63

  Lancashire

  24

  9

  95

  Leicestershire

  17

  23

  57

  Lincolnshire

  10

  25

  30

  Norfolk

  17

  20

  85

  North Yorkshire

  37

  19

  33

  Northamptonshire

  21

  8

  11

  Northumberland

  8

  —

  42

  Nottinghamshire

  20

  15

  26

  Oxfordshire

  27

  12

  27

  Shropshire

  21

  14

  47

  Somerset

  —

  31

  56

  Staffordshire

  35

  16

  42

  Suffolk

  46

  2

  31

  Surrey

  15

  4

  34

  Warwickshire

  36

  72

  54

  West Sussex

  5

  18

  22

  Wiltshire

  —

  7

  75

  Total England

  2,336

  1,577

  3,357

  Note:—The abbrevaiation "NPA" stands for "national priority area"; "SEN" stands for "special educational needs"; and "SLD" stands for "severe learning difficulties".

  Local Education Authority

  NPA 20 Educational Psychologists

  Training of Licensed Teachers

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,300

  —

  Barnet

  25,000

  50,000

  Bexley

  3,000

  37,100

  Brent

  19,200

  —

  Bromley

  24,000

  15,000

  Croydon

  46,938

  —

  Ealing

  15,000

  54,000

  Enfield

  13,500

  53,000

  Haringey

  28,327

  80,000

  Harrow

  —

  57,400

  Havering

  23,000

  53,000

  Hillingdon

  30,000

  73,212

  Hounslow

  7,200

  38,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  7,000

  26,000

  Merton

  27,907

  30,000

  Newham

  29,500

  114,000

  Redbridge

  41,127

  17,500

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  10,000

  508

  Local Education Authority

  NPA 20 Educational Psychologists

  Training of Licensed Teachers

  Sutton

  —

  47,600

  Waltham Forest

  76,000

  64,500

  Camden

  21,450

  —

  City of London

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  15,750

  12,840

  Hackney

  18,000

  63,400

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  21,684

  17,000

  Islington

  —

  203,150

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  30,000

  Lambeth

  31,867

  —

  Lewisham

  n/a

  —

  Southwark

  31,580

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  23,500

  38,330

  Wandsworth

  20,000

  31,479

  Westminster

  —

  8,000

  Birmingham

  47,000

  —

  Coventry

  —

  31,800

  Dudley

  28,000

  58,625

  Sandwell

  36,000

  48,250

  Solihull

  —

  —

  Walsall

  300

  —

  Wolverhampton

  21,650

  —

  Knowsley

  26,200

  —

  Liverpool

  37,000

  —

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  Sefton

  36,000

  —

  Wirral

  30,000

  —

  Bolton

  n/a

  5,000

  Bury

  —

  —

  Manchester

  30,000

  —

  Oldham

  6,500

  —

  Rochdale

  12,000

  —

  Salford

  n/a

  —

  Stockport

  5,000

  1,000

  Tameside

  —

  —

  Trafford

  —

  —

  Wigan

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  5,670

  —

  Sheffield

  7,500

  —

  Bradford

  35,000

  —

  Calderdale

  n/a

  —

  Kirklees

  12,000

  —

  Leeds

  27,000

  —

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  Newcastle

  15,000

  —

  North Tyneside

  21,000

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  28,000

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  Avon

  37,750

  —

  Bedfordshire

  26,382

  60,000

  Berkshire

  24,000

  30,000

  Buckinghamshire

  25,000

  137,000

  Cambridgeshire

  36,000

  27,360

  Cheshire

  52,000

  —

  Cleveland

  30,000

  —

  Cornwall

  14,000

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  39,583

  72,000

  Devon

  21,228

  24,500

  Dorset

  30,000

  20,000

  Durham

  30,000

  —

  East Sussex

  n/a

  —

  Essex

  68,000

  324,000

  Gloucestershire

  56,000

  30,330

  Hampshire

  155,150

  —

  509

  Local Education Authority

  NPA 20 Educational Psychologists

  Training of Licensed Teachers

  Hereford and Worcester

  52,000

  10,000

  Hertfordshire

  —

  200,000

  Humberside

  26,000

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  Kent

  52,725

  171,350

  Lancashire

  n/a

  50,000

  Leicestershire

  n/a

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  40,600

  Norfolk

  35,670

  —

  North Yorkshire

  25,400

  —

  Northamptonshire

  15,800

  197,460

  Northumberland

  31,330

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  28,900

  62,032

  Oxfordshire

  n/a

  10,950

  Table B LEATGs Indicative Maxima

  Indicative Maxima 1990–91:

  1

  2

  3a

  3b

  3c

  National Priority Areas for Schools

  Management

  Appraisal

  Basic Curriculum

  Primary Maths

  Primary Science

  £,000

  £.000

  £.000

  £.000

  £.000

  Barking and Dagenham

  26

  49

  168

  18

  18

  Barnet

  45

  85

  290

  28

  28

  Bexley

  37

  70

  237

  22

  22

  Brent

  37

  70

  237

  27

  27

  Bromley

  42

  78

  267

  26

  26

  Croydon

  49

  92

  314

  33

  33

  Ealing

  42

  79

  267

  32

  32

  Enfield

  44

  82

  279

  28

  28

  Haringey

  29

  54

  183

  21

  21

  Harrow

  30

  56

  189

  23

  23

  Havering

  42

  78

  267

  25

  25

  Hillingdon

  35

  66

  224

  22

  22

  Hounslow

  34

  64

  218

  22

  22

  Kingston upon Thames

  19

  36

  122

  12

  12

  Merton

  23

  43

  147

  11

  11

  Newham

  38

  72

  243

  25

  25

  Redbridge

  35

  66

  223

  22

  22

  Richmond upon Thames

  18

  34

  116

  12

  12

  Sutton

  25

  48

  162

  14

  14

  Waltham Forest

  34

  64

  217

  22

  22

  Camden

  23

  42

  143

  12

  12

  City of London

  1

  1

  15

  1

  1

  Greenwich

  38

  71

  241

  24

  24

  Hackney

  26

  48

  164

  19

  19

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17

  33

  111

  11

  11

  Islington

  23

  43

  147

  17

  17

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12

  22

  73

  8

  8

  Lambeth

  28

  53

  180

  23

  23

  Lewisham

  34

  64

  216

  23

  23

  Southwark

  32

  60

  204

  23

  23

  Tower Hamlets

  31

  57

  194

  21

  21

  Wandsworth

  30

  57

  194

  20

  20

  Westminster

  18

  34

  117

  12

  12

  Birmingham

  194

  364

  1,238

  131

  131

  Coventry

  55

  103

  350

  36

  36

  Dudely

  52

  98

  332

  35

  35

  Sandwell

  55

  103

  350

  35

  35

  Solihull

  38

  72

  243

  23

  23

  Walsall

  52

  97

  330

  31

  31

  Wolverhampton

  45

  85

  289

  29

  29

  Knowsley

  30

  57

  194

  21

  21

  Liverpool

  87

  163

  554

  57

  57

  St Helens

  35

  66

  224

  22

  22

  Sefton

  52

  97

  331

  32

  32

  Wirral

  59

  111

  378

  38

  38

  Bolton

  50

  94

  321

  32

  32

  Bury

  30

  56

  192

  20

  20

  Manchester

  78

  147

  499

  54

  54

  Oldham

  44

  82

  279

  29

  29

  Rochdale

  40

  76

  257

  25

  25

  510

  Local Education Authority

  NPA 20 Educational Psychologists

  Training of Licensed Teachers

  Shropshire

  25,400

  —

  Somerset

  20,000

  38,000

  Staffordshire

  50,000

  —

  Suffolk

  26,000

  —

  Surrey

  49,000

  55,000

  Warwickshire

  20,000

  —

  West Sussex

  49,000

  10,000

  Wiltshire

  16,500

  38,300

  TOTAL ENGLAND

  n/a

  2,946,268

  Note: Where bids for licensed teachers were costed on a school year basis, the figures have been adjusted in line with the 1990–91 financial year.
  511

  Indicative Maxima 1990–91:

  1

  2

  3a

  3b

  3c

  National Priority Areas for Schools

  Management

  Appraisal

  Basic Curriculum

  Primary Maths

  Primary Science

  £.000

  £.000

  £.000

  £.000

  £.000

  Salford

  42

  79

  268

  28

  28

  Stockport

  51

  95

  322

  32

  32

  Tameside

  40

  75

  257

  26

  26

  Trafford

  33

  62

  211

  22

  22

  Barnsley

  39

  73

  249

  24

  24

  Doncaster

  55

  102

  347

  33

  33

  Rotherham

  49

  91

  309

  29

  29

  Sheffield

  81

  152

  517

  53

  53

  Bradford

  92

  172

  585

  47

  47

  Calderdale

  37

  69

  234

  24

  24

  Kirklees

  70

  132

  447

  42

  42

  Leeds

  120

  225

  764

  63

  63

  Wakefield

  54

  102

  347

  32

  32

  Gateshead

  34

  64

  218

  22

  22

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  44

  83

  283

  27

  27

  North Tyneside

  34

  64

  217

  19

  19

  South Tyneside

  27

  51

  172

  18

  18

  Sunderland

  57

  106

  362

  37

  37

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  1

  17

  1

  l

  Avon

  153

  287

  977

  100

  100

  Bedfordshire

  95

  179

  607

  50

  50

  Berkshire

  122

  229

  779

  76

  76

  Buckinghamshire

  109

  205

  697

  78

  78

  Cambridgeshire

  113

  211

  718

  73

  73

  Cheshire

  177

  331

  1,126

  111

  111

  Cleveland

  110

  206

  700

  69

  69

  Cornwall

  78

  147

  498

  48

  48

  Cumbria

  86

  161

  547

  53

  53

  Derbyshire

  160

  300

  1,019

  100

  100

  Devon

  153

  288

  978

  97

  97

  Dorset

  93

  175

  594

  52

  52

  Durham

  106

  199

  677

  68

  68

  East Sussex

  93

  174

  592

  58

  58

  Essex

  266

  498

  1,692

  163

  163

  Gloucestershire

  88

  166

  564

  55

  55

  Hampshire

  249

  466

  1,585

  165

  165

  Hereford and Worcester

  113

  212

  719

  61

  61

  Hertfordshire

  170

  319

  1,083

  101

  101

  Humberside

  159

  298

  1,011

  94

  94

  Isle of Wight

  20

  37

  126

  9

  9

  Kent

  258

  483

  1,643

  153

  153

  Lancashire

  246

  461

  1,567

  159

  159

  Leicestershire

  160

  300

  1,020

  99

  99

  Lincolnshire

  98

  184

  624

  61

  61

  Norfolk

  120

  225

  763

  79

  79

  North Yorkshire

  115

  215

  732

  70

  70

  Northamptonshire

  109

  205

  696

  64

  64

  Northumberland

  56

  104

  354

  26

  26

  Nottinghamshire

  168

  315

  1,072

  100

  100

  Oxfordshire

  85

  159

  541

  50

  50

  Shropshire

  72

  134

  457

  42

  42

  Somerset

  74

  139

  474

  45

  45

  Staffordshire

  185

  347

  1,178

  110

  110

  Suffolk

  105

  196

  668

  55

  55

  Surrey

  142

  266

  904

  99

  99

  Warwickshire

  84

  157

  533

  59

  59

  West Sussex

  107

  200

  681

  67

  67

  Wiltshire

  93

  173

  589

  58

  58

  TOTALS

  7,941

  14,889

  50,621

  4,963

  4,963

  512 513

  Indicative maxima 1990–91:

  4

  8

  9

  11

  12

  National Priority Areas 4, 8,9, 11 (Schools) and 12 (FE)

  Under "rising fives" £.000

  Special Needs: Designated Teachers £.000

  New Technologies £.000

  Management of Pupil's Behaviour £.000

  Management (FE) £.000

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  5

  20

  6

  10

  Barnet

  9

  6

  34

  10

  21

  Bexley

  7

  5

  28

  8

  10

  Brent

  8

  5

  28

  8

  21

  Bromley

  8

  5

  31

  9

  13

  Croydon

  10

  6

  37

  10

  20

  Ealing

  9

  5

  31

  9

  12

  Enfield

  8

  5

  33

  9

  17

  Haringey

  6

  5

  22

  6

  15

  Harrow

  6

  5

  22

  6

  31

  Havering

  8

  5

  31

  9

  9

  Hillingdon

  7

  5

  26

  7

  8

  Hounslow

  7

  5

  26

  7

  11

  Kingston upon Thames

  5

  5

  14

  5

  13

  Merton

  5

  5

  17

  5

  9

  Newham

  8

  5

  29

  8

  21

  Redbridge

  7

  5

  26

  7

  7

  Richmond upon Thames

  5

  5

  14

  5

  15

  Sutton

  5

  5

  19

  5

  11

  Waltham Forest

  7

  5

  26

  7

  12

  Camden

  5

  5

  17

  5

  10

  City of London

  1

  1

  1

  1

  5

  Greenwich

  8

  5

  28

  8

  6

  Hackney

  6

  5

  19

  5

  13

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5

  5

  13

  5

  18

  Islington

  5

  5

  17

  5

  18

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5

  5

  9

  5

  0

  Lambeth

  7

  5

  21

  6

  19

  Lewisham

  7

  5

  25

  7

  15

  Southwark

  7

  5

  24

  7

  11

  Tower Hamlets

  6

  5

  23

  6

  0

  Wandsworth

  6

  5

  23

  6

  11

  Westminster

  5

  5

  14

  5

  25

  Birmingham

  38

  22

  146

  41

  66

  Coventry

  11

  7

  41

  12

  26

  Dudley

  10

  6

  39

  11

  34

  Sandwell

  11

  7

  41

  12

  25

  Solihull

  7

  5

  29

  8

  17

  Walsall

  10

  6

  39

  11

  15

  Wolverhampton

  9

  6

  34

  10

  21

  Knowsley

  6

  5

  23

  6

  11

  Liverpool

  17

  10

  65

  18

  39

  St. Helens

  7

  5

  26

  7

  22

  Sefton

  10

  6

  39

  11

  20

  Wirral

  12

  7

  45

  13

  27

  Bolton

  10

  6

  38

  11

  21

  Bury

  6

  5

  23

  6

  13

  Manchester

  15

  9

  59

  17

  56

  Oldham

  9

  5

  33

  9

  12

  Rochdale

  8

  5

  30

  9

  11

  Salford

  8

  5

  31

  9

  5

  Stockport

  10

  6

  38

  11

  22

  Tameside

  8

  5

  30

  9

  18

  Trafford

  7

  5

  25

  7

  18

  Barnsley

  8

  5

  29

  8

  12

  Doncaster

  11

  7

  41

  12

  24

  Rotherham

  9

  6

  36

  10

  19

  Sheffield

  16

  10

  61

  17

  38

  Bradford

  19

  11

  69

  19

  40

  Calderdale

  7

  5

  28

  8

  12

  Kirklees

  14

  8

  53

  15

  29

  Leeds

  23

  14

  90

  25

  41

  Wakefield

  11

  7

  41

  12

  20

  Gateshead

  7

  5

  26

  7

  8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9

  6

  33

  9

  20

  North Tyneside

  7

  5

  25

  7

  16

  514 515

  Indicative maxima 1990–91:

  4

  8

  9

  11

  12

  National Priority Areas 4, 8,9,11 (Schools) and 12 (FE)

  Under "rising fives" £,000

  Special Needs: Designated Teachers £.000

  New Technologies £.000

  Management of Pupil's Behaviour £,000

  Management (FE) £.000

  South Tyneside

  5

  5

  20

  6

  18

  Sunderland

  11

  7

  43

  12

  16

  Isles of Scilly

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Avon

  30

  18

  115

  32

  61

  Bedfordshire

  20

  11

  71

  20

  40

  Berkshire

  25

  14

  92

  26

  64

  Buckinghamshire

  23

  13

  82

  23

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  23

  13

  84

  24

  35

  Cheshire

  34

  20

  132

  37

  70

  Cleveland

  22

  13

  82

  23

  37

  Cornwall

  15

  9

  59

  17

  23

  Cumbria

  16

  10

  64

  18

  29

  Derbyshire

  32

  19

  120

  34

  51

  Devon

  31

  18

  115

  32

  73

  Dorset

  18

  11

  70

  20

  34

  Durham

  21

  13

  80

  22

  40

  East Sussex

  19

  11

  70

  20

  43

  Essex

  52

  31

  199

  56

  71

  Gloucestershire

  17

  10

  66

  19

  41

  Hampshire

  50

  29

  186

  52

  109

  Hereford and Worcester

  23

  13

  85

  24

  49

  Hertfordshire

  33

  20

  127

  36

  82

  Humberside

  30

  18

  119

  34

  46

  Isle of Wight

  5

  5

  15

  5

  10

  Kent

  52

  30

  193

  54

  76

  Lancashire

  48

  28

  184

  52

  128

  Leicestershire

  32

  19

  120

  34

  47

  Lincolnshire

  19

  12

  73

  21

  34

  Norfolk

  24

  14

  90

  25

  45

  North Yorkshire

  22

  13

  86

  24

  47

  Northamptonshire

  21

  13

  82

  23

  26

  Northumberland

  11

  7

  42

  12

  12

  Nottinghamshire

  34

  20

  126

  36

  81

  Oxfordshire

  18

  10

  64

  18

  43

  Shropshire

  14

  9

  54

  15

  30

  Somerset

  15

  9

  56

  16

  39

  Staffordshire

  36

  21

  139

  39

  65

  Suffolk

  21

  12

  79

  22

  37

  Surrey

  28

  17

  106

  30

  53

  Warwickshsire

  16

  10

  63

  18

  42

  West Sussex

  22

  13

  80

  23

  35

  Wiltshire

  19

  11

  69

  20

  53

  Totals

  1,589

  993

  5,955

  1,687

  3,171

  Indicative Maxima 1990–91:

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  National Priority Areas for FE

  Subject competence

  IT

  Special educational needs

  Multi-ethnic society

  Competence assessment

  £.000

  £,000

  £.000

  £.000

  £.000

  Barking and Dagenham

  6

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Barnet

  13

  6

  6

  6

  13

  Bexley

  6

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Brent

  13

  6

  6

  6

  13

  Bromley

  8

  5

  5

  5

  8

  Croydon

  12

  6

  5

  5

  12

  Ealing

  8

  5

  5

  5

  8

  Enfield

  11

  5

  5

  5

  11

  Haringey

  9

  5

  5

  5

  9

  Harrow

  19

  9

  8

  8

  19

  Havering

  6

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Hillingdon

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Hounslow

  7

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Kingston upon Thames

  8

  5

  5

  5

  8

  Merton

  6

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Newham

  13

  7

  6

  6

  13

  Redbridge

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Richmond upon Thames

  9

  5

  5

  5

  9

  Sutton

  7

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Waltham Forest

  8

  5

  5

  5

  8

  516 517

  Indicative Maxima 1990–91:

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  National Priority Areas for FE

  Subject competence

  IT

  Special educational needs

  Multi-ethnic society

  Competence assessment

  £,000

  £.000

  £.000

  £,000

  £,000

  Camden

  6

  5

  5

  5

  6

  City of London

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Greenwich

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Hackney

  8

  5

  5

  5

  8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  11

  5

  5

  5

  11

  Islington

  10

  5

  5

  5

  10

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  12

  6

  5

  5

  12

  Lewisham

  9

  5

  5

  5

  9

  Southwark

  7

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  7

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Westminster

  16

  8

  7

  7

  16

  Birmingham

  41

  19

  16

  16

  41

  Coventry

  16

  8

  7

  7

  16

  Dudley

  21

  10

  9

  9

  21

  Sandwell

  16

  8

  7

  7

  16

  Solihull

  11

  5

  5

  5

  11

  Walsall

  9

  5

  5

  5

  9

  Wolverhampton

  13

  6

  6

  6

  13

  Knowsley

  7

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Liverpool

  24

  11

  10

  10

  24

  St. Helens

  14

  7

  6

  6

  14

  Sefton

  12

  6

  5

  5

  12

  Wirral

  17

  8

  7

  7

  17

  Bolton

  13

  6

  6

  6

  13

  Bury

  8

  5

  5

  5

  8

  Manchester

  35

  16

  14

  14

  35

  Oldham

  8

  5

  5

  5

  8

  Rochdale

  7

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Salford

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Stockport

  13

  7

  6

  6

  13

  Tameside

  11

  5

  5

  5

  11

  Trafford

  11

  6

  5

  5

  11

  Barnsley

  7

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Doncaster

  15

  7

  7

  7

  15

  Rotherham

  12

  6

  5

  5

  12

  Sheffield

  24

  11

  10

  10

  24

  Bradford

  25

  12

  10

  10

  25

  Calderdale

  7

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Kirklees

  18

  9

  8

  8

  18

  Leeds

  25

  12

  11

  11

  25

  Wakefield

  13

  6

  6

  6

  13

  Gateshead

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  13

  6

  6

  6

  13

  North Tyneside

  10

  5

  5

  5

  10

  South Tyneside

  11

  6

  5

  5

  11

  Sunderland

  10

  5

  5

  5

  10

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  1

  l

  1

  1

  Avon

  38

  18

  15

  15

  38

  Bedfordshire

  25

  12

  10

  10

  25

  Berkshire

  40

  18

  16

  16

  40

  Buckinghamshire

  14

  7

  6

  6

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  10

  9

  9

  22

  Cheshire

  44

  20

  18

  18

  44

  Cleveland

  23

  11

  10

  10

  23

  Cornwall

  14

  7

  6

  6

  14

  Cumbria

  18

  9

  8

  8

  18

  Derbyshire

  32

  15

  13

  13

  32

  Devon

  46

  21

  18

  18

  46

  Dorset

  21

  10

  9

  9

  21

  Durham

  25

  12

  10

  10

  25

  East Sussex

  27

  13

  11

  11

  27

  Essex

  44

  21

  18

  18

  44

  Gloucestershire

  26

  12

  11

  11

  26

  Hampshire

  68

  31

  27

  27

  68

  518 519

  Indicative Maxima 1990–91:

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  National Priority Areas for FE

  Subject competence

  IT

  Special educational needs

  Multi-ethnic society

  Competence assessment

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  Hereford and Worcester

  31

  14

  13

  13

  31

  Hertfordshire

  51

  24

  20

  20

  51

  Humberside

  29

  13

  12

  12

  29

  Isle of Wight

  6

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Kent

  47

  22

  19

  19

  47

  Lancashire

  80

  37

  31

  31

  80

  Leicestershire

  29

  14

  12

  12

  29

  Lincolnshire

  21

  10

  9

  9

  21

  Norfolk

  28

  13

  11

  11

  28

  North Yorkshire

  29

  14

  12

  12

  29

  Northamptonshire

  16

  8

  7

  7

  16

  Northumberland

  7

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  51

  23

  20

  20

  51

  Oxfordshire

  27

  13

  11

  11

  27

  Shropshire

  19

  9

  8

  8

  19

  Somerset

  24

  12

  10

  10

  24

  Staffordshire

  41

  19

  16

  16

  41

  Suffolk

  23

  11

  10

  10

  23

  Surrey

  33

  15

  13

  13

  33

  Warwickshire

  26

  12

  11

  11

  26

  West Sussex

  22

  10

  9

  9

  22

  Wiltshire

  33

  15

  13

  13

  33

  Totals

  1,982

  991

  892

  892

  1,982

  Indicative Maxima 1990–91: National Priority Areas and Local Priorities

  18 Health Education

  19 Youth and Community Workers

  21 Adult Literacy

  Local priorities

  Totals

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  Barking and Dagenham

  10

  5

  3

  302

  672

  Barnet

  17

  7

  3

  531

  1,158

  Bexley

  14

  5

  1

  418

  911

  Brent

  14

  6

  4

  444

  980

  Bromley

  15

  6

  2

  473

  1,032

  Croydon

  18

  7

  5

  568

  1,243

  Ealing

  15

  6

  3

  474

  1,047

  Enfield

  16

  7

  2

  505

  1,100

  Haringey

  11

  5

  3

  340

  754

  Harrow

  13

  5

  2

  387

  861

  Havering

  15

  6

  3

  466

  1,016

  Hillingdon

  13

  5

  2

  391

  858

  Hounslow

  13

  5

  3

  388

  854

  Kingston upon Thames

  8

  5

  2

  233

  522

  Merton

  9

  5

  2

  266

  585

  Newham

  15

  6

  4

  455

  999

  Redbridge

  13

  5

  1

  387

  851

  Richmond upon Thames

  7

  5

  1

  228

  510

  Sutton

  10

  5

  1

  297

  650

  Waltham Forest

  13

  5

  2

  390

  857

  Camden

  8

  5

  5

  262

  581

  City of London

  1

  1

  1

  14

  49

  Greenwich

  14

  5

  6

  417

  920

  Hackney

  10

  5

  10

  304

  684

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7

  5

  3

  226

  507

  Islington

  9

  5

  8

  284

  636

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5

  5

  2

  122

  281

  Lambeth

  11

  5

  9

  344

  774

  Lewisham

  13

  5

  3

  394

  867

  Southwark

  12

  5

  6

  365

  813

  Tower Hamlets

  10

  5

  3

  324

  706

  Wandsworth

  11

  5

  7

  348

  772

  Westminster

  8

  5

  5

  254

  573

  Birmingham

  72

  28

  20

  2,215

  4,839

  Coventry

  21

  8

  6

  643

  1,409

  Dudley

  20

  8

  3

  632

  1,385

  Sandwell

  21

  8

  3

  641

  1,401

  Solihull

  14

  6

  4

  446

  972

  Walsall

  19

  7

  4

  583

  1,268

  Wolverhampton

  17

  7

  2

  531

  1,158

  520 521

  Indicative Maxima 1990–91: National Priority Areas and Local Priorities

  18 Health Education

  19 Youth and Community Workers

  21 Adult Literacy

  Local priorities

  Totals

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  Knowsley

  11

  5

  8

  349

  776

  Liverpool

  33

  13

  18

  1,014

  2,224

  St. Helens

  14

  6

  4

  425

  932

  Sefton

  19

  8

  2

  597

  1,296

  Wirral

  22

  9

  6

  693

  1,514

  Bolton

  19

  7

  10

  583

  1,278

  Bury

  11

  5

  3

  351

  772

  Manchester

  31

  12

  8

  962

  2,115

  Oldham

  16

  6

  3

  493

  1,080

  Rochdale

  15

  6

  4

  455

  995

  Salford

  15

  6

  8

  454

  1,011

  Stockport

  19

  8

  3

  587

  1,281

  Tameside

  15

  6

  6

  469

  1.027

  Trafford

  13

  5

  3

  393

  864

  Barnsley

  14

  6

  3

  442

  965

  Doncaster

  21

  8

  3

  634

  1,382

  Rotherham

  18

  7

  5

  560

  1,217

  Sheffield

  31

  12

  7

  949

  2,076

  Bradford

  35

  14

  5

  1,068

  2,305

  Calderdale

  14

  5

  3

  418

  917

  Kirklees

  26

  10

  7

  814

  1,770

  Leeds

  44

  17

  12

  1,367

  2,952

  Wakefield

  20

  8

  7

  625

  1,362

  Gateshead

  12

  5

  1

  382

  838

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  17

  7

  2

  520

  1,131

  North Tyneside

  13

  5

  2

  398

  866

  South Tyneside

  11

  5

  1

  329

  724

  Sunderland

  21

  8

  3

  641

  1,396

  Isles of Scilly

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  12

  Avon

  57

  22

  15

  1,768

  3,859

  Bedfordshire

  36

  14

  4

  1,106

  2,385

  Berkshire

  47

  18

  12

  1,446

  3,156

  Buckinghamshire

  39

  15

  4

  1,215

  2,651

  Cambridgeshire

  41

  16

  5

  1,277

  2,778

  Cheshire

  66

  26

  19

  2,039

  4,443

  Cleveland

  41

  16

  8

  1,252

  2,725

  Cornwall

  29

  11

  5

  883

  1,917

  Cumbria

  32

  12

  6

  978

  2,126

  Derbyshire

  59

  23

  16

  1,817

  3,955

  Devon

  58

  23

  8

  1,800

  3,920

  Dorset

  35

  14

  6

  1,069

  2,313

  Durham

  40

  15

  14

  1,220

  2,665

  East Sussex

  35

  14

  3

  1,088

  2,367

  Essex

  97

  38

  22

  2,985

  6,478

  Gloucestershire

  34

  13

  4

  1,035

  2,253

  Hampshire

  94

  36

  22

  2,895

  6,324

  Hereford and Worcester

  43

  17

  5

  1,312

  2,839

  Hertfordshire

  65

  25

  9

  1,995

  4,332

  Humberside

  58

  23

  20

  1,792

  3,891

  Isle of Wight

  8

  5

  6

  233

  520

  Kent

  95

  37

  17

  2,913

  6,311

  Lancashire

  94

  37

  29

  2,909

  6,360

  Leicestershire

  59

  23

  12

  1,809

  3,929

  Lincolnshire

  36

  14

  3

  1,119

  2,429

  Norfolk

  45

  17

  9

  1,376

  3,002

  North Yorkshire

  43

  17

  8

  1,329

  2,887

  Northamptonshire

  40

  15

  5

  1,219

  2,636

  Northumberland

  20

  8

  3

  617

  1,327

  Nottinghamshire

  64

  25

  25

  1,975

  4,306

  Oxfordshire

  32

  13

  13

  1,000

  2,185

  Shropshire

  27

  11

  7

  831

  1,808

  Somerset

  29

  11

  5

  881

  1,918

  Staffordshire

  69

  27

  10

  2,115

  4,584

  Suffolk

  39

  15

  6

  1,198

  2,585

  Surrey

  53

  21

  10

  1,630

  3,565

  Warwickshire

  32

  13

  5

  986

  2,163

  West Sussex

  39

  15

  6

  1,215

  2,642

  Wiltshire

  36

  14

  5

  1,104

  2,409

  522 523

  Indicative Maxima 1990–91: National Priority Areas and Local Priorities

  18 Health Education

  19 Youth and Community Workers

  21 Adult Literacy

  Local priorities

  Totals

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  Totals

  2,977

  1,191

  696

  91,700

  3213,175

  1 Single amount for NPAs 1–4, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19 and 21.

  2 Single amount for all NPAs excluding 5, 6, 7, 10 and 20.

  3 Including £13,100,000 for NPAs 5, 6, 7, 10 and 20 yet to be distributed. Totals exclude Wigan for which maxima have not been set.

  Table C: LEATG Final Maxima

  NPA 1

  NPA 2

  NPA 3A

  NPA 3B

  NPA3C

  LEA

  Management

  Appraisal

  Basic Curriculum

  Primary Maths

  Primary Science

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  36,000

  5,000

  202,000

  18,000

  18,000

  Barnet

  75,000

  25,000

  320,000

  28,000

  28,000

  Bexley

  97,000

  10,000

  237,000

  22,000

  22,000

  Brent

  37,000

  70,000

  237,000

  27,000

  27,000

  Bromley

  42,000

  78,000

  267,000

  26,000

  26,000

  Croydon

  49,000

  92,000

  314,000

  33,000

  33,000

  Ealing

  91,000

  30,000

  267,000

  32,000

  32,000

  Enfield

  44,000

  82,000

  279,000

  28,000

  28,000

  Haringey

  29,000

  54,000

  183,000

  21,000

  21,000

  Harrow

  70,000

  0

  205,000

  23,000

  23,000

  Havering

  52,000

  8,000

  327,000

  25,000

  25,000

  Hillingdon

  35,000

  66,000

  224,000

  22,000

  22,000

  Hounslow

  34,000

  64,000

  218,000

  22,000

  22,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  25,000

  30,000

  122,000

  12,000

  12,000

  Merton

  23,000

  43,000

  147,000

  11,000

  11,000

  Newham

  72,000

  4,000

  277,000

  25,000

  25,000

  Redbridge

  35,000

  66,000

  223,000

  22,000

  22,000

  Richmond upon Thames

  18,000

  34,000

  116,000

  12,000

  12,000

  Sutton

  52,000

  0

  183,000

  14,000

  14,000

  Waltham Forest

  44,000

  30,000

  241,000

  22,000

  22,000

  Camden

  23,000

  21,000

  164,000

  12,000

  12,000

  City of London

  1

  1

  5,000

  1

  1

  Greenwich

  104,000

  5,000

  241,000

  24,000

  24,000

  Hackney

  46,000

  0

  192,000

  19,000

  19,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  50,000

  0

  111,000

  11,000

  11,000

  Islington

  23,000

  43,000

  147,000

  17,000

  17,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12,000

  22,000

  73,000

  8,000

  8,000

  Lambeth

  28,000

  53,000

  180,000

  23,000

  23,000

  Lewisham

  34,000

  64,000

  216,000

  23,000

  23,000

  Southwark

  37,000

  50,000

  204,000

  23,000

  28,000

  Tower Hamlets

  31,000

  57,000

  194,000

  21,000

  21,000

  Wandsworth

  30,000

  57,000

  194,000

  20,000

  20,000

  Westminster

  30,000

  0

  139,000

  12,000

  12,000

  Birmingham

  260,000

  100,000

  1,340,000

  197,000

  197,000

  Coventry

  80,000

  10,000

  418,000

  36,000

  36,000

  Dudley

  52,000

  78,000

  352,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Sandwell

  98,000

  40,000

  370,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Solihull

  38,000

  72,000

  243,000

  23,000

  23,000

  Walsall

  52,000

  22,000

  385,000

  41,000

  41,000

  Wolverhampton

  45,000

  85,000

  289,000

  29,000

  29,000

  Knowsley

  40,000

  0

  231,000

  26,000

  26,000

  Liverpool

  87,000

  163,000

  554,000

  57,000

  57,000

  St. Helens

  55,000

  46,000

  224,000

  22,000

  22,000

  Sefton

  61,000

  0

  412,000

  39,000

  32,000

  Wirral

  100,000

  30,000

  418,000

  38,000

  0

  Bolton

  50,000

  94,000

  321,000

  32,000

  32,000

  Bury

  33,000

  34,000

  211,000

  0

  0

  Manchester

  78,000

  147,000

  499,000

  54,000

  54,000

  Oldham

  44,000

  82,000

  279,000

  29,000

  29,000

  Rochdale

  50,000

  26,000

  297,000

  25,000

  25,000

  Salford

  42,000

  79,000

  268,000

  28,000

  28,000

  Stockport

  51,000

  50,000

  367,000

  32,000

  32,000

  Tameside

  40,000

  75,000

  257,000

  26,000

  26,000

  Trafford

  33,000

  62,000

  211,000

  22,000

  22,000

  Wigan

  59,000

  111,000

  379,000

  37,000

  37,000

  524 525

  NPA 1

  NPA 2

  NPA 3A

  NPA 3B

  NPA3C

  LEA

  Management

  Appraisal

  Basic Curriculum

  Primary Maths

  Primary Science

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Barnsley

  59,000

  3,000

  299,000

  24,000

  24,000

  Doncaster

  75,000

  42,000

  387,000

  33,000

  33,000

  Rotherham

  49,000

  0

  400,000

  29,000

  29,000

  Sheffield

  81,000

  152,000

  517,000

  53,000

  53,000

  Bradford

  102,000

  132,000

  615,000

  47,000

  47,000

  Calderdale

  77,000

  5,000

  234,000

  36,000

  36,000

  Kirklees

  202,000

  0

  447,000

  42,000

  42,000

  Leeds

  120,000

  225,000

  764,000

  63,000

  63,000

  Wakefield

  54,000

  102,000

  347,000

  32,000

  32,000

  Gateshead

  64,000

  14,000

  238,000

  22,000

  22,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  127,000

  0

  283,000

  27,000

  27,000

  North Tyneside

  34,000

  0

  281,000

  19,000

  19,000

  South Tyneside

  27,000

  51,000

  172,000

  18,000

  18,000

  Sunderland

  57,000

  106,000

  362,000

  37,000

  37,000

  Isles of Scilly

  2

  2

  7,000

  2

  2

  Avon

  353,000

  0

  1,064,000

  100,000

  100,000

  Bedfordshire

  188,000

  86,000

  607,000

  50,000

  50,000

  Berkshire

  195,000

  105,000

  830,000

  76,000

  76,000

  Buckinghamshire

  109,000

  205,000

  697,000

  78,000

  78,000

  Cambridgeshire

  174,000

  150,000

  718,000

  73,000

  73,000

  Cheshire

  228,000

  150,000

  1,256,000

  111,000

  111,000

  Cleveland

  190,000

  30,000

  796,000

  69,000

  69,000

  Cornwall

  147,000

  30,000

  546,000

  48,000

  48,000

  Cumbria

  86,000

  161,000

  547,000

  53,000

  53,000

  Derbyshire

  160,000

  300,000

  1,019,000

  100,000

  100,000

  Devon

  215,000

  226,000

  978,000

  97,000

  97,000

  Dorset

  148,000

  120,000

  594,000

  52,000

  52,000

  Durham

  156,000

  100,000

  726,000

  68,000

  68,000

  East Sussex

  143,000

  80,000

  636,000

  58,000

  58,000

  Essex

  266,000

  498,000

  1,692,000

  163,000

  163,000

  Gloucestershire

  134,000

  100,000

  584,000

  55,000

  55,000

  Hampshire

  655,000

  60,000

  1,585,000

  165,000

  165,000

  Hereford and Worcester

  250,000

  25,000

  769,000

  61,000

  61,000

  Hertfordshire

  170,000

  319,000

  1,083,000

  101,000

  101,000

  Humberside

  197,000

  100,000

  1,171,000

  94,000

  94,000

  Isle of Wight

  20,000

  37,000

  126,000

  9,000

  9,000

  Kent

  258,000

  483,000

  1,643,000

  153,000

  153,000

  Lancashire

  246,000

  461,000

  1,567,000

  159,000

  159,000

  Leicestershire

  160,000

  300,000

  1,020,000

  99,000

  99,000

  Lincolnshire

  127,000

  85,000

  694,000

  61,000

  61,000

  Norfolk

  120,000

  225,000

  763,000

  79,000

  79,000

  North Yorkshire

  115,000

  215,000

  732,000

  70,000

  70,000

  Northamptonshire

  150,000

  20,000

  840,000

  64,000

  64,000

  Northumberland

  56,000

  20,000

  414,000

  38,000

  38,000

  Nottinghamshire

  204,000

  202,000

  1,149,000

  100,000

  100,000

  Oxfordshire

  185,000

  15,000

  585,000

  50,000

  50,000

  Shropshire

  106,000

  30,000

  527,000

  42,000

  42,000

  Somerset

  74,000

  139,000

  474,000

  45,000

  45,000

  Staffordshire

  295,000

  50,000

  1,365,000

  110,000

  110,000

  Suffolk

  205,000

  0

  764,000

  55,000

  55,000

  Surrey

  191,000

  205,000

  916,000

  99,000

  99,000

  Warwickshire

  84,000

  157,000

  533,000

  59,000

  59,000

  West Sussex

  107,000

  200,000

  681,000

  67,000

  67,000

  Wiltshire

  93,000

  108,000

  654,000

  58,000

  58,000

  Totals

  10,944,000

  9,198,000

  53,636,000

  5,092,000

  5,052,000

  NPA 4

  NPA 5

  NPA 6

  NPA 7

  NPA 8

  LEA

  Under "rising fives"

  SEN: Hearing

  SEN: Sight

  SEN: SLD

  SEN: Designated Teachers

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  5,000

  0

  0

  0

  5,000

  Barnet

  9,000

  21,000

  21,000

  21,000

  6,000

  Bexley

  7,000

  23,000

  18,000

  29,000

  5,000

  Brent

  8,000

  12,000

  12,000

  12,000

  5,000

  Bromley

  8,000

  13,000

  9,000

  9,000

  5,000

  Croydon

  10,000

  21,000

  14,000

  14,000

  6,000

  Ealing

  9,000

  5,000

  0

  5,000

  5,000

  Enfield

  8,000

  0

  0

  0

  5,000

  526 527

  NPA 4

  NPA 5

  NPA 6

  NPA 7

  NPA 8

  LEA

  Under "rising fives"

  SEN: Hearing

  SEN: Sight

  SEN: SLD

  SEN: Designated Teachers

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Haringey

  6,000

  17,000

  0

  23,000

  5,000

  Harrow

  6,000

  21,000

  6,000

  14,000

  5,000

  Havering

  8,000

  14,000

  0

  21,000

  5,000

  Hillingdon

  7,000

  10,000

  6,000

  18,000

  5,000

  Hounslow

  7,000

  20,000

  7,000

  0

  5,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,000

  0

  6,000

  12,000

  5,000

  Merton

  5,000

  0

  0

  21,000

  5,000

  Newham

  8,000

  21,000

  6,000

  21,000

  5,000

  Redbridge

  7,000

  13,000

  0

  21,000

  5,000

  Richmond upon Thames

  5,000

  0

  0

  26,000

  5,000

  Sutton

  5,000

  0

  0

  21,000

  5,000

  Waltham Forest

  7,000

  10,000

  22,000

  22,000

  5,000

  Camden

  5,000

  20,000

  10,000

  17,000

  5,000

  City of London

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Greenwich

  8,000

  15,000

  0

  30,000

  5,000

  Hackney

  6,000

  16,000

  16,000

  4,000

  5,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,000

  16,000

  12,000

  12,000

  5,000

  Islington

  5,000

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  5,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,000

  20,000

  20,000

  0

  5,000

  Lambeth

  7,000

  20,000

  15,000

  7,000

  5,000

  Lewisham

  7,000

  25,000

  25,000

  30,000

  5,000

  South wark

  7,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  5,000

  Tower Hamlets

  6,000

  18,000

  7,000

  0

  5,000

  Wandsworth

  6,000

  0

  0

  0

  5,000

  Westminster

  5,000

  6,000

  0

  25,000

  5,000

  Birmingham

  38,000

  44,000

  32,000

  40,000

  22,000

  Coventry

  11,000

  6,000

  0

  18,000

  7,000

  Dudley

  10,000

  6,000

  15,000

  22,000

  6,000

  Sandwell

  11,000

  21,000

  14,000

  28,000

  7,000

  Solihull

  7,000

  13,000

  4,000

  19,000

  5,000

  Walsall

  10,000

  15,000

  15,000

  15,000

  6,000

  Wolverhampton

  9,000

  0

  10,000

  1,000

  6,000

  Knowsley

  6,000

  0

  0

  33,000

  5,000

  Liverpool

  17,000

  9,000

  12,000

  39,000

  10,000

  St. Helens

  7,000

  12,000

  0

  12,000

  5,000

  Sefton

  10,000

  19,000

  0

  10,000

  6,000

  Wirral

  12,000

  22,000

  0

  12,000

  7,000

  Bolton

  10,000

  7,000

  7,000

  19,000

  6,000

  Bury

  6,000

  6,000

  0

  18,000

  5,000

  Manchester

  15,000

  21,000

  21,000

  42,000

  9,000

  Oldham

  9,000

  25,000

  9,000

  30,000

  5,000

  Rochdale

  8,000

  18,000

  18,000

  18,000

  5,000

  Salford

  8,000

  0

  0

  0

  5,000

  Stockport

  10,000

  0

  0

  6,000

  6,000

  Tameside

  8,000

  10,000

  2,000

  15,000

  5,000

  Trafford

  7,000

  23,000

  7,000

  41,000

  5,000

  Wigan

  11,000

  18,000

  12,000

  12,000

  7,000

  Barnsley

  8,000

  6,000

  0

  8,000

  5,000

  Doncaster

  11,000

  15,000

  0

  20,000

  7,000

  Rotherham

  9,000

  20,000

  4,000

  15,000

  6,000

  Sheffield

  16,000

  32,000

  13,000

  46,000

  10,000

  Bradford

  19,000

  24,000

  28,000

  30,000

  11,000

  Calderdale

  7,000

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  5,000

  Kirklees

  14,000

  22,000

  20,000

  12,000

  8,000

  Leeds

  23,000

  33,000

  26,000

  18,000

  14,000

  Wakefield

  11,000

  4,000

  5,000

  6,000

  7,000

  Gateshead

  7,000

  7,000

  6,000

  37,000

  5,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9,000

  26,000

  6,000

  28,000

  6,000

  North Tyneside

  7,000

  20,000

  20,000

  12,000

  5,000

  South Tyneside

  5,000

  22,000

  0

  0

  5,000

  Sunderland

  11,000

  0

  13,000

  19,000

  7,000

  Isles of Scilly

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Avon

  30,000

  17,000

  17,000

  35,000

  18,000

  Bedfordshire

  20,000

  8,000

  14,000

  32,000

  11,000

  Berkshire

  25,000

  22,000

  7,000

  12,000

  14,000

  Buckinghamshire

  23,000

  7,000

  3,000

  19,000

  13,000

  528 529

  NPA 4

  NPA 5

  NPA 6

  NPA 7

  NPA 8

  LEA

  Under "rising fives"

  SEN: Hearing

  SEN: Sight

  SEN: SLD

  SEN: Designated Teachers

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Cambridgeshire

  23,000

  17,000

  10,000

  37,000

  13,000

  Cheshire

  34,000

  34,000

  16,000

  23,000

  20,000

  Cleveland

  22,000

  5,000

  16,600

  52,400

  13,000

  Cornwall

  15,000

  5,000

  0

  14,000

  9,000

  Cumbria

  16,000

  40,000

  7,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Derbyshire

  32,000

  23,000

  9,000

  46,000

  19,000

  Devon

  31,000

  25,000

  0

  21,000

  18,000

  Dorset

  18,000

  22,000

  22,000

  22,000

  11,000

  Durham

  21,000

  27,000

  19,000

  28,000

  13,000

  East Sussex

  19,000

  33,000

  17,000

  19,000

  11,000

  Essex

  52,000

  40,000

  21,000

  60,000

  31,000

  Gloucestershire

  17,000

  21,000

  21,000

  34,000

  10,000

  Hampshire

  0

  20,000

  12,000

  21,000

  29,000

  Hereford and Worcester

  23,000

  30,000

  23,000

  19,000

  13,000

  Hertfordshire

  33,000

  15,000

  4,000

  28,000

  20,000

  Humberside

  30,000

  30,000

  7,000

  20,000

  18,000

  Isle of Wight

  5,000

  16,000

  16,000

  15,000

  5,000

  Kent

  52,000

  36,000

  25,000

  29,000

  30,000

  Lancashire

  48,000

  24,000

  9,000

  40,000

  28,000

  Leicestershire

  32,000

  16,000

  17,000

  32,000

  19,000

  Lincolnshire

  19,000

  9,000

  24,000

  30,000

  12,000

  Norfolk

  24,000

  17,000

  13,000

  36,000

  14,000

  North Yorkshire

  22,000

  25,000

  7,000

  32,000

  13,000

  Northamptonshire

  21,000

  20,000

  6,000

  10,000

  13,000

  Northumberland

  11,000

  7,000

  0

  41,000

  7,000

  Nottinghamshire

  34,000

  10,000

  14,000

  15,000

  20,000

  Oxfordshire

  18,000

  22,000

  12,000

  28,000

  10,000

  Shropshire

  14,000

  21,000

  14,000

  18,000

  9,000

  Somerset

  15,000

  0

  18,000

  33,000

  9,000

  Staffordshire

  36,000

  21,000

  16,000

  28,000

  21,000

  Suffolk

  21,000

  27,000

  2,000

  20,000

  12,000

  Surrey

  28,000

  15,000

  4,000

  15,000

  17,000

  Warwickshire

  16,000

  22,000

  34,000

  30,000

  10,000

  West Sussex

  22,000

  5,000

  18,000

  11,000

  13,000

  Wiltshire

  19,000

  0

  7,000

  39,000

  11,000

  Totals

  1,550,000

  1,698,000

  1,093,600

  2,231,400

  1,000,000

  NPA 9

  NPA (10)

  NPA (10)

  NPA 11

  NPA 12

  New technologies

  Licensed teachers

  Articled teachers

  Management of pupils' behaviour

  Management (FE)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  20,000

  0

  0

  6,000

  10,000

  Barnet

  34,000

  30,000

  0

  10,000

  21,000

  Bexley

  28,000

  37,100

  0

  8,000

  10,000

  Brent

  28,000

  0

  55,524

  8,000

  21,000

  Bromley

  31,000

  9,000

  0

  9,000

  13,000

  Croydon

  37,000

  0

  43,040

  10,000

  20,000

  Ealing

  31,000

  48,400

  21,520

  9,000

  12,000

  Enfield

  33,000

  47,700

  55,524

  9,000

  17,000

  Haringey

  22,000

  72,000

  0

  6,000

  15,000

  Harrow

  22,000

  52,000

  56,925

  6,000

  31,000

  Havering

  31,000

  31,000

  66,060

  9,000

  9,000

  Hillingdon

  26,000

  42,700

  107,600

  7,000

  8,000

  Hounslow

  26,000

  14,600

  0

  7,000

  11,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  14,000

  26,000

  0

  5,000

  13,000

  Merton

  17,000

  30,000

  0

  5,000

  9,000

  Newham

  29,000

  91,000

  80,550

  8,000

  21,000

  Redbridge

  26,000

  17,500

  0

  7,000

  7,000

  Richmond upon Thames

  14,000

  10,000

  0

  5,000

  15,000

  Sutton

  19,000

  28,000

  0

  5,000

  11,000

  Waltham Forest

  26,000

  58,000

  0

  7,000

  12,000

  Camden

  17,000

  0

  128,495

  5,000

  10,000

  City of London

  1—

  0

  0

  —

  5,000

  Greenwich

  28,000

  13,000

  0

  8,000

  6,000

  Hackney

  19,000

  37,000

  93,941

  5,000

  13,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  13,000

  17,000

  0

  5,000

  18,000

  Islington

  17,000

  106,000

  93,941

  5,000

  16,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9,000

  30,000

  21,520

  5,000

  0

  Lambeth

  21,000

  0

  0

  6,000

  19,000

  530

  531

  NPA 9

  NPA (10)

  NPA (10)

  NPA 11

  NPA 12

  New technologies

  Licensed teachers

  Articled teachers

  Management of pupils' behaviour

  Management (FE)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Lewisham

  25,000

  0

  0

  7,000

  15,000

  Southmark

  24,000

  0

  0

  7,000

  11,000

  Tower Hamlets

  23,000

  38,330

  208,602

  6,000

  0

  Wandsworth

  23,000

  31,500

  64,560

  6,000

  11,000

  Westminster

  14,000

  8,000

  8,608

  5000

  25,000

  Birmingham

  146,000

  0

  0

  41,000

  66,000

  Coventry

  41,000

  31,800

  28,230

  12,000

  26,000

  Dudley

  39,000

  42,000

  0

  11,000

  34,000

  Sandwell

  41,000

  48,250

  0

  12,000

  25,000

  Solihull

  29,000

  0

  28,230

  8,000

  17,000

  Walsall

  39,000

  0

  0

  11,000

  15,000

  Wolverhampton

  34,000

  0

  0

  10,000

  21,000

  Knowsley

  23,000

  0

  0

  6,000

  11,000

  Liverpool

  65,000

  0

  0

  18,000

  39,000

  St. Helens

  26,000

  0

  0

  7,000

  22,000

  Sefton

  39,000

  0

  0

  11,000

  20,000

  Wirral

  45,000

  0

  0

  13,000

  27,000

  Bolton

  38,000

  3,000

  0

  11,000

  21,000

  Bury

  23,000

  0

  0

  6,000

  13,000

  Manchester

  59,000

  0

  0

  17,000

  56,000

  Oldham

  33,000

  0

  61,476

  9,000

  12,000

  Rochdale

  30,000

  0

  66,599

  9,000

  11,000

  Salford

  31,000

  0

  61,476

  9,000

  5,000

  Stockport

  38,000

  1,000

  0

  11,000

  22,000

  Tameside

  30,000

  0

  74,580

  9,000

  18,000

  Trafford

  25,000

  0

  0

  7,000

  18,000

  Wigan

  45,000

  0

  66,599

  13,000

  29,000

  Barnsley

  29,000

  0

  0

  8,000

  12,000

  Doncaster

  41,000

  0

  0

  12,000

  24,000

  Rotherham

  36,000

  0

  0

  10,000

  19,000

  Sheffield

  61,000

  0

  0

  17,000

  38,000

  Bradford

  69,000

  20,500

  0

  19,000

  40,000

  Calderdale

  28,000

  0

  0

  8,000

  12,000

  Kirklees

  53,000

  0

  0

  15,000

  29,000

  Leeds

  90,000

  0

  261,550

  25,000

  41,000

  Wakefield

  41,000

  0

  0

  12,000

  20,000

  Gateshead

  26,000

  0

  0

  7,000

  8,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  33,000

  0

  0

  9,000

  20,000

  North Tyneside

  25,000

  0

  0

  7,000

  16,000

  South Tyneside

  20,000

  0

  0

  6,000

  18,000

  Sunderland

  43,000

  0

  0

  12,000

  16,000

  Isles ot Scilly

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  115,000

  0

  0

  32,000

  61,000

  Bedfordshire

  71,000

  35,000

  76,995

  20,000

  40,000

  Berkshire

  92,000

  30,000

  0

  26,000

  64,000

  Buckinghamshire

  82,000

  72,000

  104,740

  23,000

  23,000

  Cambridgeshire

  84,000

  27,360

  0

  24,000

  35,000

  Cheshire

  132,000

  0

  0

  37,000

  70,000

  Cleveland

  82,000

  0

  0

  23,000

  37,000

  Cornwall

  59,000

  0

  0

  17,000

  23,000

  Cumbria

  64,000

  0

  0

  18,000

  29,000

  Derbyshire

  120,000

  34,000

  0

  34,000

  51,000

  Devon

  115,000

  24,500

  289,860

  32,000

  73,000

  Dorset

  70,000

  20,000

  0

  20,000

  34,000

  Durham

  80,000

  0

  0

  22,000

  40,000

  East Sussex

  70,000

  0

  0

  20,000

  43,000

  Essex

  199,000

  162,000

  0

  56,000

  71,000

  Gloucestershire

  66,000

  30,330

  67,995

  19,000

  41,000

  Hampshire

  186,000

  0

  124,325

  52,000

  109,000

  Hereford and Worcester

  85,000

  6,000

  0

  24,000

  49,000

  Hertfordshire

  127,000

  93,000

  0

  36,000

  82,000

  Humberside

  119,000

  0

  188,748

  34,000

  46,000

  Isle of Wight

  15,000

  0

  23,625

  5,000

  10,000

  Kent

  193,000

  120,000

  200,200

  54,000

  76,000

  Lancashire

  184,000

  30,000

  0

  52,000

  128,000

  Leicestershire

  120,000

  0

  0

  34,000

  47,000

  Lincolnshire

  73,000

  40,600

  0

  21,000

  34,000

  532 533

  NPA 9

  NPA (10)

  NPA (10)

  NPA 11

  NPA 12

  New technologies

  Licensed teachers

  Articled teachers

  Management of pupils' behaviour

  Management (FE)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Norfolk

  90,000

  0

  0

  25,000

  45,000

  North Yorkshire

  86,000

  24,000

  0

  24,000

  47,000

  Northamptonshire

  82,000

  138,000

  0

  23,000

  26,000

  Northumberland

  42,000

  0

  0

  12,000

  12,000

  Nottinghamshire

  126,000

  12,200

  0

  36,000

  81,000

  Oxfordshire

  64,000

  10,950

  0

  18,000

  43,000

  Shropshire

  54,000

  0

  0

  15,000

  30,000

  Somerset

  56,000

  28,400

  0

  16,000

  39,000

  Staffordshire

  139,000

  28,000

  0

  39,000

  65,000

  Suffolk

  79,000

  0

  0

  22,000

  37,000

  Surrey

  106,000

  50,000

  0

  30,000

  53,000

  Warwickshire

  63,000

  0

  28,230

  18,000

  42,000

  West Sussex

  80,000

  10,000

  94,500

  23,000

  35,000

  Wiltshire

  69,000

  38,300

  67,995

  20,000

  53,000

  Totals

  6,000,000

  2,137,020

  3,022,363

  1,700,000

  3,200,000

  NPA 13

  NPA 14

  NPA 15

  NPA 16

  NPA 17

  Local education authority

  Subject competence

  IT in FE

  SEN in FE

  Multi-ethnic society

  Competence assessment

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  6,000

  Barnet

  13,000

  6,000

  6,000

  6,000

  13,000

  Bexley

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  6,000

  Brent

  13,000

  6,000

  6,000

  6,000

  13,000

  Bromley

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  8,000

  Croydon

  12,000

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  12,000

  Ealing

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  8,000

  Enfield

  11,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  11,000

  Haringey

  9,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  9,000

  Harrow

  19,000

  9,000

  8,000

  8,000

  19,000

  Havering

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  6,000

  Hillingdon

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Hounslow

  7,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  7,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  8,000

  Merton

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  6,000

  Newham

  13,000

  7,000

  6,000

  6,000

  13,000

  Redbridge

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Richmond upon Thames

  9,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  9,000

  Sutton

  7,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  7,000

  Waltham Forest

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  8,000

  Camden

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  6,000

  City of London

  0

  5,000

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Hackney

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  6,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  11,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  11,000

  Islington

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  8,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  12,000

