Sitting of 8 May 1990

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

    National Curriculum
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I frequently receive correspondence from school governing bodies, teachers, parents and others which expresses substantial support for the national curriculum.
    Mr. Buckley: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the national curriculum is becoming centrally prescribed? Does he accept Her Majesty's inspectorate's report that a deterioration in quality and deskilling of teachers may be a consequence of the national curriculum?
    Mr. MacGregor: The recent Her Majesty's inspectorate report on the national curriculum shows that good progress is being made in primary schools and I do not accept that it is centrally prescriptive. It is important to have a national curriculum which raises standards to the ughout the country, and we have
    2
    made many efforts to ensure that teachers have plenty of freedom to exercise their professional judgment—the theme of a speech that I made at a recent conference held by the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. It is well recognised that we are getting the balance right.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend advise us what is happening with regard to the history working group's report and when we shall hear his decision on that?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am consulting more widely because the report attracted wide interest from many different points of view and it is important that those who offer advice on the report should do so only after they have read it. That consultation ends in the middle of June and I shall make an announcement then.
    Mr. Straw: In view of the Prime Minister's almost complete U-turn which was announced in the Sunday Telegraph on 15 April, and the Secretary of State's different but almost weekly changes to the national curriculum's operation, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an unacceptable confusion about the practice of the national curriculum, which cannot be resolved by a public relations man imposed upon him by his predecessor, the chairman of the Tory party? In view of that serious confusion and the fact that in the interview reported in the Sunday Telegraph the Prime Minister raised doubts even about the idea of a core curriculum, is it not time that the Secretary of State produced a White Paper setting out exactly the Government's policy?
    Mr. MacGregor: That was a ragbag of holiday straws. The position is clear. As I go round the country, I find that teachers welcome the orderly decisions that I am taking to implement the national curriculum. There is no disagreement on the purposes and objectives of the national curriculum. It was made clear in the original White Paper and the consultative document, which I have reread, that the non-core subjects would have less rigorous standard assessment tasks than the other subjects, and that a variety of decisions had to be taken to implement the national curriculum and will continue to have to be taken. I am taking those decisions in an ordered and manageable

    3
    way. I have been particularly concerned not to overburden school curricula or teachers with too much at once. There is considerable support for our recent announcements, all of which are available to teachers, and it simply is not necessary to have a White Paper.

    Training Credits
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect he expects the introduction of training credits to have on young people seeking further education and training after they leave school.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): By motivating young people to seek training and employers to provide it, training credits have the potential to increase radically the number of young people in jobs who receive worthwhile education and training. That is why the Government have announced their intention to run pilot schemes from next April.
    Mr. Stevens: I welcome job training credits which will introduce additional flexibility to bring about specific training in the skills that individuals will need, but what role will the education service have in that new scheme?
    Mr. Jackson: I believe that the education service will have an important role to play in the new scheme, which will present a considerable opportunity for the service to expand its provision of part-time education and training of young people. It will continue to be the major provider of part-time training and education and to play an essential role in the operation of the credit scheme. In considering applications for pilot schemes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be careful to identify the local education authorities that have been most closely involved. We have received no fewer than 33 bids for the 10 pilot schemes that we shall be operating, which shows the extent of their popularity.
    Mr. Leighton: The principle of training credits has been widely welcomed, but some youngsters should also be encouraged to undergo further education, including that for vocational careers. As one does not want students to make educational decisions mainly on financial grounds, is there not an equally strong case for offering a financial incentive to remain at school, by making training credits available to young people who decide to continue into further education?
    Mr. Jackson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and for the remarks that he made in response to the original statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, when the hon. Gentleman was a very welcome voice from the Opposition Benches. The implications of the part-time training credit scheme for those in full-time education will have to be examined. However, we have no reason to believe that the scheme will constitute a disincentive to remain at school or to enter a further education college full time. However, we shall monitor that aspect in the context of the pilot schemes.
    Mr. Worthington: If the Minister believes that pupils will be motivated by the introduction of training credits, does he also believe that they will be demotivated by the
    4
    withdrawal of funds by the Department of Employment from compacts and training and vocational employment initiatives that will shortly be announced? Does the Minister agree that students will be put off entering further education and training by the renegotiation of the youth training scheme and the cutting of Department of Employment money from that area?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should address those questions to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The training credit pilot schemes involve expenditure of an extra £12 million in 1991–92 and £25 million in 1992–93, which is a considerable investment. If the schemes are shown to have worked, I hope that we shall see further growth under that heading.

    Cedar Special School
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to launch a four-year research project into the inter-disciplinary team approach used at the Cedar special school for the handicapped near Southampton.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): We have no plans to launch such a project.
    Mr. Colvin: The House will be aware of the wonderful work done by the Peto institute in Hungary in the treatment of handicapped children. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Government see fit to spend £5 million annually on the Peto institute when a more cost-effective alternative method than conductive education, namely the inter-disciplinary team approach, awaits evaluation at the Cedar special school near my constituency, at a cost of only about £250,000? Does my hon. Friend agree that financing that scheme would be a good use of the taxpayers' money, as it would identify whether IDTA or conductive education is the best way forward in the treatment of handicapped children?
    Mr. Howarth: We believe that conductive education should be among the options available to British children. It is at an early stage of development in this country. We are planning to contribute £5 million over the next four years to support the international Peto institute, for the purpose of ensuring that places will be available for British children and that British conductors can be trained in Hungary and bring their expertise back to this country. We are undertaking a comparative study of the kind that my hon. Friend commends to me, the results of which will throw light on the benefits of conductive education as developed at the Birmingham institute and the multi-disciplinary approach being used with a different group of children in another part of the country.

    Grant-Maintained Status
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have so far shown interest in obtaining grant-maintained status.
    Mr. MacGregor: Ballots about grant-maintained status have been held at 88 schools. Parents at 66 of them have

    5
    voted in favour of proceeding with an application. I have approved 37 of the 48 proposals which have reached me for decision.
    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not all parents, pupils and teachers are satisfied with the arrangements for the reorganisation of sixth forms in the constituency that I represent and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for the principle of schools trying to seek grant-maintained status? Will he join me in condemning as utterly irresponsible any local education authority trying to rubbish a ballot of parents, as is happening in a school in Basildon at the moment?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I am a strong supporter of the grant-maintained policy. I believe that it has many advantages, which I frequently talk about, and I am absolutely clear about that. It has the advantage of quick decision taking, the school and the governing body have complete control over their affairs, it has greatly improved morale in schools and, perhaps most important of all, it is popular with parents, as is shown by the large increase in the numbers of pupils going to such schools. It would not be right for me to intervene when a particular ballot is taking place, as the issue may come to me later for a decision.
    Mr. Dunn rose——
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]—The right hon. Gentleman only kept the education job because the Prime Minister did not know where his hon. Friend, the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) was when she wanted him.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only been called because I saw him.
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman was off on holiday on an obscure island.
    Is the Secretary of State aware that, instead of using the money in the way that he has just described, he would do well to send some money to Derbyshire for nursery school provision especially at Langwith in my constituency?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do hot know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about, and this is not the first time. There is no extra money for grant-maintained schools. The advantage of the grant-maintained school is its ability to run itself without constant referral back. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is confusing grant-maintained schools with city technology colleges and, not for the first time, he has not made his point.
    Mr. Dunn: Can the Secretary of State confirm that if the Opposition had their way the grant-maintained provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 would be abolished, as would grammar schools, church schools, sixth forms in schools, sixth form colleges and the independent sector? Under the Opposition's proposals we would be required to have a comprehensive system for 11 to 16-year-olds with tertiary colleges. That is against the majority of opinion in this country.
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. From all the Opposition have been saying, it is clear that they have learnt nothing and that they have stuck by the policies of the 1960s. My hon. Friend is right to say that
    6
    a number of the reforms that we are carrying out—I refer to the grant-maintained school reform—are very popular with parents, and I hope that the Opposition will think again about their opposition to those general policies.

    Education Provision, Bradford
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had concerning education provision in the Bradford education authority area.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend frequently receives such representations, on a variety of issues.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that one of the main reasons for the sinking of the Tory flagship in Bradford last week was the crisis in the city's education service, which arises directly from the £276 poll tax set by the Conservative party? Does she understand that more than 100 teachers are facing redundancy as a result of underfunding of the school budgets, that schools are crumbling in Bradford because we have received only a fraction of the £100 million needed to repair and renovate them, and that 50 lecturers are facing redundancy at Bradford and Ilkley college because of deep cuts in their funding? In view of all that, will the Minister arrange for an urgent early meeting with the new Bradford education authority so that the crisis in the city's education service can be resolved?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. Ministers are always happy to meet hon. Members with deputations to discuss education matters. But the hon. Gentleman must hurry before the normal practice in Bradford occurs—the Conservatives retaking control.

    Teachers (Industrial Action)
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the effect of the introduction of the national curriculum of the recent decision by some of the teachers' unions to take strike action.
    Mr. MacGregor: I regret any industrial action in our schools. It can only damage children's education, serves no useful purpose and diminishes teachers' standing in the eyes of parents and of the public as a whole. For those reasons many teachers regard such action as undesirable and unacceptable.
    Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the calls for strike action within some teachers' unions are being led by members of Militant and the hard left—a notable example is Miss Anita Dickson, a self-declared supporter of Militant who has been elected to the NUT executive? Does my right hon. Friend consider that it is appropriate for such people to be teaching our children in our state schools?
    Mr. MacGregor: I certainly think that the reactions of many parents to the comments and actions of some people in the teaching unions is that they would not wish their children to be taught by such people. The important message for us to get over is that the vast majority of teachers are not like that.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister confirm that he has refused to meet any of the local authorities that have been poll tax capped? Will he tell the House how on earth the national curriculum can be implemented in Calderdale, where the budget has to be reduced by £5 million?
    Mr. MacGregor: The reason is that it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Local education authorities that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is proposing to charge cap have had the opportunity to put forward alternative proposals which he is considering. That is the right way to proceed.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made as regards the establishment of city technology colleges.
    Mr. MacGregor: The city technology colleges programme continues to make excellent progress. Three colleges are up and running and a further nine are due to open in 1990 and 1991.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the three CTCs in operation so far have emphatically shown their ability to raise standards, particularly in vocational education, to ensure that local companies continually take an interest in their curriculum, and, possibly most important, to increase the motivation of their pupils and those in surrounding schools? Does he agree that the most obvious demonstration of their popularity is their popularity with parents, and that significant proof of that is at Kingshurst where this year there are no fewer than 730 applications for 150 places, which is a record?
    Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who has put many of the points in favour of the CTCs. I join him in underlining the importance of parents' attitudes towards the CTCs. The applications are well up on the number of places available. In addition, the colleges are clearly attracting other sponsors. Kingshurst, which my hon. Friend mentioned, had two original industrial sponsors and now has 70. That is very good progress.
    Mr. Flannery: Why does not the Minister admit that the original plan for city technology colleges has totally collapsed? Does he remember the promises that private industry would finance those colleges? The withdrawal of funds—our funds—from Brighton city technology college is the latest failure. City technology colleges mean that in Nottingham where about £9 million is needed for schools, about £6 million goes to the city technology college and all the other schools—hundreds of them—have to make do with the other £3 million.
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall take just one or two of those points. It is absolutely not the case that the CTC programme is a failure—quite the reverse. I have said that 12 will be in operation before long. The programme is also attracting considerable industrial sponsorship—more than £40 million. It is new money and, therefore, apart from all its education advantages, it should be seen as part of the inner urban programme, and in that context it is very successful in raising education standards. In Brighton, the only reason I took the decision that I did was that it
    8
    became clear that the pledge of the original sponsors could not be fulfilled and we would not get a private sponsorship.
    Mr. Pawsey: May I ask my right hon. Friend to disregard the rantings of the Opposition? They are full of sound and fury and signify very little. The comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) are nothing more than nit picking. Conservative Members are most anxious to see the policy and programme for city technology colleges advanced far more strongly and far more quickly.
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition dislike popular schemes conceived by the Conservative party and our schemes are popular. I should also like to move faster. The difficulty sometimes is in putting together sponsors and sites, and getting through the problems of planning permission and building. Those are the main difficulties. I have already given the number of colleges that we have in the pipeline and I hope that there will be others before long.
    Mr. Straw: Is not the truth of the city technology programme that financial controls have been so inadequate that Ministers and donors have been able to play fast and loose with public funds? Will the Secretary of State explain how the CTC trust was allowed to authorise a potential donor to the Brighton CTC, Mr. Ivor Revere, to become the front man in the purchase of the land for the CTC for the Catholic diocese in Brighton so that he could hoodwink the diocese into believing that the land was to be used for housing rather than for a school? How was Mr. Revere able to filch £200,000 from public funds as a secret commission on that land deal? Why did that secret commission go undetected for three months until December? Why, above all, did the Secretary of State, well knowing by 8 December the fact of that secret commission, refuse to volunteer the information to Parliament? Why did we have to wait for four months for that information to be wrung out of him?
    Mr. MacGregor: A great deal is wrong in all those questions. First, the site was purchased for a CTC and that was clear. Secondly, as soon as it became clear to my Department that commission had been paid, we acted. It was discovered through a normal routine check, we acted immediately and the money was repaid immediately. I made the announcement to Parliament when I was asked, in the normal way. There has been no concealment. A whole series of financial transactions go on every day in government. The key point is that the moment we discovered that money had been paid on commission—and we did not think it should have been—we got it back.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on local management of schools.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Local management of schools schemes came into force on 1 April 1990 in 87 local education authorities. My officials are working with the remaining 10 LEAs whose schemes could not be approved to produce acceptable schemes for introduction in April 1991. We shall be monitoring and reviewing all aspects of LMS in the light of experience.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend share my great concern at the ease with which some education authorities can retain far too many of their resources at the centre, thereby denying proper and adequate funding to the real business of education—the schools and their staff? Is there any mechanism by which my hon. Friend can impose discipline on education authorities?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. I can reassure my hon. Friend on that question. It is true that there has been considerable variation among local education authorities about the amount that has been delegated, especially from the discretionary area. However, one of the points that I hope will please my hon. Friend is that many of those authorities have discretion to hold back for one year only. We expect, therefore, that next year, and in ensuing years, more of the discretionary element for the central administration will be delegated back to the schools, where it should be.
    Mr. Crowther: Is the Minister aware that poll tax capping will cause immense problems for the implementation of the Government's own scheme for the local management of schools? If the Secretary of State understands the principle of collective responsibility in the Cabinet, how can he justify an arrangement under which the children of his constituents will receive more resources for education than the children of my constituents? Is that not a gross abuse of the power of a Cabinet Minister?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is slightly confused. Local education authorities set their budgets on their own terms and according to their means and desires. If local education authorities have done their job properly and the schools are receiving the money under LMS, there is absolutely no reason why the schemes should not continue as planned.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that many excellent schools in my constituency are hampered by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which intensely dislikes church and village schools? Will she ensure that such councils cannot victimise church and village schools and that they can continue to do the excellent job that they are now doing at both primary and secondary level?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I fully share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for small schools and Church of England and church schools generally. Under its LMS scheme, the local authority has the ability to ensure that small schools are protected. We shall be watching carefully to ensure that small schools receive the protection that is due to them, so that they may continue to do the excellent work that they have always done in the past.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does not the Minister realise that there is widespread consternation about the operation of local management of schools? The scheme and the principle that we supported are being completely undermined by the centralised diktat that the formula based on average teaching costs represents. That formula is applied to no other aspect of education. When will the Government wake up to the fact that we have to pay the actual cost of teachers' salaries and not the average cost?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is a great pity that the hon. Lady does not understand the principles that underlie the local management of schools. In the first place, central
    10
    Government have done nothing other than to set the loosest possible guidelines. The central point about LMS is that it is the pupils who lead the funding. Each local education authority determines how its local management scheme works according to the number of pupils and the age weighting of those pupils.
    If we paid historic costs, which is what the hon. Lady would like us to do, we should simply build into the system the failures of the past rather than moving forward to the future, so that parents—voting with their feet and their children—get the best schools, which they deserve.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Has my hon. Friend's monitoring of the local management of schools so far revealed many schools for which the variation between last year's and this year's budget is wider than it should be? Is she satisfied that sufficient flexibility is built into the system to ensure that some of the worst gaps can be closed?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am satisfied that some of the worst gaps can be closed by our monitoring of LMS schemes introduced in some authorities. Some authorities made some mistakes in their initial calculations, which have had to be changed, but there is a transitional period during which adjustments can be made. Moreover, minor or major variations can be made with the consent of the Secretary of State. There are adequate safeguards for the future.

    International Baccalaureate
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the provision of the international baccalaureate examination; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Two schools have made representations about offering the international baccalaureate.
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the criticisms made of A-levels is that although they offer good depth, they lack breadth. The international baccalaureate, while providing the same academic standards, provides students with a broader curriculum at 18. Will my hon. Friend consider whether the Government should encourage the adoption of the international baccalaureate, especially as we move towards 1992?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I acknowledge that the international baccalaureate is set to very high academic standards. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, alongside A-levels, we have now introduced AS-levels, which are intended to do the job of introducing breadth into A-level studies.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, the American community school, on whose board of academic governors I serve, offers the international baccalaureate, and that many British people are now asking whether their children can be admitted to take it because of the international access that it gives them? Will my hon. Friend encourage other British schools to consider the matter seriously.?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will know that it is always open to schools to look closely at this matter.

    11
    Fourteen schools in this country already offer the international baccalaureate. Some are maintained schools and others are independent.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to introduce flexibility for schemes for the local management of schools.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The Government's framework for local management of schools gave LEAs ample flexibility to design schemes which reflected local needs and priorities. There are, moreover, simple arrangements which allow local education authorities to make changes to their approved schemes in the light of experience.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister agree to meet spokespersons of the Cumbria education committee, which requested such a meeting because of the Secretary of State's unfair criticism of the way in which it has been dealt with LMS? Is it not a fact that the problem with LMS in Cumbria, as in the rest of the country, is not how money is distributed but a lack of money?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Local education authorities set their own aggregated schools budgets. They do it exactly the same as they did before. Therefore, if there is a particular small element of the way in which a budget has been disbursed, by all means, if an authority wishes to discuss it, there is no reason why it should not do so.
    Mr. Latham: Would my hon. Friend have a look at the proposed averaging across secondary schools and see how it will affect sixth form colleges? Is she aware that the Rutland sixth form college in my constituency is most concerned about the proposals? I understand that other sixth form colleges are concerned as well.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am very happy to look at any particular schemes that are being brought in and to talk to the local education authority about them. It would be appropriate to allow the scheme to run for a year and then look at the effects.

    Education Expenditure, Wigan
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Wigan; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend has received in the past month two representations about expenditure on education in Wigan.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate have given Wigan education a clean bill of health and that the charge capping that has been unfairly placed on Wigan could militate severely against education provision in the town? When will the Secretary of State and his Ministers take responsibility—or is it be shifted along to Marsham street?
    Mr. Howarth: Wigan's original budget for 1990–91 for all services is no less than 21 per cent. above its standard spending assessment, which means an extra bill of £151 for each Wigan charge payer. The huge majority of authorities have been able to establish a satisfactory education budget
    12
    without setting such a high community charge that they run into charge capping. The hon. Gentleman might have a word with his colleagues on Wigan metropolitan district council and suggest that they do the minimum of shouting from the housetops and take advantage of the opportunity that they will shortly have to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and have a quiet talk together.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that education costs can be offset in a number of different ways? Is he aware that Wigan has listed savings of £88,000 for school cleaning costs and £22,000 a month, among other things, by withdrawing from the nuclear-free zone steering group?
    Mr. Howarth: As always, my hon. Friend unerringly has his finger on the button.

    Education Expenditure, Islington
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Islington; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has received in the past month one representation about expenditure on education in Islington.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that among the representations that she has received are a deep concern about the availability of public finance to maintain Islington's education service after 1992, when the transitional arrangements end, and a very deep concern by the local authority, parents and pupils of all our schools about the difficult conditions in which they must work because of the poor state of school buildings and the urgent need for central Government money to be put in to improve the quality of the working environment for teachers and pupils?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the transitional money that has been given to inner London education authorities as they take over the responsibility for education will be more than adequate to help and to ease them through the period of changeover. In the discussions that I have had with them, they are confident that the changeover will be most successful. If problems arise in future, obviously that is the time when we should look at them.
    Mr. Harry Greenway rose——
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the question is about Islington.
    Mr. Greenway: Does the Minister agree that, if the good people of Islington had shown the same good sense—[Interruption.]—as the people of Ealing last Thursday and thrown out the Labour council in Islington in the way we threw out the Labour council in Ealing for ever, they would in future get much better education in Islington, as we shall get in Ealing?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent council and on the excellent result that was

    13
    achieved on Thursday. I think it likely that, at the next local elections in London, Islington will follow the example of Ealing.

    Schools (Ethnic Composition)
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if parents' rights to choose educational establishments on the grounds of ethnic composition will apply to nursery provision; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Admission to nursery education is a matter for local education authorities. In carrying out that duty, they are required to observe the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for that somewhat obscure answer. Will she explain why educational apartheid is acceptable at age five but not at ages three and four?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The age for starting school as a requirement in Britain is five. Any education provided by local authorities before the age of five is a matter for them to decide.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will probably be aware of the recent case in Middlesbrough, where a lady chose to exercise her right to move her child from one school to another because the first school had high ethnic numbers, whereas the second did not. My hon. Friend might like to know that that lady has now exercised her right to move her child to another school, where the proportions are roughly 50:50.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are in favour of parents exercising their choice within the law.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the decision of the Secretary of State to allow people to transfer their children on the basis of the ethnic composition of a school is one of the most worrying developments of the last 10 years of education policy? What is the end of the road when the policy starts by saying, in effect, "If you are a white parent and your child is in a school attended by children of other colours, that in itself is a ground for transfer"? Are we not a multi-ethnic and multicultural community?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Of course we are a multi-ethnic and multicultural community. The parent in that case chose, within her rights, to send her child to a school of her own choice. The local authority had no reason not to allow that choice. The choice of parents as to where their children shall be educated is of vital importance. Many parents choose schools for the education offered, not because of the composition of those attending them.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils in England and Wales were offered places in the academic year 1989–90 under the assisted places scheme.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: About 26,500 pupils held assisted places in England in the academic year 1989–90. The figures for Wales are a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales.
    Mr. Sumberg: Does the Minister agree that the assisted places scheme has been a great educational achievement of the Government because it has allowed pupils from modest backgrounds to attend some of our finest schools, such as Manchester grammar school and Bury grammar school? Does he further agree that it is disgraceful that some of the former grammar school boys on the Opposition Benches, some of whom attended those schools, should now seek by abolishing the scheme to deny to others what they enjoyed?
    Mr. Howarth: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The assisted places scheme has enabled schools which had a tradition of providing a distinguished academic education to children from less well-off families to revive and renew that tradition. Members of the last Labour Government, many of whom had been educated at direct grant schools and grammar schools, kicked away that ladder of opportunity for the next generation of children. Now they propose to kick away the assisted places scheme. We, by constrast, are extending the scheme, and am pleased to say that a further 16 schools have today been accepted into the scheme.

    Education Expenditure, Derbyshire
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no recent representations about expenditure on education in Derbyshire.
    Mr. Skinner: Well, I am asking him now. Is the Minister aware that the standard spending assessment of Derbyshire was calculated on the basis of a 3·8 per cent. increase for teachers' pay, which was not sufficient and that, as a result of the threatened poll tax capping, large numbers of nursery schools in Derbyshire will not be built? I call on the Secretary of State now in this Chamber to guarantee that the expenditure for every one of those nursery schools in Derbyshire will be allowed, including the one at Langwith in my constituency.
    Mr. Howarth: Derbyshire's budget for 1990–91 for all services is a hefty 25 per cent. above its standard spending assessment, an extra burden of £157 per charge payer. Other education authorities throughout the land have established satisfactory budgets for education without burdening the charge payer in the intolerable way that Derbyshire has proposed. There is no reason why Derbyshire should not similarly set its house in order.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Homelessness (London)
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what further plans she has to alleviate homelessness in London.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 27 March additional allocations of £88 million to London boroughs in 1990–91 to relieve homelessness, in particular to move homeless families out of unsatisfactory bed and breakfast accommodation. The Housing Corporation has also announced details of £45 million-worth of schemes to help the homeless over a two-year period. This year, we are increasing to £2 million the support that we give to voluntary organisations who help and advise the homeless.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister accept that, 10 years ago, in 1979, there were 2,750 households in temporary accommodation in London, that the current figure is over 25,000 and that a further 2,000 people are sleeping on the streets? When her Government asked the local authorities what resources they required to deal with the homeless problem in London, they asked for at least £480 million. They were given less than one sixth of what they wanted. Does she agree that, when people sleep on the streets of our capital city, when people are charged exorbitant rents and when children are brought up in bed-in-breakfast hotels it is a disgrace to a civilised country?
    The Prime Minister: I announced considerable extra expenditure to relieve homelessness. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that a considerable number of council properties are empty which, if they were brought into use more quickly, could reduce the number of homeless. For example, in Islington, there are 1,162 empty properties. If the properties were turned around much more quickly, that would make a great contribution to relieving homelessness.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Four out of five are private.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that homelessness in London will be tackled more effectively following the gain by the Conservatives of Ealing council last Thursday, when a Labour majority of 20 was converted into a Tory majority of 10? Does she agree that the cause of homelessness is not served by leaving properties empty for long periods or by allowing squatters to take control of them, and that a Conservative administration is pledged to make the best possible use of the housing stock?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. The Conservative administration will manage the housing stock very much more efficiently in the interests of everyone and will manage the whole of the local authority's expenditure more economically and better than the Labour authority of the past.

    Engagements
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had a meeting with ministerial colleagues and others, including Chancellor Vranitzky of Austria, and received a delegation representing the Eisenhower centennial committee, led by Vice-President Quayle of the United States of America. 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. Pike: Does the Prime Minister now recognise that, due to the poll tax's failure to take into account ability to pay, and despite the rebate system, many people cannot afford to pay the poll tax? They could not afford to pay it even if the unrealistic and unattainable targets set by the Government had been attained. What does she propose to do to help people who cannot pay the poll tax now?
    The Prime Minister: Those who have the lowest incomes get the most generous rebates—far better than, and a great improvement on, the rebates under the old rating system. We now realise that a number of people do not know that they are entitled to rebates if they did not receive them under the old rating system. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, since the elections, there have been advertisements telling people that they can apply for rebates, and should do so before 27 May. I hope that they will.
    As for ability to pay at the top end, only 30 per cent. in England, and 20 per cent. in Scotland, of local expenditure is met by community charge. The other is met by the taxpayer and business. With regard to income tax, people pay heavily, and the richer therefore pay heavily, towards local services.
    The hon. Gentleman will recall the figure from "Social Trends"—the top 10 per cent. of income earners pay 40 per cent. income tax and those on the bottom half of incomes pay only 15 per cent. of the yield of income tax.
    Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stanbrook: I have been reflecting on the impressive performance of my right hon. Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Make it a question, please.
    Mr. Stanbrook: —last week, when she defended British sovereignty against ideas of political union, but bearing in mind that a united Europe is Churchillian in conception, and chauvinistic France is able to take the lead in promoting political integration in Europe, is there a danger that my right hon. Friend's attitude to Europe might lead to a Europe united against us, which is what British statesmen have always attempted to prevent? Would not that be a bad thing for Britain?
    The Prime Minister: Winston Churchill was absolutely staunch that we should all be united in defence of freedom, and that is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is NATO which has kept our freedom. We are a prominent member of the European Community and leading the field in bringing about the single market in Europe. Our voice

    17
    is well heard, and most of the other members take similar views to us on the question of retaining their own sovereignty and accountability to their own Parliament.
    Mr. Kinnock rose——
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Other Hon. Members: Ealing.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: Can the Prime Minister tell us why, under her Government, the inflation rate in Britain is 40 per cent. higher than the European average?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that our top responsibility is to get down inflation. The way to do so is to increase the price of money, which is why the interest rate is 15 per cent. One reason, of which I am sure he will approve, that inflation is higher than it should be is that we were fearful of having a very bad recession after the stock exchange crash of 1987. Therefore, we got the growth going a little too fast, which is why we have to reduce and squeeze out inflation.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is not the Prime Minister yet aware that the major danger of recession comes directly from her policy of maintaining the highest interest and mortgage rates anywhere in the developed world? Will not she at last acknowledge that the major single reason for inflation is her policy of high interest rates, and that she is the inflation-maker in chief? When will she start fighting inflation and getting interest rates down?
    The Prime Minister: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we reduce inflation by reducing interest rates and increasing growth? At the moment, that would take inflation to the levels that we saw under his Labour Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is that not the final confession of failure by the right hon. Lady? She has got the highest inflation and the lowest growth rate in Europe, and the only way she knows to rescue her economy is somehow to plunge us into recession. Why does not she acknowledge that failure, change policies, sponsor growth and get out of the threat of recession and inflation?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understood what I said to him last time. If he were to pursue those policies, he would have inflation back to Labour levels of 26 per cent.
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does the Prime Minister agree that in the real business of being a good European, the rhetoric of some of our European partners does not match reality? Will she confirm that Britain is in the lead in the implementation of single market directives? Would it not behove countries such as Germany and France to clean up their act on the single market before preaching to us about airy-fairy concepts such as political and economic union?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we are in the lead in implementing the directives which the European Community has agreed; it is acknowledged that we are in
    18
    the lead. We were in the lead in policies to get down the agricultural surpluses; that succeeded. We were in the lead in getting a sensible budget in Europe. We have played a formidable part, and we are very good Europeans.
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Prime Minister agree with the remarks of her honourable but courageous Friend the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) that the time has come for her, like Len Hutton, to take her bat and ball home, like Stan Matthews, to hang up her boots, to vacate, 10 Downing street and to retire to her large house in Dulwich? Or is she, despite the lack of confidence shown in her even by Conservative Members, determined to carry on and on and on?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member wishes me to go, it can only be because he thinks that my going would be to the advantage of the Labour party.
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Exeter the Labour-controlled council has caused great distress to many elderly and low-income people by sending out community charge bills without the proper rebate deductions? Will she take the necessary steps to ensure that the generous Government rebate scheme is properly applied by all local authorities?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker: where someone has been receiving a rebate under the old rating system, the local authority should be very well aware and should be able to take it off the community charge amount to be paid. Where a person is entitled to transitional relief, the council should also know how much that relief is and should deduct it from the total community charge.
    There are a few cases in which the local authority will not know, because the rebate scheme under the community charge is more generous than it was under rates. Those people must inquire and make their own applications. Others must check that the right figures have been put in their demands. I hope that they will do so as soon as possible.
    Most well-run authorities have already deducted the rebate and the transitional relief. Where that has not happened, I hope that people will apply. They will see advertisements to that effect in local newspapers, bringing it to their attention.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunnachie: During a busy day, will the Prime Minister spare a thought for the people of Kashmir who are being murdered, raped and illegally imprisoned by the Indian army? As the titular Head of the Commonwealth, would you bring all pressure to bear upon India—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Dunnachie: As the Prime Minister of Great Britain, will the right hon. Lady force India to withdraw her army from Kashmir and allow the Kashmiri people the freedom for which they have fought for so long?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that that the Head of the Commonwealth does not require, nor are we entitled, to give any advice in the discharge of those duties. With regard to our own responsibility, naturally we are in touch with both India and Pakistan, but we hope that this very difficult situation with regard to Kashmir will be solved peaceably and by discussion between the Ministers of the two countries.

Football Violence (Bournemouth)
3.30 pm
Mr. David Atkinson(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the violence and destruction which took place in Bournemouth on the occasion of last Saturday's football match between AFC Bournemouth and Leeds United.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): Last Saturday a second division football match took place at Dean Court, Boscombe, between Bournemouth and Leeds United. I understand from the chief constable of Dorset, whom I have asked for a full report, that there was serious disorder in the town over the entire weekend, mainly involving Leeds supporters. To date, 104 arrests have been made and criminal damage totalling around £40,000 has been reported. Many police officers were hurt, and 12 received serious injuries.
The scenes of violent disorder witnessed in Bournemouth were absolutely disgraceful. I extend my sympathy to all those police officers who were injured and to all the law-abiding people who suffered as a consequence of the behaviour of vicious hooligans. Once again, the police had to bear the brunt of a ferocious attack, and conducted themselves with great courage and professionalism. In other towns also, they had to cope with hooligan behaviour.
Serious disorder was anticipated by the police at Bournemouth and repeated requests were made to the football authorities to reschedule the fixture, the first such request being made as long ago as last June. It is for the football authorities to explain why they did not respond positively to those requests. I have called in both the Football League and the Football Association to discuss the matter, and I will be seeing the league later today, and possibly a representative of the Football Association. It is high time that the football authorities heeded rather than ignored sensible advice.
In the past few years, new powers have been given to the courts to deal with hooliganism. The courts are certainly not without the means to deal with people who behave as so many apparently did over the weekend. Severe penalties are available for crimes of violence and additional sanctions are provided in the Public Order Act 1986 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. The chief constable of Dorset has asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to raise the question of a police veto on particular fixtures where, in the police view, there is a high risk of disorder. Consideration there must be, but any new powers would take time to put in place. I think that the whole House will agree that the football authorities must be made to face up to their responsibilities right now to prevent any repetition of the deplorable scenes of this bank holiday weekend.
Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he accept that holding that match during the bank holiday weekend was a clear recipe for the disaster, destruction and violence that took place? The police are to be commended on avoiding any further disaster. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, in the light of the irresponsible refusal to respond to several requests by Dorset police to reschedule the match, the local police authority must now have the clear and final
22
say on whether such matches take place? Was there not a clear case for the application of the alcohol-free zones with which the Department is currently experimenting?
When my right hon. and learned Friend meets representatives of the Football League later today, will he ask them who will pay for the destruction of property and businesses in my constituency, and for the increased community charge that will result from the costs of the extra policing to deal with ticketless fans outside the ground?
Mr. Waddington: The police are certainly to be commended. They should not have to put up with this, any more than they should have to put up with what happened in Trafalgar square. I find it hard to understand why the Football League did not heed the advice of the chief constable. I shall say to representatives of the Football League that it is high time they worked out a sensible arrangement with the chief constables and heeded their advice. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) has said about the experimental byelaws. The reports that I have received so far suggest that the experimental byelaws have been popular with the people living in those towns where the experiments are taking place. I shall report to the House later on the results of the various experiments.
As for the damage that has been done, the law provides that the county council or the police authority must pay for any damage if the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 applies. The question is whether there was a riot within the meaning of the Public Order Act 1986 at the time when the damage was done.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The serious disorder in Bournemouth is to the shame of all of us in the city of Leeds, and there are no possible excuses for it. Would the Home Secretary consider publishing in the city of Leeds the names of the 104 people charged or sentenced? If he does so, it will be found that many of those people are not from Leeds, but come from a much wider area. Of course the Football League made a big mistake, but the matter goes deeper than that. I do not know the answer, but I hope that we will not pussyfoot about. What happened in Bournemouth is to our eternal disgrace, and something should be done. It is not just a question of the football authorities banning matches; there is something fundamentally wrong that we should all consider.
Mr. Waddington: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that a serious mistake was made by the Football League. There can be no excuse for hooligan behaviour of that kind. I have not the slightest doubt that the local Bournemouth press will not hesitate for a moment to publish the names of all concerned, and I am sure that in due course those names will be publicised loudly in Leeds: so they should be.
Mr. John Butterfill: On behalf of my constituents in Bournemouth, West, may I associate myself with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)?
What powers presently exist under the law to prevent a match from taking place if it is expected that this type of disturbance will occur? Will my right hon. and learned

23
Friend join me in calling on the local magistracy to impose the most severe penalties available to them on the convicted hooligans, to act as a future deterrent?
Mr. Waddington: It is up to the courts to decide on the appropriate penalty in a particular case; my hon. Friend would not expect me to say more now than that the court has adequate powers to deal severely with people who indulge in this sort of behaviour. The Public Order Act gives chief constables power to impose conditions on an assembly as to the number of people who can attend and the time at which it can take place, but there is no power in law to ban an assembly. That power was considered by the House during the passage of the Public Order Bill and it was not thought necessary.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Does the Home Secretary accept that many genuine football supporters on both sides of the House share his disgust at what was done at Bournemouth on Saturday by mindless idiots who are no friends of soccer, against whom I hope that the courts will take action? Bearing in mind that this has been our best season on the hooligan front for many a season past and that during the weekend there were hooligan acts in five European countries, all of which will be participating in the European competition, will the Home Secretary resist a knee-jerk reaction?
Can the Home Secretary confirm press reports that many travelled from Leeds with tee shirts bearing the words "Invasion Bournemouth 90" and with forged tickets? If so, what action is he taking to locate the manufacturers of those tickets and shirts, and will he take action under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and the Public Order Act 1986?
Mr. Waddington: I doubt whether it would be proper to take powers of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the latter part of his question, but I am grateful to him for his expression of disgust. All right-minded people should be disgusted at what happened.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about a knee-jerk reaction, because that gives the impression that all has gone reasonably well during the past season and that there is nothing much to worry about. The fact remains that there was disorder in a number of places during the bank holiday weekend, which caused a great deal of trouble to the police, led to police injuries and spoiled the holidays for many people. It is time that the Football League addressed itself to its responsibilities in these matters. It is as simple as that. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The background noise is intolerable. The Home Secretary is answering a serious question.
Mr. Waddington: The fixture would never have taken place, and the trouble would never have arisen, if the Football League had heeded the advice given by the chief constable as long ago as last June and repeated twice last month.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite three requests to postpone or defer the match based on hard evidence from west Yorkshire, no action was taken by the football
24
authorities? In the light of that, and because of the need for positive action, will he give serious consideration to the chief constable's request for new police powers to ban a match in such circumstances? Will he also consider making it a criminal offence to attempt to enter an all-ticket match without a ticket?
Mr. Waddington: I am not sure that that last suggestion has a great deal of bearing on the incident, but I am awaiting a full report on the matter. The chief constable of Dorset has asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to consider whether it should ask the Home Office for new powers. We must make the Football League address itself to its responsibilities now. Even if one were to decide that new legislation was necessary, it would take some time to get it on the statute book. The question still remains, why does not a responsible Football League heed the advice that it is given by people who know about the situation? Why did not the Football League heed what the chief constable of Dorset had to say? Any sensible body of men would have done so.
Mr. John Battle: I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in stressing that not only the people of Leeds but Leeds United's players and supporters themselves are deeply outraged at the events that caused such distress in Bournemouth, and would wish to express their regret and sympathies to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and to his constituents.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the actions of a few who hitch a ride on the back of Leeds United football club are not those of its true supporters? I hope that not just the names of those found guilty of offences will be published but their addresses as well. The city of Leeds, Leeds United, and the club's genuine supporters should not be associated in the public's mind with the events that occurred over the weekend.
Is the Home Secretary aware that the club pleaded with its genuine fans, via the local media, television and radio, not to travel to Bournemouth, and that 5,000 of them remained behind in Leeds to watch the event on cinema screens at venues throughout the city? The genuine fans without tickets remained behind. It is others, who have hitched a ride on the club's good name this season, who have brought ignominy on the city of Leeds, which should not bear that shame.
Mr. Waddington: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the fact remains that Leeds United fans have acquired for themselves a very bad reputation and that people are most fearful of what will happen next season unless something serious is done.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in expressing shame and dismay at the events of last weekend, perpetrated by those who hang on to the backs of our football clubs rather than by genuine fans. It is clear that those who planned the rioting in Bournemouth had the time and opportunity to do so because the fixture was arranged for the bank holiday weekend. The only way forward must be to follow the judgments of local chief constables if they want fixtures rearranged. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that,

25
whatever action is necessary, it will not be satisfactory to delay implementing changes in the law that are necessary to give force to the views of chief constables.
Mr. Waddington: One hopes that, even at this late stage, the Football League will recognise the common sense in what my hon. Friend has said. I do not see how anyone can quarrel with his analysis. What responsible body would continue to approve the holding of a fixture when the chief constable on the ground has said that it will lead to disorder?
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am pleased to hear that the Home Secretary intends to meet the football authorities so soon. When he does, will he discuss the experience in Scotland? Although football hooliganism has not been entirely eliminated there, it has been substantially reduced. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some consideration to whether measures that have proved successful in Scotland may have a place in England and Wales?
Does the Home Secretary agree that the unfortunate consequence of the unhappy events last weekend is that the much-required and much-wanted return of English football clubs to Europe may yet again be delayed by the irresponsible actions of a minority who profess to be lovers of football but who clearly are not?
Mr. Waddington: It is not for me to comment on what may now happen to our application to re-enter European football. To put it mildly, these events have made the task of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who is in Rome now, even more difficult than it otherwise might have been. I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on the measures taken in Scotland, and I shall certainly talk to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about them. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to see me if he would like to educate me about what goes on north of the border.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that, first and foremost, it is the protection of the public and property which must exercise his mind. He will meet the football authorities this afternoon. Will he investigate in some detail by whom and how the decision was taken to ignore the clear and realistic advice of the chief constable of Dorset? Many people think that football hooligans, who are a minority of supporters, have had too many reprieves, and that some measures must be taken to deal with such events.
Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. When the request was made last June, the police in Dorset got what one of my officials described today as "the brush-off". There was no reasoned argument in support of the decision not to heed the advice given.
Mr. Denis Howell: I associate myself with what the Home Secretary said about the disgraceful nature of events in Bournemouth, and I express my appreciation for the role of the police and my sympathy for the citizens. May I also say that some sympathy is due to the citizens of Leeds United who also abhor the trouble but who are now being set up as the fall guys. No decent Leeds United supporter had a ticket or travelled to Bournemouth without being a member of the membership scheme and of the Leeds United travel scheme. They were properly stewarded.
26
That begins to put the matter into perspective It proves that the House spent one year on the Football Spectators Act 1989 and, from the 10 answers that the Home Secretary has so far given today, he has confirmed that that Act has been totally ineffective, as we predicted. This is a matter—[Interruption.]—of criminality and public order, as we have frequently said, and responsibility for criminal behaviour lies with the Home Office.
I agree that the Football League has to accept its responsibility and I suggest—I hope that the Home Secretary will endorse this suggestion—that we cannot wait until the last day of the season, when promotion and relegation have to be decided, and when matches have to kick off at the same time, for obvious reasons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it would give clubs an advantage or a disadvantage. It might be more sensible to ask the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Football League to meet at the beginning of the season before fixtures are published to make necessary changes then rather than wait until trouble is imminent. I hope that the Home Secretary will endorse that suggestion.
What has happened to the football intelligence unit set up by the Home Office? Can we be told what intelligence was gathered about the likely violence—which turned out unfortunately to be true? What use was made of the intelligence? Since the leaders who organised and perpetrated the violence are well known, why was no action taken against them before Saturday?
Is it true that the Crown prosecution service has applied for hardly any bans on travelling to Italy for the World Cup for any of the thugs convicted in recent years? If that is the truth, what responsibility do the Government consider that they have in the matter?
Finally, will the Home Secretary ask the Minister for Sport, as I understand he is meeting UEFA this week, to draw attention to the fact that there has been similar violence in Holland, Germany, Italy and other countries, and to convey it to him that we insist that UEFA deals with the violence in all those countries, instead of being anti-English and anti-English football in the way in which they operate?
Mr. Waddington: I am not very impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's last point. Whatever happens in any other country, I am sure that he will agree with me that the scenes that have taken place over the years in our towns have brought great disgrace to Britain, and that we should be bearing that in mind continually instead of trying to find excuses in bad behaviour in other countries.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his expressions of sympathy for the police and the citizens of Bournemouth. I have not the slightest doubt that many people who travelled to Bournemouth were decent people wanting only to watch a good match, but the fact remains that people who claimed to be Leeds supporters caused the trouble.
As for the Football Spectators Act 1989, it has to be borne in mind that my right hon. Friends tried to do something about the problem of football hooliganism. It has been noteworthy that Opposition Members have never tried to do anything. The right hon. Gentleman will remember what a fool the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made of himself when I made the statement about the Taylor report. It then turned out that the Labour party certainly did not want a football membership scheme, but wanted

27
nothing else instead. Labour Members did not even want to accept the principal recommendation of the Taylor report for all-seater grounds.
The right hon. Gentleman made a somewhat obscure and strange remark about the need for the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Football League to have a meeting at the beginning of the season. I am quite sure that he will agree that the Dorset police wrote to the league well before the beginning of the season—in June 1989. The right hon. Gentleman still has not answered the all-important question—why on earth did not the league act on the advice which it was given then by the chief constable?
The right hon. Gentleman asked another rather obscure question—why action was not taken before Saturday against the leaders of the trouble at Bournemouth. I do not know what powers of preventive detention the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, but if he has any information about those people, I should be grateful if he would give it to me.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the courts now have the power to make restriction orders, but it is not for me to lecture them on when they should make restriction orders and when they should not. It is for the Home Office to make it clear to the courts that they have those powers. It is for the courts fearlessly and independently to decide whether they should use those powers.