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  12,000

  Lewisham

  9,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  9,000

  Southwark

  7,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  7,000

  Tower Hamlets

  5,000

  0

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Wandsworth

  14,000

  5,000

  6,000

  6,000

  14,000

  Westminster

  11,000

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  11,000

  Birmingham

  41,000

  19,000

  16,000

  16,000

  41,000

  Coventry

  16,000

  8,000

  7,000

  7,000

  16,000

  Dudley

  21,000

  10,000

  9,000

  9,000

  21,000

  Sandwell

  16,000

  8,000

  7,000

  7,000

  16,000

  Solihull

  11,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  11,000

  Walsall

  9,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  9,000

  Wolverhampton

  13,000

  6,000

  6,000

  6,000

  13,000

  Knowsley

  7,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  7,000

  Liverpool

  24,000

  11,000

  10,000

  10,000

  24,000

  St. Helens

  14,000

  7,000

  6,000

  6,000

  14,000

  Sefton

  12,000

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  12,000

  Wirral

  17,000

  8,000

  7,000

  7,000

  17,000

  Bolton

  13,000

  6,000

  6,000

  6,000

  13,000

  Bury

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  8,000

  534 535

  NPA 13

  NPA 14

  NPA 15

  NPA 16

  NPA 17

  Local education authority

  Subject competence

  IT in FE

  SEN in FE

  Multi-ethnic society

  Competence assessment

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Manchester

  35,000

  16,000

  14,000

  14,000

  35,000

  Oldham

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  8,000

  Rochdale

  7,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  7,000

  Salford

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Stockport

  13,000

  7,000

  6,000

  6,000

  13,000

  Tameside

  11,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  11,000

  Trafford

  11,000

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  11,000

  Wigan

  18,000

  9,000

  8,000

  8,000

  18,000

  Barnsley

  7,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  7,000

  Doncaster

  15,000

  7,000

  7,000

  7,000

  15,000

  Rotherham

  12,000

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  12,000

  Sheffield

  24,000

  11,000

  10,000

  10,000

  24,000

  Bradford

  25,000

  12,000

  10,000

  10,000

  25,000

  Calderdale

  7,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  7,000

  Kirklees

  18,000

  9,000

  8,000

  8,000

  18,000

  Leeds

  25,000

  12,000

  11,000

  11,000

  25,000

  Wakefield

  13,000

  6,000

  6,000

  6,000

  13,000

  Gateshead

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  13,000

  6,000

  6,000

  6,000

  13,000

  North Tyneside

  10,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  10,000

  South Tyneside

  11,000

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  11,000

  Sunderland

  10,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  10,000

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  38,000

  18,000

  15,000

  15,000

  38,000

  Bedfordshire

  25,000

  12,000

  10,000

  10,000

  25,000

  Berkshire

  40,000

  18,000

  16,000

  16,000

  40,000

  Buckinghamshire

  14,000

  7,000

  6,000

  6,000

  14,000

  Cambridgeshire

  22,000

  10,000

  9,000

  9,000

  22,000

  Cheshire

  44,000

  20,000

  18,000

  18,000

  44,000

  Cleveland

  23,000

  11,000

  10,000

  10,000

  23,000

  Cornwall

  14,000

  7,000

  6,000

  6,000

  14,000

  Cumbria

  18,000

  9,000

  8,000

  8,000

  18,000

  Derbyshire

  32,000

  15,000

  13,000

  13,000

  32,000

  Devon

  46,000

  21,000

  18,000

  18,000

  46,000

  Dorset

  21,000

  10,000

  9,000

  9,000

  21,000

  Durham

  25,000

  12,000

  10,000

  10,000

  25,000

  East Sussex

  27,000

  13,000

  11,000

  11,000

  27,000

  Essex

  44,000

  21,000

  18,000

  18,000

  44,000

  Gloucestershire

  26,000

  12,000

  11,000

  11,000

  26,000

  Hampshire

  68,000

  31,000

  27,000

  27,000

  68,000

  Hereford and Worcester

  31,000

  14,000

  13,000

  13,000

  31,000

  Hertfordshire

  51,000

  24,000

  20,000

  20,000

  51,000

  Humberside

  29,000

  13,000

  12,000

  12,000

  29,000

  Isle of Wight

  6,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  6,000

  Kent

  47,000

  22,000

  19,000

  19,000

  47,000

  Lancashire

  80,000

  37,000

  31,000

  31,000

  80,000

  Leicestershire

  29,000

  14,000

  12,000

  12,000

  29,000

  Lincolnshire

  21,000

  10,000

  9,000

  9,000

  21,000

  Norfolk

  28,000

  13,000

  11,000

  11,000

  28,000

  North Yorkshire

  29,000

  14,000

  12,000

  12,000

  29,000

  Northamptonshire

  16,000

  8,000

  7,000

  7,000

  16,000

  Northumberland

  7,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  7,000

  Nottinghamshire

  51,000

  23,000

  20,000

  20,000

  51,000

  Oxfordshire

  27,000

  13,000

  11,000

  11,000

  27,000

  Shropshire

  19,000

  9,000

  8,000

  8,000

  19,000

  Somerset

  24,000

  12,000

  10,000

  10,000

  24,000

  Staffordshire

  41,000

  19,000

  16,000

  16,000

  41,000

  Suffolk

  23,000

  11,000

  10,000

  10,000

  23,000

  Surrey

  33,000

  15,000

  13,000

  13,000

  33,000

  Warwickshire

  26,000

  12,000

  11,000

  11,000

  26,000

  West Sussex

  22,000

  10,000

  9,000

  9,000

  22,000

  Wiltshire

  33,000

  15,000

  13,000

  13,000

  33,000

  Totals

  1,998,000

  1,000,000

  899,000

  899,000

  1,998,000

  536 537

  NPA 18

  NPA 19

  NPA 21

  LEA

  Health Education

  Youth and Community Workers

  Adult Literacy

  £

  £

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  10,000

  5,000

  3,000

  Barnet

  17,000

  7,000

  3,000

  Bexley

  14,000

  5,000

  1,000

  Brent

  14,000

  6,000

  4,000

  Bromley

  15,000

  6,000

  2,000

  Croydon

  18,000

  7,000

  5,000

  Ealing

  15,000

  6,000

  3,000

  Enfield

  16,000

  7,000

  2,000

  Haringey

  11,000

  5,000

  3,000

  Harrow

  13,000

  5,000

  2,000

  Havering

  15,000

  6,000

  3,000

  Hillingdon

  13,000

  5,000

  2,000

  Hounslow

  13,000

  5,000

  3,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  8,000

  5,000

  2,000

  Merton

  9,000

  5,000

  2,000

  Newham

  15,000

  6,000

  4,000

  Redbridge

  13,000

  5,000

  1,000

  Richmond upon Thames

  7,000

  5,000

  1,000

  Sutton

  10,000

  5,000

  1,000

  Waltham Forest

  13,000

  5,000

  2,000

  Camden

  8,000

  5,000

  5,000

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  14,000

  5,000

  6,000

  Hackney

  10,000

  5,000

  10,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7,000

  5,000

  3,000

  Islington

  9,000

  5,000

  8,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,000

  5,000

  2,000

  Lambeth

  11,000

  5,000

  9,000

  Lewisham

  13,000

  5,000

  3,000

  Southwark

  12,000

  5,000

  6,000

  Tower Hamlets

  10,000

  5,000

  3,000

  Wandsworth

  12,000

  5,000

  7,000

  Westminster

  7,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Birmingham

  72,000

  28,000

  20,000

  Coventry

  21,000

  8,000

  6,000

  Dudley

  20,000

  8,000

  3,000

  Sandwell

  21,000

  8,000

  3,000

  Solihull

  14,000

  6,000

  4,000

  Walsall

  19,000

  7,000

  4,000

  Wolverhampton

  17,000

  7,000

  2,000

  Knowsley

  11,000

  5,000

  8,000

  Liverpool

  33,000

  13,000

  18,000

  St. Helens

  14,000

  6,000

  4,000

  Sefton

  19,000

  8,000

  2,000

  Wirral

  22,000

  9,000

  6,000

  Bolton

  19,000

  7,000

  10,000

  Bury

  11,000

  5,000

  3,000

  Manchester

  31,000

  12,000

  8,000

  Oldham

  16,000

  6,000

  3,000

  Rochdale

  15,000

  6,000

  4,000

  Salford

  15,000

  6,000

  8,000

  Stockport

  19,000

  8,000

  3,000

  Tameside

  15,000

  6,000

  6,000

  Trafford

  13,000

  5,000

  3,000

  Wigan

  23,000

  9,000

  4,000

  Barnsley

  14,000

  6,000

  3,000

  Doncaster

  21,000

  8,000

  3,000

  Rotherham

  18,000

  7,000

  5,000

  Sheffield

  31,000

  12,000

  7,000

  Bradford

  35,000

  14,000

  5,000

  Calderdale

  14,000

  5,000

  3,000

  Kirklees

  26,000

  10,000

  7,000

  Leeds

  44,000

  17,000

  12,000

  Wakefield

  20,000

  8,000

  7,000

  Gateshead

  12,000

  5,000

  1,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  17,000

  7,000

  2,000

  North Tyneside

  13,000

  5,000

  2,000

  538 539

  NPA 18

  NPA 19

  NPA 21

  LEA

  Health Education

  Youth and Community Workers

  Adult Literacy

  £

  £

  £

  South Tyneside

  11,000

  5,000

  1,000

  Sunderland

  21,000

  8,000

  3,000

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  57,000

  22,000

  15,000

  Bedfordshire

  36,000

  14,000

  4,000

  Berkshire

  47,000

  18,000

  12,000

  Buckinghamshire

  39,000

  15,000

  4,000

  Cambridgeshire

  41,000

  16,000

  5,000

  Cheshire

  66,000

  26,000

  19,000

  Cleveland

  41,000

  16,000

  8,000

  Cornwall

  29,000

  11,000

  5,000

  Cumbria

  32,000

  12,000

  6,000

  Derbyshire

  59,000

  23,000

  16,000

  Devon

  58,000

  23,000

  8,000

  Dorset

  35,000

  14,000

  6,000

  Durham

  40,000

  15,000

  14,000

  East Sussex

  35,000

  14,000

  3,000

  Essex

  97,000

  38,000

  22,000

  Gloucestershire

  34,000

  13,000

  4,000

  Hampshire

  94,000

  36,000

  22,000

  Hereford and Worcester

  43,000

  17,000

  5,000

  Hertfordshire

  65,000

  25,000

  9,000

  Humberside

  58,000

  23,000

  20,000

  Isle of Wight

  8,000

  5,000

  6,000

  Kent

  95,000

  37,000

  17,000

  Lancashire

  94,000

  37,000

  29,000

  Leicestershire

  59,000

  23,000

  12,000

  Lincolnshire

  36,000

  14,000

  3,000

  Norfolk

  45,000

  17,000

  9,000

  North Yorkshire

  43,000

  17,000

  8,000

  Northamptonshire

  40,000

  15,000

  5,000

  Northumberland

  20,000

  8,000

  3,000

  Nottinghamshire

  64,000

  25,000

  25,000

  Oxfordshire

  32,000

  13,000

  13,000

  Shropshire

  27,000

  11,000

  7,000

  Somerset

  29,000

  11,000

  5,000

  Staffordshire

  69,000

  27,000

  10,000

  Suffolk

  39,000

  15,000

  6,000

  Surrey

  53,000

  21,000

  10,000

  Warwickshire

  32,000

  13,000

  5,000

  West Sussex

  39,000

  15,000

  6,000

  Wiltshire

  36,000

  14,000

  5,000

  Totals

  3,000,000

  1,200,000

  700,000

  LEA

  Total all NPAs

  Local priorities

  Total NPA and LPA

  £

  £

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  370,000

  302,000

  672,000

  Barnet

  720,000

  531,000

  1,251,000

  Bexley

  600,100

  418,000

  1,018,100

  Brent

  627,524

  444,000

  1,071,524

  Bromley

  599,000

  473,000

  1,072,000

  Croydon

  766,040

  568,000

  1,334,040

  Ealing

  652,920

  474,000

  1,126,920

  Enfield

  698,224

  505,000

  1,203,224

  Haringey

  526,000

  340,000

  866,000

  Harrow

  623,925

  387,000

  1,010,925

  Havering

  682,060

  466,000

  1,148,060

  Hillingdon

  651,300

  391,000

  1,042,300

  Hounslow

  507,600

  388,000

  895,600

  Kingston upon Thames

  333,000

  233,000

  566,000

  Merton

  370,000

  266,000

  636,000

  Newham

  763,550

  455,000

  1,218,550

  Redbridge

  515,500

  387,000

  902,500

  Richmond upon Thames

  318,000

  228,000

  546,000

  Sutton

  402,000

  297,000

  699,000

  Waltham Forest

  579,000

  390,000

  969,000

  Camden

  494,495

  262,000

  756,495

  City of London

  15,000

  14,000

  29,000

  540 541

  LEA

  Total all NPAs

  Local priorities

  Total NPA and LPA

  £

  £

  £

  Greenwich

  561,000

  417,000

  978,000

  Hackney

  542,941

  304,000

  846,941

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  338,000

  226,000

  564,000

  Islington

  607,941

  284,000

  891,941

  Kensington and Chelsea

  250,520

  122,000

  372,520

  Lambeth

  472,000

  344,000

  816,000

  Lewisham

  553,000

  394,000

  947,000

  Southwark

  451,000

  365,000

  816,000

  Tower Hamlets

  673,932

  324,000

  997,932

  Wandsworth

  537,060

  348,000

  885,060

  Westminster

  351,608

  254,000

  605,608

  Birmingham

  2,740,000

  2,215,000

  4,955,000

  Coventry

  850,030

  643,000

  1,493,030

  Dudley

  838,000

  632,000

  1,470,000

  Sandwell

  871,250

  641,000

  1,512,250

  Solihull

  590,230

  446,000

  1,036,230

  Walsall

  730,000

  583,000

  1,313,000

  Wolverhampton

  638,000

  531,000

  1,169,000

  Knowsley

  460,000

  349,000

  809,000

  Liverpool

  1,270,000

  1,014,000

  2,284,000

  St. Helens

  531,000

  425,000

  956,000

  Sefton

  728,000

  597,000

  1,325,000

  Wirral

  817,000

  693,000

  1,510,000

  Bolton

  731,000

  583,000

  1,314,000

  Bury

  405,000

  351,000

  756,000

  Manchester

  1,237,000

  962,000

  2,199,000

  Oldham

  712,476

  493,000

  1,205,476

  Rochdale

  660,599

  455,000

  1,115,599

  Salford

  618,476

  454,000

  1,072,476

  Stockport

  701,000

  587,000

  1,288,000

  Tameside

  659,580

  469,000

  1,128,580

  Trafford

  542,000

  393,000

  935,000

  Wigan

  933,599

  700,000

  1,633,599

  Barnsley

  537,000

  442,000

  979,000

  Doncaster

  783,000

  634,000

  1,417,000

  Rotherham

  696,000

  560,000

  1,256,000

  Sheffield

  1,218,000

  949,000

  2,167,000

  Bradford

  1,339,500

  1,068,000

  2,407,500

  Calderdale

  559,000

  418,000

  977,000

  Kirklees

  1,010,000

  814,000

  1,824,000

  Leeds

  1,923,550

  1,367,000

  3,290,550

  Wakefield

  752,000

  625,000

  1,377,000

  Gateshead

  506,000

  382,000

  888,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  671,000

  520,000

  1,191,000

  North Tyneside

  520,000

  398,000

  918,000

  South Tyneside

  417,000

  329,000

  746,000

  Sunderland

  787,000

  641,000

  1,428,000

  Isles of Scilly

  7,000

  5,000

  12,000

  Avon

  2,160,000

  1,768,000

  3,928,000

  Bedfordshire

  1,444,995

  1,106,000

  2,550,000

  Berkshire

  1,781,000

  1,446,000

  3,227,000

  Buckinghamshire

  1,641,740

  1,215,000

  2,856,740

  Cambridgeshire

  1,592,360

  1,277,000

  2,869,360

  Cheshire

  2,477,000

  2,039,000

  4,516,000

  Cleveland

  1,547,000

  1,252,000

  2,799,000

  Cornwall

  1,053,000

  883,000

  1,936,000

  Cumbria

  1,205,000

  978,000

  2,183,000

  Derbyshire

  2,250,000

  1,817,000

  4,067,000

  Devon

  2,480,360

  1,800,000

  4,280,360

  Dorset

  1,330,000

  1,069,000

  2,399,000

  Durham

  1,519,000

  1,220,000

  2,739,000

  East Sussex

  1,348,000

  1,088,000

  2,436,000

  Essex

  3,776,000

  2,985,000

  6,761,000

  Gloucestershire

  1,392,325

  1,035,000

  2,427,325

  Hampshire

  3,556,325

  2,895,000

  6,451,325

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,605,000

  1,312,000

  2,917,000

  Hertfordshire

  2,477,000

  1,995,000

  4,472,000

  Humberside

  2,344,748

  1,792,000

  4,136,748

  Isle of Wight

  357,625

  233,000

  590,625

  542 543

  LEA

  Total all NPAs

  Local priorities

  Total NPA and LPA

  £

  £

  £

  Kent

  3,808,200

  2,913,000

  6,721,200

  Lancashire

  3,554,000

  2,909,000

  6,463,000

  Leicestershire

  2,185,000

  1,809,000

  3,994,000

  Lincolnshire

  1,413,600

  1,119,000

  2,532,600

  Norfolk

  1,692,000

  1,376,000

  3,068,000

  North Yorkshire

  1,646,000

  1,329,000

  2,975,000

  Northamptonshire

  1,591,000

  1,219,000

  2,810,000

  Northumberland

  758,000

  617,000

  1,375,000

  Nottinghamshire

  2,382,200

  1,975,000

  4,357,200

  Oxfordshire

  1,257,950

  1,000,000

  2,257,950

  Shropshire

  1,030,000

  831,000

  1,861,000

  Somerset

  1,116,400

  881,000

  1,997,400

  Staffordshire

  2,562,000

  2,115,000

  4,677,000

  Suffolk

  1,436,000

  1,198,000

  2,634,000

  Surrey

  2,019,000

  1,630,000

  3,649,000

  Warwickshire

  1,291,230

  986,000

  2,277,230

  West Sussex

  1,565,500

  1,215,000

  2,780,500

  Wiltshire

  1,457,295

  1,104,000

  2,561,295

  Totals

  119,248,383

  92,400,000

  211,648,383

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on (i) the amount of expenditure made by each local authority on nursery education in nursery schools, nursery classes and reception classes and (ii) the average unit cost per place in each local authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest available data on expenditure by local authorities on nursery schools comes from returns made to the Department of the Environment on spending in 1986–87. The details are set out in the table. Subsequent returns have not separately identified spending on nursery schools, nursery classes or reception classes. The DES chapter of the annual public expenditure White Paper shows the sums within outturn spending attributed to provision for under-fives nationally, and the allowance within grant settlements for such spending—see tables 11.2 and 11.6 of Cm. 1011.

  Maintained nursery schools Net institutional expenditure1—1986–87 (cash)

  Total expenditure

  Cost per pupil2

  (£000)

  (£)

  Barking

  —

  —

  Barnet

  344

  1,295

  Bexley

  124

  1,250

  Brent

  491

  2,220

  Bromley

  —

  —

  Croydon

  339

  1,350

  Ealing

  512

  1,785

  Enfield

  —

  —

  Haringey

  208

  1,015

  Harrow

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  81

  1,360

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  208

  1,375

  Merton

  53

  1,835

  Newham

  871

  1,685

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  45

  1,240

  Sutton

  169

  1,410

  Waltham Forest

  290

  1,590

  ILEA

  7,623

  2,455

  Birmingham

  1,987

  1,235

  Coventry

  345

  1,260

  Dudley

  435

  1,845

  544

  Total expenditure

  Cost per pupil1

  (£000)

  (£)

  Sandwell

  205

  1,270

  Solihull

  —

  —

  Walsall

  541

  1,235

  Wolverhampton

  438

  1,065

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  548

  1,435

  St. Helens

  60

  1,470

  Sefton

  195

  1,215

  Wirral

  230

  1,790

  Bolton

  434

  1,220

  Bury

  142

  1,335

  Manchester

  929

  1,990

  Oldham

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  666

  1,375

  Salford

  1,166

  1,660

  Stockport

  633

  1,265

  Tameside

  327

  1,735

  Trafford

  —

  —

  Wigan

  154

  1,355

  Barnsley

  112

  1,275

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  230

  1,115

  Sheffield

  744

  1,640

  Bradford

  611

  1,730

  Calderdale

  90

  1,400

  Kirklees

  422

  1,220

  Leeds

  211

  1,270

  Wakefield

  341

  1,440

  Gateshead

  55

  1,590

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  862

  1,610

  North Tyneside

  219

  1,200

  South Tyneside

  475

  1,260

  Sunderland

  715

  1,340

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  Avon

  1,628

  1,285

  Bedfordshire

  1,021

  1,195

  Berkshire

  1,516

  1,390

  Buckinghamshire

  325

  1,265

  Cambridgeshire

  554

  1,430

  Cheshire

  525

  1,215

  Cleveland

  87

  1,115

  Cornwall

  94

  1,275

  Cumbria

  591

  1,485

  Derbyshire

  938

  1,415

  Devon

  158

  1,025

  Dorset

  —

  —

  Durham

  1,917

  1,460

  East Sussex

  199

  1,350

  Essex

  184

  1,355

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  545

  Total expenditure

  Cost per pupil2

  (£000)

  (£)

  Hampshire

  157

  1,215

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1,337

  1,485

  Humberside

  1,481

  2,515

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  Kent

  63

  1,575

  Lancashire

  2,481

  1,405

  Leicestershire

  31

  1,220

  Lincolnshire

  240

  1,205

  Norfolk

  243

  1,235

  North Yorkshire

  243

  1,300

  Northamptonshire

  386

  1,280

  Northumberland

  213

  2,395

  Nottinghamshire

  514

  1,530

  Oxfordshire

  385

  1,285

  Shropshire

  111

  1,390

  Somerset

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  1,676

  1,165

  Suffolk

  103

  1,165

  Surrey

  355

  1,420

  Warwickshire

  456

  1,240

  West Sussex

  230

  990

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  1 Net Institutional Expenditure includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meal, central administration and inspection, dept charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2 The figures are based on local education authority expenditure returns to Department of the Environment and pupil number returns to Department of Education and Science.

  Polytechnic Staff
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the numbers and average remuneration of administrative and clerical staff employed in the polytechnic sector for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally. Publications by the Polytechnic Finance Officers Group (PFOG) for the years 1985–86 to 1987–88 give the following number of staff defined by PFOG as administrative, professional and clerical staff in the polytechnics, excluding Wales.

  Actual FTE staff

  Numbers

  As at 1 November 1985

  3,008

  As at 1 November 1986

  3,315

  As at 1 November 1987

  3,288

  The figures for 1985 and 1987 are for 28 polytechnics only.

  Veterinary Students
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the universities funding council on the Page report recommendation that veterinary student places should be funded by charging an element of private fees to all veterinary students; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. Determination of tuition fees is for institutions themselves.

  Capital Grant Allocations
  Mr. Peter Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about capital grant allocations for schools in Bolton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Since the announcement last December of LEAs' annual capital guidelines and capital allocations for voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools in 1990–91, my right hon. Friend has received representations about capital expenditure in Bolton from four constituents of my hon. Friend; two constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville); and one from a constituent of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young). The director of education and arts for the metropolitan borough of Bolton has also written to my right hon. Friend on behalf of the authority's education and arts committee about the level of the authority's annual capital guideline for 1990–91. Finally, the governors of one primary and two high schools in Bolton have made representations directly to my right hon. Friend on the same matter.

  Nationally, annual capital guidelines (ACGs) for LEA expenditure in 1990–91 total £485 million; under the old funding system, the figure for capital allocations in the current year, 1989–90, is £352 million. Authorities are free within the flexibilities of the Local Government Acts to spend above the level of their ACGs from capital receipts and other sources. The amount available to the voluntary aided sector has increased from £86 million in 1989–90 to £109 million in 1990–91. For grant-maintained schools £8·5 million has been made available in 1990–91.

  Bolton local education authority's annual capital guideline for 1990–91 was £802,000. The capital allocation for the voluntary aided sector in Bolton was £137,000. The capital allocation for St James' CE school in Farnworth, a grant-maintained school, was £667,000.

  The split of resources between LEA-maintained, voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools was determined with regard to the relative needs of each sector. Bolton's ACG and its voluntary aided allocation reflect the extent to which the authority's plans accorded with my right hon. Friend's criteria. It is entirely for Bolton to decide its spending priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances, and the resources available. The allocation of the available resources for the grant-maintained sector was decided by my right hon. Friend in the light of the particular circumstances of each school, taking into account previous levels of neglect. The total sum of capital grant available to grant-maintained schools in 1990–91 is about one third of the original bids: a very similar proportion to that which can be met by LEAs under their ACGs.

  School-Industry Links
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of links between schools and industry.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Good progress is being made in encouraging links between schools and local industry and commerce. A recent DES survey of 500 secondary and 500 primary schools, the findings of which will shortly be published in a DES statistical bulletin, found that around 90 per cent. of secondary and over 50 per cent. of primary
  547
  schools had links with local businesses. The DES is involved with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Training Agency, employers, and national school-business link organisations in a range of initiatives designed to assist in the establishment of effective links between schools and industry.

  Arts Education
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the rector of the Royal College of Art to discuss education in the arts.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to meet the rector of the Royal College of Art. However, I have myself met the rector on several occasions during the last year, most recently on 21 May when I was guest speaker at a college function and spoke about the arts in further and higher education.

  Polytechnics
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to redesignate polytechnics as universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the findings of the Ball report on access to higher education, a copy of which has been sent to his Department.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received a copy of the RSA report entitled "More Means Different"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I regard "More Means Different", the report of the RSA/Industry Matters higher education project directed by Sir Christopher Ball, as a valuable contribution to the current debate about future arrangements for higher education. It provides much for the Government and others to take into account in reviewing policies and practices.

  University Teachers' Pay
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of pay negotiations with university teaching unions.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers have agreed a settlement for 1990–91. This is subject to Government endorsement and the matter is now being urgently considered.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of schools that now participate in the assisted places schemes; and how many places they currently offer between them.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There are now 294 participating schools in England offering some 33,366 assisted places. Of these schools, 16 will be offering places for the first time from this September.

  Eutrophication
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research has been undertaken into the possible health implications resulting from prolonged contact with algae connected with eutrophication.

  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Natural Environment Research Council is sponsoring research at its institute of freshwater ecology and at higher education institutions including the university of Dundee, into the basic biology of algae and the formation of algal toxins. The aquatic weeds research unit of the Agriculture and Food Research Council is studying factors that determine the build-up of algae and possible methods of control.

  The National Rivers Authority has established a task force of experts to study the factors which influence the formation of algal blooms and to make recommendations upon their control. As part of this exercise the NRA has engaged the water research centre to make a full literature search and review.

  School Budgets
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many school governing bodies have refused to accept responsibility for managing their own budgets.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has received no formal notification of any governing body refusing to accept responsibility for managing its own budget.

  Student Benefits
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the number of students on part-time and non-mandatory courses in further or higher education who will lose entitlement to housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit as a result of current proposals to withdraw students' entitlement to those benefits.

  Mr. Jackson
  Part-time students will not be affected by the withdrawal of students' general entitlement to housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit. Information is not available in the form requested about students on courses of further and higher education which do not attract mandatory awards.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the honourable Member for Truro of 21 May,Official Report, column 47, what number and proportion of the practising teachers listed as members of National Curriculum Council committees are head teachers; what information is available to him regarding the current managerial and teaching responsibilities of such head teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of head teachers and the proportion they make up of the practising teachers listed as members of the National Curriculum Council (NCC) committees are set out in the table. My right hon. Friend
  549
  does not have available to him any information about the current managerial and teaching responsibilities of these head teachers. The NCC is solely responsible for determining the membership of its committees.

  Committee

  Practising Teachers (PT)

  Head Teachers (HT)

  Proportion of HT to PT

  Per cent.

  Whole

  Curriculum

  3

  3

  100

  National

  Curriculum A

  5

  4

  80

  National

  Curriculum B

  4

  2

  50

  Professional

  Development

  3

  2

  67

  Curriculum

  Review

  2

  2

  100

  Student Loans
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has now received about the student loan scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since the publication of the White Paper on top-up loans for students we have received about 5,900 letters, including petitions. Of those, about 1,570 have been received since publication of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.

  Local Management of Schools
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the representations he has received from school governing bodies regarding local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend continues to receive representations from individual school governors and from school governing bodies. Many of these welcome the opportunities which delegated budgeting bring to them.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teaching jobs have been lost in each local education authority because of the introduction of LMS.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No such information is available. However, LMS does not change total resources for education; there is no evidence that the introduction of LMS will lead to any reduction in the number of teaching jobs.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by local education authority the percentage of local management of schools spending which is incurred(a) by schools, (b) by central administration and (c) under other major headings.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Budget information for 1990–91 is not yet available. However, some of the information the hon. Member has requested was included in LEAs' LMS schemes submitted to my right hon. Friend last autumn, on the basis of estimates and previous years' spending, and was published in the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 5 February,Official Report, column 451.
  550
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of United Kingdom schools are currently under local management of schools; and what is his estimate for future years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Local management of schools is currently operating in England and Wales; it will be introduced in Northern Ireland from April 1991. Where a local education authority has a statutory LMS scheme, all the schools in the authority expect for the nursery and special schools fall within the scope of that scheme. At present 87 local education authorities in England and eight local education authorities in Wales have approved LMS schemes, and 81.8 per cent. of all schools in England and Wales are operating within those schemes. By April 1992 we expect all LEAs in England, including inner London, to have approved LMS schemes; 92.6 per cent. of all maintained schools in England and Wales will then be covered by schemes.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the saving to be made in the first and subsequent years on salary costs under local management of schools by employing a newly qualified teacher as against(a) a teacher on average salary and (b) a teacher at the top of the scale salary.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The majority of teachers are on the top of the standard scale. From 1 January 1991 such a teacher without an incentive allowance and outside London will receive £16,000. On that date a good honours graduate entering the profession will be entitled to be paid at least £10,500.

  Mr Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the average school budget under local management of schools for the major types of school covered; and if he will show the percentage of that budget spent on the main expenditure headings.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information from which to make such an estimate is not yet available. According to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy education statistics 1989–90 estimates, schools' direct costs (secondary and middle deemed secondary schools) break down as follows;

  Teaching staff—63.8 per cent.

  Non-Teaching Staff—5.7 per cent.

  Premises—14.8 per cent.

  Support Services—6.2 per cent

  Other—9.5 per cent.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for improving the training of school governors in order to cope with local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In 1989–90 the Government supported, under the education support grant programme, expenditure of £4.9 million on governor training and £3 million on training support staff in schools, and, through the LEA training grants programme, £10 million to provide management training for heads and senior staff in schools. For the year 1990–91 the expenditure supported will be £5.1 million for governor training, £2 million for support staff training, and £8 million for head teacher training. Further support will be available in 1991–92. Local education authorities have a statutory duty to provide governors with such training as
  551
  the LEA considers necessary. It is for LEAs to determine the nature and timetable of their training programme. LEAs were required to state in their schemes for the local management of schools what arrangements they have made for support and training; the Department will be monitoring the use of ESG funds and the level of training provided.

  Teacher Redundancies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the average cost of making a teacher redundant.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not available. Redundancy payments will depend on the age and length of relevant local government service of the teacher concerned and whether additional payments have been made under the Teachers (Compensation for Redundancy and Premature Retirement) Regulations 1989. A teacher aged 55 with 20 or more years' service would be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £4,968.

  LEA Advisers and Inspectors
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has of difficulties in recruiting and retaining suitable staff as local education authority advisers and inspectors.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the full salary scale for teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Order 1990, a draft of which is presently before Parliament, will give effect to the recommendations of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay in 1990–91. When those recommendations are fully implemented, from 1 January 1991, teachers' salary scales will be as follows:

  Standard scale (all qualified teachers other than heads and deputies)

  Incremental point

  Salary1 (£)

  1

  9,000

  2

  9,501

  3

  10,002

  4

  10,503

  5

  11,004

  6

  11,754

  7

  12,504

  8

  13,254

  9

  14,004

  10

  15,003

  11

  16,002

  Discretionary Inner London Pay Supplement—£750

  Incentive allowances (available to qualified teachers other than heads and deputies)

  Rale

  Amount

  (£)

  A

  927

  B

  1,500

  C

  3,000

  D

  4,002

  E

  5,502

  552

  London Allowances (all teachers) from 1 July 1989

  Rate

  Amount

  (£)

  Inner

  1,500

  Outer

  984

  Fringe

  384

  1The values of incremental points 1–10 can be enhanced by £249, £501, £750 or £999, subject to the value of the next point being reached, and local education authorities can introduce extended local scales up to a maximum of £18,000.

  School group

  Head teachers1 Range

  Deputy Heads2 Range

  £

  £

  1

  18,900–21,900

  18,300–19,800

  2 1(S)

  20,400–24,000

  18,600–20,400

  3 2(S)

  222,500–26,802

  19,200–21,300

  4 3(S)

  25,200–30,600

  20,400–23,400

  5 4(S)

  28,602–35,100

  22,500–25,602

  6

  32,301–40,002

  24,801–29,100

  1A new system of range pay for heads and deputies will be introduced from 1 January 1991. Assimilation of existing heads and deputies onto the new salary structure will be dependent on their old spot salary. Thereafter the positioning of heads and deputies within the range applicable to their school will be determined by their local education authority or school governing body.

  Nursery Places
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many nursery places are provided by(a) local authorities and other state bodies and (b) private organisations and charities for the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the number of nursery places provided is not available centrally. The total number of pupils under five in maintained nursery schools, nursery classes in primary schools and independent schools in England in January 1989 was as follows:

  Number

  Nursery schools

  50,170

  Nursery classes in Primary schools

  245,414

  Independent schools

  41,175

  Total

  336,759

  County Education Authorities
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of the extra responsibilities placed on county education authorities in each of the past two years and his best estimate of the costs of compliance by county education authorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  New and amended responsibilities placed on education authorities are generally set out in departmental circulars and administrative memoranda. Those issued in 1988 and 1989 are listed in the table. The cost of complying with these responsibilities will vary depending on the circumstances of the authority and the extent of discretion over the timing and manner of implementation. The funding implications of new education developments are considered in the discussions between the Department and the local authority associations which inform the annual grant settlement. The Department provides support for the costs of the main
  553
  reforms in the Education Reform Act through its specific grant programmes. It is for each authority to decide what funds in addition to these grants it should allocate for new responsibilities from the overall resources available to it.

  DES Circulars and Administrative Memoranda Issued in 1988 and 1989

  Circulars

  1/88 Physical and mental fitness to teach of teachers and entrants to initial teacher training.

  2/88 Disabled Persons Act 1986.

  3/88 School teachers pay and conditions of service.

  4/88 Working together for the protection of children from abuse.

  5/88 LEA Training Grants Scheme 1989–90.

  6/88 Transfer of responsibility for education in inner London.

  7/88 Education Reform Act 1988: Local Management of Schools.

  8/88 Education Reform Act 1988: governance of maintained further education and higher education colleges.

  9/88 Education Reform Act 1988: local management of FE and HE colleges: planning and delegation schemes and articles of government.

  10/88 Education Reform Act 1988: Grant-Maintained Schools.

  11/88 Admission of pupils to county and voluntary schools.

  12/88 Protection of children: disclosure of criminal background of those with access to children.

  1/89 Education Reform Act 1988: local arrangements for the consideration of complaints.

  2/89 Education Reform Act 1988: charges for school activities.

  3/89 Education Reform Act 1988: religious education and collective worship.

  4/89 Alcohol misuse.

  5/89 Education reform Act 1988: the school curriculum and assessment.

  6/89 Education Reform Act 1988: National Curriculum—Maths and Science orders under Section 4.

  7/89 Teachers (compensation for redundancy and premature retirement) regulations 1989.

  8/89 Ethnically based statistics on school teachers.

  9/89 Education Reform Act 1988: modern foreign languages in the National Curriculum.

  10/89 Education Reform Act 1988: National Curriculum: English key stage I order under Section 4.

  11/89 Education Reform Act 1988: statutory approval of qualifications under Section 5.

  12/89 School teachers pay and conditions of employment.

  13/89 Local management of schools, FE and HE colleges: order under Section 222 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  14/89 Education (school curriculum and related information) regulations 1989.

  15/89 Education Reform Act 1988: temporary exceptions from the National Curriculum.

  16/89 Ethnically-based statistics on school pupils.

  17/89 Education (school records) regulations 1989.

  18/89 Education (teachers) regulations 1989.

  19/89 Adult continuing education and the Education Reform Act 1988: planning and delegation schemes.

  20/89 LEA Training Grants Scheme 1990–91.

  21/89 Grant-maintained schools: financial arrangements.

  22/89 Assessments and statements of special educational needs: procedures within the education, health and social services.

  23/89 Special schools for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties.

  24/89 Initial teacher training: approval of courses.

  Administrative Memoranda

  1/88 Amendment of pupils' registration regulations 1956: keeping of school records.

  1/89 Animals and plants in schools: legal aspects.

  Schools (Northavon)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools were closed in each of the past five years in the constituency of Northavon.
  554
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information for parliamentary constituencies or other areas within education authorities is not available centrally.

  Independent Schools (National Curriculum)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many inquiries he has had from independent schools regarding the adoption of the national curriculum by them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend welcomes the interest shown by many individual independent schools, and by their representative bodies, in adopting the national curriculum. In response to this, he has arranged for the independent sector to receive copies of all national curriculum statutory orders and other national curriculum material.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the ratios of pupils to teachers in maintained schools in England for every year since 1984–85, excluding teachers on secondment or in training.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The pupil-teacher ratio in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England for each year since 1984–85 was as follows:

  1984–85: 18·7

  1985–86: 18·6

  1986–87: 18·4

  1987–88: 18·4

  1988–89: 18·4

  These ratios exclude teachers absent for long periods or seconded for other duties, but include any replacements. They also exclude student teachers, instructors and supply teachers.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Eight officials across the Department have energy management responsibilities. In person years the total time they devote to these responsibilities has been set at 0.5 years. This level of commitment is broadly in line with the recommendations contained in the Audit Commission's guidelines of one central energy manager for every £1 million of annual bill.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The PSA was responsible for undertaking energy audits on the Department's behalf until very recently. In the interim an energy audit has been conducted at both our London and Darlington headquarters buildings.

  The London audit confirmed that it was possible to achieve energy savings by installing light and water control sensors, but that in view of an impending move to new premises, capital expenditure was not justified because insufficient payback time remains available.
  555
  The audit of our Darlington headquarters confirmed that useful savings could be achieved by fitting light control sensors and by installing power factor correction equipment to upgrade the electrical power supply at that site. Both these energy audit recommendations have been implemented.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information sought is not held in the Department. The PSA was responsible for monitoring energy consumption on the Department's behalf until 30 March 1990.

  Geography
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make proposals for geography in the national curriculum.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are publishing our proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study for geography tomorrow. Our proposals are based on the recommendations of the geography working group, whose final report will be published with them. Copies of the proposals will be placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the operation of and procedures for medical assessments for benefits to disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  We regularly monitor the operation of the current procedures and take action as appropriate. We are considering what changes are needed to these procedures for the new disability allowance. Our aim is that these should be helpful, and accessible to claimants.

  Child Care and Family Services
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what mechanisms his Department has to deal with services and policies on child care and family services.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 April 1990 at column 15.

  Widow's Pension
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will give a full reply to the letter of 15 January from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington in connection with the widow's pension of Mrs. Joan Bains of Leamington Spa.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The issue raised by my hon. Friend is a complex one and I shall give him a full reply to his letter as soon as possible.

  Disability Employment Credit
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether people in receipt of the income support or housing benefit disability premium before receiving the new disability employment credit, immediately requalify for their original benefits, if they subsequently chose to leave paid employment.

  Mr. Scott
  The detailed arrangements for the disability employment credit are under consideration. Our proposals are set out in chapter 5 of "The Way Ahead. Benefits for Disabled People" which we published on 10 January 1990.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish his latest estimates of the number of claimants for each of the main social security benefits, including community charge benefit;

  (2) if he will publish his latest estimates of (a) the number of claimants receiving each of the main social security benefits including poll tax rebates and (b) the total number of individuals in receipt of one or more benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest estimates of the average number of recipients for each of the main social security benefits are given in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm 1014, table 14.11, except for community charge benefit, where, in view of a level of charges higher than originally assumed, it is now estimated that numbers will be in excess of 8 million. Information is not held on the number of individuals in receipt of more than one benefit. The information requested at (b) is therefore not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what increase in contributions would be required in each of the next five years to build up the national insurance fund in order to be able to fund pensions for men payable from 60 years from that date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The national insurance fund operates on a "pay as you go" basis, with current contribution income financing current benefit expenditure, rather than on the basis of accruing funds to meet possible future outgoings. The information is not therefore available in the form requested.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the(a) number of income support claimants, (b) number of partners and dependent children of income support claimants and (c) total on income support; and what was the percentage change in numbers of those on income support for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the table.
  557

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  (Thousands)

  Claimants

  Partners and dependent children

  (a+b)

  Percentage change in (c) since previous year

  Year

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  1979

  2,855

  1,516

  4,371

  —

  1980

  3,118

  1,745

  4,863

  11·3

  1981

  3,723

  2,399

  6,122

  25·9

  1982

  4,267

  2,803

  7,070

  15·5

  1983

  4,349

  2,888

  7,237

  2·4

  1984

  4,609

  3,119

  7,728

  6·8

  19861

  4,938

  3,353

  8,291

  7·3

  1987

  4,896

  3,309

  8,205

  -1·0

  1988

  4,352

  3,036

  7,388

  -1·00

  1989

  4,160

  2,860

  7,020

  -5·0

  1 There was no Annual statistical inquiry in 1985: the one due in December that year was deferred until February 1986.

  Sources:

  1979–88 annual statistical inquiries.

  1989 Provisional figures based on May quarterly statistical inquiry.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants moved off income support in April 1989 and April 1990 in consequence of the uprating of social security benefits.

  Mrs Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the real-terms value of supplementary benefit income support for(a) a young person aged 20 years and (b) a married couple over 25 years each year since 1979, on an index basis taking 1979 = 100.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The question is not sufficiently specific concerning the circumstances of the 20-year-old and married couple to allow a table to be drawn up.

  Benefits (Blyth Valley)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women were receiving invalidity benefit and severe disability allowance in Blyth Valley at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information is not available in the precise form requested. The Blyth Valley constituency is served by the Department's local social security office at Blyth, but their boundaries are not conterminous. Nor does the local count of cases in action distinguish between men and women beneficiaries.

  The table shows the numbers of people claiming sickness benefit, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance at Blyth local office as at 30 April 1990, the latest date for which information is available:

  Numbers

  1Sickness/Invalidity Benefit

  4,340

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  435

  1The local office count of cases in action does not distinguish between Sickness and Invalidity Benefit.

  Source: 100 per cent of cases in action. The figures quoted may include a number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Community Charge
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the effect of the community charge on the numbers of working people caught in the poverty trap.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest figures showing the distribution of marginal deduction rates are contained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr Squire) on 5 April 1990 at column 790. Earlier figures were published in table 14.19 of the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" chapter 14 (Cm 1014). However, it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons in order to isolate the effect of the community charge owing to a number of changes which have occurred since the publication of table 14.19 and the fact that it would be necessary to speculate on what the level of general rates might have been had they remained in place.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of whether the income of those on income support is being reduced as a result of the introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Everyone on income support is eligible for a maximum rebate of 80 per cent. of their community charge and income support levels were adjusted in April 1989 to provide help on an average basis towards the remaining 20 per cent. On average, therefore, the introduction of the community charge will have had a neutral effect on the incomes of those on income support.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current levels of child benefit if it had been uprated since April 1979 in line with(a) the retail price index and (b) the single person's tax allowance; and what would be the net costs after allowing for benefit savings elsewhere in the system, of uprating it to those amounts now.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The levels would be(a) £8.66, (b) £10.32.

  The net costs of uprating to these levels would be £660 million and £1,440 million respectively.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham,Official Report, 5 March, column 532, what would be the cost of restoring the combined 1979 value of child benefit plus long-term national insurance addition for children of widows, invalidity and retirement pensioners.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that the cost would be approximately £56.7 million.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the saving in public expenditure from the freezing of child benefit each year since 1987 and cumulatively, at current and 1990 prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The sums involved for each of the years are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  140

  1989–90

  210

  1990–91

  285

  559
  On a cumulative basis this would be about £1,125 million in cash terms and £1,185 million at 1990–91 prices.

  Over the same period the following extra help was channelled to the least well-off families—those in receipt of income support or family credit—who do not gain from an increase in child benefit:

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  200

  1989–90

  70

  1990–91

  70

  The cumulative figures on the same basis as above would be around £800 million and £850 million respectively.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would have cost his Department to increase child benefit by double the level of index in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  About £645 million.

  Pensions (Incomes)
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher),Official Report, 4 April, columns 687–92, if he will republish the figures in table 4 of the answer showing housing benefit, standard and certificated, separately from retirement pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The table shows housing benefit separately from retirement pension.

  Incomes of Pensioner Tax Units with all income in State Benefits 1979–1987

  Average total net income

  RP+Supp. ben. plus housing benefit

  Of which housing benefit

  Other benefits (including disability benefits)

  Single

  1979

  46.30

  43.50

  —

  2.80

  1980

  47.80

  45.40

  —

  2.40

  1981

  51.10

  47.40

  —

  3.60

  1982

  53.50

  50.70

  —

  2.80

  1983

  56.80

  53.60

  —

  2.20

  1984

  57.10

  53.50

  12.40

  3.60

  1985

  57.70

  54.00

  13.60

  3.70

  1986

  57.00

  53.60

  14.90

  3.40

  1987

  58.60

  54.70

  16.40

  3.90

  Married

  1979

  72.80

  69.50

  —

  3.50

  1980

  71.70

  68.50

  —

  3.50

  1981

  78.50

  75.80

  —

  2.70

  1982

  79.70

  73.90

  —

  5.80

  1983

  82.30

  78.20

  —

  4.10

  1984

  87.90

  80.20

  11.70

  7.70

  1985

  84.20

  77.10

  10.70

  7.10

  1986

  90.50

  78.50

  13.60

  12.00

  1987

  88.40

  78.60

  15.50

  9.90

  All

  1979

  50.60

  47.70

  —

  2.90

  1980

  52.80

  50.20

  —

  2.50

  1981

  56.00

  52.60

  —

  3.50

  1982

  59.00

  55.50

  —

  3.40

  1983

  61.10

  58.50

  —

  2.50

  1984

  62.80

  58.50

  12.30

  4.30

  1985

  62.10

  57.80

  13.10

  4.20

  560

  Average total net income

  RP+Supp. ben. plus housing benefit

  Of which housing benefit

  Other benefits (including disability benefits)

  1986

  63.40

  58.40

  14.70

  5.00

  1987

  64.40

  59.30

  16.30

  5.00

  Notes:

  1. All cash figures are £ per week (to nearest 10 pence) at 1987 prices.

  2. All figures refer to pensioner tax units.

  3. Retirement pension and related benefits includes basic retirement pension, additional pension, income support and housing benefit.

  4. In common with all other surveys, the Family Expenditure Survey draws information from a random sample of the population. This means that the FES will occasionally include some individuals whose weekly income are considerably higher or lower than those of the remainder of their group. The unrepresentative income of such individuals when averaged may give wide swings in year-to-year comparisons. In general when viewed over the longer term, the data provides a more reliable overall indication of the movement in average weekly incomes.

  5. Prior to 1984 there is no information on a full year basis on standard and certified Housing Benefit.

  6. For 1984–1987 the data from the FES is not sufficiently accurate to provide separate figures on the average amounts of certificated and standard Housing Benefit.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money in loans was given from the social fund in 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  Provisional loans expenditure in 1989–90 was £141 million.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money is available in the social fund for loans in 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  The loans budget for 1990–91 is £152 million.

  Grants and Loans
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing in 1988–89 and 1989–90 the number of applications for (i) community care grants, (ii) budgeting loans and (iii) crisis loans that were refused, broken down by reason for refusal.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is set out in the tables. The figures relate to the number of occasions on which the particular reason for refusal was used. It is possible for an individual application to be refused for more than one reason.

  Reasons for refusal 1989–90:

  Community Care Grants

  Budgeting Loans

  Crisis Loans

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  3,510

  880

  30

  Not in receipt of IS

  n/a

  38,720

  n/a

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  n/a

  116,630

  n/a

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to become entitled

  30,100

  n/a

  n/a

  Excluded items

  11,850

  24,820

  1,280

  Excluded persons

  19,790

  1,300

  390

  Amount less than £30 (not travelling expenses)

  4,520

  12,460

  n/a

  561

  Community Care Grants

  Budgeting Loans

  Crisis Loans

  Total debt of £1,000

  n/a

  420

  40

  Previous application and SFO decision for this item

  13,480

  25,540

  1,500

  No serious risk or damage to health or safety

  n/a

  n/a

  24,540

  Inability to repay

  n/a

  19,010

  3,270

  Help available from another source

  2,440

  2,330

  3,940

  Insufficient priority

  50,340

  137,720

  1,300

  Other agencies not providing back up

  20

  n/a

  n/a

  Suitable alternative available

  1,360

  2,080

  1,490

  Loan refused—CCG awarded

  n/a

  34,890

  350

  Direction 4 not satisfied1

  58,210

  n/a

  n/a

  Enough money available to meet crisis

  n/a

  n/a

  520

  Other2

  97,400

  21,210

  6,990

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  1Figures relate to the period November 1989 to March 1990 only.

  2includes decisions prior to November 1989 where Direction 4 was not satisfied.

  n/a—not applicable.

  Reasons for refusal 1988–89

  Community care grants

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  2,510

  880

  60

  Not in receipt of IS

  n/a

  35,780

  n/a

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  n/a

  100,380

  n/a

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to become entitled

  15,890

  n/a

  n/a

  Excluded items

  9,610

  29,370

  1,620

  Excluded persons

  13,790

  770

  320

  Amount less than £30 (not travelling

  expenses)

  3,230

  11,950

  n/a

  Total debt of £1,000

  n/a

  180

  20

  Previous application and SFO decision for this item

  5,080

  13,180

  1,490

  Analysis of awards 1989–90

  Client Group Code

  00

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  07

  08

  09

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Budgeting Loans

  National

  0·2

  0·4

  0·6

  3·5

  0·4

  1·6

  4·2

  48·7

  0·4

  1·8

  15·7

  18·3

  1·1

  3·0

  0·0

  n/a

  North East Region

  0·1

  0·3

  0·6

  3·4

  0·3

  1·5

  3·6

  46·2

  0·5

  1·9

  19·7

  18·2

  1·0

  2·5

  0·1

  n/a

  Gateshead

  0·0

  0·2

  0·5

  3·9

  0·2

  1·7

  3·7

  45·1

  0·2

  2·3

  21·6

  17·8

  0·9

  1·8

  1·0

  n/a

  North Shields

  0·0

  0·5

  0·6

  3·9

  0·3

  1·5

  4·8

  48·5

  0·8

  1·7

  16·6

  17·1

  0·8

  2·8

  0·0

  n/a

  Wallsend

  0·0

  0·7

  0·5

  3·3

  0·4

  1·7

  3·6

  46·2

  0·2

  1·3

  21·0

  18·2

  0·9

  1·8

  0·0

  n/a

  Sunderland South

  0·1

  0·2

  0·6

  3·6

  0·3

  1·4

  3·0

  42·6

  0·5

  2·6

  19·8

  21·5

  0·9

  2·9

  0·0

  n/a

  South Shields

  0·3

  0·1

  1·1

  4·2

  0·2

  0·8

  4·0

  47·5

  0·7

  1·7

  16·3

  19·7

  0·6

  2·2

  0·0

  n/a

  Sunderland North

  0·1

  0·1

  0·4

  3·1

  0·3

  1·1

  2·8

  44·6

  0·7

  1·7

  21·0

  20·6

  0·8

  2·6

  0·0

  n/a

  Newcastle St James

  0·3

  0·5

  0·5

  3·7

  0·2

  0·6

  4·4

  42·6

  0·2

  2·5

  17·4

  23·3

  1·0

  2·9

  0·0

  n/a

  Jarrow

  0·2

  0·1

  0·6

  4·4

  0·3

  0·7

  4·4

  47·0

  0·5

  2·0

  16·8

  18·1

  1·4

  2·6

  0·0

  n/a

  Newcastle West

  0·1

  0·7

  1·1

  4·9

  0·4

  1·0

  4·9

  56·9

  0·6

  0·7

  22·1

  3·6

  0·5

  2·3

  0·0

  n/a

  Houghton le Spring

  0·0

  0·7

  0·7

  3·6

  0·4

  0·9

  2·2

  47·9

  0·3

  0·9

  23·0

  15·5

  1·6

  2·0

  0·0

  n/a

  Newcastle East

  0·1

  0·1

  0·6

  1·8

  0·5

  1·5

  3·3

  47·4

  0·2

  2·4

  15·9

  23·3

  1·0

  1·8

  0·0

  n/a

  Crisis loans

  National

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·8

  0·1

  0·4

  1·7

  21·7

  0·1

  0·2

  14·8

  44·0

  1·1

  4·4

  0·0

  10·4

  North East Region

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·8

  0·1

  0·5

  1·5

  25·2

  0·1

  0·3

  17·3

  39·9

  1·0

  2·9

  0·1

  10·3

  Gateshead

  0·1

  0·2

  0·5

  1·1

  0·0

  0·7

  1·9

  28·1

  0·0

  0·3

  18·7

  35·0

  0·9

  2·5

  0·0

  10·0

  North Shields

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  1·3

  0·1

  0·1

  1·5

  28·6

  0·0

  0·1

  21·2

  38·3

  1·3

  2·8

  0·0

  4·4

  Wallsend

  0·0

  0·3

  0·0

  1·0

  0·5

  0·7

  2·2

  23·1

  0·0

  0·2

  17·2

  38·0

  0·7

  3·1

  0·0

  12·9

  Sunderland South

  0·1

  0·1

  0·3

  1·0

  0·4

  0·9

  1·1

  26·7

  0·0

  0·1

  14·9

  43·5

  0·4

  3·0

  0·0

  7·6

  South Shields

  0·0

  0·1

  0·1

  0·6

  0·2

  0·4

  1·9

  22·0

  0·1

  0·2

  12·6

  48·7

  0·6

  3·7

  0·1

  8·8

  Sunderland North

  0·0

  0·2

  0·3

  0·8

  0·3

  0·7

  2·0

  31·1

  0·1

  0·3

  18·3

  32·4

  0·6

  1·9

  0·0

  11·1

  562

  Community care grants

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  No serious risk or damage to health or safety

  n/a

  n/a

  24,430

  Inability to repay

  n/a

  11,730

  3,290

  Help available from another source

  2,140

  2,460

  5,890

  Insufficient priority

  13,450

  83,430

  810

  Other agencies not providing back up

  90

  n/a

  n/a

  Suitable alternative available

  1,180

  2,140

  1,860

  Loan refused—CCG awarded

  n/a

  14,580

  150

  Other

  83,220

  18,770

  6,590

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  n/a—not applicable.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing in 1988–89 and 1989–90 the number of (i) community care grants, (ii) budgeting loans and (iii) crisis loans which were refused on the grounds of "excluded items", breaking down "excluded items" into its component parts.

  Mr. Scott
  The numbers of applications refused on the grounds that the application was for an item excluded by the Secretary of State's directions are as follows. Details of the individual excluded items applied for are not recorded.

  Community care grants

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  1988–89

  9,610

  29,370

  1,620

  1989–90

  11,850

  24,820

  1,280

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) budgeting loans (b) crisis loans and (c) community care grants were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department in (a) Great Britain as a whole (b) the north-east region and (c) each of the offices serving the Tyne and Wear area for 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table:
  563

  Client Group Code

  00

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  07

  08

  09

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Newcastle St James

  0·4

  0·2

  0·0

  0·9

  0·0

  0·7

  1·8

  27·0

  0·0

  0·4

  16·7

  35·6

  1·0

  3·9

  0·0

  11·4

  Jarrow

  01

  01

  0·0

  0·5

  0·3

  0·8

  2·3

  24·7

  0·0

  0·3

  11·8

  40·6

  1·3

  2·9

  0·0

  14·3

  Newcastle West

  0·0

  0·2

  0·2

  1·3

  0·0

  0·6

  1·3

  18·8

  0·0

  0·3

  13·7

  24·6

  0·8

  2·3

  0·0

  35·7

  Houghton le Spring

  0·0

  0·0

  0·3

  0·3

  0·2

  0·3

  2·0

  22·5

  0·0

  0·0

  17·6

  32·1

  1·4

  3·0

  0·0

  20·3

  Newcastle East

  0·0

  0·2

  0·2

  1·4

  0·1

  0·3

  1·0

  26·3

  0·0

  0·4

  12·7

  44·5

  1·0

  2·1

  0·0

  9·9

  Community care grants

  National

  0·4

  5·6

  5·1

  15·1

  0·9

  3·3

  12·6

  25·4

  0·4

  1·1

  8·5

  12·9

  2·1

  5·9

  0·0

  1·0

  North East Region

  0·2

  4·7

  5·3

  15·1

  0·9

  3·6

  11·9

  25·6

  0·4

  1·2

  10·2

  12·8

  2·1

  5·0

  0·1

  0·9

  Gateshead

  0·0

  4·1

  7·0

  14·3

  1·1

  2·8

  11·8

  28·8

  0·4

  1·0

  8·2

  14·0

  1·6

  4·1

  0·0

  0·8

  North Shields

  0·0

  5·0

  5·3

  17·1

  0·4

  4·4

  11·2

  27·7

  0·4

  0·0

  9·0

  14·7

  0·7

  3·3

  0·0

  0·9

  Wallsend

  0·2

  7·7

  7·7

  19·8

  0·0

  1·8

  10·5

  21·4

  0·2

  1·0

  8·9

  13·9

  1·8

  4·6

  0·0

  0·4

  Sunderland South

  0·1

  5·1

  4·9

  15·9

  2·0

  4·4

  14·4

  24·3

  0·5

  1·3

  8·4

  10·4

  2·1

  5·4

  0·0

  0·8

  South Shields

  0·1

  6·0

  4·6

  19·2

  1·3

  2·7

  10·8

  33·6

  1·0

  0·9

  7·6

  6·9

  1·2

  3·1

  0·0

  0·7

  Sunderland North

  0·2

  3·0

  5·4

  12·4

  1·8

  4·0

  10·7

  26·6

  0·3

  1·8

  10·8

  16·5

  1·4

  4·6

  0·0

  0·5

  Newcastle St James

  0·4

  4·3

  3·0

  14·3

  0·4

  2·6

  12·3

  26·3

  0·0

  1·1

  7·8

  16·6

  1·6

  8·1

  0·0

  1·1

  Jarrow

  0·0

  4·8

  8·5

  23·1

  0·4

  4·2

  14·9

  21·8

  0·1

  1·5

  7·2

  4·5

  3·3

  5·1

  0·0

  0·6

  Newcastle West

  0·4

  7·6

  7·3

  16·3

  0·3

  1·5

  13·6

  24·3

  0·0

  1·4

  10·7

  7·9

  1·5

  6·0

  0·0

  1·1

  Houghton le Spring

  0·2

  2·5

  2·0

  8·0

  0·7

  2·7

  14·5

  29·4

  0·5

  1·2

  19·7

  10·5

  2·0

  5·2

  0·0

  0·7

  Newcastle East

  0·2

  10·4

  9·7

  30·5

  1·5

  2·8

  13·6

  10·9

  0·4

  0·8

  3·9

  8·7

  0·7

  5·3

  0·0

  0·6

  n/a = not applicable

  Key to client group codes:

  00 Not assigned

  01 Over 80 and in receipt of Higher Pensioner Premium

  02 Aged 60–79, disabled and in receipt of Higher Pensioner Premium

  03 Aged 60–79, in receipt of Pensioner Premium or over 60 without Pensioner Premium

  04 Lone Parent, in receipt of Disability Premium

  05 Family, in receipt of Disability Premium

  06 Other, in receipt of Disability Premium

  07 Lone Parent, not in receipt of Disability Premium

  08 Quarterly signer at UBO, in receipt of Family Premium

  09 Quarterly signer at UBO, not in receipt of Family Premium

  10 Signing as unemployed or with training allowance—in receipt of Family Premium

  11 Signing as unemployed or with training allowance—not in receipt of Family Premium

  12 Others, in receipt of Family Premium

  13 Others, not in receipt of Family Premium

  14 Involved in a trade dispute

  15 Applicant not in receipt of Income Support

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) budgeting loans (b) community care grants were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department for the midlands region in the financial year 1989–90

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: The information requested is in the table:

  Budgeting Loans

  Community Care Grants

  Client Group

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  0

  0·13

  0·19

  1

  0·42

  4·69

  2

  0·51

  4·23

  3

  3·45

  12·39

  4

  0·32

  0·78

  5

  1·84

  2·82

  6

  2·96

  10·30

  7

  50·17

  35·64

  8

  0·57

  0·26

  9

  1·53

  0·63

  10

  20·06

  7·08

  11

  14·57

  13·23

  12

  1·14

  1·79

  13

  2·17

  5·06

  14

  0·00

  0·00

  15

  n/a

  0·93

  The figures do not sum because of rounding.

  Key to Client Groups

  0 Unallocated or unidentified

  1 Over 80-with Income Support higher pensioner priemium.

  2 Aged 60–79—disabled with higher pensioner premium.

  3 Aged 60–79—with ordinary pensioner premium or over 60 without pensioner premium.

  4 Lone parent with Income Support disability premium.

  564
  5 Family with disability premium.

  6 Other with disability premium.

  7 Lone parent without disability premium.

  8 Signs at UBO quarterly with Income Support family premium.

  9 Signs at UBO quarterly without family premium.

  10 Signing unemployed or with training allowance with family premium.

  11 Signing unemployed or with training allowance without family premium.

  12 Others with family premium.

  13 Others without family premium.

  14 Involved in trade dispute.

  15 Applicant not in receipt of Income Support—Notapplicable for budgeting loans.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the expenditure on earnings-related unemployment benefit each year since 1975, at current and at 1990 prices; and what is the estimated saving in public expenditure from the abolition of earnings-related unemployment benefit each year since 1982 and cumulatively, at current and at 1990 prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Expenditure on earnings-related unemployment benefit from 1975 to 1982 is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Original price

  1990–91 price

  1975–76

  73

  247

  1976–77

  87

  254

  1977–78

  92

  248

  1978–79

  90

  214

  1979–80

  85

  171

  565

  Original price

  1990–91 price

  1980–81

  170

  306

  1981–82

  176

  292

  Information on the expenditure saving from the abolition of earnings-related unemployment benefit each year since 1982 is not available. In 1982 it was estimated that the public expenditure saving in the first full year from the abolition of earnings-related unemployment benefit was around £100 million at 1982–83 prices; this converts to about £150 million at 1990–91 prices. Following recent research into the work history of the newly unemployed, it is now estimated that if earnings-related unemployment benefit were to be reintroduced the gross cost would be around £200 million in the current financial year. There would be an offsetting saving of about £50 million on income support.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many councils in England and Wales are not taking war pensions into account when assessing housing benefit claims; and if he will put a list of these in the Library.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 14 December 1989 at columns 758–62.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total number of applications for attendance allowance received in the United Kingdom in each year since 1980;

  (2) how many applications for attendance allowance were refused in each year since 1980;

  (3) how many applications for attendance allowance were granted (a) at the higher and (b) at the lower rate in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Scott
  The details requested for Great Britain are in the table.

  Year

  Initial Claims

  Awards and Rate

  Rejections

  Received

  Higher

  Lower

  1980

  147,367

  38,796

  60,527

  39,613

  1981

  166,572

  42,526

  65,493

  40,608

  1982

  193,457

  53,981

  81,550

  45,985

  1983

  233,480

  61,166

  98,325

  57,816

  1984

  257,747

  67,445

  114,325

  58,004

  1985

  277,017

  66,218

  118,381

  70,526

  1986

  286,889

  61,457

  112,607

  76,497

  1987

  319,667

  78,338

  130,355

  91,888

  1988

  361,720

  74,058

  133,795

  110,527

  1989

  365,219

  83,647

  145,095

  100,973

  Some claims are withdrawn before decision and some are decided in a different year from that in which they are made.

  Security Screens (Benefit Offices)
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on the use of security screens in benefit offices.
  566
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Security screens are installed at reception points and in interview rooms of local social security offices where it is considered appropriate.

  Students
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total saving to public expenditure expected in respect of the proposed withdrawal of students' entitlement to (i) housing benefit, (ii) unemployment benefit and (iii) income support in this and the next financial year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's proposal is to withdraw housing benefit, unemployment benefit and income support entitlement from full-time students from the start of the 1990–91 academic year. The reduction in public expenditure from these benefit changes in the current financial year is estimated at £29 million. This reduction arises from housing benefit only, since students are not currently eligible for unemployment benefit during term time and the short vacations. Similarly, the vast majority of full-time students are ineligible for income support other than in the long summer vacation. In the next financial year reductions in public expenditure are estimated to be £51 million from housing benefit and £28 million from income support and unemployment benefit. It is not possible to provide a disaggregated figure for unemployment benefit as separate details of claims are not kept.