Explosives (Clyde)
3.54 pm
Mr. George Foulkes(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the dumping by ICI of explosives in the Firth of Clyde.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Fishermen working in the Firth of Clyde have recovered explosive material and detonators in their nets. It is believed that these items may be associated with the dump site at Birch Point used until last year by ICI's Nobel Division for the disposal of explosive waste. The fishermen claim that the material was recovered outwith the limits of the dump site. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has advised fishermen of the steps to be taken should they find explosive material in their nets and has instructed them to report the precise location of the incident so that further investigations can be made. A DAFS research vessel will reach the area as soon as possible to establish the situation through underwater surveys. Until these surveys are completed, it is not possible to offer an informed opinion on how the material has come to be located outwith the dump site.
The dump site has been used for many years. It is clearly identified on Admiralty navigation charts as an explosive dump site. Fishermen are well aware of its existence and position and know that it has to be avoided. Disposal operations at the site have been strictly controlled and monitored by DAFS since 1974 under the Dumping at Sea Act and, more recently, under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Regular surveys have been carried out by DAFS to establish the accuracy of dumping and the effects on the marine environment. Since 1985, all dumping operations have been carried out in the presence of a representative of DAFS, the Department of Transport or the Health and Safety Executive. For the past three operations, the dumping vessel was fitting with a marine position recorder.
ICI's Nobel Division was the only holder of a licence to dispose of industrial waste at sea in Scotland. Its licence expired in August 1989 and was not renewed. This was in line with the decision of the second North sea conference in 1987 to terminate the dumping of industrial waste at sea by the end of 1989. The disposal of detonators at sea has been prohibited by DAFS since 1984.
The Clyde Fishermen's Association and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have been advised of the situation. The advice given to fishermen by DAFS is that any explosive material found in nets should be returned immediately to the sea and that the position should be marked with a buoy for further investigation and recovery, as necessary, by the relevant authorities. Fishermen have been instructed to report the location of all incidents to DAFS and the coastguard immediately. This information will greatly assist the ongoing investigations.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, especially as he also has a constituency interest in the matter. Is he aware, as I understand today from Patrick Stewart, the secretary of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, that the extent of the explosives on the surface of the Firth of Clyde is far greater than originally understood, and that the explosives are covering hundreds of square miles and going as far north as Tarbert? Is the

29
hon. Gentleman also aware that yesterday and today the coastguard has been broadcasting a warning on channel 16 instructing vessels to steer clear of the material? As it covers such a wide area, does it not inhibit the movement of many vessels up and down the Firth of Clyde?
Will the Minister institute a full-scale inquiry into how this dumping took place, whether the explosives were dumped in the appropriate place, and whether they were dumped in proper containers? It appears that they were in hessian sacks. If that was so, it was irresponsible. Will the hon. Gentleman also give an assurance today that all the material will be cleaned up, that the Firth of Clyde will be made safe for all navigation and that the cost of cleaning up will be borne by ICI if it is clear that it has been responsible for the dumping?
Will the Minister give a guarantee that there will be no more dumping of such material—or of any explosives or other dangerous material—in the Firth of Clyde? The firth is used not only by fishermen, but by submarines, by ferries and, as I know myself, by pleasure craft throughout the whole year. Is it not irresponsible and dangerous to continue dumping such material in the Firth of Clyde? Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no more licences and that dumping will stop forthwith?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman referred to my constituency interest. That is a different matter as the material found in my constituency is believed to be white phosphorus and the distance is such that it seems unlikely to derive from the ICI site.
Initial reports suggest that some of the material has been lifted up to 18 miles from the dump, although the dump itself is only about half a mile in radius and is very deep—75 fathoms, which is about twice the depth of the surrounding sea bed. Fishermen were advised on 5 May, after the first incident, to keep clear of that area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are inquiring closely into the matter to establish the exact circumstances. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is in close touch with the Clyde Fishermen's Association and with ICI, which has been extremely co-operative.
Disposal in hessian sacks was one of the tightening up procedures introduced in 1985 under the Food and Environment Protection Act of that year because it was felt that such packaging would allow material to leach into the water and disperse, which would be a desirable development.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a guarantee that there would be no more industrial dumping. I am happy to give him such a guarantee. The licence was terminated last year under the commitments that we gave in the North sea conference and we have made it clear that such licences will not be renewed.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister aware of the deep alarm and worry that my constituents who fish out of the ports of Campbeltown and Tarbert and their families feel at the disclosures made over the weekend? Can he say how it will be possible to clear the area of this noxious material so that the Clyde becomes clean and safe for all those who use it, including fishermen, and for the nuclear submarines that exercise up and down it?
If fishing is restricted, will the fishermen, who are already under considerable pressure, be properly compensated?
Mr. Lang: I fully understand the anxiety felt by fishermen in the hon. Lady's constituency and elsewhere. If they find such material, they should report the matter at once to DAFS, the local fisheries officer and the coastguard. They should at once return any explosive material to the sea, mark the position carefully, and report the incident.
The hon. Lady asked about clearing the site. As I have said, the site is a narrow one—about half a mile in radius —and it is twice the depth of the surrounding water. It has been used for some 50 years, but will no longer be used, for industrial dumping. Some dumping of sledging spoil continues to take place, although that has the effect of reducing the exposure of other dumped material.
Mr. David Marshall: As we approach the holiday season on the Clyde coast, can the Minister guarantee that Glaswegians will still be able to indulge in one of their favourite pastimes and go doon the watter in complete safety?
Will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about who will pay for the mess to be cleared up?
Mr. Lang: I see no reason why anybody who is keen to go doon the watter should not do so with the same confidence as they have done in previous years.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of clearing up. That matter will have to be assessed in the light of the clearing up operations that may be necessary.
Mr. John McFall: The Minister does not paint a reassuring picture of the Clyde: he says that we have white phosphorus in the south and explosives in the north. Submarines, both conventional and nuclear, go up and down the Clyde in my constituency. Has the Ministry of Defence been consulted about this matter? What is the Minister's opinion with regard to the MOD and safety?
Finally, on the environment, great steps have been taken in cleaning up the Clyde. Will the Minister give us an assurance here today that he will personally charge ICI with cleaning up the mess so that we may restore the Clyde to its former beauty?
Mr. Lang: There is no evidence that nuclear submarines have been adversely affected by the incident. The dump is some 75 fathoms deep and there is no reason why it should pose a problem to nuclear submarines or why the submarines should pose a problem to the dump.
A number of measures have been taken to tighten up the control of dumping in recent years, particularly under the Food and Environment Protection Act, and industrial dumping has now been discontinued.
The question of liability is not a matter for me and it is too soon to assess the clearing up costs.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister accept that those of us who have had constituency relations with ICI in Scotland have found it to be a most careful, competent and responsible company? Will he ascertain whether there has been any evidence of infringement of the agreement to stop dumping since last autumn? Will he make a rather different inquiry to ascertain whether it is possible that the new trawling equipment operated by many deep trawlers, which ravages the marine environment and the sea bed, has raked up the explosives far away from the area in which they were dumped? Before jumping to the conclusion that ICI is at

31
fault, will he look at what the fishermen themselves might have done also and look at other circumstances during the inquiry?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about ICI. It has been extremely responsible in its approach to the matter.
In recent years, dumping has been subject to much more stringent requirements than before. For example, dumping has been monitored, there have been regular surveys of the dump, and a position recorder has been used in the past three dumpings to isolate specifically the position of the vessel doing the dumping. There is no evidence of any infringement of the dumping regulations. The detonators that have been found must have been dumped before 1984, since which time they have been banned.
On new trawling equipment or practices, any fishermen trawling in the Arran trench itself, where the dump is located, must know that they are in that area because of the substantially increased depth. They know that it is marked as a hazard on Admiralty charts and that it is not an area where they are advised to go.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister says that the site has been used for the dumping of waste for about 50 years. How many of those years have seen the dumping of the material about which we are now speaking? Has the Minister of State any estimate of the exact amount of explosives and detonators that have been dumped there?
Mr. Lang: I have no evidence as to how much was dumped before 1974, when, under the Dumping at Sea Act, the licensing procedure began. Of course, as I explained to the House earlier, equipment such as detonators has been prevented from being dumped since 1984. I believe that ICI had a licence last year to dump up to 250 tonnes, although I understand that it dumped only about 100 tonnes.
Mr. William McKelvey: I am glad that the Minister has taken on board his responsibility to ensure that there will be a full inquiry into how the material was uplifted from the sea bed, apparently from an area in which it should not have been in the first place. As dangerous and frightening as this matter is, does not the Minister consider it more frightening that beaches on the Clyde coast are polluted with human refuse? None of those beaches comes up to European standards. When the Minister is investigating the explosives matter, will he look also at the pollution that is happening daily on the coastline of Ayrshire?
Mr. Lang: Beaches are a matter for the district council, not for me. However, I know that continuous efforts are being made to upgrade the quality of our beaches. A certain amount of dumping of sewage will continue off the
32
Garroch Head until 1998, but that is a substantial way from any beach and has been used satisfactorily for some time.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I welcome the fact that the Minister of State clearly accepts that this is a serious incident that has given rise to widespread public concern. As he has made it clear that in recent years dumping in the designated area has been closely monitored and that officials have been present while it is taking place, does that amount to a guarantee that there has been no unauthorised dumping at least by major firms in the area?
However, will the Minister of State accept that one of the most alarming factors is that large amounts of detonators and explosive material—people have been talking of up to one and a half tonnes being recovered by four boats—have been appearing several miles from the designated area? However deep the water may be there, it raises the question of the effect of tides and other circumstances in spreading the material and the possibility that, if there is a lot there for historic reasons, it may continue to be a menace for a considerable time to come. Will the Minister of State look carefully at what has happened and at the likely future storage in the designated area, which may spread, and consider what guarantees can be given that this will be prevented and that potential threat dealt with?
I unreservedly welcome the fact that the Minister of State has stated not only that ICI is no longer dumping explosives at sea and has no licence to do so but that no future licences will be granted and that the designated area is no longer active in that sense. The Minister said that it is clear that inquiries will be made. Will he give an undertaking that, to reassure public opinion, particularly about the possibility of volatile material drifting in the way that I have described, the report will be published and its findings made public so that there can be full discussion of the matter?
Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that this is a serious matter. I cannot give him the guarantee for which he asks, that no unauthorised dumping has taken place, but that is a point that I am as keen as he is to establish. Large amounts have allegedly been picked up by fishing boats in the past few days. One fishing boat picked up the original amount after which a warning was given to fishing boats to keep well clear of the area. Thereafter, four fishing vessels picked up explosive matter in the area.
We have diverted a Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland research vessel to the area. It intends to carry out an underwater survey, and until the information resulting from that survey is available I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's other questions in more detail. I am happy to assure him that we shall publish the findings of our inquiry in due course.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statement.

European Fighter Aircraft (Radar)
4.16 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the selection of the radar for the European fighter aircraft.
The House will be aware that the great majority of contracts for the development of this aircraft, including those for the engine and the airframe, have already been let, and good progress is being made in those. However, the decision on the choice of the radar has remained outstanding. The radar is the key element of the aircraft's weapon system as it governs EFA's ability to detect and identify airborne targets beyond visual range and to engage those that are hostile, and to achieve this in a very difficult electronic environment. The radar is thus required to meet a most demanding specification, and it has required the most rigorous scrutiny of the alternative proposals to establish whether they meet the necessary criteria.
Against that background, the NATO EFA manage-ment agency proposed the selection of the ECR90 radar offered by the consortium led by Ferranti. There were, however, concerns about the possible technical, commer-cial and financial risks involved in pursuing that choice.
Those concerns have now been resolved and I can inform the House that the four EFA partner nations—Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom—have selected an international consortium, known as Euroradar, led by GEC Ferranti Defence Systems Limited, to develop the ECR90 radar for EFA. Accordingly, Eurofighter, the EFA airframe prime contractor, is today awarding the radar sub-contract to them. The development contract will be awarded on a firm price basis and will be of six years' duration.
I am pleased to be able to make this announcement today, and I express my gratitude to my ministerial colleagues in our partner nations and their officials for their constructive and helpful approach. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and the officials of the Procurement Executive for their considerable efforts in bringing matters to such a satisfactory conclusion in what the House will recall were exceptionally difficult circumstances.
My statement today represents a major milestone for British airborne radar technology in this most important multinational development project, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I welcome the Secretary of State's understandably long delayed statement on the award of the EFA radar contract to the ECR90 consortium led by Ferranti Defence Systems. This will provide the job security guarantees for which the workers in Edinburgh and throughout the United Kingdom have waited for so long.
Can the Secretary of State comment on the employment consequences for other GEC employees at present working for Marconi Radar? Now that the Ferranti Defence Systems financial base has been re-established, may I ask him to explain the means by which the technical, commercial and financial risks to which he referred have been resolved? In particular, can he dispel the rumours mentioned in Jane's Defence Weekly of 17 March 1990
34
that the British Government had signed a memorandum of understanding with the West German Government covering indemnification by Britain in the event of cost overruns in the development budget? Has consideration been given by the parties involved to the suggestion by the Luftwaffe that a more defensive role could be sought for the aircraft?
Again, I express my congratulations and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to all those who have been involved in winning this contract, which we hope will remove the last obstacle from the realisation of the project, which is so important for the defence of Europe and the cutting edge of British technology.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I take to be a clear welcome for the Government's efforts in this respect. Perhaps he would prefer to forget his earlier comments when he suggested that there had been some kind of dirty dealing. He is right in saying that there has been a major effort to achieve this important contract, which will be of great benefit, not least to those who work in the old Ferranti radar division and who are a key part of GEC Ferranti Defence Systems. While I cannot answer the point that he raised about Marconi, I am authorised by GEC to say that it expects that 95 per cent. of the British share of the work will be done in Edinburgh. That assurance is important because it implies recognition that the technical contribution of Ferranti workers is important.
There is not a memorandum of understanding because a memorandum of understanding exists between all member countries in the consortium. However, the British Government have given a side letter to the German Government, of which the House was notified in a departmental minute. It gives assurances about any extra costs that might be incurred by the German company responsible for the integration of the radar. That side letter is backed by a back-to-back indemnity from GEC, the parent company of GEC Ferranti Defence Systems. Therefore, there is no risk to public money and the commercial risks have been properly backed by a properly resourced defence contractor. That is an important element, the achievement of which was a key ingredient in securing this important contract.
Mr. Michael Jack: This news will be of great relief to and will be warmly welcomed by my constituents in Fylde who work on the prototypes of the aircraft. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends on their efforts.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the announcement could not have been made if the four partner countries were not fully committed to the project all the way through the development to the production phase? Can he assure me that the selection of the radar will present no barriers to export possibilities for the aircraft and that export customers will be fully involved at an early stage in the development to ensure that what orders are available can be executed quickly?
Mr. King: On the latter point, that will certainly be true, subject to the normal controls on the export of military equipment. I can give that assurance, and my hon. Friend understands that well.
I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I am aware that this has been a worrying period for many people involved in the project. The House does not need me to

35
rehearse the exceptionally difficult commercial develop-ments that occurred and the previous difficulties of Ferranti, which threatened to jeopardise the whole project. It has been a matter of some encouragement that we have found other companies that were prepared to become involved in the way that they have. It is encouraging for the future of British industry that the project has gone ahead in the way that it has.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will be aware that his announcement will be met with unanimous approval throughout the United Kingdom, not least because it removes an economic and military uncertainty.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no risk to the United Kingdom Government in financial terms in the event of any cost overruns on the project? He will be aware that this year general elections are planned in Germany and that a body of opinion is not wholly in favour of continuing German participation in the EFA project. As Secretary of State for Defence, what consideration has he given to the possible consequences for United Kingdom defence policy if Germany reduces or even withdraws from its agreed participation in the EFA programme?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's understanding is correct in that the undertaking in the side letter given by the British Government of entering into a contingent guarantee, which has been reported to the House, is backed by a back-to-back indemnity—a total indemnity —against any such costs arising from GEC. Therefore, the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about whether costs fall to the British Government is no.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what cognisance we took of a possible change of Government in the Federal Republic of Germany. I do not know what cognisance the German Government thought of taking of any possible change in this country. I do not know what the project's future or the prospects of workers in Ferranti Defence Systems would be were the appalling prospect of a change in the Government here to come about. Our purpose is to deal with the position as it is and work in this country's best interests. I am sure that all our efforts and those of the workers in GEC Ferranti Defence Systems will ensure that there is no such change of policy.
Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that his announcement ensures that this country and Europe will remain at the forefront of airborne radar development into the foreseeable future, which is important?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that this is recognised by those with a far greater expertise than me to be a significant development in radar that will give a significant capability to EFA. As I made clear in my statement, that is the key element in the aircraft's capability. We believe that we have now achieved the best radar for the purpose and the alliance—one that will give it a fine aircraft. I hope that the prospects for the aircraft with the radar will be extremely good.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has been absolutely right to
36
stand firm in support of the ECR90 system because of its enormous importance in relation to the development of indigenous European technology and British industry but, above all, because he has a responsibility to the pilots who will eventually fly the planes? In standing firm, he has ensured that they will have the best radar system available. Does he accept that by confirming the GEC Ferranti Edinburgh operation as world leaders in airborne radar he is providing the basis for probably thousands of jobs in the next century, radar systems that will go into the European fighter aircraft and systems that will be sold for other planes and, hopefully, other civil uses?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am aware of the close interest that he takes, and has done for a considerable period, in this matter. That is understandable because of his constituency interests. I note his comments, which I presume to take as a measure of the confidence of his constituents who work for the company in their prospects, provided the contract can be achieved. I take great encouragement from that.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers in the Ministry of Defence on standing firm on this contract. The contract is excellent news. Does he agree that, despite the commercial difficulties that Ferranti has had, the decision to take the ECR90 is a ringing endorsement of the technical expertise of the GEC Ferranti company, not just by us, but by other countries, some of which were trying to promote their own radars?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that there is wide recognition of the technical skills and capability of those involved, particularly in the original Ferranti company. Financial resource is required as well as technical skill on a project with the length of life that this one is likely to have. That is why the development of GEC Ferranti Defence Systems was a key element in the successful achievement of the contract.
Dr. John Reid: This is good news for Britain, British technology and particularly for Scotland and Scottish workers in GEC Ferranti, including those in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State make it plain that, whatever discussions took place during Ferranti's troubled period, today's decision had nothing to do with political pressure but was taken on the merits of the case? Is that not a vindication of the importance that was placed on Ferranti throughout that troubled period by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he join me in congratulating all involved in Ferranti on their efforts, as I congratulate him—it would be less than generous not to do so—for his efforts and sterling work to ensure that the contract eventually came to where it should, Britain?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he did not think that I was churlish. I have sought to pay tribute to the technical competence and capability of those who worked in the original radar side of Ferranti. Clearly technical merit, confidence in management capability, and the resources available in support of the project have been key elements in the achievement. While it has been the responsibility of the companies to demonstrate their commercial and technical capability, I hope it is also seen that the Government have fully backed and supported their efforts.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this welcome announcement once again vindicates the strength and purpose of European-wide collaboration which can work successfully if properly handled? Does he also agree that it vindicates that an acquisition carried out in circumstances of rescue can create a strong, combined defence equipment entity which can compete in international markets? Does he agree, therefore, that the merger was justified?
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Dykes: Can my right hon. Friend say specifically what the effect will be on executives and employees of GEC Marconi in Stanmore, Middlesex?
Mr. King: The latter point is interesting. Looking to the future, with perhaps some changes in procurement and in response to the changing defence scene, it is difficult to see how much work there would have been for two companies in airborne radar. I think that the strengthened grouping could have exciting prospects. Obviously the benefits of a European collaborative approach can be seen. We look at these matters on a case-by-case basis. There are other cases where we have not thought it so profitable or advantageous to proceed. We consider the cases in a genuinely pragmatic sense.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The Minister will be aware that his announcement will be welcomed by the work force at Ferranti Defence Systems in Edinburgh, among whom are some of my constituents. Perhaps we should not repeat on this favourable announcement what they have been through recently. Can the Minister tell us what will happen to the other factories which were hived off as a consequence of the GEC Ferranti Defence Systems takeover? For example, I have a Ferranti plant in Midlothian. Can the Minister tell us whether, as a consequence of his announcement, there will be a spin-off in work for people employed in other factories?
Mr. King: I am afraid that I cannot comment on that. I do not know the details of the plant to which the hon. Member refers. If he cares to write to me, I shall see whether I can give him further information.
Mr. Robert Hayward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. As he will be aware, it is of particular import to thousands of workers in and around Bristol. I may be touching on areas of commercial confidentiality, but can he say whether there have been any discussions with the French Government about their possible involvement in the project in view of the fact that it will go ahead and is clearly a better alternative than the Rafale project which they are putting forward as potential competitors?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of his constituency interest and of the interest of people in the west country. I am not aware of any change of view since the French decided to go another way. I am not aware of any changed proposal. They have made certain offers to me, but I am not sure that they have been open to offers themselves.
Mr. Tani Dalyell: Amid the swirl of congratulations, could we spare a word for the electronics and physics departments of universities which have made this triumph possible? In particular, could the Ministry of
38
Defence use its considerable influence in aid of Professor Des Smith and his unit at Heriot-Watt university which, like many other physics and electronics departments, is chronically short of money, particularly for postgraduates? Can the Ministry of Defence talk to universities about the issue?
Mr. King: Obviously one remembers the distinguished work of Heriot-Watt in radar development. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman fairly makes, and I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention.
Mr. Ian Bruce: What proportion of the contract will each of the partner countries receive? Does my right hon. Friend welcome what appears to be a defence consensus from all the Opposition parties? They seem to be supporting the idea of the European fighter aircraft, but does he suspect that, while they are interested in the jobs that will go to Scotland, they might well cancel the project if they had the defence of the realm in their hands?
Mr. King: We estimate that the development contract is worth about £300 million and our share under the EFA project will be approximately 33⅓ per cent. The German share is also 33⅓ per cent., with 21 per cent. for the Italians and 12 per cent. for the Spanish company. As well as the design leadership, that represents about £100 million worth of work for GEC Ferranti Defence Systems.
My hon. Friend referred to the attitude of the Opposition. Perhaps I have been showing my usual moderation today. However, it appears that the other Labour party is absent from the Chamber. On other matters, two thirds of the Labour party call for a £5 billion cut in our defence expenditure and there is not the slightest prospect of any future Labour Minister—should there ever be one—being able to make an announcement of the sort that I have made today.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State aware of the criticism over the delay in the final settlement and announcement? For a year thousands of jobs have hung in the balance and the delay over the statement and the resolution have contributed to that. Does he think that the Government could have done more to bring about an earlier resolution? What steps did the Government consider to try to speed up the process during a year of delay which may well have been unnecessary?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman could make those comments only if he was supremely ignorant of some of the background to these matters. It is highly significant that his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) singularly omitted any such criticism because he has a far more profound understanding of the difficulty of the issues with which we have been grappling. I hope that I do not embarrass the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East by saying that.
I assure the House that the prospects for making the announcement that I have had the honour to make to the House were very bleak a few months ago. If it had not been for some extremely hard and dedicated work by some of the people to whom I have referred, we could not have been at all sure that the announcement could be made today.
Mr. John McFall: I am the only member of the Select Committee on Defence who is present, but I

39
am sure that I speak for the entire Committee when I say that I welcome the contract and the efforts of the Secretary of State and his Department. Bearing in mind the difficulties that have surrounded the project, can the Secretary of State tell us how confident he is that the aircraft will be built? There is a view that EFA will not go beyond the developmental stage, and that is not only a minority view which is held by individuals in West Germany, in particular.
Mr. King: Provided Britain keeps a Conservative Government, I am confident that the project will go forward. The hon. Gentleman must search his conscience, if he has ambitions in another direction, to see whether he could answer that question himself. It is important to achieve the development programme. My announcement means that the cost of a very important development programme will be shared. It effectively puts the last piece in the jigsaw of the European fighter aircraft development. That major programme now goes ahead and the sharing of costs at the most important stage has been achieved. If others decide at a later stage that they want fewer aircraft, it will be much less of a problem than if we had not achieved joint development.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Secretary of State accept my congratulations on his recognition that public expenditure both develops and maintains jobs? Will this particular expenditure definitely result in civil aviation advantages? When the work is completed, will the firm depend on further defence contracts, or does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, in view of the current changes in Europe, steps should be taken to direct the skill, expertise and high technology from which the work force benefits towards peaceful civil aviation work?
Mr. King: That question has already been answered by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who I think knows rather more about the subject than his hon. Friend.
Mr. O'Neill: May I reiterate that, since 25 April 1988, when my predecessor as defence spokesman—my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—said in the House that he welcomed the original decision to proceed with the project, the Labour party has backed it, and will continue to do so? We recognise the importance of a contract that will provide jobs, not only in the short term but well into the 21st century. It will also provide a stepping stone for the radar technology that will be required by future aircraft, both civil and military.
We also recognise the significance of the European fighter aircraft for the defence of our continent. We believe that others too will wish to buy it, because of its large British element, in which we can take pride and from which the continent of Europe can take comfort.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It would be churlish of me to criticise him, especially in view of his final comments. He knows, however, that the project will involve the expenditure of some £8 billion to provide the aircraft and to cover the development costs, in the United Kingdom alone. Since the clear statement of support that, according to the hon. Gentleman, was made in 1988, the 1989 Labour party conference has proposed and carried—by a majority of two to one—a reduction of £5 billion per annum. We can now clock up the certainty that the EFA is sacred and will not be touched: that was helpful of the hon. Gentleman. On some future occasion we may try to draw him further on the subject of which items are sacred and where the cuts are to be made.

Points of Order
4.42 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to reconsider your practice when calling Front-Bench spokesmen on private notice questions? We have dealt with two such questions today, and on both occasions you called the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson last. I think that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that I am not usually the first to rush to the defence of my party's Front Benchers; they are generally able to look after themselves. I raise my point of order in the interests of the Labour party in general. On the first private notice question, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was called last —some minutes after the end of the television transmission, I understand.
Will you look at the matter afresh, Mr. Speaker, and in future invite the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson to speak a little earlier rather than giving him the last slot? Otherwise, if broadcasting continues to end as early as it did today, the Labour party will be at a permanent disadvantage.
Mr. Speaker: I am somewhat surprised. I have always been anxious to give Back Benchers all the possible benefits and bonuses and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it has long been the practice for Back Benchers to be cut off automatically when the Front-Bench spokesman is called. I shall of course consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think that what he suggests would gravely disadvantage him and his hon. Friends. As for the television cameras, I am not responsible for when they are switched on or off; I am concerned with giving Back Benchers fair opportunities in the House.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are responsible for ensuring that there is no tedious repetition in the conduct of our affairs. In recent weeks, however, one word has been repeated almost to the point of tedium. We have heard about flagships sinking; we have heard about flagships being blown off course.
Since Thursday, no mention of flagships has been made. I wonder whether, in the light of the election results in Wandsworth, you, Mr. Speaker, will be as generous as you have been to Labour Members who have used it in the past. Otherwise, we may be called to order if we refer too often to "flagships sailing on", or "flagships in full sail".
Mr. Speaker: I have become something of an expert on tedious repetition, but hon. Members are ingenious in
42
finding descriptions that are new to me. I had never heard the phrase "level playing fields", for instance, before I occupied the Chair.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am looking for an ingeniously acquired bonus. Have you received a request from the helpful Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry to make a statement on the flagrant flouting of last Friday's referral of the subject of a Consolidated Fund Bill debate—the Atlas steelworks in Armadale—to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
William Cook plc of Sheffield gave an undertaking to the Office of Fair Trading that it would not require key equipment, and would not remove it from electric arc furnaces, or remove tanks that are essential to the continued operation of this important foundry.
Has the DTI done anything about the unusual circumstances in which, despite referral to the MMC, William Cook has cocked the proverbial snook to remove the possibility of the foundry and its highly skilled pattern-making work force continuing in business?
Mr. Speaker: I give the hon. Gentleman full marks for ingenuity, but I must tell him that I have received no request relating to a statement.
Mr Bob Cryer: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) about tedious repetition, on which you commented, Mr. Speaker. The use of the word "flagship" originated in the public relations office of the Conservative party, when it was applied to Bradford. You will be delighted to learn, Mr. Speaker, that that flagship has now sunk without trace. Pickles and his gang have been booted out of the town hall by a massive majority of Bradford's citizens, and that particular tedious repetition can now be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am becoming a little tired of flagships.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Voluntary Euthanasia
4.46 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit voluntary euthanasia subject to certain conditions; and for connected purposes.
I should like to begin with a short story. In a small room in a small house are two men in their 30s and a woman of 50. The woman is dying of lung cancer; one of the men is her doctor. The doctor explains that it will all be over in a few minutes. The woman sits up and asks for a window to be opened, but the movement towards the window is stopped by the doctor: it makes no difference, he says.
Thirty seconds later, the woman sits up and utters her last words in her native Yorkshire: "I'm deeing, I'm deeing." A few seconds later, after an agonising death, she has been released from all pain and suffering. During the brief period that preceded her death, she was drugged and too ill to recognise anyone in the room.
That woman was my mother. I was with her at the end, and there was much that I would have liked to discuss with her. I wanted to explain many things; I wanted to talk about love, sorrow, guilt and the peace that she was about to enter. After her death I returned to the north-east from Yorkshire. For a whole year, it was as if a video in my brain was turned on every morning, showing the last moments of my mother's struggle for life. I would say to myself, "Please do not let it happen today", but it has happened again and again.
Preparing for this speech has been very painful. I knew that it would cause me pain before I began, but my belief in voluntary euthanasia encouraged me to break down the pain barrier. I do not want my family to suffer the same experience should I become terminally ill, with no hope of recovery. I would want to talk to them rationally about many things while my brain was still active. I would want to discuss a range of issues, some emotional, some practical. I would want to make the necessary arrangements for my death, and I would want us to be able to laugh together as we had always done as a family. I would want to assure them that for a long time I had had no fear of death, only of dying. I would want the privilege of being able to have my life ended when I made the choice, and to be with the people, my family, whom I love the most.
The essence of the Bill is about individual choice, about free choice; a contract entered into voluntarily. It is about the right to die with dignity. "Voluntary" is the critical word. Even if there were an Act, I do not know whether my mother would have acted any differently. I do not know how many members of my family would make a decision similar to that which I wish to make. They must be able to decide for themselves.
I also understand the views of those who disagree with me, both in the House and outside. I respect the arguments of those who see problems. But because euthanasia depends on the will of an individual, a decision freely taken, others should not deny that right to those who have chosen for themselves.
Opinion polls—I do not use them as a major prop in my argument—taken in a number of countries, show that about 75 per cent. of people support the right of individuals to decide for themselves when to die. Clearly,
44
that does not mean that 75 per cent. think that it should happen, but that 75 per cent. think that voluntary euthanasia should be available.
I appeared on a television programme about voluntary euthanasia a few months ago. As hon. Members would expect, I received a number of letters from viewers. Whenever controversial issues are debated in the Chamber or are the subject of television broadcasts, we usually receive a mix of views and often letters of outrage. On this occasion, I did not receive a single letter against my proposition. Again, I make no more of that, only record the fact.
It would be useful at this juncture to inform the House about the strict conditions that are necessary before an individual can have his or her life ended. The patient must be terminally ill without any possibility of recovery. The patient must be of sound mind and able to make the decision. The patient must be suffering mentally and physically to a degree which he or she finds unbearable and have a deep and sustained wish to die. The decision to assist a patient to end the misery of pain must be taken by a doctor, and the state of the person and the doctor's decision must be confirmed by a second doctor. The patient should have the right to consult a priest or anyone else of his choice. A doctor, and only a doctor, should administer the necessary drugs.
Those conditions are based on the guidelines set out in the Rotterdam criminal court which, if followed, would exempt the doctor concerned from prosecution. They must be strictly adhered to because there is some concern about the possibility of ending lives for wrong or criminal motives. It is essential that there is no coercion for wrongful reasons. It is clear that if any individual steps outside the guidelines, he or she will be subject to the due processes of the law.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, a doctor must also have proper, adequate and necessary protection. Fortunately, cases that have come before the courts in the United Kingdom have ended with a not guilty verdict, such as occurred earlier this year.
I return to the voluntary theme. The patient's doctor, or any doctor, has the right to refuse just as he has the right to administer drugs. At a meeting I attended recently, the Hippocratic oath was mentioned. I do not want to make an issue of that, except to note that some doctors have clearly acted in the interests of their patients and outside their oath. However, I would defend a doctor's right simply to mention the Hippocratic oath as sufficient reason not to take part in voluntary euthanasia.
Yes, any parliamentary Bill must give doctors the necessary protection. After all, if a Bill similar to the one that I envisage were enacted, a major responsibility would lie with the doctors. If a doctor acts to end a patient's life, surely it is wrong that he is knowingly committing a crime.
My Bill seeks to permit voluntary euthanasia for those, and only those, who desire it as a result of a decision freely taken.
I have a file of letters here, which anyone is welcome to read. I want to give two or three people an opportunity to add their voice to mine this afternoon. Rather than mention names, I shall simply mention places. One person wrote to me from Devon saying:
"Like you, I too watched my mother die and it was an experience which will live with me for ever. How I wish that I could have helped her die with dignity.
From Horncastle, a person wrote saying:

45
"I have seen four of my relations die in distressing circumstances and I do not want it to happen to me."
A letter from Stokesley says:
" I have long held the view that a good death should be part of a good life and that it should be lawful to arrange for this."
A letter from London says:
"I know that I am getting near to the end of my life and that the fear of how I might be going to die just haunts me."
From the Wirral, a letter says:
"Last year, I watched my sister lose a long battle with cancer. I do not need to describe the horrors of her final months to you, do I?"
The answer to that is clearly, no.
In view of the overwhelming support outside the House —75 per cent. is the figure that is regularly quoted—I hope that the aspirations and hopes of the many will be reflected inside the House today.
4.56 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: No hon. Member will doubt the sincerity or compassion with which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) sought leave to introduce the Bill today. We all respect and understand the close family experience which prompted him to do so. I suspect that few hon. Members do not have a personal experience or family background on which they can draw, as a result of which many will know the problems, difficulties and agonies of living alongside and caring for somebody who is deeply sick or terminally ill.
But it would literally be a grave error of judgment if leave were given to introduce the Bill. It would give quite the wrong impression outside the House. We are all sympathetic to and understanding about this vexed issue, but the House, uniquely, is the last bastion of people's lives and liberties, and there must be the most compelling reasons before we take those rights away.
There are four fundamental objections to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. First, it would materially undermine the sanctity of life. Secondly—for me this is the most important—it would open the way to serious abuses. Thirdly, it is far from clear that the medical profession would go along with the proposal put forward. Finally, it would undermine much of the splendid work of the hospice movement in Britain and the strides that have been made in the technology and techniques of caring for the dying.
There must remain a presumption that the taking of human life is illegal and that that is a basic protection; an inalienable right available to the individual. I do not say that the Bill would amount to a slippery slope towards compulsory euthanasia, but the principle would be breached, and substantially so.
Secondly, we must all accept that the very sick and the dying are particularly vulnerable people. They are open to suggestion. Many of those people, bless them, do not want to be a burden to others and, when they may be less able to make up their minds rationally, may feel that they should take their own lives with the help of others. There can be no guarantee that euthanasia would be voluntary. For those reasons, we should take seriously recent cases that have given grounds for concern about the way in which ostensibly near and dear members of a family have allowed elderly relatives to die in a state of penury and neglect.
A report by the British Medical Association published in 1988 concluded that
46
"there is a distinction between an active intervention to terminate another person's life and a decision not to prolong life."
That is an important distinction for the House to draw. The report concluded that
"An active intervention by anybody to terminate another person's life should remain illegal."
That is what the doctors say, and we should think twice and thrice before negating their view. I would far rather have faith in the discretion and professional judgment of doctors than allow many people, at their weakest and most vulnerable moments, to be allowed—and I dare say encouraged in certain cases—to take their lives.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee rejected such a proposition when it considered the possibility of introducing a new offence of mercy killing. The Law Commission also considered the matter, and while it felt that there could be cases in which the crime of murder could be downrated to manslaughter, it too believed that there was no case for introducing a new offence of mercy killing. Right hon. and hon. Members should be left in no doubt that many cases of euthanasia would amount to such, and there would be contested situations. The House of Lords Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment considered the matter last year and recommended that there be no change in current law.
The hospices movement will be familiar to many hon. and right hon. Members. The quality of life of people dying in this country has been enhanced considerably by hospices and by new techniques for treating and curing pain. I refer, for example, to the fact that the administration of a drug in a slightly larger dose at the onset of cumulative pain in a progressive, terminal disease can, strangely enough, result in no increase in the dosage being required later to maintain precisely the same threshold of pain relief. A person dying of cancer and in increasing pain can enjoy the same level of pain relief with a constant dose. That is clearly a simple but amazing discovery, made in recent years, that helps the terminally ill.
Much of the work done by hospices, the enthusiasm of their staff, the joy that they bring to families of the dying would be undermined if we were to breach existing principles. The early-day motion that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington tabled last January received the support of only 33 hon. Members. We shall see what happens today, but I do not believe that support for the hon. Gentleman's Bill will reflect the 1989 opinion poll to which he referred, in which fewer than 2,000 people were questioned. Often, one needs to examine the questions asked in such surveys, as well as the answers. The question put in that opinion poll was,
"If suffering became intolerable, should the law be changed to allow adults to obtain medical help to an immediate, peaceful death?"
That is an appealing question, and no doubt many people did answer yes. However, if the same people had been asked whether they were in favour of mercy killing, I venture to suggest that they would have made a very different reply.
The House would be making a grave error of judgment and a decision that the world outside would misinterpret if it were to allow the Bill to progress. Right hon. and hon. Members would be subjected to further lobbying on a massive scale, such as that which accompanied our recent

47
debates on similar issues. Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that at the end of my life, it will be the Good Lord, and none other, that shall deliver me.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 101.

Division No.192]

[5.03 pm

AYES

Allen, Graham

Mitchell, Sir David

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Mowlam, Marjorie

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Mullin, Chris

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

O'Neill, Martin

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Primarolo, Dawn

Callaghan, Jim

Rost, Peter

Cartwright, John

Ruddock, Joan

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Soley, Clive

Darling, Alistair

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Turner, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

Walley, Joan

Flynn, Paul

Wigley, Dafydd

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Hayward, Robert

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Irving, Sir Charles

Mr. Max Madden and

McCrindle, Robert

Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Brazier, Julian

Amos, Alan

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

Anderson, Donald

Buckley, George J.

Aspinwall, Jack

Budgen, Nicholas

Batiste, Spencer

Burt, Alistair

Beith, A. J.

Butler, Chris

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Benyon, W.