  The reduction in public expenditure arising from these benefits changes will be more than offset by a total of over £200 million which is being made available in the next academic year through the student loans scheme and access funds.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total numbers of students currently in receipt of (i) housing benefit, (ii) income support during the long vacation and (iii) unemployment benefit during the long vacation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Provisional quarterly figures for February 1990 indicate that around 90,000 students were in receipt of housing benefit at that time. This figure includes those receiving rate rebate only as well as those receiving rent allowance and rent rebate. The number of students receiving rent allowances or rent rebates can be separately identified only from the annual one in 100 sample of cases. Figures for May 1989 should be available shortly. A special exercise conducted in DSS local offices in the 1989 summer vacation identified 135,000 student claims for income support lasting, on average, six weeks.
  I regret that information on the numbers of students receiving unemployment benefit is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information his Department collects on the numbers of students claiming housing benefit, unemployment benefit and income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the number of students claiming housing benefit is obtained from a quarterly count of cases by local authorities and from the annual one in 100 sample of case details.

  Details of the numbers of students registered as unemployed are collected on a monthly basis and

  567
  published in the Employment Gazette. It is not, however, possible to differentiate between those claiming unemployment benefit and those claiming income support.

  A special exercise was mounted in the 1989 summer vacation to provide details of student claims to income support, including numbers claiming, duration of claim and amount of benefit paid.

  Incomes (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Yorkshire are on less than half the average income; how many are below average incomes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government do not publish statistics on living standards disaggregated on a regional basis. However, a recent publication by the Social Services Select Committee contains results of an analysis carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Copies of the publication—"Households and Families Below Average Income: a Regional Analysis"—are available in the Library.

  Allowances (Clydebank and Milngavie)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Clydebank and Milngavie, or in the administrative units approximating to this area for which the information is available, are in receipt of(a) invalid care allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c) severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that details of the numbers of people in Clydebank and Milngavie receiving(a) invalid care allowance and (b) attendance allowance are not available.

  As at 30 April 1990, the latest date for which the information is held, the numbers of people receiving severe disablement allowance from the Department's local social security offices at Clydebank and Glasgow (Maryhill) which serve the Clydebank and Milngavie constituency, although their boundaries are not conterminous, were:

  Numbers

  Clydebank

  334

  Glasgow (Maryhill)

  277

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action. The figures quoted may include a small number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the financial year 1989–90 the division of the administration of the Department of Health and Social Security was not complete, and the following information reflects the position for both Departments.

  There is one dedicated energy manager and each accommodation manager has a proportion of his time allocated for energy management. As information about the latter is not readily available it is not possible to calculate the total number of person years devoted to energy management.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times, in each of the latest years for which information is available, the provision to make payments to another person on the beneficiary's behalf under regulation 34 of S.I. No. 1968, 1987 has been(a) used and (b) used to pay benefit to the partner of a claimant.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost as no record is kept of the number of cases in which regulation 34 of SI 1987/1968 (the Social Security (Claims on Payments) Regulations 1987) is used to make payments to another person on the beneficiary's behalf.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the end-of-year surplus/deficit on the national insurance fund in each year since 1979; and what has been the income and outgoings from the fund in each of these years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information for the years up to and including 1988–89 is in the table. Final figures for 1989–90 are not yet available.

  £ billions

  Year

  Income

  Expenditure

  Surplus/ deficit

  1979–80

  13·30

  12·76

  + 0-·54

  1980–81

  16·01

  15·60

  + 0·41

  1981–82

  17·06

  18·05

  -0·99

  1982–83

  19·39

  19·42

  -0·03

  1983–84

  21·09

  20·51

  + 0·58

  1984–85

  22·12

  21·74

  + 0·38

  1985–86

  23·50

  23·18

  + 0·32

  1986–87

  25·34

  24·93

  + 0·41

  1987–88

  27·34

  25·76

  + 1·58

  1988–89

  29·82

  26·74

  + 3·08

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place a copy in the Library of the new instructions to local offices on(a) assessing absent parents' ability to pay maintenance and (b) interviewing lone parents about the identity of the absent father.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Local office instructions covering the assessment of benefit and the related adjudication guidance from the office of the chief adjudication officer are published. However, it is not our practice to publish local office operational instructions because to do so would risk increased and unnecessary abuse of the benefits system.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Details of some of the full-time and part-time public

  569
  appointments for which the Secretary of State for Social Security is responsible can be obtained from the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1989". A copy is in the Library. Details of salaries and fees can be obtained from the same source.

  The dates on which all these appointments are due for renewal are not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The readily available information is in the table.

  Name of Body

  Appointment Renewal Dates

  Attendance Allowance Board

  2 due during 1980

  4 due during 1991

  4 due during 1992

  Central Advisory Committee on War

  11 due during 1990

  Pensions

  6 due during 1991

  7 due during 1992

  2 due during 1993

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  8 due during 1990

  1 due during 1991

  8 due during 1992

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  3 due during 1990

  3 due during 1991

  6 due during 1992

  2 due during 1993

  Occupational Pensions Board

  6 due during 1990

  2 due during 1991

  5 due during 1992

  In addition, the Secretary of State is responsible for the following appointments:

  Independent Living Fund. Five appointments, which are due for renewal in 1993. No salaries or fees paid.

  Social Fund Commissioner. One appointment, which is due for renewal during 1990. Salary is £15,758.

  Pension Age
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning equal state pension age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have received a total of 119 representations in the year to 27 April 1990.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those categories of workers who pay National Insurance contributions as both employers and employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are not aware of any circumstances in which an individual will be liable for both employer's and employee's contributions in respect of the same occupation.

  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many female chairmen of medical appeal tribunals in Scotland there are.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The administration of medical appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of the social security and medical appeal tribunals, His Honour Judge Holden. His office advises that there are no female chairmen of medical tribunals in Scotland.
  570
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many female medical practitioner members of medical appeal tribunals in Scotland there are.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The administration of medical appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of the social security and medical appeal tribunals, His Honour Judge Holden. His office advises that there are two female medical practitioner members of medical appeal tribunals in Scotland.

HEALTH

  Family Doctor Service
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on funding for the family doctor service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We will spend almost £1,800 million this year on the family doctor service, 77 per cent. more in real terms than in 1979–80.

  Social Work Training
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve basic social work training.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve basic social work training.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve basic social work training.

  Mr Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve basic social work training.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have accepted the need to improve training for social workers and other social care staff. We are therefore implementing a balanced programme of improvements to provide a comprehensive, progressive continuum of education, training and qualifications for all social work and care staff in the personal social services.

  For social work qualifying training this includes the provision of additional funding for phasing out one-year post-graduate courses in favour of a minimum of two years' training, improvement to the quality and quantity of practice placements and improvements to course curricula. We are also making additional funds available to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to introduce a new qualifying course at higher education level, the diploma in social work, which will replace the existing qualifying courses over time. This new award, developed in consultation with educational, employment and professional interests, represents a radically improved approach to qualifying training for social workers which will enable students to acquire the knowledge, skills and values required for competent practice as a social worker.

  Community Care
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current time scale for implementation of proposals on community care.
  571
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his current timescale for implementation of proposals on community care.

  Mr Kenneth Clarke
  The implementation of the community care proposals is timetabled for 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current time scale for implementation of proposals on community care.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current time scale for implementation of proposals on community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The implementation of the community care proposals is timetabled for 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he is proposing to make in the procedures governing the release into the community of mentally ill and other patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On 14 May I announced that the Government were formally consulting on the introduction of the care programme approach for people with a serious mental illness. We propose that all district health authorities should introduce this approach from next April. It will cover all psychiatric patients discharged from hospital and should help ensure that they receive the community care they need.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on earmarked grants to local authorities for the purpose of community care.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on earmarked grants to local authorities for the purpose of community care.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) earlier today.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss community care.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) earlier today.

  National Health Service Funding
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the National Association of Health Authorities to discuss its concerns regarding the funding of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the National Association of Health Authorities to discuss its concerns regarding the funding of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the National Association of Health Authorities to discuss its concerns regarding the funding of the National Health Service.
  572
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the National Association of Health Authorities to discuss its concerns regarding the funding of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I and ministerial colleagues have fairly frequent contacts with the National Association of Health Authorities. Later this month I shall be attending its annual conference.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the TUC general council to discuss National Health Service funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The TUC general council has made no request for any meeting with me. I met the health service committee of the TUC on 28 July 1989 and discussed funding and other issues. I plan to meet it again on 19 July for similar discussions.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects to announce the results of his Department's survey of eye tests.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects to announce the results of his Department's survey of eye tests.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects to announce the results of his Department's survey of eye tests.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects to announce the results of his Department's survey of eye tests.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A report of the NOP findings on sight tests will be available shortly.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to remove charges for eyesight checks.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if he will bring forward proposals to remove charges for eyesight checks.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to remove charges for eyesight checks.

  Mr Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to remove charges for eyesight checks.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Vulnerable groups such as children, those on low incomes and people with certain special medical needs continue to be entitled to free NHS sight tests. There are no plans to make this a universal entitlement.

  Westminster and Chelsea Hospital
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the revised estimate of the cost of the proposed Westminster and Chelsea hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated cost of the Westminster and Chelsea hospital is approximately £203 million. This figure
  573
  is based on the estimated construction cost of around £178 million plus equipment and fees. The estimates take account of expected inflation over the period of the contract which is due for completion in mid-1992.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to how many ballots of staff and patients on the question of the formation of self-governing trusts have resulted in majorities in favour.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to how many ballots of staff and patients on the question of the formation of self-governing trusts have resulted in majorities in favour.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to how many ballots of staff and patients on the question of the formation of self-governing trusts have resulted in majorities in favour.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are aware that ballots on the establishment of National Health Service trusts have taken place in a number of units. However, we have consistently made clear that it would not be sensible for changes in management of National Health Service services to be subject to ballots. Applications for National Health Service trust status will not be invited until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. Staff and the local community will then have an opportunity to express their views on individual proposals before any decisions are made.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of ballots that have been held in hospitals which are considering opting out; and whether any of these have shown a majority in favour of such a course of action.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has of the views of National Health Service staff or patients for the formation of self-governing trusts.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of ballots that have been held on hospitals which are considering opting out; and whether any of these have shown a majority in favour of such a course of action.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has of the views of National Health Service staff or patients for the formation of self-governing trusts.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of ballots that have been held in hospitals which are considering opting out; and whether any of these have shown a majority in favour of such a course of action.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) earlier today.

  Mr Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of his Department's expenditure on preparation for the formation of self-governing trusts.
  574
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of his Department's expenditure on preparation for the formation of self-governing trusts.

  Mr John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of his Department's expenditure on preparation for the formulation of self-governing trusts.

  Mr Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of his Department's expenditure on preparation for the formulation of self-governing trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Expenditure on preparing for the establishment of National Health Service trusts is not separately identified.

  Dental Checks
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now remove the charge on dental checks.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now remove the charge on dental checks.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) earlier today.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current waiting time for hip replacement operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest information held centrally about waiting times by operation is for 1985 and is published in "1985 Hospital in-patient enquiry ma in tables for England series number MB4 No. 27", a copy of which is available in the Library. Information on waiting times in 1988–89 for specific types of operation is expected to be available shortly.

  National Health Service (Inflation)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the inflation figure for the Health Service over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the inflation figure for the Health Service over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the inflation figure for the Health Service over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his next estimate of the inflation figure for the Health Service over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government do not make estimates of inflation in the National Health Service before the end of the financial year concerned.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to safeguard the provision of the out-patient ambulance service; and if he will make a statement.
  575
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Responsibility for providing patient transport services will continue to lie with health authorities.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking following the publication of the National Audit Office report on maternity services.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking following the publication of the National Audit Office report on maternity services.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking following the publication of the National Audit Office report on maternity services.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking following the publication of the National Audit Office report on maternity services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The National Audit Office reported that, despite the halving of infant mortality rates between 1985 and 1987, there remained wide-ranging geographical variations in the incidence of infant mortality. Last July, in the Government reply to the first report from the Social Services Committee (Session 1988–89) on "Perinat 1, Neonatal and Infant Mortality" (Cm 741), we announced a major new initiative to address this problem. The National Audit Office endorsed our approach and we are taking its findings into account in its implementation.

  Figures just published by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys in its weekly monitor bulletin of 16 May, a copy of which is available in the Library, show that the decline in infant mortality continued in 1989 and rates are now lower than in any previous year.

  General Practitioner Practices (Stair)
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of practice staff in the average general practitioner service practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The average number of practice staff per partnership qualifying for direct reimbursement was 6·3 (3·7 whole-time equivalents) in 1988, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Wessex Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairman of Wessex regional health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met Mr. Buchanan at his meeting with regional chairmen on 16 May.

  Preventive Medicine
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent additional preventive medicine initiatives have been mounted by his Department.
  576
  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn. Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 23 January at column 670. Additional preventive medicine initiatives mounted by the Department since 23 January include:

  (a) support for a wide range of programmes to prevent the spread of HIV infection through local authorities and health authorities, voluntary bodies and the Health Education Authority, whose latest mass media campaign was launched on 14 February 1990.

  (b) the launch of the latest national drug publicity campaign in February at a cost of £3·8 million. Its aim is to maintain the current level of awareness about the dangers of drug misuse among young people. Complementary regional campaigns are being run in Yorkshire, Mersey and West Midlands.

  (c) the funding by the Department, through the Health Education Authority, of the appointment of regional alcohol misuse co-ordinators in each of the 14 health regions. Their tasks include encouraging all the relevant agencies within their regions to co-operate in ensuring that help is available for people who misuse alcohol or are at risk of doing so, and in promulgating the importance of drinking sensibly. National Drinkwise Day on 12 June will provide a focus for health education about the dangers of alcohol misuse.

  (d) as part of the "Look After Your Heart" programme a national fitness survey, jointly sponsored by the Department of Health, the Health Education Authority, and the Sports Council in conjunction with Allied Dunbar, was launched on 20 February 1990 to measure the nation's fitness. This entails the study of at least 6,000 adults of all ages to explore the relationship between exercise, fitness and health.

  (e) as a further contribution to the "Look After Your Heart" programme, the national Heartbeat Award scheme was launched on 26 April 1990. This award is intended to encourage caterers to play an active role in reducing coronary heart disease by promoting healthy food choices, smoke-free areas and good standards of food hygiene. The award is endorsed and implemented by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers.

  (f) together with the Health Education Authority and regional health authorities, 28 regional "Look After Your Heart" officers are in the process of being appointed and

  (g) the preparation, with the Health Education Authority, of a further phase of a major education campaign on vaccination and immunisation due to be launched in September 1990. This has already been piloted in the north-west region.

  National Health Service, North Debyshire
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet a delegation of North Derbyshire health authority members to discuss cuts in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Members of North Derbyshire health authority should discuss any concerns they have with the chairman of the Trent regional health authority which is the body responsible for allocating North Derbyshire's resources. National Health Service funding has risen to £29·1 billion this year and is well ahead of inflation on any measure; North Derbyshire's budget of £64·1 million represents an increase of nearly 3 per cent. over last year.

  Out-patient Departments
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any initiatives are being taken to improve out-patient departments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The following initiatives have been taken by the Department to improve out-patient departments:

  i. Out-patient Demonstration Projects—Aims

  As part of the Government's drive to raise quality standards in hospitals, the Department is supporting six demonstration projects in out-patient departments at a total cost of £750,000. The aim is to improve the quality of services and make them more responsive to the needs of consumers by providing care in pleasant physical surroundings with better facilities, clear information to patients and effective appointment systems. The first results will be disseminated as good practice advice to the health service later this year.

  ii Demonstration Projects to be Funded 1990–91

  Some five more projects are likely to be funded in 1990–91. Health authorities and units will be informed in June 1990 which projects have been selected.

  iii. Waiting Times in Out-patients

  A report issued in December 1989 on "Reducing Waiting Time in Out-patient Departments' is now being followed up by development of a visual simulation package to assist NHS out-patient departments in planning efficient appointment systems.

  iv. Role of Nurses and other Non-Medical Staff in Out-patients

  A departmental study report on "The Role of Nurses and other Non-Medical Staff in Out-patient Departments" was issued to health authorities in March 1990. The report contains proposals for changing the skill mix of qualified and non-qualified staff better to reflect the nature of tasks undertaken and to make the best use of available resources.

  GP Contracts
  Mr. Faye
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any representations claiming that patients are being removed from doctors' lists as a result of the new general practitioners' contract.

  Expenditure by FPCs (England): 1979–80–1990–91 Practice Staff and Premises

  In Cash

  At 1990–91 Prices1

  £million

  £million

  Year

  Staff

  Premises

  Total

  Staff

  Premises

  Total

  1979–802

  50·927

  20·408

  71·335

  108·704

  43·561

  152·265

  1980–81

  65·063

  26·696

  91·759

  117·354

  48·152

  165·506

  1981–82

  78·769

  32·319

  111·088

  129·410

  53·097

  182·507

  1982–83

  89·480

  39·141

  128·621

  137·101

  59·972

  197·073

  1983–84

  102·721

  47·489

  150·210

  150·373

  69·519

  219·892

  1984–85

  114·632

  54·481

  169·113

  159·866

  75·979

  235·845

  1985–86

  134·028

  67·030

  201·058

  177·399

  88·721

  266·120

  1986–87

  143·838

  74·535

  218·373

  184·127

  95·412

  279·539

  1987–88

  166·798

  83·726

  250·524

  202·660

  101·727

  304·387

  1988–89

  200·508

  96·396

  296·904

  227·416

  109·332

  336·748

  1989–903

  242·099

  121·940

  364·039

  257·835

  129·866

  387·701

  1990–914

  261–072

  165·032

  426·104

  261·072

  165·032

  426·104

  Total

  1,649·935

  829·193

  2,479·128

  2,113·317

  1,040·370

  3,153·687

  1 Delated using GDP Deflator.

  2 Figures for 1979–80 to 1988–89 are taken from Summarised Accounts (England), and show direct reimbursement of 70 per cent, of the cost of practice staff, direct reimbursement of rent and rates and improvement grants. The rest of the cost of practice staff is reimbursed indirectly through GPs' fees and allowances.

  3 1989–90 figures are on a similar basis but show provisional out-turn.

  4 1990–91 figures are preliminary allocations for cash limited expenditure on direct reimbursement of practice staff costs, cost rents and improvement grants and estimated non cash limited expenditure on other rent and rates.

  578
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received a number of such representations and I have had the facts investigated wherever possible. None of these cases has proved to result from the GPs' new contract and some well-reported complaints have proved to be quite inaccurate. As I have repeatedly said, it is dishonest and unprofessional for GPs to suggest that the Government's new contract justifies the removal of any patient from a practice list.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the new general practitioners' contract on the family doctor service.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of the new general practitioner contracts.

  Mr Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect on service to patients of the new general practitioners' contract.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) on I May at columns 517–18.

  General Practitioners (Expenditure)
  Mr Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of his Department's funding, in cash and constant prices, of expenditure by general practitioners on practice staff and premises in each year since 1979.

  Mr Kenneth Clarke
  The information requested is in the following table and shows that annual public expenditure on these items has almost trebled in real terms over the period.

  Family Planning
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the improvement of family planning services.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the improvement of family planning services.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the improvement of family planning services.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the improvement of family planning services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The day-to-day management of family planning services is a matter for individual health authorities since they can best judge local circumstances and priorities. The Government continue to regard family planning as an important preventive service and guidance issued by the Department of Health makes it clear that health authorities should ensure that full use is made of family planning services, and that a proper balance is struck between services provided by specialist clinics and those provided by GPs.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of community health councils.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of community health councils.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) earlier today.

  Hospital Appointments
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for a hospital appointment; and what was the figure 12 months ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  NHS (Maintenance)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the cumulative backlog of maintenance for the National Health Service.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the cumulative backlog of maintenance for the National Health Service.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the cumulative backlog of maintenance for the National Health Service.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the cumulative backlog of maintenance for the National Health Service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply my hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of 580
  State, gave the hon. Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) on 23 January at column 656.

  Needle Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of needle exchange schemes to reduce the spread of HIV among injecting drug misusers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We issued guidance to health authorities in September 1988 on establishing syringe exchange schemes. We estimate that there are currently some 120 schemes in England and schemes are now starting in Wales. Selected schemes continue to be monitored. Overall, our aim is to determine their effectiveness in changing drug misusers' behaviour away from practices which carry a risk of acquiring or transmitting HIV infection.

  King's College Hospital
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether King's College hospital has expressed interest in becoming a self-governing hospital trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  Bury DHA
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources have been made available to Bury district health authority for 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1990–91 additional cash resources will be made available by the North Western regional health authority to Bury health authority amounting to £2,723,200 which represents an increase of 9·3 per cent. over the previous year. Taken together with about £1 million efficiency savings, this will enable service developments of over £1·4 million to go ahead this year.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on current consideration of the pay and conditions of hospital doctors in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on current consideration of the pay and conditions of hospital doctors in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Hospital doctors' pay has risen by more then 33 per cent. in real terms since 1979. For details of the 1990 pay settlement for National Health Service hospital doctors, I refer my hon. Friends to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr Leigh) on 1 February at columns 260–62.

  We have recently issued detailed guidance to health authorities on consultant's contracts. By 1 April 1991 all hospital consultants will have job plans agreed with local managers setting out their main responsibilities and their fixed commitments in the National Health Service.

  The issue of junior doctors' hours remains a priority for the Government. I recently met representatives of all the

  581
  key parties, including the profession and National Health Service management, to discuss the way forward. A working group has been established to explore the key issues.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure for the number of hospital doctors in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest figure for the number of hospital doctors in the National Health Service in England is 45,574 as at 30 September 1988. This figure includes permanent paid and honorary staff.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the number of people who do not take the full number of items listed on a prescription by their general practitioner.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Alcohol Abuse Services, Sheffield
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to next meet the chairman of the Trent regional health authority to discuss alcohol abuse services in Sheffield.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Ministers meet all regional health authority chairmen regularly and discuss a wide range of issues.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretay of State for Health what steps he is taking to assist in the recruitment of local authority social workers.

  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to assist in the recruitment of local authority social workers.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to assist in the recruitment of local authority social workers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr Worthington) earlier today.

  Medical Negligence
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes that National Health Service indemnity in cases of medical negligence will extend to National Health Service hospital trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current annual level of capital spend for which the West Midlands regional health authority is responsible; and what it was for the year 1978–879.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The annual accounts of the West Midlands regional health authority and the health authorities 582
  comprising the West Midlands region record total capital expenditure of £27·8 million (cash) in 1978–79 and £82·7 million (cash) in 1988–89 (the latest year available) representing an increase in real terms of some 35 per cent. measured at 1988–89 prices.

  Patient Care
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any initiatives are being taken to promote a better quality of care for patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper reforms aim to provide a better National Health Service with more attention to quality of care and customer service flowing from greater devolution, the separation of purchaser and provider functions and the introduction of contracts, wider choice and the extension of medical and clinical audit. These proposals are being reinforced by a £10 million programme of project-based initiatives to make the consumers' interest more central to the management arid delivery of health care. The Government have also initiated talks with the royal colleges and other statutory bodies with an interest in assessing clinical standards in the National Health Service after implementation of the reforms. Agreement has been reached on the provision of advice and assistance in the assessment and monitoring of clinical standards for all National Health Service patients through a clinical standards advisory group. An amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill has been tabled to provide a statutory basis for the group.

  Regional Health Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on funding for regional health authorities in 1990–91.

  Mr Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 1 May at column 523.

  Hospital Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last visited St. George's hospital, Tooting to discuss doctors' working hours.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not visited St. George's hospital to discuss this matter.

  On 10 April 1990 I met the representatives of health departments, the joint consultants committee, including the presidents of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians, the British Medical Association and National Health Service management, to begin the process of identifying and implementing ways forward on the complex issue of junior doctors' hours.

  A working group is to explore the main issues relating to junior doctors' hours and strategies for tackling them. They are expected to make an initial report to the ministerial group during the summer.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received about the availability of human organs for transplantation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since the reply given to my hon. Friend by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health on 5 April 1990 at columns 736–37, we have received representations from hon. Members on behalf of the president of the British Kidney Patient Association and of several constituents. We are also in frequent contact with organisations and individuals interested in promoting organ donation.

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients are being treated annually by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the year ending March 1989, 6·6 million in-patient cases were treated in National Health Service hospitals in England, representing an increase of 22 per cent. since 1979.

  NHS Services
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what major changes there have been in provision of services within the National Health Service since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 1979, the level of spending on the National Health Service in the United Kingdom has increased by nearly 44 per cent. in real terms and the gross annual expenditure on the service now stands at over £29 billion (1990–91). The numbers of people providing care has also increased. There are 14,000 more doctors and dentists and 68,000 more nurses and midwives. These extra resources mean that 44,000 NHS operations are now carried out every week including a 22 per cent. increase in in-patient treatments, a 6·5 per cent. increase in out-patient attendances and an 81 per cent. increase in day cases over the 1979 totals. Considerable improvements have also been made in screening, vaccination and immunisation. Over 90 per cent. of low birth weight babies now survive the crucial first four weeks of life. The impact of these and other developments including the general improvement in standards of living can be seen in changes to key indicators such as the decline in the rate of infant mortality which now stands at an all-time low and the increase in life expectancy.

  Day Patients
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many day-patient cases were treated last year.
  584
  Mr. Dorrell
  In the year ending March 1989 there were over 1 million day-case admissions in England representing an increase of over 70 per cent. since 1979.

  NHS Management
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes are being made in management within the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The National Health Service management executive is in close contact with regional health authorities as they take forward proposals for the delegation of functions and other management aspects of "Working for Patients". Considerations include the need for any changes to be made to management structures both in health authorities and units to improve services.

  Progress overall in the implementation of the NHS review is good and we remain confident that management arrangements will be in place to enable the reforms contained in the NHS and Community Care Bill to be implemented next year, resulting in improved standards, more effective use of resources and better patient care.

  Patient Choice
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what specific ways the National Health Service reforms will extend patient choice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 1 May 1990 at column 534.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there are currently.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley (Mr. Cran) and for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) earlier today.

  Hospital Waiting Lists, Northumberland
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of patients on the Northumberland health authority's hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 30 September 1989, a total of 1,610 patients were awaiting admission to hospital for in-patient treatment and 491 were awaiting day case treatment in Northumberland health authority. In September 1987, the corresponding figures were 1,789 and 539. Between September 1987 and September 1989 the percentage of patients waiting over a year fell from 20 per cent. to 11 per cent. for in-patients and from 7 per cent. to 3 per cent. for day cases.

  Medicine Imports
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of overseas production sites supplying parallel imports of medicines to the United Kingdom market under licence from his Department; and how many such overseas sites have been inspected by the United Kingdom's medicines inspectors in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are 143 overseas production sites currently listed on product licences for parallel imported medicinal products. Inspections of these sites carried out by United Kingdom medicines inspectors over the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  No. Inspections

  1989

  7

  1988

  5

  1987

  5

  1986

  12

  1985

  1

  Additional visits have been carried out on behalf of the United Kingdom by local inspectorates.

  Income from land sales

  District Health Authority

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cambridge

  160,890

  178,271

  2,809,500

  Peterborough

  146,250

  72,000

  387,499

  West Suffolk

  1,860,400

  124,900

  2,182,500

  East Suffolk

  736,723

  945,582

  2,310,460

  Norwich

  449,286

  1,201,120

  1,800,706

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  328,250

  349,475

  60,000

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  220,503

  419,838

  1,013,150

  Huntingdon

  29,580

  325,000

  96,050

  The figures given represent the total of sales within each district. The figures given for Norwich health authority therefore differ from those supplied on 26 April by my hon. Friend the then Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State at columns 293–94, which were restricted to sales of over £50,000.

  Geriatric Beds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing for each National Health Service region for 1980 through to 1989(a) the number of geriatric beds, (b) the number of patients per geriatric bed and (c) the population over 65 years of age, in each case as an index taking 1980 as the base.

  Mid year population estimates, by Regional Health Authority, aged 65 and over, thousands.

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  England

  7,067

  7,108

  7,108

  7,061

  7,034

  7,184

  7,295

  7,407

  7,465

  Northern

  448

  451

  451

  447

  445

  456

  464

  472

  476

  Yorkshire

  549

  550

  548

  543

  539

  549

  556

  563

  567

  Trent

  665

  670

  672

  669

  669

  684

  697

  710

  718

  East Anglia

  301

  305

  307

  307

  308

  314

  323

  331

  337

  North West Thames

  476

  479

  478

  476

  474

  483

  490

  496

  497

  North East Thames

  565

  563

  561

  558

  553

  565

  571

  576

  577

  South East Thames

  617

  617

  617

  615

  609

  615

  622

  628

  629

  South West Thames

  491

  492

  491

  486

  484

  491

  495

  500

  501

  Wessex

  456

  462

  464

  465

  465

  478

  486

  495

  502:

  Oxford

  288

  293

  296

  293

  295

  306

  314

  323

  329

  South Western

  539

  543

  543

  543

  542

  556

  565

  576

  582

  West Midlands

  699

  704

  707

  702

  704

  724

  740

  756

  766

  Regional Health Authorities (Creditors)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority the amounts creditors were due to be paid that were(a) one month, (b) two months, (c) three months, (d) four to six months, (e) six months to one year and (f) over a year overdue.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  Land Sales
  Mr Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his parliamentary reply of 9 May,Official Report, column 128, he will give a breakdown of the figures given for the proceeds from disposal of National Health Service land in the East Anglian region, to show proceeds in each of the district health authorities in the East Anglian region, for 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The regional health authority has provided the information in the following table. They are unable to provide a breakdown by districts for the years 1984–85 and 1985–86.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the tables. The following changes affect the comparability of figures over time:

  (a) In 1982 National Health Service restructuring led to changes in the region of management of some London hospitals.

  (b) The 1987–88 and 1988–89 figures are for beds in wards classified as being for elderly patients whereas earlier figures are for beds assigned to the geriatrics department.

  (c) The 1987–88 and 1988–89 figures for in-patients are for patients treated by a geriatric clinical consultant whereas earlier figures are for patients treated in the geriatric department. Some patients previously categorised as geriatric are now categorised as being treated in general medicine.

  587

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Mersey

  349

  351

  350

  346

  344

  351

  356

  362

  364

  North Western

  626

  627

  622

  611

  602

  612

  616

  621

  621

  Index 1980 = 100

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  England

  100

  101

  101

  100

  100

  102

  103

  105

  106

  Northern

  100

  101

  101

  100

  99

  102

  104

  105

  106

  Yorkshire

  100

  100

  100

  99

  98

  100

  101

  102

  103

  Trent

  100

  101

  101

  101

  101

  103

  105

  107

  108

  East Anglia

  100

  101

  102

  102

  103

  105

  107

  110

  112

  North West Thames

  100

  101

  101

  100

  100

  102

  103

  104

  105

  North East Thames

  100

  100

  99

  99

  98

  100

  101

  102

  102

  South East Thames

  100

  100

  100

  100

  99

  100

  101

  102

  102

  South West Thames

  100

  100

  100

  99

  98

  100

  101

  102

  102

  Wessex

  100

  101

  102

  102

  102

  105

  106

  109

  110

  Oxford

  100

  102

  103

  102

  102

  106

  109

  112

  114

  South Western

  100

  101

  101

  101

  101

  103

  105

  107

  108

  West Midlands

  100

  101

  101

  101

  101

  104

  106

  108

  110

  Mersey

  100

  101

  100

  99

  99

  101

  102

  104

  105

  North Western

  100

  100

  99

  98

  96

  98

  98

  99

  99

  Source: Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  In-patient cases treated per available bed, National Health Service hospitals, by Regional Health Authority Geriatric sector

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  England

  4·8

  5·0

  5·3

  5·8

  6·3

  6·9

  7·3

  7·5

  8·2

  Northern

  4·8

  5·2

  5·1

  5·3

  5·3

  5·6

  5·6

  5·3

  6·0

  Yorkshire

  5·6

  6·2

  6·7

  7·3

  7·9

  8·9

  9·3

  10·3

  11·2

  Trent

  5·7

  5·9

  6·2

  6·6

  7·0

  7·6

  8·1

  7·1

  8·2

  East Anglia

  5·6

  6·0

  6·0

  6·3

  6·8

  7·6

  7·5

  7·8

  8·5

  North West Thames

  4·5

  4·6

  4·8

  5·4

  5·9

  6·2

  6·5

  7·1

  7·2

  North East Thames

  3·6

  3·4

  3·8

  4·2

  4·8

  5·4

  5·8

  6·4

  7·6

  South East Thames

  5·2

  5·5

  5·7

  6·0

  6·8

  7·5

  8·1

  8·5

  9·2

  South West Thames

  4·8

  4·4

  5·5

  6·2

  7·1

  7·4

  7·9

  8·4

  7·8

  Wessex

  3·7

  4·0

  4·2

  4·5

  4·8

  5·3

  6·0

  6·7

  7·8

  Oxford

  6·3

  6·8

  7·0

  7·5

  7·9

  8·1

  8·0

  6·9

  7·5

  South Western

  4·8

  5·2

  5·0

  5·8

  6·2

  6·8

  7·1

  7·7

  8·1

  West Midlands

  3·9

  4·1

  4·5

  4·8

  5·5

  6·1

  6·4

  6·4

  6·7

  Mersey

  4·7

  4·6

  4·9

  5·5

  5·6

  6·4

  7·0

  7·7

  9·4

  North Western

  5·0

  5·5

  6·0

  6·7

  7·2

  8·0

  8·4

  9·1

  9·7

  SHAs

  n/a

  n/a

  5·5

  6·7

  5·7

  4·8

  4·2

  4·5

  4·0

  Index 1980 = 100

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  England

  100

  105

  111

  121

  131

  144

  151

  157

  171

  Northern

  100

  108

  106

  110

  109

  117

  117

  111

  125

  Yorkshire

  100

  110

  119

  131

  141

  159

  166

  183

  200

  Trent

  100

  104

  109

  116

  123

  135

  142

  124

  144

  East Anglia

  100

  106

  107

  111

  121

  134

  133

  139

  150

  North West Thames

  100

  103

  108

  121

  132

  138

  144

  159

  161

  North East Thames

  100

  96

  107

  117

  133

  150

  162

  178

  212

  South East Thames

  100

  107

  110

  116

  131

  144

  156

  163

  178

  South East Thames

  100

  92

  115

  130

  149

  154

  164

  175

  163

  Wessex

  100

  108

  113

  122

  132

  144

  163

  181

  212

  Oxford

  100

  107

  110

  118

  125

  128

  127

  108

  118

  South Western

  100

  109

  105

  122

  130

  143

  148

  161

  169

  West Midlands

  100

  106

  117

  124

  141

  158

  166

  167

  174

  Mersey

  100

  97

  103

  116

  119

  136

  148

  162

  199

  North Western

  100

  109

  119

  133

  142

  159

  167

  181

  192

  SHAs

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Source: SH3 return, 1980 to 1986.

  KH03 and SH3a returns, 1987–88 onwards.

  Average daily number of available beds, NHS hospitals, by Regional Health Authority Geriatric sector

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  England

  54,947

  55,550

  55,646

  55,801

  55,571

  55,320

  54,588

  53,276

  51,043

  Northern

  3,727

  3,676

  3,809

  3,885

  3,894

  3,940

  3,949

  4,075

  3,958

  Yorkshire

  5,259

  5,206

  5,090

  5,041

  4,938

  4,960

  4,827

  4,621

  4,291

  Trent

  5,053

  5,153

  5,204

  5,229

  5.233

  5,237

  5,263

  5,116

  4,901

  East Anglia

  2,340

  2,351

  2,372

  2,417

  2,452

  2,467

  2,497

  2,539

  2,500

  588 589

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  North West Thames

  3,348

  3,422

  3,366

  3,329

  3,380

  3,417

  3,460

  3,386

  3,305

  North East Thames

  4,416

  4,429

  4,555

  4,574

  4,635

  4,636

  4,614

  4,260

  3,972

  South East Thames

  4,247

  4,208

  4,237

  4,233

  4,088

  3,985

  3,740

  3,535

  3,384

  South West Thames

  3,015

  3,505

  3,064

  3,035

  2,975

  2,907

  2,878

  2,832

  2,834

  Wessex

  3,536

  3,534

  3,543

  3,510

  3,477

  3,468

  3,433

  3,203

  3,022

  Oxford

  2,071

  2,055

  2,027

  2,006

  1,974

  1,866

  1,825

  2,054

  1,832

  South Western

  3,696

  3,739

  3,771

  3,848

  3,807

  3,782

  3,720

  3,486

  3,464

  West Midlands

  6,181

  6,182

  6,256

  6,230

  6,235

  6,176

  6,054

  6,004

  5,665

  Mersey

  3,101

  3,073

  3,136

  3,171

  3,180

  3,120

  3,042

  2,909

  2,786

  North Western

  4,957

  5,018

  5,135

  5,193

  5,175

  5,230

  5,161

  5,128

  5,001

  SHAs

  0

  0

  80

  102

  127

  130

  126

  128

  128

  Index 1980 = 100

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  England

  100

  101

  101

  102

  101

  101

  99

  97

  93

  Northern

  100

  99

  102

  104

  104

  106

  106

  109

  106

  Yorkshire

  100

  99

  97

  96

  94

  94

  92

  88

  82

  Trent

  100

  102

  103

  103

  104

  104

  104

  101

  97

  East Anglia

  100

  100

  101

  103

  105

  105

  107

  108

  107

  North West Thames

  100

  102

  101

  99

  101

  102

  103

  101

  99

  North East Thames

  100

  100

  103

  104

  105

  105

  104

  96

  90

  South East Thames

  100

  99

  100

  100

  96

  94

  88

  83

  80

  South West Thames

  100

  116

  102

  101

  99

  96

  95

  94

  94

  Wessex

  100

  100

  100

  99

  98

  98

  97

  91

  85

  Oxford

  100

  99

  98

  97

  95

  90

  88

  99

  88

  South Western

  100

  101

  102

  104

  103

  102

  101

  94

  94

  West Midlands

  100

  100

  101

  101

  101

  100

  98

  97

  92

  Mersey

  100

  99

  101

  102

  103

  101

  98

  94

  90

  North Western

  100

  101

  104

  105

  104

  106

  104

  103

  101

  SHAs

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Source: SH3 return, 1980–1986

  KH03 return, 1987·88 onwards

  Hospital Beds, Peterborough
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total of hospital beds in each of the past five years within the constituency of Peterborough.

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

  Average daily available beds, (wards open overnight) and in-patient cases treated, Peterborough District Health Authority 1984 to 1988–89

  Year

  Available Beds

  In-patient cases treated

  1984

  1,161

  30,250

  1985

  1,146

  31,966

  1986

  1,145

  32,137

  1987–88

  1,148

  33,934

  1988–89

  1,187

  35,163

  DES/Stilboestrol
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will implement the recommendations made in 1989 by the European Commission regarding the drug DES/Stilboestrol;

  (2) if there are any plans to compile a register of people who have been exposed to the drug DES/Stilboestrol;

  (3) if he has any plans to assist individuals and their families who have been adversely affected by a prescription of the drug DES/Stilboestrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  About 7,500 women in the United Kingdom were prescribed diethylistlboestrol during pregnancy. There is published evidence that this may have increased their risk of getting breast cancer by a small amount. There is also evidence of an increased risk 590
  of the daughters of women who received diethylstilboestrol in pregnancy getting vaginal cancer (a rare disease) or cervical cancer.

  The number of women who might develop such a cancer is very small, and no specific arrangements have been made to identify them. However, the prospects for early detection of breast and cervical cancer, irrespective of its origin, have been greatly enhanced by the introduction of national screening programmes. It is open to any woman who does not fall within the age groups covered by the programmes to consult her doctor, who will arrange for any test which he or she considers necessary. Women who develop any symptoms which worry them should of course go immediately to their GP.

  In June 1989 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the use of diethylstilboestrol and its effects on the health of users and their children. The resolution called on the European Commission to identify those exposed to DES and to take appropriate action. It is for the European Commission to respond on the resolution.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being conducted into the effects of the drug, DES/Stilboestrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This Department has sponsored no such research. Information about research conducted by other research institutions is not collected centrally by the Department.

  Dentures
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of complete and partial dentures, respectively, supplied under the National Health Service during the years 1978 and 1988.
  591
  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures for synthetic dentures are available as requested. Figures for metal dentures are available only as provided. Calendar year figures ceased to be kept from 1986.

  England

  1978 (calendar year)

  1988–89 (financial year)

  Number of complete synthetic dentures supplied

  1,042,060

  1,107,940

  Number of partial synthetic dentures supplied

  586,750

  690,460

  Number of courses of treatment involving the provision or repair of metal dentures

  52,140

  187,990

  Total

  1,680,950

  1,986,390

  Diabetes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on how many diabetes sufferers need one third ml amounts of insulin per dose, how much it costs to provide(a) the smaller syringes and (b) the larger syringes to diabetics for each of the last 11 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No information is available centrally on the numbers of diabetics needing one third ml of insulin per dose. The estimated costs of providing one half ml and 1 ml disposable syringes, available since 1 September 1987, on the list of appliances general practitioners may prescribe in England were as follows:

  Year

  ml size

  £ million

  1987 (last 2 quarters)

  0·5

  0·7

  1

  minimal

  1988

  0·5

  2·3

  1

  1·46

  1989 (first 2 quarters)

  0·5

  1·12

  1

  0·47

  I cannot add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Leicester, East on 17 May 1990 at column 492, that there is insufficient clinical demand for one third ml syringes for this product to be added to the general practitioners list.

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been undertaken to establish levels of polychlorinated biphenyls in breast milk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The results of surveys on polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) residues in food and human tissues, conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have been published in food surveillance papers 13 and 16, copies of which are available in the Library. The levels of PCBs in breast milk have fallen. The Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has considered the report of the working party on pesticide residues and in commenting on PCB residues in human breast milk said"the levels of PCBs found in the UK survey are at least one order of magnitude below the lowest levels which are claimed to have had adverse effects on infant health".
  592
  A further, more comprehensive, survey on the levels of PCBs and other organochlorine residues in human breast milk is currently under way. The results should be available at the end of this year.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of hospital beds in each of the past five years within the constituency of Northavon.

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

  Available beds and in-patient cases treated, Frenchay and Southmead district health authorities, 1984–1988/89

  Average daily available beds

  In-patient cases

  Frenchay

  1984

  2,666

  22,255

  1985

  2,529

  22,407

  1986

  2,431

  21,788

  1987–88

  2,293

  23,130

  1988–89

  2,168

  22,585

  Southmead

  1984

  1,802

  32,909

  1985

  1,688

  33,965

  1986

  1,602

  34,989

  1987–88

  1,477

  35,592

  1988–89

  1,420

  34,141

  Source: SH3 return, 1984–1986.

  SH3 and KHO3 returns 1987–88 onwards.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information the Körner database collects on the continence advisory service and the provision of incontinence supplies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Körner community returns do make provision for the recording of the annual number of patient contacts made by community continence nurses, but since many districts treat this service as part of the general duties of community nurses, they do not identify it within their returns. No information is available through Körner on the provision of incontinence supplies.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the maxima of performance-related pay paid out by Central Manchester, South Manchester and Trafford district health authorities in the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The maxima of performance-related pay for general managers in Central Manchester, South Manchester and Trafford health authorities is 6 per cent. and for senior managers it is 4 per cent.

  Details of performance-related pay awarded to individual general managers are confidential between them and their employers.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the detailed timetable for the full introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses in each part of England, giving the specific implementation dates for each health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As I announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 17 May at column 494, we have now approved the implementation of Project 2000 in 17 more schools of nursing over the next 12 months. This is in addition to 16 schemes approved last year. Approval has now been given to nearly 40 per cent. of nursing schools in England, covering a total of 64 health districts, and about 20,000 student places. We have provided central funding of approximately £38 million in 1989–90 and 1990–91 for the implementation of Project 2000 in England.

  The timetable for future implementation must be largely determined by the funding which can be made available against the background of other competing needs. We must also have regard to the size of the management and planning tasks involved at a time when we recognise that the National Health Service is undergoing many other changes.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the problems that will arise in respect of manpower planning in health authorities in England if the introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses is not fully implemented as originally planned in 1990–91;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the problems that will arise in respect of administrative and personnel matters if the introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses is not fully implemented as originally planned in 1990–91;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the problems that will arise in respect of nurse morale if the introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses is not fully implemented as originally planned in 1990–91;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the problems that will arise in respect of nurse recruitment in health authorities in England if the full introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses is not implemented as originally planned in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It has always been envisaged that the implementation of Project 2000 in England would be phased over a number of years.

  Health Authority Capital Charges
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether estimates of health authority capital charges have been completed and valued; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Most health authorities have now compiled asset registers in preparation for capital charging. Estimates of capital charges for the first period of shadow operation in 1990–91, based on valued asset registers as at 31 March 1990, are expected to be available during July.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what up-to-date information he has about the extent of delays in processing cervical smear tests; what steps he proposes to take to reduce delays; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available in the form requested. Laboratories must aim to return the results of cervical smear tests to the doctor who undertook them within one month. Where this target is not met health authorities are required to take action to reduce delays. This has taken the form of overtime working or increasing the number of laboratory staff and making use of other less busy laboratory facilities either in the National Health Service or private sector. As at March 1990, the latest available date, over 80 per cent. of laboratories were meeting this one-month target. The average processing time of those districts which were failing to meet the target was 7·1 weeks.

  Psittacosis
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make psittacosis a notifiable illness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 and the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1988 define "notifiable" diseases and list the diseases that are to be notified. A review of this legislation is currently being carried out. A consultation document, "Review of the law on infectious disease control", issued by the Department in October 1989, invited comments on an extensive range of options and proposals for changes to the current law. Section 3 of the document identified the diseases which are currently notifiable and sought views on a number of questions including whether any additional diseases should be added to the list. More than 500 responses to the consultation document were submitted, many of which suggested additional diseases, including psittacosis, that should be made notifiable. Officials are now considering all the responses received. The case for making psittacosis a notifiable disease will be given careful consideration.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has investigated the recent outbreak of psittacosis in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Local clinicians are responsible for initiating epidemiological investigations. We are satisfied that appropriate action was taken at the time of the outbreak.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has undertaken on psittacosis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Spinal Injury Units
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations the supra-regional forum has received from spinal injury units on the need for central Government funding for psychologists and peripatetic nurses; and if he will make a statement.
  595
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that the supra-regional services advisory group is now receiving applications for funding in 1991–92. It is too early to specify how many spinal injury units will request additional funds for psychologists or peripatetic nurses.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list, for each spinal injury unit, the number of beds in the unit, the number of psychologists and peripatetic nurses employed at the unit and the source of funding for each of these positions;

  (2) when the first psychologist was appointed to a spinal injury unit; and what is the accepted role of psychologists and peripatetic nurses at spinal injury units.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table shows the average daily available bed numbers. Information on the numbers and funding of psychologists and peripatetic nurses is not available centrally and the question of their role is for determination locally.

  NHS Spinal Units, England 1988–89

  Hospital site

  Average Daily Available Beds

  Hexham General Hospital

  34

  Pinderfields Hospital, Wakefield

  23

  Lodge Moor Hospital, Sheffield

  43

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore

  20

  Odstock Hospital, Salisbury

  39

  Southport Promenade Hospital

  35

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital

  *

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry

  *

  *Data for these spinal units were not separated in the statistical return from data on other beds and it is not possible to give a useful figure.

  Dental and Eye Charges
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much revenue he expects to be raised from dental and eye charges in 1990–91; and how much revenue has been raised since the inception of charges at current prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 1990–91 estimates laid before Parliament show income from patient charges for general dental services in England as £388 million. There are no patient charges in the general ophthalmic service. Certain priority groups, including children and those on low incomes, are eligible for free National Health Service sight tests and vouchers towards the cost of glasses where these are necessary. People not included in these priority groups pay private fees to opticians for ophthalmic services.

  National Health Service dental and ophthalmic charges were introduced in 1951. Charges for the supply of National Health Service glasses through the general ophthalmic service stopped from 1 July 1986, when vouchers were introduced. The estimated total revenue collected in England since the inception of these patient charges is set out in the following table:

  Revenue collected adjusted to 1990–91 prices using the GDP deflator

  Cash total

  £ million

  £ million

  Charge income from the General Dental Service 1951–52 to 1989–90

  2,590

  5,710

  Charge income from the General Ophthalmic Service 1951–52 to 1986–87

  490

  2,080

  596
  These totals are based on estimates of the England-only income in the period 1951–52 to 1968–69; accounts for these years combined figures for England and Wales. They are gross of any refunds to patients who were incorrectly or inadvertently deemed liable to pay charges.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money he estimates has been saved in total by health authorities as a result of compulsory competitive tendering in each of the last five years; and what likely savings he expects to be made in 1990–91 at current prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An initiative was started in 1983 to encourage health authorities to place contracts through competitive tendering of laundry, domestic and catering services. Up to the end of 1988–89 this initiative had resulted in cumulative savings of £110 million with an additional £6 million savings expected in 1989–90. Estimated savings for 1990–91 are not yet available.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nuclear magnetic resonance scanners are possessed by the National Health Service; and what proportions of these are designed for use solely to identify epilepsy.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am advised that magnetic resonance scanning is not a useful means of diagnosing epilepsy since most people with epilepsy would have a normal scan.

  Food Hygiene Regulations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about progress on the proposed amendments to the Food Hygiene Regulations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Amendment regulations will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Blood and Blood Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each National Health Service region, what was the cost of purchases of blood and blood products(a) external to the region, and (b) from outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: The cost of blood for those regions which were net receivers from regional transfusion centres elsewhere in the United Kingdom, for the financial year 1989–90, is given in the table. No blood is imported from outside the United Kingdom.

  Information on the value of the blood products supplied by the bio products laboratory (formerly the blood products laboratory) is commercially sensitive. Information on the value of the blood products imported into the United Kingdom is not held centrally either for individual regions or in total.

  Costs associated with blood supplied from other regions (net costs)1

  Region

  £

  Northern

  —

  Yorkshire

  —

  Trent

  —

  East Anglian

  3,334

  597

  Region

  £

  North-West Thames

  81,091

  North-East Thames

  156,371

  South-East Thames

  439,208

  South-West Thames

  —

  Wessex

  —

  Oxford

  —

  South Western

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  Mersey

  —

  North Western

  —

  Wales

  1,429

  1 The receiving region pays the supplying region a sum to cover its costs of collecting, processing and transport.

  Nurseries
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have children under five years; how many of these women work; what the estimated demand for nurseries is; and how many women who do not go to work place their children in nurseries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Not all the information requested is centrally available but such data as can be provided are as follows:

  Table 1

  Great Britain

  1986

  1988

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Percentage of women with children under 5 years

  17

  17

  Sample base (women aged 16 to 59)

  7,478

  7,326

  Table 2

  Great Britain

  1986

  1988

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Percentage of women, with children under 5, who went out to work Full time

  9

  11

  Part time

  24

  25

  Total going out to work1

  33

  36

  Sample base (women aged 16 to 59 with child(ren) aged 0 to 4

  1,238

  1,281

  1 Includes a few cases for which hours of work were not given.

  Notes:

  1. Table 1 shows that, in 1986 and 1988, 17 per cent. of all women of working age had at least one child aged under five years. Table 2 gives the percentages of these women who, in the same years, were working full time or part time. The data are taken from the General Household Survey, which obtains information from a sample of private households, and are therefore subject to sampling variability.

  2. 1988 is the most recent year in which the survey carried questions on day care for children under 5. It showed that 6 per cent. of children under five whose mothers did not go out to work attended a day nursery. This percentage is based on 1,105 children covered by the survey sample, some of whom would be from the same family. The percentage of non-working mothers of children under five whose children attended a day nursery is not available.

  3. No information is available on the demand for nurseries.

  Kawasaki Disease
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the threat to children's health of(a) meningitis and (b) Kawasaki disease; how many people in various age groups have died of Kawasaki disease; and if he will issue information to alert the public to the disease's symptoms.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The two most important causes of meningitis in childhood are meningococcal meningitis and haemophilus influenza B meningitis. The Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre and the Department closely monitor meningococcal meningitis, which is a notifiable disease, so that local outbreaks can be dealt with promptly.

  The chief medical officer wrote to all doctors and health authorities in February 1988 about the early management and prevention of spread of meningococcal infection. Copies of the two letters, PL/CMO(88)1 and PL/CMO(88)2, are available in the Library.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service is paying special attention to the surveillance of haemophilus influenza B meningitis, and there are prospects for the use of effective vaccine following appropriate trials.

  Surveillance of Kawasaki syndrome has been conducted jointly by the British Paediatric Association and the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre since 1983. A total of 112 reports of Kawasaki disease was received for cases with onset in 1989. This gives an incidence of 1·5 per 100,000 children under five years old.

  The following table shows the number of deaths from acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome1 (MCLS), which includes Kawasaki disease, in England and Wales:

  Year

  Age

  Under 1 year

  1 years

  2 years

  1985

  —

  —

  1

  1986

  1

  —

  —

  1987

  1

  —

  —

  1988

  1

  —

  1

  21989

  —

  —

  —

  1 9th Revision International Communicable Disease Code 446·1

  2 Provisional

  Kawasaki syndrome is a disease mainly of young children and has clinical features similar to other infections. The results of routine investigations may suggest the diagnosis but are not specific. Public information on the disease would not, therefore, assist in early diagnosis of the condition. Greater professional awareness amongst paediatricians in this country of its signs and symptoms would be more appropriate. In this regard, a leading article has recently appeared in the British Medical Journal (21 April 1990), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Artificial Sweeteners
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food are consultants to companies that are involved with the manufacture, marketing or use of artificial sweeteners in their products; and if he will make a statement.
  599
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 22 May, if he will name the one member of the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food who acts as a consultant to the International Sweeteners Organisation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not our policy to publish details of the outside interests of members of the independent expert advisory committee on toxicity. Members declare, in confidence, to the Department any specific pecuniary relationship between themselves and any company in the field in which the advisory committee operates. When an item in which a member has an interest is discussed the interest is declared and the declaration is minuted.

  One member has declared an interest in a company associated with another company which manufactures an artificial sweetener, another member has declared an interest in a company manufacturing an artificial sweetener and a third has declared an interest in an organisation representing manufacturers of artificial sweeteners.

  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes in expenditure on and statutory provision for services to the mentally ill and mentally handicapped there have been since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Gross spending on hospital and community health services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped increased in real terms by 20 per cent. (to £1,149 million) and 11 per cent. (to £497 million) respectively between 1978–79 and 1986–87, the most recent year for which information is available. Estimated gross expenditure by local authorities for the two groups increased in real terms by 50 per cent. (to £44 million) and 69 per cent. (to £288 million) respectively over the same period.

  Since 1979 there have been a number of important changes to the statute law relevant to services, most notably the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. In addition, further changes are proposed in the NHS and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government intends to meet the provisions of 600
  section 7 of the, Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 with regard to mentally handicapped people leaving long-stay hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As announced in the White Paper "Caring for People" the Government do not now intend to implement section 7 of the Act. The need to do so will be reconsidered in the light of several years' experience of the introduction of the assessment and case management procedures outlined in the White Paper. Current guidance already stresses the need for health authorities to ensure that there is provision for assessing individuals' particular needs.

  Hospital Waiting Lists, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently on hospital waiting lists in the London area; and what was the figure 12 months ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Between 30 September 1988 and 30 September 1989, the latest figures available, the in-patient waiting lists for London health authorities fell from 131,115 to 124,793, a decrease of 4·8 per cent.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes;

  (2) if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions;

  (3) if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For the whole of the period for which records are available, energy consumption for the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security, formerly DHSS, was jointly managed. I refer the hon. Member to the replies my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security gave today.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Lord Varley
The Right Honourable Eric Graham Varley, having been created Baron Varley, of Chesterfield in the County of Derbyshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gregson and the Lord Mason of Barnsley.

Clerk of the Parliaments: Retirement of Sir John Sainty, KCB; Appointment of Mr, M. A. J. Wheeler-Booth
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, it is my duty to notify your Lordships that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir John Sainty. It reads as follows:
"Dear Leader of the House,
"It is my duty to request you to announce to the House that, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor and yourself, I have asked the Prime Minister to submit to Her Majesty The Queen my resignation from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 31st December next and that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept it.
"I was appointed Clerk of the Parliaments in July 1983 and will have served seven-and-a-half years in that office. I believe that this will be an appropriate time for me to make way for a successor.
"I shall leave the House with regret. I am conscious of the privilege that I have enjoyed in occupying one of the most ancient and honourable offices in the gift of the Crown and would like to place on record my deep appreciation of the kindness which I have received from all sides of the House during my period of office.
Yours sincerely,
John sainty".
My Lords, it is my further duty to notify your Lordships that The Queen has been pleased to appoint Mr. Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth to succeed Sir John Sainty from the beginning of next year.
Following that announcement it will, I am sure, be your Lordships' wish in due course to pay tribute to the services of Sir John Sainty in this House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am advised that the proper manner of doing this is for the Leader of the House to table a Motion recording the House's appreciation of Sir John Sainty's services; but Sir John will be with us until the House rises for the Christmas Recess and that Motion will not therefore be tabled until nearer the time.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will in a few moments announce his appointments
1212
to the vacancies at the Table consequential on Sir John's retirement, and I should like to say for myself and on the Lord Chancellor's behalf that extensive consultations have been held with representatives of all sides of the House over these important appointments. This is in accordance with undertakings given by my predecessors as Leader of the House and previous Lord Chancellors that appointments to the Table should be the subject of wide consultations, and these undertakings have on this occasion been honoured to the full. I should also report to the House that the result of those consultations was unanimous.

Clerk Assistant: Mr. Michael Davies Reading Clerk: Mr. Paul Hayter
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I am pleased to confirm what the Leader of the House said about the consultation process. This has resulted in the recommendations that Mr. Michael Davies should succeed Mr. Wheeler-Booth as Clerk Assistant and that Mr. Paul Hayter should succeed Mr. Davies as Reading Clerk. It is proposed that these appointments should take effect in the New Year following Sir John Sainty's retirement, and I shall be inviting the House to approve the necessary Motions nearer the time.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making those announcements. I note that we shall be given an opportunity to pay a proper tribute to Sir John Sainty at a later date, and we look forward to doing that.
In the meantime, we thank the Leader of the House for the way he has conducted the consultation procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who apologises for his absence, has asked me to say that he wishes to be associated with those thanks.

Cervical Screening
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to promote cervical screening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the computerised call and recall systems which invite women for a cervical smear test in themselves draw attention to the need for regular screening. Furthermore, the system of target payments introduced in the GPs' new contract is already stimulating doctors to encourage women to be screened. The programme is also promoted through health education leaflets and through our meetings with representatives from womens' organisations and other representative bodies in the voluntary sector.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can she please tell the House whether the number of deaths from cervical cancer has fallen in the past few years and what age groups are covered by the call for cervical tests?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all women aged between 20 and 64 will be brought into the scope of the programme over the five years to 1993. That is in England. As I understand it, the effect of the screening system has been very beneficial in terms of the mortality rate, but I do not have precise numbers; to quote.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Minister referred to the GP's contract. Is she aware that there is considerable concern that, under the operation of the new contract, GPs who see no hope of reaching the target will simply stop carrying out regular smear tests? Cm the Minister comment on that? Is she aware of the recent report made by the Association of Community Health Councils which criticises the current screening campaign for its slowness in informing patients of the results of their tests following abnormal smears?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that the new GPs' contract is extremely beneficial. The contract as a whole places a much greater emphasis on health promotion and ill health prevention. The target payments already are proving to be an increased stimulus on improving the rate of take-up of cervical screening. The department monitors Iaborato;7 backlogs on a quarterly basis. As at December 1989 around 80 per cent. of laboratories were meeting the target time for reporting results to the smear taker within one month. Action taken to reduce backlogs includes overtime working, the employment of additional staff, and the use of other laboratory facilities within the NHS and the private sector. We believe that these facilities are working satisfactorily.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that informative reply. However, does she accept that if 20 per cent. of those who may be facing some danger do not receive information within a month, there is some real danger for them? Is there not something that can be done to improve that performance level in terms of reportage?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already quoted the varicus methods which are being used in order to improve that level.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if someone is called back for a second smear if the first is not conclusive, how long does that person have to wait before she is called back again? It can be a worrying period.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, obviously that varies in different parts of the country. I do not have figures which give any kind of average, but clearly the aim of the health authorities and the GPs is to make that waiting period as short as possible.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the result of the new GPs' contract has been a significant increase in the number of tests taken, running into hundreds of thousands. Therefore, does my noble friend not agree that we should give credit for the contract despite the fears which the noble Lord opposite has about what might happen in the future?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the Minister say when the Government propose to raise the age above 64, which these days is comparatively youthful?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, though women aged 65 years and over are not invited to be screened by the call and recall systems they are not excluded from the screening programme. We have told health authorities that women of this age who have not had two consecutive negative smear tests in the past 10 years should be screened. We know that such women consult their doctor more than six times a year on average. The new GPs' contract should provide additional opportunities for GPs to offer a cervical smear test to women in this age group when appropriate.