Canavan, Dennis

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cash, William

Blunkett, David

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Bowis, John

Conway, Derek

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

48

Corbett, Robin

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cryer, Bob

McAllion, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McAvoy, Thomas

Dalyell, Tarn

McFall, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

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

Maclennan, Robert

Dixon, Don

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dunn, Bob

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Dykes, Hugh

Moate, Roger

Eadie, Alexander

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Eastham, Ken

Monro, Sir Hector

Evennett, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Fearn, Ronald

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Forman, Nigel

Moss, Malcolm

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Mudd, David

Fry, Peter

Murphy, Paul

Gardiner, George

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Gorst, John

Pawsey, James

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Pike, Peter L.

Ground, Patrick

Price, Sir David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Reid, Dr John

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Rowlands, Ted

Haselhurst, Alan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Shersby, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Holt, Richard

Skinner, Dennis

Hood, Jimmy

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Stanbrook, Ivor

Howells, Geraint

Stern, Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Irvine, Michael

Summerson, Hugo

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Thorne, Neil

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Viggers, Peter

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Walden, George

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Wallace, James

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Waller, Gary

Kennedy, Charles

Watts, John

Kilfedder, James

Widdecombe, Ann

Knapman, Roger

Wray, Jimmy

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Latham, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Lawrence, Ivan

Mr. Jim Lester and

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Question acccordingly negatived

Orders of the Day

  Broadcasting Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Broadcasting Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses; Amendments to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 to 21, Schedule 3, Clauses 22 to 51, Schedule 4, Clauses 52 to 61, Schedule 5, Clauses 62 to 77, Schedule 6, Clauses 78 to 119, Schedule 7, Clause 120, Schedule 8, Clause 121, Schedules 9 and 10, Clauses 122 to 128, Schedule 11, Clauses 129 to 137, Schedule 12, Clauses 138 to 148, Schedule 13, Clauses 149 to 164, Schedule 14, Clauses 165 to 167, Schedule 15, Clauses 168 to 181, Schedules 16 and 17 and Clause 182; and new Schedules.—[Mr. Mellor.]

New Clause 22

  AUDIENCE RESEARCH BY WELSH AUTHORITY
  '.—(1) The Welsh Authority shall make arrangements for ascertaining—

  (a) the state of public opinion concerning programmes broadcast on S4C;

  (b) any effects of such programmes on the attitudes or behaviour of persons who watch them; and

  (c) the types of programme that members of the public would like to be broadcast on S4C.

  (2) Those arrangements shall—

  (a) secure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, any research undertaken in pursuance of the arrange-ments is undertaken by persons who are neither members nor employees of the Welsh Authority; and

  (b) include provision for full consideration by the Authority of the results of any such research.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 15, in clause 34, page 29, line 23, after 'licence', insert `(i)'.
  No. 16, in page 29, line 24, at end insert—
  '(ii) in relation to a regional Channel 3 licence granted for an area which includes all or any part of Wales, programme schedules for programmes to be broadcast on S4C; and'.
  No. 17, in clause 52, page 44, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  `(3) The Welsh Authority shall secure—
  (a) that during any period allocated by them to the broadcasting of a programme not in Welsh, the programme broadcast by them on S4C is normally the same as the programme (or one of the programmes) being broadcast on Channel 4 during that period; and, so far as reasonably practicable, that the re-scheduling of Channel 4 programmes for broadcasting on S4C shall be compatible with the scheduling of those programmes for broadcasting on Channels 4; but this subsection shall not be taken to require—

  (i) the simultaneous broadcasting of any programme on both Channel 4 and S4C;

  (ii) the broadcasting by the Welsh Authority of any advertisement broadcast on Channel 4;

  50
  (b) that there shall be appropriate advance publicity relating to the intended times of transmission of Welsh language programmes and of Channel 4 programmes on S4C.'.
  No. 572, in clause 53, page 45, line 8, at end insert—
  '(5) Where any programmes provided under subsection (3) each form part of a series of programmes, the Welsh Authority shall ensure that the intervals between those programmes when broadcast on S4C normally correspond to the intervals between them when broadcast on Channel 4.
  (6) The Welsh Authority shall publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, advance notice of the programmes schedules for the programme to be broadcast on S4C.'.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: On a pont of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that it was not until lunchtime today that we had Mr. Speaker's final selection of amendments? I am complaining not about the amendments or the new clauses he selected, but simply the mechanics. We are faced with 736 amendments and 36 new clauses, and we have to get them into a form of which we can make use in the interests of a sensible debate. I understand that there is nothing novel in the procedure, but when a Bill attracts so many amendments perhaps the relevant authorities should consider whether it is possible to make the selection a little earlier so that they are available earlier to both sides of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand and sympathise with the hon. Member's complaint, but Mr. Speaker is following the usual practice and procedure in such matters. I understand the difficulty when we have such a complicated Bill which requires many amendments. The hon. Member may feel that his complaint should be brought to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure, but until then I have no option but to follow the usual procedures.
  Mr. Mellor: Since this is the first of a large number of amendments selected on Report, may I be permitted the indulgence of commending the work of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill? However long my time in this place, I do not expect to participate in a more positive or agreeable series of debates than those we had on the Broadcasting Bill. Every member of the Committee played a full and active role.
  While I understand that some differences will still be revealed on Report, all hon. Members who participated can take some pride in the achievements of the Committee. The Bill has emerged with much wider acceptance for many of its key requirements than was the case before Committee stage, and that is a tribute to the work of the Standing Committee. I thank all hon. Members who participated for assisting me.
  Although it is true that we have a formidable task in front of us, with some 700 amendments, to consider, of which more than 500 are Government amendments, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, those amendments reflect the hard work of the Committee and are a sign of the success of parliamentary procedures, not a criticism of them. As we debate the amendments I hope to demonstrate that I have sought to honour whole-heartedly commitments I made in Committee. We shall have the opportunity to consider all the issues in detail, and I shall now pass to the details.
  New clause 22 honours an undertaking I gave in Committee to require Sianel 4 Cymru to engage in

  51
  audience research. It is modelled on clause 12, which places a similar requirement on the Independent Television Commission.
  I express my particular appreciation of the work of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) who raised matters relating to S4C. I hope that he considers it a tribute to his persuasiveness that the Government have come forward with a long raft of amendments on the issue, which should tidy up arrangements for S4C. I hope that we have now got them into good shape. I certainly believe them to be acceptable to S4C.
  Of the long list of Government amendments, I would draw attention only to No. 263, which gives S4C more flexibility to show Channel 4 programmes which are not necessarily being broadcoast simultaneously to the rest of the country—in other words, to devise a special Channel 4 programme schedule for Wales. That particularly follows points made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and is our version of his amendment No. 17, which he may feel he does not now need to pursue.
  I should like to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 572. We quite agree that Welsh viewers should be able to watch a series of Channel 4 programmes in the same orderly sequence in which they were shown originally to English and Scottish viewers on Channel 4, and that they should have reasonable notice of what S4C will broadcast, so that they are not misled by the Channel 4 schedules for England and Scotland. That amendment also has the full endorsement of those who run S4C, whose work I commended in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney tabled two other amendments in this group—amendments Nos. 15 and 16. I regard those as a logical extension of the provisions in clause 34 relating to cross-announcements. I accept the purpose and principle of the amendments, but, alas, I cannot accept them entirely as they stand, for drafting reasons. However, I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to have them redrafted and introduced in another place, if that is acceptable to him.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: First, I thank the Minister for the terms and the character in which he moved the new clause and for the support that he has given my amendments. Amendment No. 572 was drafted with his support and assistance.
  I should like to set out the context of the amendments. S4C has been a success story within the remit that Parliament gave it some years ago. It was asked to provide a Welsh language station, and that is exactly what it is. It has helped to sponsor and promote talent, ability, imagination and development in Welsh language broadcasting. However, it was never meant to be a ghetto or an exclusive station, since many hours of programmes on S4C are in the English language. The arrangements and particularly the financing of S4C were tied very closely to the station carrying Channel 4 programmes. That is a fundamental condition of the system, and anyone who sought to change it would fundamentally undermine the agreements and arrangements that were made when S4C was established.
  Nevertheless, developments have occurred which have made it necessary to build upon and develop the concept of S4C as a station primarily developed to offer Welsh
  52
  language programmes, but also carrying Channel 4's English programmes. However, we must develop that concept without breaking it. Since the inauguration of S4C, two developments have necessitated the amendments that I tabled and that the Minister has accepted in principle—and in one case, in practice.
  First, Channel 4 has turned out to be much more popular than most people thought it would be, with the inevitable result that many people in Wales feel deprived because they cannot see Channel 4 programmes. Therefore, as we move into the 1990s it is essential that S4C takes fully into account that demand and pressure from a large number of people who view Channel 4 through S4C in Wales.
  Secondly, as the new director-general, Stanley Geraint Jones, and his team have recognised, there will be growing commercial pressures in the 1990s on commercial television in general and on Channel 4 and on S4C and S4C will have to respond as it cannot afford to be a ghetto in its response to a large viewing public in Wales who do not understand the Welsh language and want to see Channel 4 programmes.
  For those two reasons, I argued in Committee that those new pressures and the new context of the 1990s in which S4C will operate must be recognised in statute. That is why I pressed the arguments that are now contained in amendments Nos. 572, 15 and 16. I shall briefly outline the basis on which those amendments were tabled.
  As one grows older in parliamentary terms, one's parliamentary posterity grows increasingly modest. I am now down to the thankful pleasure of having drafted an entire subsection of a major Government Bill that the Minister now accepts. I suppose that that is a form of parliamentary posterity, so long as, when my party comes to power, Ministers do not abolish the subsection which I have managed painstakingly to negotiate and which the Minister has accepted with great warmth and spirit. I am grateful to him for accepting amendment No. 572, which we and the Home Office helped to draft.
  Amendment No. 572 is important, because it places an obligation upon S4C to schedule Channel 4 series and programmes in an orderly fashion. Frankly, that is where S4C has failed. If the aim of the 1980s was getting S4C off the ground, the aim of the 1990s is getting its scheduling accurate and sensible and coherent. A very popular series, "Golden Girls", was carried on Channel 4 and everyone eagerly looked forward to seeing it on S4C. Unfortunately, it was not scheduled in a consistent and coherent way. That has happened to a number of programmes.
  I pay tribute to the Welsh advisory committee of the IBA, which repeatedly stressed to S4C that it was vital that there should be some consistency in scheduling Channel 4 programmes. In subsection (5) of amendment No. 572, we have tried to write in some statutory obligation on S4C to do just that.
  Subsection (6) of our amendment—I say "ours" because the Government assisted in drafting it—seeks to ensure that S4C makes more effort to publicise Channel 4 programmes. Again, it is sometimes a matter of hunting for when a series or a serial will start as there may be a considerable gap between the beginning of a series on Channel 4 and the beginning of that series on S4C. There may be perfectly good reasons for that, but there must be consistency and coherence in the way in which S4C broadcasts Channel 4 series and serials.

  53
  I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle of amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which place upon the commercial television stations in Wales—HTV or any new franchise holder—the same obligation that will be placed on Channel 3 commercial stations to advertise, support and draw to the attention of its viewers what is shown on Channel 4. Therefore, it is absolutely logical that there should be such a statutory commitment. Recently, an agreement has been struck between HTV and S4C on advertising, but it is an agreement for only one year. I believe that it should be a statutory obligation, as it will be for other commercial television stations in regard to Channel 4.
  I believe that the amendments are modest, useful and important to the way in which S4C will operate in future. It is looking forward to expanding in Swansea to reach out to its Welsh-speaking audience, but it must reach out increasingly to a large audience of those who could be described as Anglo-Welsh. We have had discussions in Committee, and I believe that we can raise the matter in the context of other amendments and new clauses, about how Anglo-Welsh broadcasting will fit in, and its role for the 1990s.
  These are not necessarily the amendments on which to debate that fundamental issue, although they follow the same principle. Whether or not it applies in a commercial station, in BBC Wales or in the new broadcasting formats, such as cable—which we shall have great opportunities to discuss in the next two and a half days—at least the one station established by Parliament to fulfil a specific function—that is, S4C—will seek in the 1990s to reach out to the larger audience and nation that exist beyond the Welsh-speaking community. I am grateful to the Minister for responding so positively to the amendments.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I do not want to detain my hon. and learned Friend the Minister in pressing the provision into the Bill, as it is an excellent amendment. I suspect that his predecessor had correspondence on audience research for television. I must declare my interest as chairman of the Broadcasting Audience Research Bureau, which was set up under the Annan committee, and which comprises the BBC and ITV. Shortly, it will comprise the satellite companies as well.
  No statutory requirement is laid on individual companies within the ITV network to proceed with research of the kind introduced by the new clause. The reason for that is that research is to be regarded as a matter for the company itself and not as a matter laid down by the authorities. However, my hon. and learned Friend will be aware of a small problem that occurs when the franchises of individual companies—and, therefore, of the Independent Television Association as a whole—come up for renewal. There is a gap between the statutory continuity to research, and the separate commercial decisions which companies take in their own right and collectively as the ITA to continue with research.
  I commend the principle of the new clause. It seeks to establish on a statutory basis that the Welsh authority has a right to see that research is carried out, although that is more in terms of audience opinion than in measuring the number of homes or the intensity of viewing. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware how one cannot be divorced from the other if one wants to establish the pulling power
  54
  of a programme. Will my hon. and learned Friend briefly take note that the obligation to research is uniquely advantageous to S4C? I commend the idea on a wider scale, if my hon. and learned Friend is considering that.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I agree with the Minister's remarks. Although about half a dozen issues separate the Opposition and the Government because of their deeply felt views, there is no division on party lines on the vast majority of the Bill. It was to the credit of the Committee that the debate there was always conducted without rancour and in a positive spirit. I am glad that the Minister was able to accept many suggestions, both from the Opposition and from his own Back Benchers. As he rightly said, most of the amendments in this group concern matters that he agreed to look at again, and that is welcome.
  I have few comments to make on the group, although I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) that the requirement to ascertain public opinion, which the new clause will lay on S4C, might well be applied to other parts of the television network.
  I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney ( Mr.Rowlands) for his work in Committee and on Report in improving the service offered by S4C. He was right to pay a strong tribute to Mr. Stanley Geraint Jones, the new director-general, and to say that many of the difficulties that S4C had at first are now being tackled. I have no doubt that he will be a credit to Wales and to the service that the channel provides. Some of us who come from another part of the United Kingdom look with envy at what S4C has done in Wales. Perhaps we can learn from its experience. The Opposition can have no quarrel with the group of amendments; it is better to save our fire for the issues that divide us rather than to take up further time on matters that unite us.
  Mr. Mellor: I want to respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). A research obligation is placed on other parts of the system as well as on S4C. Although we obviously do not think that it is our task to delineate further what that obligation might be, I am sure that it will lead to the continuation of research work such as that over which my hon. Friend rightly presides with BARB.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

  POWER TO MAKE COPIES OF RECORDINGS
  `.—(l) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath laid by a constable that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a relevant offence has been committed by any person in respect of a programme included in a programme service, he may make an order authorising any constable to require that person—

  (a) to produce to the constable a visual or sound recording of any matter included in that programme, if and so far as that person is able to do so; and

  (b) on the production of such a recording, to afford the constable an opportunity of causing a copy of it to be made.

  (2) An order made under this section shall describe the programme to which it relates in a manner sufficient to enable that programme to be identified.
  (3) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement of a constable made by virtue of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.
  (4) No order shall be made under this section in respect of any recording in respect of which a warrant could be granted under any of the following provisions, namely—

  (a) section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959;

  (b) section 24 of the Public Order Act 1986; and

  (c) Article 14 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

  (5) In the application of subsection (1) to England and Wales "relevant offence" means an offence under—

  (a) section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; or

  (b) section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986.

  (6) In the application of subsection (1) to Scotland—
  (a) "relevant offence" means an offence under—

  (i) section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, or

  (ii) section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986;

  (b) the reference to a justice of the peace shall include a reference to the sheriff; and
  (c) for the reference to information on oath there shall be substituted a reference to evidence on oath.
  (7) In the application of subsection (1) to Northern Ireland—

  (a) "relevant offence" means an offence under Article 12 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987;

  (b) for the reference to a justice of the peace there shall be substituted a reference to a resident magistrate; and

  (c) for the reference to information on oath laid by a constable there shall be substituted a reference to a complaint on oath made by a constable.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 615 to 618, 231, 619, 421, 620 to 622, 234, 623 to 626, 639 to 640, 297 to 299 and 652.
  Mr. Mellor: The new clause is important because it fulfils my commitment in Committee on 6 March to recast the provisions in the Bill on police powers to obtain copies of recordings. As the House will see, it involves the deletion in their entirety of clauses 153, 154 and 155 and the substitution of new clause 24. The effect is that, although the police will still have the powers they need to enforce the provisions in this part, the powers will be subject to substantial safeguards. We took heed of the complaints about fishing expeditions, and those dangers have now been fully removed from the arrangements. I shall not go further into the matter, as we had a thorough debate in Committee. I have honoured almost to the letter my commitments in Committee.
  Many Government amendments are associated with the new clause. Government amendments Nos. 615 to 618 are intended to clarify the powers of the Independent Television Commission relating to the production of recordings and transcripts by licensees. Government amendment No. 231 relates to a matter which arose in Committee and which should be beyond doubt. It makes it clear that, in exercising its duties under the Act, the ITC will not be required to preview programmes.
  56
  Government amendments Nos. 619 to 622 make arrangements for radio licensees to keep recordings of their broadcasts and to produce them to the Radio Authority on request. They mirror the clarificatory amendments to the television provisions.
  Government amendment No. 421 reflects my undertak-ing in Committee. It is a substantive amendment, as there will no longer be a need to retain copies of programmes for 90 days, and they will need to be kept only for 42 days. That will considerably assist the broadcasting organisations. Government amendment No. 234 follows a similar amendment to the television provisions in the Bill. It makes it clear that the Radio Authority will be under no obligation to preview programmes.
  Government amendments Nos. 623 to 626 deal with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. They again deal with the point about 42 rather than 90 days. Government amendments Nos. 635 and 636 reduce the time limit for the submission of complaints about programmes to three weeks to dovetail with the 42-day requirement, the idea being that complaints would be received within 21 days which would allow the Broadcasting Standards Council to act on those complaints within the 42 days for the retention of programmes.
  Government amendments Nos. 637 and 638 remove from the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Council complaints that are the subject of legal proceedings or in which the complainant has a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law. Government amendment No. 639 follows a further committee undertaking which focuses more sharply the powers of the BSC relating to information it is able to obtain from broadcasters. It is a narrowing of what might have been seen as a too wide provision. Government amendment No. 640 is a drafting amendment.
  I hope that the new clause and the amendments will be seen as a sensible acceptance of various points arising from our Committee deliberations.
  Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the Minister for having tabled the amendments and the new clause as a result of our debates in Committee. I am especially pleased that, as he said in Committee, he has dropped from the Bill the objectionable provisions which would have allowed fishing expeditions by police looking for material that might have been thought to have contravened any of the relevant Acts. Because of a lack of fleetness of foot in Committee, the provisions were not deleted at that time, so we have had to do so on Report. None the less, the proposal is entirely welcome. The members of the Committee were at one in believing that certain safeguards were needed but felt that it was simply not necessary to give the police powers as wide as those originally proposed.
  The other amendments in the group are entirely in accord with the conclusion that we reached in Committee, and we shall therefore not seek to oppose them or to prolong the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

  FUNCTIONS EXERCISABLE BY IBA BEFORE TRANSFER DATE IN CONNECTION WITH LOCAL SOUND BROADCASTING
  `.—(1) It shall be the duty of the IBA to prepare before the transfer date, in the case of each relevant programme contractor, a contract which—

  (a) is expressed to be made between the nominated company and the contractor; and

  (b) is to come into force in accordance with subsection (3) at such time (if any) as the contractor becomes the holder of a local licence by virtue of paragraph 1(1) in Part IV of Schedule 9 to this Act; and

  (c) makes provision for and in connection with the transmission by the nominated company, as from any such time, of the programmes included in the local service provided by the contractor (as the holder of such a licence).

  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the IBA shall, after consultation with all the relevant programme contractors, draw up a number of different standard forms of contract, and each contract prepared by them under that subsection shall be in such one of those forms as they may determine after consultation with the relevant programme contractor concerned.
  (3) Any contract prepared under subsection (1) shall by virtue of this subsection come into force, as a contract between the nominated company and the relevant programme contractor concerned, at any such time as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection and (subject to the provisions of the contract) shall continue in force for such period as is specified in it, being a period expiring not later than 31st December 1994.
  (4) If—

  (a) any contract prepared under subsection (1) has not yet come into force, and

  (b) the nominated company and the relevant programme contractor concerned agree that it would be more appropriate for them to be parties to a contract which is in one of the other forms of contract drawn up as mentioned in subsection (2), and

  (c) the nominated company prepares such a contract as is mentioned in subsection (1) which is in that other form,

  subsection (3) shall have effect in relation to that contract as if it had been prepared by the IBA under subsection (1) (and accordingly shall not have effect in relation to the contract referred to in paragraph (a) above).
  (5) The IBA shall be deemed to have had power to impose such requirements as have been imposed by them on the various local sound programme contractors with respect to the making of payments to the IBA for the purpose of enabling reductions to be made in relevant charges; and in this subsection "relevant charges" means charges made by the nominated company in connection with the transmission, during the period beginning with the transfer date and ending with 31st December 1994, of programmes which are included in local services falling within any description of such services determined by the IBA.
  (6) The IBA shall have power, with the approval of the Secretary of State—

  (a) to dispose of any relevant transmitting equipment to a relevant programme contractor; and

  (b) to do so for such consideration as they may determine (whether or not it represents the market value of the equipment).

  (7) In this section—

  "local licence" and "local service" have the same meaning as in Part III of this Act;

  "local sound programme contractor" means a person who is a programme contractor by virtue of a contract for the provision of local sound broadcasts;

  "relevant programme contractor" means the pro-gramme contractor under a contract which, if effective immediately before the transfer date, would be a contract to which paragraph 2(1) in Part III of Schedule 9 applied;

  58

  "relevant transmitting equipment" means equipment which has been used by the IBA in connection with the transmission of local sound broadcasts;

  and expressions used in this section which are also used in the Broadcasting Act 1981 have the same meaning as in that Act.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 482.
  Mr. Mellor: The new clause completes the transitional arrangements for independent radio by dealing with the transmission aspects. It gives effect to arrangements that have been agreed by the Home Office, the IBA arid the Association of Independent Radio Contractors. It is entirely acceptable to those organisations and I hope, therefore, to the rest of us.
  New clause 29 allows the IBA to sell transmission equipment at less than market value to radio companies as part of the arrangements for the transition to the new radio regime. It is part of the cushioning process that most hon. Members seek.
  Amendment No. 482 would ensure that any equipment disposed of in that way was not caught by the scheme for the division of the IBA's three successors.
  Mr. Corbett: I agree with everything that the Minister said about the Committee stage. We welcome the new clause, which the Minister has introduced to fulfil the undertakings that he gave in our earlier discussions.
  Does he envisage that there are likely to be any redundancies as a result of the changes? Has he had any discussions that have led him to a view about whether any redundancies will be voluntary or compulsory? If redundancies are expected as a result of the change in the arrangements, will he encourage the Radio Authority, and, where necessary, the IBA, to give other broadcasting organisations first refusal of the skills of any of the personnel whose jobs disappear?
  I know that the Minister accepts that, by and large, the staff are highly skilled. Many of them have long years of experience and could be of great value to other parts of the broadcasting system. It would be a great shame if we allowed their skills to be blown away. I am sure that none of the parties that are likely to be concerned in the change object to the proposal, but perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to draw my remarks to the attention of those concerned.
  Mr. Mellor: I know of no reason for any redundancies flowing from the new clause. The privatisation of the IBA transmission system is proceeding well, with full co-operation from all concerned and in a very open spirit. As far as I am aware, there should be no radio redundancies as a result. I believe that, if there were a need for any redundancies in the system as a whole—radio and television—they would be voluntary. As I said, I have no reason to think that the change is proceeding in anything other than a good spirit on the part of all concerned.
  I echo what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said about the quality of the technicians and other staff whom the IBA employs. They have an outstanding record and I believe that they will work extremely well under the new arrangements. Dr. Forrest, the present head of the IBA transmission side,

  59
  who has been made the chief executive-designate of the new company, warmly endorses the arrangements, which he believes will open the way to an extremely good future for him and his colleagues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

  A NATIONAL NETWORK
  '(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to secure that Channel 3 licence holders operate a network arrangement for the commissioning and scheduling of sufficient programmes from a regional Channel 3 service to be included simultaneously in each of the Channel 3 services.
  (2) A Channel 3 licence may include any conditions that the Commission consider appropriate to carry out their duty under subsection (1) above.
  (3) The Commission may at any time prior to or after the granting of licences to provide a regional Channel 3 service impose a network arrangement on the Channel 3 licence holders if they deem it necessary to do so.
  (4) A network arrangement made by the Channel 3 licence holders or imposed by the Commission shall not be enforced unless the number of hours of programmes commissioned and scheduled from each Channel 3 service are in proportion to the audience of that service and potentially cover all types of programmes.
  (5) A Channel 3 licence holder may appeal to the Commission if the licence holder believes that the operation of a network arrangement does not meet the conditions imposed by subsection (4) above; and the Commission shall do everything it can to secure that the conditions are met.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we may take the following:

New Clause 15

  BUYING AND SELLING OF PROGRAMMES BY LICENCE HOLDERS—
  `—(1) The Commission may give directions to any licence holder requiring him to supply to another licence holder for inclusion in any comparable programme of his any item supplied or originated by the first Commission and the licences between the licence holder and the various licence holders shall contain all such provisions as the Commission think necessary or expedient for ensuring—

  (a) that each licence holder will take all reasonable steps to put himself in a position to comply with any directions which may be given to him under this subsection and, when any such directions have been given to him, to enable the other licence holder to include the item to which the directions relate in any comparable programme of his; and

  (b) that if financial and other arrangements for the supply of any item in respect of which directions have been given under this subsection are not agreed between the two licence holders, or when so agreed do not receive the approval of the Commission required by virtue of subsection (2), the item will be supplied in accordance with such financial and other arrangements as may be determined by the Commission.

  (2) The contracts between the Commission and the various licence holders shall provide that, where items to be included in the programmes of a licence holder are not originated by that licence holder, the financial and other arrangements between the licence holder and the supplier shall require the approval of the Commission—

  (a) in all cases where the supplier is another licence holder and

  (b) in such other cases as the Commission may from time to time direct;

  and directions given for the purposes of this subsection may apply to a licence holder generally or may be different for different licence holders.
  (3) For the purposes of this section two programmes shall be regarded as being comparable if either—

  (a) both are television programmes, or

  (b) both are local sound broadcasts.'.

New Clause 33

  NETWORKING
  '(1) The Commission may authorise agreements made by holders of regional Channel 3 licences for the purpose of securing co-ordination in the production, supply and scheduling of programmes for regional Channel 3 services.
  (2) Any authorisation under this section shall be given by an instrument, published in such manner as the Commission consider appropriate, specifying—

  (a) the name of every person party to the agreement, and

  (b) such particulars of the agreement as they consider it appropriate to publish,

  and may be given for such period as the Commission may specify in that instrument.
  (3) The Commission, after affording the parties to an authorised agreement reasonable opportunity of making representations to them, may by instrument published in like manner revoke the authorisation given to that agreement under this section.'.
  Amendment No. 705, in clause 16, page 14, line 16, at end insert—
  '(dd) that a sufficient proportion of the programmes so included are related, by their source or otherwise, to arrangements authorised by the Commission under section [Networking] for securing co-ordination in the production, supply and scheduling of program-mes for regional Channel 3 services.'
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Maclennan: The need for a network was discussed extensively in Committee but, although hon. Members on both sides acknowledged the importance of having an agreement, the Bill makes no provision for such a requirement to be underpinned in statute; indeed, it does not provide for such an arrangement at all.
  The importance of a network was perhaps best summed up by TV South which said:
  "Each constituent part of ITV would be the weaker without a network. The absence of a network, far from strengthening regionalism in television, would seriously weaken it, by undermining the commercial performance of each individual company, as a result of weaker schedules and reduced audiences. Each company would have greater freedom, but it would be the restricted freedom of the poor. Regional programmes would be marginalised by becoming a low cost ingredient."
  The lack of a network would undoubtedly reduce viewer choice. It would harm companies financially and put off advertisers.

  61
  Although the need for a network has been acknowledged by us all, there is still some dispute about what type of arrangement we should have and about whether we should have a statutory fallback.
  The existing ITV companies are in the throes of discussing a new arrangement that would divide the companies into programme makers and programme buyers. The large and medium-sized companies have all opted to be programme makers. That leaves about five companies that would be programme buyers. In return for giving up their theoretical automatic right to be part of the network, the five non-producers will get discounts on the programmes that they buy. The advantage of such a system is that it could be argued that the smaller companies are being subsidised by the larger ones, especially as their access to the network—although recently improved—is still negligible. But even if such an arrangement were popular with all the companies—and the fact that a final arrangement is still to be worked out shows that substantial problems may remain to be overcome—the question remains whether such an arrangement is the best for a regional television system, which is what Channel 3 is intended to be.
  It is undoubtedly true that a few programme makers based on a couple of production sites would constitute a more efficient way of making programmes but arrange-ments would negate the purpose of Channel 3, which is to provide a showcase of regional talent producing locally-made programmes not just for the area in which they are made but for the whole country.
  The production of programmes for the network not only improves standards because it means that local producers have to compete with the best from the major companies; it increases employment, directly and indirectly, if effective use of the region is made.
  New clause 1 would require that the number of programmes networked from any region should be proportionate to the local audience of the company. That would be a fair and effective way of ensuring that the smaller companies were not excluded by a cabal of the major companies, especially as the current cabal owes a good deal to its historical importance as well as to its financial clout. Unless there is some protection for the smaller companies, the fact that the programme makers and sellers are the same could act against their interests.
  Even if the Government are reluctant to impose anything so regulatory on the companies, it is important that there should be a statutory power for a network arrangement to be imposed if, following the issue of new franchises or takeovers of the companies that have received franchises, there is a breakdown in the arrangements. The commission requires powers to impose an arrangement. The IBA has said that it would welcome such arrangements—certainly during the transitional period.
  At the very least, I seek a commitment from the Government to allow a statutory safeguard, without which the concept of regional television may prove difficult to maintain. I look forward to the Minister of State giving a progress report, at least on the state of the negotiations, and hearing what he considers to be the best way to overcome the undoubted problems that remain, a conclusion not having been arrived at.
  Mr. John Greenway: New clause 33 authorises rather than imposes a network on the Channel
  62
  3 licensees and puts on the licensees an obligation to reach agreement. I looked with care at new clauses 1 and 15, which hark back to the present arrangements whereby the IBA effectively controls the schedule. A fundamental difference of view emerged in Committee. Conservative Members wish to see a free market in the provision of programmes, which does not happen now with IBA control of the schedule, and independent television companies are anxious that that should come about. The problem is that, although the Bill does not require a network to exist, a 15-region television system will not work unless there is some kind of network.
  There is no doubt that a network will exist, whether or not we provide for it in legislation; however, it must be right that the financial plans of bidders are crucial to the allocation process and that they are not just a shot in the dark, which is what they would be if bidders did not know how much they might have to invest in and/or pay for network supply. That must be a worry, bearing in mind how little programming each contractor provides now or is likely to provide on his own and how much advertising revenue is generated out of the network schedule. Also, ITC will not be able to vary the financial commitments of contractors.
  I am concerned also that some smaller companies may face difficulties in an open market in which their poor bargaining position could mean that they were no longer subsidised, as is now the case, and they might be forced to pay a premium for the network schedule, with new financial constraints on contractors. Every ounce of flesh will be worth getting. Commitments to the Treasury will be entered into and there is a potential unforeseen increase in costs. That could create early difficulties and pressures which might in themselves lead to a decline in regional programming commitments, which we are all anxious to see maintained.
  Therefore, the ITC needs a power to approve and oversee a networking arrangement before licences are advertised so that applicants fully understand precisely what their obligations will be for each region. That is why in amendment No. 705 I have suggested that there should be a requirement at the application stage for each bidder to agree to take part in the network arrangement. As everyone who has looked at the matter knows, the current ITV companies are working towards an agreement on a network. For that reason, it may be premature for the House to reach a decision on this matter this evening. In Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State recognised that an important issue is to be addressed but that the ITV companies should be given adequate time to reach agreement.
  Mr. Corbett: I understand amendment No. 705, but what will happen if the present ITV companies are unable to reach a detailed agreement on networking before the ITC advertises new licences?
  Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 705 refers to new clause 33. The two must be taken together. There is a difference of view. Conservative Members believe that there should be the authorisation of a network by the ITC, not the imposition of it, so that the free market can continue.

  63
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider my ideas and suggestions. I certainly hope that the House will reject new clauses 1 and 15 because they simply hark back to the present arrangement, which nobody wants.
  Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is correct to say that the Committee was divided on whether a free market or regulation would secure proper networking arrangements for the new ITV service. However, the Committee was united on the need for a networking service on the ITV channels. That would offer a range of benefits, particularly for smaller regional ITV companies. For example, smaller companies could not begin to afford the wide range of quality programmes that are available to them through the network. They could not afford to produce such programmes on their own or to offer access to them. A network gives the opportunity to commission or produce programmes for sale across the network, which companies would otherwise not consider commissioning or producing on their own.
  A good example is the Scottish programme "Scotsport", which is produced by STV. Other Scottish regional companies could not possibly afford to match the coverage that is given by STV or, for that matter, BBC Scotland, so they rely on a network for their viewers to gain access to "Scotsport" through the network, and enjoy a top sports programme. The quality of "Scotsport" is enhanced by the existence of the network, because, if STV produced it only for transmission within the transmission area, there would be far smaller audiences, fewer advertisers and less justification for expenditure on the quality of the programme. Everyone would agree that networking is essential, but it is a matter of how we can best secure networking for programmes across the ITV companies.
  It is important that we regard television not just as entertainment or a cultural service but as an industry that brings jobs to regions that have been unemployment black spots for far too long. In the Bill there is far too little protection for regionally based ITV companies with film production facilities within their region. For example, clause 15(3) requires applicants, if the commission requires, to show that they have facilities in their area for the provision of the programme requirements set out in clause 16(2). Clause 16(2) requires that a proportion of regional programmes should be made within the particular area of a region.
  There was a later concession by the Minister of State that regional news programmes would have to be of high quality, just as national news programmes are of high quality. Obviously, that has a knock-on effect for production facilities in regions. That is welcome and helps to ensure that some facilities will remain within different regions of the ITV network, but it does not go far enough to secure the full-scale production requirements that would be capable of producing high-quality programmes across the range of programme types.
  People in the regions want to produce programmes that are not just good local news magazines and not just occasional good regional programmes such as the Gaelic programme on Grampian Television, "Crann Tara", which is purely for local consumption. We want to produce within the regions top-rate programmes across
  64
  the whole range of programmes for sale across the network. I refer to programmes such as the Scottish soap "Take the High Road", STV's own production of "The Steamie", Channel 4's production of "Bread and Roses" and the BBC's production of "Tutti-Frutti".
  The production facilities required to make programmes such as that are not guaranteed in the Bill and could be under threat should some of the smaller regional companies be taken over by their larger sister companies in the ITV network. None of those production facilities will survive if we do not have an effective network that allows programmes to be sold across the whole network to the various ITV companies.
  Under the Government's proposals, there could be a gap in effective networking arrangements for the ITV companies. That gap could be sufficient, if it lasted for only a year or two, to allow many production facilities that now exist in the regions to disappear. Should they disappear, they will not return, and we would find ourselves with the situation about which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) warned, with production centred in a handful of regional companies selling their productions to the other regional companies.
  That is not a development that we want to see. I hope that the Minister will take on board the danger of production facilities in the regions being at risk and that included in the Bill will be provision for effective networking arrangements giving adequate protection for regional companies and production facilities.
  6 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Because all the regions other than Northern Ireland were represented on the Committee, I am anxious to explain that a networking operation is essential to television in Ulster. As has been said, there is a danger that local television stations will be reduced simply to putting out news and current affairs programmes. We require, particularly in Northern Ireland, a wide range of programmes that are locally produced.
  Ulster Television is at present the smallest of the ITV companies. It is essential that we have networking to ensure that international and other programmes are screened in Northern Ireland, for we must have a wide range of television programmes. In view of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, it is essential that we have a regional television company that can advance the regional view. I support the idea of provision for networking in the ITV operation so as to protect local companies.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am fascinated by the prospect of the Minister's reply, for I cannot imagine what he will say in answer to such logical arguments about networking. It seems impossible that an ITV or Channel 3—call it what we may—network could work without some provision for networking.
  If the Minister intends to reject that proposition, he must explain how anybody will be able to formulate a rational bid in the auction bid situation without knowing what the costs of production will be and how they will be spread around the system in forms of networking. It will be impossible to make financial predictions unless companies know in advance what the system will be.
  What would happen if there were no networking system as proposed by the three amendments, the best of which is

  65
  the Labour proposal? Would we not be in the situation at the start of the ITV network of having a stand-up, knock-down game of bluff among the companies, each vetoing the others' products until, in the end, by a process of financial attrition, they were forced to come to a networking arrangement?
  Sir Giles Shaw: The Minister should need no further persuasion that it is essential to have an effective networking operation to sustain a regional network of 15 television companies. That must be common ground among all who wish to see a flourishing television system operating for Channel 3 services.
  Equally, I have sympathy with the view that it would not be suitable for the Independent Television Commission to become a dogmatic fat controller, as it were, determining on which branch lines the schedules should be run. We have evolved over the past 10 years or more an effective networking service that has provided a significant variety, but possibly a lack of opportunity, to some companies that have been knocking at the door of admission to the network arrangements.
  So I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in seeking a permissive statement to the effect that a network should be, or may be, introduced by the ITC but that it should not become the bedrock of the system under control from the centre. By that means, a stifling bureaucracy would be apparent, some of the consequences of which would be a stifling of regional initiative.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) has in Ulster Television one of the finest examples of a company that has been able to sustain, under difficult conditions, a first-class range of programming that would have been driven into the bankruptcy court long ago without adequate networking material being made available.
  Mr. Corbett: I assure the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) that matters connected with Northern Ireland were not altogether forgotten in Committee. Indeed, I recall a spirited debate when we were attempting to get the Home Office to fall in line with what the Northern Ireland Office was doing by way of initiatives to encourage the speaking of Irish Gaelic. Whether that pleased the hon. Gentleman I do not know.
  There is probably general agreement in the House not just about the desirability of having a networking arrangement but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, about the critical need for such an arrangement if there is to be sensible bidding for the new Channel 3 licences.
  I assure the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) that it is not a question of anybody on the Opposition Benches or of Conservative Members wanting the ITC to turn into what he described as a fat controller of schedules. The days when it was felt that we needed the IBA or a successor body to crawl over every schedule minute by minute, day by day, week by week has long since passed, if for no other reason than that the broadcasters know more about what they are doing than when the system was introduced.
  That said, and given the agreement among hon. Members about the need for a networking arrangement, it is curious that the Bill does not make provision for that, mostly for the reasons that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) gave. It is claimed that the free market
  66
  will sort it out, that common sense will prevail and that all will fall into place. I expect that to be the case—because of the collective interest in the matter—but it may no 't turn out to be the case. In any event, the parties to any networking arrangements that now exist may not in all cases be the same parties after the new Channel 3 licences have been awarded.
  The largest company of the present ITV companies makes fewer than 30 out of every 100 of its programmes, whereas the smallest makes only five out of every 100. I am not complaining about that, simply showing the width of interest in the network. I suppose in a sense that the smaller the station, the more important is the network to it, so that it is better able to gain an audience in its region than it could hope to attract on the back of its own programming.
  The Independent Television Companies Association sees the main justification of networking as enabling 15 regional companies to function as a single, nationwide rival to the BBC. Some of us take the view that the strength of the ITV system lies, or should lie, in the regions and that there should be more, rather than less, programmes made and shown in the regions and networked so that region may speak unto region. I understand the point that the ITA makes.
  We now begin to part company. The Opposition take the view that the ITC should not simply have powers to okay a networking arrangement which may, and probably will, be entered into. It should have powers, in the absence of agreement, to ensure that there is such an arrangement which could be open to later amendment. I understand that at present there is a plan but no agreement. The plan is this: the big five have proposed that they should rnake all the programmes for the network and that the smaller 10 should cough up and show them. That is not acceptable to the middle five, and rightly so. They want to make some programmes for the network. To confine the making of network programmes to the present big five would not be good for the rest of the network. In effect, it would create first and second class programme makers. Inevitably the bulk of them would be made in London and the south-east. It would also mean that fewer true regional programmes—that is programmes not just from the regions but about the regions—would be made which could be networked.
  It is important that the ITC has powers in the Bill to encourage and achieve a sensible networking arrangement. The Government have said that they want that and, as the ITA has said, the Bill should reflect those wishes. The IBA makes the point that the quality and range of network programmes would suffer if each of the Channel 3 companies had to supply all its own programmes. No one proposes that each, any or all of the Channel 3 companies would have to supply all its programmes. As we have agreed, the network is vital to the whole system. Certainly the network is vital to the more expensive programmes such as costume and other drama, current affairs, documentaries and comedy, some of which, although in my view not enough, reflect the realities of life outside the capital where far too much is already centred.
  Of course, the ITC will not be a broadcaster in the same way as the IBA and it will not crawl all over the programme schedules and networking arrangements. However, it needs powers to ensure that a system is in place which guarantees both quality programming and —a point with which the Minister will agree—a