BSE Cows: Offspring
2.56 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many offspring of cattle affected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy are being monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Ministry is monitoring 312 offspring of confirmed BSE cases together with the same number of control animals at experimental husbandry farms, to determine whether maternal transmission occurs and, if so, at what incidence.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she say whether French veterinary experts visited this country recently and whether the disease occurs in France? Can she also say whether substantial numbers of cattle have been exported from this country to France? Is it correct that feedstuff which is suspected of causing this condition has also been exported to France?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the French vets were here last week. They were given full details of the measures we have taken. They have agreed to report these to their Minister. BSE became a notifiable disease throughout the EC from 1st April this year. France has not reported any cases. We have kept other countries fully informed about the development of BSE in Britain and of the probable role of meat and bonemeal as the source of infection. In the light of that, it is for the importing countries

1215
to decide whether to accept this material and, if so, under what conditions. For example, this material may be for use in pig and poultry rations, which is permitted in this country. The information that I have received from trade sources is that Belgium, Denmark, France and Ireland are still feeding meat and bonemeal to ruminants.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not the rate of diagnosis in Scotland is in any sense comparable with the figures that she may have with her for England?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's question, the best thing I can do is to put into the Library a list of all the cases that we have had in numbers and the confirmed beef suckler cases by breed. I also tell my noble friend that we have one confirmed case in a pure-bred Aberdeen Angus and 43 in Aberdeen Angus crosses.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, have the Government had discussions with the British Veterinary Association? If so, what was the outcome of those discussions? Were they held at national level; and will they be continued?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are in touch with all the scientific expertise which we think can be helpful to us.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that monitoring such a relatively small number of calves in relation to the totality of BSE cases might lead us to very dangerous conclusions at the end of the day, particularly in relation to the hereditary factor? If the small number that has been mentioned are shown to be clear through the monitoring, that will not necessarily mean that the disease is not a hereditary one.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the animals involved in the experiment will be under observation for up to seven years. Results are unlikely for at least two years because of the long incubation period. I believe that we have the numbers about right. Two separate herds are being used in the £12 million research experiments.
Lord Somers: My Lords, have there been any reports of other animals such as cats being attacked by the disease?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, two cases in cats have been confirmed out of 7 million cats in the United Kingdom. Investigations are in hand, but there is no evidence to suggest a connection with BSE, which in this instance would be FSE.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that beef farmers are today experiencing unprecedented difficulty? Is she further aware that the price of beef has fallen in the past two months from £1.50 a kilo to 95p a kilo? Does she recognise that this represents a loss to the farmer of about £100 per animal? This may mean the difference
1216
between a profit and a loss to the farmer and whether or not he can pay his rent. Will my noble friend please indicate whether the Government will pay attention to the request of the president of the National Farmers' Union, Sir Simon Gourlay, that consideration should be given to banning all beef imports until such time as this difficulty is resolved? In that way the beef that is marketed by our farmers can be sold at a recognisable return to the farmer who has put so much into it, and the people who have perpetrated the fault in the feedstuff which appears to have contributed to this disease may be called to book?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may take the two parts of my noble friend's question in the order in which he raised them. First, I should like to express my sympathy and that of my colleagues to cattle farmers. They are having a very difficult time, particularly following on from the lead in milk situation. We have asked the European Commission to recognise the weak market position for beef here and in Ireland, and it has opened intervention for unlimited quantities of beef to provide a safety net. With regard to retaliation, I do not agree with my noble friend. We are playing by the rules. We are using the proper European procedures. Two wrongs do not make a right, and importantly, the Commission is on our side.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether sellers of such calves are required to make buyers aware of the fact that they have been delivered from cows affected by BSE? If they are so required, can she say whether compliance with the requirement is being monitored?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, details of all female offspring are kept on computer. Legislation will be introduced as soon as possible requiring details of the dam and offspring to be recorded and retained for 10 years. This is to provide the means if results of research indicate that further action is necessary to help eradication. Advice has been made known via ADAS, the farming press and farmers' meetings. Written advice is provided to the owners of all suspect cases at the time of the diagnostic visit and an advisory pamphlet is in the final stages of preparation following scientific advice.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, in the light of the findings of the Southwood Committee and also of the deliberations of the Tyrrell Committee, is it not good advice for the consumer not to be unduly worried by the scare stories presented in the media and perhaps to take advantage of the low price of beef at the moment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am delighted to give my noble friend an assurance based on the best advice available. The Chief Medical Officer has said that beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital. Furthermore, most animals currently slaughtered are of an age not to have been exposed to infection via feed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness informed us that the feed which causes BSE is used extensively in France, Denmark and other countries. Is there a record of an outbreak of BSE in any of those countries? In the circumstances, is there any justification for France and other countries to ban the import of beef into those countries?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his intervention because it gives me the opportunity to say that the action taken is without any scientific justification whatever. Earlier this year the top scientific experts in the European Community endorsed the view of our own experts that British beef is perfectly safe to eat. Urgent discussions are taking place at all levels and with the full support of the European Commission to get the restrictions lifted.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Bareness announced proudly that this country is playing by the rules. However, if other countries alter the rules in the middle of the game, is it not inevitable that we shall lose the game?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. I do not believe that retaliation would actually help our farmers.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, mentioned the dramatic decrease in the price of beef Has the noble Baroness any idea when that decrease will work its way through to the consumer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has recently been buying beef, but I think he will find that the decrease already has worked its way through.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, I note that the Minister of Agriculture has been telling us all about the Continent and our surrounding neighbours but has said noihing about the United States of America. We know that a good many experiments have been carried out there into this new disease. I say "new" but per [laps I should not. It has probably been around for a long time but it now has a name—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, I want to ask why America is not in this as well.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not quite sure what America has to do to get in this.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can a calf get BSE through the milk of its mother or through the placenta?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may answer in this way. In sheep with scrapie the placenta is a source of infection and it can be passed on through ingestion. We are experimenting with cattle
1218
although at present there is no evidence. As far as I am aware from scientific opinion we have been given, milk would be safe for the calf to drink, but it is taken away from the mother as soon as it is born.

Exchange Rate Mechanism
3.9 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish a Green Paper setting out the likely implications of the United Kingdom joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I consider that to be a most unsatisfactory and retrograde Answer? Why on earth will the Government not give the people of this country the opportunity to have a say on a matter which will affect them in every way in respect of prices, of interest rates, of the economy, of unemployment and a whole range of other matters? Why on earth do the Government ignore the people of this country when they come to such vital decisions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is no; the answer to his second question is that there was, as I am sure he will recall from his experience in a previous position which he held in another place, a Green Paper. There has been much debate on this subject, most recently in your Lordships' House on 18th December of last year. At no stage have we sought to exclude opinion from whatever source. We have thoroughly encouraged debate throughout the country.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as my noble friend does not propose to issue a Green Paper, would he nevertheless agree that membership of the exchange rate mechanism is a discipline and not a licence or a crutch, and that in particular it will mean that no future government—or perhaps I should say, no government in future—will be able to rely upon inflation as a means of counteracting errors in economic or monetary policy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that the ERM is a mechanism. The key point which we should bear in mind is that entry into the ERM will not reduce the inflation rate, but it will, indeed, help to keep it down once we have got it down. My noble friend was right to remind the House that such membership would not be a panacea.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Earl has not seen fit to dissent in any way from the disciplinary observations of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, does he agree, especially

1219
in view of the fact that the last Labour Government were very frank in informing the country as a whole exactly what would be involved at that time, that it would be a good thing and consistent with open and frank government that the Government's present position should be made well known in detail, rather than being hidden in a whole series of ambiguities? Surely the noble Earl can reconsider the matter and let us have details of the Government's thinking on these important issues and of the way in which their conclusions have been arrived at.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is particularly persuasive today. I am happy to be able to reiterate to your Lordships the full conditions upon which we shall join the ERM, which I have spelt out to the House on more than one occasion. We are committed to join the ERM when the level of UK inflation is significantly lower. There is capital liberalisation in the community and real progress has been made towards completion of the single market, freedom of financial services and strengthened competition policy. We have had numerous debates and questions on the matter. I hope that the Government's position is now absolutely clear.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if my noble friend cannot issue a Green Paper, can he at any rate set out the parameters which show how far the discipline extends? Can he also give a more detailed description of how we can use the crutch?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the ERM will have benefits for this country in giving greater exchange rate stability against our Community trading partners. It will reinforce the Government's policy to get inflation decisively down. That is how we shall use the crutch.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the stability of the exchange rate mechanism is bound to be influenced, perhaps severely in the short term, by the impact of the unification of the two German currencies?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think that I attach the same importance to that fact as my noble friend. However, it is important that we should have a very firm commitment to join the ERM, and we shall do so when the conditions that I have set out are met.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Government's commitment to join is on a narrow band basis or on a broad band basis?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord's question on the matter. However, that is a matter which will have to be decided at the time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl made reference to the Green paper published in 1978, which is 12 years ago. Does he agree with
1220
the conclusions of that Green Paper? They were that the Government could not yet reach a decision (that was 12 years ago) to join the ERM; that the basic objective was to pursue policies for improving growth and reducing unemployment; that the foundation for these policies was an improvement in industrial production and victory in the battle of inflation; and that only those factors can provide a lasting basis for the stability of the exchange rate. Do the Government agree with that policy, which was propounded by my noble friend Lord Callaghan?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be well aware that we have brought down inflation. We shall bring it down from its present level. We have brought down the level of unemployment quite significantly. However, the noble Lord and the Government disagree if he believes that the ERM can be of no help; we believe that it will be of help.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, surely the noble Earl recalls that the rate of inflation today is higher than it was at the time that the Green Paper was issued by the Labour Government?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It says it in the book.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords; I am not sure. I do not have the figures with me. However, what I know is that the average rate of inflation under this Government has been about half that which existed under the noble Lord's Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, was not the rate of inflation in 1978 only 8.5 per cent. whereas it is 9.4 per cent. today?

Broadcasting Bill
3.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill as it now stands has taken account of a wealth of consultation, comment and debate. It was preceded by the Peacock Report of July 1986, the radio Green Paper of February 1987, the Home Affairs Committee report of June 1988 and the Broadcasting White Paper of November 1988. Each of these publications was based on, and in turn prompted, a mass of evidence, advice and representations. These ranged from expert technical analysis to the comments of many individual viewers and listeners—and to the general concern of the public, who are, as we all are, apprehensive of any form of change and also of the unknown.
This process of trying to get it right has not stopped with the 3,000 or so responses which we received to the White Paper. During the spring and summer of 1989, before the Bill was produced, the Government made a string of important announcements proposing a number of major changes to the proposals which we have made in the White Paper in the light of consultations that we had on it. The

1221
topics which were covered in these announcements included cable, ownership, quality requirements, Channel 4, transmission and the BBC night hours. These announcement all showed the Government's readiness to develop and, where necessary, to change the White Paper proposals where the arguments were persuasive.
The readiness of the Government to listen and to respond to sound arguments has been, as I think your Lordships will agree, continued during the consideration of the Bill in another place. Over 70 amendments were made to the Bill in the course of a Standing Committee of no fewer than 38 sittings. Moreover, as if that were not enough, over 500 government amendments were considered during the 17 hours of debate during the Report stage and were included in the Bill. Many of those amendments resulted directly from undertakings which were given in Committee. So no one can say that the Government have not listened or taken note of the understandable concerns which were expressed, and I believe that most people would agree that the Bill is now much better and more generally acceptable than it was when it was first introduced, and that it is indeed considerably better than people feared it would be after publication of the White Paper. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the "peaks" of anxiety have been removed and that there is now just a "gentle rolling countryside".
There is now a much wider consensus on many of the issues which are covered in the Bill than there was at the time of the White Paper proposals. To pick just two examples, many observers are now much happier with the ways in which the Bill safeguards quality on Channels 3 and 5, and the funding and constitutional position of Channel 4 than they were with the paragraphs about them in the White Paper. That does not mean, though, that, by some magic waving of my right honourable friend's wand, the Bill has now suddenly become perfect and unchangeable, or that the Government will cease to listen. We are already aware of some areas of concern—for instance, on religious broadcasting and on the transitional arrangements for cable—where we think that changes are still needed to improve the Bill yet further.
To the layman, radio is radio and television is television, but broadcasting in whatever form is fast changing—technologically, economically and culturally—and we would be wrong to assume that that will suddenly cease. It is not a static scene. Like an ant hill, it is always on the move; and I am only too well aware—with a certain amount of personal trepidation—that your Lordships bring together an unrivalled body of experience and expertise in broadcasting matters. If I may say so, it is quite a formidable prospect.
For all those reasons I have no doubt that the Bill will be further improved and refined as a result of consideration by your Lordships; but I would not, by that, wish to incite your Lordships to any unbridled bouts of enthusiasm, nor suggest that your Lordships might be stimulated by the unusual experience of yesterday evening.
Some noble Lords may be tempted to ask two questions: first, why is the Bill so long? Secondly,
1222
why has it changed so much? That might be wrongly interpreted, if I may say so, as showing that the Government's plans were not properly thought out in the first place. Perhaps I could deal with both these matters before noble Lords opposite become too enthusiastic.
It is true that this is one of the longest Bills which has ever been prepared by the Home Office and, if I may say so, that is no mean feat; but there are good reasons for that. The Bill will replace, entirely, the two major preceding broadcasting statutes: the Broadcasting Act 1981 and the Cable and Broadcasting Act of 1984. What is more, the subjects with which it deals range far more widely than did both of those Acts taken together. The 1981 Act concentrated on independent terrestrial broadcasting. The 1984 Act focused on cable. The Bill reforms the legal framework for independent television and cable in Parts I and II, but it also deals with many other matters.
Parts I and II also cover both types of satellite broadcasting: direct broadcasting by satellite, which is commonly called DBS, and non-domestic satellite broadcasting, commonly called non-DBS. To those of your Lordships who are not wholly familiar with these terms I should explain that DBS refers to those services which operate on frequencies which are allocated to the United Kingdom for broadcasting. British satellite broadcasting, which is called BSB, falls into that category. Non-DBS refers to those broadcasting services such as Sky which use other types of frequency. Parts I and II also cover microwave transmission, and what the Bill calls "additional services"; in other words, text, data and other services which use the spare capacity of broadcasting signals. Part I also covers what are called "licensable programme services". An example would be a channel which is delivered in tape form to a cable system.
Part III provides for a much wider range of independent radio stations, including three new national services and many new small stations serving local communities.
Part VI puts the Broadcasting Standards Council on a statutory basis.
Part VII deals with the extension to broadcasting of the law of obscenity and incitement to racial hatred.
Part VIII contains measures against pirate broadcasting.
Part IX deals with copyright matters such as that lovely expression "needletime" and programme listings.
Part X ranges over unacceptable foreign satellite services, the implementation of the United Kingdom's international obligations, independent producers and other matters.
Other parts of the Bill provide for the privatisations of the Independent Broadcasting Authority's transmission system.
The Bill also covers a number of more specific, but nevertheless important, topics such as the funding of Gaelic television, listed sporting events, preservation of a public teletext service similar to the present

1223
Oracle service, and improved targets for subtitling for the deaf on independent terrestrial television. The breadth of these topics is, frankly, vast. We seek to put in place a comprehensive new system of independent broadcasting regulation. That is brought about, not because of some mischievous desire on the part of the Government to upset the existing broadcasting and television system, which most of us value, respect and cherish, but mainly because the changes which technology has produced, and the rapidity of those changes, have resulted in our existing laws being totally out of date and inadequate. New opportunities, methods and systems are not only open to us but are actually in use and the law has to be changed to accommodate them, to encourage them and, up to a point, to control them.
We have to look ahead to the remaining years of this century and on into the next. The pace of technological change and the range of developing or potential new services which have to be regulated mean that piecemeal tinkering with existing legislation simply would not do. As well as covering the new services which are not mentioned in previous legislation, such as the new Channel 5, the Bill at a number of points replaces discretionary regulation with a clearer, more objective set of rules. An example is the comprehensive ownership rules which are set out in Schedule 2. Our aim has been to give people, such as potential bidders for licences, the clearest possible indication of what the qualifying rules will be, rather than to leave them, as has happened in the past, to guess how regulatory discretion might be exercised. That, too, has sometimes necessitated fuller treatment than in previous legislation, although we have tried to build in mechanisms for taking account of future changes in the broadcasting system. For all those reasons, the Bill inevitably has to be wide-ranging if it is to do its job properly.
The second related question is whether the changes which have been made to the Bill imply that the Government's original plans were not properly thought out. I think not. The Bill continues to reflect the fundamental principles which underlaid the White Paper. Our chief aims were, and, indeed still are as follows. First, to allow viewers and listeners to be able to take advantage of the increased choice which is opening up. Secondly to provide clear and up-to-date safeguards for those things which cannot be left to the unpredictability of increased competition, such as programme quality, programme diversity, regional identity, different and widespread ownership of broadcasting companies, and proper geographical coverage. Thirdly, to ensure that there are programme standards which have to be achieved in matters of taste, decency, accuracy and balance—and to extend them to all UK-based broadcasters.
Those are the objectives which we have had, and they are all embodied in the Bill. We have endeavoured not to be dogmatic or intransigent about the means by which we achieve those ends. The Bill deals with an immensely complex subject and one which is subject to constant change. It would
1224
have been foolish to reject good arguments just through some kind of governmental intransigence, and we have not done so.
In the Government's view the Bill, as it now stands, gives effect to the underlying objectives, which I have mentioned, more accurately and more precisely than it did when it was first published; and for that we are grateful for the advice and suggestions which we have received from many quarters, especially from Members of another place.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I briefly outline the main changes which were made in another place. First, we have further strengthened the quality requirements for Channels 3 and 5. Your Lordships may recall that the announcement of 13th June 1989 included an additional requirement that licensees must provide a reasonable proportion of programmes—in addition to news and current affairs—of high quality. In another place, still further requirements were added for children's and religious programming, and for high quality regional news.
The Independent Television Commission has also been empowered to publish a guide to the kind of elements which they would expect to see covered in a programme service in order that it can satisfy the need to cater for a wide range of tastes and interests. All these changes reinforce the intention that no applicant for a franchise shall get as far as the comparison of financial bids unless the range and quality of his programming proposals can satisfy really exacting tests.
Next, I draw attention to the strengthening of the regional requirements for Channel 3. The White Paper proposed that licensees should be required to show regional programming, including programmes which have been produced in the region. Changes which were made in another place include scope for companies whose areas cover distant and different identities, to transmit simultaneously programmes which can be aimed at the different areas within their region. They also gave power for the Independent Television Commission to require applicants to specify what regional resources and facilities they planned to use and the requirement that Scotland should not be a single franchise area. As well as demonstrating the Government's commitment to a genuinely regional Channel 3 system, these changes will also have the effect of making even more exacting the requirements which any bidders from European Community countries would have to satisfy.
Perhaps the most talked about amendments in another place were the additions to the "exceptional circumstances" provision, which were written into the Bill to make it clear, beyond peradventure, that exceptionally high quality can displace the highest money bid—even though the highest bidder has himself already passed the quality threshold. This means that, where an applicant is head and shoulders above the rest, the Independent Television Commission will be able to award the licence to him even though he may not be the highest bidder. The Independent Television Commission will be able to apply this test to each franchise separately.
The Bill also now explicitly recognises the importance of training. It has been amended to

1225
enable the Independent Television Commission to require applicants for Channel 3, Channel 5 and national commercial radio licences to state what provision for training they propose to make in order to back up their programming plans.
The main change on radio is that the Bill now includes an external diversity requirement for national commercial radio. This means that the three new stations must be different from each other. The Bill also now says that one of these stations must be a speech-based service and another must be devoted to music other than pop music—and I am sure that that will please some of your Lordships. It will not all be; "Thump, thump, thump"! These changes should ensure that listeners get genuine diversity of choice from the new national services, and they should also mean that the new stations will provide competition to BBC radio right across the board.
Some of the other significant changes which were made in another place include the amendment to preserve a public teletext service similar to the present Oracle service; the curtailing of police powers with regard to material which is suspected of being obscene or of being liable to promote racial hatred; targets for subtitling for the deaf on Channels 3 and 5 which will mean subtitling on half the programme output within five years.
As your Lordships will see, a great deal has already been done to improve the Bill and the Government have responded happily where a good case has been made. I think that these changes will result in there being increased choice while, at the same time, safegaurding quality and standards.
However, it is right that I should give your Lordships notice of a few other matters which are engaging our attention and where further changes may be needed. The first concerns religious broadcasting. We frankly doubt whether the "no undue prominence" and "no editorialising" rules are quite right for religious broadcasting. We intend to replace them with a requirement that religious broadcasting by any licensee should be responsible and that it should not be exploitative.
Secondly, we are proposing to make revised arrangements for the renewal of cable franchises. We also want to enable the Independent Television Commission to take account of coverage proposals in the award of local delivery licences. Thirdly, we want to tighten the laws on subscription piracy. Fourthly, there are a few additions which we would like to make to the transitional and technical provisions in the Bill. Fifthly, we would like to empower the Independent Television Commission to safeguard national television archiving arrangements. The cultural and social benefits which a television archive yields might otherwise be jeopardised.
There remain, from the discussions in another place, a few other outstanding matters on which the Government hope to reach a view shortly. These include transitional networking, the arrangements for performance bonds and needletime—which is an important, though technical, subject to do with copyright in records which are played on the radio.
1226
I have tried to give some indication of the breadth of the Bill, and of the reasons why a comprehensive reform of broadcasting is needed now and the means by which we hope to achieve it. I know that there are various matters in which a number of your Lordships have a keen interest and which I have not mentioned nor indeed even skated over. This was not a deliberate or crafty manoeuvre to avoid difficult subjects but simply a desire to limit the ordeal to which your Lordships have been subjected by having to listen to an even longer speech than that with which your Lordships have shown remarkable patience. I shall, nevertheless, look forward to hearing about these other issues either today or over the coming weeks.
I think that this Bill will lead to much wider choice, without sacrificing quality or standards—and that is very important. It will also result in a more competitive, diverse and creative broadcasting industry—and that is important. These outcomes, far from being incompatible, will in fact reinforce each other. The Bill still raises, I realise, deep issues on which many noble Lords will perfectly properly take differing philosophical positions. But I believe that its provisions now command a much wider consensus of approval than they did before. I have no doubt that the Bill will emerge further improved from your Lordships' House, to the benefit of viewers and listeners throughout the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the Minister for his usual concise and very good explanation of the Bill. Like many of us, he did not get to bed early last night and it looks like a late night tonight. I also look forward to hearing the four maiden speeches today from my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, the right reverend prelate, the Bishop of Peterborough, the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow and my very old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Grade.
As the Minister said, what started life as a document of 159 pages has turned into the hefty 217-page document which we have before us today. When it first emerged it cost £11·30. Now, so many months later, it has grown from 167 clauses and 12 schedules to 182 clauses and 17 schedules. It now costs £14·10; that is probably due to its weight, together with a spot of inflation.
Last year the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw—who unfortunately is not speaking in this debate—published his memoirs. His comments on broadcasting are still highly relevant today. He wrote:
"I am fearful of some of the ideas being put forward because I do not want to destroy a much-admired broadcasting system before we are quite certain of what we want to put in its place. I am also disturbed by talk of achieving higher standards in programmes at the same time as proposals are introduced leading to deregulation and greater financial competition … I cannot believe that they are basically compatible".
That is a timely warning that broadcasting cannot safely be left to the mercies of profit maximising

1227
and market forces, nor indeed to the unregulated self-interest of broadcasters themselves.
As the noble Earl quite rightly pointed out, the Bill before us is a substantial improvement on the original. The Government should be congratulated on listening to and acting on the pressures from the Opposition and others. However, I must disabuse him if he believes that we shall enter an area of gentle rolling countryside. I believe that at times it will be a lot rougher than that.
The noble Earl also emphasised the "exceptional circumstances" concession made by the Government in another place. My noble friends and I will have points to raise on that very difficult definition of quality and the way in which the "exceptional circumstances" provision is applied.
I was very pleased to hear that among the items which the noble Earl said that the Government would bring forward will be amendments to protect archives. That pleases me and it will please the British Film Institute and a great many others.
Nevertheless, the main thrust of the Bill remains intact. Just as the White Paper emphasised competition over choice and quality, the Bill still bears all the hallmarks of an obsession with the market place. Despite the greater discretion allowed to the ITC to accept bids of exceptional quality, the essential ingredient remains money, not for better programmes but for the Treasury. That is a denial of the philosophy which has always underpinned British broadcasting in the commercial sector as well as in the BBC. It is the emphasis on range and quality which has given us our unique international reputation. So far this year the BBC has won 132 national and international awards, and it is still only June. ITV won the Golden Rose at Montreaux; Channel 4 the silver award; and Yorkshire Television won BAFTA and Emmy awards for a documentary. That is not a comprehensive list.
That has not happened by chance. From the break-up of the BBC monopoly Parliament has carefully responded to technological change, public demand and broadcaster initiative to create a differentiated television and radio system which provides information, education and entertainment in a framework of quality, choice and diversity.
The Government propose to replace that regulatory system with a free market. There will be regulation but as the Government themselves have emphasised, there will be a much lighter touch than in the past. There has not been a very heavy touch in the past, except on a few occasions.
We should ask ourselves what benefits the move to the free market will bring. It has brought American viewers a surfeit of game shows and soaps, with documentaries and drama virtually forgotten forms found only in the archives and museums of the creative arts or—and this is the important point for us—imported from this country. For the majority of Americans choice on the networks is an illusion. I received a letter at the weekend from a friend who has taken up an academic appointment in media and communications in America. The letter said:
"All that you said about American television is absolutely true. I am reading many more books these days".
1228
That may be a good thing from one point of view—I see the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, smiling. However, it does not say much for the quality of television.
On this side of the House our worry is how the new set-up will enable broadcasters to spend the vast sums of money needed to make good documentaries and dramas, because they are not cheap, as we all know. Cable and satellite are no substitute for high quality terrestrial services. That is not to say that we do not have to take note of and go along with technological changes. However, neither service is yet universally available and the viewer has to pay extra for them. Therefore the four terrestrial channels will continue to constitute the core of most people's viewing opportunities.
Regarding Channel 3, Clause 16(2)(b) gives cause for anxiety in the subtle change in its requirements for programme range compared with the 1981 Act. The Bill fails to guarantee the diversity it freely promises. Though in news and current affairs there is to be a statutory guarantee that the public will be offered such output in peak viewing times, no such proviso exists for other programmes of high quality. Indeed, there is a repetition of the words "sufficient time" which I find very worrying. Perhaps the Minister will be able to define that better and tell us what constitutes sufficient time, what is insufficient, and where the line is to be drawn between them.
In contrast, the 1981 Act rightly imposed a duty on the IBA to ensure programmes of a high general standard in each area in all respects—range, content and quality. It also insisted that it had regard both to the programmes as a whole and also to the days of the week and the times of the day when programmes are to be broadcast. Noble Lords will agree that that makes all the difference in the world.
Education and educational programmes are incorporated in the 1981 statute, unlike this Bill. I shall say no more on education as my noble friend Baroness David will deal with that aspect.
The future of a quality news service is by no means as certain as the Government appeared to think during the passage of the Bill through the other place. The mix of news provision and the market is still uneasy. It would be a tragedy if the high quality of ITN news was to be lost through changes in ownership and share distribution. That is a point which we shall have to take up later, but I know that it is a matter on which my noble friend Lord Ardwick wishes to speak.
For all those reasons it is essential that we ensure that stability and adequate funding of our terrestrial sector continues. However, there are four major flaws that threaten that stability as the Bill now stands. First, there is the question of the moratorium. If, as the Government have argued, the new system needs some stability, what clearly needs to be written into the Bill is a moratorium on take-overs. It would start from the award of the licence and I believe that it should run until two years after the start of broadcasting in order to give contractors time to gear their broadcasting services to the new licensing regulations. Such a moratorium would offer stability to the system.
It is strange that although there seemed to be general support and approval in the other place for

1229
such a moratorium the Government would not move on the issue. At Report stage, of the 11 Members who spoke on the subject eight were Conservatives. All of them supported the moratorium, but the Government would not accept an amendment. The Bill remains as it is—I hope for us to alter. I believe that it is not a party matter but one of common sense and of stability.
It would enable companies to plan ahead. It would enable them to spend time on programme creativity rather than having to look over their shoulder in case someone is waiting to catch up with them and take them over, which creates financial uncertainty. Perhaps most important of all, it would encourage all would-be licensees to be out in the open. Without the protection of a moratorium, a company with a dislike of competitive tendering in all its dimensions could stay on the sidelines and then move in after other licences have been awarded to try to pick off a desirable licensee.
Secondly, there is the question of networking. The present ITV system is regionally based, but, especially at peak hours, programmes are usually networked throughout the UK. The uncertain status of networking is the second major flaw that we want to see amended. Again, that applies to noble Lords on all sides of the House. The IBA is surely right in pressing for clarification, but one point is in danger of being neglected. Under the existing network arrangements, smaller franchise holders have effectively been squeezed out of prime time by the big five ITV companies. It would be ironic and frustrating to choice and true regionalism if the smaller companies were virtually excluded.
However, legislation will be required, whatever is agreed between the companies. The ITC must be able to enforce the networking requirements and must have the necessary legislation in the Bill to enable it to do so. Clause 2 obligations are not enough as written into the Bill at present. The ITV companies do not disagree with that, although they are determined to establish a fair and effective network for the transitional period, assuming that they reach agreement before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
I shall mention the question of cross-media ownership only briefly as I know that a number of other noble Lords intend to speak on that subject at greater length. We on this side of the House have for a long time been concerned about the way in which newspapers, radio and television and cable and satellite companies are bought up by a relatively small number of media owners, which restricts the number who control the communications industry of this country. Restricting cross-ownership to 20 per cent. holdings appears in several parts of the Bill and we support that. However, the Bill should also face up to the special treatment accorded to non-domestic satellite broadcasting which to some of us smacks of political partisanship.
It is important that the ownership of non-domestic satellite services is kept under constant review, perhaps with an understanding that, when the audience reaches a certain level—for example, 3 million—the owner's combinations of media influence have become excessive and must be
1230
reduced. That should apply even if the 20 per cent. figure is adhered to, which is certainly not the case at present as regards Sky.
Another serious threat to the stability of Channel 3 is the Government's failure to limit the number of bids any one company can make to avoid a great deal of multiple bidding. Each company will be able to own two licences, which we on this side of the House think is wrong. I believe that one television licence is enough for anyone. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to prevent a company from entering bids—indeed, one for all of the 15 licences. How much better it would be if there were a one-licence-one-bid situation which would be both simple and more competitive.
It is clear that such multiple bidding will lead to unnecessary and unjustifiable chaos as it will set the ITV companies at each other's throats. There could be chaos at the ITC, which may well have to sift through 10 times the number of applications that it would otherwise receive. Indeed, the ITC could end up with a situation in which one company is found to offer the highest bid and the highest quality of progamming in five or six franchise areas. How, then, is the allocation of franchises to be decided? The House must certainly take a hard look at that matter.
Adding to the realm of uncertainty is the advent of the mysterious Channel 5 which at present exists in a legislative vacuum. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us when he winds up. What is the channel's remit? How is it to be funded? What proportion of the country will be covered? How much will it cost franchise winners to set it up, including the cost of retuning every video in the country? There is then the danger that Channels 3 and 5 will drag each other down competing for the same slice of advertising cake as resources will be more thinly spread. That is almost a jump into the unknown as no one knows how the advertising side will work out.
The proposals for Channel 5, such as they are, are even less well worked out than the proposals for the three national radio services where there is more clarity and specificity than for Channel 5. As the Minister pointed out, one channel is intended mainly for speech, another for serious music and a third for pop, but the great feature that is missing is a quality threshold. Unlike the television licences, there is no quality threshold for the national radio services. Many of us believe that such a threshold should be included. There is also a great deal of concern about community radio, but I shall not deal with that issue now.
The Government want to preserve some regulation, but sometimes in rather unfortunate areas. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, as chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council, will forgive me if I refer to the BSC as otiose. That is not a personal remark. I now realise that he left the Chamber a few moments ago. If one intends to criticise someone, it is always better to do so when the person concerned is there. It is rather annoying to criticise an empty seat, and one also feels that one is being rather unfair. The council has now been given statutory credibility and will be able to initiate

1231
complaints itself under Clause 142(7). That could create regulatory havoc by cutting across the responsibilities of the ITC and radio authorities.
My personal view is that they probably do not have enough to do so they have to work out jobs for themselves. Given that there is already the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, it seems wrong that we should need two bodies of that kind. We do not need an extra censor in this country when we are busy trying to get rid of the others. The Government also insist on retaining the right of veto over members of the Channel 4 Corporation, which seems to me to be quite wrong.
Perhaps I may now turn briefly to the BBC. Although it is hardly mentioned in the Bill and its mood is one of current optimism, the implications for the corporation when its Royal Charter comes up for review in 1996 are considerable. The Minister in another place has said that the new Channel 3 will be pitched,
"a notch below public service broadcasting".
That would mean the BBC having to compete with a lower quality and agressively competitive mass audience commercial television. The Government have said that, against that, the BBC must stand as the cornerstone of public service broadcasting. However, if they carry out their threat to increase the licence fee in 1991 by less than the retail price index, the BBC could spiral into long-term decline.
There are many aspects of the Bill with which I have not dealt, but, given the number of speakers, I do not think that it would be welcome if I did so. I am sure that, in view of the number of speakers, almost every aspect of the Bill will be covered.
Finally, public service broadcasting may have an old fashioned ring to it but it is the structure which gives British broadcasting such prestige. Since children now spend more time watching television than at school it is essential that they receive a balanced diet of viewing which mixes fun with a wide education by stealth. However light or serious the programme, the quality factor distinguishes the good programme from the bad. If standards decline there is a great danger that future generations will grow up quite indifferent to the sort of quality that they watch. They will not ask for anything better because, unlike us, they will not have experienced anything better on television.
Despite the concessions and the promises to maintain the traditional objectives of public service broadcasting up to a point, the regulatory touch is, I fear, too light and the drafting of the Bill too loose, with grave omissions, for my noble friends and myself to have any confidence that the best broadcasting system in the western world will remain so. We intend to do what we can to improve the Bill and fulfil our responsibility to our children and grandchildren.
4 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in paying tribute to the good humoured as well as very clear way in
1232
which the noble Earl, indefatigable after his ordeal last night, introduced this Bill. When I last spoke about the Government's broadcasting policy in the debate on the gracious Speech, I took a rather poor view of the Broadcasting Bill that was about to be introduced. I agree with the noble Earl. I am bound to say that the Bill which he has just described is a great deal better than the one that was originally introduced in another place. If politics is the art of the possible, the Minister in another place deserves a great deal of credit as a successful practitioner of what is possible with a Prime Minister who is well known to be somewhat prejudiced about broadcasters and with a Treasury that is anxious to squeeze the television contractors for cash until the pips squeak.
The noble Earl loyally did his best to explain the reasons for the substantial changes that have taken place in the Bill. In my parliamentary experience I cannot remember a Bill that was so changed between its introduction into another place and its emergence from it. It would be churlish for me to do other than congratulate the new team at the Home Office on having been able to bring about those changes. But changes, however welcome, cannot change a basically bad Bill into a good one.
There are good things in the Bill. With a Bill consisting of 182 clauses and 18 schedules—the noble Baroness underestimated the number of schedules—it would be strange if there were not a number of good things in it. The new national commercial radio channels, the spread of community radio and the opportunity for ethnic stations offer the chance of a much wider range of choice in sound broadcasting. The expansion of satellite and cable broadcasting offers the viewer the possibility—I emphasise the word "possibility"—of more up-to-date films, of a 24-hour news service (which Sky Channel is already doing well) and specialist theme channels for those who are enthusiasts for one form or another of sport or cultural pursuit.
Much will depend on how these new developments are shaped. But it seems certain that the new satellite and cable services will take time to grow. Therefore I believe that until the end of the century at least—I have always said it—the existing terrestrial channels of the BBC and independent television will remain the main popular viewing. It is important to the viewer and listener that they are allowed to retain that character and quality which are widely admired around the world.
I had the good luck to be at Montreux—the noble Baroness mentioned the Golden Rose Festival at Montreux—when a commercial company in this country, Thames Television, for the first time in the history of that award, won all the three major prizes for the quality of its light entertainment. I mention that because quality programmes are sometimes thought of as being highbrow programmes of one kind or another. Quality programmes are quality programmes right across the range. When we come to examine the Bill in detail at Committee stage we shall no doubt want to emphasise that point.
The trouble at the heart of this Bill is that it undermines and dilutes to a quite unnecessary degree

1233
the public service character of ITV and it will inevitably lower its overall quality. Beyond the Bill—I understand that my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter will speak on this matter—looms the threat, so long as the present Conservative approach to broadcasting prevails, to the way in which the BBC is financed and its character as the foundation stone of British broadcasting.
In the euphoria caused by Mr. Mellor's sensible concessions in another place, it is well to remember his frank admission during the Committee stage of the Bill that the new Channel 3 will be—in his phrase—"a notch below public service broadcasting". George Russell, my successor as IBA chairman, for whose determination to defend quality I have a very great respect, also made the comment that Channel 3 would perhaps be about 80 per cent. of the quality of present ITV. Those are realistic remarks. In fact they may be optimistic remarks.
What is important to bear in mind is that the fundamental change which the Government are bringing about takes away the continuing duty and obligation of the regulatory body (the IBA in the past) to seek to maintain standards. The ITC will have a public duty to try to ensure quality at the moment that it gives the licences, but after that its obligations are very different from those that have existed until now in commercial broadcasting in this country. I believe that it will be important to seek to strengthen Clause 2 of the Bill to impose more clearly a public duty on the ITC and on the Radio Authority to maintain standards as time goes on and indeed 1o give Parliament regular reviews of the way in which the quality of the service is in fact being maintained.
I fully concede that the Government have strengthened the hand of the new ITC with the provisions spelt out in Clause 17(3) for awarding a contract in exceptional circumstances to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid if the ITC judges that the quality of his proposal is substan;ially higher. So far so good, but I find it hard to believe that it is practical—I speak with some experience of being chairman of a public authority—for a public authority to give quality exceptional priority over price in more than a minority of the applications that will come before the ITC without destroying the credibility of the Government's own highest bid system. In the great majority of cases it is the largest sum of money and cash that will count. For my part I should much have preferred, if the Government wish to make a basic change in these procedures, to have had a situation in which they set a fair price for a television contract and then it was for the ITC to decide which bidder at that price would provide the best quality for the viewers.
As the noble Baroness said, the Government propose to make this situation worse by an extraordinarily stubborn refusal so far to meet the IBA's reasonable request for a moratorium on takeover bids for a limited period. I agree with the noble Baroness that it could be perhaps two years after the new contracts have been awarded. I shall not repeat her arguments but I am sure that the Government are in no doubt that this will be a
1234
matter for change which your Lordships will want to press on the Government when the Committee stage takes place.
There are two other areas in which the Government's obsession with the market place will do serious harm to the quality of independent television unless there are further amendments. The noble Baroness has mentioned both of them. Since I am aware of the number of other speakers, I shall try not to repeat in detail what she said.
I shall speak first of the need for a network provision to be written into the Bill for the new Channel 3. The present network arrangements for ITV mean that some smaller television companies take 90 per cent. of the programme from the national network and serve their own local areas well with regional programming. The Government, I think for perverse reasons, seem to prefer to leave it to the market place for the television contractors to make arrangements that will serve the viewer well. I do not believe that it can be left in that way. It is very important to have the word "network" in the statute; and to have proper provision laid down for maintaining it. The ITC are right to seek a transitional power in order to set up their own network arrangements and to set them out in the licence for those who wish to bid for the new contracts.
I support what the noble Baroness has said regarding news broadcasting. I understand the Government's concern to have as much competition as is proper in the provision of broadcast news. However, the provision of broadcast news is a very difficult, very expensive and very painstaking operation. One of the jewels in the British broadcasting crown is the competition for excellence between two marvellous television news services: the BBC and ITN. It takes a long time to build up an international and national news service of quality. One can destroy it at a statutory stroke very easily. It is similar to creating a great school or college. There is organic growth involved. If one alters the administrative and legislative structure one can do great damage.
ITN seeks a more commercial framework for its operation. That is in keeping with the times in which we live. I have no doubt that ITN would benefit from having outside commercial shareholders who would either stimulate or give it new horizons. But it is very important in principle that the majority ownership of the national news service remains with the contractors who under the Bill's proposals have the statutory obligation to maintain news of high quality.
The noble Baroness referred to the important issues of cross-media ownership. Those are issues of principle, not of personalities. The Bill repeats the long-established provision that newspaper proprietors in Britain should not own more than 20 per cent. of television companies serving British viewers. That is to ensure that broadcasting channels remain reasonably independent and free from domination by the print media where, at national level, there is too much concentration of ownership.

1235
I hope that the House will reassert this principle unequivocally during the Committee stage of the Bill while seeking to find a fair and equitable formula to deal with the special, and admittedly difficult, case of News International's ownership of Sky which has now been operating for some period. The phrase used is a non-domestic satellite service. It is important to recollect that Sky operates from Isleworth in London. It seeks to provide its entertainment and news services to the British audience. It happens to use a satellite that is based in Luxembourg but it is operating within the United Kingdom framework. The House needs to give serious consideration to that situation.
The ordinary viewer has a big interest in one aspect of the relationship between the new satellite broadcasters and the traditional terrestrial channels—that is the access to major sporting events. The noble Earl mentioned that point in his opening remarks. In the public interest, those whose main viewing for many years ahead will be from the BBC, and Channel 3, should continue to have the free access to the great sporting events that they have hitherto enjoyed. It would be totally wrong if such events were to be exclusively in the ownership of some subscription channel, as happened in West Germany last summer with the Wimbledon championships. It is perfectly true that there is a common commercial interest for the terrestrial broadcasters and the new broadcasters to do deals together. But the public interest needs the guarantee of a provision written into the Bill to ensure the principle that I have enunciated.
Finally, I refer to some substantial matters relating to radio. Radio so often tends to become overshadowed by the discussion about television. There is a need to strengthen the radio authority's duty to lay down a quality threshold for local services, as they are obliged to do for the new national services. Radio also deserves a special deal on transmission costs, as has been provided for television. Without some element of cross-subsidy—a word that is very offensive these days to the marketeers in the Conservative Party—the smaller rural radio services will be driven to the wall. From these Benches we propose the setting up of a rural radio fund. That will ensure that the cost of transmitters can be related to what the market can bear from advertising and other revenue. That is already conceded for television. Linked to that is the need for much sharper limitations on the ownership of radio stations than those specified in the Bill.
There are many other matters, but I shall not take time over them now. I remind the House that although we shall have immensely detailed discussions, behind the Bill lies perhaps the major influence on the daily lives of most people these days in terms of news, comments and entertainment. It is the single most important political and cultural influence on the life of the nation. There are big issues behind the detail of the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl will seek, as I am sure he will, to emulate his colleague in the Home Office and another place and emerge with a Bill at Third Reading that is even
1236
more greatly improved from the present one now before us on Second Reading.
I join with the noble Baroness in saying how much the House will look forward to the series of maiden speeches that we are about to hear. The noble Lord, Lord Grade, with his great experience in independent television, finally comes to the House to share his views with us. My noble friend Lord Glasgow will make his maiden speech. I look forward immediately to listening to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough.
4.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I begin by joining the other speakers in paying tribute to the Minister who with great concern and courtesy has dealt with all the matters that we brought to him at various times. We are thankful to him for that.
I wish to speak in general about the Bill. I am a member of the Broadcasting Standards Council. I shall not speak of the Broadcasting Standards Council although the noble Baroness has tempted me sorely. Instead, I shall speak of my particular experience. One of the requirements of the council is research. As a consequence, we have entertained a major Gallup poll type of work. We have set up a number of study groups. We toured the nation meeting with different groups of people. We met with young mothers in Aberdeen, students in Southampton, the religious in York (most appropriately), teachers in Liverpool, and, most interestingly, those involved with law and order in Glasgow. We asked those people what they looked for in television. We asked the viewer. In all the masses of paper that I have received, viewers seem to be regarded as either consumers or people who should be done good to. No one has spoken for the viewer himself or herself. We asked them what they liked. All of them liked soap operas. There was no question that "Neighbours" was riding high. It was followed by the interminable "Coronation Street", "East Enders" and "Emmerdale Farm" in the great tradition of story telling from the beginning of time. Plainly, people like stories. They like entertainment and amusement. They like sport rather less but, in view of the amount of air time it has, that is the most powerful lobby in the country. We know that more people go to church on Sundays than go to football matches on Saturdays, yet football receives more air time than us, and we should like to ask some questions about that aspect.
More importantly, we also asked people what they did not like. We discovered that the British people are extremely tolerant. There are few bigots among us, and there are few wild libertarians. I wish to comment on four issues which, as a result of our encounters, we discovered people found not only dislikable but caused them anxiety and offence. They raised those issues with us.
First is violence. Cowboys, Indians and cartoons are accepted in a cultural shape. They are part of the violence which has existed in literature from the beginning. Somehow it is acceptable. However, as we move to programmes which are based on situations more like those of the viewer—for example, cops and robbers and the news—people begin to change

1237
their views. They are concerned in measurable ways about violence against women, children and animals. The concept of respect for people appears to be large. In either news or entertainment programmes people do not care to see the respect of others violated.
In the same way such respect exists towards the handling of funerals. As a professional in that area, I object to the ballyhoo- type ritual which now exists whereby we photograph with loving care the coffin going into the church. If the vicar or bishop is foolish enough, we photograph inside the church where he will say his obligatory 15 words of banality and then we shall watch the mourners coming out. I am not alone in finding that deeply offensive. For a long time I have buried people, and I hope to continue to do so for a great deal longer. It is a matter for privacy, respect and care, and such handling to which people take objection is a form of violence.
However, there were exceptions to that view about the handling of violence. The police inspector in Glasgow said that he thought we should show violence in its totality. He said that he saw no reason why his young police men and women should have to wade through the blood and bones of a motor crash caused by someone's drunken foolishness while it was sanitised for us. He said that people ought to see what was there. Through the kindness of the BBC I have seen the unedited version of the Heysel stadium disaster. It was sanitised for our consumption. I well understand why people do not want the English in Europe. If I saw the unedited version on my screen, I should not want the English in Europe. Arguments and sub-arguments were put to us for there being a place for violence which has a message. However, for the most part people find it deeply offensive.
A similar attitude exists towards sex. The English are unworried by nudity; it is in the great English tradition of vulgarity and enjoyment. It does not appear to concern them. However, they are deeply worried about exploitation and titillation. They see the value of a film. If I may be specific, the "Singing Detective" had at its heart a powerful sexual scene. You did not understand the "Singing Detective" as a piece of work unless you realised the significance of that scene. By and large people would take it that way. However, there are other works (for example, the early James Bond films) where sexual scenes are introduced because the plot is lacking, the viewer is becoming bored and reaching for his popcorn or going out to make his tea. Therefore, one puts in a sexual scene to hold the viewer. There is a strong feeling that such titillation is inappropriate.
Times have changed. I could not have said that easily in the 1960s but I can say it now because the consideration of sex is now surrounded by the consideration of AIDS, child abuse and the realisation of the slavery of prostitution. People realise that in talking about films and in portraying sex they are selling short that which is significant. The objections are strong in that way.
Thirdly, people have a real concern for unsuitable language. We went to Newcastle and met 10 men from the shipyard who, in the course of their work, would use language of some richness. One returned home end discovered that his six year-old son had
1238
called his four year-old sister a word which suggested that she was not of proper parentage. I had intended to use the word that he used, but I have been advised by another right reverend Prelate that it would be inappropriate to do so in my maiden speech.
During the course of his work, the father uses that word 50 times a day because it is the way to handle things; that is vaguely like a bishops' meeting. But such words are not to be used at home. The home is sacred. It is not a two-standard business. The home is where you were nurtured and where your children are nurtured. The television set is the guest in the corner, and guests in your home behave in a certain way. They do not bring into the home words which you do not want to be brought into the home. Whereas in times past one had always felt vaguely embarrassed when protesting about bad language, we discovered as we travelled around the country that people are changing. They accept some words but believe that others should not be brought into their homes.
Fourthly, we came across a major anxiety concerning children. The vast majority of people in the country know of the watershed and of its timing and significance. The students to whom we talked are just as concerned to protect their younger brothers and sisters as I am to protect my granddaughter. They too are concerned about the children. However, we encountered a major problem; two out of three households in this country have no children. The vast number of children have television sets in their bedrooms. We know that a marginal proportion of them are watching television at 10 p.m., 11 p.m. and midnight. When we were asked to describe the closed period in the morning it had to be said that it should begin at 5.30 a.m. because that is the time when some children put on their television sets in their rooms. However, all round there is a feeling that the children should be cared for. They were the voices of the people to whom we spoke and who, in long meetings, spoke back to us not to please us but to speak their minds.
I wish to end with an expression of opinion. For 30 years I have been around broadcasting; that is for 15 years locally and for 15 years more centrally. I have been observed in broadcasting but have also observed upon it. I have one worry. It is that from the beginning broadcasting was seen as an unwritten contract between the provider and the viewer or listener. There was a two-way contract between them which was never written down but was known. It is summed up by the shipyard worker's picture of the guest in the corner. In that the viewer remains profoundly proud of British television. He believes that it is the best in the world and is glad when others say so.
But in my view the viewer is not totally respected by the provider. During the past few years I have noticed a change in the balance; that, in their desire for the fulfilment of their artistic abilities and creative longings and in their use of the massive freedom which they are granted in this country, the providers use those gifts sometimes carelessly. In the same way that much of the British press has moved away from the serious and best longings of the British people, I am anxious lest television especially moves

1239
away from those best hopes and longings of our nation. Travelling around the country and dealing with people face to face greatly reassured me about the solid health of our nation in all those areas. I hope that the Bill will ensure that the providers of television programmes especially will have that same respect that I learnt to have.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will join me in extending to the right reverend Prelate the congratulations of the House on his maiden speech. As a member of the Broadcasting Standards Council, he spoke of the work that has already been done and of his great experience in travelling around the country interviewing various people who enjoy television.
If I had any regret in listening to his speech, it was that my noble friend Lady Stedman was not beside me. The right reverend Prelate will know that my leader is from Peterborough. She knows him well and is a great fan of his. I am afraid that she, like myself, would have been unaware that he was speaking today, but she may have found a British newspaper, in which case she will find that both of us are on the transfer list.
No one doubts that some changes are necessary in broadcasting. Technical changes have made that essential. But whether this Bill is the right vehicle for that change is anyone's guess. There will be various views on that. Nevertheless, a Bill that had 500 government amendments at Report stage in another place obviously needed altering. The alterations have now taken place.
In one respect I regret that the Bill winds up the Independent Broadcasting Authority after something like 40 years. The IBA, about to go out of existence, was a successful public body controlling a number of private television and radio companies. It may have been simpler if the Government had decided to keep the IBA but to alter its functions where they thought necessary or to add to them where they wished. Instead what will now be required is an additional number of people to man the new public bodies. I have not referred to them as quangos, but if we used that word these days it would apply. The IBA gained a great deal of knowledge over those years. It is our hope that now that it is to become the ITC that knowledge will not be lost.
One of the first tasks of the ITC will be to invite, interview and select successful licence holders for Channel 3, which is to be on the air by 1st January 1993. That is not a long way away. The original Bill, before its amendment, worried me considerably. Some of those worries have gone but now there is concern for the successful licence holders. To use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, they will have to look over their shoulders waiting for takeover bids to arrive almost from the day that the licences are granted.
I feel that a moratorium of two or perhaps three years is needed. There is nothing new in the IBA looking at the financial position of a would-be licence
1240
holder. It happened in television, and in my experience that was the case too with radio, in which field I was experienced to a greater extent than in television. One had to see whether the money was available to enable the companies in their early years to manage all the financial problems that they were likely to face.
The Government's view is that the ITC should not be a broadcasting body. Nevertheless, they are already introducing into the Bill a number of regulatory provisions controlling programme schedules. Unless there is some form of agreed networking, 15 companies endeavouring to form a schedule of their own could lead to absolute chaos. There must be some sort of central body controlling networking, set up by either the licence holders or, as I would prefer, the IBA, which will continue to control the networking of programmes for some months. Unless there is a formula of that sort organised by either the licence holders or the ITC, we shall be in considerable difficulty.
The ITC should control the network because that would be fairer to the smaller licence holders. All of the 15 companies will not be large companies. Despite the financial strength of the larger franchise holders, the viewing public have a greater affinity with their local television companies, as they have with local radio companies. If people in the Ulster, Grampian, Border areas, or even in the Channel Islands, were asked which television companies they preferred, while they liked the programmes coming from the main five of six companies, they would favour their own small television companies. It is not sufficient for those smaller companies just to provide the occasional documentary and daily news. They could occasionally produce a play concerned with the local area. That has been done. I do not intend to waste time discussing it, but it is something the smaller companies could do.
I welcome the proposed Channel 5. I find it strange that only 70 per cent. of national coverage is mentioned in the Bill. I ask myself why. Is it for transmission reasons? Is it because it is more expensive to transmit the new Channel 5 in parts of Wales or in Scotland? Or is there another reason? Is the reason that the advertising revenue will be greater in the South and in the South East and that it will be easier to run Channel 5 from that area than to have complete coverage? I accept that Channel 5 could not have complete coverage at once but I hope that it eventually will have.
We now accept that Channel 4 is an extremely successful company. One must remember that at the moment it is fully financed by the existing 15 television companies. It will be on its own; it will be financed by revenue from direct advertising sales. Will that be enough? My view is that it will not; it will need assistance of some kind. It is certainly true of Channel S4C. My Welsh is not good enough to translate that, except that I know that pedwar means four. The Channel 3 licensees should have it made absolutely clear, when they are applying for the licence, that it will be necessary for them to provide some money not only for Channel 4 but for S4C.
Nothing is more difficult in my view than the work of the Broadcasting Standards Council—I say

1241
that because I have had some experience in that connection—and deciding whether or not advertisements should go out on the air. The right reverend Prelate referred to this aspect. It is even more true with plays. It is not easy for anyone to define what is good taste, or, for that matter, what is bad taste. I suppose that every Member of your Lordships' House feels able to define what is good and what is not. All I shall say in regard to the Broadcasting Standards Council is that I hope it will never at any time endeavour to tell people what to like or to dislike. That is not its function.
As soon as practical after Royal Assent the engineering and transmission side of the IBA, about which we have heard little as yet, is to be hived off into a separate and perhaps privately owned company. One assumes that Channels 3, 4 and 5 will pay the proposed company for the transmission of their programmes. However, I should personally prefer programme transmission to be left to the ITC. There are about 800 transmitters of varying sizes, with some of the sites being co-owned with the BBC. The transmission work of the IBA—its fate is the same; it is to be privatised at some time—and the BBC is outstanding. It is recognised throughout the world and forms the basis of many transmission systems. This particular department of the IBA is renowned for experimental and research activities. I ask your Lordships: will experimental and research work continue if that is to be a private company?
I welcome the proposal for a Radio Authority. One problem in this field is the existence of pirate radio. I have mentioned this matter on previous occasions and I am sure that the Government have been doing a great deal in closing down some of those stations, but they still function. They pop up overnight like mushrooms and quickly close down again. However, some are bigger than that and are making it difficult for the existing radio services. I hope that when the time comes the House will look at this matter very seriously to see whether amendments are necessary to the Bill to tighten the functions and the power of the Government to deal with pirate stations.
I should also like to have from the Government a clear definition of what is local radio and what is community radio. I should like to hear from the Government how they propose to protect the rights of composers and of artists in both radio and television. The whole question of needle time has been referred to by the noble Earl in introducing the Bill. It is not generally understood that the cost of needle time is an extremely heavy burden for small radio companies.
The BBC is not greatly affected by this Bill, as has already been said. Nevertheless, its charter comes to an end in 1996. What then? By then we shall have a BBC' with three or four good-size television stations, a number of radio stations and many small radio stations, all in one neat package. With television transmission gone will not this neat package be ripe for privatisation? I do not put that thought into the Government's mind and I hope that that is not their intention.
We are told that the BBC is to collect its own licence fees. It is right that it should do so. However,
1242
I hope that the BBC will not make heavy weather of that and set up another huge department because the BBC is known, in my view at any rate, to be prone to empire building.
We believe that the BBC and many local as well as national stations will be ready for privatisation in 1996, if that is the Government's wish. I have already said that I hope that will not happen. One might say that it could not possibly happen to the BBC. but in my view the BBC is no more sacrosanct than water, gas or electricity if that should be the Government's wish.
My time does not allow me to say very much about satellite broadcasting. I intend, however, to make one observation. I hope that the Government will treat domestic and non-domestic satellite television equally and fairly, with regulations that are applied to one applying to the other. That is all I ask.
The basis of all these current and new proposals in television and radio is the availability of sufficient advertising revenue plus subscription charges and sponsorship. Will there be enough? Will advertising sales bring in sufficient income to meet the need? We do not know. The overall result may well prove to be a general lowering of programme standards and the demise of many loved, small television companies.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I regret that I shall be unable to stay until the conclusion of the debate. I apologise to the House for absenting myself, but I have an unavoidable engagement of long standing.
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on a fine maiden speech. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in saying that I hope we shall hear from him frequently and soon.
The Bill that comes before us has been improved during its passage through another place—improved, but not perfected. Clearly there are many detailed matters that we shall come to in later stages of the Bill, and I shall be tabling amendments which I hope will assist your Lordships in fashioning a legislative jewel out of what is still a relatively rough-hewn gem. What I should like to deal with first is of a far more fundamental nature—perhaps too fundamental for your Lordships' consideration since it may be tantamount to trying to transmute that semi-precious gem into a pearl of, I hope, great price.
Is there not an absurdity inherent in keeping the control of broadcasting in all its proliferating and chameleon forms under the Home Office? The Home Office is the head prefect of government, the provost-marshal of the administration. It is in the business of saying no. It is in the business of restriction, of control, of denying the subject from indulging in what General de Gaulle described as the citizen's predeliction for les délices de l'anarchie. This is not the business of broadcasting, that most powerful, most insidious and most anti-authoritarian of the mass media.
Naturally, I do not suggest that broadcasters should give themselves wholeheartedly over to those

1243
anarchical delights, but the controls and limitations on the broadcasters that we in both Houses of Parliament seek to encompass the broadcasters and—I feel this strongly—not impose upon them are made all the more ponderous and over-shadowing by being executed by the department of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I hasten to add that there is nothing ponderous or over-shadowing about my noble friend—well, not for those of us who are over six feet tall!
The historical background to placing broadcasting within the remit of the home department stems in part from the chronological coincidence of the development of mass broadcasting with the rise of the dictators in the 1930s and the subsequent Second World War. Understandably, the Home Office needed to have absolute control over what went out over the airways, and from whom, during such dark days especially when the totalitarian governments of the Left and Right used broadcasting to such malign effect.
But I ask your Lordships to question if today this country or any truly free nation needs to have such a prescriptive arm of government in charge of such an inquisitive, irreverent and imaginative industry. I am sure that there are many who would say that, because of those qualities that they may regard as defects, that is precisely why it needs to be kept under the thumb of the biggest brother of government departments.
However, I regard the proper mentor of broadcasters to be the Office of Arts and Libraries. Broadcasting is after all the most significant manifestation of popular national culture. I fear that there may be some on this side of the House and, I suspect, a few on the Benches opposite, who feel like that well-known connoisseur of European culture, Herman Goering, who said:
"When I hear the word culture I reach for my gun!"
It would be a braver man than I to call for the creation of a Ministry of Culture even though we are alone among our European partners in not having such a body. To transfer broadcasting and perhaps even the press to the portfolio of the OAL would at a stroke not only free broadcasting from having to battle with the Home Office, but would give real power and real financial resources to the Minister in charge of the arts.
However, I am not really tempted to introduce amendments to that effect. It is my intention during the later stages of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House to introduce amendments to limit the ability of direct broadcast satellite systems, with up-link ground stations outside the United Kingdom, to operate without the same restraints as are imposed on similar systems operated from this country in Clauses 39 and 40.
I am aware that in doing so I shall be moving into the somewhat delicate territory of cross-media ownership. Let me make my position clear from the outset? I am opposed to the concentration of significant portions of the print and broadcast media in the hands of any individual or company or group of companies. I cannot see why the regime imposed
1244
on broadcasters and newspaper proprietors in this country should, in the national interest, be any more laissez-faire than that imposed by the Government of the United States. Further, I do not believe that it is in the interests of journalists, programme makers, editors or the society they serve to concentrate excessive power or influence in any person's hands be he British, American, Italian or called Murdoch, Maxwell or even Macmillan.
I shall also introduce amendments to preserve the existence of the Cable Licensing Authority for I do not believe that the fledgling cable industry in which the long-term future of the country's interactive information and communications systems will depend, needs to have its supervisory authority subsumed into another authority whose overriding and preoccupying interest is in broadcast systems as outlined in Clause 121.
One of the principal tenets of the Bill is to try to ensure that there is the maximum participation and the fiercest competition for the Channel 3 licences. But there is a risk that, unless the Bill is amended to include the period of moratorium that has been referred to by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite, then the successful winners of the Channel 3 franchises will be those who in the end take over the companies which have done all the hard work.
In all fairness they must be allowed a period for their setting up and for the first year or two years of operation, without constantly have to look over their shoulders to see if a corporate raider is stalking them. The business of the franchise holders must be the provision of good television. Nothing diverts a company from its proper functions more than trying to fight off a takeover.
Another area where I believe many of your Lordships may share my concern is in the provision of a national and international news service by the licence holders of Channels 3 and 5. I do not believe that the provisions in the Bill laid out in Clauses 29 and 30 will ensure that what I hope are the intentions of the Government in this respect will be fulfilled. Members of your Lordships' House on this side have had reason in the past few weeks to doubt whether it would be a desirable outcome of the Bill to allow the only truly national and international news service in this country to rest in the hands of the BBC in matters of news, current affairs and even of opinion polls. We have for many years enjoyed complementary and competitive news services from ITV and the BBC. It is part of the creed of every major television company in the world that it should have control of its own news gathering and dissemination services.
I also know that I am not alone in still having some misgivings about the definition of "exceptional circumstances" defined in Clause 17 in which it would be in the public interest for the commission not to award the licence to the highest qualifying bid. Parts VI and VII of the Bill will also require very close scrutiny by your Lordships' House at Committee stage. Once again, we are trying to define the indefinable; namely, the area of public taste. If I could claim to do that I would indeed be a happy man as I would almost certainly be the only book publisher in town.