  67
  networking agreement which is fair and open. The networking arrangements that we had in the past would not pass the tests of fairness and openness for all the reasons that we understand and some that we shall never understand.
  With regard to the Government's "exceptional circumstances" and the so-called quality test, the ITC will want to know about networking to guard against over ambitious claims by bidders. The IBA has proposed that provision be made in the Bill for a transitional network to be put in place from January 1993—the beginning of the new Channel 3 licences—for two years, or less if the licensees and the ITC have agreed an arrangement in keeping with the programme promises of the applicants. As the IBA argues, that is important as ITC adjusts to the new circumstances of Channel 3 and the other changes that are to come throughout broadcasting—the Minister and his supporters would probably prefer to call it the broadcasting market but we have not come that far yet. The Minister and, indeed, the Government will accept many of those arguments, especially the argument about not only the importance of but the critical need for a network arrangement to be clear, in place and agreed to help the ITC in the allocation of the new Channel 3 licences. I hope that the Government are persuaded that it is right to turn those ambitions into words in the Bill.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Mellor: There is no great division between us on these matters. I certainly believe that Channel 3 could not possibly fulfil its remit or win the audience share that it will need to win to be financially viable unless there is a networking arrangement. There is no disagreement on that. The difficulty pertinently expressed, as so often, by my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is how we can best create a networking arrangement. For far too long the ITV system depended on a networking arrangement that emerged in the 1950s as a defence mechanism against arguments that the ITV system could not sustain a national programme service. The big five arose and did not retire from the scene anything like quickly enough.
  The consequence of centring the arrangements on the big five was an increasing awareness both within the system and outside it that the big five were an unfair cartel. Many of the views expressed in the debates reflected the fetid atmosphere of that cartel, which has long outlived its useful purpose. Apart from any other reason, the big five are no longer the biggest five. That made the whole arrangement even less relevant. It was obvious that some companies could put programmes on the network because of their position within the magic circle that would not have been included if they had been suggested by other companies whose rather better product was kept out. That raised competition issues.
  The companies themselves are aware of the deficiencies in the present networking arrangements and propose to make changes. The changes are still in the process of negotiation, but they are based on a volunteer principle of opting in or opting out. I understand that about 10 companies wish to opt in and become to some extent
  68
  programme makers. Five companies are happy to be programme receivers, subject to their regional obligations. That is how matters stand at present.
  Several good points have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to the need for local production facilities. He will be aware that in the Bill we have strengthened the regional requirements. As a result of changes that we signalled in Committee—we shall come to the amendments later—we shall require that any applicants for a regional franchise should state what programme-making facilities they propose to provide in the region so that everyone knows where he stands.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) mentioned Ulster Television. I have had meetings with Brum Henderson and his team. They know that we are committed to Ulster Television and a television franchise for Ulster. It is not a matter for me, but it would probably mean the continuation of Ulster Television. It will depend on the decision to be taken on the allocation of franchises. Clearly particular care must be taken in scrutinising applications for the Ulster franchise because of the need for programming that is sensitive to the needs of both communities. Personally, I believe that Ulster Television has done a good job, but clearly it could not exist if it did not receive many good programmes from elsewhere in the system.
  So far so good. The difficulty comes when we turn to the issue of how to arrive at a networking arrangement. The Opposition new clause in effect proposes that the ITC should be a programme-scheduling supremo for all its licensees. No licensee would be able to draw up a programme schedule or enter into a contract to acquire a programme without first clearing it with the ITC. That gives the ITC a greater and more interventionist role in these matters than either the present IBA or the Cable Television Authority.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is using the new clause quite properly to discuss the issues. I suspect and hope that he is not wedded to the arrangements that he proposes, which would be excessively interventionist or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said, excessively bureaucratic.
  The Government have also had to reconsider their view. Our view is that in the end the matter must turn on sensible arrangements between the programme companies. After all, they have everything to gain from sensible networking arrangements and everything to lose if there is not a proper network. It is they who would be unable to sustain a popular national channel, which Channel 3 must be. The responsibility for networking should be placed firmly on the programme companies, but that does not answer the key question of the transition. That is the point rightly emphasised by various hon. Members. Plainly the ITC has the difficult but vital role of finding which pegs to fit into which holes. Obviously the holes in the system will be of different sizes, reflecting the inevitable difference of size between franchises.
  The issue for us to decide is whether there should be transitional arrangements, and what they should be—whether the ITC can rely just on the emergence from present discussions of a successful new networking arrangement or whether it should have the right to determine those matters, or have them determined by others, for a transitional period, perhaps two years into the new licence, so that everybody knows where they stand

  69
  and start off from a sensible position from which they might move as a result of discussions and agreements. We should certainly shoot ourselves in the foot if we allowed to be made a new networking arrangement that became as difficult to shift as the previous one, which has long outlived its usefulness.
  We acknowledge that Channel 3 licensees must be given an idea of how the network is likely to shape up. That is why we shall require the ITC to issue illustrative guidelines on programme types, and expect them to include within that guide a model network scheme. Moreover, the ITC will be able to ensure that any network arrangement subsequently agreed by Channel 3 does not discriminate against the smaller licensees through is powers, under clause 2, to ensure fair and effective competition. Those are important provisions already contained in the Bill. The key issue is whether the ITC should, in effect, have a statutory power to approve networking arrangements and should it be able to acquire a transitional networking arrangement to which it would work and expect the new licensees to work.
  It has been possible for my colleagues and I to resolve most of the matters left outstanding, the loose ends left untied, in Committee. The fruits of that work will be obvious to those who have looked at the Government amendments. Unfortunately, it has been impossible to resolve all the problems. One that remains the subject of discussion with colleagues is the precise shape of the transitional arrangements. I am firmly of the view that there must be transitional arrangements. That is an important point that might influence the view of those who have to decide whether to press the new clauses to a vote. I hope that they will feel that they do not need to, first, because of what I have said about the illustrative guidelines and other arrangements that already exist, and, secondly, because it is a live issue. The illustrative guidelines and other arrangements will give the ITC the power to give would-be franchise holders a clear steer.
  The issue of transitional arrangements turns on whether or not they should be for the ITC or the Office of Fair Trading—bearing in mind that it is essentially a competition matter—and what the balance should be between the fair trading and competition aspects of the matter and the ITC. Hon. Members will recognise, particularly those who study such matters with care, as most present do, that one of the difficult issues of detail with which we have had to deal is how far the ITC, as the regulator, should regulate competition issues and at what point it should hand over to the OFT and those charged with the responsibility for more broadly based jurisdiction over competition issues. I am sorry that I am not in a position to resolve those matters conclusively this afternoon, but there is a strong case for transitional arrangements in the Bill. It is their shape that is still the subject of further discussion.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who was curious about what I would say. I hope that I have satisfied his curiosity. Knowing that he would be among those present today, I was curious to know whether we would have had a better Committee stage had he been on the Committee. My verdict is very much in the balance, and we must wait and see.
  Mr. Mitchell: I was not on the Committee because my party thought that I would better serve its cause doing something else—that is, nothing.
  The Minister's explanation does not satisfy me. Although he is coming towards us, as on so many other issues, he is doing so in a vague and inchoate fashion. The arrangements are vague and hypothetical and deal with models and hypothetical guidelines. Companies are being asked to put in bids of millions of pounds, and need detailed and clear financial calculations and a firm basis on which to make them. All they are being offered are models, hypotheses, suggestions and guidelines. Surely that is not good enough to put a rational, calculated bid into the Government's auction. If it is not good enough, shall we not see a contest in which it is not the market that decides but a system emerges in which muscle counts and companies try to beat each other down?
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair because it is absolutely clear that there has to be a networking arrangement; it is far less than clear whether or not it should be the ITC's duty to determine that and be the programme scheduler for the system, and whether that would necessarily lead to the emergence of a good, competitive Channel 3 or whether it would inhibit it. That is a question on which people equally committed to making the new system work and assisting potential franchise applicants may well agree to differ.
  It is quite clear in the Bill that the ITC will be able to send out a formidable set of guidelines to would-be applicants who, if they fail to bring themselves within the guidelines, would be in grave risk of failing the quality threshold. So far so good. The question then is if, as I believe, there is a case for having a transitional arrangement that can be prescribed and the framework for which would have to be in the Bill, who will police it? Should it be policed primarily by the ITC or the OFT? Those matters are still the subject of discussions. I am unable to come forward with a concluded view, but that is exceptional. For the most part, we have been able to reach conclusions on many of the issues.
  There is no division between us on the need for a networking arrangement, only how it might best come about. There is no dispute on the need to massage that difficult transitional period in the interests of giving the ITC——
  Mr. Bruce Grocott rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I have spotted the hon. Gentleman, so he need not worry—in the interests of giving the ITC and prospective franchise applicants a fair chance to do the proper job that we want them to do in weighing up the various quality bids. That is where matters stand.
  Mr. Grocott: The Minister has been critical of present networking arrangements. They have not been perfect, but I think he would agree that they have produced outstanding programmes. We are in great danger of putting such programming at risk. He is asking us to take it all on trust and somehow a networking arrangement will come about, but what if that does not happen? What policing does he envisage if there is a free-for-all between the new companies? The new system is so unpredictable that there is no guarantee against a free-for-all. Therefore,

  71
  what guarantees can he give us that there will be a networking arrangement under the proposals that he has in mind?
  Mr. Mellor: The best guarantee is that it is impossible to envisage Channel 3 without a networking arrangement. We must not assume that those who will be running Channel 3 are too foolish to recognise that. I believe that they do. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the issue is who should call the shots on the arrangement. He commends the old arrangement—fair enough—but he should remember that it emerged by agreement between the companies and was not imposed on them. I am arguing against the need for the ITC to impose a networking arrangement on them.
  The old magic circle of five kept out many companies that had a proven capability to make programmes, and those companies resented that and squealed about it. Many other people saw the force of that. That is why there is a competition issue involved, and the key question is what role should we assign to the ITC, and what role to the OFT and fair trading regulations more generally. That is the difficulty we have to resolve.
  I think that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is right. In the longer run it would be best to leave it to the companies to determine these matters, as they determined the earlier ones, subject to the right of intervention on competition grounds. By the way, clause 2 gives that right to the ITC, as well as to OFT, on the basis of ensuring fair and effective competition.
  What particularly exercises my mind is the need to massage the transition from one set of franchise holders to the next by virtue of setting out a clear networking arrangement for a transitional period. We are still deliberating within Government on that issue. I am sorry it has not been possible to conclude those discussions for the Report stage. Of course, it will have to be scrutinised in the other place and we will have plenty of opportunity to consider the matter when the Bill comes back, so we are not attempting to keep the House out of the discussions.
  6.30 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: My hon. and learned Friend has reassured the House. He has agreed that there is a need for a transitional arrangement which will provide a networking arrangement which would be viable for the ITC and at least prospective for every bidder. May I encourage him to recognise that the context in which the cartel became such an obvious restrainer of trade was largely the monopoly of ITV? There will be a much broader competitive base for television than in the past. That in itself will make the market easier. I certainly commend the view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend that ITC should not be the arbiter of what is anti-competitive. The Office of Fair Trading should be the regulator where the market will be more widespread than before.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The debate has been helpful. I am sorry that I cannot finally make a categoric statement on how the Government propose to manage the transition. I hope that I have
  72
  shown sufficient recognition of the problem that those who tabled the new clauses will not feel that they need to press them to a vote.
  Mr. Corbett: I have listened with interest to the Minister——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken, so he will need leave to speak again.
  Mr. Corbett: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, may I say that I have listened with care to what the Minister said. I must confess to being puzzled. I should have thought that an expression of view on one or other of the proposed new clauses might have concentrated the minds of the present ITV licence holders and encouraged them to come up with the voluntary arrangement which the Minister supports, certainly as a transitional arrangement. We are left with the dilemma that, without something along those lines being written into the Bill, the best that can happen is that the ITC can give a clear steer. I do not think it satisfactory to leave matters in that way.
  The Minister and some of his hon. Friends have exposed a difference between us, and it is well to have it out in the open. In our view, this is not a matter of competition policy. There is a competition aspect to it in the sense that any networking arrangement ought to be open and fair. In one breath the Minister is talking about the present rotten arrangement, which at least is voluntary, yet he wants to leave the companies to get on with it so that they may come up with something better. In the trade that is known as an each way bet.
  I understand the narrow point about competition aspects, but essentially it should not be about competition policy. It is all to do with the quality of what people can see on their television screens. The quality of range and diversity which we should look to a networking arrangement to deliver will come only on the back of proper funding and proper investment in training and facilities, and in proper investment as well in the new writers who, we hope, will be increasingly attracted to use the medium. The Minister will recall that I have a narrow, vested, sordid family interest in these matters, but I put it in a much wider context. Not a few of those whose works appear regularly on our television screens have been encouraged by initial amounts of development money from television companies, some quite properly in the ITV sector. It is rare that someone can deliver a script and have it accepted straight away. That is why it is much more a matter of quality investment than one narrow aspect of competition policy.
  I had hoped that the Minister would look favourably upon one or other of the new clauses, the better to encourage a voluntary arrangement which would have to be overseen by the IBA in the process of awarding the licence. I am sorry that the Minister has not chosen to do so. I anticipate that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will have something to say on the matter.
  Mr. Maclennan: I listened with great interest to the Minister. He has taken discussion of the matter a good deal further—although not, I regret, to conclusion. It is remarkable that we should allow the Bill to depart from this House to another place with no real certainty about

  73
  what is regarded by the chairman-elect of the IBA/ITC, Mr. George Russell, as a matter of crucial importance to the success of the new scheme.
  We have had a direct plea for a transitional arrangement and a positive response from the Minister on the need for such an arrangement, but a new idea has been floated today that that should involve the Office of Fair Trading, perhaps. I find that disturbing. It would not be likely to ease the task of the new regulatory authority if another regulatory body could inject its thoughts into the extraordinarily difficult task of allocating franchises to set up the new Channel 3. It would be a colossally difficult complication for the ITC, and perhaps not one on which the Office of Fair Trading could bring any expertise to bear in seeking to decide the competition aspect.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is right: it is not primarily a matter of competition policy; it is a matter of making sure that the most appropriate programmes are made regionally and seen nationally. Although there are competition issues, they are secondary. I hope that the Minister will have that in mind in deciding whether or not the Office of Fair Trading should be involved.
  I do not altogether hold it against the Minister that he has not come forward today with a final scheme. I think that he had been looking to the companies to provide him with a scheme. The very fact that they have not done so makes it clear how difficult it is and how important that it should be got right. I think that the ITC will need a fallback power if the companies do not come up with something. It may be needed beyond the transitional period which the Minister seems willing to concede. That may be needed to ensure that the cartel, which the Minister clearly did not like and about which he spoke disparagingly, does not re-emerge.
  It was interesting to hear the Minister talk about the possibility of the ITC utilising the guidelines as a means of giving a steer in the matter. I suppose it is possible that the commission could use its powers to attach conditions to the granting of a franchise licence which, in effect, set up a network arrangement. However, that would not be a desirable way to approach the matter. It is better to look at such things in the round and for the ITC to take a proposal only as a fallback in the event of the companies not being able to agree something themselves. I hope that, by putting this clear support to a transitional arrangement on the face of the Bill, the Minister is not at the same time setting his face against a fallback power to set up a network arrangement in the absence of such an arrangement being agreed to the satisfaction of the ITC.
  Because of the importance of this matter, and as this may well be the last opportunity that the House has to deal with it, it is necessary for us to register our concern by dividing the House. The Minister may be right, and perhaps there will be delivered from another place an amendment that gives us the opportunity to discuss the matter again. However, we may not have such an opportunity, and we must send a signal to the other place that we attach great importance to this. We must also send a signal to the companies that, if they do not come up with a satisfactory arrangement, it is imperative that an arrangement be imposed upon them.
  Mr. John Greenway rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken and he would need the leave of the House if he wished to speak again.
  Mr. Greenway: By leave of the House. I shall be brief. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) seeks to divide the House, because the commitment given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister shows that he recognises that there must be a network arrangement. It would be better to allow further progress on the discussions to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 282.

  Division No. 193]

  [6.42 pm

  AYES

  Allen, Graham

  George, Bruce

  Anderson, Donald

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Gordon, Mildred

  Ashton, Joe

  Gould, Bryan

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barron, Kevin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hinchliffe, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Howells, Geraint

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Blair, Tony

  Hoyle, Doug

  Blunkett, David

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Buchan, Norman

  Janner, Greville

  Buckley, George J.

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Caborn, Richard

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kennedy, Charles

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kilfedder, James

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Cartwright, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  McAllion, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Corbett, Robin

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McKelvey, William

  Crowther, Stan

  McLeish, Henry

  Cryer, Bob

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  McWilliam, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dixon, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maxton, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Michael, Alun

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Eastham, Ken

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fearn, Ronald

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fisher, Mark

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flannery, Martin

  Morley, Elliot

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Murphy, Paul

  Foster, Derek

  Nellist, Dave

  Foulkes, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fraser, John

  O'Brien, William

  Fyfe, Maria

  O'Neill, Martin

  75

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pendry, Tom

  Strang, Gavin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Turner, Dennis

  Prescott, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Radice, Giles

  Wallace, James

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Walley, Joan

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Richardson, Jo

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Robertson, George

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

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

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. John McFall.

  Spearing, Nigel

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Allason, Rupert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Amess, David

  Cran, James

  Amos, Alan

  Critchley, Julian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Ashby, David

  Curry, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dover, Den

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dunn, Bob

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Benyon, W.

  Eggar, Tim

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Evennett, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Boswell, Tim

  Favell, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bowis, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Forth, Eric

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Franks, Cecil

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  French, Douglas

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

  Fry, Peter

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gardiner, George

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gill, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Butcher, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Butler, Chris

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gow, Ian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Gregory, Conal

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ground, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Hague, William

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  76

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

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

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Michael

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayward, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Holt, Richard

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Portillo, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Riddick, Graham

  Irvine, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jack, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Janman, Tim

  Rost, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Latham, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Squire, Robin

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lightbown, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Sumberg, David

  Maclean, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Madel, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Malins, Humfrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Maples, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marland, Paul

  Thome, Neil

  Marlow, Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Trippier, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Trotter, Neville

  Mellor, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Viggers, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Walden, George

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Walker, Bill (Tside North)

  Moate, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Warren, Kenneth

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Watts, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  77

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

  FINANCING OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES OUT OF TELEVISION EDUCATION FUND
  `(1) The Secretary of State shall, for the financial year beginning with 1st April 1992 and each subsequent financial year, pay to the Commission such amounts as he and the Commission, with the approval of the Treasury, determine to be appropriate for the purposes of this section.
  (2) Any amount received by the Commission under subsection (1) above shall be credited by them to a fund established by them under this section, to be known as the Television Education Fund.
  (3) The fund shall be under the management of a committee appointed by the Commission for the purposes of this section and section 31 and shall be applied by the Committee in the making of grants to finance the making of educational programmes intended for schools, for continuing education for adults and for connected purposes.
  (4) When making any grant out of the fund pursuant to subsection (3) the Committee may impose such conditions as they think fit.
  (5) The persons appointed to be members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine; but the Commission shall, when making any such appointments ensure that a majority of the members are persons with a knowledge of children's and adult education.
  (6) The terms of the appointment of the members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine; and in the case of any members of the Committee who are neither members or employees of the Commission, the Commission may:

  (a) pay to them such remuneration and allowances, and

  (b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of them such sums by way of allowances, pensions or gratuities, as the Commission may determine.

  (7) Any expenses incurred by the Commission either under subsection 6 or for salaries of Commission employees whose services have been furnished to the Committee, shall be defrayed out of the fund.
  (8) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year to which subsection (1) applies, the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings for that year and transmit it to the Commission.
  (9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
  (10) In this section "the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.] Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take Government amendment No. 655.
  Mr. Maclennan: There was a valuable debate in Committee, when all sides agreed on the importance of educational programmes. The new clause is designed to
  78
  strengthen the provisions that have already been made to ensure that education forms an important part of the programming of the Channel 3 companies.
  Educational programmes act not only as a stimulus for children, but as an important teaching aid for teachers. It is a medium that children can understand and appreciate. Most schools now have television, even if they are short of books or staff. A poll has shown that 12 per cent. of primary school teachers and 8·5 per cent. of secondary school teachers consider television central to education.
  The Government have already acknowledged the importance of educational programmes by their amend-ments, which are a welcome strengthening of the Bill. However, we must recognise that educational programmes are costly to make, because they have a limited appeal to advertisers. I think that it would be appropriate to establish a fund to provide additional support for the programme makers, to ensure that provision for them is not skimped. That could be done along the lines already provided for in the Bill, such as for the promotion of Gaelic.
  My new clause follows the structure of the provisions for Gaelic in some detail. Its purpose is to prime the pump for the production of educational programmes. As with Gaelic, the money would be expected to be in addition to the money made available by the companies. The new clause is, I think, self-explanatory, and I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister.
  Mr. Mellor: I commend Government amendment No. 655, which is attached to new clause 8. It is the Government's response to the concern that "outreach" materials should be made available to schools by the television channels providing schools programmes. The amendment would have that effect, and I commend it to the House.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for the manner in which he put the case for his new clause, and for the brevity of his remarks. He knows that I attach importance to both aspects of education on television: first, schools programming, which clause 31 specifically requires, and, secondly, continuing educational programmes that are an established part of the television scene. They will, in particular, be part of the remit of BBC2 and Channel 4, but will continue to have a place on Channel 3, because the ITC, in the strong guidance that it will give to franchise applicants, will be able to say that it expects to see reflected the broad range of programmes presently available on the ITV system. I was heartened by the fact that the ITC has specifically said that, as we have added religious and children's programmes to the specific requirements of Channel 3, it sees no need for additional programme types to be specified.
  7 pm
  I am also sure that the ITC will want to consult with others outside to make sure that the programmes broadcast are as helpful and relevant as possible and take account of up-to-date policies and techniques. My disagreement with new clause 8 is that the structure of the arrangements should be a matter for the ITC and the licensees, not one that we should particularise in the Bill.
  I see no reason for thinking that good quality programmes cannot be funded in the way that they presently are. The danger of agreeing to an education fund

  79
  is that we might then find an unanswerable case for a television drama fund or a television children's programmes fund. If I really believed that we would not have educational programmes without making some changes in the fianancial arrangements, I could well imagine wanting to think about an education fund, but because I have no evidence that would suggest that there was likely to be any difficulty in handing the baton on from one group of licencees to the other with, if anything, a rather firmer statutory framework than we propose, the case for the fund has not been made out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: This brief debate has replicated one in Committee. Once again, the Minister has been enormously sympathetic to the good points made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) but has missed the essential thrust by confusing education with schooling. Government amendment No. 655 and the way in which the Minister answered the hon. Gentleman's case show that he believes that this is a matter of whether schools programmes can be properly balanced and resourced. In doing so, the Minister misunderstands the new clause and our arguments in Committee.
  The Opposition believe that education is more than just schools programmes. There is also continuing and further education. When Lord Reith identified education, along with information and entertainment, as one of the three main purposes of broadcasting, he was not just referring to its contribution to school education; he was talking about the way in which broadcasting can widen all our minds throughout our lives. That is the responsibility that broadcasters should bear in mind, and the Government should be helping them to do so in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 655 is fine as far as it goes and I am glad that it mentions the use of materials and resources, but I hope that the Minister will understand that more is needed in that respect. Education officers employed by the ITV companies do far more than just provide programmes and publish back-up material. They work with local education authorities and put on conferences. They have a menu of work and initiatives and liaise with education authorities. Their work is invaluable and backs up and informs the materials and programmes referred to in the amendment. I hope that the Minister understands that.
  As we said in Committee, every ITV company has an education officer and many big ones employ two, but after the next round of franchises I fear that there will be an enormous reduction. I shall be amazed if all ITV companies have that range of senior, well-paid officials. I hope that they will have them, and I would encourage them to have them, but I fear that they will not.
  We are not just talking about schools. Broadcasting can contribute to the quality of life in the 1990s and help us to close the gap that many people perceive is already widening between ourselves, West Germany and France in the quality of our education, not just in schools and colleges but throughout our population, if we are to become an intelligent and educated democracy in the 1990s in a way that we are not now. We cannot leave that to schools and colleges. Broadcasting has a central role to play in improving education and the attitude towards education in our society. The fund is an interesting and imaginative idea, and the Minister's response is not fully in
  80
  tune with the proposal or the challenge of education. He is still confusing that with the narrow but important area of school education.
  There is time for the Government to reconsider the matter and I hope that they will take up the debate in another place. When the Bill comes back to this place, I hope that the Government will have accepted the fairly non-contentious—in party-political terms—case that we are making. The education responsibilities that broad-casters must have placed upon them go far beyond the school room. That is the burden that they should be carrying in the 1990s. That is a positive remit for education and for broadcasting in the 1990s. I hope that the Government will think again and will accept the proposal at a later stage.
  Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am glad to welcome his amendment, but I regret that he has not seen fit to commend my new clause. He is unduly sanguine in believing that the quality of educational programmes can be assured by the regulatory requirement that education shall figure in the programme mix advanced by the would-be franchise holders.
  I have no doubt that the ITC will look for educational components in the programmes, but the Minister has failed to recognise—it was implicit in earlier debates—that operating in the new, more competitive market means that programme makers and companies will have to look much more carefully, and will look much more carefully, at programmes which do not attract audiences in which advertisers are interested.
  This is not just a matter of carrying forward good standards of educational broadcasting. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is right in saying that we are talking not just about schools but about further education throughout life. It is a bit overoptimistic to assume such good standards in the new world of broadcasting into which we are moving unless specific assistance of a non-commercial kind is made available.
  I acknowledge that there is some danger in setting up funds for this and that aspect, but education is probably the area where there would be the most complete agreement on the importance of maintaining standards.
  I acknowledge that the debate is not new, but it is a pity that the Minister has not felt able, on reconsideration, to accept the new clause in principle. I hope that he is right that the mere regulatory requirement for educational programmes will achieve what he hopes to achieve, but I must express considerable doubt that it will.
  I was not proposing necessarily large sums of money. The fund would have entirely open-ended. A number of different sources could have contributed to it. I think that such a fund would have commended itself to those who care about education. I have heard what the Minister said and I can say no more.
  Question put and negatived.

New Clause 12

  CHANNEL 5 REMIT
  `As regards the programmes (other than advertisements) broadcast on Channel 5 it shall be the duty of the Commission to ensure—

  (a) that for part of the broadcasting time, the service offers regional programmes for such number of

  81
  regions the ITC may specify and that a substantial number of such programmes are made within the region for which they are provided.

  (b) that for part of its broadcasting time the service offers educational or training programmes

  and generally that Channel 5 has a distinctive character of its own.'.—[Mr. Corbett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 382 and amend-ment No. 487, in clause 26, page 24, line 35, after 'licence', insert 'or licences'.
  Mr. Corbett: One of the most remarkable features of the Bill is how little it says about Channel 5. It contains just 15 lines on that subject. Never mind that the new channel faces great uncertainty given the present state of advertising and that forecast immediately ahead. Never mind that the Government have refused to give the IBA authority to begin making transmission arrangements for the new channel.
  With one breath the Government say that they want Channel 5, but beyond that there is silence—save their acknowledgment that the new channel will cover only seven out of 10 homes and that much of London and the south-east, which is the wealthiest market for advertising, will not be able to receive it.
  There is a little teaser in the shape of Government amendment No. 382, with which the Government seek to give the Independent Television Commission the authority to grant a part-time licence
  "between such times of the day or on such days of the week (or both) as they may determine."
  That is a fairly feeble way of moving sideways into a great expansion of public broadcasting.
  All that the Bill says about Channel 5 is that it shall
  "make the most effective use of the frequencies on which it is to be provided."
  Not a word is said about programming, and I do not doubt that ere long I will be told, "That is all right because the people running Channel 5 will provide programmes that attract audiences, otherwise they will go out of business." That in a nutshell is the Government's argument about the application of so-called market forces to broadcasting.
  It is reasonable to assume that one of Channel 5's roles will be to fill the gaps between BBC1 and BBC2 and between Channel 3 and Channel 4. All four channels were intended to complement each other and not compete head on, and it was certainly agreed in Committee that Channel 4 has been an outstanding success and has brought much innovation to television. That does not mean that all of us like every programme that Channel 4 presents. None the less, that channel has honoured the remit that it was given.
  If Channel 5 is intended to fill the gaps between the existing BBC and ITV services, it is likely that it will end up trying to mimic satellite channels and go for thematic programming, with great wadges of sport, news, and the rest of it. That will not help the development of satellite broadcasting, which has generally been welcomed in all parts of the House, as well as by an increasing number of viewers.
  New clause 12 aims at giving Channel 5 a specific role and allowing it to provide programming that is not offered by Channel 3, or at least not in sufficient volume. It
  82
  deliberately places the emphasis on programmes made in and for a region. That would give the new channel a stronger regional flavour than Channel 3 is ever likely to achieve or would want to achieve. It would also establish an important place for educational or training programmes, or both, on the television viewing menu.
  There is a strong demand for such programmes, as the IBA's 1989 survey of attitudes to television revealed. The survey showed that two out of three people would like more nature and wildlife programmes. Broadly speaking, I regard them as being educational. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member would argue that educational programmes must be all chalk and talk and conform to the old, narrow view of them. An educational programme can be any that stretches the imagination and opens our eyes and ears to things that are new to us.
  Forty-eight out of 100 people in the IBA survey wanted to see more programmes dealing with health and medical topics, while 75 out of every 100 wanted the same or a greater amount of current affairs programming. There appears to be a healthy body of demand for programmes of a factual nature as opposed to those that are purely entertaining—though I do not mean for a moment to deride TV light entertainment. The new clause merely tries to ensure that Channel 5 will have a distinctive flavour and a special role, and to provide ways of achieving that.
  7.15 pm
  Channel 5 offers real scope for innovation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is no longer in her place, because I know that my following remarks would be of particular appeal to her. Why not a specific obligation on whoever obtains the Channel 5 licence to broadcast more programmes by and for women to challenge head-on the still too-male preserve of much of today's television? There have been improvements, but there is still far too much stereotyping. I made mention of programmes for and by women, but not exclusively so. Such a provision could give a better welcome for women writers, producers and directors in working in, and contributing to, our television system.
  What about a better platform for our ethnic communities? Existing ethnic broadcasting is patchy, and there is not enough of it. There could be a proper place for ethnic scheduling in Channel 5, not only to meet the needs of ethnic communities but to enable them to communicate with the rest of us so that we may better understand their concerns and aspirations. One of the complications of the controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie's book is that most of us have little or no understanding of why it caused so much offence to Muslims in our communities. Television nowhere near properly reflects our multi-cultural society, and I suspect that under the present arrangements it is unable to do so.
  The foregoing suggestions are by no means exclusive but serve to outline the shape of the new Channel 5 in more detail than is provided by the 15 lines in the Bill. Its future cannot be left simply to the highest bidder and to the ITC. Our television system has developed on the basis of sensible regulation, and has been built almost brick by brick to expand the range of viewing available and offer more real choice. New clause 12 is part of that continuing process.
  My suggestions certainly reflect the last line of new clause 12, which states that the commission has a duty to ensure

  83
  "that Channel 5 has a distinctive character of its own."
  Left to market forces, Channel 5 runs the risk of being shapeless or of pandering to known tastes, the better to maximise audience figures for the benefit of advertisers. If Channel 5 is to work in the way that the Government say they want, it must offer programmes that are not currently available elsewhere. I hope that hon. Members will go along with the spirit of the new clause.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend inject some argument into the debate on issues about which the Broadcasting Bill should be concerned. It was about time.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) in his place. In the last debate on broadcasting he said that, whatever else happened because of the Bill, television would get worse. Everything that has been said throughout the passage of the Bill has borne that out.
  The Bill gives us an opportunity. My God, the invention of broadcasting was an immense opportunity to enlighten the world. We can broadcast to the whole of humanity. But the Government want to create programmes which will be left to the moneymakers. We will not have useful information or programmes that the broadcasters themselves might demand to see—we will have programer that maximise the audience.
  It is not given unto man to say only what people want to hear. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred to the book by Salman Rushdie and the fact that it gives offence. There is little that is creative in the world that fails to give offence. If it does not give offence it does not move people. The same can be said of the path envisaged for Channel 5.
  Mr. Corbett: The point that I was trying to make about "The Satanic Verses" is that people who are not part of an ethnic community find it difficult to understand the offence that members of those communities feel about the book. I was not pointing out merely that it had caused offence.
  Mr. Buchan: I take my hon. Friends valuable point. I was not being critical. We do not sufficiently understand the nature of the offence felt by members of ethnic communities about the book. I have had discussions with such communities and I know of the depth of feeling. However, I have often felt major offence and I believe that the reply to a book which gives offence is another book. For example, consider the incident that took place in the west Highlands when the Free Kirk Moderator attacked the Catholic church two years ago, calling it the whore of Babylon and a scarlet woman, and accusing people who attacked the South African regime as attacking it merely because members of that regime are Calvanists, who take the prayer book to a cabinet meeting. A poet gave a reply: Ian Crichton-Smith, who printed one of the best verse polemics that I have ever heard. Nobody said that people should be silent.
  We should use broadcasting. I should like to hear Muslims giving their views on Channel 5. I should like to see the issue properly argued and statements made about it. That is what Channel 5 could do. A proliferation of repetitive and competitive channels for the majority of people will not advance viewing for the majority.
  With the proliferation of channels we have an opportunity to broadcast minority programmes. Remember that when we talk about minorities in broadcasting we are referring to millions of people. A
  84
  minority programme may have between 2 million and 4 million viewers. That is a massive audience. It is more than Shakespeare got for his plays in two centuries of performances on the stage. It is a marvellous weapon.
  Proliferation to five channels means that there is no anxiety that what Conservative Members crudely call popular will not be televised. There will be no choice if people do not have a variety of channels.
  My favourite examples are wildlife programmes. No one would have predicted that wildlife programmes such as those of Sir David Attenborough would have become so popular.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington was too kind to the Government. He said that there are 15 lines describing the new channel in the Bill, but he is wrong; there are only two. The only instructions given in the Bill are that it should.
  "make the most effective use of the frequencies on which it is to be provided."
  But the most effective use for a commercial channel is that which will make the most profit. That is the only instruction.
  In Australia, there are 10 channels and little competition in the type of programmes broadcast, with one interesting exception—an ethnic channel which broadcasts films in Italian, German, the languages of the Indian sub-continent and the aborigine language. In other words, the channel is used to make programmes which appeal to a large variety of people and which enhance their cultures and civilisations. That is a positive force.
  The new clause does not mention educational programmes. What involvement will there be with the Open university? If there is none, why not? Is there any reason why such requirements should not be laid down? There is nothing about the extent of documentary coverage. There is nothing about educational program-mes. Conservative Members seem to resent those programmes, and yet they are among the most popular.
  To create a new channel with no remit other than to make profit, is intolerable. It is time that we recognised the importance of broadcasting. It is an extension of man's ability to communicate with man—and with woman—and there is no reason why such a channel should not devote more time to that. When we construct a new channel there must be more provisions. Otherwise, we might as well make candy floss and flog it on Blackpool pier.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: We have heard no arguments about how we can achieve more diversity and pluralism in our television channels. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has just said. Diversity must be the aim. If we leave the position of this free-standing channel undefined, it will inevitably be driven to broadcast programmes which are the lowest common denominator to attract mass audiences and to survive.
  The new channel will be financially vulnerable. Indeed, it has all the makings of a financial disaster, given the scale of competition. We must define clearly the scope of the new channel rather let it be driven willy-nilly by market forces to duplicate the rubbish on other channels.
  Each new terrestrial channel which has been created has been complementary to another major channel—for example, BBC2 was complementary to BBC 1, and Channel 4 to ITV. When Channel 4 was created I argued that the Annan recommendation, which was that it should

  85
  be a free-standing publishing channel, should be rejected in favour of making it complementary to ITV. With complementary channels the viewer has a genuine choice.
  In the new clause we are dealing with a free-standing channel in an intensely competitive market. The audiences are already fragmented. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said: the future lies with people getting their main television viewing from terrestrial channels and turning to cable and satellite television for specialised interests such as film, sport, politics, news—there are news addicts as well as sport addicts—or light entertainment. It is difficult to see how a free-standing channel will fit into that situation.
  The Government want to let the market decide but in the media the market does not operate effectively because in an unregulated situation the market tends towards competition and towards driving down the level of programmes to the lowest common denominator.
  The new channel will have to compete for advertising and it will have to attract advertising revenue. Horses, if fed on the same type of hay, will produce the same manure. To survive, the new channel will be driven down market.
  There is a law of competition which is exemplified by the British popular press compared with the American popular press. The latter is insulated from intense competition by local monopolies and is of a higher quality than ours, which is appalling. In many respects it is the worst in the world. Compare television in Britain, which is the least worst in the world because it is regulated and does not suffer from intense competition, with American television, where one has 40 choices to view the same rubbish on different channels.
  It is an achievement that we have insulated television by regulation, and by modifying competition and weakening its intensity we have managed to maintain standards. If we now thrust a fifth free-standing channel into an industry where competition is becoming more intense and without a clearly defined brief, we shall condemn it to becoming nothing more than a provider of the lowest common denominator attempting to grab the mass audience. Therefore, we need to define its brief clearly before it starts.
  What attracts me about the new clause is that it requires the fifth channel to be of a distinctive character from the other four terrestrial channels. Only by such a process of definition can we ensure the provision not of more rubbish on more channels but of something unique and distinctive so that we advance pluralism and variety rather than produce more opportunities to see lowest common denominator programmes.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Rowlands: I wish to make a different point about the fifth channel. I made it in Committee and I repeat it now. It is all very well for my hon. Friends to say what they would like to see on Channel 5, but people in many parts of the nation will not be able to see Channel 5. The so-called fifth national channel will be physically constrained by transmitters and and by its terrestrial nature and character. Fewer than 40 per cent. of the Principality will be able to receive the signal, so it seems academic to be debating what should be shown on it.
  The Minister and others will say that there will be 70 per cent. national coverage, but because of its character
  86
  and nature—and a decision has been made about the fifth channel—it is not capable of expansion except by further cabling or using satellites for the rest of the nation. It does not have the same capacity that BBC1, BBC2 and ITV have to achieve the national coverage to which we are accustomed—90 per cent. or more.
  Therefore, we have every right to say not only that we have grave doubts about what might appear on the fifth national channel and about whether it will become a truly national channel. If it will not—and perhaps I am a lone voice in saying this—a totally different strategy should have been adopted. The alternative to creating a fifth national terrestrial channel which will probably be nothing more than a downbeat version of the other commercial channels reaching out to fewer parts of the United Kingdom is to use the opportunity of a fifth channel to create genuine regional television. Around cities one could have introduced a different diversity from that proposed by my hon. Friends. Rather than using it for a so-called major new national channel, the opportunity should have been used to produce regional and local television, thereby creating diversity.
  I do not necessarily give the new clause my whole-hearted support. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) talks about a Channel 5 remit without talking about how far that remit will reach. Everyone has suggested that the channel will be in some difficulty, technically and commercially. There should be a complete rethink about how we use the last available terrestrial resource to produce a different pattern of five-channel television from what has been suggested by the Government and by some of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I understand that Channel 5 will reach only about 65 to 70 per cent. of the population; people in his region and parts of Scotland will not be able to see it. That problem needs to be addressed because a new transmission system would be required to enable Channel 5 to penetrate all parts of the country, as I believe it should.
  As I understand the Bill, certain of our fears are met by the fact that Channel 5 will have a quality threshold.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a point which is easily missed. Channel 5 will have exactly the quality threshold and exceptional circumstan-ces arrangements that will apply to Channel 3.
  Mr. Banks: In fairness to the Minister, I thought that. I should make that point, but one problem that we raised in Committee and no doubt will return to is that if a franchise application based on high quality is awarded the franchise by the ITC, we want to ensure that if there is any retreat from the standards that gained the franchise in the first place the ITC will be able to claw it back. That needs to be spelt out because our genuine fears would clearly be met by such a guarantee.
  It is true that more does not necessarily imply difference, as we have seen in American and Australian television and other television in the world. The amendment is particularly commendable in that it tries to ensure that Channel 5 has a distinctive character. It is difficult to know precisely what role it would shape for itself, given the variety that already exists. However, Channel 4 has undoubtedly created a distinctive role in

  87
  broadcasting and the amendment is seeking a similar role for Channel 5. I feel reasonably satisfied that, provided that the quality threshold argument is met in full and there is sufficient ability for the ITC to take back the franchise in the event of a franchise holder reneging on assurances given, our fears will be put into context.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has been most helpful because he has touched on a vital point. All the arrangements that apply to Channel 3 apply to Channel 5, not least those which I am most proud of and committed to—the opportunity for much more rigorous enforcement of programme promises than is possible under the existing system.
  Channel 5 should be welcomed as an opportunity—not problem-free by any means—to bring relatively straightforwardly to 70 per cent. of the nation an additional terrestrial channel. Of course, 100 per cent. coverage can be obtained only by finding alternative means of transmission. Large tranches of the country cannot be covered as that would interfere with continental signals. That applies not only to Wales. I recognise that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has been entirely consistent in making that point and I am genuinely sorry that nature does not permit me to meet it.
  From a commercial point of view, it is worth pointing out that quite large chunks of southern England will not be covered. Although I believe that Channel 5 will be viable, its commercial base will require some careful thought by those that put in for the franchise. We have BBC1 and BBC2 with their specific remits and we have Channel 4 with its remit to cater for minority tastes even more firmly entrenched in statute as a result of the Bill than it was before; we have Channel 3 a notch down from public service broadcasting with a wide remit as a mass audience channel. That is not the same as a mass entertainment channel. The word almost slipped from my lips, but the House knows that I have added commitments that will ensure that Channel 3 is a great deal more than that. By that definition, Channel 5 will be a notch down from public service broadcasting, but the quality threshold will have to be met. I hope that there will be a genuine and imaginative response by the applicants for Channel 5 which will make use of the potential of an extra terrestrial channel in a new way.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose——
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is terribly active tonight. I do not know whether he is on illegal stimulants.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am active because I am concerned that the Minister has made so few concessions to sense and rationality on the Bill. The promises and predictions held out on the quality threshold will not apply in the face of financial disaster. We already have the experience of London Weekend Television and TV-am, both of which were allowed to dilute their applications. Yet they were not faced with the dire financial position that Channel 5 is likely to face.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman betrays his absence —alas—from the Committee. I do not criticise his absence, which may have helped us to get the job done. He is wrong
  88
  to think that there was little change in Committee. He would know that if he had sat in Committee instead of making a lot of money on Sky Television—which is one of the worst indictments of Sky Television. If he had heard the discussions in Committee, he would know that one source of pride in the Bill for more than just Conservative Members is the fact that as a result of what we have done in Committee we have given the Independent Television Commission far more powers than the Independent Broadcasting Authority ever had to hold people to account for their programme promises. I attach importance to that. The IBA was given a remit which included a nuclear deterrent—the right to take away a franchise, yet it did not have sufficient day-to-day powers, such as the power to fine. However, I was making a somewhat different point.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has said that many of the provisions for granting franchises for Channel 3 will apply to Channel 5, including the quality threshold. Is it intended that the published illustrative guidelines should also apply to Channel 5? That would also affect its remit.
  Mr. Mellor: That is more a matter for the ITC; it is not prescribed. We must be aware that, in the end, it is the broadcasters who will give Channel 5 a character, subject to a framework that will be properly administered by the ITC.
  As I go round the country meeting different broadcasting interests, I am enormously encouraged by the interest in Channel 5, especially from one or two imaginative groups who see the opportunity of a Channel 5 franchise to broaden their ability to expand the choice on British television. I am satisfied that, if broadcasters do not take that approach, the channel will not thrive. It will not be easy to make Channel 5 successful and it will not happen by just wishing it to he so.
  We want to ensure that the ITC has the greatest flexibility in maximising the potential of Channel 5. It is not a statutory requirement, but it is likely that it will advertise the Channel 5 franchise—or franchises—after it has dealt with the Channel 3 franchises to ensure that some who might have preferred a Channel 3 franchise can apply for Channel 5 if they wish. Government amendment No. 382 is important. It would permit the ITC to advertise for more than one Channel 5 franchise, if it thought that right, and to divide up the time if it thought that the channel would be better if there was more than one contractor.
  A range of innovative thinking is not blocked out. I have always envisaged Channel 5 as a national channel, but that does not preclude it having local opt-outs. During my discussions with the chairman of the IBA this morning, the idea was mentioned that 50 different towns and cities could participate in Channel 5 and could have local opt-outs. Channel 5 would thus be on a local rather than a regional basis, which is an important idea. It is not precluded by the statutory framework and could be the basis of a serious submission which, on quality grounds, could carry all before it and could be the beneficiary of the arrangement on exceptional circumstances.
  Mr. Rowlands: I have listened with increasing interest to the Minister. I proposed an alternative structure by which, rather than pursuing a national channel which could not reach the whole nation, we should consider a

  89
  regional or city structure and create a different and imaginative fifth terrestrial channel. To what extent does the Minister support that idea?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Mellor: I have always considered that Channel 5 should be a unitary channel to succeed, although that may show the limitation of my own imaginative response. Plainly the idea that Channel 5 could involve a host of local opt-outs—far more extensive than the regional opt-outs on Channel 3—is gaining currency in some circles. If a serious bid is made on that basis, the ITC could accept it as we are placing no block on an imaginative response to the potential of Channel 5. The House is in a worse position to determine these issues than those who will have the challenging task of making Channel 5 viable. To win themselves a place in the broadcasting future, they will need to be able to create a specific and different atmosphere on their channel which will attract viewers. They will start with the difficulty of not having national coverage and of not having within their immediate reach some of the most attractive areas in terms of the amount of advertising revenue that could be unleashed.
  The ITC will be able to offer more than one franchise. The idea that the system could be based on town or city opt-outs is not blocked, enabling Channel 5 to be a national and a local station. All of that sets a challenge to the broadcasting community and I have sufficient confidence in the broadcasting community to believe that it will respond positively to that challenge. I have been heartened by the number of people—including one or two of the better people whom I know who are involved in various production activities—who are seriously interested in such ideas. Channel 5 will be a good shop window for British broadcasting talent. It will be none the worse if, having set a framework that is appropriate to ensure that there is a decent standard, we leave some of the more creative thinking to the broadcasters and do not try to usurp that function ourselves.
  Mr. Buchan: I am glad that the Minister is talking a lot more sense than he did in Committee. He has learnt his lessons in our long, three months' struggle. I do not remember the technicalities. However, is he now saying that "exceptional" will apply not only to quality as a result of our discussions in Committee but to interesting and original ideas on the structure, such as his suggestion of opt-outs? Can that now supersede the highest bid?
  Mr. Mellor: That goes to quality. If someone puts forward a set of proposals with a series of local arrangements within a national framework, nothing would preclude the ITC from seeing that as an exceptionally good quality bid. I see that as part of surmounting the quality threshold. It would be an imaginative response and its evaluation would be a matter for the ITC. I profoundly believe that the remit we give to Channel 5 will prevent it from being lowest common denominator trash. It will also give the broadcasters, who are better placed than we are, the opportunity to find a solution to the key question, "Can Channel 5 find its place in the order of things?" I believe that it can, but only if it receives a highly imaginative response from broadcasters. In effect, I am saying that I trust the broadcasting community to respond, and I urge others to do so.
  90
  I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Opposition that there is not much difference between us on these matters. Although I realise that this is one of the key areas that the Opposition have identified for debate, I hope that——
  Mr. Buchan: It might be useful if the Minister could carry his remarks a stage further. The proposals will be going to the other place for discussion and it might help if the hon. and learned Gentleman said not only that such matters were not precluded but that they would be accepted as exceptional. It would help if he took that little step forward to ensure that their Lordships had at least heard the argument. After all, they may be able to secure that which the Minister says he seeks—original ideas and good quality. Why not spell it out?
  Mr. Mellor: I am arguing that original ideas are the essence of a quality bid but that it is a matter for the ITC to evaluate such ideas. I cannot usurp the ITC's function by telling it what to find exceptional—that would be wrong —but it will have plenty of scope to respond to an imaginative approach.
  The ITC may well prefer a set of proposals that suggest a national framework, with no local dimension. I referred to the local dimension because it is certainly not ruled out and could very well be ruled in by the right kind of application. The fact that the chairman of the IBA is very much aware of these matters—he and I have talked about them—is a sign that, gradually and steadily, more people may come to consider them. There is quite a bit of time to go before people have to commit themselves. I am not just a vague believer in Channel 5—I have clear ideas about it —but in the end it will be to the broadcasting community that the challenge will go out.
  I shall understand it if the Opposition feel obliged to push the new clause to a vote, but I hope that there has been a sufficient meeting of minds to render that unnecessary.
  Mr. Corbett: Doubtless buoyed by some surprising local election results in Wandsworth, the Minister has gone a long way to meet the concerns expressed through the new clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made good points about people's ability to receive the proposed new Channel 5. The Minister referred to local opt-out. Large parts of the Principality are opted out, in the sense that they will be unable to receive the channel. I know that that is not what the Minister meant, but that will certainly happen.
  Those of us who were privileged enough to serve on the Committee will remember with mixed feelings the advice that we regularly received from Dr. Brian Evans of Tantara Tek—a veritable electronic wizard, who tempted us to look beyond our present penny-farthing arrangements for the distribution of broadcasting. Dr. Evans never ceases to amaze. He was explaining the other day that digital television could overcome many of our problems with distribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was concerned that only 70 per cent. of households in the United Kingdom, and a very much smaller proportion in the Principality, would be able to receive the new Channel 5. It is also the case that only about 70 per cent. of homes in the United Kingdom will be able to receive satellite, because to do so one needs direct line of vision on to the signal. Trees and leaves—

  91
  even those of broad-leaved varieties of plants—can interrupt that. By the addition of yet another black box —a digital television decoder—we could make use of an existing television aerial to provide either 20 extra channels or 10 extra television channels and 50 extra radio channels for an estimated £250. There would then be no need for unsightly satellite dishes and we should be able to close the gap in the availability of cable television, which, on best estimates, is unlikely to be available to more than about 40 per cent. of those who live in urban areas. Perhaps we have not given enough thought during our proceedings to the technicalities of distribution.
  Like many other hon. Members, I welcome the Minister's remarks about what can happen with Channel 5. I make no complaint, except to say that what he said is not immediately obvious from the 15 lines in the Bill and that we are again relying rather heavily on the nice Mr. George Russell. We are used to relying on that nice Mr. George Russell, but some of us wondered whether it would help him if we gave him the odd hint and nudge about what we think Channel 5 might usefully do. The Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the central point that, if the channel is to have any chance of commercial success or of attracting viewers, it will have to provide something that is not readily available on the other channels.
  The idea of a national channel from which large towns, cities and conurbations might be able to opt out is an interesting one. We should not get too carried away, however, because making television programmes is expensive, so there is an argument for that idea not being adopted. Most towns and cities that might consider opting out would probably be restricted to about one or two hours a day at best, although the House will forgive me if I say that we in Birmingham would probably manage four hours a day. Such arrangements could provide an interesting mix.
  When I opened the debate I expressed some ideas about what Channel 5 might do. I did not mean them to be exclusive. Having heard what the Minister said, I now think that some of those ambitions might be more easily achievable on a local opt-out basis. As I said, if the channel is to succeed, it must have something distinctive about it. It must provide people with a reason for switching over to it and then staying tuned in. The Minister has suggested that there are at least some signs that that is well understood by those in the broadcasting industry.
  At one stage in Committee, the Minister was giving out Smarties regularly. It is only right that I should return the compliment and offer him a small chocolate biscuit, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 13

  EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
  `(1) The Commission shall require applicants for a licence under Part I of this Act to provide an undertaking of their commitment to an equal opportunities policy and from time to time to review its operation.
  (2) The Commission shall require licence holders to obtain from independent producers used by them an undertaking of their commitment to an equal opportunities policy.'.[Mr. Fisher.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Fisher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after second 'chairman', insert, `who shall not be of the same sex as the Chairman'.
  No. 1, in page 2, line 1, after 'members', insert
  'at least half of whom shall be women'.
  No. 4, in clause 6, page 5, line 42, at end insert—
  `( ) that it will 'deliver a wide range of diverse programmes of particular interest to women and which provide a balanced portrayal of the lives of women.'.
  Mr. Fisher: The new clause deals with equal opportunities policy. Many of our debates—both in Committee and today, on Report—have been both detailed and technical, but behind them all lies the idea of the power of broadcasting to shape values, to carry forward our beliefs in our traditions, to stretch our prejudices and try to change them and to shape the way in which we think and live—in other words, to define our culture.
  One of the strongest characteristics of our culture is that it is dominated by the views of the majority, as opposed to those in minority groups such as people with disabilities and people of Asian or Afro-Caribbean descent. We can include in that category one majority of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be well aware. Women represent 52 per cent. of our population, although in the House we always seem to consider their view a minority view—in a way, correctly so, because the dominant culture in our society is a male culture.
  Most institutions in our society are run by men, with a male perspective on life, and that colours the values and perspective that they have. Given that broadcasting is the most powerful element in our democracy—the most powerful element in our culture—the existence of a dominant culture in broadcasting shapes the way in which we shall think in future, the way that we are carrying forward views of our society, in a narrow and unhelpful way for a wider pluralist society.
  8 pm
  This is an important issue that the Bill and broadcasting in the 1990s should take on board. Unless we have a wide-ranging culture—if we continue to have a partial culture—we shall do ourselves and society a disservice. Opposition Members recognise—I hope that the Minister of State does, too, because he is fair-minded—that many cultures are missing out in our society. Broadcasting has a peculiar and a particular responsibility, because it is so powerful, to put that right. We have already recognised that in some parts of the Bill.
  The Minister of State has already paid tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has done for the Welsh culture. I refer also to the Gaelic culture, but the Bill fails to recognise other cultures. The new clause would put a responsibility on the ITC to ensure that all holders of ITV, or Channel 3, franchises would have a responsibility to ensure that there was a wide range of views in their employment policy and in the way in which they represented the world around us. That seems to be eminently fair.
  Mr. Mellor: I wonder whether it would help the hon. Gentleman if I said that I too feel that that is an eminently fair point. Although I cannot accept the new clause as it stands, I shall want to accept it in principle, with one or two little caveats about precise scope that I shall mention. However, I accept the essential thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said. That might help him in terms of how long he will speak.
  Mr. Fisher: That helps me enormously. I welcome what the Minister has to say. I look forward with some apprehension to his caveats, but if he accepts the thrust of the new clause, I welcome it very much indeed. I hope that, when he is shaping his own wording, he will have in mind, as we had in mind when shaping our new clause, the experience of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which had the same experience, particularly in relation to the views of women, that we have had in this country.
  A couple of years ago, only five of the 165 top jobs in the BBC were held by women. Ten years ago, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation found that only 8 per cent. of its top jobs were held by women. It set up a monitoring unit. I am delighted to say that Mr. John Birt, the deputy director-general of the BBC, has similarly taken positive steps in the past two or three years. I pay tribute to him and to the people whom he has appointed, such as Miss Cherie Ehrlich, to develop an equal opportunities policy in training, recruitment and the representation of views.
  If the Minister of State says that that is the future road for broadcasting and that he will help the ITC which, in the form of the IBA, is concerned about this matter, we shall welcome it enormously. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say. Obviously, I reserve the right to comment on any of his caveats. I am delighted that he will accept the new clause.
  Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for curtailing his remarks to allow me to say my piece. It is appropriate that we should put in a statutory arrangement for an equal opportunities policy. I envisage that the ITC will be placed under a duty to attach conditions to the relevant licences, requiring the licensees to pursue an equal opportunities policy in matters of employment and promotion and to review it from time to time. That would enable the ITC to ask applicants how they would propose to fulfil that condition. Once a licensee has been appointed, the requirement to pursue an equal opportunities policy would be enforceable in the same way as other licence conditions. That is the basic statement of intent.
  The new clause should also apply to the Radio Authority in so far as national independent radio stations are concerned, because they will be national organisations. I propose that the new clause should apply to the Radio Authority in so far as national commercial radio stations are concerned.
  On the limited number of derogations, we should apply the new requirement to those television licensees to whom positive obligations are already applied elsewhere in the Bill—that is to say, Channels 3, 4 and 5 and the domestic satellites services. I do not see the same strong case for applying it to those licensees who are subject only to negative consumer protection requirements—that is to say, non-domestic satellite service licensees and the licensable programme services.
  94
  That still means that we embrace all the main structures of British broadcasting, but we are adding a further positive requirement to those to whom we have already decided to attach positive requirements. I do not think hat we would be justified in adding this positive requirement to those services in which we seek only to have protective rather than positive requirements in other respects.
  I am not sure that that model would carry over well to independent producers. The ITC and the Radio Authority would be in a direct regulatory relationship with their licensees and would therefore be able to monitor compliance with the equal opportunities condition. but their relationship with independent producers would be much more distant. That is why I would not propose to extend the new clause to independent producers. I do not think that that substantially derogates from my acceptance of the principle that, to those major broadcasting organisations to whom positive programming principles are attached, this will be a further additional positive requirement enforceable in exactly the same way as every other part of the obligations into which they will enter.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a full-hearted response to what he has said. I am grateful to him for bringing forward the new clause. I hereby undertake to bring forward in the other place a new clause in the terms that I have described. The House will have an opportunity to monitor the accuracy of the new clause when it returns.
  Mr. Fisher: The House will appreciate and applaud the terms in which the Minister has responded to the debate, and the positive way in which he has accepted the new clause. I particularly welcome the extension to national commercial radio stations and to employment and promotion. Is training included as a subsection of employment? It would be extremely difficult to push forward equal opportunities in employment and management without having it as a positive requirement in training. That is certainly the experience of the BBC.
  The Minister did not mention the more difficult, contentious and less tangible subject of representation in programmes. That is an important element, certainly for groups of people such as those with disabilities. Very few of us can think of programmes that give a balanced view of what it is like to suffer from cerebral palsy or spina bifida. If such matters are included in broadcasting programmes, they are a matter of curiosity because there is a different view of the world if one has disabilities—there is a disability culture.
  That is difficult for us who are lucky enough to be able-bodied to accept, but it is an important point. I appreciate that representation is difficult and intangible. but I hope that the Minister of State will think about this matter when he is drafting his response, because, good though his response on employment and promotion was, training and representation are important matters. The Minister of State did not say whether he will accept our point that, if it is to be effective, it must be monitored.
  Mr. Mellor indicated assent.
  Mr. Fisher: I am glad that the Minister is nodding that that is the case.
  I understand the point that the Minister of State made about the difference between positive and protective. There is a distinction. I am glad that it will carry over to Channels 3, 4 and 5 and BSB.

  95
  Again, it was a point of contention in Committee. We do not see why Sky Television, as a non-domestic carrier, should be in a different position. It is illogical that it should not have the same requirements. If it is considered important for one, the same conditions should apply to the other.
  It was interesting to hear the point that the Minister made about producers. Many independent producers have, in their own production companies, been at the forefront of equal opportunities. There are several all-women independent production companies doing extremely good work. The Minister is saying, by excluding them, that 25 per cent. of production shall, in a couple of years or so, be excluded from the provisions of the imaginative move that he is about to make. I hope that he will have second thoughts about that.
  Having made those small points for him and his advisers to ponder when they draft the clause, and having been delighted with the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 17

  TAKEOVERS OF CHANNEL 3 LICENSEES
  `.—( ) The ITC shall only allow a takeover of a Channel 3 licensee by another person or body when it is satisfied that the full licence obligations can be met by the prospective licence-holder.
  ( ) No such takeovers will be allowed within the three years following the licence award except where the incumbent is unable to fulfil the licence obligations.'.—[Mr. Bill Walker.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 34—Revocation of Channel 3 licence on takeover during limited period.
  '3—'(1) Where—

  (a) a licence to provide Channel 3 service is awarded before 1993 to a body corporate, and

  (b) it appears to the Commission that, within the period of two years beginning with that award, a person who at the time of the award did not control the body has acquired control of it.

  the Commission shall revoke the licence by notice given to the holder of the licence and taking effect forthwith or on a date specified in the notice not being more than six months after the giving of that notice.
  (2) Upon such revocation any security given by the holder under section 18 shall be forfeited to the Commission.
  (3) Every licence which is awarded before 1993 to a corporate body to provide a Channel 3 service shall include such conditions as the Commission consider necessary or expedient to secure that they are given—
  (a) such advance notice of any proposal of which that body becomes aware and which if carried into effect would—

  (i) affect shareholdings in the body.

  (ii) affect its directors, or

  (iii) be in any other way relevant to the control of it.

  as is necessary or expedient to enable the Commission to ascertain that such an acquisition of control as is mentioned in subsection (1) is likely to occur, and
  (b) immediate notice of any such acquisition of control.
  96
  (4) In this section "control" has the same meaning as in Schedule 2.'.
  Amendment No. 42, in clause 3, page 3, line 30, leave out from '36(1)(b);' to end of line 33.
  Amendment No. 577, in page 3, line 35, after 'person', insert—
  'for two years after the grant of a licence and subsequently not'.
  Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
  'and such consent shall not be given before 31st December 1995'.
  Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
  'and such consent shall not be granted before 1st January 1994 unless it is agreed to by the person holding the licence'.
  Government amendment No. 229.
  Amendment No. 484, in clause 5 page 5, line 34, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  '(b) In subsections (3) and (5A) "control" has the same meaning as in Schedule 2.'.
  Amendment No. 483, in page 5, line 34, at end insert—
  '(5A) Every licence shall include conditions such as the Commission consider necessary to ensure that where—

  (a) the holder of the licence is a body corporate, and

  (b) for a period of three years from the award of the licence

  the Commission shall have the authority to take whatever steps they consider necessary and expedient to prevent changes in the persons having control over or interests in the body where they think appropriate.'.
  Government amendment No. 418.
  Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and I tabled new clause 17 because we were concerned with the changes that are taking place and the effect that they could have—I make no apology for saying this—on regional broadcasting. Being Scots, we have taken a somewhat parochial view of what is happening in our area.
  The increased emphasis in the Bill on quality and regional service will be wasted if any company seeking to take over a licence-holder is not obliged to fulfil the licence obligations. It will be expensive in time, effort and money to prepare a licence application. If predators can launch a take over bid immediately after the award, there will be a strong incentive not to bid but to wait and see who is the successful applicant, and then attempt a takeover.
  After each franchise round in the past it has taken a considerable time for new companies to become properly established and fully to contribute to the service. The dislocation would be greatly exacerbated if companies were fighting off takeovers or being taken over in the early years of their lives.
  Unless there is a moratorium on takeovers—three years appears to be about right—there could be chaos in Channel 3 and a consequent loss of service to viewers and advertisers. So we in the north of Scotland, who are serviced by Grampian Television as our local ITV station —my constituency is serviced substantially by Grampian, although Scottish Television is also concerned—are worried lest we suffer a loss of service. We are anxious to avoid the uncertainty that could result from an early takeover attempt following the award of a licence.
  Mr. Maclennan: The new clause follows closely the debates we had in Committee in which we drew attention to the predicament that would flow from a speedy takeover by incoming companies and the difficulty that would face the regulatory authority if that were to happen. Indeed, the IBA and its chairman have drawn attention to the problem from the beginning. They recently said that they would

  97
  regard a moratorium of a year as the absolute minimum necessary to enable them to do their job properly. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), whose involvement in these matters everyone in the north of Scotland will no doubt welcome, is right to say that it should be longer than one year.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Mellor: I met the chairman of the IBA this morning to clarify the position of the IBA on certain points. He regards 12 months as a desirable moratorium limit, not as a period for which he is asking as a second or third best. I understand that, in his view, 12 months is long enough. In other words, it is not his view of a minimum period —he would prefer longer—but his view of the right period.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am happy to rephrase my remarks to take account of what Mr. Russell told the Minister about one year being sufficient. I believe that it is not enough and although I defer to Mr. Russell in many matters—I have no doubt that he has given the issue much thought, not only in terms of what is right but what is achievable from the Government; perhaps he regards one year as a prudent period for which to ask now—the hon. Member for Tayside, North is nearer the reality, which is that the matter will not be settled satisfactorily after only one year.
  The selection process which will begin when the bids are invited is complex. It involves difficult valuations by the regulatory authority, and the bidding companies will be put to enormous expenditure of time, effort and money for the preparation of their bids. To have all of that set at naught by a predatory takeover within a year of being awarded the franchise would seem to make nonsense not only of the regulatory process but of the prospects of achieving an orderly approach to regional television and of sustaining quality beyond the initial bid.
  Not only is Grampian Television interested in this matter—Grampian has played a notable part in seeking to amend the Bill—but all companies in the 15 regions have an interest in achieving initial stabiity, and I hope that that will be recognised in the Government's response to the new clause. It is imperative that a period longer than a year is acknowledged. I proposed two years, but it is reasonable for Conservative Members to wish to extend the effectiveness of regulation beyond two years, and I shall he happy to support them.
  Mr. George Walden: The new clause goes wider than my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) believes. Although I sympathise with his regional concerns, his proposal deals also with the general issue of quality.
  When I last spoke on these issues, the Minister of State accused me of being rather free in my use of adjectives. I have a few more adjectives to use tonight. He has done a superlative job with some unpromising material. By that I refer not to his colleagues in the Government but to the original White Paper with which he was lumbered. I do not know how that came about. Perhaps he had a Pauline conversion in the Committee Room, induced by the heat of the television lights. He may have had some internal illumination. Or he may all the time have been a secret, closet Reithian.
  The most important thing is that the Bill is much better now than it was originally. I was glad to note that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister encouraged the setting up
  98
  of a classical music radio station which is an example of interventionism, elitism, is ideologically indefensible and is, of course, absolutely right. I take that as an example of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister's flexibility and realism. By making the changes that he has made, he has set a Bill which was originally standing on its head on its feet. He has done that with enormous cleverness and without losing his balance. That makes it all the more regrettable that on this important point the Government should give the appearance of holding out.
  Let us consider the practical circumstances of someone who has just won a franchise on the basis of a guaranteed level of quality. The next task would be to elaborate a programme schedule to set up the service. If on the day after the company won the franchise it received a telephone call saying that there was to be a bid for the franchise that has just been won, its attention would immediately be transferred from the task in hand to fighting off that bid. What is more, in the commercial world as it is, I expect that that company would cast a quick eye over its programme schedules to see where it might cut corners on quality, thereby pleasing the shareholders, in order to ensure its position in the coming takeover battle. That is one reason why I say that takeover bids always end up having implications for quality.
  On the two grounds that the company would have its attention diverted from the task of setting up a quality service by a predatory takeover bid and that it might be tempted to dilute its quality to appeal to a bigger mass audience, I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to allow a moratorium of, not one year—perhaps three years is too long—but at least two years. We are in new territory and we must do everything possible to give sufficient time for new companies that win franchises to prove themselves.
  The ITC will also be in new territory. With all due deference to Mr. George Russell, it will take it more than a year to establish with any confidence whether a newly franchised company is living up to the quality mark. Only after that length of time could the ITC judge whether the predatory takeover company was in a position to continue the established level of broadcasting of the franchised holder.
  For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that we need a two-year moratorium on takeovers. I read carefully the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to the forum organised by the Campaign for Quality Television. I noted that in defence of his decision not to go for a moratorium he talked about the need to get rid of mustiness, to introduce a little competition and, to use his phrase, to stir the pot a little. There is a difference between stirring the pot a little and holding out a pot of jam in front of a wasp's nest. That is one of the dangers that will confront new franchise holders and yet another reason for imposing a moratorium.
  I commend my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for his praise of the Campaign for Quality Television, about which he said some kind words at the forum to which I referred. It is not often in the House that we have reason to commend pressure groups. Often their tactics are more and more questionable and arouse more revulsion than attention. In this case, as my hon. and learned Friend graciously said in his speech, the Campaign for Quality Television has been a quality campaign. My hon. and learned Friend has listened carefully to its arguments and

  99
  accepted some of them. He is to be congratulated on that. On this matter, too, he should take the views of that pressure group seriously.
  Yet again, I come back to the question of quality in a broader framework. We are in new territory. We need time for the new arrangements to settle down. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister said tonight that Channel 3 will be a notch down. I notice that a few months ago he was talking about it being a few notches down from public service broadcasting. Evidently there is some uncertainty about how many notches down the new arrangements will be. Since the beginning, the Government have been wrong, but are less wrong now, in failing to recognise the implications of their proposals for Channel 3 for the BBC. We do not know whether Channel 3 is to be one notch down or a few notches down. How many will depend to some extent on the future of the franchise companies. That in turn will depend on whether they have time to stabilise. That in turn will depend on how quickly takeover bids come in.
  All the matters that I have raised tie up. What was the point of the Committee laboriously and commendably establishing a delicate structure of checks and balances if with one telephone call and a pile of money someone could come in from the side and knock down the whole house of cards? That could happen.
  I appeal to the Government to take a broad and cautious view. They should consider the matter in the round. I finish with one thought. However well the Government and the Minister do their jobs and however well the Committee has done its job, we are in new territory and there is a grave danger of a dilution of standards, whatever we do. We all know the reasons for that. I doubt whether the Minister of State goes along with some of the brassy talk about a new era in television. He is too intelligent a man to believe all that. Therefore, he must keep an eye all the time on every means of shoring up standards. That is why I agree with the new spirit of the Bill.
  I hope that the Government will also have a moratorium on their more adventurous plans for the BBC. We need a moratorium for the BBC too. If the Government start talking about doing away with the licence system or changing the regime at the BBC in other fancy ways, they could set off that drift downwards of which we are already in danger because of the implications of modern technology. The Government should view the new clause in that broader way and take into account the implications for quality, remembering that quality has a great deal to do with stability, whether it is a moratorium on takeovers or the stability of the BBC.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I strongly support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). We are dealing with something which is fundamental and which, if it goes wrong, will affect quality. In all my speeches in earlier debates on the White Paper I said that this is a matter of quality and that quality must be sustained and shored up at all stages. The new clause is fundamental in the sense that if a company that had won a franchise could be taken over by another company the whole process of granting that franchise would be negatived. All the standards that had been set could be put at naught. That is why this is
  100
  such a fundamental matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly said, it is one that has particular regional implications because smaller companies are more likely to be subject to predators. Therefore, it is not just stability and maintenance of quality that matters, but the continuity of regional elements after the franchise has been granted.
  8.30 pm
  Whether the moratorium is one year or three years is a matter for debate. I would favour nearer three years because one year does not give time, after a new licence has been won, to achieve stability and continuity and, therefore, at least two years, preferably three, would be right. Let us never forget that not only quality would suffer, but so would the service given to a locality and the people who lived in it if there were uncertainty and the ownership of the station and the company were in doubt.
  I speak for those who live in some of the regions of this country where the population is more scattered. We want continuity, quality and stability. I do not believe that the Bill gives that, so I strongly support the new clause.
  Mr. Tony Banks: In his usual authoritative and perceptive way, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) put his finger straight on it—because it is quality which is what a moratorium is there to protect. He was right in saying that in Committee the Minister of State did a good job. We said that ad nauseam. The number of times we were forced to compliment the Minister on his proposals became embarrassing. The Bill was eminently improvable and, unlike some of his harder, less cerebral, colleagues on the Front Bench—excluding the present Minister, of course—he showed himself to be both imaginative and understanding of what broadcasting was about and what was needed.
  Although we have said that the Bill is still not the one that we would choose, it is certainly much better than the one that started out in Committee. I still feel that if the Tory Whips had allowed the hon. Member for Buckingham to sit on the Committee rather than deliberately excluding him, it might have been even better than it is now. The hon. Member was absolutely correct in what he said about the moratorium.
  The Minister of State did a good job and we had the clear impression that his idea of heaven would be rushing from a Chelsea victory at Stamford Bridge to a Pavarotti concert. Certainly both subjects came up in Committee on a regular basis and perhaps his absence from the Dispatch Box at present means that Pavarotti is singing somewhere outside.
  I find myself in the odd position of supporting the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). It is not an experience that I have had before and I doubt that I shall ever have it again. I know that the hon. Member spent more time talking about regional aspects, but the quality argument is essential. Although we have established a quality threshold, which was very much welcomed because there is not going to be a Dutch auction for new franchises, it is possible that the large players will stand back while the lesser bidders go in for much lower quality than the large bidders would have done if they had gone in during the original round. The franchise may be awarded on quality but, in relative terms, it will be of a lower standard than if the larger bidders had gone in. Once the franchise has been awarded, the big boys will come in

  101
  immediately afterwards and snap up the new franchise holders. However, they would be coming in at a much lower quality level than they would have been forced to offer if they had entered into the original bidding. That is why the moratorium is absolutely essential.
  The moratorium will protect the Government's own guarantee about the quality threshold. Therefore, the Government must accept the amendment or, if not this one, one of the others—because there is a range from which they can choose. There must be some sort of moratorium in the Bill or their arguments about a quality threshold will be set at naught, or at least seriously undermined.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that George Russell—or St. George, as he began to be known in Committee—said that one year would do. I think that he is right, and that it could be that George Russell was exercising a degree of self-censorship and decided to opt for the lowest figure that he thought the Government were likely to accept.
  If George Russell were given the chance to look at the matter objectively, he would be more likely to agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North, as I would, than go for something less than three years. That would at least give the new franchise holder the chance to meet adequately the quality standards set in the original bid. If there are predators or potential predators they will have to come into the first process. There would not be much point in their standing back for three years because if the new franchise holders are successful it will be that much more difficult to take them over and, if the predators try to do so, the asking price will be that much higher.
  Therefore, for all those reasons, but particularly because I want to protect the Government's acceptance that there should be a quality threshold, I shall support the proposal of the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
  Sir Hector Monro: There is a fair degree of unanimity in the House that the principle of the new clause is what hon. Members wish to see in the Bill. I dare say that, in his reply, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will say that if he cannot accept one of the new clauses tonight the Bill may be changed in another place.
  In declaring a small interest in a television company, I wish to say that this is a matter of standards, takeovers and uncertainty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, why should we bother about the initial auction if a takeover would be almost inevitable a matter of months afterwards?
  I am particularly interested in regional television and live in the Border Television area. While it is not afraid because it would not anticipate any takeover from Grampian Television or Scottish Television, it would certainly he worried about large companies in the south. The balance of programmes is important in regional stations, particularly in areas such as Border, which has to balance the Scottish and English content because it serves both sides of the border and the Isle of Man. Its experience of programme content is very valuable and cannot be lightly thrown away or overtaken by events such as a takeover by a major company in the south.
  Therefore, it is important, and reflects the tenor of the debate, that we should work towards a moratorium of at least three years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, in the first year everyone will be settling down and nobody will be clear about the
  102
  way forward. I should have thought that three years was the very least period in which a company could prepare and run its programmes effectively. It should do it for that period without the worry of a predator breathing down its neck. It should not have to spend more time fighting off a takeover than providing the programmes everybody wants.
  We should support the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and ask the Minister to consider it carefully. We are all speaking with a degree of experience. I should have thought that the House would accept that the period of two or perhaps three years—which I support—should be the period after which a takeover was permitted.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). May I point out that there is a range of options? I support a three-year moratorium after the bid has been decided, so as to give some certainty and to encourage television companies to invest in quality production. It costs much money to make television programmes and films. If there is any hesitation, investment will be delayed.
  The cost of bidding will be expensive. Much paperwork will be involved. People will have to prepare the bid and provide the documentation set out in clause 17. They may want to take advantage of clause 17(3), which refers to exceptional circumstances, and concentrate on the quality threshold which they feel that they can surmount better than other companies. It may be expensive to set out for the ITC, and subsequently for the Minister, the documentation, including perhaps examples of programes, to show that clause 17(3) can be used. Expenditure of several thousand pounds may be incurred.
  I raised the question in Committee because trade union negotiators have been told bluntly that various television companies have been building up war chests so that, when the Bill becomes law, they can make a bid to capture the franchise. The Minister said that he would relax the provisions on the performance bond so that large amounts were not tied up in bidding and in the effective enforcement of the bid thereafter.
  If there is no moratorium, a company, having built up money in the war chest to succeed in the bid, and having succeeded, is likely to retain funds to fend off any predatory bid which may be in the offing. Without a moratorium, funds will be put into defending the company rather than into the production of television. Without a moratorium, viewers will be denied decent quality programmes while a board room battle is fought. We know that board room battles over prominent, so-called prestige companies are often extremely expensive, with both sides inserting newspaper advertisements and employing public relations firms. Sometimes there are investigations into the circumstances in which bids and counter bids are made.
  Having won the franchise, a company will want to fight off any predatory bid and will campaign accordingly. That means that it will need much money. It is absurd for the House to pass legislation setting out a fairly complicated and expensive procedure, and then for the Minister to be embroiled in an argument, best summarised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) when he spoke on Second Reading, about maintaining the quality of programming. We should relish what he said about the Bill

  103
  meaning that the Government like trash, that they believe the people like trash and that they would give them trash. We must give all credit to the Minister; in Committee he gave the impression of complete disdain for trash. In exchanges, he was sympathetic to the need for quality to be taken into account as a factor in the "exceptional circumstances" clause 17(3).
  Having gone through the battle and having won recognition from the Government that quality is an important component and that there are grave dangers in legislating sloppily—with money counting and quality being pushed to one side—it would be absurd to allow the removal of a moratorium. If there is no moratorium, there will be a drain of funds from the picture on the television screen. That is where we want the money to be spent. That is the basic purpose of a television franchise. That is what a television company is dedicated to and what it will be telling the ITC and the Minister that it can do best.
  8.45 pm
  We are not ruling out the possibility of competition, but the marketplace will not provide the quality that is necessary. A company cannot invest millions of pounds in quality television programmes if it is apprehensive about whether it will get any transmission at the end of the production period. A company has to invest over 12, or even 18, months to plan, produce and make ready for transmission serious programmes of reasonable quality. A successful bidder must be given a guarantee that he can carry out his commitment free from the worry and anxiety of predatory bids for a period of three years.
  In Committee, everyone agreed that a range of talents goes into the production of a television programme. The HTV studios in Cardiff and Bristol are making 112 employees of all grades redundant next Monday because of the war chest syndrome of building up funds. All those people want to make television programmes, but they will be denied the opportunity because of the circumstances being imposed on them by HTV management. It will be a grim development if talented and able people, with skills in writing, acting, editing, photography, set building and so forth, are denied the opportunity to use their skills because bidding is placed in jeopardy by the possibility of predatory bidding.
  I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take notice of the representations from both sides of the Chamber which would ensure continuity, commitment and decent television programmes.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I associate myself with the splendid new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and also with the remarks of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members. I wish to speak particularly to amendments Nos 484 and 483.
  I presume that the whole idea of the Bill is to get some money into the Treasury and at the same time to get high quality programmes for the consumer. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a low bid of £50 million was accepted because no other bidders came forward. Let us assume that a group of people got together as a consortium in the Channel Islands, and that, as the successful licensee was about to buy a bottle of champagne at the bar, the consortium made a hostile bid of £150
  104
  million. I cannot believe that the Treasury would be pleased if it had to forgo about £100 million because the Bill allowed that sort of thing to happen—and it would happen if there was no moratium on hostile bids. I have an interest in Television South West, which has a fine reputation for quality programmes. It is worried that there will be only one bid and that a consortium, rather like the ring in the antique market, will get together and bid it out of business, and that the shareholders will feel obliged to accept.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That is precisely my fear, but I suppose that there is another scenario. It is that the franchise holder who is doing the bidding might be not the nominee but the front man for someone who comes in a little later. In other words, the company that gets the franchise would quickly pass it on to the company that it knows is waiting. It would be not a predatory but a collusive hid, and it would enable the original franchise holder to get the licence slightly cheaper than he would otherwise have done.
  Mr. Steen: There are endless combinations of what could happen. That shows that, without a moratorium, many nasty things could happen that would not be good for the Government or for the principle behind the Bill which has been accepted by most of us. The Minister of State has persuaded even those who have doubts that it is the best thing since sliced bread. He would have persuaded us even more if he had got the moratorium matter right.
  I shall now deal with the logistics; I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I get them wrong. As I understand the timetable, the new franchises will be awarded in the summer of 1991, although we do not have the exact date. The old franchise will not end until December 1992. There is an 18-month overlap and, as things stand, if the existing television company does not win the licence, it will have to continue for 18 months while the new television company is waiting in the wings doing its bit to undermine confidence. How will that system work, with the old television company winding down over 18 months and the new one waiting in the wings?
  If the Minister accepted a moratorium of three years, he would have 18 months from the summer of 1991 until December 1992, and once the licence had been granted, at least the successful television company would have another 18 months to do the job without fearing that it would be at risk from any hostile bid. That would give shareholders a chance to evaluate the effectiveness of the company and whether it was putting into practice the quality programmes that it told the ITC it would produce.
  The Minister has given much to the Bill, and has made it a great deal better than when it started in Committee. His acceptance of the modest amendment tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) or some of the other amendments could make it even better. That is what is required. Our amendment is a modest alteration, aimed not at crippling market forces but at giving a little leeway, so that those forces can work in the most effective way for the benefit of the consumer rather than just for the benefit of financiers.
  I am sure that the Government would not wish the Treasury to lose money if there was some sort of argy-bargy. I join my hon. Friends and Opposition Members in urging the Government to make some friendly noise which would show us that they feel that something

  105
  needs to be done. The points made are neither frivolous nor vexatious. They touch on serious matters and were raised by people who are anxious about the future of the franchises.
  Mr. John Greenway: This is one of the most important new clauses that we shall debate. I am sad that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was not with us in Committee because his speech demonstrated eloquence and a workmanlike approach. I shall not try to copy that eloquence because I could not.
  We considered many amendments in Committee and have still to deal with some important new clauses and amendments. They try to address two issues which are related but quite distinct. First, there is the question of continuity of licence applications. It has not been said so far in this brief debate that clause 3 as drafted requires the ITC to give consent to a transfer. Amendment No. 229 relates to television and amendment No. 418 relates to radio, and we must not forget the importance of the bidding process for radio. Those two Government amendments are welcome because they strengthen the Bill's provisions about licence obligations being put into any new arrangement about transfer or takeover.
  Secondly, there is the added issue of the threat to the allocation process for licences. The debate has sought to address that issue, especially in relation to Channel 3 licences. There was much debate in Committee on a key issue that has gained most attention outside the House —the allocation process, especially in relation to the need to strengthen quality. Quality has been strengthened and as the House debates other amendments hon. Members will see the extent to which that has been done. That is to the credit of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State because he has responded to representations about quality. That has created an incentive for bidders to drive up quality through the bidding process. It is crucial that that quality is not undermined by prospective broadcasters sitting out the first round—the bidding process—and then getting their sums right through an immediate takeover.
  There has been much debate about whether the moratorium on takeovers should be for a year, two years, three years or some other time. It is crucial that a prospective broadcaster should understand that the only immediate means of obtaining a licence is through the bidding process. That is the issue that we must agree, and that is why there is a strong case for a limited moratorium. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) pointed out that the allocation process was likely to be completed at least a year or 18 months before the operation of the new licences. New clause 34, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams and which I support, was proposed by the Independent Television Companies Association Ltd. It proposes a moratorium for the period up to the operation of the new licences, and then for 12 months. I was encouraged by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister's comment, in an earlier intervention, that that is also the view of George Russell and of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
  It is crucial that potential broadcasters who wish to obtain a television franchise can only obtain a licence immediately—the same would apply to the new independent radio stations—by winning the franchise allocation. Otherwise, there is a threat that all the good work done in Committee to strengthen the bidding process
  106
  and to drive up quality will be undermined. A moratorium and takeovers of a limited nature could be the way to resolve that problem.
  9 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State must regard himself as being in a difficult position. He has seen so many changes to the Bill in Committee as he has gradually moved from the first flamboyant gesture of an open-ended option for franchise. However, he should not be too discouraged if the idea of a moratorium is raised now, as it is consistent with the Government's present position.
  A new television structure would be fragile. There can be no doubt that the market in 1991–94 will be intensely more competitive for media operations. Channel 4 is already coming on hot and strong, and Channel 5 is due shortly. There will be easy money to be made by companies that succeed in the auctioning process.
  There will be real difficulties in the competition for the quality that every hon. Member wishes to see. The competition between those that provide the money for the programme makers will be severe. The scale of commitment of a successful bidder will be greater than that of previous franchise holders, who were in a cosy, semi-monopolistic world—although they had severe difficulties in establishing their regional networks.
  The Bill contains various ways to protect the system, with references to small stations, large stations and the cross-ownership of media investments. I dislike media investment in television companies; I think that they should attempt to restrict themselves to obtaining new capital, and not second-guess other media owners. There will be a great deal of cross-fertilisation between companies.
  The auction system will provide a series of under-bidders, who believe that they have as much right as anyone else to acquire a franchise. There will be a natural interest in attempting to make an abortive bid more successful. That is endemic to the auction process, and legitimately gives rise to the moratorium procedure.
  I remind the House that it is not the under-bidder from the United Kingdom about whom we should be concerned; it will be various EEC bids that can be easily funded to provide a broader interest in how United Kingdom franchises will be awarded. Those EEC organisations have a great deal of experience, and have been acquiring United Kingdom companies for some time —not excluding the water companies—and they will be searching for ways to get in on the act.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister should accept the principle of a moratorium. The scale of it is, I suspect, a matter of fine judgment. After all, it will be rough if the new company produces but one year's profit and then becomes vulnerable. It is the product—whether it is a good piece of television or a prize-winning exhibit—that those organisations will be looking to buy. The asset of a television company is not just the franchise on the region; it is the selling capacity of the creative minds in that company that provide programmes to be sold abroad that provide profitable investments. That too will have to be considered.
  The one year suggested by the chairman of the ITC may not be long enough to protect the fragility of the system but, when all is said and done, I am sure that the