1245
In a sense that brings me full circle. I do not believe that it is the business of Parliament to limit, more than it absolutely has to, what should be broadcast, what programmes should be made, how much or how little they should be bowdlerised and whether they are acceptable to the public or not any more than it is the business of parliament, within the basic laws of a civilised society, to tell the people what they should read, what they should think or what they should believe. So often the protagonists of the nanny state say that they know what is good for the people. What they mean is that they believe they know what is bad for them.
One of the glaring omissions in the Bill is the failure 1:0 ensure proper networking arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has already referred. I hope that amendments will be introduced to Clause 16 along the lines of those introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Rydale in another place. I cannot believe that it is appropriate for the Office of Fair Trading to be the authority to make decisions on this subject. It is really a sledgehammer that the industry does not need to crack this particular nut. I believe that the OFT feels that it is not the appropriate organism to carry out this function.
In Part VII of the Bill Clause 153 amends the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to extend the provisions of that order to include broadcasting in the widest definition. We all realise that there are very special reasons why broadcasting in the Province must be looked at most carefully. But I hope that the Government will, where it can, err on the side of freedom of expression and not towards the instinctive desire for secrecy that has in the past led to the clouding of real facts at best and cover-ups of major scandals at worst. There are other matters, including the publishing of programme listings and the protection of national events from outright purchase by a minority distribution system, that will also engage your Lordships' attention in the later stages of the Bill. However, I fear that I have already trespassed overlong on your Lordships' patience. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is already champing at the bit.
I should not want noble Lords to think that I do not welcome this Bill or that my criticisms outweigh my support for the measures that have been introduced by Her Majesty's Government to create a framework for the regulation of broadcasting for the next decade. I must congratulate in particular my honourable friend the Member for Putney in another place for the way in which he has responded to the submissions from the industry and other groups. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will show the same flexibility and common sense when the Bill reaches the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that owing to a long-standing prior commitment I shall be unable to be here for much of the rest of the debate.
The future of broadcasting is of great importance. It is important because the nature of broadcasting is
1246
central to the survival of a healthy democracy, and also because the quality of people's lives is greatly affected by the output of broadcasters. Television and radio are the most important sources of news and information for most people. Without question they are also the most important sources of entertainment. Taking TV alone, the average person in this country spends about 25 hours a week watching it; or, put another way, spends on average more than three and a half hours a day in front of the screen.
In many spheres of life regrettably Britain's record is inferior to that of comparable countries. In striking contrast, our record in broadcasting shines as a bright beacon of success amid a sea of many failures. The reputation of British radio and TV is still extraordinarily high. Both the BBC and the independent companies have contributed to that success story. It is essential that we do everything in our powers to protect that success and to avoid destroying it.
As many noble Lords have already said, the Bill before us today has been much improved during the course of its consideration in another place. It still leaves open the possibility that the high quality we have come to expect will be lost to future generations.
Before pointing out the crucial weaknesses in the Bill, I should like to make it clear that on this side of the House we welcome an expansion of broadcasting in the 1990s in the context of technological change, but expansion and greater choice must not be at the cost of quality. Being able to choose between a lot of bad programmes is a far less attractive proposition than being able to choose between a smaller number of good programmes. Expansion must mean adding new things which are distinctive and of distinction. While growth in the industry is to be welcomed, abandoning it to a free market approach, with the Government washing their hands of the need to maintain high quality and access to high quality for everyone, is surely wrong.
The first example of that approach by the Government concerns a moratorium on takeovers. Having made concesssions on the bidding process for the franchises, for which we must all be most grateful, they are digging in their heels against having a designated period after the franchises have been awarded when takeovers cannot take place. Why is that so? The Minister has said that the Government have not been intransigent, but their intransigence on this is totally incomprehensible. As my noble friend Lady Birk has said, it is not just the IBA and the experts but many of the Government's own supporters who believe that a moratorium is required as became clear in debates in another place.
Having gone through carefully regulated procedures in the competition for the franchise, having conceded that quality and not just cash must determine who wins, to allow some other groups with enough money to take over a successful bidder immediately afterwards is bizarre. What is the point of setting up a careful selection process if it can be jeopardised in that way? After the licences are granted, there should be a period of stability in which the new franchise holders can get on with the job of making programmes which people want to see and

1247
hear. They should not be distracted by hostile takeover bids, which are bound to be costly in terms of management time and energy. I am not suggesting that takeovers should be ruled out in the longer term, but only that there should be an initial period of stability for licensees rather than a market-based free-for-all dictated by the crude ideology of the Government.
The second serious omission in the Bill concerns the lack of a network on Channel 3, which other noble Lords have also mentioned. It is vital to have that if we are to preserve quality for all viewers and ensure that good documentaries, for example, are shown at peak times in the regions. It would be difficult for the Independent Television Commission to assess Channel 3 licence applications properly without it. Through spreading the costs of production, a network system makes it possible for all 15 ITV regional companies to provide a good range of high quality programmes, and to show them at peak hours. This applies to the smallest companies as well as the large ones, and it must be remembered that the small companies take up to 95 per cent of their programmes from the network. A new network system needs to be agreed before the licensing round. Without it, it would be hard to assess the applicant's programme proposals and business plans because they must depend on a known cost structure and agreed arrangements for the operation of the network.
As my noble friend Baroness Birk and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, have already said, it is not good enough for the Government to say that they intend that a network shall be set up and to believe that the main ITV companies favour it. There must be statutory regulation for a transitional network.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that further consideration was being given to that. Without it, there is no guarantee of an agreed network which is fair and equitable with respect to the smaller companies. It may well be that the company would come up with proposals that are satisfactory to all. However, it would be most dangerous to rely on that happening without any safeguards in the Bill.
The Government are also guilty of a very strange inconsistency in relation to cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations. They have rightly recognised the need to avoid undue concentration of media ownership. Such concentration means a small number of individuals may have huge power and influence over our media which, if used unscrupulously, could undermine our democratic institutions. The provisions in the Bill to limit ownership and cross-holdings in domestic broadcasting organisations and place restraints on newspaper interests are therefore welcome. What is bewildering is the Government's refusal to apply that important principle to non-domestic satellite services and newspaper interests. These services will be in direct competition with one another, and the same restrictions should apply. I was very glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, express his anxiety on this matter, and I look forward to joining him in his amendment.
1248
The argument has nothing to do with hostility to Mr. Rupert Murdoch or to Sky Television. It is about the general principle that people should not be able to monopolise power and influence by being in both media. The fact that Sky may be only one of a number of satellite broadcasters is an insufficient safeguard. It could well be the biggest by a long way and dominate the market. In the USA it is not possible to own a TV station and a newspaper in the same city, and similar restrictions are applied in other countries.
Perhaps I may now turn to a matter which is of particular concern to the BBC, and perhaps at this point I should declare an interest as I am chairman of the General Advisory Council of the BBC. Currently, the Home Secretary designates certain sporting events of national importance. Up until now the I BBC and the ITV have been given priority over cable and satellite operations in acquiring the rights to televise such events. Under this Bill there is no safeguard against the rights being acquired by an excessively high cash offer made by a cable or satellite company which is far from universally available. As a tennis fanatic, I should deeply resent being deprived of the opportunity of watching Wimbledon because I had not subscribed to cable or bought a disc; nor do I wish to be virtually forced into doing so. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, mentioned, last year in Germany, when the Wimbledon singles finals were won by Steffi Graf and Boris Becker, only 3 per cent. of the German population were able to watch those finals.
I should also like to remind the House that the United Kingdom is a signatory to the European convention on trans-frontier TV, and that Article 9 of that convention requires measures to be taken to prevent exclusive rights undermining the wide availability of events of high public interest. If the Government intend to abide by that convention, they must legislate to ensure that major sporting events at present available to everyone should not be restricted just to a few.
So far I have concentrated on TV. We must not forget radio. Radio audiences deserve the best broadcasters just as much as TV audiences. It is not good enough merely to avoid nothing but thump, thump, thump; other changes are necessary. First, the same clauses in relation to quality thresholds that have been conceded in relation to TV should be included for radio. I hope that the Government will introduce amendments to achieve that end. Without them there is a danger that the richest rather than the best will win the franchises for national radio.
Secondly, a limited moratorium against takeovers should apply to radio as well as to television. Thirdly, there needs to be protection for local community radio. The Government claim that they want to see a strong network of community radio. But if they are serious about that, they cannot leave it to market forces. There is evidence from abroad that community radio cannot survive in a totally free market. If no distinction is made between local commercial and local community radio, when the going gets tough only the commercial, popular programmes with a large diet of pop music will

1249
survive. There needs to be a clear remit in the legislation for community programmes which inform, educate and help listeners to identify with the areas in which they live.
The final issues I want to address concern equal opportunities and training. Every broadcasting company should have a clearly publicly stated equal opportunities policy. The BBC now has such a policy, though it was long overdue as evidenced by the fact that only 20 of the top 200 jobs in the BBC are held by women. But progress is now being made through this new policy. The ITV companies, I regret to say, are still some way behind. But I must congratulate the Government on eventually accepting at Report stage in another place the desirability of an amendment to the Bill on this point so that positive steps can be taken to give women and ethnic minorities the opportunities they deserve in such an important and public industry. We look forward to seeing the Government's amendment. I assure the Minister that we shall press hard for it to have sufficient force to be effective.
We must also at all costs avoid ending up with an insufficiently skilled workforce. This is a high skills industry which must be staffed by highly trained people if quality is to be preserved. Lack of sufficient attention to training is just one manifestation of the Government's failure more generally in the discussions on the Bill so far to recognise the relationship between investment and quality. They simply assumed that advertising will expand though they have never been able to substantiate that belief They have done little to help create the necessary infrastructure for a vitally important industry.
One illustration of that is their attitude to Media 92 in Europe, which will open up huge possibilities for us of co-production in both film and television. Having contributed to the pilot, Mrs. Thatcher is now, as usual, dragging her feet about committing the United Kingdom to participating in the full scheme, whereas all the other countries in the pilot have made their commitment clear.
It would be reassuring if the Government were less obsessed with the free market and indicated some concern about the risk we face of spreading limited resources more and more thinly by expanding too fast at the expense of high standards. Of course we should try to expand, but it should not be faster than the increase in resources from advertising and other sources allows. As I said at the beginning, competition and choice without quality are meaningless. Although, as the Minister has said, the Bill is an improvement on the original White Paper on which it was based, much still needs to be done. I am glad that the Minister admitted that more improvements could be made before the Bill becomes law. That must happen if the British people are to get the high quality broadcasting that they have come to expect and which they deserve.
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, 20 years ago this House kindly gave me permission to make a film here. In fact it was the first television documentary ever filmed in the Palace of Westminster. It was about the House of Lords—how it was made up,
1250
what it did and whether it should be reformed or abolished. It was intended to be entertaining as well as informative, most of the entertainment being provided by the wit and personalities of some of the more colourful Peers. I particularly remember Lord Blyton, now sadly dead, singing a song in his working men's club in South Shields.
At that time I was not allowed to film while the House was in Session, so on a Friday in 1970 when the House was not sitting more than 50 noble Lords, most of whom are still with us today, agreed to perform as extras, populating the corridors, the Prince's Chamber, the Library and so on, to simulate a busy working day. All this they did for no more than a free lunch, which we also filmed incidentally. In those days, noble Lords may remember, lunch here was surprisingly cheap. I have always been extremely grateful to those noble Lords who took the trouble to come on that Friday. I feel that outsiders who like to portray the House of Lords as a fuddy-duddy or pompous body would have had some difficulty in sustaining that view if they had been there then.
The Lord Chancellor, who at that time was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, even agreed to perform a mock procession for the benefit of the cameras. It is interesting to note that we were unable to film in the Chamber when it was in Session not because the Lords objected but because the Commons did. It thought that this would set a dangerous precedent. Even then this House was a more liberal assembly than the other place. Incidentally, the film was networked by Yorkshire Television and sold to more than 20 countries.
I wanted to make my maiden speech on the Broadcasting Bill because I know something about programme-making, particularly television documentaries, and also, like a good many other people, I feel quite strongly about many aspects of the Bill. I am particularly concerned still that the present high standard set by the best programmes on commercial television should not be put at risk.
It seems that two words are being bandied around very freely in the debates on the Broadcasting Bill. One word is "quality", referring of course to programmes, and the other is "choice", referring to the number of new channels. Everyone knows more or less what is meant by quality programmes but we all have subjective views when we get down to specifics.
Documentaries are usually recognised as one category of quality programme. To make one 50-minute documentary might take a producer four to six months from conception to the final print and will have involved a good deal of research and technical expertise from a number of talented and professional people. It does not follow that the result is necessarily good film but it means that a lot of work, care and inevitably money have gone into its making.
The opposite of a quality programme might be one that is routine, trivial or cheaply put together—again not necessarily bad at all but usually undemanding and intended as a popular time filler. In America they tend to divide programmes into two separate categories—entertainment and education. Most

1251
large cities in the United States have what is regarded as their educational channel—the public broadcasting channel—which is reliant on government grants and corporate sponsorship. It is the channel that shows many of the best British programmes but it is watched by only about 5 per cent. of the American public. In America, by definition, documentaries are educational. One of the strengths of our television is that we do not make that distinction. A good quality documentary here is expected to be both entertaining and educational at the same time. Perhaps better adjectives would be "informative" and "arresting".
When I was a producer at Yorkshire Television I was asked to make a programme about brass bands. I had spent most of my life in London and Scotland and so it was not the kind of subject I would ever have chosen on my own, nor one that I would have rushed to see if it were showing on television. But within a week I had become completely fascinated and involved in the brass band world. As anyone from the North of England already knows, brass banding is not about a bunch of Yorkshiremen in cloth caps going "Oompah-pah, oompah-pah", it is a total way of life to a large number of passionate and dedicated people. The brass band world is as full of drama and fierce rivalries as any soap opera.
The finished programme, which incidentally took quite a lot of money to make, was intended to introduce the public to a world about which they previously knew very little and, not least because it was a musical, it was also intended to entertain. Perhaps inevitably the programme received a huge audience in Yorkshire and in Lancashire because the subject was already part of their culture and a comparatively smaller audience south of Birmingham. But at least a few million people watched it in the South, if only because that was what was being shown on ITV on that particular night. However, I should like to think that some viewers, like me when I was first introduced to the subject, were happily surprised and enlightened by it.
This leads to the question of choice in the context of television programming. To some it seems that choice is self-evidently a good thing, like freedom or human rights; but to television producers, who like to think that they make quality programmes, choice in the form of extra channels is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, certainly more channels and more television companies should give producers more opportunities and more markets for their programmes, but, on the other hand, more choice and more channels will mean that fewer people will see the programmes that they make. Two showings is usually the most any one programme can expect on ITV.
The potential threat is particularly strong from new statellite channels concentrating on sport or recently released feature films, which are understandably hugely popular. Even without that specific competition great choice may mean that the available talent and ideas are spread more thinly. The audience that might otherwise have been persuaded to watch a film on brass bands will be
1252
tempted to watch something that they think will be less demanding. If fewer and fewer people are going to watch quality programmes, there comes less and less justification for spending available resources making them. There is a real danger that more choice could by default mean less quality programming.
That to some extent is what appears to have happened in America, where there appear to be very few quality programmes, despite a vast number of television channels. For quality programmes you must turn to public broadcasting. I remember over 10 years ago when I was in New York that Robert Morley, the actor, was being interviewed by Dick Cavert. He was asked, I thought rather patronisingly, whether it was true that we had only three channels in Britain. He answered that that was true, that there was about to be another one, Channel 4, and that he thought that that number was about right and about all that anyone could cope with without resorting to too much dross.
Of course we already have more channels and we are likely to get still more. It looks as if no one can do anything about it even if they wanted to. That is why I think it very important before the final drafting of the Broadcasting Bill that we take steps to protect quality programmes on commercial television.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am simply delighted that it has fallen to my lot to congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech, which was so well informed, so persuasive and one in which his modesty matched his knowledge. I very much hope that he will speak on other topics and I certainly hope that he will play a large part in the Committee stage of the Bill.
It is now some 13 years since the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting reported. That report marked the end of an era. The era began when commercial television came into being. Radio stations multiplied, but in television there were still at the end of that era only four channels. We reported at a time when the country was in a state of financial crisis and when cable and satellite broadcasting were barely above the horizon. But today they are both high in the sky and the number of channels grows potentially larger all the time.
The Government are quite right to legislate for this new age. To those who have their doubts about the Bill I would say this. Let us cast our minds back to 1955. Many people then, and some of them are sitting in the House today, doubted whether commercial television should be legalised. But after a few years of somewhat hectic broadcasting, there had developed a BBC and an ITV service to the public that was the envy of most civilised countries. This country had shown how it was possible to run commercial broadcasting which was highly profitable and at the same time produce high quality programmes on a regionally networked commercial channel. We also showed how competition could improve the service of the BBC.
Today we are being asked to make a major transition. Some of us may have doubts about this or that part of the Bill. It may well be that the ITC will have to make adjustments if it judges that the

1253
system which is set up does not work properly. But I believe that, once again, this country will show by a judicious blend of freedom and regulation that multiplicity of commercial channels and radio stations need not lead to a catastrophic fall in the quality of programmes over the country.
It seems to me that the main issue in the Bill is the Government's determination to auction the ITV franchises to the highest bidder. I hope that they have not forgotten what happened in Australia. At least three Australian commercial channels are now on the verge of bankruptcy. Mr. Bond bid 22 million dollars for his franchise. The underbid is said to have been 12 million dollars. In 1986 the three mainstream networks in Australia were sold for more than a billion dollars. In 1989 the value of the networks was placed at around three million dollars.
I can see such experienced broadcasters like Granada and Thames Television being displaced by consortia which do not have anyone with broadcasting experience on their boards, or, for that matter, with entertainment experience. Their directors may well be men who want power and who are suckers for hype. Of course they will outbid Granada and Thames Television who know very well, being shrewd operators, what their franchise is really worth.
What will happen then? In order to recoup the enormous capital outlay, banal and inexpensive programmes will be produced. Let us make no mistake: money will not buy good programmes. But as heroic impresarios in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Grade, who I am glad to say will make his maiden speech this afternoon, know well, great programmes cost money. Great programmes in documentaries and in drama cost a great deal of money. That is why there are none on the networks in America.
Of course, there is another way open to the fly operator. Why join the auction at all? It is far easier and, perhaps, far more profitable to sit back and then mount a takeover. Here I must join those who have criticised the Government for being so reluctant to declare a moratorium on takeovers for a period of perhaps two years. It seems to me that either you auction franchise or you encourage takeovers of the present operators. But to do both you risk hiking up the capitalisation of companies and decreasing the quality of the product. There are plenty of predators around—some like Carlton or Mills & Allen in the media and some great industrial concerns like Racal, GEC or Hanson.
The Minister will know that predators may find the cost of a successful takeover enormous and that may well lower the quality of the programmes. Programme production and staff will have to be cut to recoup the large premium paid for acquiring that company. Some will ask, "What is to prevent Signer Bellusioni taking over Granada, or Havas taking over Thames although British companies are blocked from a majority ownership of European companies"? I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government are taking steps to end that discrimination.
The answer to that and many other questions lies with the ITC which is to come into being. The
1254
Government's view concerning the powers of that body have changed. Mr. Hurd wanted to draw a contrast between the light touch of the ITC and the heavy hand of the IBA which regulated not merely the network but the scheduling of programmes. Mr. Renton went further. He said that he wanted a light touch but strong teeth. Mr. Mellor now says that the ITC will not have a light touch; it will have a firm grip. I was sorry not to hear the Minister carry that dental metaphor a little further and describe what kind of grip he expects the ITC to operate. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, did not refer to the fact that it might be the grip of false teeth.
I suspect that as the financial implications of their policy become clear, and especially as so many of their supporters are troubled by the issue of due impartiality, the Government will come to recognise that the ITC will have to make a number of qualitative changes. Adam Smith, being a Scot, understood that the market alone does not supply the answer to everything. Adam Smith was a moralist, and so I suspect will Mr. George Russell and his colleagues have to be. They will have to decide how may regions there should be. They will have to decide whether the companies which win the franchise offer diversity and a range of programmes similar to those that ITV now offers. They will have to do that knowing that regionalisation is uncommercial by the normal standards. Whether they can also continue to have responsibility for Channel 4 depends upon the buoyancy of advertising revenue. Again, that is one of the matters that the Australian experience has shown: advertising revenue is not something which expands for ever and ever. There is sometimes an end to it, and directly hard times strike it is cut in the most remarkably savage way.
The Minister, of course, spelt out many other powers that the ITC will have and the requirements that it can place on companies; but is it not a fact that once a franchise has been sold to the top bidder the ITC's powers are limited? In that case, can we be as confident as I was at the begining of my speech when I said that the ITC would be as effective in ensuring quality on television as the IBA was in the 1960s? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that point when he replies.
Another contentious issue in the Bill is cross-media ownership. In 1977 our committee thought that the risk of newspaper and television ownership should not be exaggerated. We found that there was no evidence that press interests had ever attempted to influence the politics or programming policy of the television and radio companies in which they had shares. Nevertheless, we believed that the IBA had probably been right to require the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to divest himself of a large percentage of his holdings in Scottish TV. Indeed, the Government have endorsed that principle as the Bill prohibits a newspaper company from owning a television channel on air and off satellite.
BSB and the independent television companies which are governed by that principle are obviously concerned about the matter as there are still not all that many channels available for distribution. So no

1255
company that owns newspapers is allowed more than a small minority holding. Understandably those companies chatter with indignation at the fact that Mr. Murdoch can continue to own News International and to beam Sky's four channels to this country on the 16-channel Astra satellite. Smart operator that Mr. Murdoch is, he based his holding company in Luxembourg and Sky's production centres in England and Scotland.
I do not know Mr. Murdoch, and I do not imagine that he would want to know me. Even if I have only barely met him, I know that he is regarded as the bogey man of the media, often by the media themselves. By some he is regarded as an implacable political enemy; but I am bound to have to weigh what he has done for The Times and the Sun against what he did for London Weekend Television which he saved from bankruptcy in 1970. I also have to weigh the fact that by breaking the stranglehold of the print worker's unions on national newspapers he transformed journalism in this country. He can claim, with justice, that the conditions that obtained a decade ago, when the committee on the future of broadcasting reported, no longer exist. There is plenty of competition between newspapers and the 17 channels available on television, only four of which are owned by Sky.
ITV has a monopoly of Channel 3; BSB of British satellite facilities. I cannot see what the case is for dispossessing Mr. Murdoch. The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, will no doubt try to persuade me to the contrary during the Bill's passage, but at the moment I remain unconvinced by the campaign to force Mr. Murdoch to disinvest in Sky. The picture that has been drawn of one man being able to control the minds of the British public seems to me to be far from factual. It is absurd in these days to say that one newspaper proprietor, with however many channels he has, will be able to dominate British broadcasting opinion or the opinion of the press. I therefore ask that we consider that matter anew in the light of new conditions.
I do not of course base that contention on the fact that we should be grateful to Mr. Murdoch: gratitude is the last virtue he expects to receive after his move to Wapping, even though many should be grateful to him. I base my contention on the existence of the ITC. The commission is there to see that Mr. Murdoch observes due impartiality on news programmes—as he certainly has. He is governed by the same regulations as any other company, and Sky is liable in law for breach of those regulations. I do not believe that he will debauch his channels as Signor Bellusioni undoubtedly has in Italy. If he did so I believe the British public would show their lack of interest in his concerns.
Whether the standards on television are preserved depends more on the BBC than perhaps on anything else. The BBC is the pace-setter in quality. Until now commercial television has been needed to keep it up to the mark.
However, there is nothing about the BBC in the Bill, or very little. It faces a steadily declining revenue, now that the licence fee is linked to
1256
inflation. I implore the BBC to do what it has been urged to do time and time again—cut its staff and its mountainous bureaucracy. It is not right to expect the British public, through the licence fee, to finance overstaffing on this level.
It is not only the bureaucracy. The other day I was asked on the same afternoon to give an interview in my home to two television companies on the subject of the reunification of Germany. The German team, ZDF, the second channel in Germany, arrived and it consisted of three men. Two hours later, the BBC arrived and its team consisted of eight men and women. This is an example of how even in staffing programmes there is inflation. No doubt the BBC would say that that is why its quality of presentation is so good. However, I must say that this has gone on for too long unheeded. If the BBC refuses again to reduce its staff and stop the licence fee rising, then I have my fears that a future government may well break it up. On our committee in 1977 there was a strong party, led by broadcasters in commercial and BBC television, in favour of doing precisely that.
Another matter worries me and some of my friends in the House: impartiality. There is no question about the need to make the news impartial, but some people are worried—and I understand this well enough—about one-sided presentations in current affairs programmes and in phone-in documentaries. Where I part company with my friends is that they think that every programme must be balanced and impartial and, it goes without saying, every series such as "Panorama" or World in Action" should be equally impartial.
I believe that we should be the losers if an undoubtedly biased series such as "World in Action"—which is currently biased not so much against Labour or against Conservatives as against authority in all its forms—were emasculated. The Bill states that due impartiality should be observed only on current industrial and political controversy. It allows history therefore to be at the mercy of the producer.
Much as I dislike seeing Miss Glenda Jackson as Queen Elizabeth I speaking in the tones of a Rodean prefect of the 1920s, I disliked even more the Channel 4 programme on the resistance movement in Greece. In it, the communist partisans, ELAS, were portrayed as the sole liberators of their country who had been hampered at every step by the British liaison officers in Greece. This party, ELAS, was portrayed as representing the true desires of the Greek people, monstrously stopped from governing their country by the British army.
Worse still, the interviews of the British liaison officers such as Colonel Monty Woodhouse and Captain Nigel Clive, were so distorted by cutting that Mr. Jeremy Isaacs, head of Channel 4, was forced to apologise to them. That is bad for my blood pressure but I do not see how it can be avoided, particularly, I regret to say, as that programme was entirely faithful to the interpretation of history made by Mr. Papandreou, the prime minister of Greece, and his party, PASOK, then the government of the country. Their version of history was being taught

1257
in Greek schools. Even so, our belief in free speech demands that such programmes be made.
Is there no remedy then against prolonged and offensive bias? I am sure that no remedy should be written into the Bill. However, the director general of the BBC, his senior managers and the ITC would be wise to institute a practice whereby, after a programme, which they had been advised would raise hackles, a 10-minute discussion is tacked on at the end in which the producer could face his critics. Then another view of the matter could be expressed. If they do not do this, the blood be on the head of the broadcasters. They ignored public feeling on violence and standards and as a result they now have the British Standards Council set over them. What is more, the director general of the BBC was sacked. Something far worse could happen to the broadcasters, in my view, if they do not heed the continuous criticism of unmitigated bias in programmes.
There are many matters which ought to exercise us in Committee: listed events, TV listings, copyright for music publishers, the method of collecting the licence fee and monitoring by the ITC. I particularly dislike the extraordinary amendments to the marine broadcasting Act 1967 which are aimed at Radio Caroline. The amendments proposed will make it unlawful for any foreign ship on the high seas to broadcast to the United Kingdom. It will enable the police, the army, Customs officers and anyone who is authorised by the Secretary of State to board and search these foreign ships and to seize documents.
Is this not another example of the Government putting on their Clause 28 "bovver boots"? Exceptional cases such as highjacking or drugs could justify seizure or detention of a foreign vessel and confer immunity on the officers who boarded it. I realise that the Home Office regards Radio Caroline as a maddening wasp and is infuriated that its attempts over the years to swat it have failed. However, surely this station is not a wasp but a common or garden cabbage white. Why break a butterfly upon the wheel? Why run the risk of an embarrassing diplomatic confrontation? That could perfectly well happen if the vessel turned out to be under an American flag.
I wish to take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, on his contention that the Home Office is no longer the right department under which broadcasting should fall. He was wrong to suggest that it always had been under the Home Office since the days of totalitarian regimes. My memory is that I was asked in 1970 by Mr. Stonehouse to be chairman of a committee on the future of broadcasting. I am quite sure that Mr. Stonehouse was not the Home Secretary.
When we discuss which is the right Ministry, we shall find that all kinds of Ministries are available but none is quite right. I very much look forward to being able to participate in the Committee stage of the Bill
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, in my contribution I wish to touch on two aspects of the Bill. First, I shall
1258
say a few words on religious broadcasting but the main part of my contribution will concern the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has just mentioned—the concept of impartiality.
First, some serious concerns have been expressed by Christians and members of other faith communities about the effects of the Bill on religious broadcasting. I should like to emphasise how much I appreciate the position that the Government have taken on those very important issues—for example, the provision of safeguards for religious broadcasting and the measures which are proposed for the ownership of independent radio stations by religious organisations. I believe that those are essentially liberalising measures. They have been widely and warmly welcomed outside Parliament and I hope that they will receive a comparably warm welcome in your Lordships' House.
I should therefore like to ask my noble friend the Minister if I was correct in understanding from his encouraging opening speech that amendments that were promised in another place will definitely come before your Lordships' House at a later stage in the passage of this Bill through the House.
In my contribution I wish to concentrate primarily on the specific issue of what is described as "due impartiality" on matters of political controversy. That matter has just been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I am a great admirer of the noble Lord and I almost invariably agree with all that he says. However, on this occasion my conclusions differ from his. I shall explain why.
Clauses 6 and 85 of the Bill as currently drafted will do nothing to prevent in future the debilitating series of arguments which has surrounded broadcasting in this area in recent years. Your Lordships will not need reminding of the numerous public disputes about political bias which have sapped public confidence, soured relations between broadcasters and politicians and demoralised commentators, many of whom to their great credit genuinely try to maintain political even-handedness. Indeed, there is reason to think that the Bill as drafted will make the present unsatisfactory situation even worse.
Such effects will not be confined to the independent sector. They may also damage the BBC, for the BBC's impartiality requirements are only very sketchily defined in the annexe to its licence and agreement with the Home Office. Therefore a great deal is left for BBC administrators to interpret. They will presumably take account of parallel procedures in this Bill laid down by Parliament for the independent sector.
In contemplating the need for due impartiality in the presentation of political issues I was reminded of the sinister Minstry of Truth in George Orwell's novel 1984. One of its chilling slogans was:
"Who controls the past controls the future".
In other words, if you can rewrite history, if you can falsify the record, if you can destroy the past, then you can distort the present and manipulate what is yet to come.
There are a number of points in the impartiality clauses of the Bill which may at worst allow the

1259
corruption of recent history in broadcasting output or, at the very least, lead to bitter and damaging disputes between broadcasters and their critics. First, in the Broadcasting Act 1981 and its predecessors due impartiality was required on matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. Thus the story of past events which are still controversial, such as the Falklands War, the 1984 miners' strike, or the origins of East-West confrontation had to be recounted fairly and accurately. Unless the Bill is amended that will no longer be the case. Why is this?—because all that is now demanded is "due impartiality" on matters of current political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy.
I suggest that there can be no possible purpose in making that change other than to narrow down drastically the arena in which fairness will be required. I know of no anomalies which have arisen from the previous wording. There have been few, if any, frivolous complaints that ancient historical events have received biased treatment on Channel 4 or anywhere else. Yet there have been closely documented examples concerning recent history, history with an indirect bearing on present-day disputes, but not so recent as to deserve the description of being "current". Perhaps I may give three examples to illustrate my point.
First, the programme "Greece: The Hidden War" was disclosed as a communist distortion of the civil war in the 1940s and of Britain's role in those events. Secondly, "Summer of the Bomb" blamed the start of the Cold War on the Hiroshima attack and claimed that to be the consensus view of informed historians, which it certainly is not. That is a fact which is recognised in the belated apology given by the BBC to the Freedom Association, as reported in today's Daily Telegraph. Thirdly, "Arm in Arm Together" spent nearly an hour featuring unchallenged communist criticisms of wartime Britain for not trusting Stalin's Soviet Union enough without once mentioning the Nazi-Soviet pact.
I fear that the changes in the wording of the impartiality requirements will exempt such cases from future criticism. It could indeed open the floodgates to wholesale tendentious historical revisionism. I do not accept that as soon as a controversy begins about a non-current issue it will ipso facto become a current controversy in the sense of the Bill as presently drafted. Instead, one result could be the undermining of the existing obligation for fair coverage of contentious events in 20th century politics. I suggest that we must uphold that obligation by amending the Bill.
I found another of Orwell's novels, Animal Farm, coming to mind when considering the record of the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. Your Lordships will recall the constant motif of that novel: cast-iron guarantees of liberty are written upon the wall of the barn, but are then rendered worthless by the addition of a few extra words. That is precisely what has happened to the impartiality requirements for independent radio services set out in Clause 85 of the Bill. Let me explain.
1260
According to that clause radio services will be required to avoid giving what is termed "undue prominence" to one-sided views on controversial political matters. The extraordinary rider is then attached stating that in applying that principle all the programmes in a radio service "shall be taken as a whole". I suggest that such a provision is unenforceable. Who can possibly listen to or monitor the entire output of a whole broadcasting service? It is as good as saying that independent radio programmes may be as biased as they like.
Already the provision that an entire series of programmes may be considered as a whole has led to abuses. How often has a one-sided programme been properly offset by another on ITV's "World in Action" for example? That was an example given by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. At least one could monitor an entire series and point that out. Such monitoring has been undertaken, with some disturbing results. However, such monitoring would be impossible for independent radio unless the Bill is amended. We should therefore be passing a law which cannot be enforced in any meaningful way.
If that is our intention it would be more honest to say openly that there is to be no requirement for political impartiality on independent radio. It is absurd to say that impartiality must apply—but not to individual programmes, not to an identifiable series of programmes, but only to the entire output of a whole radio service. Over a week? Over a year? Over a lifetime of Parliament? The Bill does not say. Nor would that make any difference because I suggest that the requirement is so flabby as to be completely worthless. To take the dental analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a little further, it has no bite in it whatever.
In another place my honourable friend the Minister rejected a suggestion from the IBA that the requirement for impartiality over a service should be extended to television because it was seen to be too wide and therefore meaningless. However, if my honourable friend the Minister concedes that the impartiality requirement is rendered, in his own words, "meaningless" by being applied to the totality of a television service, why has he accepted what appears to be a last-minute change to permit it for independent radio services? It is surely no more practicable for the latter than for the former. His critique of the one must apply just as strongly to the other.
A senior political broadcaster recently tried to reassure a colleague of mine that the broadcasting authorities took biased programmes seriously once a row had broken out. He claimed that culprits had been censured and moved to less contentious projects, if not sacked. "All hell breaks loose behind the scenes", he said, "even though we have to stand up for the programmes in public".
I suggest that that approach simply will not do. We therefore need to achieve three things in this Bill in respect of political impartiality before it leaves this House. We must reject the new loopholes in Clauses 6 and 85; we must close the loopholes carried forward in the 1981 Act; and we must institute a system enabling proper consideration and independent adjudication of complaints about

1261
breaches of the rules on political impartiality. Only then will damaging disputes and repetitive feuds be minimised for the future benefit of broadcasters, politicians and the public, and only then can we provide statutory protection against political bias of any complexion.
In conclusion, I am sure that noble Lords agree with the principle of fair, unbiased and impartial broadcasting. It is essential that that principle be enshrined in the Bill if the best traditions of British broadcasting are to be preserved in the interests of the pursuit of truth and the defence of democratic freedoms.
6 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I think that we would all agree that the passage of this Bill so far has been a Pilgrim's Progress. It began in a Slough of Despond and it has recently achieved a few fitful glimpses of the Delectable Mountains. I only hope that its scrutiny in this House will not prove to be its Giant Despair.
I hope too that I maintain a non-controversial stance if I say that the Bill is now much better than it was or, to put it another way, not so bad as it was. Nevertheless, there is much more to do than fine-tuning or putting finishing touches because many vital issues remain unresolved and many basic principles unagreed.
One central issue is the heavy weight of responsibility which will inevitably descend upon the Independent Television Commission and the powers it is given to discharge it. Not only will it be required to oversee the granting of a large number of licences according to new and untried rules, but it must monitor the performance and, if necessary, discipline the licence holder if it is not satisfied that he has complied with its conditions; yet it may do that only after the offence has been committed. It is like a policeman summoned to attend at an incident, but with a light touch, few teeth and no truncheon.
The IBA and its predecessor, the ITA, always had previewing powers as a form of crime prevention or trouble-shooting, and they have on occasions proved useful. But the commission's powers to impose penalties or revoke licences under Clauses 36 and 37 may take a long time to effect. Individual viewers and sensitive sections of our society are vulnerable and often swift and strong to react. I wonder what damage programmes once transmitted can wreak before the commission is able to impose the comparatively modest penalty of 3 per cent. of the qualifying revenue.
That problem will be nowhere more acute than in the area of religious broadcasting. Under the proposed provisions, or any others, the ITC and the Radio Authority will have to make difficult, delicate judgments, which will inevitably create controversy, about the suitability of groups of people to own television or radio services and the nature of certain broadcast material. Are Moonies, Scientologists or Spiritualists suitable or unsuitable? In creating its code, the commission will almost be required to create a workable definition of heresy—a task which might well dismay even a Bench of Bishops.
1262
The commission will also have to pick its way through the minefield of religious advertising appearing on our television and radio for the first time. It will need to be vigilant to ensure that religious programmes do not decline into vague exercises in social morality or disappear from prime time into the desolate and uninhabited margins of programme schedules. In that latter respect, the commission might glance at the fate of the Book of Common Prayer which until recently the Church of England held was "safe with us" and which is now rapidly approaching the point where Book of Common Prayer services are available only at St. Michael's-by-the-Bus-Stop and at 7.30 a.m. on the seventh Sunday after Pontefract. It has been wisely suggested that the ITC and the Radio Authority would benefit from sharing with the BBC the advice of the Central Religious Advisory Committee, which reflects virtually all aspects of mainstream religious belief in Britain. In its sensitive, potentially explosive task, the commission will need all the help that it can get.
The commission will have to consider the quality threshold in all applications for television licences, and we have perhaps heard almost as much as we need to hear on that topic. It will be a Becher's Brook.
Your Lordships may wish, however, that the same quality threshold test applied to applicants for radio licences. It is difficult to see why standards in radio should be any less stringent and demanding than those which apply to television. But the danger with the quality threshold, be it Becher's Brook or an eight-foot wall, is that it will exhaust the horse. The applicant, having staggered over the threshold, may well regard the minimum as his maximum and feel himself absolved from any further necessity to supply programmes of high quality in his schedules. That would inevitably work against the programmes of the very highest quality. There would be fewer operas, documentaries, costume dramas, plays and natural history programmes because those are the most expensive to make. Along with demands for minimum quality, there must surely be incentives and rewards for applicants who show a determination to produce a proportion of absolutely top-class programmes of the kind which have made British television recognised abroad as the best in the world.
However, perhaps the most singular shortcoming of the Bill as it stands at present is the absence of any statutory requirement for networking. My noble friend Lady Birk mentioned that point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Networking is vitally important. I say that for two reasons. First, applications for licences must be based on a clear understanding of the financial implications of the network when it presents its bids and financial proposals. Unless there is an agreed network, the stability of the entire system is threatened and smaller companies are at the mercy of the large. Secondly, I say that because it is a positive opportunity to encourage regional breadth, variety and excellence.
Perhaps I may illustrate that point from the case of Wales. In its present form, the Bill makes careful

1263
provision for S4C, Sianel Pedwar Cymru, strengthening its position in political terms and giving it a reasonable degree of financial security until 1997 by linking its income to a fixed percentage of net advertising revenue at 3,2 per cent. That is wholly to be welcomed. S4C plans to subtitle 75 per cent. of its Welsh language output by the mid-1990s. That will not only give non-Welsh speakers in Wales access to the Welsh language service, but it will make those excellent programmes available for export across Offa's Dyke.
It is obviously beneficial for quality programmes made in Wales to be seen by the rest of the United Kingdom. With the exception of Northern Ireland, Wales may be the only television region to be served on Channel 3 by a single company. It may be that further provision needs to be made in the Bill to ensure that the Channel 3 company in Wales has a duty to produce certain types of programming to project to the English-speaking people in Wales its present culture and to reflect the special interest in the Welsh community. It will need a clearly understood and agreed network in order to export its products.
There has been almost universal agreement among those who have been consulted and among those who have spoken in the House today that, once licences have been granted, there should be a moratorium on takeovers for at least two and preferably three years. Your Lordships may feel that you wish to add your voice to that chorus for without it quality will undoubtedly suffer as a result of prospective bidders sitting out an initial tender in favour of the easier and cheaper option of taking over a successful applicant.
So it is vital that the tender process is seen by prospective broadcasters as the only immediate means of obtaining a licence. The moratorium should be for a limited period but it should cover at the very least the period between the award of the licence and 1993 when licensees will be particularly and inescapably vulnerable to takeovers.
If these suggestions commend themselves to your Lordships—I think I have put forward nothing that has not commanded a very substantial measure of agreement when these issues have been discussed elsewhere—I believe that we shall significantly improve this mighty Bill before the pilgrim passes through his ultimate Jordan of final consideration and we may say that all the trumpets sounded for him on the other side.
6.10 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate on behalf of the whole House the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on his illuminating, elegant, witty and very informative speech and to say how we all look forward greatly to his future contributions to our debates.
I wish to draw attention to a little discussed but potentially far-reaching provision of the Bill which relates to the powers of the Broadcasting Standards Council over programmes. Throughout the Bill the
1264
word "programme" is defined so that it includes advertisements. The effect is to give the Broadcasting Standards Council a role for which it was originally neither intended nor designed; namely, to receive, investigate and rule on complaints about broadcast advertising.
My interest is as chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, where my duty is to safeguard the high standards which have been achieved in advertising in the non-broadcast media. Television and radio advertising have always been regulated by the IBA and the Bill ensures that the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority will maintain that control system. The established division of responsibilities for the content of advertising in the broadcast and non-broadcast media stems from the history of independent television and, although confusing for the general public, close co-ordination between the ASA and the IBA ensures that the whole system works effectively and harmoniously.
But unless the Bill is amended, present arrangements will be deranged. As drafted the Bill will result in television advertising being supervised by several bodies: the ITC, the licensees, the Independent Television Association and the Broadcasting Standards Council. Some of those bodies will attract and rule upon complaints. This range of authorities will make for muddle for complainants and for the public as well as for those who prepare, produce and broadcast the advertisments which will finance the choices represented by Channels 3, 4 and 5.
That development has been deplored by all the broadcasting and advertising industry organisations as well as by the Advertising Standards Authority. Their anxiety arises not from a desire to relieve broadcastng advertising from control but from concern that the existing machinery of control will be weakened. Moreover, we shall soon have to face new complications in the form of interventions from Brussels. The brief sent by the Broadcasting Standards Council to many noble Lords states its belief that:
"the audience should have an equal right to complain about programmes and about advertisements, which occupy some 10 per cent. of commercial air time"
Advertising is not just one part of the broadcasting output which can be treated on the same footing as programmes. The Bill itself recognises that that is not the case by making special provisions in Clauses 8 and 9 and 87 and 88 for the control of advertising on radio and television. These include wide-reaching and exacting consultative obligations on the ITC and the Radio Authority together with a power to direct advertising to be withdrawn.
There are vital practical differences between complaints about programmes and complaints about advertising. A complaint about a programme is a post-mortem because most programmes are broadcast only once. Advertisements have long-running schedules and represent a considerable commercial investment. A television advertising campaign may cost anything between £40,000 and £1 million, although it is probable that the average cost of a campaign for a fast moving commercial

1265
consumer product will be of the order of £120,000 to £160,000.
Complainants about advertisements seek their removal from the screens. Although the Bill does not give that power directly to the Broadcasting Standards Council, its unlimited authority to require publication, including publication by broadcast of its findings on complaints, will certainly amount to the removal of advertisements for all practical purposes if the council objects to them. The publisher—that is, the licensee—must provide the air time to publicise the council's opinion, although the heavy cost of that will not fall upon the advertiser. What he will suffer is the disruption of his planned advertising campaign with the substantial losses that will be entailed. It will be enough for the council to threaten an advertiser for him to withdraw the advertisement. In this carefully planned commercial world of high expenditures the powers which the Bill confers upon the council in respect of advertising could enable it to dominate all television advertising.
Under the present system the IBA has not hesitated to bring advertising campaigns to a premature end when that has been justified. In matters of taste and decency the standards which the IBA has applied to advertisements have always been considerably more draconian than those applied to programmes. Indeed, of the 3,000 complaints which the IBA receives each year about advertisements, virtually none relates to the overemphasis upon sex or violence which is a main concern of the code of practice of the BSC.
The high cost of advertising on television requires the pre-vetting of all advertisements. Currently about 40 people are employed in pre-vetting 15,000 advertisements every year. After the pre-vetting, or rather through the pre-vetting procedures, there emerges something like 40 per cent. of the advertisements which entered them. Clearly, if advertisers are going to use television as a medium, the authorities possessing the power to prevent the screening of advertisements must provide a pre-vetting and guidance service. For that reason the present system will continue within the new organisational structure.
But where will the Broadcasting Standards Council fit in? Will it provide its own pre-vetting arrangements or will it use those already in existence? Will it offer detailed guidance to advertisers and to the makers of advertisements? I have found no answers in the latest edition of the Broadcasting Standards Council's code of practice, which contains only two references to advertisements. Neither of those is helpful in laying down what is essential in this area: clear criteria to guide advertisers. Nor do the council's public statements indicate the type of machinery that it envisages as the means of implementing its claimed powers over advertising. Has it in mind to ignore or to co-operate or to compete with the established regulatory system which has secured the confidence alike of viewers and advertisers through its success in balancing the commercial and public interests?
As I understand it, the council was established to articulate a national, moral conscience, in particular
1266
in respect of the deployment of sex and violence in programmes. Indeed that was explained to us by the right reverend Prelate in his impressive maiden speech. Naturally therefore the council was not constituted to secure experience of the market place or of the advertising business in its deliberations, which are now being extended to the regulation of advertising. I am sure that the intervention of the council in such regulatory work would be a very serious mistake and damaging to a controlled system about which there have been few complaints and much praise. In that way will lie uncertainty and the threat of declining standards of television advertisements.
I intend to put down an amendment at Committee stage to remove the power of the Broadcasting Standards Council to intervene in advertisements. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government will consider again that worrying part of the Bill. Will they take counsel with those who run the existing machinery which safeguards the standards of television advertising? So far consultation has hardly taken place. It is not a trivial or marginal issue for it affects the approach to independent television of those whose advertisements finance the whole enterprise that we are discussing.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Grade: My Lords, I rise with a degree of diffidence to which I am unaccustomed to seek the indulgence of your Lordships' House as I make my maiden speech, in particular without a cigar. I am conscious that it is not usual to wait until the age of 83 to make a first speech in your Lordships' House. My only excuse is that I have been happier making television programmes and films than making speeches about them.
In 1978 I was approached by the wife of the then Prime Minister, the right honourable James Callaghan, now my noble friend Lord Callaghan, to produce a show at the London Palladium to commemorate the 50th anniversary of granting votes to women. The proceeds from this show were to go to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children and other charities. I readily agreed to do so.
Your Lordships can well imagine what it was like to cope with about 500 lovely and charming ladies in preparation for the performance. Eventually the great day arrived. In the foyer of the theatre I met the late and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the then Lord Chancellor. He said to me, "Lew, we don't see much of you in the House". I said, "You're the Lord Chancellor and an eminent QC. You make the decision and I will accept it. Should I go to the House frequently, or shall I do what I am doing: building the relationship between Britain and all countries throughout the world through the medium of British quality television programming?" He hesitated for a moment or two and then said, "Carry on with what you're doing." And that is what I am still doing now.
However, I felt that as one who was involved in commercial television in this country from the beginning that I should try to contribute to your Lordships' discussion from my experience. This Broadcasting Bill makes the biggest changes in the

1267
ITV system since that was first started 35 years ago. No one could ever accuse me of being opposed to change. I welcomed the change that introduced commercial television into Britain in 1954. I was one of the few who was ready to take the big risks that were involved in going into it. Because ITV later became profitable people easily forgot how big the risks were for the pioneers. We went through a very worrying time until the industry became stabilised financially. However, I believe that the result has been an ITV system that has served Britain well. It matched, and sometimes outmatched, the high quality of the BBC on a basis of commercial enterprise. No other country has achieved that.
I am told that one of the Government's aims is to deregulate commercial television, to give it the lighter touch. I have never been greatly in favour of regulation, I have had my ups and downs over the years with the IBA. But someone has to choose the contractors and ensure that the good, popular network programmes continue, without ignoring the minority programme viewers. I therefore wish the new Independent Television Commission well.
I do not think that it will be assisted in its task by imposing on a contractor a performance bond that can be confiscated if the performance falls below par. It is more difficult to forecast advertising revenue than the weather. A poor performance is generally a sign of flagging advertising and financial problems. If a company gets into difficulties it will make a bad situation worse to deal with it by imposing a financial penalty. Nor do I understand why there should be any doubt about the substantial moratorium on takeover bids once new contracts have been awarded. That seems to make a mockery of the bidding and selection process. I have had experience of being at the receiving end of takeovers. Once a contractor has been chosen he deserves a decent breathing space in which to get his act together.
As I have said, I am a great believer in change but it must be balanced by a degree of common sense about stability and continuity. It would be folly to change on a scale that would deprive the British public of some of its most popular network programmes. In making television or films money is not everything, although you will not get very far without it. But talent is what matters together with the flair and insight to spot talent and to nurture it. Creating a television company that will serve the viewers and also make money depends in the end on making the right judgments about people and backing them to the hilt. The success of the British commercial television system has been founded on that.
Although I have no authority to speak for ITV and no longer have any connection with it I know that it is always ready to face change. But it should be sensible change. Everyone agrees that the Broadcasting Bill was greatly improved in the debates in another place but there is still considerable room for improvement. I hope that further sensible changes will be made during the discussions in your Lordships' House. I have been in the entertainment and broadcasting industry for 63 years and I shall
1268
follow carefully the progress of the Broadcasting Bill during its various stages.
Finally, I am considering retiring in the year 2000—I am simply considering it! I trust that in that year I shall have the privilege of seeing all noble Lords present in this House today.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am happy to be the first to congratulate my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Grade, and I am glad that he has made his maiden speech. We worked hard together at the beginning of commercial television, which, as he said, has worked out not too badly at all. Neither of us now has any interest in ITV except to debate it. I am happy to see the noble Lord here today. I remember in particular flying with him to Rome so that he could receive a great honour from His Holiness the Pope. We were accompanied by three Anglican right reverend Prelates. I remember the Pope giving the noble Lord his decoration. I am happy to see him here today.
I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrers on his admirable exposition of the Bill. I do not wish to repeat all that I said on 13th December 1988 when debating the White Paper Broadcasting in the '90s. However, I should like to believe that noble Lords who were not then in the Chamber read the debate because I had a great deal of respectable support, especially as regards the question of choice. I assure your Lordships that I shall not repeat that speech.
Those of us who, like the noble Lord, Lord Grade, recall the battles in this House some 35 years ago over the introduction of commercial broadcasting in Britain may be excused a feeling of déjà vu as we consider the Bill. As with the White Paper, I warmly support it in general, especially as regards choice and quality.
In 1954 there were many cries of alarm at the prospect of independent television and the introduction of advertising. However, as I said in 1988, commercial television appeared to bring increased economic growth and prosperity to this country. It also gave us limited choice, better programmes, especially news, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Two years ago when the Government published their White Paper some predicted that only bad could come from the expansion of broadcasting. On this occasion, even before the Bill forecast by the White Paper has become law, it is clear in my mind that the critics will once again be proved wrong.
Since the publication of the White Paper more than a dozen new television services have started broadcasting in Britain. Today British viewers have a choice of 17 television stations: four terrestrial channels; four from Sky; four others on the European Astra satellite; and, since last month, five new channels from the British Satellite Broadcasting company, which I also welcome.
In this country 10 years ago television was a scarce medium, with only a handful of channels, unlike the United States, Japan and Continental Europe. Now we can see the reality of considerable diversity,

1269
with television offering an unprecedented range of services covering news, public affairs, feature films, religion, sport, music, children's programmes and perhaps above all the arts.
I particularly welcome the Arts Council's plans, not yet mentioned, to set up an independent company with the help of Coopers and Lybrand. It hopes that eventually it will be self-supporting. The company will finance arts programmes and thus offer perhaps to millions more people a chance to enjoy the best of the work supported by the Arts Council. I believe that that will be a valuable source of quality programmes. I also read with great interest the publication of the Campaign for Quality Television. I am glad that the Government amended the Bill in another place in order to give more weight to such programmes.
I am glad too that the Bill recognises that the role of government is not to prescribe in detail how each of the channels should operate but rather to provide a framework in which television may develop to fulfil the needs of viewers just as in my view a library fulfils the needs of readers.
I believe that the Bill strikes a careful balance. It recognises the need for consumer protection. That is why we should welcome the provisions requiring impartiality in news, although I know that that is a controversial matter. There is also a requirement to observe taste and decency in programming and truthfulness in advertising. Equally, the Bill provides anyone with an idea and sufficient resources the opportunity of broadcasting to the public. It also recognises the need for non-domestic satellite services, such as Sky, which use international frequencies to transmit their programmes.
There are some who would like to see restrictions put on those seeking to use non-domestic satellite channels. I hope that your Lordships will reject those efforts and will instead support the Government in their desire to promote satellite development.
The argument for keeping some players out of the satellite arena is an old one. In 1962 the Pilkington Committee, to which I gave evidence, supported the proposition that newspaper publishers, for example, should not be permitted to control television services. At the time, when there was only one commercial television service, that may have made some sense. Today, with 17 channels already and probably more to come, the argument loses its validity.
I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said on this matter in his fascinating and, as usual, highly entertaining speech. I cannot see a danger of undue influence over public opinion if a newspaper publisher owns or partly owns a television channel, always provided—as the Bill ensures—that there is a legally binding requirement of impartiality and a watchdog with, as I understand it, sharp teeth to deal with any transgressions.
It is interesting to examine the practical effect of excluding newspaper companies from offering non-domestic satellite services. In my view it would mean cutting off an important source of investment in the television industry. There can be no doubt that we should have less competition, fewer channels
1270
and increased concentration of ownership. Were those who have bravely invested in non-domestic satellite services to be told by your Lordships that they could not continue to invest, they would simply move elsewhere.
Britain is becoming the leading centre for satellite broadcasting in Europe. We shall be discussing the future of Europe in this House tomorrow. As democratic governments emerge in Eastern Europe, I look forward to those new democracies having access to programmes from Britain and the West generally offering them our ideals and values.
As I have often said, I have had no financial interest in commercial or independent television, or the electronic industry, since I joined the Government as Parliamentary Secretary for Science in 1963. However, in recent months I had the opportunity to watch satellite programmes and I consider that Sky and other European Astra channels are offering interesting services. One could almost learn German from watching the three or four German channels. There is also a Japanese channel. In particular I compliment Sky News, which I consider to be an impartial, reliable and attractively presented service available throughout the day and night—unlike other television news services—and in my view even more effective and useful than Cable News Network in the United States.
I also welcome the start of the British Satellite Broadcasting company, BSB, although I have not yet had a chance to see its programmes. I hope to do so soon. I think that it should be congratulated on being willing to invest some £1 billion in offering its satellite services to the public. BSB, it seems, has a monopoly of all the UK direct broadcasting channels, which have several technical and legal advantages, such as the right to compulsory carriage on cable TV and the right to protection from interference from other satellite systems, but are subject to cross-ownership restrictions. Sky and others use non-domestic satellites which do not have such commercial advantages but are not subject to cross-ownership rules. It would be wrong for us to advocate changing those conditions retrospectively.
There are many points made in the briefs that I have received from ITV and other organisations. I particularly recommend the brief from the Arts Council, which has not been mentioned so far in this debate. There are many other points which are of importance, but they can be dealt with in Committee and Report stage. In general, I strongly support the Bill in the form in which it has already been passed in another place.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of TVS Entertainment and of its subsidiary which holds the television franchise for the South and South-East of England, TVS Television Limited.
Until around three weeks ago I decided not to take part in the debate on this Bill, just as I had taken no part in the debate on the White Paper. I felt that my views would be seen as being too much affected by my pecuniary interest to be regarded as useful. After

1271
further thought I feel that that might be seen as being outweighed by views one can offer because of experience as a practitioner in the industry, and also because we face major changes in broadcasting in our country.
There is also this thought: until 1985 there were four ITV chairmen in your Lordships' House: my noble friend—apart from the strict requirement of party political nomenclature of this House, he is in all other respects my noble friend—Lord Thomson of Monifieth; my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa, to whom the same considerations apply and who was formerly of Anglia Television; our late and sadly lamented noble friend Lord Harlech, of HTV, and myself. Now there is only one and it would perhaps be odd if the one remaining chairman refrained from taking part in the debate.
However I must give a warning: I will not be acting as an ITV spokesman in the House. Quite apart from the fact that we speak only for ourselves I confess that I have not always been at one with all my ITV friends. I upset some of them, including some in my own company, by not being overwhelmingly enthusiastic with regard to televising Parliament, though I was in favour of an experiment. I admit that televising your Lordships' House seems to have produced quite a popular reaction outside; it has enhanced its reputation and made its work more widely appreciated. However, I recall being impressed by the most convincing argument I ever heard against the televising of Parliament. It came from the late Lord Harlech in a speech in the Cholmondeley Room at a dinner hosted by my noble friend, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, as chairman of the IBA. It was one of an annual series of those occasions which he initiated for all ITV chairmen and members of the IBA. Until he introduced that innovation there had never been a get-together of ITV chairmen, only of managing directors and other executives of ITV.
What Lord Harlech said in cautioning against televising Parliament was that there was a striking similarity between Parliament and sausages. Here I ask noble Lords to listen carefully for I will not repeat this. I promised my noble leader that this is one television occasion when there will be absolutely no repeats! Lord Harlech said:
"If you like sausages and respect the law, it's probably better not to see either of them being made".
The Bill has emerged from another place in much better shape than when it arrived there. That is due in great measure to the flexibility and willingness to listen to argument shown by the Minister of State, Mr. David Mellor. I also pay tribute to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary, Mr. Waddington. He has overall responsibility for his department and has displayed one of the principal examples of strength in a Minister: the ability to delegate. I wish also to include our own Minister of State—if he will forgive me for embracing him in that rather possessive way from this side of the House—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has played his part in his department and has always shown himself open to reason and realistic argument.
1272
The most significant improvement made to the Bill is, of course, as has been said, in the greatly increased discretion given to the ITC to grant a franchise to an applicant other than the highest bidder where programme proposals are substantially better than those of the highest bidder. That is a great improvement. It gives greater priority to programme quality and therefore serves the interests of viewers better, and it owes much to the efforts of the IBA chairman Mr. George Russell. However, there remain major parts of the Bill which need to be improved.
One part in particular which I wish to deal with now has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords in all parts of the House. I refer to takeovers of successful applicants for franchises and whether there should be a moratorium on takeovers for a limited period. That subject has been touched upon today but, if I may say so, the arguments have not yet been fully spelt out. As the Bill stands, successful applicants could be taken over from the moment the franchises are allocated. The most weighty point about that is that it would make nonsense of the whole election process—a lengthy, painstaking, careful process. Therefore, that would go against the Government's own purposes.
The Government have themselves devised the new system. The framework is in the Bill. The ITC will examine the applications, scrutinise written submissions and details of the teams concerned, and examine at first hand the applicants and their leading participants. It is the Government's own system which they strengthened greatly in another place. Why go to all the trouble of setting up that whole process, presumably designed to get the best possible television companies for this country and for viewers, if once the process is over and the best people are chosen someone else can come along and take over a successful group?
The company taking over need have made no written submission to the ITC. It will not have appeared before the ITC. Its proposals will not have been tested by the commission. It will not have given evidence before it. The sincerity, genuineness and the weaknesses of a person can be revealed when seen and examined in person, but the people concerned will not have been subjected to that test.
It is said that a company taking over a successful applicant will take on all the commitments and promises of the licence holder; that it will stand in the shoes of the successful applicant. I must confess that I should have thought it ought to be required to stand on its own feet rather than in someone else's shoes. The point has also been made that the ITC would have to approve the transfer of the licence to a company making a takeover bid. While I have every confidence in the chairman-designate of the commission—and I am sure I will in the commission as a whole when it is appointed—I do not find that reassuring. In any case, I doubt whether the ITC would relish that task in those circumstances. After all, what we would have is a company which has made no application for a franchise, which has waited in the wings, and has then pounced on a successful applicant. It is a clear sign of weakness and a lack of self-confidence in its own powers and