  107
  moratorium will be consistent with what has gone before. But it must be interpreted with great care because it must protect a system which ultimately has to gain enough strength to stand on its own feet.
  Mr. Corbett: There was such a moment as this, as the Minister and other members of the Committee will recall, on 25 January, the night of the great storm. The thunderbolts were clattering against the roof when we had a debate on religious broadcasting and the wisdom of requiring Channel 3 licensees to carry some religious programmes—in other words, to retain the "must carry" rule on religious programmes. The Minister listened to all of us, as he has tonight, and not only did he say that he accepted the sense of the Committee on religious programmes but, almost without being asked, children's programmes as well.
  There was another such night when, after a long and enjoyable debate on the exceptional circumstances clause, after unanimity on both sides, the Minister left us with the thought that he would act as the Committee's messenger and talk to others with fingers in that particular pie to see whether changes should be made. We shall come to those changes later.
  Not one hon. Member who has spoken in the debate on the moratorium has spoken against it. The principle is agreed on both sides. Even that nice Mr. Russell wants it, let alone others. The only arguement between us is from when it should date. The amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and others pins that down to 31 December 1995 to allow two years from when the first programmes were shown. We thought that there was some sense in allowing the programmes to be seen. Nobody will argue about whether that period should date from when the licences are awarded by the ITC or from when the programmes begin. An interesting point was made about the 18 months' spill-over period.
  I always find it uncomfortable to get tangled up with market forces, but I shall allow it to this extent. It is difficult to say what the balance sheet of a company which is awarded the licence, hopefully by the summer of next year, will show before it has a single programme on the air. It will have earned no revenue from its programmes. It may be that, as part of the process of getting its programmes together, it will be offering to make programmes for Channel 4, BSB or whoever wants to buy them, but I cannot think that that would be a serious proposition.
  I do not want to labour the point, but, as the IBA has argued, it makes no sense, having gone through all the paraphernalia of the so-called quality test to check on the safety of the money and the suitability of the people behind it, when the amount of money, the sealed envelope stuff, can be counted at the same time as the quality yardsticks are being assessed—a laborious process and expensive for those who bid—if within 24 hours of all that happening and that nice Mr. Russell and his friends saying, "Okay, you have got it" it is possible for someone to make a bid for that company.
  However, I believe that such a thing is unlikely to happen. My own guess is that those who aspire to take a share in an expanded British broadcasting system are as likely as not to be trying to buy their way in to the present
  108
  set-up. We know that one of the big television contractors has two rather large blocks of shares for sale. I believe, as someone who does not deal with such matters every day of the week, that it is more likely that those who aspire to a share would consider it more sensible to buy in to a company which they are advised—and there are many people in the City willing to give such advice—is likely to stand a good chance of bidding successfully for the new Channel 3 licence.
  To concede the principle of a one-year moratorium from the date the licence is awarded will not cost the Government anything. I agree with Conservative Members who made the point that to do so would not be tampering with the doctrine of market forces. The Minister made it clear in Committee that this is the only time that the ITC will observe such an elaborate procedure, and that once the initial round of awarding licences is over thenceforth everything will be done via the stock exchange, by takeover. It is true that in those circumstances, whether the takeover is friendly or hostile, at the end of the day the ITC will have to approve those who seek to acquire the licence and, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's words, stand in the shoes of those to whom it was originally awarded.
  Given the one-off nature of the ITC's initial task, how much more important it is that the applicants who are required to observe that process are given a degree of initial protection so that they can show how well they can live up to the programme and financing promises that persuaded the Commission to award the licence. The logic of that argument stands supreme. No one can lose from such an arrangement. The Government cannot lose in terms of their aspirations, and nor can the ITC. The companies which make successful bids neither gain nor lose, but in the critical early period between the award of the licences and the programmes going on screen there will be a measure of protection.
  That is important not only for the companies, but, more significantly, for the viewer. The Minister and his colleagues have spoken of the need for stability in the system, arguing that no one wants to see violent changes in what is shown on our television screens. If there is no moratorium, there is at least a risk of the transition being more difficult to achieve.
  I hope that the Minister will say that, on the back of the unanimous view expressed in this debate, he will at least reconsider. I suggest that he must go further, for there is a real wish for a moratorium. The bottom line is a one-year moratorium, though I have made it perfectly clear that I would like it to be for a much longer period. Nevertheless, we could all settle on a one-year moratorium.
  Unless the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) can secure a commitment with a period tied to it, I urge him to press his new clause to a Division. To do so would not be for the purpose of humiliating the Minister, who knows that neither I nor my right hon. and hon. Friends seek to do that, any more than do his own right hon. and hon. Friends. Instead, such an expression of the views of the House will give him an added argument when he consults the Home Secretary and other ministerial colleagues. I understand that in the Government today it is all a matter of listening and responding, at least in respect of other matters, so why should the same not apply to the issue now before us? It would be right to indicate before the proceedings are over that such was the eloquence of Conservative Back Benchers and the

  109
  Opposition on the issue that the Minister felt it would be right to table the proposed amendment in another place. He will know, without my saying it, that if he does not say that, it will happen anyway when another place considers the Bill.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has laid an appealing prospect before me. I am glad that we have a cameo appearance from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who, as a brief relaxation from foreign affairs, has resumed his interest in the Home Office —and I do not say that churlishly, as he is most welcome here.
  I commend the two Government amendments in the group. Amendment 229 deals with an issue raised in Committee—it will require the ITC to satisfy itself that the requirements of the licence would be upheld throughout the reporting period before giving consent to a transfer of the licence. Strictly speaking, the amendments are necessary because ITC consent is already required, but I gave an undertaking that we would etch that more deeply into the Bill, and that is what we have done. Amendment No. 418 makes the same arrangements for the Radio Authority.
  Turning to the substance of this matter, obviously I listened with care to large parts of the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) reported to me on those speeches that, sadly, I missed while taking a short break. I am aware that all hon. Members who have spoken favour a moratorium; that point is not lost on me. However, the other side of the case should not go by default, and I shall briefly outline it.
  The ITV network has in the past been protected from takeovers. It is not clear whether that has been of benefit to ITV or whether some of the complacent and inward-looking characteristics of the system—for in—stance, its inability until recent times to come to terms with some of the changes in industrial relations, and some practices that are common outside—owe a great deal to the protectionist environment within which it has been able to operate.
  It is interesting that the IBA has announced its intention to permit takeovers of existing companies. We know that leading shareholders of one of the biggest companies are looking for an opportunity to sell. It is likely that takeovers of existing franchise holders will be permitted from the time that the Bill gets Royal Assent. The issue we must consider is whether we should have a stop-go cycle and whether, having allowed takeovers, we should enter a period of moratorium and, if so, whether it should be for one, two or three years.
  If—it is quite a large if—my colleagues felt there were any attractions in a moratorium, with respect to the House, I do not imagine that they would want to go further than the period suggested by the IBA, which was 12 months. To be frank, it is higly questionable whether they would want to go that far. The whole issue turns on an evalution of some of the key points.
  Hon. Members have expressed the fear that the consequence of allowing takeovers would be that new owners of companies could get around obligations entered into by their predecessors. That will not be possible under the terms of the Bill—first, because the ITC will have to give its consent to a transfer of the franchise. If it deems
  110
  that the new owners are not fit and proper persons, or are otherwise unsuitable, it will be able to rule them out of court. Nothing could be more pointless than a successful takeover of a franchise which was then whipped away by the regulatory body.
  Mr. Walden: I understand the logic of my right hon. and learned Friend's point and it looks fairly convincing on paper. He made the same case at the forum that discussed the matter. However, the ITC will also be a new body exploring uncharted territory. It will have to make an essentially subjective judgment in awarding the franchise. It will then have to make a second subjective judgment about how well the franchise holder is carrying out the franchise and a third subjective judgment about how likely those who take over are to implement that franchise at second hand. So we are dealing with three levels of subjectivity. My fear is that in quality terms they will lead inevitably in one direction and it will not be upwards.
  Mr. Mellor: I expect that the ITC will have already sharpened its skills by failing a number of applicants on the quality threshold. It will simply be asked to bring to bear the same thinking.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) reminded us that the new purchaser of the franchise stands in the shoes of his predecessor and will be held to all the obligations that his predecessor entered into, with all the new array of powers which the ITC has, and which the IBA does not have, to enforce those franchise arrangements. Those are real safeguards.
  Some are concerned that the effect of a takeover bid would be to weaken the ability of a company to carry out its programming commitments, because time and energy would be devoted to resisting the takeover. I am not saying that there are any absolute truths in the matter; I respect many of those who made that point, and I do not reject that argument out of hand, but 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. That is a separate function.
  We have to be careful not to exaggerate and over-emphasise the problems of takeovers, which, after all, are part and parcel of every other part of the free enterprise system in Britain. We should be careful not to engage in too much special pleading on behalf of the broadcasting industry which is just one part of what we hope will be an increasingly competitive sector.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I did not expect that argument to find much appeal among Opposition Members, and I have not been disappointed. I give way to my fellow Chelsea supporter.
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is not a question of that argument not finding much favour among the Opposition; it does not find very much favour among Conservative Members either. Surely the Minister must be impressed by the fact that some hard-nosed free marketeers are sitting behind him—the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) being the classic example, and the man who moved the new clause seeking the longest moratorium—and not one single voice save his own has been raised against the idea of a moratorium. Surely, if the will of the House means anything to him, he must give us some moratorium.
  Mr. Mellor: I am not honour-bound to provide a balance by having a little squeak on the other side of the case. I certainly understand that some of those who have spoken would give relatively short shrift to the argument that I advance, but I must bear that with fortitude.
  Mr. Cryer: It is precisely because we know about the free market system that hon. Members on both sides of the House have presented that argument. The Minister has not addressed a matter which has been raised repeatedly: what will be the position if a successful television bidder decides —as they will be perfectly entitled to do—to resist a predatory takeover, when to do so would necessitate spending a great deal of money? Would that not be perforce at the expense of the quality of television, and should not the moratorium be given to enable franchise holders to demonstrate the promises that they made in their original submissions?
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman seemed to recognise that the arguments are tending to be against takeovers generally. If they were accepted, they would be valid whether there were to be a moratorium period or not. They go to the root of the question whether there should be takeovers. The present ITV set-up does not make a very compelling test-bed for the proposition that a competitive, free enterprise community operates better when freed from the rigours of takeovers.
  As I said in Committee, a number of observers of the broadcasting scene who are certainly not active supporters of my side of the political debate have long asserted that what has been needed to pep up the system is the ability for there to be takeovers and that many of the rest of our proposals would not be needed if we permitted that to happen. Obviously, the question of takeovers is part and parcel of the way in which a new dynamic is introduced into companies and into industries. Many sectors of the economy have greatly benefited from that.
  Mr. Chris Mullin rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman has views on issues other than the one on which he and I usually talk, so I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that no hon. Member from any party has spoken against the principle of takeovers this evening? We are talking merely about a moratorium. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address that issue and not get carried away down side alleys about the principle of takeovers?
  Mr. Mellor: I have to dismiss that as a somewhat churlish intervention. If some of the arguments allegedly in support of a temporary cessation appear to go to the question whether there should be takeovers as such, I am perfectly entitled to point that out. The point has been registered, and it will be there for all to read that the wide range of hon. Members who chose to participate in the debate—some have great experience in these matters—all spoke in favour of the moratorium.
  Mr. Maclennan rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I am just drawing towards a happy—well, perhaps not a terribly happy—conclusion. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman who will, no doubt, drive me back to where I was before.
  Mr. Maclennan: That has sometimes done the Minister good. However, I wanted to remind him of an earlier Home Office experience. There was a debate in the Chamber on another Bill about a proposal to curtail the rights of juries in serious fraud cases. On that occasion, the Home Office Minister heard, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has heard tonight, 11 voices speaking against the Government's proposal. The Minister gave the undertaking that he would consider the fact that there was unanimity of view, and very properly accepted the view of Parliament. When there has been unanimity of view from such an enormously wide spectrum of opinion, the least the Minister can do is not to set his face against what has been proposed. Perhaps that does bring him back to where he was.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has said in his own words what I was about to say in mine. I will not be deflected from doing so just because of his intervention. I have no remit to change this part of the Government's thinking tonight, and I do not say that this part of the Government's thinking will be changed. I will certainly ensure——
  Mr. Tony Banks: Ask the gaffer.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is not in the Shed now; he should contain himself.
  Mr. Banks: The directors' box.
  Mr. Mellor: I keep an eye on him from the directors' box. Several hon. Members, many of them of considerable experience, have spoken this evening and all have spoken in one direction. I shall certainly acquaint my colleagues with that fact, and if they wish to use it to stimulate some further thinking, so be it. I am not guaranteeing that that will be the outcome, but I was invited to convey a further message and I am probably duty-bound to do so in this instance.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I do not think that in all my years in the House I have ever been described as a protectionist of any kind; no one can suggest that my free market credentials have ever been in doubt. I did not table the new clause frivolously. I believe that television, the most potent communicating force known to man, is not something for which we should legislate lightly. Instead, we should consider the matter in great depth.
  The remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister were constructive. Although he did not go as far as my hon. Friends and I would have liked, if he and the Government say that they are prepared to consider the matter again, I accept that assurance.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 262.

  Division No. 194]

  [9.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Anderson, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Battle, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ashton, Joe

  Beith, A. J.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  113

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McAllion, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Blunkett, David

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Boateng, Paul

  McFall, John

  Boyes, Roland

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  McKelvey, William

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Buchan, Norman

  McWilliam, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Madden, Max

  Caborn, Richard

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Callaghan, Jim

  Marek, Dr John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Martlew, Eric

  Canavan, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Meale, Alan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Michael, Alun

  Clelland, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Corbett, Robin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Critchley, Julian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Crowther, Stan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cryer, Bob

  Morley, Elliot

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Darling, Alistair

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Dewar, Donald

  Murphy, Paul

  Dixon, Don

  Nellist, Dave

  Doran, Frank

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  O'Brien, William

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Eadie, Alexander

  Patchett, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Pendry, Tom

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fearn, Ronald

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Fisher, Mark

  Prescott, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Flynn, Paul

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Reid, Dr John

  Foster, Derek

  Richardson, Jo

  Foulkes, George

  Robertson, George

  Fraser, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Rooker, Jeff

  Galloway, George

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  George, Bruce

  Rowlands, Ted

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Sheerman, Barry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Soley, Clive

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hinchliffe, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Strang, Gavin

  Home Robertson, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Turner, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Vaz, Keith

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Walden, George

  Hoyle, Doug

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Walley, Joan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Illsley, Eric

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Ingram, Adam

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Janner, Greville

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Winnick, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Worthington, Tony

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wray, Jimmy

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Leighton, Ron

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lewis, Terry

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Mr. Martyn Jones.

  114

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  French, Douglas

  Alexander, Richard

  Fry, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Allason, Rupert

  Gardiner, George

  Amess, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Amos, Alan

  Gill, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, James

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Ashby, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Atkins, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Gorst, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Gow, Ian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gregory, Conal

  Bendall, Vivian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Grist, Ian

  Benyon, W.

  Ground, Patrick

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hague, William

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hannam, John

  Bowis, John

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

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Harris, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bright, Graham

  Hayes, Jerry

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

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hayward, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Burt, Alistair

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Butler, Chris

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butterfill, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Holt, Richard

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B 'wd)

  Cash, William

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chope, Christopher

  Irvine, Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Flochford)

  Jack, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jackson, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Janman, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Conway, Derek

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kirkhope, Timothy

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

  Knapman, Roger

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamond, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Latham, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunn, Bob

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Eggar, Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lightbown, David

  Favell, Tony

  Lilley, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Franks, Cecil

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Freeman, Roger

  Maclean, David

  115

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Shersby, Michael

  Madel, David

  Sims, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mans, Keith

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stern, Michael

  Mellor, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mills, Iain

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moss, Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thorne, Neil

  Neubert, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Paice, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Patnick, Irvine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pawsey, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Price, Sir David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Redwood, John

  Watts, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Whitney, Ray

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wilshire, David

  Rost, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rowe, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Ryder, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 18

  AWARD OF NATIONAL RADIO LICENSES
  '( ) (1) When allocating licences for the provision of national radio services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast;
  (2) Before awarding licences the Commission shall publish the names of all applicants who satisfy the conditions specified in (1) above, along with details of their applications and details of the arrangements for a specified period of public consultation, which shall include the manner in which public comment is invited.
  (3) The Commission shall provide all the applicants referred to in (2) above with a digest of the views submitted during the consultation period, and invite applicants to modify their applications where appropriate prior to a final decision on the awarding of licences.
  (4) The primary consideratons when awarding licences shall be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes, and the extent to which the applicant has shown himself willing to respond to public comment on his original application.'.—[Mr. Corbett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 20—Award of Channel 3 licences—
  '( ) (1) When allocating licences for the provision of regional television services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast.
  (2) Before awarding licences the Commission shall publish the names of all applicants who satisfy the conditions specified in (1) above, together with details of their applications and details of the arrangements for a specified period of public consultation which shall include the manner in which public comment is invited.
  (3) The Commission shall provide all the applicants referred to in (2) above with a digest of the views submitted during the consultation period, and invite applicants to modify their aplications where appropriate prior to a final decision on the awarding of licences.
  (4) The primary consideration when awarding licences shall be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes appropriate to the area to be served, and the extent to which the applicant has shown himself willing to respond to public comment on his original application.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 250 to 252.
  Amendment No. 55, in clause 15, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
  '(c) arrangements for public consultation specifying the manner and the time period in which public comment on the shortlisted applicants' proposals may be submitted to the Commission'.
  Government amendments Nos. 115, 134, 158, 433 to 435, 438, 453, 453A, 454 to 457, 459 to 462.
  Amendment No. 104, in clause 97, page 76, line 18, at end insert—
  'and provide in such manner as they consider appropriate, opportunities for public comment upon the applications submitted.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 463, 467 to 469.
  Amendment No. 105, in clause 98, page 77, line 4, at end add—
  '(d) the extent to which the applicant has demonstrated support from persons living in the area or locality to be served; or
  (e) the extent to which members of shareholders of an applicant body are persons living in the area or locality to be served.'.
  Government amendment No. 193.
  Mr. Corbett: The new clauses provide a new and more open way of awarding the Channel 3 television and new national radio licences. They would give viewers and listeners a direct say in the consideration of applications by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority and would exactly meet the ambition of the Government, as expressed in their White Paper published in 1988. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members beyond the Bar kindly leave the Chamber or come in and join us?
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Corbett: In their White Paper the Government said in paragraph 1.2:
  "The Government places the viewer and listener at the centre of broadcasting policy."
  In the same paragraph they went on to argue that in the Government's proposed changes the
  "single biggest advantage will be to give the viewer and listener a greater and a greater say."
  We did not hear much from the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill about how the viewer and listener would have that greater say. The new clauses offer a blueprint for achieving that Government objective, which we wholly share.
  Our process for awarding Channel 3 television and national radio licences would sweep away the complicated and subjective so-called quality test and the "exceptional circumstances" arrangement. Instead, the new clauses would put into place a clear two-part test which those wanting a licence must pass. First, applicants would have to demonstrate commercial viability, technical competence, and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes that they intend to make or broadcast. That rightly puts the emphasis on what viewers and listeners can watch and listen to. Secondly, after applications have been accepted by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, listeners and viewers and their organisations will be invited to comment on what is proposed over a fixed period. Applicants will then be sent a digest of the views of listeners and viewers and asked to consider and respond to them. Where applicants wish, their programme proposals can be amended to take those views into account.
  The primary consideration of the ITC and Radio Authority will be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes and the extent to which applicants have responded to public comment. In the past, we have all been critical about the opaque manner in which ITV licences were awarded. We need, and the Government say that they want, more openness. The new clauses offer one way of achieving that.
  The new clauses are important because, as we discussed earlier, the ITC will probably award the next round of licences and no more. As the Minister made clear, he expects that in future takeovers will be the only route to a change of management and that the ITC will have powers to approve any such takeover. However, by and large, only the cash, rather than the nature of the service, will change by means of a takeover.
  The House must get this matter right. I accept that it is a wholly new concept and one which we have developed only with the help of the Public Service Broadcasting Campaign since the Committee stage of the Bill. But there is nothing wrong with that. The Bill is of such critical importance to what viewers and listeners will be able to see and hear in the years ahead that we must consider all the alternatives, both in this House and in another place.
  The new clauses score on their openness and the role that they give to what the Government call consumers and we more properly call viewers and listeners. The Minister is halfway towards that. He has welcomed the interest that produced Jazz FM and has given a heavy hint that he would like an all-classical radio station, certainly in the capital. We want to start that process a stage earlier, with the viewers and listeners in on the ground floor as the
  118
  licences are being awarded, rather than simply being given a chance to respond when a radio or television station comes on the air.
  I shall not complain if the Minister does not feel able to say yea or nay tonight. If he wants to think about the matter for possible amendment later, that would be progress. I believe that the scheme that we have proposed for the award of the new Channel 3 licences and three national radio stations has greater merit. I hope that it will win support in the House.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) speaks with great sincerity on such matters, and I understand why he says what he does. I was grateful for his recognition that a criticism of the existing system is that it has been so opaque. Over the years, we have shown a genuine commitment to openness. We have already committed ourselves to, and are in the process of honouring, that commitment by writing into the Bill a number of arrangements to ensure good and proper publicity for many of the processes, so that the public can play a proper part. I recognise that a number of the amendments are couched in that spirit.
  I am attracted by amendment No. 55, and while the phrase "public consultation" might have a ring about it that suggests taking things further than we would necessarily envisage, I am broadly attracted to it. 1f the hon. Member were to withdraw that amendment, I would undertake to provide another that would go most, if not all, of the way he wants to go, and we would introduce that amendment into the other place. I wish to do more than pay lip service to public consultation.
  We do not agree with paragraph (e) of amendment No. 105, but we are attracted to paragraph (d); Government amendment No. 469, in the same group, effectively covers the same territory as that paragraph. There is by no means no meeting of minds.
  I have a problem with new clause 18, which intends to relate to the Radio Authority but, in error, calls it the Commission. The Commission will not give any radio franchises. That is done only by the Radio Authority. We may come on to that in more detail later.
  With regard to new clause 20, it is important that public opinion should be sought at various stages, but it would not be sensible to allow the applicant to modify his application in the light of public comment. That could distort and retard the award process in a way that I know the hon. Gentleman does not intend. I cannot help feeling that we want to see applicants stand or fall by their original intention and plan, and the trouble with cosmetic modifications to curry favour with the ITC that might follow from such a process is that it might further delay an already complex and lengthy process. If I am able to meet the hon. Gentleman on most, if not all, of amendment No. 55, he may feel that he has got sufficient out of the discussion to merit leaving matters where they are at present.
  There is a raft of Government amendments in the group. Because of time, I will not go through them in detail. Suffice it to say that each and every one of them relates to an undertaking that I gave in Committee, or is a technical drafting amendment as a result of our repeated washing and brushing up of different parts of the Bill. Unless any hon. Member has problems about the amendments, I commend them generally; they all relate to the exhaustive discussions in Committee.

  119
  In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Erdington will withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Tony Banks: New clause 18(1) says:
  "When allocating licences for the provision of national radio services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast".
  That seems to be the equivalent of the tests to be applied by the ITC for television franchises. We want those tests extended to cover radio. If I remember correctly, we found the Government position in Committee inconsistent; whereas they were prepared to accept various quality threshold arguments and other regulations in respect of television franchises, they were not prepared with so much alacrity to see them extended into radio. I hope that we will insist on new clauses 18 and 20 as a way of getting a certain symmetry in the Government's attitude towards sound broadcasting and television broadcasting.
  One reason why we want to insist on standards for commercial viability and competence is that there is much money to be made out of broadcasting. That is true in radio as it is in television. Perhaps it is not so spectacularly evident, but many businesses are moving into radio, and there is much movement in radio broadcasting.
  Crown FM, an offshoot from the old LBC, now Canadian-owned, produces programmes largely on a talk-back basis. I understand that it is on the point of sacking 30 to 40 members of staff on the ground of lack of commercial viability, while at the same time, according to a newspaper report, it is about to employ Mr. Andrew Neil —he who had some knowledge of one of our parliamentary research assistants. I understand that he is to receive a salary of £160,000, while being allowed to maintain his editorial job in the Murdoch empire. I find that a strange way for a radio company to operate—to get rid of staff on the ground that it cannot afford to keep them and to take on one presenter on a moonlighting remuneration which is enough to make the eyes water even of some avaricious Conservative Members.
  If we were to have new clause 18, I hope that it would provide a way to prevent that. When a franchise was being applied for, searching questions could be asked and assurances sought. If those assurances were subsequently reneged upon, something could be done to claim back the franchise.
  On new clause 20, we noticed again and again in Committee that the one group of people to whose views no consideration was given was perhaps the most important group—viewers and listeners. There is no way of consulting them. Although hon. Members on all sides did their best to represent what they believed to be the interests of listeners and viewers, precious little in the Bill allows the various authorities and the responsible Government Department to consult the people who are, in the final analysis, the customers. We felt that that was a major omission from the Bill and on several occasions suggested machinery whereby the clients—the customers, listeners or viewers, however we describe them: the people who receive the final product—could be consulted. They remain outside the scope of the Bill and will have to suffer what is given to them.
  120
  The broadcasters had their fourpenny-worth and did very well by it. Hon. Members were able to put forward their views and the Minister made substantial amendments to the Bill which made it much better. The viewers and listeners were not consulted and the Minister was not prepared to include in the Bill any machinery to allow them to be consulted. New clause 20 at least allows——
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Banks: That is why I support new clauses 18 and 20.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I shall be brief. The Opposition new clause is well intentioned and few of us would dissent from the defined objective outlined by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who said that he wished to end the opaque method by which television licences have been distributed in the past. I think we all agree that that opaque method could do with some improvement.
  The Opposition would be wise to accept the olive branch extended by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to concentrate on amendment No. 55 rather than on the new clauses, which are rather flawed because they consist largely of pious hopes and assertions rather than reality. In the margin of my notes I have written the word "How" beside some of the statements that I have heard. For example, it is said that the Commission must ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability. I have written the word "How" beside that because I am sure that the old IBA thought that it had done a good job at the last round of franchises by asking whether television licence applicants were commercially viable. One cannot always foresee the dramas that may emerge in television companies.
  Mr. Corbett: I know that the hon. Gentleman's last remark was said with some feeling. Under the Government's proposals, the ITC will have to make a judgment about what we shall describe as the soundness of the money. The ITC will not be mesmerised by a pile of money but will want to know who stands behind it and how secure it is. There is not much of a gap between that and the commerical viability for which we argue.
  Mr. Aitken: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My argument is that the Government's proposals are more on the ball than those of the Opposition. Their proposals are a rather complicated piece of machinery and remind me of the pop song that was around a few years ago. It was called "I've got a brand new combine harvester". The Opposition have designed this great new piece of machinery and in a wizard way it will solve all the problems. However, these problems cannot be solved other than by some of the past opaque methods which do not always work any more than the Commission's ideas will always work.

  121
  The two new clauses are too complicated. There is an exception with which I shall deal later.
  I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that consultation is the key. The old IBA was not that bad at public consultation. The sight of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in the Chamber reminds me of an extraordinary three-ring circus in which he and I took part. We were to be joint managing directors of a putative Yorkshire television company under the chairmanship of at that time the recently retired Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, now Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. That odd trio rocketed around the north Yorkshire countryside listening to a whole series of views about the inadequacies, on the whole, of the then Yorkshire Television and suggested ways in which its output might be improved by the challenging consortium. Those public consultation audiences did quite a good job, not just in suggesting ideas to the trio who were not at the end of the day called to the party to sing, but to Yorkshire Television itself.
  The only wrong note that the Minister struck, in my view, was his suggestion that applicants should never be able to amend the terms of a prospectus as a result of public consultation. I hope that, when he redrafts amendment No. 55, he will give bidding consortia an opportunity to amend their proposals in the light of what has been said at public hearings. After all, we in the House of Commons frequently amend legislation in the light of views expressed both inside and outside the House; it seems very odd not to extend the same opportunity to television companies bidding for new licences. Most people are prepared to change their views as a result—at least partly—of listening to the views of others.
  I feel that the new clause, in the form in which it has been proposed, is a little too cumbersome. Amendment No. 55 contains the kernel of the issue, and I hope that the Minister will at least allow bidding consortia to amend their proposals in the light of consultations when he produces the redrafted version that he has offered as an olive branch.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I did not intend to speak until the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) removed the last shred of my socialist credibility. I should like, however, to add to what he said, which was entirely correct: what we spearheaded was the employers' bid for the contract, which was an example of worker participation.
  Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 are all about the value of consultation. The strength of the independent television companies lies in their regional roots: they have brought centres of television excellence to such places as Manchester and Leeds. They have built up teams of high-quality production staff to stimulate, excite and fertilise the regions—and the regions want a say in who provides their television services.
  The consultation that we propose involves the important guarantee of feedback to which the companies must respond. The companies will be genuine representatives of the region: they will have regional capital, and regional staff with a commitment to regional programming. A surprising strength of feeling emerges from consultation, and when I participated in the process with the hon. Member for Thanet, South I found it most
  122
  stimulating. The system does not usually allow such insights into the views of a range of organised groups and individuals about regional needs.
  Unless provision is made in the Bill, I see no way of giving the companies the feedback that will be necessary if the regions are to have a say in who provides the programmes. After all, the companies will be their companies; why should they not have their say? It is an important principle: listen to the people and trust their judgment.
  Mr. Corbett: We had better finish while we are ahead. I am grateful to the Minister for his warm embrace of amendment No. 55, and to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) for his sensible comments. He has given the Minister some good advice. I agree with his suggestion that the Minister should redraft the amend-ment to allow those who wish to respond to the comments arising from a bid to do so, and—if they see any need—to change the details. That is a helpful suggestion.
  I assure the Minister that by public consultation we do not mean over some great area or a regional referendum. A number of individuals—viewers and listeners—and their organisations have not only legitimate interests in the matter but things to say which broadcasters should welcome. They will not agree with them 100 per cent.—nobody would expect that—but at the very least their views should be treated with respect.
  It might be helpful if I say that I shall withdraw amendment No. 55 and express my gratitude to the Minister. We shall not press the other amendments.
  I apologise for the drafting error in new clause 18. We meant to refer to the Radio Authority, not to the ITC, but that is what it says and that makes it faulty. I take responsibility for that and so we are left with new clause 20.
  I do not want to flog new clause 20 because time is getting on. The Minister has accepted the spirit and purpose of amendment No. 55, but that relates to consultation on the basis of bids which will go through the system which the Government propose. What we are proposing is an entirely different system of awarding the new Channel 3 licences which, right from the start, gives viewers over a specified period the right to make comments and lays a duty upon the applicants to demonstrate that they have listened to and considered and, where they chose, responded to what has been said to them in those consultations.
  That is a new way of doing it and I acknowledge some of the points, made again by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. In either the Government's way of doing this or in the way in which we propose in the new clause, there will be some areas of highly selective judgment. At the end of the day that must be so. There is no foolproof system.
  Both sides of the House share an ambition that the process of the allocation of the new Channel 3 licences should be more open and should be seen to be more open. There is no argument about that. In a sense, inevitably we are arguing about the means to achieve that.
  Having said that, to demonstrate our commitment co fulfilling the Government's ambition to placing the viewer and listener at the centre of broadcasting policy, we shall seek to press new clause 20.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 18.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 20

  AWARD OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
  '( ) (1) When allocating licences for the provision of regional television services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast.
  (2) Before awarding licences the Commission shall publish the names of all applicants who satisfy the conditions specified in (1) above, together with details of their applications and details of the arrangements for a specified period of public consultation which shall include the manner in which public comment is invited.
  (3) The Commission shall provide all the applicants referred to in (2) above with a digest of the views submitted during the consultation period, and invite applicants to modify their applications where appropriate prior to a final decision on the awarding of licences.
  (4) The primary consideration when awarding licences shall be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes appropriate to the area to be served, and the extent to which the applicant has shown himself willing to respond to public comment on his original application.'.— [Mr. Corbett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 262.

  Division No. 195]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Allen, Graham

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Eadie, Alexander

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashton, Joe

  Fearn, Ronald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  Battle, John

  Foulkes, George

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fraser, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Galloway, George

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

  George, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boyes, Roland

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buchan, Norman

  Grocott, Bruce

  Buckley, George J.

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Caborn, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  CTowther, Stan

  Janner, Greville

  Cryer, ob

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfedder, James

  Darling, Alistair

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dixon, Don

  Leighton, Ron

  124

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Pendry, Tom

  Lewis, Terry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Reid, Dr John

  McAllion, John

  Richardson, Jo

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, George

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Rogers, Allan

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKelvey, William

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McLeish, Henry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McWilliam, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Madden, Max

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Gavin

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxton, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wallace, James

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Walley, Joan

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Winnick, David

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Worthington, Tony

  Murphy, Paul

  Wray, Jimmy

  Nellist, Dave

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  O'Brien, William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Patchett, Terry

  Mr. Martyn Jones.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cash, William

  Alexander, Richard

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Allason, Rupert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amess, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Amos, Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Conway, Derek

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Couchman, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cran, James

  Benyon, W.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bevan, David Gilroy

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

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dunn, Bob

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Eggar, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Favell, Tony

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

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butler, Chris

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Butterfill, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  French, Douglas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fry, Peter

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  125

  Gardiner, George

  Marlow, Tony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mellor, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gow, Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gregory, Conal

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Ground, Patrick

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neubert, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hayward, Robert

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pawsey, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Price, Sir David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hind, Kenneth

  Redwood, John

  Holt, Richard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

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

  Riddick, Graham

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rost, Peter

  Irvine, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jack, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Jackson, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Janman, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Key, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sims, Roger

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knapman, Roger

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knowles, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Latham, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stern, Michael

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lightbown, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Lilley, Peter

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sumberg, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Maclean, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thome, Neil

  Madel, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mans, Keith

  Tracey, Richard

  Maples, John

  Tredinnick, David

  126

  Trippier, David

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Trotter, Neville

  Whitney, Ray

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Walker, Bill (T'slde North)

  Yeo, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 21

  APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES FOR LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES
  .—(1) Where the Commission propose to grant a licence to provide a local delivery service, they shall publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, a notice—

  (a) stating that they propose to grant such a licence;

  (b) specifying the area or locality in the United Kingdom for which the service is to be provided;

  (c) inviting applications for the licence; and

  (d) stating the fee payable on any application made in pursuance of the notice.

  (2) Any application made in pursuance of a notice under subsection (1) must be in writing and accompanied by—

  (a) the fee specified in the notice under paragraph (d) of that subsection;

  (b) where appropriate, the applicant's proposals for providing a service that would—

  (i) cater for the tastes and interests of persons living in the area or locality for which it would be provided or for any particular tastes and interests of such persons, and

  (ii) broaden the range or programmes available to persons living in that area or locality;

  (c) a technical plan relating to the service which the applicant proposes to provide and indicating—

  (i) the parts of the area specified under subsection (I)(b)(i) which would be covered by that service,

  (ii) the timetable in accordance with which that coverage would be achieved,

  (iii) the technical means by which it would be achieved, and

  (iv) the extent (if any) to which he proposes that the provision of the service should be undertaken by some other person in accordance with section 67(5); and

  (c) such information as the Commission may reasonably require as to the applicant's present financial position and his projected financial position during the period for which the licence would be in force.

  (3) At any time after receiving such an application and before determining it the Commission may require the applicant to furnish additional information under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d)'.—[Sir P. Blaker.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 217, in page 52, line 13, leave out clause 68.
  No. 218, in clause 68, page 52, line 32, at the beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (2A),'.
  No. 219, page 52, line 36, at end insert—

  127
  '(2A) The Commission shall specify a nil percentage under subsection (1)(d)(iii) in relation to any accounting period for which the qualifying revenue of the applicant would be insufficient to provide a return on the initial capital costs incurred by him in providing the service.
  (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), the Commission shall draw up, and from time to time review, a statement setting out the principles to be followed in ascertaining in relation to any person providing a local delivery service—

  (a) the initial capital costs incurred by him in providing the service, and

  (b) the depreciation, payments in respect of interest and other matters to be taken into account in respect of any accounting period of his in determining whether a return on those costs has been received by him in relation to that accounting period.'.

  No. 356, in page 52, line 44, after `service', insert
  'and the provision proposed by the applicant for the reception and immediate transmission of the programmes included in the television broadcasting service provided by the BBC (and Channel 4 and S4C) for reception in that area'.
  No. 220, in clause 69, page 54, line 2, leave out 'in accordance with section 68'.
  No. 221, in page 54, line 3, leave out from 'licence' to 'unless' in line 4.
  No. 357, in page 54, line 10, after 'and', insert—
  `(d) that any telecommunications system proposed provides for the delivery of BBC–1 and 2 (and Channel 4 or S4C) services (as appropriate)'.
  No. 222, in page 54, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 18.
  No. 80, in page 54, line 31, leave out clause 70.
  No. 224, in page 56, line 10, leave out clause 71.
  No. 358, in clause 75, page 59, line 22, at end insert—
  '(3A) A local delivery licence shall include a condition requiring the licence holder to provide services on BBC-1 and BBC-2 (and Channel 4 or S4C, as appropriate).'.
  No. 359, in page 59, line 26, after 'subsection (3)', insert `or subsection (4)'.
  No. 216, in schedule 10, page 177, line 46, at end insert—
  `(4) Without prejudice to paragraph 2 of Part II of this Schedule, where any licence continues in force by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), it shall be treated for the purposes of section 72 as if it were a licence under Part II of this Act to provide a local delivery service for the area in which the prescribed diffusion service has been provided, and that section shall apply in relation to such a licence as if—

  (a) for subsection (1) there were substituted—

  "(1) When a licence continued in force by virtue of paragraph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 10 to this Act expires, its holder may apply for the grant of a local delivery licence under this section for a period of 15 years beginning with the date of the grant of that licence.";

  (b) for any reference to the renewal of a local delivery licence or to an application for such a renewal there were respectively substituted a reference to the grant of such a licence or an application for such a grant;

  (c) for the reference in subsection (2) to the date on which the local delivery licence would otherwise cease to be in force there were substituted a reference to the date on which the licence in question would otherwise cease to be in force;

  (d) in subsection (4), after the word "grant" there were inserted the words "(other than under this section)";

  (e) in subsection (5), paragraph (b) were omitted;

  (f) in subsection (6)(b) the words from "specify" to "the" in line 2 were omitted; and

  (g) in subsection (7), after the word "granting" there were inserted the words "(other than under this section)".

  128
  (5) Section 75(3) and (4) shall not apply in relation to a local delivery licence granted by virtue of sub-paragraph 4, but otherwise Part II of this Act applies to a local delivery licence so granted as it applies to any other such licence granted under that Part.'.
  Sir Peter Blaker: The new clause and the amendments are about cable television, which was little discussed in Committee. I have to declare an interest in the subject as chairman of a company which has six cable franchises but does not aspire to obtaining any more. I wish to refer to three topics which are the subject of different amendments in the group.
  New clause 21 is about the franchising proposals. After the Bill comes into force, those who seek to obtain franchises, which until the end of this year will be called cable franchises, will follow a system similar to that provided for Channel 3—they will have to make competitive bids and be prepared to pay a percentage of qualifying revenue. The franchise holders will be called local delivery operators and will have a choice of technologies other than cable. That is in contrast to the existing cable operators, who are obliged to use cable and to cover their entire franchised area.
  That new system will be in contrast to the present arrangements which are based on a judgment by the Cable Television Authority of the merits of different applicants with the background of section 7 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 which sets out various criteria which the cable authority is to apply.
  Is the new proposed method of obtaining franchises worthwhile, because by the end of this year most of the urban parts of the United Kingdom will already have been franchised? Only 13 areas with more than 20,000 homes will not have been franchised. That is a very small number compared with the 14·5 million homes that will have been franchised. That 14·5 million represents about 80 per cent. of homes in urban areas in the United Kingdom. By the end of this year 136 franchises will have been awarded.
  I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the cable authority, which has worked at a speed at which nobody could have anticipated. It franchised 50 new areas last year and will franchise nearly that number this year, although in practice it will be able to use only part of the year. The chairman, Mr. Richard Burton, and his team and the director-general, Mr. Jon Davey, and his officials have done an admirable job.
  Will there be sufficient applicants for the areas that will still be available? I am not sure that with the new system, which involves payments for obtaining franchises, a sufficient number of people will come forward.
  The message that is being conveyed to the cable industry by the new provisions involving several kinds of payment has not been entirely well received. There is a feeling in parts of the cable industry that they may suggest that the Government's attitude towards the industry is becoming less enthusiastic. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to give the industry some reassurance, and if he is able to meet me on amendment No. 216 that will give a positive message to the industry.
  10.30 pm
  The new clause assimilates the franchising process for local delivery operators to the system for local radio operators. Both will be operating locally, which is the whole concept of the cable industry. It is reasonable that

  129
  the franchising system of the two should be put on a par. The alternative would have been to have tabled a new clause or amendment that would have assimilated the method of franchising after the Bill comes into force to the existing system—that is, simply to continue the existing arrangements of the Cable Television Authority. I was advised that that would have been extremely difficult to draw up, so I have adopted the alternative method of assimilating it to the system for local radio, which has given rise to this debate.
  There would be no serious disadvantage to revenue if one or other of the proposals were accepted, given the trifling number of areas still to be franchised, and it would be possible to retain for the purposes of the renewal process a system involving payment of the cash bid and payment of a proportion of revenue, so there would not be a significant revenue loss.
  Amendment No. 219 relates to the requirement for the local delivery operator to pay a proportion of revenue. The Bill already says that the ITC may set that proportion of revenue at zero for a local delivery operator. The industry would like to see a provision on the lines of amendment No. 219, which says that the ITC would be obliged to set the proportion at zero until a company had reached the point where it was making a profit. It seems bizarre to the industry that there should be a requirement to pay a proportion of revenue when, at present, no company in the cable industry is even making a profit, so large are the expenses of constructing the cable system.
  Amendment No. 216 is the most important of the three amendments. The renewal system for the local delivery operator in the Bill will mean that at the end of 15 years the incumbent operator will be able to make a direct arrangement with the ITC for renewal—for a further 10 years under the Bill or for a further 15 years as proposed in Government amendment No. 179, which we shall discuss later. The local delivery operator will be able to make a direct arrangement with the ITC for renewal if he is prepared to pay the sum that the ITC regards as appropriate for that purpose and provided, of course, that the local delivery operator has conducted himself correctly and has observed the conditions of his licence.
  The provision in the Bill for renewing the franchise held by a cable operator is less favourable because the cable operator will not have the option of making a direct arrangement with the ITC. He will be obliged to go out to competitive tender, involving a competitive bid, and also to pay a percentage of revenue. The existing cable operators are worried because such requirements are unpredictable and hazardous for them. Even if they have been excellent operators and conducted themselves impeccably for the 15 years of their franchise—even if they have kept to every clause in their licence and observed it scrupulously—they will still be at risk of being outbid by a newcomer who may plan to install the microwave system or lease another telecommunications system from some other operator. They will then not be able to renew.
  The House may feel that that is too bad for the incumbent operator who loses out. But the problem is that the cost of installing a cable system is so enormous that the normal projections of existing cable operators show that, if everything goes well, at the end of 15 years—the licence period that most of them will have—they will only just be repaying their debts. They do not expect to be in profit after operating expenses, depreciation and interest payments until at least year seven—again, if everything
  130
  goes well. The amounts involved are colossal. At a rough estimate, it costs £300 million to lay cable past 1 million homes. A little calculation will show us that the sum that the cable industry is expecting to invest over the next 10 years exceeds £4,000 million. Most of that money will come—if it comes—from the United States, Canada or France because the British investor has not yet caught on to the possibilities of the cable industry.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to tell the House whether those estimates are based on conventional cabling or on using the new wireless cabling on a microwave system, which is much cheaper?
  Sir Peter Blaker: No. My figures are based on the use of cable—whether fibre optic or coaxial—which in general has to be laid underground.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Interactive.
  Sir Peter Blaker: As my hon. Friend points out, such cabling has the enormous advantage that not only can it provide one-way entertainment, whether on national, international or community channels—and community channels are important; it also has interactive capabilities and can therefore provide alarm systems of all kinds, home shopping and banking facilities, press-button voting, video, jukebox systems and a whole range of other interactive services, as well as better and cheaper telephone services. A microwave system could not do most of those things.
  The enormous burden of cost that the cable industry has to bear—the huge sums that it has to lay out before it gets a return—and the fact that it does not expect even to pay off its debts for 15 years at best make the proposal so important.
  What we need in Britain is the maximum speed of investment by the cable companies and maximum confidence on the part of the cable companies. The industry has been dismayed by the apparent discrimination against it as compared with the licensed delivery operators in the provisions of the Bill dealing with the system of renewal. In my view, we need a system that will provide greater assurance—although there cannot be any promises—to the cable operator that, if he observes the conditions of his licence, performs satisfactorily and is prepared to pay the appropriate sum, he will be able to renew and thus make a profit which he certainly will not have made before year 15.
  I have had a great deal of correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and with Ministers in general. I have taken representatives of the cable industry to see him, accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). We have had co-operation from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), and we have had close consultation with members of the industry. We took 10 representatives of the industry— representing about £2,000 million of investment—to see my hon. and learned Friend recently. We appreciate the time that he gave us when he had many other preoccupations with prisons, quite apart from his cable responsibilities.
  We suggested that the solution to the problem is to align the two systems of renewal with one another to provide the same system of renewal for the cable operator

  131
  at the end of 15 years, as is available to the local delivery operator. There would be no loss to the Treasury by that adjustment because the amount to be paid would be assessed by the ITC as being the amount that would be paid as a result of a contested bid, and there would be no loss of principle.
  There are other points that I could make in support of the proposition, but I shall not make them because I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will be able to give me an encouraging response. The industry is not asking for any privileges. It is proposing a fair and common-sense solution. The industry holds out the possibility of great benefit for this country by way of infrastructure, technology and inward investment. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will be able to give me an encouraging response.
  Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir. P. Blaker) for the way in which he has spoken. As he said towards the end of his speech, there has been intense discussion about the impact of the Bill on cable interests. I am aware, as are my colleagues, that this is an important time for the development of cable in this country, which took off— perhaps that is the wrong metaphor—or failed to dive underground quite as quickly as some had hoped in the early 1980s, in the immediate aftermath of the Green Paper and the Bill, but which has now shown a considerable figure not least because of the very substantial sums that are in the process of being invested from North America. Of course we welcome that investment. I am desperately anxious that we should not do anything to put that investment in jeopardy.
  My right hon. Friend has been stalwartly supported by a group of our hon. Friends in his representations. I am glad to see many of them in their places tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) was on the Committee and raised these points regularly. My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) have spoken to me privately and in more formal meetings of the importance of our reconsidering some aspects of the Bill so that we do not, by a side wind, blow away some of the investment that is ready, at long last, to carry the cable revolution forward.
  Many of the amendments deal with the granting of local delivery licences. For a variety of reasons that I shall not rehearse given the hour, I am not persuaded that what we propose is deficient, although, obviously, my right hon. Friend may wish to continue to press his points, and there are further stages of the Bill to go through. However, he pointed out, and it is undoubtedly the case, that particular attention has been paid by industry in its representations to the renewal of cable licences. Particular concern was expressed about the impact of the arrangements that we propose for a competitive tender framework on investment in the industry.
  My right hon. Friend was kind enough to say that he regarded that as the most important point that he was making tonight. I am glad that he said that because as a result of the points that he and his colleagues made, in particular at the meeting at the Department—at which representatives of most of the leading cable companies came, under his leadership, to discuss these matters and at which I was able, perhaps for the first time, to focus
  132
  exclusively on these points and to give them the most intense personal consideration—I am happy to tell him that I can accept in principle his amendment No. 216.
  Having had the opportunity of consulting colleagues, we can agree that provided a cable operator who retains his existing status performs satisfactorily, he should be able to renew his licence under the clause 72 procedure, rather than under the arrangements that were originally proposed in the Bill. I shall explain why we have arrived at that conclusion.
  10.45 pm
  First, it would be unfortunate if the provisions of the Bill, albeit unintentionally, deterred the major investment that is now coming forward in the cable industry. I am persuaded by my right hon. Friend's arguments that investor confidence would be dented if the Bill were not amended as he proposes. Secondly, given the huge investment required to construct a cable system and the long payback period, it seems right that operators should enjoy a reasonable certainty of tenure, provided that they perform adequately. That is the key point that registered firmly with me during the long but eminently worthwhile meeting.
  My right hon. Friend's amendment No. 216—I mean no criticism by this—is not drafted as parliamentary counsel would wish. If he will agree to withdraw it, I undertake to bring forward a professionally drafted amendment that will have the effect of accepting the thrust of his amendment in all material particulars.
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) spoke fairly of the difficulties being faced by the cable industry. He will concede that what he is asking for, and appears to have got, are to some extent concessions for the industry. That being so, we are entitled to ask, as consumers or hon. Members, what is the quid pro quo. What are we getting for that?
  Although, as he said, most of the country has been franchised, not much else has happened. The extent of cabling in this country is very limited indeed, and nobody can contradict that. After my election, being aware that my city had been franchised, I began making inquiries to discover where the cable television was. Eventually I found out who had the franchise and had a long meeting with those concerned. They spent much time telling me why Edinburgh had not been cabled and was not likely to be cabled for some time, or at least not to any extent.
  I appreciate the difficulty in digging up the streets of a city and laying cables. Cabling the country has much to commend it, provided that it is not just providing the capability of carrying a narrow range of services. It was interesting to note a reply given by the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South to an intervention by his hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) about the type of cable. He talked about the infrastructure that could be provided for the nation in telecommunications and so on.
  That is useful, and any city that had that capability would be at an advantage compared with other cities. But unfortunately that has not happened. If the Government are now telling the franchise-holder, "Provided you have done nothing wrong, you can get the franchise without having to go out to competitive tender," I am entitled to ask, "What has happened in the last 10 years while you

  133
  have had the franchise? Where is the cable? Who has the service? Only a few high rise flats have the ducting to carry it, or are others to benefit from it?"
  Mr. Mellor: A dose of scepticism does no one any harm —but, with great respect, the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that clearly the only people who would qualify for renewal on the terms that I have stated would be those who had fulfilled their obligation and had cabled in accordance with their franchise. Anyone who had failed to cable would not be entitled to such a renewal. That is a fair point.
  Mr. Darling: It all depends on the extent of the cabling and the exact terms of the franchise. Without seeing the terms, it is difficult to comment on them. I think that I am entitled to be sceptical, as I suspect that many people are, about how much cabling will take place, especially with the coming of satellite television. Other options are now open to people that might be seen as more attractive. I do not know whether such options would be more attractive. I hope that I am proved wrong. I believe that cabling has a great deal to commend it. All that I am saying is that I am entitled to be sceptical because a great deal has not happened up and down the country, with a few exceptions.
  Even though the country has been "franchised", as the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South put it, few people can watch cable television. If the Government intend to offer this concession and this carrot they should also provide a stick to ensure that the companies get a move on and do not simply sit on a franchise and hope that conditions will improve somewhat to make things more attractive to them.
  Some aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's new clause 21 are attractive. I am attracted to the requirement that the operator cater for the tastes and interests of people living in the area. It would be necessary to show how the proposed service would add to the services already provided. That is a wholly welcome step that has been absent from other aspects of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should also seek other concessions for new entrants, such as not having to pay the deposit or other payments in respect of the franchise unless there is a clear commitment over a given period to put something under the ground to ensure that services are delivered.
  To that end, the Opposition have tabled one amendment and a consequential amendment which would require the cable to carry existing television services. We tabled that amendment simply to ensure that cable was not capable of carrying only a narrow range of services, rather than a wide range. We must consider more than the narrow interest of commercial companies—without criticising such companies. There is a wider interest, both of the country strategically and of individual towns, cities or localities, in ensuring that they have a cable system that can be developed and used, not something of marginal interest to the population as a whole.
  I understand why the right hon. Gentleman has tabled his amendment. He has cause to be well pleased with his work. He has at least gained something from it. I am worried that we should be invited to approve the amendment without having anything to show for it. I should hate to think that the next time that we come to discuss cable television, whether in a future Broadcasting Bill or some other vehicle, we find that things have not moved on. I understand the industry's problems. Perhaps
  134
  the Government should have done something earlier to ensure that help was given. Leaving it to the industry does not seem to have done much good. An opportunity seems to have been passed by. I remain deeply sceptical, despite what the Minister said, that the concession made tonight will greatly improve the position.
  Mr. Rowlands: I wish briefly to underline the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) from the Front Bench. No one wants to interfere with the genuine cosy concession that has been made perfectly properly between the Minister and the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). However, broader issues are raised not only by new clause 21 but by our amendment, including the dose of scepticism to which the Minister referred during the speech of my hon. Friend.
  The quality of Committee stages is that sometimes one is educated by them. I had not given much thought to cable television until I listened to the arguments on cabie in Committee. The first thing that came clearly to one's mind was that the British investment community has been a hopeless failure in cable television. It has required a combination of the United States and Canadian investment cavalry to come over the hillside and invest in British cabling. It has not been a British effort in any shape or form.
  The second factor that has struck me more and more is the point made with great force by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central that in geographic terms —I make no apology for referring to the Principality—we are entitled to be sceptical about the extent and scope of the choice that is to be offered as a result of cabling. The answer to many of the problems in the communities that I represent, and many other Welsh communities, may be cabling, but there is no hope of or opportunity for investors coming in to do what needs to be done, to create the choice and opportunities in broadcasting that the Minister claims the Bill is all about. I ask the Minister again whether the nature, structure and character of the operations that we are setting up will achieve the result that we all want—maximum choice, diversity of programmes and, primarily, cabling.
  There is much confusion at present about what exactly the law is on the matter. In my own valley community there is a major fibre optic line up through the valley as a result of British Telecom's investment. As I understand it, British Telecom cannot diversify that fibre optic line into other services. Equally, it has no interest in promoting anybody else's line, because the other investors would be interested only in competing with British Telecom's services and telephones.
  We should all ask how valley communities such as mine, with 20,000 plus households—which could enjoy the benefits of cabling and, by a co-operative rather than competitive effort, maximise the investment available—can achieve the results we all want: opportunity, choice and diversity. In that respect, I support amendment No. 358, which proposes that any cabling should carry the main stream channels, including S4C. I cannot believe that in a multi-channel system anybody in his right mind would not want to carry S4C or any other existing operating channel.
  My worry over this matter is like my concern over Channel 5, that the communities that I represent will miss out on the other alternative and opportunity to provide a

  135
  multi-choice broadcasting system. I have broader concerns than those in the perfectly proper cosy debate between the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South and the Minister on new clause 21. We have a right to say that investors have failed to develop cable television. That can be compared to the German experience, where the German post office, through the state, built a nationwide multi-cable system to almost every community. The German equivalents of the sort of communities that I represent are being cabled by a state post office system, in a much-prized and much-vaunted capitalist society.
  I believe that we shall get it wrong and fall between two stools. The private investor will not do it and, under this Government, the state is not willing to give the matter any push or assistance. There is a strong case for challenging the fundamental principles and the basis on which cabling and its future is presently organised.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I notice that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is, in effect, saying that the state should take the risk. That is not a proposition that will attract many of my hon. Friends because this is a risky business. That was the point that had been missed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). He complained that very little was happening in the cable industry. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said, the progress of the cable industry has been slower than was expected in 1983 and 1984, when it was launched in its broader band form. One reason why it has moved slowly is lack of programmes. That is being remedied by Sky and by BSB, which has only just come on stream with five extra channels. That will be very helpful.
  Another reason was the lack of know-how about how to run a cable system effectively. Several enterprises made the mistake of not calling in advice and skills from north America. That is being remedied. It is worth pointing out that the percentage of homes signed up by the British cable industry is as satisfactory as was the position in north America generally at a comparable time in the development of its systems, which are now doing very well.
  The main reason why there are not many cable companies yet in operation is simply the time scale. The north American interest has developed only since the middle of 1988. Those who understand the cable system will know that from the time the idea of advertising an area is mooted publicly by the cable authority until the time the successful applicant for the franchise is able to start laying a cable is well over a year, if not about 18 months. So there has not been time for the great mass of cable companies which have been franchised since the middle of 1988 to achieve much. One hopes that with extra competence and experience that will change quite rapidly.
  11 pm
  Mr. Darling: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us when the expansion of the cable industry will take place. I accept that there is a risk, although there does not seem to be much risk in getting a franchise and not doing anything with it for six or seven years. He said that it takes
  136
  about 18 months for things to start happening. He has told us something that I for one knew: that the Americans took an interest in the middle of 1988. On any view there should be some activity now. Some of us have yet to see it.
  Sir Peter Blaker: There is activity. I do not know how closely the hon. Gentleman has followed the industry. I am beginning to suspect that he does not know much about it; no doubt that is an unworthy suspicion, but from what he is saying, it is bound to arise.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that 10 franchises are constructing and that seven have begun operation in the last year?
  Sir Peter Blaker: That is certainly true; indeed, my information is that the figures are higher.
  I find it strange that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney appeared to object to the fact that investment is coming from overseas. I do not know whether he has a Japanese motor manufacturing plant in his constituency. There are some in Wales. I have not heard many objections from those who are situated close to such plants.
  Mr. Rowlands: Obviously the right hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I was saying. I did not denigrate overseas investment. I thought it a sad and salutary comment upon British short-termism that City investors do not support the cable industry. Perhaps the climate of investment, including interest rates, does not allow City investors to think two or three years ahead. Curiously, overseas investors take a long-term view. What case is the right hon. Gentleman making?
  Sir Peter Blaker: If that is what the hon. Gentleman believes, I go a long way with him. I think the City of London is making an enormous mistake. It should regard investment in the cable industry in the same way as British investors regarded the construction of railways 150 years ago or the electricity industry around the turn of the century. We are talking about a long-term investment of a utility nature. The City of London has not yet caught on to that proposition. I think it will regret that in due course.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked what the stick would be. The ITC will have power to withdraw a franchise if the franchise does not perform satisfactorily. The Cable Television Authority threatened a number of companies, which had not started to build after a certain delay, with the withdrawal of their licences. Their licences were not withdrawn because in each case an investor came in at the last minute to start construction. So there is power to withdraw the licence from a non-performer.
  The biggest stick of all is risk. This a risky business and a great deal of money may be lost if the industry does not succeed. I am not suggesting that anybody should be able to get a franchise without a competitive tender system. I am simply suggesting that the arrangements for renewing a cable operator's franchise should be the same as those for a licensed delivery operator. That seems eminently fair.
  In view of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at my other two points.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 25

  BROADCASTING TRAINING FUND (No. 2)
  `( 1) The Commission shall establish a fund to be known as the Broadcasting Training Fund.
  (2) The fund shall be under the management of a committee appointed by the Commission for the purposes of this section and shall be applied by the Committee in the making of grants to finance the training of persons engaged in the preparation or making of television programmes and for connected purposes.
  (3) When making any grant out of the fund pursuant to subsection (3) the Committee may impose such conditions as they think fit.
  (4) The persons appointed to be members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine, but the Commission shall, when making any such appointments, ensure that a majority of the members are persons with a knowledge of training in broadcasting including representatives of the broadcasting unions.
  (5) The terms of the appointment of the members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine; and in the case of any members of the Committee who are neither members or employees of the Commission, the Commission may:

  (a) pay to them such remuneration and allowances, and

  (b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of them such sums by way of allowances, pensions or gratuities, as the Commission may determine.

  (6) Any expenses incurred by the Commission either under subsection (6) or for salaries of Commission employees whose services have been furnished to the Committee, shall be defrayed out of the fund.
  (7) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year, the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings for that year and transmit it to the Commisssion.
  (8) In this section "the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission and "qualifying programmes" means programmes of such description as the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purpose.'.—[Mr. Darling.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 244 to 248.
  Amendment No. 59, in clause 16, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
  "(cc) that the applicant can demonstrate a proper commitment to the training and retraining of persons employed in the preparation or making of programmes.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 432 and 436.
  Mr. Darling: The purpose of the new clause is to establish a training fund, the functions of which are set out in the new clause. In essence, it is to advance the training of people engaged in the making of television programmes. In the Committee debate on these matters there was widespread acceptance of the fact that, unless there was training and a renewal of talent within the industry, the industry would die.
  It has been said many times that the great strength of the British film and television industry is the training of actors and technical people. That training has brought it to the respected position that it enjoys today. We are anxious to establish a broadcasting training fund to ensure that
  138
  such high-quality training continues. I do not think that the point requires to be laboured because it was canvassed at great length in Committee. Suffice it to say that the establishment of a training fund would greatly assist, especially as there is a risk under the new regime that some companies will be tempted to cut corners, one of which may be training. That is because training is expensive, much time and effort is invested in it and it takes some time for the end product to emerge.
  The Government amendments that we are considering with the new clause recognise the importance of training. Those amendments are welcome. There will now be a requirement, as no doubt the Minister will tell us, that applicants will have to demonstrate a proper commitment to training and retraining. I trust that when drawing up the licence requirements, the ITC will give prominence to this proposal. Our amendment No. 59 proposes, perhaps more specifically, what is intended in Government amendment No. 244. That Government amendment contains a rather odd provision that does not sit easily with the matter of training. However, it is welcome even though it does not go as far as I would like. The provision invites the applicant to say to what extent he proposes to situate any office, studio or staff within the area for which the proposed service is to be provided.
  There was much debate in Committee about an applicant's commitment to the region that he or she proposed to serve. It seems to us that there must be such a commitment if regional television is to mean anything. We were anxious about what might happen if someone based in London or perhaps abroad were simply to put a brass plate on a door in a region and claim to he of that region. If regional television is to thrive and if there is to be a proper commitment not just to training but to the production of programmes that do not necessarily reflect the region but are clearly made outside the main centres of film making and broadcasting, it is necessary for the franchise holder to be firmly rooted in the region that he proposes to serve. We were all concerned about the dominance of London in the context of film making and broadcasting.
  I know that some regions have a greater identity than others and the nations of Wales and Scotland have clear and self-evident identities. One can imagine the anger that would be aroused if, for example, the Scottish television service was wholly owned, operated and controlled not just from another part of the United Kingdom but from abroad. The same feeling exists in the north-west of England. Even in East Anglia, which is not that far from London, there is a strong regional identity. People want to be assured that the programmes produced will use local talent. The programmes do not have to be about the area but must give strong emphasis to the area that the applicant seeks to serve. I am not saying that it is necessary to have been born and brought up in an area, and to have lived nowhere else, to achieve that; it is, however, necessary to have some knowledge of the area, and some affinity with it. We explored the issue in a number of debates in Committee, but to little effect.
  Nevertheless, the Government seem to have recognised the strength of our argument—to a limited extent—and the ITC is, at least, entitled to know applicants' proposals. I hope that it will take into account the strong feeling that the regions deserve a finn commitment. Staff should be

  139
  encouraged to live and work in the regions concerned, for instance. After all, the Bill is about regional broadcasting services combining to provide another national network.
  I warmly welcome the Government's proposals, and also their additional provisions for training.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling): I took the suggestions made in Committee very seriously, as I hope that amendment No. 244 shows. Applicants for Channel 3 licences will be required to set out their proposals for training or retraining programme production staff, and to demonstrate the extent to which offices, studios and staff will be located in the area that the service will cover. I think that that deals adequately with the issues of training and regional identity. The provision will also help the ITC to determine whether applicants have crossed the quality threshold: for example, an applicant claiming to set up a regional programme production centre would clearly lose credibility if he had no arrangements for training or retraining, and only a hazy idea of where his centre would be based.
  The training requirement covers not only the specific training initiatives that applicants intend for their own staff, but the policy that they adopt in Commissioning programmes from other production centres, or from independent producers. The ITC will, of course, be able to use the information that they receive to assist them in determining whether an applicant can produce the programmes that are necessary to cross the quality threshold. I hope that that will achieve the necessary balance between a lighter-touch regulatory system and the clear indication to broadcasters that they will need trained staff if they are to produce the programmes that are required of them.
  I am not persuaded of the need for a broadcasting training fund—financed, presumably, by some kind of levy on ITC licensees. I believe that the programme-making companies must take the lead on training. If they need an industry-wide training body, there is nothing to prevent them from setting one up, but I would need a good deal of persuading before I would agree to impose such a structure on them. I do not think that training will suffer; if the companies are required to state their training arrangements categorically, their appreciation of the significance of training will, I think, be sharpened. The fact that my proposal is not coupled with a fund for the purpose will not, I trust, lead anyone to believe that the Government have denied companies the means to achieve the highly desirable end of a well-trained work force, which has already benefited British broadcasting.
  I hope that the House will see amendment No. 244 as a considerable step forward, and that the Opposition will not think it necessary to press the new clause.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister has come some way —courtesy of the Committee, in the sense that that is an educational process bringing the Minister towards the Opposition's point of view which, on most matters, has been correct—but he has not come far enough.
  Amendment No. 244 is welcome, because it places an obligation on the regional ITV or Channel 3 companies to make a specific commitment to training. For too long, the
  140
  regional ITV companies have been parasitic for training on the BBC. The industry has come to depend heavily on the BBC which has devoted considerable, well-organised efforts to training. The problem is that just to impose that requirement on ITV, which has muddled rather than organised its way through training, is not enough.
  First, we now have a number of newcomers, the independents in particular, who are not in a position to provide training on their own because they do not have the size of one of the ITV or Channel 3 companies or the financial means to do so. As I understand it, the independent producers support a provision for industrywide training as outlined in the new clause, but they do not have the resources to do it themselves. The other newcomers, the satellite companies, which will eventually be on the same scale, should also be required to participate in a training effort which needs to be organised industrywide.
  Secondly, because of the tight financial constraints that the Government are imposing on the BBC—the process of slow strangulation by an RPI-geared licence fee—the BBC will be making less of a contribution to training on which the rest of the industry has depended.
  This is the time to make a provision for an industrywide training council to be financed by levy and joint, industrywide training schemes to be developed with the companies. The industry is developing rapidly. When I go back to a television studio after a mere decade away, I do not understand what is going on. We need continuous training and retraining and upgrading of skills for the industry to keep up. We are talking about a highly competitive area, and unless we maintain our skills, Britain will be left badly behind. The only way to do that is to have an industrywide council such as we have specified.
  Training is a crucial area for which the market, on which the Government rely so much, does not provide. We have seen that in industry outside television. The market provides for quick speculative efforts for the get-rich-quick mentality, not for the long-term laying down of skills and training. This is the moment to provide for that by establishing such a council. The Minister's words are welcome, but they are not enough. We need a positive commitment to a training council.
  Mr. John Greenway: I shall not detain the House, but I want to place on record my appreciation that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has brought forward the amendment, particularly the second part of it which refers to "offices, studios or staff" which a would-be licensee proposes to establish within the region to which the licence is to be granted. My hon. and learned Friend will recall that he kindly accepted a similar amendment, incorporated in the Bill, which in the allocation process will require the ITC to ask would-be licensees what facilities they propose to establish in the region for their licence.
  It is important that, as we are still looking at a regional structure for ITV—its great strength—there should, in appropriate cases, be a proper opportunity for those facilities to be maintained. There will be regions where that is more important. I wanted to make the point that the amendment is very important, and that I greatly welcome the point that my hon. and learned Friend made.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I can see the attraction of amendment No. 244, but I prefer new clause 25. My reservations in

  141
  respect of amendment No. 244 relate to what will happen if the holder of a new franchise does not subsequently honour training undertakings made in the original round of applications. I suspect that that will constitute one of those minor omissions that will not result in a major penalty.
  When it comes to local government, the Government say that it is right that everyone should contribute. One could almost understand that if contributions were based on some equity, but they are not in the case of the poll tax. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) need not worry —I do not intend to draw the House into a debate on the subject of the poll tax. I am merely trying to demonstrate that the argument used by the Government in respect of one issue is not applied in another.
  We have seen with the abolition of training boards that an employer who chooses not to train but to poach instead lives off the backs of enlightened and progressive employers who are prepared to invest in training. The employer who does not do that can afford to up the wages he pays, because he has made savings elsewhere, and take trained staff away from other companies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned that the BBC has provided the greatest poaching ground for skilled and trained staff among ITV companies, and among many others in the broadcasting industry in this country and abroad. He referred also to satellite television companies.
  The impression that I gain on my rare visits to Sky Television—about which my hon. Friend knows a great deal more than I do—is that it has a high percentage of Antipodeans on its staff, and that Sky has brought a large number of Australians and New Zealanders into this country. It could be that Sky Television is not prepared to train staff, and instead chooses to attract them from elsewhere. It could also be that Britain is running out of skilled broadcasters and technicians. There are certainly a large number of skill bottlenecks throughout British manufacturing industry, and another could exist in broadcasting.
  The Minister's assurances and the provisions of amendment No. 244 do not go far enough. It is a matter of trying to maintain standards, and of trying to ensure that the burden of training is shared equitably across the whole industry. It is not right that certain companies should be able to live off the backs of those that provide training. A training fund would benefit the whole industry and guarantee that everyone made some contribution to that aspect—which I thought would be very much in line with current Government thinking.
  Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister clarify Government amendment No. 244? It does not make clear whether the applicant's proposals for training or retraining should cover solely the applicant's operations or also those of the independents that it intends to use.
  The Bill makes provision for the use of independent production companies, and I suppose that the applicant would refer to making use of their output. The amendment does not make it clear that an independent company would have to provide training.
  Mr. Mellor: I had to think about that issue carefully. It is difficult to place a formal requirement on the independents within the mechanisms provided because
  142
  there is no direct relationship between them and the ITC. That is why the Bill does not purport to do that, although I am glad to say that during the consultations with the Independent Producers Association and others, they showed willingness to recognise that they had a role in training, and I hope that that will be followed up. But the ITC would have no direct relationship with them of the kind that would allow me to do for them what amendment 244 does for the franchise holders, who will have a direct relationship with the ITC and will have committed themselves to obligations which can be enforced. I hope that that is helpful.
  Mr. Cryer: That is helpful because it clarifies the position, and it is as I thought. The amendment reflects discussions which took place in Committee, but I and my hon. Fiends do not think that it goes far enough. What the Minister has just said justifies that criticism because, while it is agreeable to have an understanding—and I am sure that the Minister is well-intentioned—the difficulty is that we have to legislate for people who are not well-intentioned and who give assurances to the Minister when he seeks them but in subsequent years allow them to slide away and ignore them.
  That is why I thought that this would have been a helpful clause for the Minister to incorporate in the Bill, for two reasons. First, the independents will be involved and, as the Minister rightly says, the ITC will have no direct relationship with them and cannot provide any guarantee of training. Secondly, the industry uses freelances a great deal, and if there is no solid core of training more freelances will be used. More and more freelances tend to be used when companies cut costs in the sort of competitive situation envisaged in the Bill and the source of trained and expert technicians who are so valuable to the industry will then dry up. That is of great concern.
  I recall that when the National Film School was established at Beaconsfield the ITV companies ignored it for years, although it provided film and video training in the hope that ITV companies would use the facilities. They did, but it took a long time.
  In the circumstances I previously described, where ITV companies are undoubtedly building up funds, perhaps training will take a back seat in the company's order of priorities.
  A levy helps small companies. Good firms in all industries complain bitterly when they provide decent training facilities and a recently-established company without adequate training facilities, or the get-rich-quick cowboys, who do not want to establish facilities, poach employees from the good companies and act like parasites. New clause 25 would obviate that by ensuring that every company made a contribution according to turnover, which would ensure a supply of good quality technicians. That is important.
  The Minister has made one tepid step in the right direction, but it will be unsatisfactory, and it will mean that over a period of years the number of skilled technicians in the industry will diminish. The second part of amendment No. 244 states that the
  "offices, studios or staff to be used or employed by him in connection with his proposed service should be located within the area for which that service would be provided".
  I share the view of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that regional productions are important. They reflect regional values and attitudes and we still have not,

  143
  thank God, developed universal Surbitonese in language styles, attitudes and way of living. We still have recognisably different regions, and, rather than deriding it, we should cherish this important fact. By locating studios, personnel, and offices in the regions—for example, Yorkshire Television has an important presence in its region—the companies emphasise the value of regional television productions. Many of these have sufficient merit to go on to be networked. The merit, such as it is, of the famous, long-running saga of "Coronation Street" is based on the fact that it is a reflection of the idiosyncratic northern life rather than the life of Tunbridge Wells or Lewisham. It started out as a risk many years ago, and has become successful, and that was helped by the fact that the production facilities were based in the region. I am pleased that that has been recognised by the Minister.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Darling: The emphasis on training has been well put by my hon. Friends, and is accepted by the Minister. We welcome his amendments, which have gone some way to meeting the criticisms and suggestions made in Committee.
  The point that we are making in new clause 25 is that we have some doubts about whether the industry will train the people that it needs. That is true of all industries, which have not trained as they should, with the result that we do not have people with sufficient skills in the right place at the right time, which has allowed competitor countries to get the better of our industries. We do not want that to happen in broadcasting or the film industry, and that is why we thought that a broadcasting training fund might go some way to meeting the gap.
  I would not want to set up such a fund. I hope that the industry would do it for itself. However, my fear is that the very regime that the Government have created will lead to the industry cutting corners, one of which may be training. The requirement that 25 per cent. of the production should come from the independents is another factor, because many of them do not have the facilities, scope, intention or wish to embark on elaborate training schemes. They rely on the bigger companies to do that for them. One cannot base the future of the industry on a fervent wish.
  We tabled the new clause in an attempt to get some regulation. I recognise that the forces of the Government are such that, were we to press the new clause to a Division, it might be defeated. As it would be better if it were to survive to fight another day in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26

  RESEARCH INTO BROADCASTING
  `( )—(I) The Commission may undertake, or arrange for other persons to undertake, research into matters related to or connected with—

  (a) standards of accuracy and fairness in broadcast journalism; and

  (b) the portrayal of violence or sexual conduct in television or radio programmes.

  (2) The Commission shall publish the results of any research undertaken in pursuance of subsection (1), and any such report may include an assessment of the following, namely—

  (a) the attitudes of the public at large towards the standards of accuracy and fairness in broadcast journalism;

  (b) the attitudes of the public at large towards the portrayal of violence of sexual conduct in programmes to which this Part applies; and

  (c) the potential effects on attitudes of particular categories of persons of the portrayal of violence or sexual conduct in such programmes or of any failure on the part of such programmes to attain such standards.'.—[Mr. Fisher.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Fisher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 27 —Code of broadcasting practice—
  `( )—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to draw up and from time to time review, a code giving guidance to viewers and listeners as to—

  (a) standards of accuracy and fairness that should reasonably be expected of broadcasters;

  (b) the extent to which privacy of individuals should be expected to be respected by broadcasters;

  (c) practices which should reasonably be followed by broadcasters in the portrayal of violence in programmes to which this Part applies;

  (d) practices which should reasonably be followed in connection with the portrayal of sexual conduct in such programmes.

  (e) other relevant legislation to which they might refer in deciding whether or not their complaint is legitimate.

  (2) It shall be the duty of each broadcasting or regulatory body, when drawing up or revising any code relating to standards and practice for programmes, to reflect the general effect of so much of the code referred to in subsection (1) (as for the time being in force) as is relevant to the programmes in question.
  (3) The Commission shall from time to time publish the code referred to in subsection (1) (as for the time being in force).
  (5) Before drawing up or revising the code the Commission shall consult—

  (a)each broadcasting or regulatory body; and

  (b) such other persons as appear to the Council to be appropriate,

  including professional associations and other representative bodies to which broadcasters may belong.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 232 and 233.
  Amendment No. 202, in clause 12, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
  '(1A) In the case of programmes included in non-domestic satellite services and licensable programme services, those arrangements shall only be made for undertaking research which, in the opinion of the Commission, will assist them in discharging their duties under sections 6 and 7.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 235 to 238, 644, 645, 646.
  Mr. Fisher: New clauses 26 and 27 are self-explanatory, so I shall not need to detain the House for long. When discussing quality and standards in Committee, we used certain hallmarks by which to judge them—accuracy, fairness, privacy and restraint in the portrayal of sex and violence. Although a great deal was said in Committee, many hon. Members spoke subjectively. New clause 26 would permit the Commission to undertake research into

  145
  broadcasting so that it, and the companies, should know rather more precisely what the public feel about these important matters.
  New clause 27 sets out a commitment to a code of broadcasting practice. I believe that the Minister accepts most of these hallmarks of quality. Given that clause 90 puts an obligation for audience research on the companies and that the new clause only puts a gloss on it, makes it more precise, and focuses on the important areas about which there is a great deal of public concern, he has no reason for rejecting it.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: Sharp-sighted Members will have noticed that among the professionally drafted Government amendments grouped with the new clause is an amendment prepared by the do-it-yourself brigade; that amendment stands in my name.
  My amendment to clause 12—amendment No. 202—would ensure that non-broadcasting programme services such as non-domestic satellite services and licensable programme services would bear only the proportion of any ITC research costs that relate to the ITC's consumer protection functions. Unlike broadcasting services, those services are licensed automatically by the ITC, so they may be made subject to the basic consumer protection requirement that all programmes must obey.
  The quality, range and variety of non-broadcasting services is immaterial to their licensing requirements, and what the public think of them is irrelevant to the ITC's responsibilities. Public opinion will determine whether they succeed or fail, and that is a commercial matter solely for the channels concerned. It is not appropriate, therefore, that those services should bear any of the ITC's costs associated with research investigating the content of programming immaterial to their licensing requirements. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will give fair consideration to what is intended to be a fair proposal to help those companies that I have described.
  Mr. Buchan: Some of us have waited a long time for the chance to discuss this important part of the Bill. I do not intend to be brief or perfunctory. This part of the Bill is too important for that.
  There are two basic problems in the Bill. The first is the problem of quality. We fought that long and hard in Committee, and we have fought it long and hard again today. The second problem relates to the increase in censorship and regulation in a Bill that purports to be deregulatory. In place of the IBA's code and authority, we have introduced six or seven methods of control and censorship over broadcasting. It would have been bad enough if the Government had simply toughened an existing code; at least that would have been honest and could have been understood. With the proliferation of codes and authorities, that which all censorship tends to create—uncertainty on the part of the broadcaster—is created.
  The problem facing the broadcasters—by which I mean the writers, producers, directors and all those involved in draconian legislation in connection with investigation into their work—is how they can present material that will not be covered by one or other of the varying codes or authorities. As I understood it, an attempt was made to deal with that problem in this group of amendments. That point has not been made clear yet, although I am sure that
  146
  my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench will make it clear. The new clauses are an attempt to get rid of the proliferation of authorities.
  When I read the new clauses in this group, I thought that they were an attempt to replace the Broadcasting Standards Council. The new clauses are meant to cut down the number of authorities and the number of codes. Therefore, the role of the Broadcasting Standards Council would be subsumed within that of the ITC or, as I believe was the original intention of the new clauses, replaced by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, because that is the body to which problems can be brought.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Broadcasting Complaints Commission is a more natural forum, because it deals with complaints. If it is developing codes and standards at the same time, it can better advise people on the areas of difficulty and form a view of the needs of the industry. It has the knowledge and expertise to do that.
  Mr. Buchan: That is exactly right, and that is what I had thought the new clause was intended to do. It brought forward the perfectly natural method of complaints being brought in that way. The idea of a complaints Commission will be yet another element that is good in itself, but which becomes another area of potential difficulty for the broadcaster. If the Broadcasting Standards Council was however subsumed in the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, it would give it a more democratic and popular role. It would not be an officially appointed group, but would develop from the popular attitude. That would go a long way to establishing a proper understanding for the broadcaster of the role of the Commission—if it had to have a repressive role—and what its code would be. That is why I hope that the Minister will accept my suggestion. If he feels that we are wrong to refer to the ITC here, let us call it—as it could be if it was placed properly in the Bill—the complaints Commission.
  New clause 26 refers to the ITC undertaking "research into matters". That is because areas of research are so spread out. The ITC and other bodies set up by the Bill are entitled to instigate research. The Broadcasting Standards Council itself instituted research to formulate a code. If there is to be research, let us leave it in one area. The Broadcasting Research Unit is a good and objective body, and would be competent to undertake this task for one authority—not for several, or for conflicting codes. I appear to the Minister to understand the seriousness of his proposals.
  The Bill goes beyond research, to create a code of practice. That is why there must be a single code applying to all broadcasters. Even if the Minister does not understand that, why does the Home Office not understand it? The Home Office has one criminal code, not several. It has one immigration code, not several. If dog licences are introduced, there will be one code, not one for rottweilers and one for Alsatians. Why in heaven's name have we this proliferation of codes? One or the other should go. Even if the Government want a tough code —and I do not—it should at least be a single code, rather than a conflicting set of codes. The proper body for the role would be the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, so the codes should be brought under the one heading of that commission.
  That proposal would put the questions of privacy, sexual conduct and violence into the area where they