1273
ability if it does not come forward in the first place and make an application on its own account. Indeed, on that ground alone such a company could be regarded as not a fit and proper person to hold a franchise.
There is a related point. It has been suggested that the ITC would not agree a takeover by a company which had applied for a franchise and failed. At first sight that seems just. However, on reflection that might not be in the best interests of viewers. Indeed, there is a case for granting a franchise to a failed applicant while maintaining a moratorium on takeovers. We could have a successful applicant who, for some reason, withdraws after gaining a franchise. It could well be the case that in the contest for the franchise another applicant might have come a very close second. What better solution could there be than to transfer the franchise to the runner-up? Such a person could well be far more desirable than the waiting predator.
There are other substantial arguments for a moratorium. I should like to mention some of them but I emphasise that I am not arguing against takeovers altogether. It is undoubtedly the case that if immediate takeovers are allowed the management of a new contractor, threatened with a takeover, would have to spend immense amounts of time organising a defence or negotiating. That would distract the management from what should be the prime purpose of preparing for the start of broadcasting. That case was put powerfully by Members on all sides of another place. After it was acknowledged by the Minister, Mr. Mellor, he added that,
"in most sophisticated, well-structured companies, there are those who are charged with the responsibility of programme making and planning and there are those who are responsible for the overall management issues".— [Official Report. Commons, 8/5/90; Col. 110.]
That is broadly correct. The Minister continued:
"That is a separate function".
With respect, that is not correct. The management of a television company is not separate from the prime work of a television company. Fighting a takeover bid would be distracting and disruptive. That would permeate the entire company. Moreover, for many people in the company it would be demoralising, especially among those not, paradoxically, in the thick of the fight. That would be especially damaging to creative people—the programme makers.
It is not only management time and energy which will be taken up in fighting a takeover. Resources—money—will be diverted, too. That will mean that the new contractors—leaner than ever before with no surplus fat, by the way—will have to spend money on public relations, corporate advice and other defensive steps. Some resources allocated for programming might have to be used for those purposes. After all, the greatest costs of a television programme company are those associated with programmes. Therefore, savings would have to be found in that direction.
There is another threat to programmes. As one noble Lord has already said this afternoon, a predator would pay a premium in taking over a company. That premium would have to be earned
1274
back over the life of the franchise. Programming costs account for about 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the costs of the present ITV contractors. As further steps are made to produce leaner companies that percentage is likely to rise, so programming budgets are likely to be the only sources from which those premiums can be earned back.
There is a related economic argument. If predators can adopt a wait-and-see approach and then pick the lucky winners instead of running the risk of applying for a franchise that will reduce substantially the number of bids at the application stage.
Among the strongest arguments for a moratorium advanced on all sides in another place is the need for a period of stability and for the new programme companies to prepare for broadcasting in the new franchise period. A prime consideration in allocating the franchises is the need, as the Government have rightly said, to safeguard regional services. Member after Member of another place emphasised the importance of that and their fears that regional commitments would be among those in jeopardy if there were no moratorium and, therefore, no guaranteed period of stability.
The IBA favours a moratorium. After advancing the main arguments it adds another powerful one. It points out that the fact that the new licensees would be part of a federal, national, system is an added reason for maintaining a period of stability.
On the need for a moratorium, there is just one other aspect that I wish to deal with and that is the length of time needed. A popular period among Members on all sides who spoke in another place was for at least three years. The IBA has called for a moratorium to start on the award of the franchises until at least one year after the start of broadcasting. One notes the words "at least". However, nowhere have I seen a detailed, logical case for a particular length of time. Clearly it needs to last for some time after broadcasting begins so that the companies can establish themselves and a proper assessment of their broadcasts can be made.
Here I part company from the IBA when it says that the period should be at least one year. A year does not allow enough time for even the first year's broadcasting to be evaluated. I would argue for at least two-and-a-half years with, as an absolute but an unsatisfactory minimum, one-and-a-half years after broadcasting starts. I put forward those more precise periods of two-and-a-half years and one-and-a-half years, for this simple reason: if we said just one year it would be quite impossible to digest and assess the year's work on, say, 1st January 1994. Companies have been bringing their year ends into line at 31st December. Annual reports are not out until some months later so that it would be reasonable to go to the middle of the year for those to appear and for a proper annual assessment to be made.
Morever, after only one calendar year we would not even have seen a complete winter schedule of ITV or Channel 3 programmes. There is also a logical case for at least two-and-a-half years rather than one-and-a-half years. An assessment of two full years' broadcasting would allow a company and the federal

1275
system to show how it was building up its programmes. It would also demonstrate consistency or otherwise if it was not doing so.
In seeking at least two-and-a-half years I am strengthened by another argument of the IBA itself. In the context of its case for, initially at least, one news provider (ITN) for the ITV or Channel 3 network, it said that the first review of performance should be, say,
"at the end of 1994, by which time the new Channel 3 licensees will have established themselves".
I hesitate to point out that even though that period is in the context of reviewing the news service, there is an apparent inconsistency in the IBA's statements in calling for a moratorium of "at least one year" after broadcasting starts and then saying that the companies will have established themselves by the end of 1994, which is after two years.
However, I comfort myself by noting that for the moratorium the words "at least" appeared and also by noting that the IBA attached a precise reason for putting in two years; namely, that by that time the ITV Channel 3 companies will have established themselves. I believe it is significant that all of the Members of another place on all sides who spoke at Report stage on takeovers and on a moratorium, spoke in favour of a moratorium save for the Minister himself, though even he left the door somewhat ajar.
I very much hope that the noble Earl will, at an early stage in our proceedings, feel able to indicate the Government's willingness to introduce or accept an amendment for a moratorium from the time that the contracts are awarded until at least two-and-a-half years after they start to run.
I should have liked to have dealt with two other matters; namely, networking, on which my own group has been campaigning for improvements for some time, and the ownership of ITN. However, in view of the time I shall simply say that other ways in which the Bill should be improved are by requiring the ITC to ensure that there is a satisfactory network arrangement for the ITV Channel 3 companies and also a change to allow the ITV companies to retain a majority shareholding in ITN as their news provider. After all, ITN has served the nation splendidly as a first-quality news service—it has proved itself too, in competition with the BBC—and it is itself putting forward useful restructuring proposals.
Although I cannot welcome the Bill itself—because while accepting the need for a new Act to deal with new developments I would have preferred something different—I welcome the Government's flexible and constructive approach to arguments about it. I hope that they will show commendable consistency by being flexible and constructive here too in enabling us to help the Government to make this an even better Bill.
7.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool will be speaking later in this debate about the place of religious programmes so I do not want to dwell
1276
overmuch on that aspect of the Bill. However, I very much welcome the helpful and positive way in which the Minister in another place has responded to the fears expressed about the danger of religious, children's and arts programmes being marginalised as a consequence of deregulation and the increase in competition.
The Minister's assurances about the new requirements for children's and religious programmes on Channels 3 and 5 are indicative of a perceptible and very desirable shift in the Government's thinking. The Government have responded very wisely to the many voices raised over the past 18 months following the debate on the White Paper about the risks to standards of public service broadcasting. Some of those fears are still around, and understandably so.
Nevertheless, I join many other Peers in welcoming the strengthened safeguards in the Bill about the quality threshold. I enjoyed Mr. George Russell's description of it as being a kind of Becher's Brook. I welcome the provision in the Bill that guidelines should be issued by the ITC on the kind of programmes that a service should offer when applying for a licence.
I note that the Minister in another place expects that these will include documentaries, drama and programmes on education and the arts. I am sure that the discretion given to the commission to award a licence to an applicant offering a service of exceptionally high quality that is not necessarily the highest bidder is a very valuable improvement to the Bill.
The cumulative effect of these assurances, some statutory and others verbal, is that we are not facing that major deregulation which many of us feared 18 months ago. We are seeing a measure of re-regulation that is appropriate to the changed conditions in which independent broadcasting will be operating. Yet I believe that many of us still hope and think it vital that with increased competition money is always available for the quality drama and documentaries on which ITV's proud record has rested and that the climate and conditions for such programme-making must continue to exist.
Like other speakers, I believe that there are a number of places in which the Bill can be improved. There need to be arrangements for the networking of programmes which will be binding on the new licence holders. The ITC seems to be the appropriate body to regulate such arrangements. Many people have shared the anxieties raised about the threat of the takeover of a company before it has time to get its service well established. The arguments for a moratorium have been so persuasively expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, that it would be foolish of me to comment further except to say that I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the case that he has put forward.
One also hopes that the Government might think again about the rules for cross-media ownership so that they can apply to the owners of non-domestic satellite services. There are fears that too much control may be concentrated in too few hands, which is undesirable in a democratic society. I am glad that

1277
the proposal in the White Paper to bring broadcasting within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act has been embodied in the Bill in Clauses 150 and 151 and that racially inflammatory material will also be prohibited.
I want to say a word of appreciation—I feel it is rather daring to do so—about the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council and to applaud its work in drawing up a code of practice giving guidance in the specific areas of the portrayal of violence and of sexual conduct in programmes. I also applaud its more general concern for standards of taste and decency. I find extremely encouraging the various research projects that it has put in hand and also the council's intention to continue to consult representative groups, as it did in preparing the code of practice, as well as its desire to stage further public forums. That will help to promote a continuing debate on broadcasting standards. My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough shared with us in his splendid maiden speech some of the valuable experiences and lessons that the council experienced throughout that consultative process.
When the council was set up critical voices were raised because it was feared that, with its limited terms of reference, concentrating on violence and sexual conduct would make it into a kind of nanny, which most broadcasts could do without. However, in a recent very interesting paper Mr. Anthony Smith has suggested that the council might have considerable potential, that in embryo it already represents the public interest operating within the broadcasting system, and that if its terms of reference were enlarged its role could be developed for it to function as a public forum in which the broadcasting companies could be opened up to a continuing discussion on standards and quality of broadcasting and on the social and cultural needs of the system. A great many interested bodies could well contribute to that important debate. I am rather attracted by the suggestion of enlarging and enhancing the council's role in assisting the development of public debate, and I hope that thought might be given to how this could be achieved and what legislative provision might be necessary to bring it about.
This Bill is directed to the independent sector of television and radio. The debate on the future working of the sector has been going on for a very long time, and it will be a further two and a half years before the new licence holders on Channel 3 will be operating and possibly longer still before Channel 5 becomes a reality. Those involved in the independent companies have been and are still living through a prolonged period of uncertainty, as is the BBC, with the threat of the licence fee being phased out and subscription introduced.
The BBC remains the major force in British broadcasting, with a long and proud record of achievement. Of course we have heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, delivered in his usual fascinating way, and of course there is scope for reform and pruning in the BBC; like the Church, semper reformanda. Nevertheless, the BBC is a great cultural centre and influence in this country and beyond, and as our ties with Europe become stronger
1278
it has a unique contribution to offer. I believe that to move away from the licence fee towards subscription could destroy the uniqueness of the BBC and reduce the access of the mass audience to quality programmes, making their availability no longer a right but dependent upon a person's ability to pay. Not only should we risk losing the distinctive character of a unique institution—and that would be an incalculable loss—but at the same time, by bringing the BBC more openly into the market place, we should impose a greater consequential strain on the independent sector, which already has great burdens to bear through increased commercial competition from terrestrial channels as well as satellite.
I very much hope that in our proper concern for the health of independent broadcasting in this country—and we are all very appreciative of its great achievements—we shall nevertheless always remain alive to the importance of the continued well-being of the BBC and its distinctive place in our society and in the developing of broadcasting.
I must apologise to the noble Earl because I shall not be in my place at the end of the debate. I notice that there are 28 speakers still to follow, and if it is any comfort to him I shall be remembering him at Matins when he rises to respond to the debate.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I hope that the Church is going to grasp the opportunities which will exist of greater religious freedom in the whole broadcasting sphere. I hope that when we see the amendments which have now been promised we shall remember that the established Church in this country is the Church of England and also that our monarch is defender of the faith. I should not have to say this in front of bishops but we sometimes forget that that faith is Christianity. It is not a mish-mash of various faiths; it is Christianity of which the monarch bears the defence. We back her and the Church in their efforts.
Much has been said and therefore I must try to shorten my speech in order to avoid repetition. I think it was recognised from the very start, when I was concerned with breaking the BBC monopoly—tremendously opposed in those days by the Labour Party, which promised to abolish ITV if it continued—that broadcasting's potential placed an enormous propaganda weapon in the hands of the media élite. For that reason clauses have been inserted in successive Bills over the years to lay down that each channel, both public service and independent, should maintain due impartiality.
It could be that in five or 10 years there will be enough channels for us to get overall balance, but we must remember that in the interregnum of the next five or 10 years the main broadcasting system will be the BBC, underpinned by £1,200 million of licence money, and the ITV companies, which, incidentally, get £1-7 billion in advertising revenue to subsidise and help their programmes. Although there is going to be much competition it will be a long time before 50 per cent. of the market is not

1279
in existing hands; so we shall have to have some regulatory authority.
In recent broadcasting Acts the due impartiality clause has been added to the BBC's charter and licence as an agreement signed by the chairman of the BBC and the Home Secretary at that time. For some reason which I do not understand I believe it is not intended that that should be added to the 1990 Bill. However, there is bound to be a knock-on effect. This is recognised in the helpful BBC brief on the Bill which I received a few days ago, as I think others did, which states:
"although. these detailed provisions will not affect the BBC directly, they will have implications for the overall broadcasting environment and the BBC's place in it".
Noble Lords will know that Clause 6 and Clause 85 for radio are the key clauses, which are largely based on a similar clause in previous Bills.
I should like to concentrate on three points: first, the present regulatory format and the methods used to flout it; secondly, to provide some examples where the IBA has been unwilling or unable to carry out its regulatory obligations, and where the IBA's admirable guidelines have been disregarded; and, thirdly, some examples where the BBC governors have been unable to keep the programme creators to the terms of their charter, licence and agreement and, above all, their own very carefully drawn up guidelines.
Since the days of Sir Hugh Carleton-Greene in the 1960s, various devious methods have been adopted to undermine the principle of due impartiality by means of practices calculated to render it worthless. The following set of loopholes has been used by broadcasters to by-pass the statutory impartiality requirements.
First, there is the provision which allows due impartiality to be abandoned in the case of individual programmes so long as it can be claimed to apply to an entire series of programmes "considered as a whole". It is virtually never found that one biased programme is properly offset by another biased programme, as I shall show later.
Secondly, a new artificial category has now been invented called personal view programmes. We saw one of these—Harold Pinter's—on Channel 4 last night. This is in no way sanctioned by the broadcasting Acts of 1981, 1984, or 1990; nor by the BBC charter, licence and agreement. There are no grounds for so-called personal view programmes being made an exception to the political impartiality requirements.
Thirdly, a word has been slipped into the Bill which makes nonsense of the regulations as applied to current affairs. It says that only "current" political matters are not subject to impartiality. I shall not enlarge on that point, because my noble friend Lady Cox covered it thoroughly.
Both the IBA and the BBC have produced admirable guidelines. I have brought the BBC's guidelines with me and there are guidelines just as thick from the IBA. They are carefully and thoroughly worded. They are laid down for all executive editors, producers and staff but sometimes
1280
they seem to be completely flouted. I wonder whether some producers have even read them; they have not marked, learnt and inwardly disgested them. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has asked me to make a point that he was going to make: that perhaps the code of conduct which is now being discussed and drawn up between the ITC and the BBC—they are to have a common code of conduct, which is desirable—should become the equivalent of the documents which some businesses ask their employees to sign. Employees would sign that they had read the code, had understood it and would abide by it. That is a constructive suggestion. Perhaps the ITC will consider it when it gets going.
I want to give a few examples from the IBA of cases where impartiality has not been established. In the independent sector, Granada Television's flagship programme on Channel 3, "World in Action", is the most biased. From 1985 to 1988 the Media Monitoring Unit monitored 83 different programmes. Of those, 20 were non-political, 37 favoured the left, four favoured the right and 22 were impartial. That is not a good record. Nothing has been done by the IBA to reduce that imbalance. Alan Whicker, an established doyen of television documentary makers, has described these programmes as "a sort of Marxist party political". Therefore it is not only the MMU and noble Lords who complain that the problem continues without correction.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, was approached to appear in one of the 1988 series, "The Taming of the Beeb". He is recorded as having said:
"Before I saw their researcher World in Action asked me whether I would be willing to appear on the programme. I said that I would. After they had discovered my views I was not invited".
There must be many MPs and many Peers who have had exactly the same experience. The programme companies and the BBC sound you out on a subject on which they are constructing a programme. If your views do not fit in they find some excuse to cut them out and find instead someone who will confirm the views which they already have in their minds. We have all had that experience. I am glad to see nods from all around the House. If one has spent a good deal of time thinking about a subject it is discouraging to find that, having recorded the programme on videotape, it is then chucked away. Sometimes one is told that it has been put in the archive and that it may be useful to our successors. We shall be pushing up the daisies by that time.
Another programme in an unbalanced series was broadcast on 8th January 1990. "World in Action" purported to be a personal analysis of the extent to which apartheid had been eliminated from South African sport. The programme was sub-titled "Return of the Rebel". The rebel in this case was Peter Hain, who presented the programme from his own quite unchallenged viewpoint, explicitly timed to influence public opinion in the approach to Mike Gatting's so-called rebel tour. Although the IBA was alerted beforehand it expressed itself satisfied with the content of the broadcast.
If balance had been desired to honour the due impartiality commitment it could have been pointed

1281
out that 60,000 black South Africans had been coached every year by 70 English or English county players who went to South Africa to undertake coaching. It could also have been pointed out that an up-to-date gallup poll of the so-called rebel tour showed that 41 per cent. as against 24 per cent. of South African blacks considered that the tour would be of considerable benefit. The majority of blacks in that country favoured it. None of that was heard and none of it was put forward.
My last IBA example concerns Harold Pinter's programme on Channel 4 on Saturday 31st May. It was called "Opinions: Oh, Superman". In The Times it was described as a short series of personal arguments on the subjects of their choice and it was said to be:
"a blistering attack on United States policy towards Latin America".
I watched it but it did not inspire me. It lasted 30 minutes and was a face-to-face programme. As forecast, it was a violent attack on United States policy. At one stage he stated that in Nicaragua, Salvador and Guatemala 300,000 people had been killed in the name of democracy. Whether that figure is right or wrong, I should like to have seen some intention to give the other side of the story. I have no doubt that an American company could have been contracted to provide it.
The programme was one of a series of three. The programmes seem totally unconnected, because the next in the series is called "Democracy in India". The last programme has to do with the ageing of the United Kingdom population. It is called a series. It starts off with a loaded programme—no one would expect Harold Pinter to take up a neutral or balanced view—but one never encounters any balance. It would be possible to make a balanced programme but that does not seem to be attempted.
I turn now to some BBC examples and to the BBC's flagship programme "Today". The stars are Brian Redhead, Sue McGregor and John Humphries. I normally listen, as I am sure do many Peers, from 7.30 a.m. in the approach to the 8 a.m. news. I paid particular attention in the run-up to the Mid-Staffordshire by-election on Thursday 22nd March and to the local elections which followed on 3rd May. I have already praised the BBC's code of conduct so I turn to Chapter 18.5. It starts by reminding the staff that all news and current affairs are subject to Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as regards parliamentary elections, local elections and by-elections. The Act lays down the rules "pending such elections" and defines the "pending" period as five weeks before polling day. The "Today" programme is not known for keeping to the rules.
The Daily Express published on 3rd February an expose. During 14 days in January the MMU found on the newspaper's behalf that there were at least 12 significant lapses from the expected standards of impartiality. Eleven reports had one thing in common—they all attacked government policy without any pro-government arguments being adequately aired.
On 25th April at 7.40 a.m. on the "Today" programme, eight days before the local elections,
1282
there was a story about the resignation of 18 Tory members of the West Oxfordshire District Council. I heard it. This had happened eight weeks earlier but had been kept back to have the maximum impact. On that programme—I have obtained a copy of the transcript—Mr. Arkwright, the presenter, described how councillor Eric Abercrombie in Sandwell had made a difficult resignation speech to his local Conservative Association. The case was taken up by councillor Mrs. Vera Jones, secretary of the Sandwell Conservative Group. It is now admitted that the speech was not made to the Conservative Association: nor was it made, as Duke Hussey's reply letter to her states, to local councillors. It was written by the local Labour Party which he had joined and was recorded in the councillor's own home.
Mr. Hussey's reply said that the programme had got it wrong and that there was no intention to hoax the audience. He apologised; and apologies from the BBC are not very frequently forthcoming. He is big and able and he could take it, and I am delighted that he did. Sadly, that piece of deception was not known to the millions of people due to vote eight days later.
It would be nice to know what happened to the presenter in charge of that "Today" programme, as he had transgressed in three definite ways. First, he had deceived his audience and falsified a speech; and, secondly, he had disobeyed the BBC's guidelines which specifically state,
"local and regional coverage must be scrupulous in achieving balance over short periods of the campaign".
Thirdly, he may have broken Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which lays down rules which apply in the last five weeks before polling day. Normally any criticism by parliamentarians of BBC personnel earns the broadcaster an almost immediate award from the Royal Television Society, or something of that ilk. I have not heard whether this has yet happened to Mr. Arkwright.
During the run up to the local elections I watched the "Panorama" programmes on the two Mondays before polling day. One of them dealt with the poll tax—I am sure I do not need to tell noble Lords that—and every person who was interviewed in the street said more or less the same thing: "I have voted Tory all my life, but I shall never vote Tory again". The other programme featured the health service and was really very well balanced. Every effort was made to give the two sides of the picture.
I also have with me a transcript of the "Today" programme which was broadcast on the day before polling day, 2nd May 1990. Brian Redhead was interviewing Peter Mandelson, who many noble Lords will know is currently Director of Communications for the Labour Party. He is a formidable man, a Labour parliamentary candidate and is expected, the papers tell me, to get early ministerial responsibility should they be elected. He was matched by Charles Hendry, a young PR man and Tory candidate for the High Peak constituency.
This part of the "Today" programme contained a fierce attack by Mandelson on the Prime Minister. Brian Redhead, who was acting as chairman—and the chairman is supposed to be neutral—asked this

1283
young man finally, "Would a PR man have the courage to go to the Prime Minister and say, 'Prime Minister, the best thing you can do for your party is to stand down'?". That punchline, issued less than 24 hours before the polls opened, hardly seems to me to be in keeping with any of the established traditions laid down for the behaviour of a very important sector of our broadcasting media.
I regret to say that the BBC news is not immune. Referring to the 1 p.m. news on polling day, 22nd March, in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election, the Independent newspaper—which is not always on the Tory side—reported that,
"Labour Party workers could not contain their delight yesterday as they listened to the BBC lunchtime news at the House of Commons. It was like a party-political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. It is the first time we have actually applauded the news', said a Labour Official".
Perhaps he was just confirming what so many other people have said over the years.
I am afraid that that anti-Thatcher viewpoint now creeps into many news programmes, such as current affairs programmes and even light comedy programmes. Little snide words—not, I am sure, in the script because no respectable editor would put them in—are slipped in by newsreaders, possibly to please their producer. I heard an example of this on the news on Friday 11th May on BBC Television's nine o'clock news programme, which has a very big audience. The declaration was made—quite rightly—that inflation had now reached 9-4 per cent. and that it was the highest for eight years. That was news and it was perfectly correct. The newscaster went on to say that in 1979 Mrs. Thatcher had said that it was her aim to reduce inflation to zero. A few sentences later in this news bulletin—and I have an accurate record of what was said—it was said:
"Mrs. Thatcher is now having difficulty in honouring the promise she made to reduce inflation to zero".
That is the danger if you muddle news and current affairs together. Clearly that was a comment and had nothing to do with the news of the day. News is sacred and surely comment is free. But, unfortunately, the two have become confused. That situation was not helped by the fact that the BBC amalgamated those two huge departments into one, which now has 2,300 people in it. It must be very difficult for any editor in charge to manage to carry out the obligations of impartiality.
I find that Sky Television news succeeds much better in this respect. I now watch it regularly. It has the advantage of being worldwide, very much up to date and of course it is broadcast every hour on the hour. The ITN news is also admirable, in that it achieves a much better balance. I am sure that it is possible to do so and I hope that the BBC will work towards that aim.
We have had successive Acts of Parliament. We have had exemplorary guidelines laid down by the IBA and the BBC, but neither the Acts nor the guidelines have proved effective. Will the ITC, which this Bill sets up, be able to draw up a code of conduct which has teeth and sanctions that are effective? Certainly I think that this important code ought to be debated in Parliament and possibly be subjected to an affirmative resolution.
1284
All democratic governments in the free world have this problem about regulations and regulatory authorities. I wonder whether the Home Office has examined the pros and cons of the regulatory systems that they have in the Commonwealth, in the USA and in Western Europe. There must be some ideas which we could absorb from them. Let us make no mistake: the power wielded by the TV stars, the editors and the producers and the overweaning confidence that it gives them does, I am afraid, breed some arrogance. They now feel free to attack the fabric of our culture—Parliament, politicians, the monarchy, the police, the armed forces, the lawyers—and of South Africa and the USA.
Let no Labour or Liberal supporter believe that broadcasters' habits will change with the Government. There may be a short honeymoon period, but power once developed is not easily or lightly cast aside. I therefore earnestly hope that we can strengthen this Bill as it goes through the House.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I suppose that I should first declare an interest as I still earn part of my living from writing for television and I have done so for the past 40 years. In fact, it is 40 years ago since I had my first television series broadcast on the BBC, and last week I returned from Germany where my latest television series is being shown. I should point out that for 10 of those years I slaved in the galley for the noble Lord, Lord Grade, whose maiden speech proved to be so interesting to the House. I should also like to apologise to the noble Earl for the fact that I cannot stay late this evening. I am not taking a mass. But I am doing something related to the Bill; I am actually broadcasting. Therefore, I hope that he will excuse my absence.
We are facing a Bill which began as raw meat but several chefs have been at work on it. It is now at least edible, if not exactly haute cuisine. For this we have to thank first the Minister, Mr. David Mellor. He has shown a capacity to listen and has taken on board many changes. That quality in a Minister is quite remarkable and even dangerous. He has shown flexibility, tolerance and common sense—qualities which, if he is not careful, will ruin his political career and relegate him to the Back Benches.
We should also thank my honourable friend, Robin Corbett, MP, and his team for some good, lusty work on the Bill. And, to prove that I am not narrowly partisan, I should like to include George Walden, MP, and Roger Gale, MP, who played some excellent innings during the passage of the Bill in another place. Finally, I should like to thank my professional friends who formed the Campaign for Quality Television and achieved some notable successes by dint of skilful diplomatic lobbying.
I too shall try to avoid going over points that have already been made in the debate. However, I should like to stress first the point which was made so elegantly by my noble friend Lord Boston regarding the need for a moratorium. I do not believe that a year would be long enough; I think that we would need at least a minimum of two years. I hope that the Government will come around to recognising

1285
that point, because if we do not have this it makes the auctioning of the franchises a nonsense.
My second point is that we must do everything possible to retain the regional structure of ITV, which has proved its worth over 35 years. The smaller of these regional companies are in some danger in this new climate—and not simply from increased competition. For example, Ulster Television, which has carried out marvellous work in the most difficult of circumstances, does not have the financial resources of bigger companies. But whoever obtains the Ulster franchise will find themselves at least £2-5 million worse off because Channel 4 is now to handle its own advertising. Those are points which are relevant to all the other regional companies and ones which have not been taken on board by the Bill so far. Regional input into the system and regional quality are vital to air television and they have contributed a great deal to it.
I should now like to turn to a few personal matters. The Government made a concession to the Church lobby by including in the Bill a requirement that religious programmes should form part of each company's output. I find that approach excessively narrow. I have no objection to programmes on religion, but I do not see why the other side should not also have its say. So I should like to see the definition widened to cover general philosophical matters, the other great world religions, agnosticism and humanism. The minds of our people, young and old, should be open to all the great ideas of this world. It is wrong that we should submit them to one area only—the Christian religion. We need to give the viewers access to the whole spectrum of moral and spiritual ideas. I hope that we can return to that point later.
I must say that I do not share some of my noble friends' rears about what is called "cross-media" ownership. It seems to me that cross-media ownership is rapidly becoming a kind of shorthand for the anti-Rupert Murdoch club. I do not know Mr. Murdoch. I have met him only once, and that briefly. I have no connection with his business, financial or otherwise. I owe him nothing. What I find curious and alarming is that BSB should be running such an ill-tempered and intemperate campaign against Mr. Murdoch. BSB is hardly up and running yet. It has had to delay its own start time and time again. Yet what do I receive from BSB? A letter about its plans, its programmes, full of enthusiasm asking me to tune in to BSB? No, no. What I receive is an expensive brochure about cross-media ownership which is really a veiled attack upon Mr. Murdoch. That is absolute nonsense. BSB should be concentrating its finance and its resources on trying to be successful, not in attacking its rivals.
Could that be, I ask myself, because BSB is in the same satellite business as Sky and would like to see it weakened? Could it perhaps be because a number of powerful newspaper interests have large financial stakes in BSB? Of course not. I must dismiss such thoughts as unworthy of your Lordships' House.
For those who have that paranoid fear of Murdoch and his works, it might be relevant to point out three indisputable facts: by the mid-90s, when Britain will
1286
be blessed, or cursed, with a choice of at least 20 channels, Sky will have four of them. Of those, three are devoted to sport, films and entertainment. The fourth, the news channel, will be subject to the same regulations as everyone else in television. It could also be argued that News International, by pioneering the new technology, enabled more newspapers to be published and created more competition. Without its efforts, it is doubtful whether there would be an Independent or a Sunday Correspondent today. We have more voices, not fewer. Finally, who else would be prepared to lose £100 million a year to create a television network?
I wish BSB well. Television cannot afford failures; but please, BSB, concentrate on your own problems, concentrate on getting off the ground and wish Sky well in its own efforts.
The Bill, rightly, makes it a duty for the television companies to take at least 25 per cent. of their programmes from independent companies. But in another respect it strikes a body blow at another kind of independent—the small music publisher. Independent radio companies are prohibited from forming their own music publishing companies, but that prohibition apparently does not apply to the new Channel 3 companies. They are now demanding that the copyright of any music they commission should be vested in them. Perhaps I can explain. If one writes the theme music for a series such as "Crossroads", in the past one received one's royalties through the Performing Right Society every time that that piece of music was played. The companies are now demanding that they own the copyright of such pieces. They will buy them outright, and they will pay a fee which will be probably 50 per cent. of what one should receive.
It is sometimes difficult for small composers or music publishers to stand up against those people because they are not strong enough. They need the money. They need to be protected just as in the Bill we are protecting independent producers. That is an issue that has been overlooked by the Government. I hope the Minister will consider that point and give us an answer, because many small music publishers and composers have written to me. They are alarmed about their future livelihoods.
Another point at which I should like the Government to look, which has not been mentioned, is that television programme producers will be faced with a plethora of censorship. We have the Broadcasting Standards Council, the new controlling body, and the criminal law. Who will decide on anything? There is far too much of that and far too many bodies. That is again something at which we can perhaps look in Committee.
I have another point of concern that I should like to put to the Minister, which has not so far been raised in the debate. I shall not go into any great detail as it might be better to do that in Committee. I am aware that game shows and quiz games are not perceived as being high on the list when one thinks of quality television, but I speak of the entire output from "Mastermind", "My Word" and "Countdown" to the more inane programmes. I am referring to a point of principle.

1287
All those shows, which your Lordships may be surprised to hear cost many thousands of pounds to produce, are under threat because of a recent legal ruling that there can be no copyright in the format of a game show. The thieves have already broken in. "Opportunity Knocks", which was devised and developed over many years by Mr. Green and is plainly his property, has been openly stolen by New Zealand television which has produced the show for three years under its orginal name, using Mr. Green's format, without paying a penny in royalties. If that happened to a play, a piece of music or a book there would be an outcry. That is an issue that must be looked at.
In another place the Minister promised to consult the DTI on that issue to see what could be done. Will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on the matter?
I should like to take some time to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, but they should probably be debated in Committee. In his rather long speech he made many points about impartiality and individual programming. All I have to say at this stage is that if we want impartiality and balance in one programme, we shall castrate television. It is impossible to achieve. It is a subjective issue. The noble Lord may listen to a point of view on the radio and his Right-wing hairs rise on the back of his neck. I listen to it and I think, "God, how reactionary that is!". There are two different points of view. They are difficult to adjust. I agree with the noble Lord—I believe that he made some valid points—there must be balance; but we cannot achieve it in the framework of one programme. It we attempt to do that we place an impossible burden on broadcasters.
Finally, I should like to say two or three words about the BBC. Apart from an odd mention here and there, and the declaration that the BBC will remain as the,
"cornerstone of public service broadcasting",
the Bill is practically silent on the subject of the corporation. The BBC may be happy about this, but I am not. I find it ominous.
Are the Government, having eaten ITV as their main course, saving the BBC for dessert? Their charter comes up for renewal in 1996. In the next six years the BBC will come under more pressure from greatly increased competition. I suspect that it may lose ratings because the ratings are with the many other channels. There will be a renewed demand therefore to curb the licence fee; for the BBC to earn its corn; perhaps to force the BBC to take advertising. All these possibilities are on the agenda for the next six years once this Broadcasting Bill is out of the way. I urge the BBC and all its friends in this House and elsewhere not to be complacent. They may well be walking into an ambush.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who has made a major contribution to broadcasting, only perhaps matched by that of his son. The noble Lord's words
1288
have been valuable and I congratulate him particularly because they all seem to be entirely related to the Bill. That is rather more than I can say for the speech that preceded his from the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. Frankly, I was at a loss to discover to which part of the Bill his remarks were directed. But perhaps we should leave that matter and discuss it on another occasion.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his detailed and convincing explanation of the need for legislation. I was initially opposed to any change. Liberals are often opposed to change, even though they may recommend it. I felt that things were going splendidly. I was happy to leave them as they were. I would have left well alone. I mean "well" because the contribution made by independent television and independent broadcasting as a whole has been major and important. However, after the noble Earl's explanation, I recognise that we have been overtaken by new technology in so many ways that it is essential to have legislation. So we have it and we are discussing it.
We are all experts on this subject. I tend to take the view that television is not for watching but for being on. Anyone who has anything to do with television is an expert and that is why we have so many speakers tonight. Some speakers on the subject up and down the country have said the same things over and over again. Why not? Today one or two have said them here at slightly greater length.
In the discussion since the Bill first appeared we have had the growth of a new industry: the holding of and participation in symposia on the Bill. Symposia have been held all over the country. I have taken part with great pleasure in many of them and it has been interesting to hear other noble Lords who have also taken part saying the same things here. One or two have yet to speak and I look forward to hearing them again, even if they repeat their remarks, as I shall do. It is interesting that one's spontaneous witticisms have become more and more spontaneous with repetition and practice.
We have been privileged to hear four maiden speeches of high quality. My noble friend Lord Glasgow referred to a matter at the heart of our problems—the number of channels. On that, one immediately has to ask two questions: is there sufficient money to support that number of channels? The supply of advertising revenue is not inexhaustible. I believe it is questionable whether there will in the end be enough revenue from advertising to support what has to be supported with programme-making. Reading the financial memorandum to the Bill, we realise that the purpose of television now is to make a major contribution to public funds. I am not sure that there will be enough revenue to support all these channels. We shall have to wait and see. If there is not enough, as many noble Lords have explained, the first thing to suffer will be programme standards. Programme-making is costly and that is where savings would be made.
Secondly, is there enough creative talent to support this number of stations, even though some stations are duplicating and doing the same things? That is questionable. I believe that there is enough talent, provided that all the talent lying latent and

1289
unexploited in the regions of Britain is tapped and used. That is why I echo strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has just said about the importance of preserving the regional stations, particularly the small ones. I shall come to them later. I am quite sure that regionalism is at the heart of the matter.
Perhaps I may now list the points about which I still have anxieties. The idea of the auction of franchises seems to me quite extraordinary and unacceptable. It is the essence of vulgarity, displaying a callous disregard of culture and taste which I should not have expected of any government. I accept that it has been watered down a little. The pill has been sugared. I believe that I am right to pay tribute to Mr. Mellor for the way in which he has conducted negotiations and for the extent to which he has made modifications. However, I still have anxieties on that score. I believe that auctioning the franchises is offensive.
Next I turn to takeovers. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grade. He said that if takeovers are permitted, it makes a mockery of all the procedures which have been hammered out with Mr. Mellor and which will be further hammered out in this House at Committee stage. Something else must be done. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said—although at great length.
On cross-media ownership, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, rather than the noble Lord, Lord Willis. He talked about the battle between BSB and Sky, but I ask him: who started it? Initially, the owners of Sky used the newspapers which they already owned in order to promote Sky in a way which demonstrated the need to do something about cross-media ownership. On that score I do not wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis.
I am a little worried about ITN. It is marvellous and has always had splendid standards which have never lapsed or wavered. I would leave it alone, without much competition. Why does it need it? I am extremely worried about listed events. If there is any threat to what is known at present as listed events we must battle hard in your Lordships' House when we come to the later stages of the Bill.
I now turn to a matter related to my main point of regionalism—networking. There must be proper networking arrangements. That leads me to talk a little more about regional broadcasting. When we discuss regional television there is a tendency for people—I am not saying noble Lords here—to think that we mean local television, parochial television. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said earlier that it would be possible for companies to broadcast different types of programmes for different parts of their regions. That is fine, but it is local broadcasting. Regional television and regional broadcasting are not local. They are a matter of looking at national and international events through regional eyes.
Regional broadcasting is also a matter, as regards cultural activities, of giving a regional flavour to universal themes. It may be music, drama, current affairs or anything else. That is why we need an extremely strong regional basis for our television—in order to recruit people to work, to provide the talent.
1290
They are not recruited very much in the regions by the BBC. It is the most over-metropolitanised outfit that I have heard of. If somebody works for the BBC in the regions the only badge of success is a season ticket to London. I was not all that keen on having two local radio stations in London—Capital and LBC. It seemed to me that London already had its local radio stations—BBC Radio 1, 2, 3 and 4. As I heard them up in Manchester they seemed to me to be London local radio. The regional question will not be solved by the BBC; it must be solved by the independent network, be it radio or television.
On the question of radio, I say in all earnestness that if there are to be three national, independent radio channels, one of them must be based in the regions. We do not want them all in London. I hope that in the course of the further stages of the Bill we shall do something about that. I hope that we shall come to understand what we mean by regional television.
The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, is to speak later. He knows as well as I what contribution has been made by small regional companies and how important it is that they should still have the ability to recruit talent locally and to make a regional contribution to the national network. They should not just be concerned with their own area. We do not want to find Lancashire people watching Manchester United all day. The regions should look at national and international events through regional eyes. It is not that they do it better in the regions, but they do it differently. They treat music differently. The composer may be the same but the broadcast is different if it comes from Glasgow, Liverpool or London. That is not a criticism of London; it is a commentary on the nature of our society, its variety and differences. Let us not forfeit those differences in setting up this new network of television stations.
We have also heard a great deal about independent production companies. The Government are to be commended on what they have done to encourage existing franchise holders to take so much of their programme material for independent programme makers. However, again I feel that if we are not very careful we shall find that nearly all of those independent programme makers will be based in London. They will stay in the regions provided there are strong regional stations which can employ them. That also is immensely important.
I should like to say a word about something which is not in the Bill but which I believe ought to be, namely, the question of ratings. A number of noble Lords have talked about the extent to which people and programme makers concentrate on ratings. I am concerned with the way in which ratings are calculated. It is based on an arrangement between the BBC and ITV which the BBC insists on retaining. The rating for a programme, whether it is a soap or some other programme, is based on the number of people who watch that programme throughout a week. Therefore it is no wonder that the BBC can get programmes into the top of the ratings if it imports Australian rubbish and broadcasts it five times a week. It will be watched by five times as many people as watch English rubbish which is broadcast one night a week. It is the BBC which

1291
insists on keeping that method of calculating the ratings. It is wrong.
The public have an interest in ratings. I should like to see some control over the way in which ratings are calculated and reported to the public. The public take note of how many millions of people watch a particular programme. They say to themselves "It must be very good, I'll watch it". They do not realise that that many people cannot help watching it because the programme is shown every day. We must return to a sensible way of calculating ratings.
We have this Bill. I hope that we shall improve it. When it is in force we shall have to wait to see whether television and radio in this country remain as good as they have always been or whether they change in any way. I believe that they will probably remain as good, because I believe that we have spent too much time in this debate talking about who owns a company rather than who does the work. It has been my experience in some 40 years of working in broadcasting that the more I move round the more I find the same people working for one company one year and another the next—the BBC, ITV, Ulster, Anglia and so on. Quality depends on the ability to recruit people with the creative talent to make and present programmes of high quality. So long as we have enough people of that kind, whether we have this Bill or no Bill, standards will remain high.
Finally, I should like to thank those many bodies which have sent us briefs. Not one has been mentioned in this debate because it is a Second Reading. The purpose of those briefs is to help us at Committee stage. We shall have to wait and see whether they help us to succeed in making changes at the Committee stage. I hope we make some changes, but in the end I believe that our television will continue to be of a high standard due to the people who do the work and not because of those who own it.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I hesitated before deciding to join in this debate because I am the chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council, which has been referred to in the course of the debate. However, the debate has been such an interesting one that I am very glad that I decided that it would be appropriate to do so.
I should like to refer briefly to three of the speeches which I thought were particularly significant. The first was made by my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, who is a member of the Broadcasting Standards Council, and who I thought made an excellent maiden speech. I was very glad that he emphasised that the approach of the council is to research into and seek out public opinion. I am perfectly clear that no standards can be maintained in broadcasting which are not firmly based on the standards that the public want, and that that ought to be the basis of any approach to the maintenance of standards.
The second speech to which I should like to refer is that of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. He raised the point of a possible moratorium and
1292
the question of takeover. I found what he had to say both informative and substantially persuasive. However, there is one further point to which I hope it will be possible to give further consideration.
There seems to me to be some mismatch between the category of people who are allowed under Schedule 2 to own licences and the area of the restrictions which are placed on them. The category of people includes all European citizens. That is quite right. Under the European Community rules it could not be otherwise. However, if I have understood Schedule 2 correctly, the restrictions only refer to holdings inside this country. That creates what appears to be an anomalous situation in which a British newspaper proprietor, if he owned a national newspaper, would only be allowed to own 5 per cent., or if he owned a local newspaper, 20 per cent. of a licence-holding company. However, the proprietor of a European newspaper or newspaper group, which might be much larger in size, would not be limited provided he owned no newspaper inside the United Kingdom.
That would mean, for example, that the Axel Springer Group would be totally unlimited in the amount of its holdings because it would qualify as a European group. It would not be disqualified because none of its newspapers, so far as I know, operates in the United Kingdom, although I believe that it publishes a magazine here. That would also apply in the case of the restrictions placed on people who are involved in the telecommunications business, purely in terms of their United Kingdom holdings. Therefore, Signor Bellusioni, who is plainly in a near monopoly position in Italy, would be in no way restricted because he has no present position in the United Kingdom. However, somebody with quite modest holdings compared with Signor Bellusioni's, but in the United Kingdom might be restricted.
It seems to me to be important to have a proper match between the area from which people who can hold licences can be drawn and the area in which their assets should be defined. We should look not only at any problems of monopoly which may arise inside the United Kingdom but should take a European view of the strength of holdings and the implications that that would have for possible future monopoly pressures inside the United Kingdom.
The third speech which I found extremely interesting was that of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who asked that we should exclude advertisers from the consideration of standards. That has been a substantial lobby. The advertisers are undoubtedly keen that they should be excluded. My own judgment is that that is not wise of them and that they are not in a position to come forward and say, "Look, we are people who should be let off, but ordinary broadcasters who appear in the time which occurs between our advertisements should be subject to the standards provisions". That seems to be a false position for the advertisers to take up.
However, I can give the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, some reassurance. The basis of the work of the Broadcasting Standards Council, as we approach it, is to try to establish and support the best existing practice. We are not in the business of

1293
trying to intervene for the sake of intervention where there is already good existing practice. Our purpose is to endeavour to maintain it. The noble Lord's fears that we should seek to dominate the advertising on television in this country are quite unfounded.
However, there is one point on advertising about which all of us should be concerned; namely, the substantial cultural gap which at present exists between advertising on the continent of Europe and advertising in the United Kingdom. I am sure that we shall need to ensure that, as a European broadcasting market develops, advertising does not divide up so that there are no provisions to limit the character and standards of the advertising from Europe.
I welome the Bill because I am sure that the great changes which have taken place in technology, competition and finance in television require a major Act of this kind. I suspect that, apart from the renewal of the BBC Charter, at some time in the course of this decade we shall require another Act dealing with broadcasting because the whole situation is changing so rapidly that further change will be almost inevitable.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question which he may find semantic, pedantic or otherwise unedifying. He has talked a great deal about maintaining existing standards. Many people believe that existing standards are not so hot. Is he concerned with improving existing standards?
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, the standards which are sought by the BBC and the IBA are high standards. I do not say that the BBC or the IBA always live up to their intentions, nor do I think they would maintain that they did so. I do not say that there is no room for improving standards in almost all areas. There certainly is; but in general I regard professional British broadcasting as being conscientious, responsible and in need of defence rather than censure.
I should like to refer to one issue because there has been little reference to it and it lies at the heart of the matter with regard to broadcasting standards; namely, the European dimension. The European Commission has issued a directive which is concerned with the protection of minors. Article 22 states:
"Member states shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular those that involve pornography or gratuitous violence. This provision shall extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts."
We should also bear in mind Article 7 which states:
"Member states shall also ensure that broadcasts do not contain any incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality."
In considering the Bill, we are therefore considering something which is entirely in line with the European directive. Indeed, the British Government took part in the discussions that led to that directive being created.
1294
I have recently visited various European broadcasting centres. It is clear that the European nations are behind that directive, and that the principles, in terms of standards which the directive lays down, are widely acceptable. In some countries, the system of regulation is devolved to the regions, as it is in Germany. In some countries, such as France, it is highly centralised. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, it is a system of self-regulation. The systems of regulation are therefore very different, but the objectives are very much the same.
There is general concern about violence on television. The Bavarian Government recently issued a report on their concern about violence, but that concern is found in all countries. There is general agreement that what could be called hard pornography should not be shown in clear, although the French allow it where the television is coded on the Canal Plus and after midnight. There is general concern that the protection of youth should be at the centre of the maintenance of television standards, whether through regulatory bodies or through proposed bodies such as the Broadcasting Standards Council, or through self-regulation. There is a widespread use of the watershed—a time after which more adult material is allowed. In Germany the watershed is rather late: an 11 o'clock watershed is laid down by the Lander. In France and on Italian public broadcasting the watershed is 10.30 in the evening. Our watershed is surprisingly early at 9 o'clock although the Cable Authority had a double watershed at 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock which is rather closer to the European pattern.
Not only the Broadcasting Standards Council but the regulatory authorities, all bodies involved in broadcasting and all broadcasters, should be working in a European broadcasting market. That will include substantial trans-frontier broadcasting. It will be the responsibility of all nations to work out systems which maintain the standards that have been adopted by the European Community. Each country is trying to find—there is considerable interest in what we are doing—a mechanism or a mixture of regulation and persuasion—self-regulation—which will enable those standards and the protection of youth to be maintained. The Bill will prove to be a major step forward in that process.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, as he is chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council. It has been interesting to hear all he has told us this evening. I wish the Bill well, having read the report that the noble Lord has kindly sent to most noble Lords taking part in the debate. The Bill has a large remit. I am interested to see that the codes of guidance are aimed at supporting the best of the existing practices rather than overturning some and putting others in their place. I was particularly interested to read that, as chairman, the noble Lord has a pane! of 35 monitors to report on the main terrestrial and satellite TV channels and a group of 750 people to whom it will look for spontaneous reactions to programmes. However,

1295
after reading the report, I was worried as to whether I should congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment or commiserate with him and his team. All I can say is that I wish them well.
I am not an expert. I am an interested party having for five years been a member of the Independent Broadcasting Authority under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone. For most of us the Bill is an interesting and new phenomenon. As I am not an expert, I shall tear up practically everything I have written. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on it. As the noble Lord told us, the breadth of the task is vast and the existing laws must be revised.
I also welcome the considerable alterations to the Bill made by the Members of another place before the Bill came to your Lordships' House, mainly with regard to the children's programmes and religious broadcasting. However, there are one or two topics about which I wish to speak. There will not be more than one or two because I intend to sit down well within five minutes.
The public services broadcasting on Channel 3 apparently is to be discontinued. This is a very important part of the communications system both locally and nationally. It is used on this channel to educate and inform. However, unless the Bill is changed—which I hope it will be—it is to be deleted and replaced by an auction system. I do not think that that will work. It will certainly be to the detriment of voluntary organisations. I hope that the Government will think about it again. Voluntary organisations need a platform which they can approach in order to communicate with the public.
In his maiden speech the noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke about the Welsh language. I shall put in a very quick plug for the Gaelic language in the Outer Hebrides because I want to ask noble Lords to look out for networking. As other noble Lords have said, it is very important that any programmes made in Scotland by television or radio should be networked. Those of us who are privileged to know Scotland understand that it is a different country from England. Scotland's productions need to be networked not only in these islands but abroad as well. Much expansion is needed. Currently programmes worth £13 million are sold but more is needed.
I shall touch briefly on radio stations. Two radio stations were allowed recently, within the past year; that is over and above Capital Radio and London Broadcasting. But quite suddenly we are told that there is to be a big increase in radio stations in London and elsewhere in the country. I am very worried about not only the amount of advertising necessary to keep those stations going but also the frequencies that are to be allowed. Perhaps at some time the Minister can tell me who allocates those frequencies. They are vitally important to those who run the companies or the stations. Obviously they have to make a profit, otherwise they will go bust. However, if the stations cannot be heard or if the frequencies overlap, people will not tune in to them. They will therefore not obtain the advertising. It
1296
becomes a vicious circle, It is very important that we should be told whose responsibility it is to allot the frequencies.
Advertising also is a very big subject. Tonight I feel that I am one of those who knows not nearly so much about the subject as do other noble Lords. I shall therefore now sit down.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very glad to speak after the noble Baroness. In view of some of the things that she said I believe that she will support some of the points that I shall make.
In the United Kingdom the public service principle has underpinned broadcasting policy. Following the recommendations of the Crawford Committee in 1926, a system of public service broadcasting was established, the central principles of which continue to apply to services regulated by the BBC and the IBA, the most important being that broadcasting is a national asset which should be used for the national good rather than for the benefit of particular interest groups.
The current Broadcasting Act includes the following requirements: public service television providing:
"information, education and entertainment, a proper balance and wide range in subject matter and a wide showing for programmes of merit".
Except for Channel 4, those requirements will not be met in the new Bill.
I want to speak about education and what is likely to happen to it under the arrangements proposed in the Bill. I am aware of Clause 31 which relates to schools programmes; but that is only one aspect of what television and radio now provide. Naturally, we are pleased to see Clause 31 in the Bill and I pay tribute to what has been done for schools and to expand the service.
It is sometimes forgotten that the ITV schools service preceded that of the BBC. In 1957 it broadcast 56 hours of programmes; today, that has expanded to 500 hours in the year. Viewing audiences have expanded too. In 1960 somewhat less than 60 per cent. of all schools used the independent service; today that has grown to well over 80 per cent. of primary schools and, even more striking, 94 per cent. of secondary schools. Let us hope—I quote from Clause 31(2)(d)—that the
"conditions specifying the minimum number of hours"
that the commission includes in the licence will mean that that proportion will still be possible.
With the introduction of the national curriculum (and the shortage of teachers), television has an important role to play. The existing franchise holders devote enormous sums of money to producing material. For example, I know that one company is currently putting £1 million into the production of a new series of "How we used to live", a televised drama of social and domestic life in the Victorian era.
But it is particularly about adult and community education that I want to speak. The key point is that Channel 3 (ITV) is at the heart of the new Bill

1297
because it will remain the major popular commercial channel for several more years at least and perhaps indefinitely. To divest Channel 3 of any requirement to show educational purpose in licensees' bids or ITC monitoring is a major change therefore and made at a time of acknowledged weakness in UK education and training and of radical changes. The persistent pretence by the Government that they have answered that point by providing for a service for schools; ignores the particular contribution made by ITV to the education and training of adults. Channel 3 reaches an audience that cannot be reached by BBC 1, BBC 2 or Channel 4. This is a function not only of the size and social mix of audiences but of the regionality of the 15 ITV companies, their programmes and staff.
The argument that the nice Mr. Russell of the ITV will provide illustrative guidelines to prospective licensees, and that those will include reference to education, ignores the point that successful bidders might be appointed with no educational purpose at all to their programmes and/or show a few programmes at 0200 hours each week on Thursdays. We have to put an obligation into the Bill.
My honourable friend Mr. Fisher tried in another place to introduce a new clause to ensure that a suitable proportion of the programmes of Channels 3 and 5 would be adult learning programmes supported by appropriate outreach arrangements. He failed, although Mr. Mellor made some fairly sympathetic noises. Why, if religious and children's programmes can be written into the Bill, educational programmes cannot, astonishes and shocks me. I hope that we can be more successful here.
People want to be entertained but they also want to be informed and to learn more about their world. For example, the educational drama about runaway children, "Somewhere to run" was watched by 9 million people last year. Thousands rang the Helpline that was provided or chose to watch the associated documentaries in the following weeks. That kind of exercise was British broadcasting at its best, working closely with the Children's Society and other bodies on a major issue that the public want to understand better. That is what the current Broadcasting Act has ensured.
As we enter the 1990s, changes in broadcasting should take account of the public need beyond entertainment. We all need to be informed and educated more. Educational output, backed by print and community activities, should continue to keep us all up to date with new ideas and with opportunities for volunteering—care for children, for the disadvantaged and for the elderly—as well as catering for environmental concerns (which is very well done) and educational aspirations that reflect the diversity of society.
Perhaps I may use Yorkshire Television as an example. I should like to show how commercial television can have a role in serving a community's needs. Each year a number of 30-second transmission slots and a considerable amount of programme-making expertise and resources are made available to allow 80 voluntary organisations to produce a community service announcement, either publicising the service that they offer or asking
1298
for volunteers. Those programmes are usually screened eight times a week between programmes often at peak viewing hours and often with great effect. More than 2,000 people got in touch with the Yorkshire Arthritis and Rheumatism Council after one announcement. In addition to community service announcements, the company produces a twice-weekly information programme "Help Yourself which offers help and advice on health and welfare benefits and practical advice for the unemployed, as well as information for the elderly and disabled. A successful health campaign was that on AIDS.
During last year more than 20,000 people got in touch with the unit for further information provided by the company in specially produced and free fact sheets. Some of those individual programmes have drawn an amazing response. More than 5,000 people called in after seeing "The Warmth in Winter" programme; 1,000 people requested a free leaflet on microwave cooking for the disabled; and 70,000 people wrote in for details of the adult education component of This Morning magazine. The future of such services is under threat.
The uniqueness of the ITV contribution has been shown in the policy of support and outreach. Community education officers have been appointed to make and encourage arrangements for publications and/or telephone helplines to answer local needs. The policy has worked, as I have shown from the examples that I have given. I believe that I heard the Minister in his opening speech admitting the need for some improvement in the Bill in that respect.
Unlike the BBC and Channel 4, ITV has been able to promote and support active citizenship. There is no provision in the Bill to ensure that such arrangements will continue and, despite popularity they are at risk in a commercially competitive system with no educational purpose. Community education officers should be written into the Bill. Education is not a minority interest or a lobby topic like, for instance, drama. It has an overarching purpose. It should be an aim of licensees' programming. Its enactment in people's lives is more important than the protection of religious or children's programmes. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in responding to an IBA/BBC commissioned attitude survey viewers said that adult education was the third most popular programme type for an increase in programmes.
Perhaps I may say a word on the BBC. It has been keeping very quiet. The net effect of the Bill is to marginalise its role, restricting its options and preparing it for futher limitation when its Royal Charter is renewed in 1996. It is a pity that it has kept so quiet. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Willis said on that issue. There are some worries. The Open University, for example, is concerned that the new Radio 5—which will be the BBC's channel for educational programmes—is less accessible to their adult learners in various parts of the UK than the existing services. Given that people are living longer and that they may find it less easy to have access to transport, libraries, the arts and public education, especially in rural areas, Open University courses

1299
and TV are even more of a lifeline and a means of encouraging people to take up new pursuits and interests in middle and later life.
If Channel 3 does not have an obligation to show programmes of an educational purpose, pressures will build on BBC 1 to push adult education to the margins of the system. The result will be that you will be able to find adult education programmes on BBC 2 or Channel 4, or late at night if you know that you wish to see a specific programme, but for those who do not actively seek to learn opportunities will disappear.
My last word is a plea for the splendid World Service: it should do even more, it should never be cut back and it should have more spent on it. It does wonderful work for the UK. One of my sons, an anthropologist who works in Francophone Africa, tells me that for many people there the BBC World Service is the service of record in preference even to Radio France International. However, it is still their constant complaint that the BBC signal is weak compared with Deutsche Welle, Radio Moscow and broadcasts from South Africa. Could that not be improved?
8.35 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I shall try to be brief I have to apologise for not being able to be here later.
First, I must declare a personal interest. I write for News International which owns Sky television. I have never appeared on Sky. However, I appeared on the first excellent Robin Day discussion programme on BSB. There was no audience for it in the studio, and unfortunately precious little outside. But I hope that your Lordships, like the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will not fall for the massive propaganda by BSB against Sky. It proposes that should it prove profitable, News International must either get rid of Sky or its newspapers. That is sheer malice from a commercial group which started with numerous advantages from the Government towards a rival that has gone ahead rather faster.
As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, Mr. Murdoch revolutionised the newspaper industry by ending trade union domination of it. That has made it possible to start new newspapers such as the Independent, the Independent on Sunday, the Sunday Correspondent, and so forth. His guilt is of course that he started to do the same with television.
BSB aims to spend £1-3 billion on establishing itself That is three to four times as much as Sky intends to spend. Among the shareholders of BSB are Granada and Anglia. So is the Financial Times group which owns many regional newspapers. BSB is deep into media cross-ownership. It should not complain about that. Nor does media cross-ownership matter any more. The newspaper industry is no longer static. It has no monopoly which determined new groups are unable to breach. The same will now be true of television.
There are already 17 channels available to viewers, of which 13 are not owned by News International. Over the next few years the Astra satellite alone will
1300
have a 48-channel capacity. The greater the number of entrepreneurs running them, the greater will be the choice for viewers, just as there is with newspapers and magazines.
On political bias—about which BSB warned us with regard to Mr. Murdoch—satellite broadcasting will be regulated by exactly the same due impartiality rules of the new Independent Television Commission. No newspapers will be able—even if they were foolish enough to try—to tell readers how to vote without bumping up against the powers of the commission as described in Clause 6.
However, it is in this area that the Bill is deficient in ensuring that the rules relating to due impartiality are strong enough to compel the BBC or broadcasters under the aegis of the new ITC to obey them. That is not a party political matter. It affects all political parties whether they are in or out of government. It affects individuals.
An outstanding case was the BBC television programme "Yesterday's Men", in June 1971. It showed Labour's leaders after the defeat of the Wilson Government as the range of exhausted volcanoes which Disraeli once described the Government's Front Bench as being. The programme depicted them as forlorn relics, out of touch and out of date. True to form, the BBC did not admit that it had breached the due impartiality rule nor did it make redress. This Government have made complaints often strongly expressed by chairmen of the Conservative Party. But they are nothing compared with the vigorous and frequent protests made by the Labour Party whether in or out of office.
Nor is there any prevention of one-sided attacks on established national policies. Mr. Attlee, Mr. Ernest Bevin and other Labour leaders agreed with the wartime use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Mr. Attlee went on to make them for this country without telling anyone at that time. However, their use brought the early surrender of the Japanese forces and saved the lives of millions of allied servicemen. Yet, last August BBC 2's programme "Summer of the Bomb" denounced the bombing of Hiroshima, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It claimed that it was the start of the Cold War, thus justifying Russia's massive post-war arms build up as understandable self-defence against the menacing West.
In a letter dated 12th February 1990 the BBC defended that strange claim as, "commanding general assent among informed historians". The programme was good propaganda for CND but it went right against the policies of all post-war Labour Governments including the last. Now the BBC has had wrung out of it an admission that the programme was a mistake and a year later there will be another programme rectifying it. The mistake would never have happened if the BBC had followed its own guidelines on due impartiality.
The Independent Broadcasting Authority has similar guidelines to the BBC on due impartiality. Yet it allows slanted programmes which ignore them. Only last Thursday night Channel 4 gave Mr. Harold Pinter half an hour at peak viewing time for "Oh, Superman". In that programme he made a vicious

1301
and unbalanced attack on the USA's policy in Nicaragua and upon Mrs. Thatcher for supporting it. He absurdly explained away the thumping election defeat of his friends, the Sandinistas, by saying that it happened only because the USA threatened to starve the voters if they did not throw out the Sandinistas.
When the production manager of that programme was challenged over the total disregard for impartiality she blandly replied, "I am sure it will be partly balanced by other programmes on all the four channels". That is one of many examples of the way in which ITV disregards the due impartiality rule and is allowed to do so by the IBA.
As was said by my noble friend Lord Annan, at the very least the Bill should be strengthened so that partisan programmes are not put out without including at their end differing viewpoints. There should be a discussion sufficiently long to show what the differing views are. The author of the programme should also participate. But the trouble with the BBC is that not only does it put out programmes but it is the sole regulator of them. When challenged it does not seek to find out what is right or wrong but how to defend those who have made the programme.
The new Independent Television Commission will not put out its own programmes so, superficially, it looks to be a better bet for regulating them. Alas, many of those who worked for the IBA will be working for the ITC. Their track record on due impartiality is extremely poor. They are involved and an; intimate with the programme makers. Their first thought is to defend them and to pretend that they have behaved properly when manifestly they have not. The ITC cannot be trusted any more than can the BBC to insist on and secure due impartiality.
There must be some body somewhere seen to be genuinely independent of the programme makers which can do that job properly. The Broadcasting Standards Council is the obvious candidate. It has a statutory duty to provide a code of guidance on the portrayal of violence and sexual conduct and on standards of taste and decency. The BBC, both sound and television broadcasts, comes under its supervision in addition to all the services under the aegis of the ITC. The council is obliged to hear complaints and issue findings on them. Clause 140 of the Bill could simply extend the duties of the standards council to include the provision of "standards to be observed and practices to be followed for the preservation of due impartiality in matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy". There would be the same system of complaints and findings as applies to its other duties.
Alternatively, those duties could be given to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. However, if for any reason neither of those bodies were found suitable, then a new body must be set up to ensure that the rules of due impartiality are clear and will be enforced. Then governments, political parties and individuals could complain to that body and expect a genuinely impartial verdict. If the findings went against the complainant, he would know that he had had a fair hearing and he would have to shut up. But if it went the other way, all those associated
1302
with the offending programme would receive an unpleasant public condemnation from an independent statutory body.
If we do not have such a body then the rows over slanted, controversial programmes will grow worse. At present, whatever his political position, no plaintiff trusts a judge. At the Committee stage of the Bill we shall have an opportunity to produce a truly independent judge who can be trusted. If we fail to do that we shall be failing truth and justice.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me when he became an enthusiast for impartiality? When I was editor of the Daily Herald and he was on television and associated with the Labour Party I recollect that he made a most critical and destructive attack upon me. So much so that when I took him back to the office I had to restrain people there from attacking him.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, had the kind of body about which I am talking he would have been able to have some redress.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, before making two brief points, I must declare an interest as a small shareholder in Anglia Television. I helped to found it more than 30 years ago and I retired two years ago.
I wish to congratulate the Government, especially the Ministers involved and David Mellor in the other place, for what they have achieved. As has already been mentioned, the Bill is hardly the same animal. The reason why I was so explosive, eruptive and abrasive during our debate on the White Paper was the whole style and character of the paper. It appeared to imply that ITV was a kind of factory making nuts and bolts, or a sausage machine. I found that deeply offensive, having been in the business for 30 years as a founder, chief executive, chairman and a producer of nature conservation programmes.
I turn to the question of the moratorium. I remind the Government that television is an art. That is a comment with which noble Lords will agree. It is not a sausage machine or merely a factory. It depends entirely on creative people. One can have all the finance in the world, all the technical facilities, brilliant managers, but they will be of no avail without the creative people—the writers, producers, artists, composers, musicians and so forth. Such people will be badly needed in distant parts of the country away from the metropolis.
I am following the comprehensive remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Boston. He nearly covered the point I wish to make. It is absolutely vital for the ITV system to have good creative people dispersed in at least 10 provincial centres in England, Scotland and Wales. Without good creators, innovators, artists and others of that nature, a station cannot function and the whole system will decline.
Creative confidence depends not only on financial inducement, but on the fulfilment of creative

1303
ambition, the pursuit of cultural goals, and so on. Such careers and jobs can only be secured in a stable environment with long-term prospects. If there is the smell of a takeover in the air in the early days, there will be grave doubts and misgivings. It is obvious that the winners of the regional franchises will not be able to attract or secure good creative people in places like Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Carlisle, Newcastle, Leeds, Norwich, Cardiff, Plymouth and so forth if, almost before they are settled in and particularly during the first two or three years, there is a risk of the company being taken over. Nothing is more disturbing and distressing than the prospect of a new boss. Under takeover those cultured people may be gravely disturbed by the type of boss that they suddenly find has emerged in their midst.
Those vital television originators and creative teams are not sausage machine operators or bits of technology. They are cultured people with ideas and flair, like the noble Lord, Lord Willis; they are intellectuals with artistic talents, and they have wives and homes. They need to buy homes in the regions where they work. They need to bring up children locally and become part of the region. None of them with a grain of sense, therefore, would be likely to accept a job with a new licence holder in a provincial station if he knew that there was a risk of an early takeover.
It also seems to me not right that creative people should be told that things will be just the same after a takeover. We all know that that is not possible and quite unrealistic. Confronted by unanimous all-party feeling on the subject in the other place, the Minister, David Mellor—who, I interject, could hardly have achieved more than he did at that stage—was obliged to hold the line and say, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, quoted, that the new purchaser of a franchise will stand in the shoes of his predecessor.
To programme people, particularly in the regional services away from the metropolis, that may be dangerously misleading. We must ask what is meant by "the predecessor's shoes". Does it mean that the board will stay? We know perfectly well that the directors will all be replaced; they will have probably resigned en bloc at the time of the takeover. Regional directors are among the most important element in the industry. Does it mean that the management will remain the same? Of course it does not. Will the programmes remain the same? Not with a new manager; he will probably appoint a new programme controller—someone he knows—and everything will be changed.
We cannot tell creative people that the predecessor's shoes can be guaranteed if it means that all existing series in the pipeline will be mandated, insisted on and imposed upon the takeover predator. It is quite unrealistic to think that all that will not change. Most things at the top will change and, if the boards of the regional companies change, that will deprive the regional licence holder of one of the most influential and effective elements in the entire industry. The local non-executive directors are the backers and supporters of all good regional output; the producers and creative people know that. They will not have the confidence to work and give their
1304
best if they suddenly find that they have a London boss, a city whizz kid or some perfectly respectable conglomerate whom they do not even know.
I hope that I have helped the Ministers and the Government to appreciate the dangers that the lack of a moratorium will bring about. It is almost certain that it will shake the morale in the provinces and the important regional companies—10 of them—dispersed around the country in England, Scotland and Wales will fail to obtain the people they need to carry on the job after the award of franchises.
The problem is that the Bill has now commendably moved on from the nuts and bolts syndrome, which we had in the White Paper, to genuine provisions for the continuance of good quality, reputable television. That is splendid. The early takeover syndrome belongs to the former crude sausage machine era, whereas the whole character of the Bill has been changed by the farsighted and determined efforts of the Ministers. That means that the Bill needs reform because the early takeover syndrome sticks out like a sore thumb.
I am not against takeovers. I am simply saying, as did other noble Lords and Members in the other place, that it cannot be permitted in the aftermath of the award of a franchise. For the new licence holders to have any chance of securing the necessary creativity for their regions, a moratorium on takeovers is paramount and inescapable. Otherwise the best improvements so painstakingly secured by Ministers could appear to be almost a hoax.
It is not entirely irrelevant to take examples, even if they seem somewhat remote. Yesterday I spoke to Sir Dennis Forman, the former executive and chairman of Granada. I asked him when "Coronation Street" had started. It was around two years after the station began. "Brideshead", that immortal and brilliant series, took longer, as did "Jewel in the Crown". He empowered me to give his answer to my simple question; would any of those things have occurred if there had been a takeover soon after Granada was awarded the television franchise? The answer was no. Every company has examples of that nature, and perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for mentioning my own.
After we won the franchise in 1958 and went on the air in 1959, I was able in 1960 to start the nature conservation series "Survival" on the network. Since then 650 programmes have been produced and they are still going strong. They have brought £20 million in overseas earnings to this country and the future prospect is bright. All I can say is that that would never have happened if there had been a takeover when we had just acquired the franchise and were getting down to programme production and to all the things we wanted to do.
Those are just examples and there are hundreds of others in every ITV company. The significance of the example is that if predators are allowed in, nothing will settle down; creative people will not be found in the provinces and in the distant studios. I therefore implore my noble friend Lord Ferrers to bear that aspect in mind. It is a vital point which has not yet been made in either House.

1305
Perhaps I may mention ITN. I was chairman of ITN for six years. It is one of the world's leaders as a news service. AH the six main network organisations in the world have their own news service, and ITN is ITV's. If ITN is taken away from the control of Independent Television it will be the only one of the six that has no news service of its own. The six are the BBC, ITV and the four American networks. They all control their own news.
During the Falklands conflict I was chairman, and ITN's strength and policy—which I believe are beyond criticism, although every organisation in the world can occasionally slip up—derived from the traditions set and sustained by the 15 proprietors. None of them is very big but they sit as a group because they represent the industry. They are non-interfering. As chairman, I always knew that I would have the support of the 100 or so regional directors in England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster if any problem ever arose; but it never did, thanks to the fine traditions of ITN for integrity, impartial reporting and the professionalism of its distinguished editor, David Nicholas, his news teams and the ITN network throughout the world.
The news appears on the regional screens of the local ITV stations, so they feel extremely responsible for what appears. The carefully selected directors on the ITV companies from each region have a direct concern and responsibility to the viewers in their regions for the integrity of national and international news.
If new control of ITN led to a new style of policy, or any element of partiality, bias, imbalance or politics, this would bring about a very serious crisis in the system Every major network has to have its own news Service and ITV is no exception. I do not see how ITV, one of the world's most respected services, can seriously be the only one not to have or need control of its own news services. I believe that it will have to have its own news services and if that is denied in this Bill the time will come when it will have to be changed and ITV will start its own services, come what may.
I add only two points, as I do not want to go further than necessary. The shares proposed under the Bill would be owned 49 per cent. by ITV companies and 51 per cent. by outside shareholders. David Mellor—who I must again say has done brilliantly and I have great faith in his open-mindedness and judgment; and I certainly include my noble friend Lord Ferrers in that tribute—said in the debate:
"A controlling interest will almost certainly still be held by the companies holding the Channel 3 franchise, as we know that 49 per cent. is an effective controlling interest in almost every company".
With respect, that is a dangerous speculation. We do not know that somebody could not easily snap up 51 per cent. and start controlling the news.
The important point, however, is that the Minister, David Mellor, clearly indicates that the ITV companies ought to have control because he stated that 49 per cent. will probably provide them with control. I therefore have to remind my noble friend Lord Ferrers that it is only a flick of the pen to change 49 per cent. to 51 per cent. for ITV
1306
companies and for the 49 per cent. to be available for outside shareholders.
Finally, as regards ITN, the purpose of letting in outside shareholders is to broaden the base of its activities and to allow for diversification. That is not necessary. It started when I was chairman eight years ago. At that time we diversified into a new company called BASYS—a computerised news system and service which is now successfully available in the United States and is also used considerably by the BBC. In fact, I drafted the first paper, which is in the ITN files, suggesting that we should diversify and broaden the base. I also created non-ITV company directors and put one on the board. There is no problem. Diversification already exists. The freedom to pursue it exists and it is not necessary to restrain the companies and cause a crisis by causing them to lose control in this way. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to consider switching the 49 per cent. and the 51 per cent. round the other way.
9.4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we can all agree that one of the difficulties in these debates is that those who are the most expert have often, though not always, a financial interest to declare. The previous speaker frankly declared an interest and he is obviously as much an expert as anyone in the House. That also applies to other speakers. It would seem to apply to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, to whom I shall refer in a moment. However, it does not apply to all speakers. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is enormously expert but nobody can accuse him of having a financial interest.
I was shocked by the attitude adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. I warned him that I intended to refer somewhat sharply to him but in spite of that he has fled the House. No doubt he has a pressing public engagement at five minutes past nine, though what that can be at this hour I cannot imagine. The noble Lord referred to my son-in-law. He happens to be my son-in-law but he is referred to in the Sunday Telegraph as the outstanding playwright of the time, Harold Pinter, launching a vicious attack on Mrs. Thatcher. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has an interest in Mrs. Thatcher, though not, as far as I know, a financial one. In his memoirs, which I praised highly when they were published, he said that he was in love with her. Is this the man who has come before us to denounce someone for what he calls a vicious attack and who then flees from the House when he hears that he is to be replied to? I am afraid to say that is a long way below the high standard that we have usually encountered from the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, over the years during the course of a career which one could say has been as variegated as my own. At any rate, I hope that next time he will improve on that wretched performance.
However, we are discussing wider issues tonight. I offer a few thoughts which I should not think are distasteful to anyone, though they may not be exciting. In a general way I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who played a wonderful part in securing the inclusion of the word "Christianity" in the recent Education Reform Bill. In general I

1307
agree with her attitude and it may be that other Christian speakers will take the same line in welcoming the Bill. On the whole it offers possibilities. I am perhaps not as optimistic or as friendly towards the intentions of the present Government as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, might be, but the Bill undoubtedly offers possibilities and I welcome them.
In compiling my remarks I have had assistance from the Evangelical Alliance. There was a time when I was nervous of that body. I remember a time when I associated with my dear old friend and leader, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who was a devout baptist. He used to sit on the Front Bench when he was Leader of the Opposition and I used to sit beside him. He used to dish out copies of the epistles. He would point to Hebrews and say: "That is a sacrifice not to be repeated. How do you explain that?" There would be shouts of "Order! Order!"
That is what the Evangelical Alliance seemed to stand for in my mind at that time. At that time the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Fisher, went to Rome. There was a debate about Christian unity. The whole House welcomed the move to Rome by the Archbishop except my dear friend Lord Alexander. He interrogated the Archbishop of Canterbury in a most hostile way. He finally said to him. "Tell me now, Archbishop, is the Church of England protestant or catholic?" The Archbishop, Lord Fisher, giving that superior and kind of headmaster smile, said, "Both". That really did flummox my dear old friend.
Things have moved on and I have moved on. But we have now all come together. In the days when I was involved with pornography the Evangelical Alliance contained my best friends. Ever since then we have been on very good terms.
When we come to the Committee stage of this Bill, with their assistance I shall be initiating or supporting various amendments. I shall not detain the House now except to issue a kind of warning, speaking for myself as well as the Evangelical Alliance. We do not really know what this Bill implies and what will happen as a result of it. We know that in Christian terms there is more joy over one sinner who repents—and I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will agree with that—than over the 99 others, or whatever number there were. One wonders why the Government could not have thought of these amendments at the time the Bill was produced. However, they have come forward with various suggestions.
In the end everything will depend on the way in which the legislation is interpreted by whoever succeeds the IBA. No doubt at Committee stage all these matters will be gone into very thoroughly and I am not going to pursue them tonight. I know there is one issue to which the Evangelical Alliance and others attach a lot of importance. It concerns the question of religious advertising. There is a great deal of disquiet on that subject. I have not given the Minister notice of this matter and he may be unable to reply to it. However, it will be pursued at the next stage.
1308
Writing in the IBA's regular broadsheet, Airways, the controller of advertising for the IBA paints a horrific scenario of a possible religious advertising future. In other words, in the eyes of the Evangelical Alliance it is very uncertain whether the IBA or its successor body will use its powers in a sensible way on this matter.
It appears possible that the powers contained in the Bill can be used to ban religious advertising completely. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to say anything to allay the disquiet. Certainly, the issue of religious advertising will be raised strongly at Committee stage. At the moment it would be ungenerous and churlish not to welcome the possibilities inherent in the Bill. For once I have nothing nasty to say about the Government.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an obvious interest. As deputy chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and chairman-designate of the Radio Authority which will be established when the Bill comes on to the statute book, I naturally reflect the collective views of both those bodies though I emphasise that the opinions I express in this debate today are my personal opinions and I alone am responsible for them.
Against that background I should like, first, to welcome the Bill as an important step in the process of establishing a new regime for the rapidly expanding television and radio industries in this country. It provides, as it set out to do, greater diversity and choice for the listener. It also provides a flexible regulatory system to ensure that this proliferation of outlets does not lay television and radio audiences open to the effects of abuse or irresponsibility on the part of broadcasters.
As many other noble Lords have said, the Bill has already been refined and improved during its passage through another place. I hope that it will do the right honourable gentleman the Minister of State at the Home Office no political harm if I add to the warm tributes paid to him for his skilful guidance of the Bill through its various stages.
There are a number of important amendments that are now incorporated into the Bill. As chairman-designate of the Radio Authority I especially welcome the amendment which requires the three new national commercial stations to provide three different kinds of programme. That demonstrates a reassuring commitment by the Government to the principles of enhanced diversity and choice.
Perhaps I may comment on something which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, if I understood her correctly, that is, that there is not sufficient provision in the Bill for quality in radio as there is in television. Perhaps she is a little pessimistic in that regard. If she looks at Clause 80(2), which is the clause to which I refer now, together with Clause 95(3) which deals with exceptional circumstances, I think she will find that there is open to the Radio Authority sufficient leeway to ensure that applicants for franchises or licences on radio are subjected to

1309
quality tests as searching as those which will be applied to television. Certainly, as chairman designate of the Radio Authority I should not want to ask the Government for any further powers in that respect.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that, but is he saying that there is a quality threshold for radio in the same way as there is now supposed to be a quality threshold for television companies? I do not think so.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, no. What I am saying is that in the case of the three national commercial radio channels—we are not talking about local radio now, which, as your Lordships know, has no quality threshold and it is simply a matter of selection among the various applicants—there are now two provisions. One is that the three channels must be different in their programme content. That already provides the Radio Authority with one instrument of ensuring a degree of quality. If one takes that together with the provision that in certain exceptional circumstances the Radio Authority is not required to award a franchise or licence to the highest bidder, one has a sufficient instrument in the hands of the Radio Authority to determine that the national commercial channels will be of a high quality.
There are a number of areas in which I believe the legislation can be substantially improved, and I hope that it will be during the passage of the Bill through this House. Most of them have been mentioned this evening by various noble Lords. Therefore, it is necessary for me to mention them but briefly.
In the specific field of radio we need somewhat more sophisticated means of preventing monopoly or near monopoly of radio outlets. In my view, the present provisions in Schedule 2, Part III of the Bill are not sufficiently precise or refined to ensure that one person or company cannot acquire a predominant market share or a near monopoly in radio outlets. These are not too difficult to devise. As the Minister will know, I have already discussed them with the Home Office. I hope that some formula will emerge during the passage of the Bill through the House.
There is a serious reservation in my mind about Clause 91(l)(b), if I may spell out the whole thing for ease of reference. This requires analysis of the effects of programmes on listeners. The kind of comprehensive audience research which that would require would place an enormous strain on the staff of the Radio Authority, which I am anxious to keep as small and as economical as possible. If it had to be expanded, as it would have to be to engage in that kind of audience research, the added financial burden would have to be met by the broadcasters themselves. There is no other source of finance. I suggest that that would be at odds with the requirement for a lighter touch in radio regulation.
Apart from those small points, I regard the radio section of the Bill as very balanced and constructive, and I have no further direct comment to make about it. However, there are a number of areas, mainly affecting television but sometimes common to radio
1310
as well, which I should like briefly to bring to the attention of your Lordships.
The first concerns the network. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has dealt with this extremely comprehensively and lucidly. I need say no more than that if the ITC is to assess the credibility of an applicant for a Channel 3 licence we shall need to judge whether his or her business plan takes full account of the cost of networking. We cannot do that unless the network system is in place before the 1991 licensing round begins. It may well be that ITV companies themselves will agree on a network system which the ITC can then authorise, which I understand to be the Government's hope and wish at the moment. I am bound to say, however, that this is much too important a matter to be left outside the framework of the legislation. To guard against any failure by the ITV companies to agree on, or subsequently to maintain, a network system, there should be in the Act a statutory requirement for a transitional network to be in place before the 1991 licensing round, and for a period of up to two years from 1st January 1991.
Another important issue concerns takeovers, an issue which has been fully rehearsed in your Lordships' House. It does not seem sensible or even intelligent that a company should go to the immense trouble of submitting an application for a licence, passing the quality threshold and eventually succeeding, only to be taken over the next day by an unsuccessful candidate, or by someone who has not even bothered to make an application. It would be a wise course, as was suggested specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversharn, to place a statutory moratorium on takeovers of Channel 3 television licensees as well as local and national radio licensees. That should be effective, except in certain circumstances where the regulatory body might agree, for, as the IBA has already said, at least one year from the start of broadcasting. However, I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said about the need for at least one-and-a-half years in order to judge the full effect of a year's programming. I can only point out to him that "at least one year" does not rule out one-and-a-half years.
There is another issue on which your Lordships may wish to close what I believe to be a significant gap. Clauses 43 to 50 provide for a continuation of the immensely valuable teletext service. I do not know how many noble Lords are aware that a quarter of the homes in the United Kingdom have teletext sets at their disposal and that 5 million men, women and children use Oracle every day. There is nothing in the Bill at the moment to preserve the core elements or range of information of the current service or—and this is more important—to protect the viewer against abuse of the service by the inclusion of items which might offend against the required standards of taste, decency, accuracy and impartiality. Provisions are made in the case of programmes and advertisements but not in the case of teletext. The Bill should empower the Independent Television Commission to draw up and enforce a code of conduct in this respect as well as in others.
This leads me to a brief comment of a more general kind on the powers and responsibilities of the

1311
regulators. I subscribe—perhaps predictably—to the view that the ITC and the Radio Authority should be the ultimate regulatory bodies and that the legislation should leave little, if any, room for confusion or duplication between their responsibilities and those of bodies such as the Broadcasting Standards Council, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the Office of Fair Trading and Oftel.
Although most problems can be avoided or solved by intelligent co-operation and discussion between the bodies, there is one area where I believe the legislation as presently drafted is defective. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, spent a great deal of time on this point during his speech. Clause 142 deals with the duty of the BSC to consider complaints about advertisements. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, pointed out, it is the ITC and the Radio Authority which will draw up and enforce codes on advertising. But what if they should investigate a complaint and decide that it did not contravene their codes, while the BSC upheld a similar complaint about the same advertisement? That is a contingency which could quite easily happen in the circumstances at present envisaged. The possibilities for confusion, contradiction and even litigation here are endless and, in my view, quite unacceptable. I hope that in Committee we shall pay some detailed attention to the matter.
Finally, those noble Lords who may be familiar with the views which I have expressed from time to time in the past would be surprised if I did not mention the issues of bias and impartiality which have been raised in cogent fashion by several Members of your Lordships' House this evening. I remain unrepentantly convinced that there is, in contemporary radio and television, altogether too much ideological bias. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, this is not a question of bias to the Left or to the Right or of party-political favouritism; it is a bias against authority, against the established order and against the things which most people in this country hold dear, if not sacred. That is the bias which I detect, reflecting what I regard as the conventional wisdom of a disproportionately influential group of producers, presenters and programme makers.
The importance of accuracy and impartiality in television and radio news is a long-established feature of broadcasting and broadcasting regulation in the United Kingdom. It is almost axiomatic that anyone to whom you speak would regard impartiality in the presentation of news as a vital part of the journalistic activities of broadcasters. Yet most of your Lordships will be familiar with news programmes which are disfigured by editorialising on the part of the presenters, by relentless trivialising of important issues and by the deliberate confusing of fact with opinion—one of the cardinal crimes of the news journalist. In my view—although others may disagree with me—independent broadcasting has succeeded, to a great extent, in avoiding the worst of those examples of unprofessional journalism. I am concerned that it should continue to do so.
1312
In current affairs, as opposed to news, the criteria are necessarily somewhat different, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out. In a healthy democracy there is room for radio and television programmes advancing committed views. It would be a dull television or radio regime which forbade that. But the advancing of those committed views must carry with it the provision that they are clearly labelled so that people know that they are the views of someone. We should not have a situation in which political activists are allowed to present themselves as objective producers or presenters of programmes. Another requirement is that, if there is a programme advancing a committed view, within a suitable timescale the listener or the viewer must also be given the other side of the picture.
The question is: is it wise to have legislation to ensure that this provision is made and should it appear on the face of the Bill? Having studied the Bill as carefully as I have, my impression is that, as at present drafted, it provides the means for dealing effectively with these problems. The ITC and the Radio Authority, save for the presence or the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, are totally independent bodies. I shall not say that I resent his view on the matter because "resent" is too strong a word. However, I take exception to his view that in some way either the ITC or the Radio Authority will be in cahoots with the broadcasters. These bodies will not be. They are independent regulators and they will behave as such. They will be able to draw up rules about impartiality under the legislation. They will be able to draw up a code which sets out the timescales and the programme types over which that impartiality is to be achieved.
I know that there are still those who would like to see those matters prescribed on the face of the Bill; but no one should be under any illusion about this: regulation under the new regime may require what has been called a "light touch" but no one should assume that that means a "soft touch". The teeth of the ITC—I note that the dental analogy seemed to be very much in vogue in the debate—and the radio authority will be sharp and strong, and they will be used.
I conclude, as I began, by welcoming the Bill as a courageous step in the provision of a radio and television service for this country which takes account of the rapid development of information and communications technology, but in its present form, much improved since it first appeared, it avoids the worst excesses of deregulation.
The Bill does not herald the destruction of what has sometimes been called the
"best broadcasting system in the world".
It does not make way for wall-to-wall garbage of the kind often, and often wrongly, associated with American broadcasting; nor does it foreshadow the predominance of the fat bank balance and the end of what is called quality broadcasting. If the Bill is amended in your Lordships' House, then properly established, imaginatively constructed as a result of the legislation, and flexibly but effectively regulated, the regime envisaged in the Bill is capable of moving television and radio broadcasting in this country excitingly into the next century.
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, about six-and-a-half hours ago when my noble friend the Minister opened the debate he skilfully set out the provisions of the Bill, which are designed to ensure prospects for a major new growth industry in this country. The Bill provides a flexible framework to meet both the spectacular technological developments in satellite and cable television of the recent past but also for the future. The Bill must now recognise that television programmes are no longer confined to national frontiers but that there is an international, and more specifically, a European dimension.
Having heard so many speakers with financial interests and great experience in television and general broadcasting, I should perhaps declare that I have no financial interest and no experience of running any broadcasting service. However, there are one or two aspects of the Bill which have not been touched upon and which should be raised on Second Reading so as to give notice to the Government that some amendments will be brought forward in Committee.
The United Kingdom has a record second to none in implementing European Community law into national law. It is in that regard that there is some concern as to the methods by which the Government intend to transpose the provisions of the EC directive Television without Frontiers into national law. Some are already included on the face of the Bill. Others will no doubt be implemented by secondary legislation by order of the Secretary of State before the directive comes into force in October 1991. However, there are others which are apparently being left to self-regulating bodies such as the ITC and BSC. In neither of those two last methods will there be a possibility for parliamentary scrutiny nor an assurance to other member states that United Kingdom broadcasters will observe the obligations agreed at European level and thus guarantee fair competition.
The agreement at European level of course includes the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom was one of the member states—10 out of 12—that voted by a qualified majority in favour of the directive. It is not yet possible to compare legislative methods in other member states as it appears that so far only Luxembourg has produced a draft Jaw. In this country it has been left to the ITC to draw up a code to act as a guide on programme standards requirements.
While it shall "take account" of notifications by the Secretary of State concerning international obligations, it must be asked what is the legal significance of the term "take account", and would broadcasters producing programmes which fall outside the code be justiciable? There are clear rules set out in the directive concerning, for example, watershed arrangements for children viewers for the protection in general of minors which will apply to all member states. Is a code such as is envisaged in the Bill a sufficient method of implementation and enforcement which would guarantee the United Kingdom the right to proscribe objectionable—for example, pornographic—material being transmitted
1314
by broadcasters from another member state and receivable in the United Kingdom?
Another area for which the directive has set out precise rules governs advertising. It is much to be welcomed in that the many restrictive barriers set up by national legislations have been a handicap to the transmission of British broadcasts to the Continent. Here again the ITC is to draw up a code and take account of the United Kingdom's international obligations. But there is no apparent method of scrutinising these provisions by Parliament and the publication of the code is left to the ITC by means that it considers appropriate.
This concern regarding implementation and application by codes is based on examples which we have had in the past from the BBC and the IBA which both relied upon guidelines drawn up by themselves, which in many instances have been ignored.
The 1981 Broadcasting Act which required "due impartiality" to be shown on politically controversial matters allows a "series of programmes" to be considered as a whole. Either a topic is dealt with fairly in one programme or it should be dealt with in a group of programmes covering between them the main aspects of the argument. Is the new ITC code to spell out exactly what is meant by a "series of programmes" in this connection so as to prevent future abuses of the type which have so often happened in the past where one-sided programmes are shown and no contrary view is subsequently screened? Even if it does, will we be any further forward? I think not.
Guideline 6.3(i) of the existing "Fairness and Impartiality" code of the IBA entitled "The Series Qualification" states:
"The Broadcasting Act's requirements about impartiality allow a series of programmes to be considered as a whole. This presupposes that the presentation over a series, of different points of view is planned in advance, and that the intention to achieve impartiality in this way is made clear so that the viewer of one programme is not misled into thinking that he has seen the whole story".
These instructions seem crystal clear. They are, however, ignored.
I do not wish to go into the party political aspects of these programmes of which many examples have been given by my noble friends and other noble Lords. I merely point out that matters which are contained in a code are not necessarily able to be enforced or applied, nor can viewers make complaints which can be dealt with satisfactorily. That could also be reflected in the implementation of European Community law from the directive to which I referred which would be included in certain codes.
The supposedly stringent safeguards set out in the IBA's own guidelines have allowed blatant circumvention of Parliament's will that political impartiality must be preserved on controversial issues. Safeguards for the maintenance of political impartiality are needed on the face of the Bill and an independent body is needed to adjudicate on complaints that the requirements are not being met.
I contend that this is a ground to look closely at the way in which the codes of both the ITC and the

1315
BSC are meant to provide guidelines and guides to broadcasters. The codes should be available to those both in this country and other member states. They must ensure that both the will of Parliament and the intentions of European legislation can be guaranteed.
If these matters are looked into during the course of the passage of the Bill through the House, I believe that the Bill will provide an excellent basis for the new industry and we shall see an unprecedented growth in British broadcasters and producers. We hope that they will take the immense opportunities which are developing in increasing Continental markets. Already those markets are beginning to expand. The hours of both television and radio which will be available to British broadcasters will, I believe, bring great prosperity to those who move into this industry. The high standards of the British broadcasting programmes are very much admired on the Continent. Let us remember that English is the second language in nearly all the member states.
With those concluding remarks, I strongly support the Bill on the basis that it will provide a magnificent growth industry for our broadcasters and independent producers.
9.40 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to address a subject which is hardly touched on by the Bill and which, having heard a great many of the speeches in your Lordships' House, I do not believe has been the subject of any speech today. That is the amount of feature film which is shown on television and the growth of the demand for feature film. By feature film I mean expressly films which are stories told in visual terms, made initially for exhibition in cinemas, and which ultimately find their way on to our television screens.
Noble Lords who read their Sunday newspapers will see from the supplements the number of films to be shown on television in the coming week. For example, in the supplement of the newspaper which I take one finds that in the current seven days 32 feature films are programmed. Twenty of those are of United States origin, seven are British, one is a French-German co-production, one is Spanish, one is from New Zealand, one is Czech and one is Canadian. Looking through those magazines which I had not thrown away I found that that was quite normal. In a supplement from a few weeks ago I saw that during one week in April 28 films were shown on television: 14 American, six British, two Russian, one Canadian, one Italian, three Australian and one Greek.
It is clear that the main diet of film fans who watch films on television is American product, and I do not wish to criticise American product. Very few of the British films shown on television are recent films. Only two of those to be shown this week were made after 1961 and one goes back as far as 1931.
That development has taken place against the background of a decline in the British film industry, of which your Lordships are aware, which took place from the 1950s and which we have discussed on
1316
many occasions in your Lordships' House. So drastic was the decline in film audiences in this country that by the early 1980s it seemed as though the British film industry would disappear altogether. Indeed, it was hard to describe it as an industry because there was no such thing as a continuous product.
A strange thing happened in the 1980s. There was a curious upturn in cinema audiences. The age groups attending films changed. In 1984, 80 per cent. of the audience was under 24. The position has now changed, probably with demographic trends, to the extent that older people now go to the cinema more regularly. More people watch films on television, and that is reflected in the programmes which I mentioned.
The most curious trend in the 1980s was the investment by television companies in feature films. One might almost say that the film industry has been rescued by the interest and investment by television companies in feature film-making. One may well ask why the television companies, including the BBC, chose to go along that path. They identifed a demand for feature films. Production values are high in film-making—higher than they are generally in television—and there is a variety of product which appeals to television viewers.
With that growing demand for feature films, the television companies recognised that by investing in the production of feature films they would have continuing access to transmission rights of films from other sources. In commercial terms, it is a fairly doubtful proposition so far as concerns profit for the television companies to invest in feature film making. There is the ability to fill programming gaps with a variety of attractive material, but profit is never clear. Investing in feature films is expensive and often risky.
Channel 4 has been spectacularly successful in its investment in low-budget films, and has produced some of great quality which have been recognised internationally. It has done that quite expressly and has been widely quoted as having two reasons for so doing. First, it wishes to raise the international profile of Channel 4 and films on Channel 4; and, secondly, it has stated that it,
"understands the difficulties which the British film industry faces and is glad to play a role in sustaining and developing British film production".
I consider that to be a laudable aim. It has been reflected in the attitudes of other television companies which have also invested, principally in Scotland, but also in Wales and Northern Ireland. There has been a genuine cultural commitment by Channel 4 and the others that I have mentioned to British film production.
Since the publication of the Government's Bill, there has been a drastic and perhaps understandable reduction in television investment in feature films. What are the inhibiting factors? The new competitive environment which one envisages and which noble Lords have outlined in today's debate has caused the companies to draw in their horns and to be extremely cautious. Changes in the levy have made them conscious of the need to reassess the economic value of film production, taken together with the risks and expense of making those films.

1317
There is now also the presence of satellite broadcasting. It will not have escaped noble Lords' attention that the film libraries of BSB and Sky have been an important part of their marketing and advertising arrangements. BSB has a formidable array of films in its library for which subscribers will pay. They will have access to films which have had a great impact in the United States and which have recently been shown on screen. It is extremely difficult for British television companies investing in films to compete.
Furthermore, the situation has been aggravated by the fact that the ITV tariff for a two-hour feature film., for example, has recently been reduced from £840,000 to £500,000. On the question of audience figures, those in the United States have remained steady over a number of years. According to the only audited figures available, total British audiences in 1988 amounted to 84 million. I understand that that figure has now risen to about 100 million, but that is not confirmed. Figures for theatre attendance in the United States are well over the billion mark. That sustains a home industry in the United States which is able to produce products, take risks with products and make a profit on products entirely within the United States. It gives them the ability to sell outside the United States and, with their economies of scale, completely to swamp the efforts of producers of modest productions such as are found in Britain today. I am quite sure that in producing their proposed legislation the Government did not intend at all to have that effect on a British cultural as well as economic endeavour and to risk swamping it in that way.
So why should we encourage television companies to invest in films, apart from sustaining the British cultural product? Co-productions by television can be made quite cheaply and produced economically compared with much television programming. With successful productions one can obtain world revenues which come back to a television company and help to finance its future programming. Surely against the competition of the new satellite companies, with their enormous array of attractive film entertainment if not ordinary television entertainment, the companies must be able to offer attractive film products and products of quality, even if not matching the cost. Since the Government have announced their aim that 25 per cent. of products for television should be made by independents, why cannot feature film production be included in the Bill in the same way?
Competition, choice and quality have been mentioned many times by noble Lords. I am sure that competition is not helped by completely eliminating the British film industry, which at the moment is at a very low ebb. Withdrawal of the TV companies has made the position critical. The huge home market of the Americans which I have described makes it possible that we shall see a monopoly situation of American products in this country. With the quotas of which the Europeans are talking, there is a slightly different situation in Europe. Each country in Europe with its own language will always have an element of home production because people will seek out films in
1318
their own language. In this country American films are readily understood and appreciated by an English-speaking audience.
In terms of choice, again any scenario that I have described would seriously eliminate choice. With regard to quality, as I have said, production values in feature films are high. Although modest and of small budget in recent times, British films have generally been recognised often to have been of high quality. It would be a pity if that element of film production were to disappear, probably inadvertently swamped by this new legislation.
Franchise holders, when seeking to obtain licences, should surely demonstrate that they have some knowledge of feature film production and show a commitment to British film production as part of their plan. The BBC, which is not affected by the financial implications of this Bill, has made a commitment to make about six films a year of about £½ million.
Finally, the British film industry has survived thus far thanks to the television industry. Television needs feature films and feature films need the television industry. There is a lot of creative and technical talent in this country. Much of it has already gone abroad. It would be a pity if it all disappeared. It is something that we need to treasure. The Government have not been very understanding about the film industry in recent years, which is an understatement. In this Bill we ought to find a way whereby we can rectify that situation and help the British film industry to survive.
9.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, the publication of the Broadcasting Bill raised considerable anxieties among religious people, not least among the members of the Central Religious Advisory Committee, of which I have been chairman for the past 12 months. That committee has become known by the now highly incongruous title of CRAC, which in the modern world means something different from what we set about. I should perhaps explain that CRAC includes strong representation from the whole of the United Kingdom from the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church, the Baptist Church, black-led churches and the Orthodox Church as well as Jewish, Moslem and Hindu representation.
Our concerns with regard to the Bill have been about the quality of the output as well as about the place of religious programmes. I shall confine what I say to the place of religious programmes. Many of the anxieties have been allayed by the changes that have been made in another place. Like other noble Lords, I express my warm appreciation of the patience, readiness to listen and general engagement that the Minister has brought to those who have brought honest criticism.
The changes that he has made recognise that religious broadcasting rightly has a place in mainstream television: that religious broadcasting is

1319
not a minority interest. Recent IBA research has shown that 60 per cent. of all viewers of ITV watch at least one religious programme each month. The Minister has given notice that he will bring forward amendments that will allow religious bodies to own cable television stations as well as local radio stations. His intention at the same time is to fence off cheap exploitive trivialising forms of religion. For all that I am deeply grateful.
There has been some lobbying that the words "Christian" or "mainly Christian" should replace the word "religious" in the Bill. My committee does not agree and is glad that the Minister has resisted that suggestion. It is right that the history and convictions of the majority in this country should be reflected in the balance of programmes. That is how it is and how it will be. We want people of other faiths to come into the mainstream of the life of the nation, not to withdraw or be forced to withdraw into a ghetto. Other faiths should be well represented in religious broadcasting.
The Minister has said that he will remove the no undue prominence rule from religious bodies which will own cable and local radio stations. I accept the value of the principle of liberty which lies behind that change. We then need to ask how the ITC will be able to fence off cheap exploitive or trivialising forms of religion. I would hope that Christians of every tradition would be deeply concerned about the trivialising of religion.
The same principle of freedom will not allow us to draw up some list of cults or religious bodies of which we disapprove. I look forward to seeing the amendment that the Minister anticipates bringing forward at Committee stage. Perhaps it should include such phrases as "no denigration of our faiths" and "no enticing away other faiths or churches".
One area of interest concerning religion has received no attention so far as I can see in the debates in another place. That is the matter of religious advertising. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised it just now. The Bill at present places no restriction except by the rules which control all advertising. Those rules provide some firm fences which should be helpful in the religious field. For example, advertisments must not be inflammatory or offensive to public feeling. Yet my committee has some anxiety about religion again being trivialised by religious advertising.
We hope that careful thought will be given to what limits might be needed, for example, in Northern Ireland, Bradford or Southall. We had a presentation at our last meeting from Sunrise Radio. It required a six-page paper for all the religions of Asia which are present within that area of West London and where there can be some quite volatile feelings aroused by one kind of religious programme or another. It might be the case that the ITC should not allow religious advertising in areas where religious tension could easily be inflamed. If that is desirable, it suggests that it might be better to limit that to cable and local broadcasting rather than to show it on mainline, national channels.
1320
There is an interesting example in the United States. The three networks which provide 57 per cent. of the viewing in the States—that is ABC, CBS and NBC—carry very little religious advertising. The ABC, for example, may sell time to religious organisations for spot announcements to call attention to occasional lectures, meetings or crusades. These announcements may in no way present religious doctrine, utilise religious music, sell publications or solicit funds. I am wondering whether it might be helpful for me to table an amendment in Committee relating to religious advertising.
I understand why some Christian groups, especially those among the Evangelical Christians, want the freedom to own cable stations. They sometimes claim that their full-blooded expression of the Gospel does not receive a fair share of religious broadcasting time. As I have said, within the past 12 months I came to my post as chairman of CRAC and have done a great deal of listening and viewing. I believe that many Evangelical voices are heard and that the challenge of the Christian Gospel is often put in a full-blooded way. The issue about communicating the faith on mainline television or radio is about whether we take seriously where such large audiences are "at", as they say, or whether we switch on exactly the same message in exactly the same way whoever we are addressing.
I wish to finish by saying something as a Christian to Christians. Much of the debate has centred around the question of broadcasting or narrowcasting. It will be possible for those who own cable stations to use their religious networks to encourage their friends to watch their channel. That is fine, but I should be sorry if a significant part of the Christian body turned away as a regular practice from mainline channels which are part of the united life of our nation. That would follow the philosophy which sees the Church as a fortress of light, calling individuals to separate themselves from the darkness of the world around. In contrast, I believe that the Incarnation, by which I believe God in the person of Jesus Christ entered into the thick of life, calls us in the direction of broadcasting not narrowcasting.
I am very thankful that mainline channels will continue to carry religious programmes. The output of religious programmes on the BBC and ITV has been substantially or predominantly Christian, often of a high quality and a strongly Christian content. It will continue to be so. If religious producers have the opportunity to address these very wide audiences, they cannot assume the same starting place as they could with a church congregation which, these days, has generally chosen freely to attend. Religious broadcasters must take seriously the common ground of the world of television viewers by which religious programmes are surrounded. In showing how Christians work out their life on that common ground, it is proper religious broadcasting to hear expressed in a unhibited way what are the deep spiritual roots which give them life. A wide range of viewers would expect no less than that religious broadcasters should seek to throw the light of the Gospel on the common experiences of the life that they know.
10.4 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, the Bill, so ably introduced by my noble friend, covers the future of broadcasting. It is a little surprising that as yet there has been virtually no discussion of the cable industry. I wish to redress that balance, but in doing so I must declare an interest. I am a director of a cable franchise holding company. I believe that only my noble friend Lord Stockton has so far mentioned the Cable Authority. I should like to say that I have nothing but praise for the hard work of the staff and members of that body, whose existence will come to an end with the passing of the Bill. However, I do not entirely agree with some of its methods.
Perhaps I may digress for a moment. A few years ago there was a whole industry based on creating a series of perfectly legal but highly artificial transactions for the purpose of tax avoidance. A celebrated judgment in the case of Furniss v. Dawson put an end to that entire industry, essentially by saying that the Inland Revenue had the right to look through a whole series of transactions to see the true intent. If that intent was purely tax avoidance, the transactions could be disregarded.
The Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 stated in Clause 8 that the Cable Authority should "do all in its power to ensure" that cable franchises remained under the control of British or EC nationals. With the active assistance of the Cable Authority and the use of a series of artificial transactions or arrangements, overseas—largely North American—investors have come to control 90 per cent. of the British cable industry. Clearly, on the Furniss v. Dawson principle, there has been a flagrant breach of the law to which the Government have been deliberately blind.
Why do I become so hot under the collar about something which the Broadcasting Bill in any case proposes to regularise upon the elimination of the restrictions on the ownership of local delivery services? The Cable Authority will say quite reasonably that it did all in its power in the early stages to encourage British and EC participation in the cable industry, and that its entreaties were met with deafening silence. Only by allowing in North American money, it would argue, has it been able to stimulate action.
It was not the arrival of American money in the cable industry that got it going. It was the arrival of alternative programming, stimulated in large part by the entrepreneurial flair of the much maligned Mr. Murdoch. Sky, BSB and the plethora of different equipment that the poor viewer needs to watch direct-to-home television have stimulated cable growth. The viewer will not want to invest £1,000 in equipment to sit beside his television set if cable will replace it.
Now that there is some body other than BBC and ITV to put down a cable, the UK financial community is beginning to wake up, but the Americans have already acquired all worthwhile properties on the Monopoly board. Again one might ask, why is that so disastrous? There are a number of reasons. First, when a government gives out
1322
franchises such as cable franchises it is handing out, effectively for free, something of considerable value. Some say that today a cable franchise is worth around £35 a home with no cable in the ground. If that is so, then the Government or the Cable Authority have given perhaps a £300 million hidden grant to North Americans which could have been used to stimulate the growth of domestic telecommunications talent. Charity should surely begin at home.
Secondly—I hope he will not mind my referring to it—my noble friend wrote to me the other day in response to an inquiry. I do not quote his letter exactly but the thrust of it was that, as cable companies do not in general produce a significant amount of programming themselves, the cultural considerations which have led us to maintain this prohibition—meaning the prohibition on foreign ownership—in the case of Channel 3, for instance, do not apply in the cable context.
That clearly shows that the Government have not fully comprehended the potential power of the cable companies or the power that they will have when the cable industry becomes mature. In the United States it is the cable operators who have the power to make or break programme providers—that is, television channels—and to control their revenues. If that is not an important cultural consideration, then I do not know what is. In 10 years' time the whole broadcasting map will look very different and the cable companies will be the big players. With cable TV in perhaps 10 million homes by the year 2000, a Channel 3 programme will be just one of 30 or so choices available to the viewer.
Thirdly, cable franchises are telecommunications franchises. At present, cable operators are permitted to carry telephony, but only in conjunction with BT or Mercury. As BT is already in every home, that effectively means only in conjunction with Mercury. However, if the duopoly is ended, the cable operators will be able to interconnect themselves and, lo and behold, the myriad offspring of Ma Bell who now control the United Kingdom cable industry will coalesce for all operational purposes and Ma Bell will be reborn in Britain, perhaps as the most significant telecommunications force.
Far from ending the restrictions on foreign control, I believe that the cable and local deli\ery networks should continue to be bound by the Cable and Broadcasting Act restrictions and that those restrictions should be made to bite. More importantly, powers should exist in the Broadcasting Bill to prevent too great a concentration of cable or local delivery operatorships in the hands of too few people; perhaps even to bring cable within the cross-media ownership rules.
In a recent letter to The Times I suggested that the creation of the British National Oil Company was the entirely predictable knee-jerk reaction of a Labour Government to the wholesale parcelling out of North Sea oil licences to North American companies. If I were sitting on the Benches opposite I should even now be considering or plotting the creation of a British National Cable Company to ensure that what

1323
we are able to watch on our televisions is not determined in New York, Atlanta or Los Angeles. With only some 100,000 cable viewers at present it may not seem a very live issue, but I can assure the House that it will grow in importance. This Bill is the ideal opportunity to ensure that in the future viewers, rather than a cable cartel, decide the fate of programme providers.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by expressing strong sympathy for the points of view put forward by my noble friends Lord Chalfont and Lord Wyatt of Weeford on the managerial front. In so far as they are not in entire agreement with one another I shall study their contributions in Hansard with interest. I am also in strong sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, again on the managerial front, because I have seen the erosive effects on morale of take-over bids from the standpoint of the taken over company.
Now to the Bill. It is a wide-ranging Bill, covering a multiplicity of activities, interests and developments. The Government are to be congratulated on updating legislation in parallel with the headlong advance of modern technological progress. Astra 1A gave us another 16 channels in 1989. Astra 1B will give us another 16 channels in 1990. The situation is becoming increasingly like the world of publishing newspapers and books. I expect that it will ultimately break freer and freer of any kind of central control. Publishing will be just publishing.
Secondly, the Government are to be congratulated—here I am in agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool—on the sensitivity with which they have received criticism and embodied it in their own thinking. That is very much a matter for congratulation.
Speaking late in the debate I cannot deal with more than one aspect of the Bill, but it is one that personally concerns me; namely, religious broadcasting. Here I must emphatically reject the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that agnosticism and secularism are alternatives to religion. In a religious context, by strength through grace we tap a source of spiritual force that enables us to do our duty to God and our neighbour in a way with which secularism and agnosticism cannot compete. They have no more in common with religion than they have with snooker. Anything else is just plain pretence.
If the Government deliver what they have promised I shall have received 90 per cent. of what we have asked for. In saying "we" I am speaking tonight as the president of one of the Christian pressure groups that have been working together on this Bill for some time. However, in case the Government do not exactly comply with what they have promised, I shall be doing a little drafting of my own to keep them up to scratch and I reserve the right to bring it forward in Committee when they
1324
have published their own proposed amendments; it is to be hoped exactly in line with what has been promised in the other place. Perhaps I shall be able to squeeze another 10 per cent. from the Government, in which case I shall be in a position to say that I support the Bill 100 per cent.
As the noble Earl recited in his opening speech, the Government promised the removal of the "no undue providence" and "no editorialising" provisions, substituting them with something on the lines of responsible but not exploitative. I do not know exactly what those two adjectives mean when coupled together. I shall have to wait with patience until I see the Government amendments. Assuming that they keep to what they promise, it will no longer sound the death knell of the very popular United Christian Broadcasting Radio Service operated from the Isle of Man.
I now come to CRAC. I hope that, in so far as I have criticisms to make, I shall not give offence to the right reverend Prelate. We all have to see ourselves in somebody else's mirror at some time or other and it is probably good for us. In effect it is a monopoly of advisory mechanisms. Like all monopolies it seems complacent and self-satisfied, but as the right reverend Prelate has only been in charge of it for 12 months, I cannot hold him responsible for that.
I understand that it meets but twice a year. In effect that means it is run by managers and officers who invariably go their own sweet way as they always do. To whom is it answerable and for what? Normally speaking, we are answerable to the source of our authority to do whatever it is. But the authority to do whatever it is in this context seems to be no more than advising the BBC and the IBA. Though they may seek advice—we can all seek advice from any source we please—the responsibility for taking one set of advice rather than another remains our own.
"By their deeds shall ye know them"
not only with respect to what they permit but also with respect to what they ban or bin, as the phrase goes. For example, a programme on the work of the Salvation Army, paid for by that army and accepted for showing on a television programme with the title "For the love of God" was overruled by the IBA because it was too evangelistic. What do we mean by the evangel? What was it that St. Paul spread? What was it that St. Peter spread?
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised the question of a programme that I understand was submitted towards the end of either 1987 or 1988. When I have asked noble Lords and Members of Parliament what blocks are alleged to have been put in the way, that is the one and only example that has been repeatedly given to me. I know that the film was not rejected because it was too evangelistic. No such words were ever used. It was not rejected by CRAC because it offers nothing before a programme. As the noble Earl said, CRAC is an advisory body after the event. It does not screen programmes.
The programme about the Salvation Army was rejected on the grounds that many other programmes

1325
would be; namely, that it was self-promoting and made by themselves. At the very same time the IBA agreed to five programmes about the Salvation Army which were made by Anglia Television at that time. I hope that that particular example will not be cited again.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I have a file of press cuttings on that matter. If that particular example does not satisfy the right reverend Prelate, I shall turn to two others. There was a pilot children's programme which was again binned or banned by the IBA. Its response was: "It is all right to talk about God, but you must not talk about Jesus". What kind of promotional effect will that have?
The third example was the rejection of a story where three people found that Christianity was the solution to their problems. John Reith was my friend, though a somewhat older friend and in a slightly different age group. He was a friend nonetheless. This was how he interpreted his position:
"Much of the seeming failure of Christianity is due to the weakness of its exponents and to their failure to show its absolute practicability to the problems of today and that it alone contains the solution. I believe a strong exposition of its wonderful principles would cause a profound impression".
That is what John Reith said.
Allow me to skip a decade or so. Whereas John Reith was my friend the Director General of the BBC, Hugh Carlton-Greene, was my opponent in the days when I was a governor of the BBC along with another friend, Thelma Cazalet, from the other place. The two of us formed a quite clear opposition to the policies that we knew Carlton-Greene was going to implement as soon as the report of the Royal Commission, the Pilkington Report giving the BBC a wonderful write-up, was safely out of the way, at which point it was put into the wastepaper basket out of which was taken "That Was The Week That Was". [remember writing to the chairman of the BBC, Arthur Ford as he was in those days, saying, "Have you gone out of your minds?". I saw exactly what was going to follow: violence, smut, dirty stories, bad language and the rest. That is exactly what happened.
The right reverend Prelate touched on religious advertising. We have a very coherent set of rules and regulations on advertising in general. I do not see why religious advertising needs to be catered for specially. If one can advertise a packet of cigarettes I do not see why one cannot advertise a new edition of the Bible, possibly printed in some typographic design—the words of our Lord in Clarendon type or something like that—which would make it an attractive object for study purposes. Why does the state have to intervene on that over and above the restrictions it puts on the ethics of advertising in any case? What has CRAC to do with advertisements of that kind?
Starting with Clause 6, I want to de-couple references to politics and controversies from religion. They ought not to be in the same class for the convenience of draftsmen. Religion uplifts; politics degrades as the rag-bag of human quarrelsomeness.
1326
Lastly, I come to the ITC code or codes. I want to see them ultimately embodied in a statutory instrument, so that the ITC would have the locus standi of a parliamentary draftsman, which the Government could in due course incorporate in an affirmative instrument and lay before both Houses. That would be the place to incorporate a reference to the mainstream of Christian thinking in this country. I have sought advice as to whether that procedure is possible in Parliament. I am assured that there are many codes embodied in affirmative instruments, and that is what I should like to see in this case.
For the present, I can merely give the Government notice that I am trying my hand at a little draftsmanship and will come up with something in Committee in due course.
10.23 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to all the noble Lords who have made such excellent maiden speeches in the debate tonight. In particular, I should like to congratulate my noble kinsman Lord Glasgow who made such an excellent and well-informed speech. I had the privilege to sit in your Lordships' House with both his grandfather and his father, and it is good to see the family tradition carried on. We hope that the noble Lord will speak many times in the future.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said when he introduced the debate, this is a very long and complex Bill but also a very constructive one. As such, it is to be widely welcomed. I also welcome—and I add my welcome to that of many other noble Lords—the flexibility that the Government have shown in another place enabling much good progress to be made in improving the Bill there. Of course much more needs to be done here. Indeed, I understand that the Government expect us to carry out that function and further improve the Bill. Many issues will have to be debated in detail at a later stage. I wish to deal very briefly with two tonight.
I should like to say a little more on the religious broadcasting aspect to complement what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said a few moments ago. Before doing so, I wish to say a few words about the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. As always, I listened to him with great interest, but I think he made a slight slip in that he referred to assurances given by the Minister in another place that religious broadcasters will be permitted to own local radio stations, and so on.
What the Minister actually said (at col. 158 of Commons Hansard for 8th May) was that,
"responsible Christian broadcasters will be permitted to own local radio stations, local cable channels and non-DBS satellite channels—subject to the discretion of the ITC or the Radio Authority, as appropriate."
That is just a little different and very important. The right reverend Prelate shakes his head.
During the Report stage in another place the Minister said that responsible Christian broadcasters will be permitted. That is in Hansard. That is an important distinction to which the House should have its attention drawn.

1327
As originally drafted, the Bill contained so many safeguards and restrictions to prevent the abuse by extremist religious groups that it seemed to some that the Government wished to create serious obstacles to any kind of religious, and particularly Christian, broadcasting. No doubt they were motivated by concern to avoid stirring up discord between different religions and minority ethnic groups. To those objectives we would all give full support. But the Bill in its early stages went much too far in that direction. It seemed to many to indicate an acceptance of the view that Britain is no longer a Christian country.
I shall not spend time on semantics, but I want to emphasise the comments made by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that the Church of England is established by law; that the principles of the Christian faith are still the basis of much of our law and the standards of behaviour in this country; that a substantial majority of people subscribe to all that is enshrined in the Christian duty to our neighbour, even though many do not attend church; and that a similar substantial majority want their children brought up on such principles of the Christian faith.
Views such as those were strongly represented to Members of Parliament and the Government as the Bill passed through another place; and greatly to the credit of the Government, they took full notice of those views. I especially welcome the Government's assurance that they will put forward amendments in your Lordships' House to remove the existing restrictions on religious broadcasting such as are contained in Clauses 6, 42, 54 and 85.
Although excellent progress was made there, much detailed work is needed during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House to give effect to those assurances. I look forward as does the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to seeing the government amendments in due course. We also need to look carefully at some definitions. First, the word "appropriate" is used in the context of the holders of licences. Who will decide the appropriateness of a holder of a licence? We need to clarify the meaning of this new word "exploitative" which was introduced by the Minister in another place. I have no doubt that all the intentions are first class, but the law must be clear and should not be left excessively wide for interpretation by the ITC and the Radio Authority however responsible I am sure they will be.
The Minister also referred to a code on programme standards which is to be drawn up by the ITC and the Radio Authority. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out, that code of conduct is of fundamental importance to the successful operation of the Bill. I shall not go into detail because other noble Lords have already done so. But suffice to emphasise that that code must be laid before Parliament as a statutory instrument and approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. That is essential so as to give clear guidelines to the ITC and the Radio Authority in exercising their discretion, which was referred to by the Minister in another place. Without those clear guidelines, the religious advisers to the
1328
BBC, to the IBA and others will become very close to being religious censors in their own right at a time when we are seeing such censorship all over Europe being disbanded.
I also welcome the consumer protection requirements, particularly the safeguards against disqualified persons holding licences as is provided by Clauses 5, 83 and 84. Other clauses regulate appeals for donations. In Clauses 150 to 154 there are important protections against inflammatory material, incitement to hatred and defamation. They are all very important points. Those and other provisions in the Bill should surely remove any lingering fears about opening doors to undesirable cults of any kind or the worst forms of extreme tele-evangelism.
In the light of those safeguards, the restriction of Christian ownership of national television and radio stations announced by the Minister in another place seem to be illogical and unnecessary. Surely, too, they offend against the principle of no discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. I suggest that there is no apparent logic in that statement. Will humanists, agnostics, and atheists be permitted to own such stations? Surely the answer to that question must be yes. If that is so, then why not Christians? Of course, that is provided that all comply with the general requirements of ownership contained in the Bill.
To sum up on the religious aspects of the Bill, we seek to ensure that responsible, British Christian broadcasters have freedom and full scope to participate in the opportunities well provided for in the Bill—to complement existing religious programmes. Surely that is a very worthwhile and reasonable objective. If our expanded broadcasting services are to portray the full range of our culture, it would be ludicrous, and also contrary to the principles of freedom of expression, to exclude religion, particularly Christianity which, as the Prime Minister has said, contributes so much to the British way of life.
I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that we who support the Bill in no way seek to exclude other faiths. Christianity,
"Christ's Church militant here on earth",
as the Prayer Book puts it, is well able to stand on its own feet and prosper on a level field. So much then for religious broadcasting.
I now turn briefly to deal with one other point; namely, the requirement for true unbiased presentation of news and current affairs, which has already been so fully dealt with by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I should like to make one or two brief additional comments. Clause 6 raises four important issues. We need first a definition of the word "current" in subsection (l)(c). Surely there is no objection to a historical programme on events which occurred more than 100 years ago being put out without presenting conflicting views. However, that would not be acceptable for events which took place, say, in the 1920s. Therefore, we need a definition as to what "current" means in that context.

1329
Secondly, news may be gravely distorted by selective quoting from interviews or by editorialising. Such practices must somehow be prohibited. Thirdly, Clause 6(2) makes it possible for impartiality to be judged over a series. That aspect has already been fully dealt with by my noble friend Lady Elles. But how long is a series to be over which impartiality is to be judged? Finally, subsection (3) requires another code to be drawn up by the ITC and the Radio Authority. Again, parliamentary approval must be obtained for such a code.
That is more than enough for tonight. Many other issues will have to be dealt with in Committee when I hope and believe that the Government will continue to show the flexible response that they have shown up till now.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, as one of the veterans of the historic vote last night, I must confess that I am tired, that I want to go home and I want to go to bed. I suspect that there are other people who share my views, including the Minister, whom we must describe as the marathon man of the Front Bench. Perhaps I may assure him that if he fails to answer in detail every one of the 40 speakers when he winds up we shall gladly forgive him.
Setting an example to everyone who follows me, I have thrown away two-thirds of my speech with all its most beautiful phrases. What concerns me most, as someone who has spent his life trading in news, is the future of ITN with which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, dealt so vigorously earlier. All those years ago I was one of the first people to be approached to join the commercial television news service. I am not sure whether I turned it down or it turned me down, but I sometimes think that I might have been as famous as Sir Robin Day.
ITN began humbly with a low budget and high aspirations. Those aspirations have been fulfilled. Today ITN is in the joint ownership of all the companies. It has created a service which might have a capital value of £130 million. What is more important, it produces news programmes which rival and sometimes surpass those of the BBC. We are most fortunate in this country because for the vast majority of the public television is their main access to serious news, especially as it is so scantily given in the popular national newspapers.
Tonight, a summer night, ITN will be having something like 8 million or 9 million viewers. What we have had is a highly efficient and well motivated duopoly. It has paid off. Now ITN seems to be in some danger. The companies have made a big investment in it. C. P. Scott used to say:
"While comment is free, news is sacred",
and so it must be; but news is not only sacred, it is damned expensive. ITN has been adequately funded and has become a great material and moral asset to independent television, so it must be kept.
Now the Government want the Channel 3 companies to have only a 49 per cent. share in ITN. The rest will go to God knows who, but perhaps someone more interested in profit than in the social
1330
product. It must be understood—I find it little understood—that ITN does not produce a mere news service by the yard; it is in effect an electronic newspaper with its own traditions, morale, high commitment and ability to get the nightly news right.
Now, to protect its shareholders, a proposal is being examined to create two companies: to put the assets, the building, the technical equipment and the library into a wholly owned company and then to sell 51 per cent. of the news service. I do not like that proposal. It is in the interests of the viewer and of the nation that ITN should run its electronic newspapers without being harassed by investors whose interest may be only in the profits that can be made and not in the service itself. If the Government believe in competition, let them ensure that the competition in excellence between ITN and the BBC continues and that ITN is not weakened, leaving the BBC as the unchallenged leader in the field.
Radio is pushed to the margin in these debates on the Bill. That is a pity. I am a dedicated listener and I should have liked radio to have had a Bill of its own and the concentrated attention of Parliament. There are important questions to be asked about community radio and the three national stations. We are told that they are to be diversified so that we get the spoken word on the first station and serious music on another or music that is not pop, with presumably pop on the third station. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, every effort will be made to maintain the quality.
How are these stations to be financed'* That surely is the problem. Advertisements on television can be acceptable and even delightful. On radio they are often hell, with people shouting in funny voices in a desperate bid for our attention. Sustained listening is unendurable. It is a challenge to advertising, with its great resources of artistry, to produce advertisements that are audibly charming. I and perhaps others would welcome a brief on this subject. I have heard nothing.
I have also heard little from the BBC. Some people are worried that the BBC is not taking an aggressive public role in all this. I have confidence in its survival. In a few years the public service element in television, even under this improved Bill, will not have increased and may have decreased in quality and in volume. I believe that we shall come to value the BBC more than we do now and that many people who are not its strongest advocates, including the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will come strongly to the rescue of the public service television, the BBC. Over the years, however, BBC chiefs have shown a sustained capacity to guard their backs and to preserve our great asset. I do not think that they will fail now.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Plowden: My Lords, I should declare an interest. From 1970 to 1975 my wife was the vice-chairman of the BBC and from 1975 to 1980 she was chairman of the IBA.
Like other speakers here today and in another place, it concerns me that the Broadcasting Bill does

1331
nothing to protect companies awarded Channel 3 licences from immediate takeover. Starting a new business, large or small, is a demanding and at time nerve-wracking task. Equally, embarking as an established company on a new challenge in a highly competitive environment requires maximum energy and concentration on planning the new business.
In reply to a question at a conference recently held, the Minister, Mr. Mellor, said, according to the official report of the conference:
"In most sophisticated companies there is a division of responsibility to the point that those who would be engaged in resisting a hostile takeover bid would not be those who were charged with the responsibility of making the programmes. There would be a proper organisational structure".
I find it difficult to believe in such a Chinese wall within a company. All my business experience tells me that a threat, let alone the reality of a takeover bid, is extremely disruptive. Any established company, let alone a new one, preparing to broadcast would find it quite devastating. The instinct of the whole company would switch to survival rather than to forward planning. In such circumstances the impact and uncertainty would be felt throughout the organisation, not simply by the board or the higher reaches of management.
Once a company is established, and in this case once a new Channel 3 system is up and running, the discipline of knowing that one is not immune from takeovers could be beneficial in keeping management alert and efficient. However, I believe that it would be folly to risk the major upheaval of takeovers within weeks or months of companies having gone through stringent quality tests and competitive tendering. It would render the whole process meaningless. It might persuade some companies to become predators themselves rather than to participate in the application process. I hope therefore that a limited moratorium on takeovers, applying from the time the ITC awards the licences until at least the end of the first year of their operation—a minimum of two years—will be accepted.
Finally, I hope that the Independent Television Commission will attach the same importance to the specific inclusion of programmes of educational value to adults as has the IBA, guided by its Educational Advisory Committee. The effectiveness of many of those programmes has been enhanced by the follow-up provided off-air locally. I was encouraged by what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said—much more clearly than I can—about the importance of adult education. At a time when we are all living longer and the importance of adults continuing to learn has been so strongly emphasised, it would be a great loss to lose that stimulus.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who referred to the scepticism with which some people greeted the original legislation permitting commercial television. I confess that I was one of those. I hope that we shall be proved as wrong about this Bill. For that to happen I believe that a number of the amendments proposed today will have to be adopted.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, the debate is continuing rather longer than I had anticipated. Although I cannot plead a previous engagement I can plead another dental analogy and the fact that I have to have a steady hand tomorrow morning. I apologise to my noble friend the Minister if I have to leave before his winding-up speech. However, I hope that I shall be able to stay, and we have speeded up in the last couple of hours. I have not thrown away any of my speech but I hope to get through it quickly.
The far-reaching and generally welcome provisions of the Bill as applied to the future of commercial television have tended to overshadow the implications for radio. Here I must declare what may very well become a financial interest, in that I am a director of London Jazz Radio, broadcasting as Jazz FM.
While ensuring the continuation of existing BBC national and local radio services funded by the licence fee, the Bill proposes the licensing of three national commercial radio stations and many local ones. That will all take place under the supervision of the new regulatory body, the Radio Authority.
Before the White Paper that free market expansion was expected to take place at the expense of the BBC, but it now seems likely that it will primarily affect existing commercial contractors. That new deregulated system will surely mean that many independent local radio stations will be pressurised by new national and local services. That threat to ILR is seemingly based on the belief that the existing commercial radio system, with regional stations having a local monopoly of radio advertising, has not worked. Despite recent dramatic growth, radio still takes a relatively low share of total advertising revenue.
The likely result of the introduction of new national commercial stations may well be similar to the situation in France where the commercial networks have attracted more listeners than the local stations and have cornered most of the national brand advertising. The Government's proposal to auction the national commercial radio licences, thus taking much of the profit, will provide a major obstacle for the potential new franchise holders, who will have difficulty in introducing the kind of programmes that might attract larger audiences, while at the same time keeping within the ill-defined quality threshold.
That growth of specialist radio stations targeting specific audiences, attracting advertising aimed at specific groups, relies on the new stations' ability to survive solely on advertising revenue and sponsorship. No discretion is made in the Bill between small-scale commercial stations and, for instance, community radio run by voluntary groups. Community radio has already shown that it has a great deal to offer and the Bill in its present form could result in the loss of many community stations. Without the encouragement for alternative organisation and funding, it is likely that the new Radio Authority may license scaled-down versions of the ILR stations rather than anything radically new. Already some of the new stations licensed by

1333
the IBA are in difficulty because they cannot attract enough advertising.
I should now like to make a few observations about Clause 163 which amends Clause 135 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. The Broadcasting Bill provides us with an opportunity to establish a system that can enjoy the support of all interested parties. The copyright regime in this country in relation to the licensing of sound recordings has been a subject of grave concern to broadcasters and heated dispute with the PPL (Phonographic Performance Ltd.) for over a decade. An eight-year case before the Performing Rights Tribunal, a new copyright Act in 1988, an exhaustive Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the activities of PPL and now a chance to modify the copyright Act all seem to be in danger of leaving British broadcasters aggrieved at their treatment by a record industry largely dominated by foreign companies.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission made several important recommendations which go some way to providing a measure of consensus. Some of its recommendations could be said to have benefited the record industry and some the broadcasters. One of the most important recommendations for the broadcasters and one enthusiastically accepted by the Government was that needletime restrictions should go. It is important that the clear intentions of that recommendation should find expression in the Bill. It is equally essential that the abolition of needletime does not come about with a hidden sting in its tail in the form of a consequential cost burden every bit as damaging as the original supply abuse.
I was encouraged by the remarks on this subject of my noble friend the Minister. I hope that the Government will look seriously at those matters and suggest amendments with particular regard to needletime restrictions that give true and fair effect to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendation.
I hope that it will be possible to come up with a form of words to deal effectively with that problem while still leaving the tribunal otherwise unhindered in the performance of its duty to arrive at decisions that are reasonable in the circumstances and therefore provide terms and conditions fair to a variety of broadcasting needs and the record industry.
Noble Lords would be most upset to find broadcasters—already denied relief from the burden of copyright by the Government's refusal to adopt first fixation—again left disadvantaged in the face of the PPL monopoly, if it were to be exposed to the danger of finding that the abolition of needletime restrictions led to even higher copyright royalties—royalties which are already among the highest in the world.
I hope also to support an amendment dealing with replication and viability. That issue goes right to the heart of the future of the commercial radio industry. Not only would it be a waste of valuable public resources, but a denial of true listener choice if there were to be a proliferation of competing stations replicating existing services, particularly in prime
1334
time. Such a system would fail to attract the new audiences to commercial radio so vital to the growth of its share of the advertising revenue.
The Government have already acknowledged the importance of that point in the current wording of the Bill, but only to a limited extent. In the absence of the current practice of diversity, it may be necessary to spell out licensing considerations that both avoid replication and take account of the stability of existing services and the effects upon them of new entrants to the market. I am aware that discussions are taking place between the broadcasters, the IBA and the Government. I hope that I shall be able to support an amendment that will result in the emergence of an effective regime that will ensure the future growth, profitability and diversity of the commercial sector.
I should also like to mention the proposal in the Bill that a maximum permissible radio holding could only be one national station plus six local services. Here I must respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The one plus six policy takes no account of the growing numbers of stations planned in the future and seems to rely on the mistaken assumption that in regard to local radio eminence in a local or number of local markets is in some way equitable to national dominance verging on a monopoly concern or possibly a threat to public interest. I feel sure that this matter will be discussed further at Committee stage.
I must also welcome the new powers in the Bill to suppress radio piracy, but I am concerned that they may be ineffective unless accompanied by additional enforcement resources. The recent awarding of new incremental franchises and the stipulation that pirate radio broadcasters convicted of offences after 1st January 1989 would not be eligible to apply for those new franchises has not done anything to reduce the level of piracy, particularly in the London area.
The main concern to the legitimate broadcaster is not the loss of revenue or audiences to pirate stations but the overcrowding of the spectrum, causing extensive interference and making it difficult for audiences to tune to the licensed broadcaster of their choice. I am told that pirates make a point of broadcasting as near as possible to the frequency of a licensed broadcaster in the hope of attracting listeners who tune to them inadvertently.
The additional powers in the Bill may not resolve this problem without a strengthening of the radio investigation service. Unless piracy is eliminated the planned expansion in the number of licensed radio services could be seriously affected.
While on this subject I have to say that I have received a submission, as I am sure have many other noble Lords, from supporters of Radio Caroline, who are surprised that the additional powers proposed cover all vessels on the high seas whose broadcasts are capable of being received or causing interference in the United Kingdom. I am informed that the conventional way of dealing with an authorised broadcast from a foreign registered vessel on the high seas would be for the Government to make the appropriate representations through diplomatic channels to the flag state of the vessel.

1335
Although I would wish to see an end to radio piracy, it is not clear to me whether those powers may be used extra-territorially on the high seas against vessels flying a foreign flag.
I am also concerned about the right of news access. The British public has had the opportunity to see the action of great sporting events for many years: Wembley, the Grand National, test matches, Wimbledon and the like are part of our national heritage and the public expects to be able to see them as part of the service that broadcasting provides to the nation. News access in general, which British broadcasters have enjoyed for many years, is vital if the television news organisations are to be able to cover national events adequately.
However, under the Bill the right of news access might go and viewers could be deprived of choice. Clause 168 of the Bill allows sporting bodies to sell exclusive rights to coverage of events to satellite or cable television companies. In broad terms I see nothing wrong with that. Indeed, as the Minister in another place said, it will allow sporting bodies to get a more realistic commercial price for these events and this will put more funding into the sport.
However, there is a possible undesirable effect in that news organisations on TV, BBC, ITN and TV-am, as well as the new ones like Sky and BSB, would not automatically be allowed properly to cover such key events in their news bulletins because there is no provision in the Bill for them to obtain highlight pictures from those who have bought the exclusive rights. I think that that is wrong. Television news bulletins should be able to reflect and show highlights of all major events. Indeed, I think that there would be an outcry if on the day of the event only one company could show any pictures of the action.
My right honourable friend the Minister in another place said that he agreed with that but thought that it was not a subject for this Bill, as the broadcasters could agree news access between themselves. Evidence shows that that will not happen. Over many years BBC and ITV have jealously guarded their rights to key events, and I know that TV-am, a relative newcomer, has been denied access on many occasions. It happened, for example, last month when TV-am was refused permission to have extracts from the FA Cup Final.
The signs are that there will be no agreement, and that is why I feel the Bill should make sure that there is. The fair dealing provisions of the copyright legislation of 1988 go some way towards allowing a degree of news access and I know that the scope of that is being argued by the lawyers. But I do not feel that that is enough. The Bill should have a clause making it compulsory, where exclusive rights have been bought, for access of a fixed time (say two minutes) to be given to other news organisations which request coverage. In that way there would be a clear recognition that all TV news organisations would be able to cover key sporting events in the way viewers have the right to expect. This Bill has done an admirable job in creating choice. It would be a shame if in one vital area viewers were deprived of a key service. I hope to be able to support or move
1336
an amendment to that effect at the next stage of the Bill.
I have two further points to make. I share the concern of the IBA and the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising that there will be confusion among viewers, listeners, broadcasters and advertisers when complaints about individual advertisements are considered. This concern arises from the presence of different statutory authorities—the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority on the one hand and the Broadcasting Standards Council on the other.
The Bill gives the BSC the power to impose decisions about individual advertisements over the heads of regulatory bodies. That may well be confusing not only to advertisers but also for viewers whose complaints will be inefficiently monitored by the ITC and the Radio Authority if many complaints are diverted to the BSC. I hope to be able to support an amendment on Clause 140 to end this confusion.
Finally, I should like to comment on an aspect of the Bill that comes within Clause 16 which has already been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. It concerns complaints by composers that they are being coerced by the television companies into granting rights in the music they write for television to publishing companies owned by the television company. Composers have found that if they refuse to grant their rights to the television companies they no longer receive commissions. The Office of Fair Trading has been aware of this problem for some years but only a very few composers have been willing to jeopardise their position with the television companies and make complaints.
Independent radio companies are prohibited from forming their own music publishing companies. I intend to move or support an amendment that will reinstate the undertaking of the ITV companies to the IBA that it will not be a condition of commissioning contracts that publishing rights should be assigned to them.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill, for the way that he has listened to most of the speeches today and for his obvious intentions to listen and act on the discussions that will take place during the next stages of the Bill.
11.2 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, once again we are involved in public discussion of broadcasting. In the past five years we have been presented with the Peacock Report, the Green Paper on radio, the White Paper on Broadcasting, and now the 182 clauses and 18 schedules of the Broadcasting Bill. For a Government who do not believe in government interference, that constitutes quite a record of involvement. However, we must not complain about that. Broadcasting is a very important public issue. It is quite right that Parliament should devote serious thought and time to it.
I also welcome the apparent deathbed conversion of the Government to maintaining many of the principles of public service broadcasting. If, as I suspect, the noble Earl—who so elegantly introduced

1337
the Bill—and Mr. David Mellor are responsible for reintroducing that dimension of civilisation into the otherwise brutal culture of deregulated free markets, they should be congratulated by all sides.
However, I am not sure that all of the tensions and contradictions between the urge to put in the boot of deregulation while holding out a friendly hand to public service principles have been resolved. The main thrust of the Bill is the reordering of commercial broadcasting in this country. It proposes quite a substantial regulatory framework. Time and experience will show how well that works. If it fails, I suspect that it will not be because of its legal architecture but because of doubts about the financial fundamentals of commercial broadcasting—its funding. I begin at the beginning with the franchise applications. The Government have decided to abandon their earlier insistence on a deposit payment. However, four other financial contributions are required: the basic cash bid; the application fee; the provision of security; and the percentage of revenue to be paid once the licence has been granted. There is considerable uncertainty about the levels of finance required for these, and it is difficult to see how existing franchise holders plan their future investments when such large but unquantifiable sums must be provided for.
In terms of programme quality, the requirement for children's programmes and religious programmes in Clause 16, together with the stipulations for regional programmes for news and current affairs, is an improvement that we welcome. Also welcome is the Clause 17 provision that under exceptional circumstances the ITC may allocate a franchise to a lower cash bid on grounds of programme quality. The problem there is that in practice it may mean something or it may mean nothing. It offers hope to those who believe that quality and not just money matter in broadcasting. But those hopes may be dashed; we have no guarantees. At the heart of the problem lies the fact that it is the Government and not the franchise holders who believe that money matters more than quality. As always, the Treasury sees commercial television as a convenient source of revenue. The instrument of the auction of franchises is there to provide Treasury revenues, regardless of its damaging impact on the industry. The main damage will arise because the premium price paid for the franchise will drain money which should be used for investment in programme quality.
One specific area of broadcasting about which I am particularly anxious, and where I believe that the Bill threatens great damage, is sport. Here the dogmatism of the free market is allowed to run virulently. Hitherto it has been one of the great joys of broadcasting in this country that the major sporting events such as the Grand National, the Derby, the Cup Final and the Test matches, have been deliberately organised so that they are viewable on television by everybody. This was achieved by guaranteeing to our terrestrial broadcasters—that is the ITV and the BBC—the opportunity to purchase the rights to them. It is deeply regrettable that those rights are being abolished in the Bill.
Giving to satellite broadcasters, with their huge money bags and tiny audiences, the right to purchase
1338
monopoly rights is an outrage. It means that for many years a significant number of the British sporting public will be deprived of the opportunity to watch the great sporting events which matter so much to them. The alternative, especially for millions of old-age pensioners, who love watching such events, will be to be compelled to spend money that they do not have on ugly equipment that they do not want. It is difficult to escape the suspicion that this is a form of reverse payola; a payment by the Government perhaps to a foreign media Baron for services rendered during election campaigns. I trust that at the Committee stage that blot will be removed. Clause 164 should be redrafted to guarantee that the largest possible audience has access to these premium events.
The final point relating to the BBC—and I am pleased to see that it appears so rarely in the Bill—is also very puzzling. The requirement that a minimum of 25 per cent. of programmes should be produced by independents is welcome. I believe that it is already being implemented through the supervision of the Home Office and the BBC Board of Governors. Why, as appears, is the process being put under the supervision of the Director of the Office of Fair Trading? Surely that is a superfluous double layer of bureaucracy and regulation. For a government who claim to dislike excessive bureaucracy—and I share that view—it is odd that they should be imposing double layers of it. It also seems to cast an unnecessary slur on the Home Office and the BBC governors, who are perfectly able to execute that task. The result will inevitably be divided responsibilities and confused accountability. Clause 171 should therefore be redrafted, confirming the 25 per cent. quota (which is excellent) but leaving the governors accountable to the Secretary of State.
The third edition of the Broadcasting Bill is a great improvement on earlier manifestations of government thinking. Obviously a more intelligent mind has been given freedom—if limited freedom—to modify the damage once threatened by the school of neo-brutalism which originally imposed its de-regulatory ideology on the world of broadcasting.
British broadcasting is the best in the world. It is one of the few areas where Britain is supreme. One should be very careful before changing it too much, because it works. Conservative values suggest that we should conserve what is good. In any case, more modifications are necessary, and I trust that this House will make those improvements at Committee stage.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, one aspect of the Bill which seems to have united every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate is that the Government's thoughts on the future of broadcasting have progressed a long way since the White Paper was issued. Upon that the Government are to be congratulated. However, many people, both inside and outside the House, are expressing concern over the future quality of television programmes. It is right that concern should be expressed. Television

1339
is one of the most powerful influences in the hands of mankind today.
Like several other noble Lords I have been a director of a regional television company; I am now only a shareholder. I was a director of Grampian Television for 27 years from its inception. Because of that and in the hope that the Government will consider making further improvements to the Bill during the remaining stages, I will confine my few remarks on the Bill to the attainment of high quality programmes by regional companies.
When we founded Grampian Television in 1961 it was one of the smallest television companies yet it covered the largest land mass of any regional television station in Britain. We made it our aim to provide a service for the community within our transmission area—something which is vital to the achievement of high quality programmes. Cash is also essential, and I shall come to that aspect in a moment.
The main aim of any regional company must be to provide a service to the community. That subject was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. The thought of profit, though closely linked, should be secondary to providing a service to the community of the area. Undoubtedly the Government's idea of the free market principle when awarding licences puts a bottom line on the quality of programmes below which any company would risk losing its licence. That must considerably influence the quality of programmes. Nevertheless, the company, having complied with what has been laid down by regulation or code by the Independent Television Commission, would still have various options which could influence the quality of its programmes.
I shall consider religious programmes. A company may have the choice of televising a live Church service from, say, St. Magnus Cathedral in Orkney, or assembling a minister, a piano and a choir of three for a service in the studio. Both programmes might meet the laid down requirements but the difference between the two as regards the service to the viewer and the community would be vast. As a result, in the end the responsibility for high quality programmes rests on the shoulders of the regional company.
To achieve a high quality service for the community it is most important that each regional company should have a sense of identity with the area which it covers and, thereby, a feeling for its area. For this to happen, I believe that the directors and executives, except those concerned purely with sales, should live in the transmission area so that they are in touch at all time with people in all walks of life in the area. If that is done the company will have a genuine feeling for its locality when making decisions. A director who lives in the transmission area will soon hear from friends and neighbours if programmes are not good. However, if he lives in, say, London, all he may know from attending board meetings is that letters of complaint have been received about a certain programme. That is very different from being accosted in the street or
1340
lambasted at the dinner table about the poor programmes one's company is producing. Furthermore, I believe that it is important there should be a balance on regional company boards between executive and non-executive directors. In an industry like television, executives become so immersed in technicalities and techniques that, through no fault of their own, it is sometimes difficult for them to see the wood for the trees.
Of course, neither legislation nor market forces will guarantee good programmes. Much will depend on the regional company itself Here it is the chairman who ultimately bears the greatest responsibility.
I mentioned earlier the need to have cash to make good programmes. I doubt whether the cost of making high quality programmes, especially documentaries and wild-life programmes, is fully realised. A few years ago Grampian Television made a documentary series on oil. It cost £1-2 million—a substantial sum for a small regional company—yet that documentary showed the flag for Britain's North Sea oil exploration and production in no less than 40 different countries of the world.
The main point I make here is that the making of that documentary series was possible by receiving revenue from the sale of advertising time on Channel 4. However, in future that revenue will no longer be received by regional companies, as Channel 4 will be selling its own time. That loss of revenue will mean that in future it will be more difficult for the small regional companies to produce costly documentary or specialist programmes.
There is no doubt that regional companies benefit by direct and indirect employment in the area in which they are situated. Furthermore, if successful, they can give a very welcome boost to the local economy. For example, Grampian Television currently funnels the not inconsiderable sum of £17 million a year from advertisers south of the Border to the north of Scotland. That not only goes against the economic drift but is also extremely good for Scotland.
It cannot be too strongly stressed that in the final analysis the production of really good regional programmes will depend not only on the ownership of the regional company being rooted in the area and having a feeling for the area but also to a large extent on the quality of those owning as well as those operating each regional company. If the points that I have mentioned concerning regional companies can be met, the viewer, the advertiser, the community and the economy of the area will be well served and the future of television will be enhanced for the benefit of mankind.
11.20 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I speak on the Broadcasting Bill as someone who has lived in Africa for many years and was unable to enjoy the many benefits of the British system of television broadcasting. When I came to Britain the quality of British television was a revelation to me. As I have lived here I have found the scope and potential of the new developments in television just as exciting.

1341
I have no interest in any of the broadcasting companies or the satellite operators except as a viewer and an enthusiast for broadcasting. I was pleased to hear from many noble Lords who share my enthusiasm for the recent developments in television and in particular for the provision in the Bill that will foster future encouraging opportunities for broadcasting.
As Professor Sir Alan Peacock, chairman of the committee on the financing of the BBC, has made clear, we now have a splendid opportunity to combine the advantages of technological change with the development of a system of broadcasting which maximises the benefits of those for whom the system must be designed; namely, the viewer and the listener. While this is a very wide-ranging Bill concerning many important points, the subject I would like to focus on this evening is the growth of satellite communications.
As noble Lords will be aware, one of the most significant developments of recent months has been the commencement of satellite broadcasting services in Britain to send channels directly to homes or indirectly via cable networks. Britain is now Europe's most important centre for satellite broadcasting. Transmissions from the United Kingdom of news, sport and entertainment are being received from the Baltic to the Balkans and across Western Europe.
As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, made reference in his lucid speech, as the totalitarian regimes crumble in Eastern Europe, at least some of the credit must go to the British-based satellite broadcasters who, for the first time, have been able to transmit their programmes across frontiers thanks to the miracle of satellite communications.
Among the positive developments that have come across as a result of this expansion of satellite broadcasting has been the introduction of the new technology of satellites into schools in Britain by Sky and Astra. I understand that already more than 70 schools have been equipped with satellite broadcasting receiving systems so that children taking foreign language courses can watch news in German, sports programmes in French and entertainment programmes in Italian.
I understand that by the autumn 1,000 or more schools may be using satellite systems in this way. I find that particularly exciting when I consider the opportunities for extending that type of facility to the third world. The innovative, low-cost satellite equipment that has been developed here in Britain could so readily be used in Africa to give young people there a window on the world and the opportunity to become full members of the global community.
I have heard the Bill referred to as a charter for open skies. The Bill puts out a welcome mat for broadcasters who will be free to set up shop in Britain and, with the minimum of restriction, offer services to viewers throughout Europe. In my view the Government have been wise to propose just a few basic consumer protection regulations on these new broadcasters. The restrictions are few in number but significant nonetheless. For example, I am
1342
pleased to see that the Bill requires that news be truthful and impartial, a point well illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing.
I welcome the fact that the Bill requires that programmes meet a standard of taste and decency. That is proper. But what the Bill does not impose are arbitrary, unnecessary inhibitions on the basic freedoms to broadcast. Indeed, the Bill quite properly treats broadcasting as, if you like, a form of publishing. Anyone with the initiative, the ideas and the resources may participate in this new enterprise. This is crucial. It is an exciting prospect that the Astra satellite system can grow and offer at least 48 channels. So scarcity of channels is an issue of the past. Any number of players may soon be able to participate.
I have heard the argument that our tradition requires that newspaper publishers, for example, be prohibited from offering television services. When this prohibition was introduced some 30 years ago there was but one commercial television station in Britain. Perhaps at that time it was appropriate to insist on a separation of newspaper interests and broadcasting interests, but today we live in an age of media. The traditional division between publishing and broadcasting is crumbling. We see television becoming more akin to publishing with specialised channels offering services targeted at specific audiences. We see publishing becoming more akin to broadcasting, with colour printing making newspapers more attractive and entertaining, and with satellite technology making it possible for newspapers to publish simultaneously all over the world. I read with pleasure last week that the Financial Times will soon be publishing a satellite edition in Tokyo. I also welcome the development of the new European newspaper, printed simultaneously in three European centres.
With respect to the ownership question, I have taken note of the arrangements in Schedule 2 to the Bill. These represent a complex but in my opinion workable approach to the very difficult and controversial problems. The arrangements will prevent proprietors of national newspapers from controlling the important Channel 3 licensees, which we can expect to remain the cornerstone of our commercial broadcasting system for some time. At the same time, they are flexible, allowing the risk-taking media companies that are pioneering satellite developments the opportunity to operate under appropriately more flexible conditions.
As the Home Office Minister with responsibility for broadcasting pointed out in the other place during the Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill, where spectrum is allocated by United Kingdom regulators the Bill provides for the most rigorous cross-media control. Newspaper proprietors may not have a controlling interest in an ITV franchise or in BSB, which has been granted a monopoly on the five United Kingdom high power satellite frequencies that are available to us. But, as the Minister said, the non-domestic satellite services are different. They are not granted by United Kingdom regulators. They are carried on a satellite with seemingly endless potential for new channels, as I pointed out earlier. The channels used by the satellites are not in short

1343
supply. He said, and I agree, that there is no reason of principle why we should seek to control the ownership of a brave entrepreneurial effort.
Before concluding, and while we are on the subject of entrepreneurial effort, perhaps I may also welcome a very significant but often overlooked aspect of the Bill—as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue—which relates to the award of 25 per cent. of the UK television airtime to independent producers. It is my belief that the full co-operation of the ITV companies and the BBC in delivering that 25 per cent. to the independents by 1992 and the equitable arrangements over programme rights would contribute greatly to the development of an invigorated independent media industry in this country.
It is particularly important that our independent producers be able to secure a proper stake in the ownership of the programmes they make for the established broadcasters so that they may share the profits to be realised by the subsequent sale of those programmes to overseas broadcasters and the new satellite and cable channels.
On a note of caution, though, care must be taken when contracts are awarded to independent producers that these contractors are genuinely independent and not subject to the so-called "sweetheart contracts" through the old boys' network. In today's world the United Kingdom has a tremendous opportunity to develop its traditional strengths in media, allowing an industry that has historically been national in character to evolve increasingly into both the pan-European and international arenas. That is good news for Britain, offering us increased employment, encouraging technological development and offering viewers an expanded range of choice.
In a Bill of this complexity and of such ambition there are bound to be a number of clauses that we shall wish to consider carefully during our Committee stage. We may wish to hear a little more from the Government on such issues as religious broadcasting, standards that will be applied to ensure the impartiality of news, and the details that relate to the possible takeovers of Channel 3 licences. But in my opinion we have received from the other place a Bill that gives us a great starting point for debate. As a viewer, I have found television in Britain to be both inspiring and impressive. We have already had a taste of what the future offers.
I welcome the Bill. I believe that it creates the conditions for broadcasting in Britain to build on its immensely strong foundations. In the coming years I would expect British television to develop into an ever more vital part of our national life and to play an increasingly important part in Britain's international role.
11.32 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, we have witnessed in this debate four remarkable maiden speeches. I listened with great care to the impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. As Lord Morris, of, apparently, no fixed abode, it is warming to
1344
me to know another man who has ennobled his patronym. I welcome him to the House from the bottom of my heart.
Like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I warmly welcome the Bill, in so far as it reflects the fundamental policy which was stated shortly and clearly in the title of the White Paper of November 1988. It is a Bill designed to set the right environment to increase competition, choice and quality for those people who have hardly been mentioned in the debate; namely, the public. I strongly believe that the Bill does precisely that.
I was particularly impressed by the position taken by the Government in two specific areas. The White Paper stated:
"There should be vigilance against uncompetitive practices and market distortions. Partly for this reason, and to limit barriers to the entry of new operators in the market, there should be a greater separation between the various functions which make up broadcasting and have in the past been carried out by one organisation. These include programme production, channel packaging and retailing, and transmission or delivery".
In addition, another point made in the White Paper concerns the emergence of a production sector which is independent—a point made most beautifully, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Willis—in that it neither controls nor has guaranteed access to a delivery system, and which fits its objective. This should be further encouraged.
In my view that is an absolutely vital ingredient in the future of independent broadcasting in this country, especially when one bears in mind the fundamentals. For example, what is broadcasting? Broadcasting is very simply the delivery and the receipt of a service by whatever means, be it through the ether—to use the old-fashioned term—or be it through the ether and then through cable. It is of no relevance whatever, so far as concerns the viewer, whether it be received by satellite, through a cable or through the ether. For that reason I was astonished to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, stating that satellite is no substitute for good quality terrestrial channels.
A noble Lord: She did not say that!
Lord Morris: My Lords, she did say that.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I said that neither cable nor satellite were yet substitutes for terrestrial channels because, as we all know very well—and I shall not repeat the argument—there are not at present sufficient programmes on them, not enough people have them and there are still the costs to be compared with terrestrial channels.
Lord Morris: My Lords, they may not yet be a substitute, but they are certainly complementary—and so they should be because they provide the breadth of choice to the customer. I welcome that aspect. However, I certainly do not think that direct broadcasting by satellite is the long-term solution; I am convinced that the long-term solution is in cable and wireless. I strongly welcome the fact that the Bill encourages the development of cabling in this country for the delivery and receipt of broadcasting, which is only

1345
one of the alternatives from which the people in this country could benefit.
The cost of delivery of this service is coming down literally on a daily basis because of changes in technology. There is no doubting that fact. I implore Her Majesty's Government in the course of consideration of the Bill to do everything they possibly can to ensure that new entrants into the market are encouraged in every way. It is only in that way that the receipt of these broadcasting services will become cheaper to the end users, who, of course, are the people of this country.
I shall not speak any longer because of the lateness of the hour. However, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the clear way in which he presented the Bill to the House.
11.38 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to make a brief concluding contribution to this long debate and I shall try to exercise as much brevity as I can in the circumstances. I too should like to congratulate the maiden speakers, all of whom impressed us with their first addresses to your Lordships' House. We look forward to hearing from all of them again.
As I think every one of your Lordships who has engaged in this debate has said, the Bill is much improved from that which was first presented to us. It can be said that our worst fears have most certainly not been fulfilled. It must also be said, as many noble Lords have said, that improvements can still be made and that dangers inherent in the present Bill must still be avoided.
I do not propose to do more than briefly refer to many of the issues which have been covered very fully and repeatedly by Members of this House. We welcome from these Benches the changes in the system whereby franchises are granted and whereby exceptional quality is recognised as an element that is taken into account. I suppose I could express the difference between our attitude and that of Her Majesty's Government by saying that they regard quality as an exceptional element whereas we regard it as an essential element. That is about where the difference lies.
We agree on the need to have a moratorium on takeovers, a point which was so impressively explained by the noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham, Lord Buxton of Alsa and Lord Plowden. We agree with the noble Lords, Lord Buxton and Lord Ardwick, on the importance of keeping ITN under the control of ITV. I agree, and I think my colleagues agree, on the importance of listed events being available to the public as a whole. That is something that one would have thought the Conservative Party would appreciate: the party of one nation; the party which believes in holding the country together. Witnessing those events together as a nation has an important and binding influence. It is characteristic of one of the elements of the Bill which have been modified that the Government do not see that kind of issue as having any social importance. It is of social importance and we must try to see that it is improved in Committee.
1346
We also agree with the importance of network arrangements being made. The most controversial element in the debate has been that of cross-media ownership. It has been made more controversial by the fact that it has, in my view wrongly, been personalised. It has been treated as though it was a battle between BSB and Mr. Rupert Murdoch or that it was a campaign by people who regard Mr. Rupert Murdoch as an ogre. I must declare an interest. I am a consultant for one of Mr. Murdoch's publishing companies. I have been engaged in an unsuccessful battle not to be taken over by Mr. Murdoch, but I am still to some extent in his employment. It is not a question of his being an ogre. The issue is a simple one of principle. Is it right that so much power should be concentrated in the hands of one man, whether it be Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Maxwell or Mr. Bellusioni? That is the issue that the House must confront.
The noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Wyatt, in addressing that problem stressed how much we owed Mr. Murdoch for Wapping and the change in the way that our newspapers are produced. I should be the last to dissent from that feeling of gratitude, but I do not believe that Mr. Murdoch did it out of charity. I believe that he did it for other reasons. We do not owe him a special status in the television world for that reason.
I should also like to dwell longer in due course on what due impartiality means and how it should be interpreted in broadcasting. I am surprised at the fervour of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, on impartiality. No one can say that the newspapers for which he works show that virtue in a notable degree. However, that is something that we can discuss in Committee. I hope that we shall be able to clarify the situation.
The Bill has two faces. One could be called the DTI face and the other could be called the Home Office face. That conflict appears throughout the Bill. The Home Office face recently, through Mr. Mellor's efforts, has come out on top; but elements of the old DTI face still appear here and there. The ideological element is that more means better, that more means more choice, that the market must be supreme and that the advertiser will be the final arbiter. It means that regulation will be with a lighter touch. But onto this scene of unregulated or lightly regulated competition marches Nanny Thatcher, proclaiming that the public must be protected from its own worst instincts. Hence we have the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and his Broadcasting Standards Council, with a host of responsibilities set forth in Part VI of the Bill. He and his colleagues are enjoined to protect us from sex and violence.
Quite apart from whether this is necessary in the state in which broadcasting exists in this country, it seems to me that the creation of the Broadcasting Standards Council breaks an elementary rule of administration. The rule is that responsibility should be clearly and unambiguously assigned. The responsibility for the printed word, for example, lies with the publishers. In the past the responsibility for the broadcast word lay with the governors of the BBC and with the IBA. Now that responsibility is to be shared with the Broadcasting Standards

1347
Council, the Advertising Standards Authority, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the ITC and probably some other people.
This seems to me a formula for confusion and difficulty in knowing who is responsible for what. That difficulty has already emerged in the course of this debate as to the exact relationship between the Broadcasting Standards Council, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and advertisers. If responsibility is dispersed in this fashion, there will be two temptations: for the regulatory bodies to expand their own empires, demanding to preview, or the Broadcasting Standards Council saying that it has authority over advertisements; and, perhaps more important, for the bodies which are regulated to see how far they can push these other bodies.
Not only do we have the Broadcasting Standards Council, but we have had in the past the Sinn Fein ban, which still exists, the Zircon affair, the Government's response to "Death on the Rock" and the "Real Lives" affair. There has thus been a succession of episodes, some of which are now incorporated in the Bill, which can only be seen as attempts to interfere with the broadcaster, to harass and stifle the broadcaster. I am sure that that is welcome to the noble Lords, Lord Wyatt and Lord Orr-Ewing, who appear to want to introduce even further regulations in a highly regulated field. What is needed in the Bill, in my opinion, is not more regulation but more protection of the broadcasting authorities from interference by governments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. While he may not call for new regulations, does he agree that the regulations there now ought to be adhered to? That is all that is asked for.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's point. I argue that the regulations and guidelines which are laid down and have been laid down by the IBA and the BBC are adequate. They are more likely to be enforced if the responsibility for those guidelines being enforced lies with those bodies and is not dispersed among a number of other statutory bureaucracies set up by the present Government. That is my argument. The noble Lord may not agree.
One further form of interference which we cannot ignore and which has occurred not only in broadcasting but in other areas also is the politicisation of appointments to boards governing broadcasting. Hence the anxiety which has arisen over the provision in the Bill that appointments to the board of Channel 4 must have the approval of the Secretary of State.
As many noble Lords have mentioned, there is hardly any reference in the Bill to the BBC, except the responsibility—to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, drew attention—of the Office of Fair Trading to report on the BBC's compliance with the 25 per cent. independent production requirement. That is an otiose and unnecessary requirement in my view.
1348
I cannot regard that silence as golden. Neither the Government nor their supporters have in the past shown themselves well disposed to the BBC. It has appeared to them to be another of those independent institutions which they find so irksome. The universities, local government and the Church all fall within that category. The BBC and IBA are other elements in it. The Government have waged a consistent campaign against the BBC, starting with the Peacock Committee, continuing with the "Real Lives" affair and the campaign of Mr. Tebbit and the leaders in The Times.
The BBC is suffering death by a thousand cuts. If one regards the licence fee as a bad thing because it is a poll tax—despite having introduced another poll tax oneself—if one ties that to the RPI, if one recognises that the expenses of the BBC are 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. above the RPI, then one will see that the BBC's real revenue cut steadily by compound interest between now and 1996. It will be in a very weak position to compete with the commercial and satellite companies. That is a real danger.
There is a danger that public service broadcasting will hence be undermined and eroded. I ask myself whether the Government believe in public service broadcasting or whether they do not rather agree with that member of the advertising profession who said:
"If you give British advertisers what they want on ITV, you would rind it is what the viewers want too".
The fact is that unless the BBC is adequately funded, unless it is seen to be an essential public service, unless it is accepted that it sets the standards for broadcasting generally, we shall have a lower standard of broadcasting in this country in the years to come. It is to prevent that, that we must examine the clauses of the Bill in Committee with the utmost care.
11.53 p.m
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, although it is a very long time ago since the Minister gave his very clear presentation of this Bill, it has nevertheless been a great pleasure to listen to this debate, both because it has been so well-informed and also because there has been so much agreement among speakers on all sides of the House.
There was agreement on the very high standard of the four maiden speeches. I should certainly like to associate myself with that. Secondly, there was agreement about the proud record of British broadcasting. That was strongly promoted by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and rightly so. Thirdly, there was agreement that this Bill, as it has emerged from another place, is a very different animal from the one reflected in the original White Paper, which contained proposals which were viewed with a great deal of concern by most people and with horror by some. There is therefore agreement that the Minister in another place must be congratulated on having listened so well to the propositions that were made to him from so many quarters, including the Opposition, the industry and pressure groups.

1349
There has also been unanimous agreement on two issues in the Bill. The first concerns the need for a moratorium on takeovers and the other the need for a network agreement. Starting with the moratorium, the only difference that was apparent in the speeches of noble Lords, concerned the periods that were proposed. The IBA wishes for a moratorium of one year after a company begins broadcasting. My noble friend Lord Boston, who argued the case for a moratorium most cogently, as did the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, said that one year is not sufficient and that he would like to see a longer period. I look forward to Committee stage when that will be decided.
I feel very strongly that after such a very long process and a lengthy Bill, and after all the wrangling, lobbying and negotiations have taken place, it is close to madness to allow a situation whereby on day two of broadcasting a company can be taken over. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham said, it is clear that many companies might well not even bother to bid for a franchise but sit back and wait until another company has gone through everything and then simply take it over. I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl has to say and to seeing that, like his right honourable friend in another place, he is a good listener.
The other aspect with which I wish to deal is the need for a transitional network agreement for Channel 3 to be in place before the licensing round. Again, the noble Earl said in his opening remarks that that issue was still being considered. The arguments put forward today have been strong, not only from the point of view of companies bidding for franchises, but from the point of view of the ITC itself which cannot make credible assessments of licence applications without a transitional network. Surely the time for the voluntary agreement desired by the Government must come later when the companies have been awarded their licences and have made their financial and schedule planning. I should like to ally myself with all noble Lords who have put forward those strong and well-informed arguments for those two requirements in the Bill.
With regard to another aspect of the auction system, we too are happy that the Government have accepted that a lower bid application could be preferred on quality grounds in exceptional circumstances. Although the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and my noble friend Lord Donoughue have made the point that it will be difficult to measure quality in relation to cash and that it will be difficult for the ITC to make the decision, we are nevertheless happy that that change has been made. However, we are still worried that successful bidders in 1991 might well receive a licence to broadcast for ever. We should like to see explicit quality and public consultation requirements each time licences are due for renewal.
The quality threshold has been a central preoccupation in all of today's speeches. Strength and quality requirements have been woven into the Bill, but, after all, only in terms of requirements to provide a sufficiency of accurate and impartial news, current affairs, regional coverage, religious, children's and schools broadcasting. The Bill does
1350
not at present specify what should appear in the ITC's illustrative guidelines setting out a range of public service programmes which should be provided and which we should certainly like to see, including documentaries, adult education and social action programmes.
A further area of concern mentioned by many speakers is Clause 142 and the role of the Broadcasting Standards Council in relation to advertisements. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, stressed the gravity of the position and pointed out that it would seem to involve unnecessary duplication as the ITC will also have responsibility for the control of advertisements. I look forward to hearing the noble Earl's response.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said about the Teletext service. I shall also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say with regard to the point made by the noble Lord; namely, that there was nothing to preserve the range of information in Teletext, and that there was nothing to protect the viewer in the same way as he is protected with regard to programmes. He believes that the ITC should have wider control over that matter. I think that that is a very interesting point. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I shall certainly not involve myself in the argument about impartiality. I hope that at Committee stage we might perhaps reconcile some of our difficulties.
The next major issue has been the cross-media ownership provisions. It is true that the Bill bars national newspapers from owning more than 20 per cent. of a Channel 3 licence or a Channel 5 or national radio licence, but is much less even-handed when it comes to cross-media ownership of newspapers and satellite channels. As noble Lords have said, it allows News International to maintain its considerable ownership of the daily and Sunday press alongside the majority ownership of Sky. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who said that it is not a question of individuals but that one particular person is in a very strong position to influence public opinion and it happens, of course, to be Mr. Murdoch.
Perhaps I may just cover very briefly two areas which have not been covered extensively by other speakers. But first I should like to say a few words about children's programmes, which in some ways are rather vulnerable. Clause 7 deals with a general code for programmes with special reference to children and young people. But there is a worry among agencies concerned with children's television that the quality of children's programmes may deteriorate. That would be a very serious matter when one thinks of the number of children and the length of time that they watch television.
But the types of innovative and imaginative programme which stimulate children are expensive to make and there is a danger that popular programmes, or even those which would attract sponsors, might be placed higher in the list. I believe that in France there are imported Japanese cartoon films which are shown on commercial channels for children. They are particularly unpleasant and violent, but nevertheless are watched by a large number of children.

1351
So I believe that there is a risk. I do not think that many Members of either House of Parliament watch children's programmes very much. Perhaps we do not have any idea of the extent to which future generations will have used television as a basic means of access to informative and imaginative material. The Bill should include specific conditions that require licence holders to ensure children's programmes of high quality and also specify minimum hours and suitable times of transmission.
The other point that I wanted to make concerned the very important subject of training in the industry. Mr. Mellor said that the ITC and Radio Authority should require evidence of training policies from licence applicants. We should like to see that requirement strengthened. After all, the future of the industry depends very much on its skilled workforce. That was a point made very strongly by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. It is also a fact that prior to the 1980s the BBC and companies such as Granada and Thames were renowned for their training schemes but in the past few years, since freelancing has increased, the amount of training has decreased. It is true that freelances not only have to pay for their own training but often cannot get on to courses at all.
I think that it should be made clear that franchise applicants have a duty to train not only permanent employees but freelancers as well. After all, freelancers work for everyone and therefore affect the industry overall. I feel that it is rather a pity that the funds acquired through selling the franchises do not go into training schemes instead of to the Treasury. I believe that the money would be very well spent on such schemes.
When talking of training one has to make special reference to the needs of women. Again, Mr. Mellor in another place promised an amendment to the Bill along the lines proposed by the Opposition party. That required broadcasters and independent production companies to declare their equal opportunities policies. When one sees that three-quarters of all BBC and ITV employees are male and only one-quarter female, one feels that there should be extra training and monitoring provision to assist them.
My last point relates to the anxieties of organisations such as the Third World and Environment Broadcasting project, the Broadcasting Support Services, the Broadcasting Consortium and other voluntary organisations. They are all anxious about the broadcasting of documentaries, continuing education and social action programmes. As has been proved by a Harris poll, British viewers are very interested in information about developing countries and their problems. It is true that over the past decade specialist programmes of this nature have dramatically heightened British awareness of international issues and have led to greater popular involvement in green issues and overseas development work. But, as my noble friend Lord Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, said, such programmes, which in this case involve overseas filming, are extremely expensive. They cost twice the domestic equivalent. They attract large but not
1352
massive audiences. In the new competitive environment laid down in the Bill, programme costs and audience size determining the advertising revenue will become the prime factors in Channel 3 scheduling which leaves the factual programming under threat unless there are clear obligations on the new franchisees written into the Bill.
We are all happy that the Opposition and others have succeeded in keeping quality at the heart of the Bill in the other place. We welcome many of the changes made. However, we believe that there is still a need for improvement before it can be said that the best features of our much respected broadcasting system have been truly safeguarded. Although the Government deny it, the Bill is to a great extent about making money. It is for that reason that the consumer interests need to be protected. We know exactly what the viewer and listener wish to watch. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough and the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, made the point that it is the consumers—the viewer, the listener—who will decide what they want to see and hear. It will be a very great pity if their wishes are in any way disregarded. I very much look forward to the Committee stage.
12.8 a.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I knew that we would. I said in opening that your Lordships' knowledge and experience in broadcasting matters were unrivalled. I also said that I found that a formidable prospect; and so it has been.
I should like to congratulate your stalwart Lordships on having stayed to this late hour after last night. There has been a wide variety of opinion, as one would expect. I was grateful for the concluding remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. She said that on the whole she found that many improvements have been made to the Bill and she looked forward to ensuring that quality remained high on the agenda. We agree that quality needs to remain high on the agenda.
I thought that her remarks contrasted slightly with those of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who seemed to find nothing of which to approve in the Bill. She did not seem to have anything good to say about it. She said that the regulatory touch was too light and the drafting too loose. I thought "Oh dear, we don't seem to have a friend here". Then the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said that the Bill was much better than when it was first introduced, and I was glad for that. Then he said that basically it was a bad Bill. I thought that that was a pity and that we had not made too much of a friend there either.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I know that it is a long time ago, but I said that I was grateful for the improvements which have been made to the Bill. Of course I went on to say that a great deal more needed to be done. However, I acknowledged the improvements.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry if I misrepresented what the noble Baroness said. That

1353
was the last thing I wished to do. I was merely reciting the impression that she left with me.
I was glad to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, which was extremely good and interesting. He approved of the Bill. But that was not the reason why I thought that his speech was good; it just happened to be a good speech.
The change that we are seeing now is no less great than that which happened in the 1950s when independent television was first introduced. I remember how anxious people were then and how they took violently opposed views and thought that life would be awful. It did not work out like that. Everyone is apprehensive of change. They wonder whether the standards to which we have become used are going down the drain. The noble Baroness is right to want to retain the high standards and quality. We must all ensure that those apprehensions are not founded.
I appreciated the congratulations which came from many parts of the House to my honourable friend Mr. Mellor. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was particularly generous to him. He enticingly and somewhat beguilingly said that he hoped I should be equally accommodating. He will know that if he sucks the cream off the top of a milk bottle and passes the bottle on to his next-door neighbour he cannot expect him to have quite the same experience as he had. I can say only that I shall do my best.
We have heard four remarkable maiden speeches. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough made a warm and lively speech. The four matters to which he referred as causing anxiety—namely, violence, sex, bad language and the need to care for children—go to the heart of what most of us feel about television. He said that television should be a guest in the home, and that was a good description.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, also made a most interesting speech. We look forward to hearing him in his many capacities, not least as chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission, and as such I have had the privilege of knowing him on earlier occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord Grade, who is still present and I admire him for that, said that in making his speech he found a diffidence to which he was not accustomed. After 30 years he will find that that is no less strong. I was glad that he did not have his cigar. If he had we might not have heard so well the pertinent comments that he made. That he made his maiden speech today on this subject, after 14 years as a Member of your Lordships' House, is a privilege that we greatly enjoyed.
The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, made a speech from the heart and from his personal knowledge as a television producer. We look forward to hearing those noble Lords on other occasions.
I should like to accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, not to answer everyone. However, I fear that I must answer some noble Lords. Many noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, have an encouraging way of saying, "We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the matter". I know that most people do not look
1354
forward to hearing what the Minister has to say because they would prefer to go to bed, but I should be disrespectful if I took the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, too seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to Teletext. The amendments introduced by the Government in another place secured the future for a commercial Teletext service. We will listen very carefully at Committee stage to any argument that there should be a quality threshold for the Teletext service.
The point which seemed to agonise most people was the question of a moratorium on takeovers of ITV companies. On my reckoning, the noble Baronesses, Lady Birk, Lady Blackstone and Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to that; also the noble Lords, Lord Thomson, Lord Annan, Lord Grade, Lord Willis, Lord Buxton, Lord Chalfont, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made an important point when he said that tendering should be the only form of obtaining a licence. I found that that was a penetrating way of putting the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, also referred to moratoriums. He said that fighting takeovers was distracting, demoralising and it used up money, resources and people in resisting them; that is why a period of stability was necessary. I understand that point of view. I understand that when anyone has gone through the trauma of trying to obtain the licence, trying to work up a whole profile of arguments for obtaining the licence not knowing whether it will be won and then finding that it has been won, they like to sit down and say, "That is very convenient. Let us now get on with it". It is a bore if you feel that you have to be on the look-out for the troops of midian who may be prowling around possibly to eat up your licence.
I shall only say that any company taking over a licensee will be bound by the same conditions as the original licensee. Failure by the new company to live up to the original licence conditions could result in revocation of the licence. Takeovers are a normal part of commercial life. At the moment the Government do not see why broadcasting licensees should be protected from them. I can see why your Lordships—and almost every noble Lord who spoke on this topic felt the same—feel that it would be desirable and comfortable to have a period of moratorium, but that is not the way the market place works. At the moment that is the view which the Government hold.
The other matter of concern was networking. The noble Baronesses, Lady Birk, Lady Blackstone and Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomson, Lord Aylestone, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Winstanley and my noble friend Lady Macleod all referred to networking. We are considering what provisions for networking should be made in the Bill. We want to make sure that there is a workable system which ensures that networking arrangements are fair to all licensees, which has not been the case with networking arrangements hitherto. Existing network arrangements, for historical reasons, have given the big five ITV

1355
contractors a privileged position in supplying programmes for the network for which they have guaranteed quotas of programming time. That position has increasingly been resisted and challenged by the medium and smaller-sized companies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to multiple bidding. We see no reason to prevent multiple bidding. To do so would risk the good candidates who were unable to win the licence of their choice being lost to the system. Provided that there are suitable rules to determine the winners unambiguously—and the Bill provides for that—applicants should be free to apply for as many licences as they wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was concerned that news ownership should be controlled. The Bill seeks to strike a balance between the legitimate interests of the Channel 3 licensees and having a say in the affairs of the news provider and the benefits of encouraging diversification on the part of the news provider into other news areas and interests. We believe that the Bill strikes the right sort of balance. Channel 3 licensees can own 49 per cent. of the news provider; that will give them a powerful voice in the affairs of the organisation. The non-Channel 3 owners of the remaining 51 per cent. will nevertheless be able to ensure that the news organisation does not become too narrow and too inward-looking.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn referred to pirate radios. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that they were not wasps that should be swatted off but just harmless butterflies. He said that it was absurd to send the Army, the Navy, the Customs and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all after these radio stations. The provisions on pirate radio are justified and necessary. The radio spectrum is a valuable resource and its use has to be carefully planned. Unauthorised transmissions have put the safety of life channels at risk and at times of emergency could cost lives. Moreover, by interfering with the wider variety of channels they also reduce listener choice.
The provisions in the Bill are in accordance with international law. The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention allows states to act against ships on the high seas of any nationality, or none, if broadcasts from them can be received on their territory or cause interference. Of course, the powers will be exercised with moderation and restraint in the case of foreign flag vessels to avoid the diplomatic controversy which the noble Lord feared.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to the audience research requirements and said that they are too onerous. We agree that this provision should be deleted. The Government will bring forward an appropriate amendment. We agree that it would be too onerous to expect a small light touch radio authority to commission research on the effects of radio programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, also expressed anxiety about the power of the ITC to uphold quality. The ITC will be able to hold licensees throughout
1356
the whole period of their franchises to the promises they make on quality and other matters at the application stage. The ITC will convert those promises into enforceable licence conditions. A range of sanctions will be available in the event of a breach of those conditions. Those sanctions include the broadcasting of apologies, fines and, as a final resort, licence withdrawal.
We also had—and I am glad that we did—interventions from three right reverend Prelates on the matter of religion. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, spoke on the same subject. This is a sensitive and important part of the Bill. I explained to your Lordships earlier that we are not satisfied that we have the balance right and we hope to improve it during the various stages of the Bill.
A certain amount of anxiety has been expressed about ownership. The Government have made clear all along that they do not want to see excessive concentration of broadcasting ownership or unhealthy cross-media ownership. Several noble Lords have criticised our proposal to place a 20 per cent. limit on newspaper interests in BSB but not on the non-domestic satellite services such as Sky. The mere fact that BSB and Sky happen to use different technologies and wave lengths makes little difference for ownership purposes. What is important—the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord St. John of Bletso, referred to this—is that BSB operates all the five high-powered channels which have been allocated to the United Kingdom for DBS. It has a monopoly of those channels. By contrast, the Sky channels are not alone on the Astra satellite. There is also Mr. Maxwell's MTV, two W. H. Smith channels, the children's channel and channels originating from Luxembourg, Sweden and West Germany. There are predictions that there may even be 32 channels and that could increase to 48 channels later.
Therefore, the point is that there is scope for a large number of non-domestic satellite services not using UK broadcasting services. By contrast, all the United Kingdom's five DBS channels are owned by the same company. They are tightly limited by spectrum scarcity in a way Sky is not. Therefore, I suggest that it is no coincidence that we propose that the 20 per cent. limit on newspaper interests should apply to Channel 3 and Channel 5 as well as BSB.
Perhaps I may just refer to the question of impartiality. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, my noble friend Lady Elles, the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Wyatt and Lord Bonham-Carter were concerned about that matter. For national and regional television services the Bill requires due impartiality as regards matters of current political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. As in the 1981 Act, due impartiality may apply to a series of programmes taken as whole. Since the subject of impartiality involves complex issues, for the first time the Bill requires the ITC to produce and to enforce a code of practice indicating the ways in which impartiality should be achieved in different circumstances.
I know that there is concern in some quarters over the provision which enables the impartiality requirement to be achieved over a series of

1357
programmes. However, I do not think that it would be right to apply the requirement for impartiality to each individual programme. That kind of approach would often lead to serious practical difficulties. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, it would tend to stifle effective presentation and examination of issues.
The time-scale over which a balanced presentation of arguments should occur will depend on the subject matter. The proposal in the Bill that the Independent Television Commission be required to produce and enforce a code of practice on this issue will ensure that the broadcasters and the public will know exactly what is expected of them in this area. The existing legislation requires impartiality as regards all matters of political or industrial controversy or current public policy.
The Bill slightly limits the requirement to matters of current political or industrial controversy as well as current public policy. That will allow historical programmes, for example, to be dealt with from a particular point of view while maintaining the need for balance whenever the controversy question is still active. It is important to appreciate that the qualification "current" relates not to the events themselves but to the controversy surrounding them. Where historical events continue to generate current controversy that due impartiality requirement will continue to operate.
There are many other points that your Lordships have made which, on the whole, I believe that your Lordships might prefer me not to pursue. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bessborough that the Government must not try to dictate the pace of change or draw up a prescriptive blueprint. What is important in what we are trying to do in this Bill in deciding the future of British broadcasting is the interplay of millions of decisions which are taken by individual artists, technicians, broadcasters, advertisers, investors, businessmen and, above all, by viewers and listeners. In all this we have to strike a balance. That is a balance that we seek to achieve.
As I have said, there are still some adjustments to be made. I gather that your Lordships think that there may be even more adjustments than the Government think need be made. We shall pay very great attention to all that your Lordships have said today about this Bill. I have no doubt that we shall return to many of the matters again at Committee stage. I am deeply grateful to your Lordships for the care and consideration which have been given to the Bill this afternoon. We shall consider all the matters and see where we go from there. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past midnight.

  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY : FUNDING OF YOUTH TRAINING
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY : FUNDING OF YOUTH TRAINING
  YOUTH TRAINING SCHEMES IN INDUSTRY
  YOUTH TRAINING SCHEMES IN INDUSTRY
  YOUTH TRAINING IN SMALL AND MEDIUM FIRMS
  YOUTH TRAINING IN SMALL AND MEDIUM FIRMS
  MANCHESTER PRISON: RELOCATED PRISONERS
  MANCHESTER PRISON: RELOCATED PRISONERS
  REMAND CAPACITY: INCREASED PROVISION
  REMAND CAPACITY: INCREASED PROVISION
  PRISON SERVICE HEADQUARTERS: RELOCATION
  PRISON SERVICE HEADQUARTERS: RELOCATION
  MANCHESTER PRISON: DRUG FINDS
  MANCHESTER PRISON: DRUG FINDS
  MANCHESTER PRISON: STAFF NUMBERS
  MANCHESTER PRISON: STAFF NUMBERS
  MANCHESTER PRISON: INMATE SUICIDES
  MANCHESTER PRISON: INMATE SUICIDES
  MANCHESTER PRISON: ASSAULTS ON STAFF
  MANCHESTER PRISON: ASSAULTS ON STAFF
  MANCHESTER PRISON: CNA AND POPULATION FIGURES
  MANCHESTER PRISON: CNA AND POPULATION FIGURES
  DART GUNS
  DART GUNS
  EYE TESTS: WITHHOLDING OF PRESCRIPTIONS FROM PATIENTS
  EYE TESTS: WITHHOLDING OF PRESCRIPTIONS FROM PATIENTS
  SIZEWELL B: RETURN ON INVESTMENT
  SIZEWELL B: RETURN ON INVESTMENT
  MEMEL: STATUS
  MEMEL: STATUS
  EBRD AND EAST EUROPEAN ARMS INDUSTRIES
  EBRD AND EAST EUROPEAN ARMS INDUSTRIES