  147
  should be considered. Individual complaints could be brought and considered, but the people doing so could be the people who initiated research.
  The Bill has two main aspects: quality, and increasing repression and censorship. The repression and censorship are not because the Bill contains a series of draconian criminal provisions but because it inhibits and represses. It will have failed if action needs to be taken. The effectiveness of censorship is not to take action, but to inhibit the thinker and the writer from coming forward, and to make the publisher afraid. My God, we have seen enough pressure on publishers in the past 12 months. That is how censorship works and that is why we should have a single Commission. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was saying, and I support him completely.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that an element of accountability is involved in standards of broadcast journalism in particular? I share his concern about censorship, but the new clauses also provide for a degree of public accountability—for example, research into the extent to which broadcast journalism is attaining the standards of accuracy and fairness that should reasonably be expected of its broadcasters. That would hold them to account, at least to a certain degree. Is my hon. Friend surprised to learn that the NUJ supports the proposals, because it wants standards of fairness and accuracy to be subjected to such scrutiny?
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and brings the matter into its proper focus. There is a widespread feeling that such scrutiny is desirable, although we are concerned that there should not be a proliferation of bodies dealing with different aspects of it. The new clause would introduce an element of public accountability. I am pleased to learn that the NUJ supports the proposal; it has become so used to authorities that it has tended to oppose them in the past.
  The best of all possible worlds would be to introduce these sensible changes in the Bill. Is the Minister prepared to look at the proposals again? Perhaps our reference to the Commission is confusing, but I hope that in these two clauses, "the Commission" can be read as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, which supports the proposals.
  Given the Government's obsessive desire to interfere in moral matters by setting up a standards council with the ability to Moggify programmes, it is both important and logical that we should show some concern for what we should really be talking about, which is quality and standards of accuracy, journalism and news coverage.
  Nowhere does the Bill—for all its fussy, meddling, moralistic interference in the form of the powers conceded to the Broadcasting Standards Council—show any concern for the basic qualities of television. Those matters are dealt with in the new clauses. We purpose to give the powers to the Broadcasting Complaints Commissions
  148
  because, given its experience of complaints and the research that it can Commission, it has the ability to build up expertise and lay down codes and standards.
  We seriously need codes and standards for broadcast journalism, and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is the logical authoriy to develop them. I would go so far as to say that, if the new clauses are accepted, as I hope they will be, they will make the Broadcasting Standards Council superfluous, unnecessary and liable to be scrapped, as it Should have been at the outset of our proceedings on the Bill. I strongly support the new clauses, because we should maintain a concern for standards.
  Mr.Mellor: Given the hour, I shall deal briefly with the new clauses.
  New clause 26 is unnecessary, because research is already well provided for in the Bill. For instance, clause 12 already enables the ITC to Commission audience research for any licensed service programme. Moreover, amendment No. 233 provides for the ITC to Commission research into the effects of programmes on viewers and into the type of programmes that the public would like to see included in future schedules. Clauses 139 and 142 also provide for the Broadcasting Standards Council to monitor broadcast standards and undertake or Commis-sion research into the portrayal of sex and violence and general standards of taste and decency.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: You can do better than that.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is very bouncy for the time of night. I do not know how he spends the rest of his week.
  Mr. Tony Banks: In bed.
  Mr. Mellor: I shall not inquire too closely into that.
  The singling out of matters to be researched, which new clause 26 proposes, would conflict with an appropriate general policy of leaving such decisions to the ITC's discretion. In enabling the Commission itself to conduct research, the new clause raises issues that we discussed at length in Committee. We believe that it is better that research should be Commissioned rather than done in-house, although I accept that that is not a central point.
  The trouble with new clause 27 is that it blurs the areas of responsibility for the ITC and the BSC. Essentially, the ITC codes are aimed at the performance and behaviour of the licensees and are not designed to give guidance to viewers. I hope that I can safely say that the matters raised by the new code are already dealt with either in other ITC codes or in the BSC's duties. The BSC's duties relate very much to viewers. That is why, with respect, new clause 27 would not add to the clarity of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), in amendment No. 202, raises an interesting and useful point. He wishes to have it made explicit that research Commissioned by the ITC must be relevant to its regulatory functions. That is implicit, but I am perfectly content to make that explicit, and I shall do so in deference to what my hon. Friend has had to say.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I take the Minister of State's point that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has sufficient powers in the Bill to do various things as set out in new clauses 26 and 27. It might be helpful if he would say that he favours the Commission looking into those

  149
  various matters in the manner set out in the two new clauses. It is important. Clearly, the Commission, in judging its programme of work and its attitude towards various matters, might be guided by the words that the Minister of State uses in the House this evening. I hope that the Minister of State will say that the provisions of new clauses 26 and 27 contain a great deal of sense, and that these matters would be worthy of consideration by the Commission when it comes to Commissioning research.
  Mr. Mellor: I do not go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman. I have not actually examined every single part of the new clause with a view to knowing whether I think that it would otherwise be desirable. I certainly happily undertake to discuss the intentions of the new clause with the BSC and, where relevant, the BCC, so that we might take a view on that matter. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the outcome of those deliberations.
  Mr. Fisher: I am grateful for the way in which the Minister of State has responded. I accept that there are several places in the Bill where audience research is not only mentioned but specified—clauses 12 and 90, for example. Clause 12 allows only for research into programmes. The Minister of State referred to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's responsibility to look into matters of sex and violence. That is true, but clause 12 relating to programmes and the new Commission as it relates to sex and violence ignore the matter on which new clauses 26 and 27 home in. As has been said, the requirements of accuracy and fairness are supported by the National Union of Journalists. The Minister of State underestimates the importance of those matters for research. They are not covered by research responsibilities or obligations in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), in a powerful contribution to this short debate, made the good point that, as the Bill progressed in Committee, we stumbled across more and more restrictive aspects. We have a confusing plethora. Not only do we object strongly on grounds of civil and human rights to that enormous paraphernalia of organisations, but we believe that new clause 27 would be a great deal more coherent and give a more considered view about responsibilities.
  Obviously on those points the Minister of State is not yet fully convinced, but I am grateful that he has undertaken to consider them. I hope that he will accept that, whereas we understand what he says about clause 12 and clause 19, accuracy and fairness are not covered. Those are matters of considerable public concern. It would benefit everybody involved in broadcasting if there were objective research into those matters as much as into matters of preference and taste in programming. I hope that the Minister of State will bear those remarks in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 31

  PROSCRIPTION OF NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICES (No. 2)
  `(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 13, if any person provides a non-domestic satellite service without a licence or continues to provide such a service when a licence
  150
  has been revoked, the provisions of sections 165 and 166 shall apply to such services as if they were foreign satellite services.'.—[Mr. Buchan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I shall endeavour to be brief in dealing with what is a complicated matter. Since I have been raising the issue, a number of amendments have been tabled, including amendment No. 8 which stands in the names of Conservative Members.
  I have talked of the introduction of repressive measures of censorship, but another type of censorship occurs when we have too tight a monopoly on ownership, a problem that has been envisaged almost since the commencement of commercial television. As far back as 1955, the Pilkington committee, to which I gave evidence, began to appreciate the problem that would arise as a result of what we now call cross-media ownership, a concept which now exists to a high degree. Pilkington said:
  "The threat is thought to reside in the fact that, because two of the media of mass communication are owned in some measure by the same people, there is an excessive concentration of power to influence and persuade public opinion".
  That was said partly because of the evidence that I gave more than 30 years ago—in relation to control by a press monopolist, Roy Thomson, over Scottish Television. He discarded the criticism in the Pilkington report on the ground that it had come from two folk lorists from Glasgow, of whom I was one and my wife was the other.
  That was the beginnings of an understanding of the problem of mass media which we are now witnessing to a greater degree. Pilkington was concerned that it might have two results. One was that when issues were covered by broadcasting or the press, being in the same hands, they might be subjected to undue and uniform editorial influence. The second was that the choice of issues to be reported—the setting of the agenda, as it were—could become distorted. There was a third reason, and Pilkington might have been prophetic, for it said:
  "Newspapers might unduly publicise and praise, or avoid adverse criticism of, the television service provided by companies in which they had an interest, and might disregard or criticise unfairly any exercise by the authority of its powers against these companies."
  In other words, one section of the media could be used to denigrate or support another element of the media—press and television—which is exactly what has been happening with the development of Sky Television, being under the ownership of a major press owner. [Interruption.] The monopoly element involved is enormous. Indeed, it is such that the Government have taken steps in the Bill to deal with cross-media ownership, because they recognise the problem, a problem that we have seen in practice—in the Sunday Times, The Times and The Sun—with the over-pushing of Sky Television and the praising of programmes in articles about the pick of the week and so on, so that even within itself it is unhealthy, not to mention the political control that can be exercised.
  There is a huge hole—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) or any of his hon. Friends want to interrupt—if they want to defend Rupert Murdoch—perhaps they will get to their feet and do so. Let them say where they stand. If not, perhaps they will allow me to proceed.

  151
  Later, the Broadcasting Act 1981 included some measures to deal with the matter. It does not explicitly preclude control of a television franchise by newspaper interests, but the IBA and the Home Secretary have power to suspend or end a franchise if it appears that the existence of the shareholding has led or is leading to results that are contrary to the public interest. That is the position at which we have now arrived. While the legislation has no explicit prohibitions on cross-media ownership, the underlying philosophy is clear. Restrictions have been thoroughly entrenched through an enabling statutory framework and by the IBA through its own regulations.
  12 midnight
  We have seen the experience in other countries such as America where the problem led to a decision in the Supreme Court against cross-media ownership. Who was involved? It was Rupert Murdoch. He had to divest himself of some of his holdings as a result. We have seen the problem in Australia—which I have just visited for a week to see the broadcasting system. Who was involved? It was Rupert Murdoch. What we face in Britain has had to be dealt with by at least two other countries.
  If the Government had mentioned Rupert Murdoch, News International or Sky Television, the Bill would have been hybrid and would have had to be dealt with in an entirely different way. That is why I raised the matter. I was given a ruling that was constitutionally inevitable— that the Bill was not hybrid because it did not mention a particular company. It exempts from the monopoly ownership rule what is called broadcasting by non-domestic satellite television stations. There is only one such station. All of us here could own our own stations and call it non-domestic broadcasting by satellite. The only problem is that we cannot afford to do it. It is like saying that everyone is entitled to eat in the Ritz every day.
  Almost the worst aspect of the Bill is that, according to The Guardian, the Minister has said that he will not pull the plug on News International. He can deny it later if he wishes. The Government intend to exclude from the Bill the operation of News International. We should remember that every other television company will be subject to the restrictions imposed by the Bill on holding. They are also restricted in terms of nationality. Proprietors must be either British or members of an EEC country. That is deliberate. Sky Television and any others which broadcast via the Astra satellite are excluded from the restrictions in the Bill.
  Mr. Mellor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's arguments will sound even more exciting when they are made in the debate that we are due to have, and which no one can avoid, on the subject of whether it is right that there should be cross-media ownership restrictions on Sky Television and others. The hon. Gentleman's remarks would be relevant to the amendment only if Sky continued to broadcast without a licence. He is dealing with a relatively limited regulatory point. Perhaps after the number of hours of debate that we have had, what he is saying about Sky might be better placed in the debate on that specific point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what had been lurking in my mind for several minutes. I was shielding my
  152
  ignorance about the complexities of the Bill. My suspicions are now confirmed that what the hon. Gentleman has been saying does not have an awful lot to do with the new clause before the House.
  Mr. Buchan: I usually agree with your suspicions and sometimes even with your rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but neither your suspicion nor a consequent ruling on it would be correct in this case. If someone behaves in such a way that the ITA has to intervene, the application of the clauses applying to foreign satellite stations should apply to the non-domestic broadcasting station.
  It is late at night. I welcome the Minister's intervention to discuss the topic in the amendments to be debated tomorrow. An element of the matter can be dealt with then and I shall take great joy in repeating my arguments, hopefully at an earlier time of night. I thank the Minister for his intervention.
  The amendment proposes that if News International is to be exempted from the nationality rule that applies to everyone else and the control on the amount of monopoly holding, it should be treated as a non-British or foreign satellite television. If the ITC object to it, it can not only proscribe it, but take action on the advertisers and people who make the programme from Britain. It is a draconian measure, but we have been dealt a draconian measure in reverse by the Minister, and that is why I advocate this provision.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am a little puzzled by the new clause's consequences. I am not here to praise Rupert Murdoch, but I want to know whether my hon. Friend intends to bury him because I would object to that. The amendment makes Sky Television subject to licensing, as I take it. What is the effect of that licensing? I presume, since the cross-media ownership factor does not apply to satellite, that it would not have any effect.
  Mr. Buchan: It says that, without prejudice to clause 13, if a non-domestic satellite service is operating and its operator does not choose to seek a licence or continues to provide such a service after a licence has been applied for and the ITC has decided to revoke it, the legislation referring to a foreign satellite shall apply.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again; it is good of him. What consequences and restrictions are placed on the operator if he applies for a licence?
  Mr. Buchan: If he applies for a licence within the normal regulations there would be enormous consequences with regard to holding. If he does not apply for such a licence, but continues to have a satellite broadcast from abroad, different provisions prevail. I am asking for that to happen if he continues to provide such a service when a licence has been revoked. If he does not have a licence, there is nothing we can do about it, except to treat his satellite as foreign-based. That is how Mr. Murdoch would be treated because he broadcasts from Luxembourg. If he applies for a licence and what he broadcasts is not liked by the ITC it can be discontinued and the licence revoked. It can be treated in the same way as a foreign satellite. I agree that it is a most draconian measure and good, quiet resolutions will come in tomorrow in the form of amendments, to which I shall give verbal support and my vote.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not suppose that in your position as Deputy Speaker you have had a chance to look at today's edition of The Guardian which has just come out and has a headline,
  "Parliament 'misled' on Rover deal".
  I wonder whether you have been informed about whether a statement is to be made by the appropriate Trade and Industry Minister about the Select Committee report, which reveals that there has been a gigantic fiddle by the Government over the Rover sweeteners of £38 million, as revealed in this morning's paper. Surely we are discussing the Broadcasting Bill——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not received any request for a statement. Mr. David Mellor——
  Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since we are discussing the Broadcasting Bill and people outside want to know what is happening in Parliament, surely it would be right and proper for a Minister to come and tell us about this gigantic fiddle.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the form, and that I am not responsible for the attendance or otherwise of Ministers in the House.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) referred to clauses 165 and 166, which are draconian clauses intended to catch satellite services which do not originate in the United Kingdom and which thus cannot be regulated by the ITC. The clauses are backstop provisions designed to deal with such a service. It is not necessary for the non-domestic satellite services with which the hon. Gentleman is mainly concerned to come within the ambit of clauses 165 and 166, because they will be regulated by the Independent Television Commission on matters such as taste, decency, balanced news reporting and so on.
  Where a licensee was providing an unacceptable service, the ITC would have substantial powers to enforce licence conditions, including ultimately the possibility of withdrawing the licence. If the operator continued to provide a service after his licence had been removed, he would be guilty of an offence, under clause 13, of providing a licensable service without a licence. He would therefore be liable to prosecution. With respect to the hon. Member, I think that that is a sufficient deterrent.
  The point about clauses 165 and 166 is that this apparatus is not available in the case of services originating outside the jurisdiction. It is for those services that they are needed. In the light of that, and knowing that the hon. Gentleman has just been warming up his tonsils for his assault on the substantive issue of satellite cross-media ownership tomorrow, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Buchan: I thank the Minister for his generous invitation. That is twice that I have been invited to talk tomorrow, once by the Minister and once by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the kindness that is about, I will make a long speech tomorrow.
  If it were not so late, and if all the troops had been on duty, I would sadly have pushed this to a vote. I will not do so. I will resume the argument tomorrow. Of course, there will be yet another stage—before their Lordships.
  154
  Listening to the reactionary nature of the Conservative party, we sometimes have to look to their Lordships for a liberal attitude. I look forward to that.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I do not recall any words of mine that were an open invitation to the hon. Gentleman to speak, at length or briefly, on any future occasion. We must wait until that occasion.
  Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

  CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING SERVICES
  `(1) An applicant for a licence to provide any of the services mentioned in subsection (2) may declare that he intends to provide a Christian broadcasting service under this section; and in that case, if his application is successful, his licence shall (in addition to any other conditions which, subject to this section, apply to that licence) be subject to the conditions set out in subsection (5) (in this section referred to as "christian broadcasting conditions").
  (2) The services are—

  (a) A non-domestic satellite service (as defined by section 38(2));

  (b) A licensable programme service (as defined in section 41(1));

  (c) An additional service (as defined by section 43(1));

  (d) A sound broadcasting service to which section 78 applies;

  (e) A licensable sound programme service (as defined by section 104(1)).

  (f) An additional service (as defined by section 106(1)).

  (3) Where an applicant for a licence for a service mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) makes a declaration under subsection (1), paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 2 shall not apply to him; and accordingly the persons mentioned in that paragraph shall not be disqualified from holding a licence for such a service subject to Christian broadcasting conditions.
  (4) A licence subject to Christian broadcasting conditions may not be issued to or held by any person except a body which is a charity registered under the Charities Act 1960 whose principal object is the propagation of Christianity.
  (5) The Christian broadcasting conditions are that
  (a) a substantial proportion of the programmes shall be directed to—

  (i) explaining what the Christian faith is and its relevance in the modern world;

  (ii) encouraging an improvement in moral standards in private and public life and an awareness of Christian ethics; and

  (iii) providing Christian counselling services.

  (b) the programmes broadcast shall be predominatly of European origin;
  (c) there shall be no broadcast appeals or requests for finance or other material benefits for the licensee or any person connected or associated with the licensee.
  (6) Where the licence for any such service as is mentioned in paragraphs (a). (b) or (c) of subsection (2) is subject to Christian broadcasting conditions.

  (a)section 6(4) shall apply with the omission of the words from "and they shall also" to the end; and

  (b) without prejudice to its powers under section 42(4) the Commission may, if they consider it appropriate to do so, determine that section 6(1) shall, in its application to that service, have effect with the addition of the following paragraph—

  "(e) that undue prominence is not given in its programmes to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on religious matters."
  (7) So far as it relates to religious matters section 84(2)(b) shall not apply to any service which is licensed subject to Christian broadcasting conditions.
  (8) In the application of

  (a) section 6(1)(c) (as substituted by virtue of section 42(4));

  (b) section 6(1)(e) (as added by virtue of subsection 6(b) above); and

  (c) section 84(2)(a),

  to any service which is licensed subject to Christian broadcasting conditions, those provisions shall not be construed as imposing any duty on the licensed service which is inconsistent with those conditions; but shall be construed as prohibiting dominance by one particular church or ecclesiastical group.
  (9) In its application to an application for a licence to provide a licensable sound programme service subject to Christian broadcasting conditions, section 105(2) shall have effect as if the reference to section 84(2) were a reference to that subsection as modified in accordance with subsections (7) and (8) above.'.—[Mr. Michael Alison.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  At first sight, the proposed new clause might seem to be somewhat sweeping and ambitious, particularly as the Minister of State has already offered so much that was not originally in the Bill on religious broadcasting. I make no apology for initiating through the new clause a brief debate, I hope, on religious broadcasting and Christian broadcasting in particular.
  Large numbers of our constituents regard this aspect of the Bill as easily the most interesting and important part of it. Letters to colleagues reinforce that view. The Christian religion and Christian broadcasting are still very important in Britain. For example, 62 per cent. of the population see at least one religious television programme a month, and that is a very high proportion.
  As for radio, BBC Radio 4's "Sunday" programme has a larger audience than "The World this Weekend", while the alternative on BBC Radio 2, "Good Morning, Sunday", has twice the audience of "Sunday". These compete with a number of local radio religious broadcasts. We are not talking about a marginal interest.
  It follows from those figures that the idea that Britain is largely a secular nation cannot be sustained. Indeed, ascertainable evidence shows exactly the opposite. It is true that only 11 per cent. go to church weekly and 20 per cent. monthly—a much higher figure, incidentally, than those who attend sporting events the day before. But, according to the IBA itself, the strength of support for Christian views and values in Great Britain is extremely high. The latest IBA survey on religious beliefs says:
  "In total claimed membership of any Christian faith accounted for 79 per cent. of people. Even amongst people who are not at all religious, two out of three describe themselves as 'Christians'. 13 per cent. of people admitted having no religion."
  A MORI survey in October of last year showed that 84 per cent. of people claimed that their religion was "Christian", while a Gallup survey of last December gave the figure as 77 per cent. On those percentages Britain is a Christian country.
  12.15 am
  I said earlier that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State had shown himself to be generous in his response to the Christian and more widely religious broadcasting lobby. He has also been painstaking,
  156
  perceptive and sensitive in his response to lobbying. Those qualities take time and effort and many hon. Members as well as many people outside are deeply obliged to him for his personal interest in these matters.
  The lobbying group with which I have been associated, which includes CARE campaigns, the Evangelical Alliance and Christian Standards in Society, lobbied for three objectives. First, we requested, in the words of the Bishop of St. Albans, who is a member of our group, and nine other denominational leaders, that
  "religious programmes be specified among those which would comprise a properly diverse output."
  I am glad to see that Government amendment No. 114 specifically responds and gives effect to that request. We shall debate it later, but suffice to say at this stage that we are grateful to the Minister for honouring the undertaking that he gave in Committee and elsewhere about that improvement to the Bill.
  Secondly, we expressed concern that Christian and other religious bodies were being restricted in a way unprecedented in previous broadcasting legislation. The Bill excluded them from holding any ITC licence and thus from the possibility of managing their own programme schedules and competing in the market place. In the long term, this exclusion would mean inadequate funding for religious programmes and consequently a decline in quality. Therefore, we asked the Minister of State to think again about the exclusion of responsible Christian bodies from the management of television channels. The Minister thought again and to good effect.
  Government amendment No. 352 makes the radical, fundamental change to the original Bill by lifting the disqualification of religious bodies from holding television service licences for both non-domestic satellite and cable services. Such bodies are thus to be enfranchised as owners and managers in their own right in this area. This matter will be debated when we come to the Government amendment, but my hon. and learned Friend has given us everything that we could possibly ask for and we are deeply obliged to him.
  In the light of these two major changes and improvements to the Bill, secured with the full co-operation and active assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, it might seem churlish to land him with this lengthy new clause at a quarter past midnight. However, there remains a third objective which my group has not yet secured. It relates to certain restrictions in the Bill that have been dubbed with the code phrases "no editorialising" and "no undue prominence." Clause 84(2)(a) says:
  "undue prominence is 6not given in its programmes … to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on religious matters".
  Clause 84(2)(b) says:
  "there are excluded from its programmes all expressions of the views and opinions of the person providing the service on religious matters".
  In the view of the group that I represent, those limitations are unacceptably restrictive and inhibiting and incompatible with that very generosity towards religious broadcasting, more widely, as represented by the proposed Government amendment that I have mentioned. Thus it appears paradoxically, to our legal advisers at least, that even if a Christian group were to be granted a licence, while it would be free to broadcast programmes on materialism or easy sexual morals or something quite incompatible or foreign to the Christian religion, it could

  157
  not broadcast about the Christian faith. A radio station run by a local church would not be able to broadcast its own worship to the community that it served. That seems ludicrous, to put it mildly.
  I know that the Minister believes that the Bill's provisions in this regard are not as restrictive as we fear, but our anxieties about restrictions on religious matters were reinforced when the shadow Radio Authority contradicted the Home Office. In January, the Home Office was good enough to listen to a tape recording of a typical programme broadcast by a sane and Christian radio station from the Isle of Man, and said that it would be acceptable under the Bill: it certainly did not want such broadcasts to be banned. In March, however, the shadow Radio Authority was asked for its views about the programme. It said that the "editorialising" clauses in the Bill would prevent such programming, and would be the death knell of the service as it currently functioned.
  Incidentally, the Home Office—and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister in particular—may be interested to know that the governor of the prison on the Isle of Man thought that the programmes were so good for his inmates that he extended radio listening hours for the sole purpose of tuning in to them. That was the programme that the shadow Radio Authority deemed "unsuitable" and likely to be caught by the Bill's "editorialising" provisions.
  That is why I have tabled the new clause—drafted with the assistance of the National Council for Christian Standards in Society and the particular help of Mr. Gareth Littler and Lady Watherston,who are members of the society,and designed to provide for an active but responsible propagation of the Christian faith by respectable, charitable, non-profit-making European licence holders, subject to all the safeguards against abuse that are already in the Bill.
  John Wesley had the freedom of the open air in the 17th century, largely because he was banned from more official channels of communication. He made good use of the open air. We want to ensure that, if John Wesley were alive today, officialdom would not ban or inhibit him from the airwaves. If the Minister of State can show us a more satisfactory way forward than the new clause, I will gladly seek leave to withdraw it.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for the cogency with which he has set out his case, and for the generous and handsome tribute that he has paid to my efforts. I am very touched by what he has said; but I like to think that what we have done was done with the approbation of every Member of the House. The aim was to strike a fair balance between ensuring that responsible Christian broadcasters had the opportunity to participate in the expanded access granted to, in particular, local radio and television services, and maintaining adequate protection against the exploitive religious programming that might be provided by religious cults—or by the American evangelists who have almost brought our religious broadcasting into disrepute.
  Lest anyone should imagine that these are fanciful concerns, let me draw attention to a provocative letter in today's Times, in which a director of the Unification Church says how important it is for the country's moral welfare that the Moonies should be able to broadcast more widely to the nation. I trust I am not alone in the House in thinking that we should resist that.
  158
  As my right hon. Friend has said, as a result of the letters that we have received, and of representations made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, responsible Christian broadcasters will be permitted to own local radio stations, local cable channels and on-DBS satellite channels—subject to the discretion of the ITC or the Radio Authority, as appropriate. They will not be permitted to own national television or radio stations; I think that that is a fair distinction.
  So far so good, but my right hon. Friend is right to point out that there is a problem in relation to the "no editorialising" and "no undue prominence" arrangements which were not geared specifically to religious programmes and which might appear to take away with one hand what we have given with the other. That is not our intention.
  The Home Office has sought to argue, because it is what we believe, that neither of the provisions would preclude, say, a local group of churches with their own community radio station from broadcasting their own services. It would be ludicrous if it had that effect.
  But I acknowledge that there is a grey area here. There are a number of opinions, not all of which are mutually consistent. Therefore, it would be to everyone's advantage if the matter were sorted out in a different way. That is what I propose to do, and I want briefly to give the House details of how we propose to tackle that.
  First, there will be a requirement relating to fit and proper persons, offensiveness, advertising and restrictions on donations. All those will apply to religious broadcasting. That is right. Advertising will be allowed, but it has to be subject to a tight code. We do not want to see the free and easy approach to donations that has appeared in the United States. People not regarded as fit and proper persons should be excluded and the ITC and the Radio Authority will have the power to do that.
  I propose to remove completely the "no undue prominence" and "no editorialising" arrangements from religious broadcasting and to replace them with a concept yet to be fully worked out. There would be a new requirement for all licensees that the ITC and the Radio Authority are prepared to see go forward as owners of stations that any treatment by them of religious matters must be responsible and not exploitive—concepts that will be fleshed out by the ITC and the Radio Authority in codes on programme standards.
  I hope that that will prevent the inappropriate abuse of the airwaves by extreme religious groups while at the same time making it clear that legitimate Christian broadcasters have nothing to fear by the public protection devices made necessary in order to prevent any movement across the Atlantic of the unacceptable manifestations of religious broadcasting which are all too prominent there.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and others who have continued to point out to me that, although we have moved considerable distances on the issues, there is nevertheless scope for moving yet further. It is a difficult and elusive balance to strike to allow those who are responsible free rein while restricting those who are irresponsible. I hope that we have got nearer that elusive balance in what I have had to say, and I hope that on that basis my right hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his new clause.
  Mr. Darling: It may be appropriate to state the Opposition's position on the new clause, although if it is not to be pressed it may be academic.

  159
  Many of the problepms that we are discussing would not have arisen if the Government had at the outset said that it would be necessary for broadcasters to provide a wide range of programmes which would include religious programmes. In other words, there should be something similar to the present requirement for broadcasters to produce religious programmes of the sort that we see today. It is because the Government made no such provision that, understandably, a number of religious organisations and churches wrote to hon. Members asking that suitable amendments be made.
  The feeling was that somehow religious organisations were being banned from access to the airwaves under the new television and radio regime. I do not think that that was ever the Government's intention, but it would have been far better if at the outset it had been clear that broadcasters would be required to produce a wide range of programmes, not just religious but including religious programmes, so that people could have access to programmes that they undoubtedly want to see, such as "Songs of Praise".
  But there is a difference between acknowledging that fact and going on to say that they want something more akin to a television or radio station the object of which is to promote one particular view of religion.
  There is not a single Christian view on anything. Christianity is but one faith, but there are many different churches within that religion. It would be impossible to create a Christian radio or television station that was even slightly acceptable to all who profess to practise the Christian faith.
  12.30 am
  I am not sure whether the amendment was intended as a stalking horse or to be enacted, but on the basis that it was meant to find its way into legislation, I offer the following observations. It would be impossible to accept a proposal that allowed a Christian church or organisation access to radio or television without at the same time permitting other religious interests precisely the same facility—to argue that Christians should enjoy access but that those who follow the Islamic faith, for example, should not. Such a proposition would immediately fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  What is to prevent religious cults from gaining access to the airwaves in the way that the Minister described? I am sure that few right hon. and hon. Members would like to see the Moonies or similar organisations enjoying such access. I feel sure also that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members and the general public would not want to see in this country the situation that obtains in the United States, where television stations are owned and operated by organisations claiming to be of a religious or even Christian nature but which are really fronts for other, wholly undesirable groups that should never be given access to our airwaves.
  Many people in this country who never go near a church from one year to the next may still consider themselves to be Christians or adherents of another faith. I am sure that even they would feel uneasy if they learned that all kinds of "churches" were to be given unrestricted access to our airwaves without question, and without any
  160
  promise of a balanced approach—running mere pro-paganda stations for publicising views that might not command anything like popular support.
  If new clause 32 ever finds its way into an Act, it would create wholly unwelcome problems in British broadcasting. I am glad that the Government's view appears to be that it should be resisted. I was pleased to infer also from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that he does not intend to press his proposal. He indicated one of the difficulties that could arise when he spoke of the Christian view. I do not agree that such a thing exists. The right hon. Gentleman gave an example of sexual morals, but I do not believe that there is a concluded view on what is right or wrong in terms of matters that the hon. Gentleman would describe as being concerned with sexual morality. It would be wrong unquestioningly to hand over the airwaves to any group in the way that the right hon. Gentleman described.
  The analogy with John Wesley is wholly misplaced. No one seeks to prevent individuals from gathering wherever they choose to debate particular views. That is quite different from giving someone the ability and the right to reach into the sitting room of every house throughout the country. I feel sure that the right hon. Member for Selby acknowledges that that is so.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) talks as though the country's entire airwaves are to be handed over to some religious group or another. He fails to acknowledge the new situation in which a large number of radio and television outlets will be opened, giving rise to the possibility that a particular point of view or subject matter may be concentrated on one channel far more than has ever been possible with the traditional forms of broadcasting with which we are all familiar, and which the hon. Gentleman may prefer. In addressing ourselves to the new structure, it is surely reasonable to consider whether a channel could reflect a predominantly Christian outlook, as understood by the people running it.
  Mr. Darling: I do not take that view. I agree that in future there will be more and more opportunities for broadcasting, both on television and on radio, but I would be reluctant for people to tune in to the Catholic station, the Protestant station, the Muslim station, the Hindu station, whether it was cable, satellite or any other kind of television. I would also be reluctant to have a Labour party station or a Conservative party station. We really——
  Mr. Roger Gale: We have four BBC channels.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's paranoia is getting the better of him. Perhaps it is not surprising at this early hour in the morning.
  I do not like the idea of dedicated radio and television channels on which all that one gets is propaganda. Surely that is not the future of broadcasting. Surely, even in the Government model of broadcasting, there is some sense of balance and questioning. It would be wrong to throw up our hands and say that, because there are many more channels on television and radio, we should hand them over to whoever wants them, without question.
  Many Conservative Members, having achieved a Christian channel, would find that there was a request for

  161
  a channel that put forward the views of Islam and they would howl for it to be closed down because they disagreed with what it said. I daresay that those who disagreed with what the Christian channel was broadcasting would be asking for that to be shut down. Sooner or later someone would say something which caused offence to someone else.
  I do not think that the majority of people in this country want channels to be dedicated to a single view, although I agree that the opportunity for that exists—as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested—but it is not an opportunity that I want to take.
  I prefer the model that we have developed which has a sense of balance and questions any views which are put forward, so that we do not end up with channels broadcasting propaganda, and people tuning in to the propaganda channel that suits them.
  The majority of people find religious broadcasting satisfactory at present. At the risk of sounding conservative, that is how I would prefer to see it remain and I see no need for the type of change that the right hon. Member for Selby was promoting. The change frightens me, many other hon. Members and many people outside this place.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to congratulate the Minister on considering the representations made to him and going a long way towards meeting them. I welcome the fact that he will take editorialising in hand and make a definite statement about where the line should be drawn on that issue.
  Surely, when we are discussing the widening of broadcasting, it is only right that we should consider the widening of religious and Christian broadcasting. I cannot agree with the Opposition spokesman who put forward the view tonight that we can discuss the widening of broadcasting in the Bill, but for some reason Christianity should not be allowed to widen its net within the scope of broadcasting as it is envisaged in the Bill.
  I should have thought that Christianity had as much right as any other section of the community to make its views known. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that it is hard to define the Christian view because each denomination would put forward its own interpretation of the Christian religion, and I can well understand that. That gets us into debate and into controversy.
  I was slightly amused when the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who moved the new clause, referred to John Wesley. If John Wesley had been living today, the BBC would not have allowed him on its channels. He had only a tiny following to start with, and until he had a respectable number of followers, meeting houses and churches, he would have been banned from the airways.
  We then have to define who are the extremists. John Wesley was looked on as being very extreme in his day. We all have to decide where we stand. We all know whom we consider to be extreme, but from where they stand, they see their view point. Christianity and the Bible doctrines make their way by arguments and the proclamation of the gospel message. Broadcasting should make it possible—within reason, for there must be reason in this—for the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
  If one does not like something on the radio or television, one can always turn it off. No one is compelled to listen or watch anything. I cannot agree with the
  162
  argument that it was all right for John Wesley to be an open air preacher, but one would not want him to preach in one's drawing room. If one does not want him in one's drawing room, one can always shut off the set. One does not need to listen to him there.
  Christianity should have the same rights as all other religions. I should have no objections to Islam broadcasting its teachings. As a Protestant, I believe in civil and religious liberties for everyone, and it has a right to broadcasting. If it said things with which I did not agree, I should not say that its broadcasts should be stopped—I should say that it was entitled to put forward its view.
  Christianity is not a plant that needs greenhouse treatment. It can stand on its own legs and make its own way forward. The Christian religion, which was up against everything when Jesus Christ rose from the dead and sent forth his apostles, carried the world before it—a world of temples, paganism and false religion. Without any establishment, finance or anything that the world could do for it—it was on its own—it was able to carry the day. I have no doubt that Christianity will make a vital contribution to properly controlled religious broadcasting.
  I trust that the Minister will persevere. As a Calvinist, he may know something about the perseverence of the saints, although my Arminian friends would know nothing about that. I hope that we shall end up with an Act that deals sensibly with religious broadcasting, so that all people who want to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed will be satisfied that they were at least listened to and respected, and got the same deal as others. That is all that we are asking for. We are not asking for patronage or a special place. We are asking for our rightful place, so that the message of the gospel can be proclaimed in broadcasting.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I add my tribute to the Minister's response to the different approaches made to him. I support the plea made by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). Perhaps it is worthwhile asking why there is concern that there should be freedom of Christian and religious broadcasting. Over the years, there has been censorship. For example, it was not until the advent of ITV that I got the opportunity to broadcast, because the establishment keeps its own grip on the issues.
  We must consider what happened in the BBC this year. During Lent, the period before Easter which is one of the most sacred periods in the Christian calendar, it was the task of the religious division of the BBC to get a response from the unbelievers to that most sacred period, which should have been an opportunity for Christians to meditate.
  12.45 am
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, the Bill as it appeared originally led many people to believe that there would be a limitation beyond understanding on Christian broadcasting. I welcome the assurance that the Government will consider the matter further. I trust that they will remove the ambiguities. If those who are responsible for implementing the changes in the legislation have their own interpretation, there is obviously a need for clarification. With regard to freedom of choice, I am amazed that the Government, who believe in market forces, and the official Opposition, who regularly speak on behalf of minorities, argue that we must

  163
  be careful lest we open doors and allow other people to put their views forward. If we dismiss the concept of a Christian perception of issues, perhaps we misunderstand a broad consensus of Christian morality and aspects of Christian teaching.
  I can certainly understand finer distinctions of theology. However, many of us may have a perception of the Christian aspects of a particular situation. If secular writers are right to present their interpretations of Christianity—and quite often they are critical of it with justification—it is equally proper that Christian writers and producers should be presenting their views so that people can make their own choice.
  With regard to censorship, is it not amazing that when issues are raised about the standard and quality of secular broadcasting the reply is that people can always turn off? Why is the same standard not applicable for those who dislike Christian broadcasting? In the past, the Christian Church was prepared to go to the market place, to the Forum and even into Caesar's household. I welcome the fact that the Christian Church is beginning at last to awaken to the use of modern media to extend its message so that men and women can believe.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the two major concessions that he made earlier and particularly for the concession that he has announced tonight. It is a particularly difficult balance to strike to find a way of excluding—to put it bluntly—the Moonies while allowing people to preach the gospel. It is important to say "preach the gospel" rather than "give an objective, distant view of Christian ideas."
  It is a pity that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have chosen to resurrect once again the old multi-faith issue. That was satisfactorily put to bed in the Education Reform Act 1988 and a perfectly satisfactory formula was found to take account of the legitimate interests of other faiths while bearing in mind that this is still predominantly a Christian country. If the ideas expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister are developed along similar lines, I am sure that they will be fruitful.
  The compromise, upon which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister spent much time working, on the old "no editorialising rule" was widely accepted as it was originally interpreted. The religious advisory body for TVS, which has representatives of the major Churches and is chaired by a bishop of my church, Bishop Murphy-O'Connor, was in favour of the Government's compromise. It is only in the past couple of weeks, since the Radio Authority made its revelations, that it has become clear where the flaws are in this approach. We should be likely to eliminate genuine Christian organisa-tions from putting over a genuinely Christian point of view.
  In developing his constructive and positive further concessions, I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that it is important that we do not leave the whole power of interpreting the concept of responsibility to the broadcasting authorities. It is important that it is enshrined in law that the basic distinction is not whether people are allowed to put a view over responsibly or not, in some secular sense of the word, but whether radio stations owned by Christians put over views that are fundamentally Christian but also inter-denominational when giving different Christian Churches a go, or whether they are giving a narrow plug to their own sect. That must
  164
  be the key distinction. Providing a station offers a reasonable amount of inter-denominational access, it should be deemed to be responsible. I say that only because the examples given by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev Martin Smyth) suggest why there are good grounds for not wholly trusting the secular broadcasting authorities to interpret rules favourably to the Christian Churches.
  I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend has been as patient with other hon. Members as he has been with myself. He has replied to several long letters, point by point, and I am sure that we shall resolve the issue satisfactorily, thanks to his efforts.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Minister for his concessions and for the seriousness with which he has dealt with the representa-tions so far. I must reflect, slightly amusedly, on the alternatives open to people when confronted with religious broadcasts—either those transmitted on the radio or personal appearances. It is easy to turn off a religious broadcast on the radio, but less easy if one is listening to a live speech by John Wesley or the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) outside one's window. The argument must be, therefore, that it is perfectly proper to give people the choice.
  The option that has been argued for is either for the majority religious group in the country or for the largest minority one. If we are properly to allow the broadcast media to transmit the range of our culture, it would be ludicrous to exclude religion and programmes that intend to broadcast and share the message of religion. If we allow radio to broadcast music, drama and current affairs, it would be unfair and illogical to do that, just as it would be unfair and illogical to allow the transmission of radio and television programmes to the ethnic minorities without them being able, as appropriate, to have their proper religious content so that the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh minorities could also have their way. Those of us who argue for Christian broadcasting permission do not seek to exclude that for other faiths as well. Of all the faiths that should have that opportunity historically and numerically in this country, it must be the Christian faith.
  It has not yet been pointed out to the Minister that, if we are allowing freedom of choice, one alternative that it is right to allow to be broadcast over the airwaves is a spiritual alternative. I have had the experience, as I am sure other hon. Members have had, of being at home late in the evening and wanting a restful alternative on the radio. One cannot find one. One either finds talk, which is not what one wants, or unsuitable music. People may want consolation, support, guidance, help or even prayer. All that should be available. It is only proper that we allow the spiritual side of everybody's life, which is available at different times and in different degrees, to be reflected in those who own and transmit through our radio and television network.
  I take seriously the Minister's point that some sects would seek to use the power that ownership in the radio and television media gave them to broadcast propaganda, including evil propaganda. Like everyone else, I oppose the idea of recruitment into closed sects such as the Moonies and other similar denominations, with all the disadvantages that it entails for the recruit. Surely the answer to that problem is that those who broadcast religious programmes should be required, under properly

  165
  regulated arrangements, to declare who they are, who owns and runs the programme and what name their sect goes by. That will make it perfectly possible for people to understand who is in charge. If we required that, we should still take the risk—as we do now—that some people will be betrayed into something that they do not entirely understand, but the risk will be far less substantial if there is a requirement to sign and identify what is being provided in a proper and effective way, and if people are then allowed to choose.
  Mr. Darling: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Most hon. Members who have spoken have agreed that having the Moonies on the radio or television is a bad thing and that we are not very keen on it. How does one draw the line between an organisation such as the Moonies and an organisation to which none of us would object—the mainstream Church perhaps? Even under the scheme that the hon. Gentleman proposes, I do not suppose that the Moonies would say, "We are Moonies. We are out to con and brainwash people to get lots and lots of money. That is our true intention." They are a little more sophisticated than that. How does one draw the line? Are we not stuck with the fact that if we use the "You can switch it off" argument, it must apply to all denominations and not just to one or two?
  Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly proper question, to which there are two answers. First, some of the activities of certain sects have been ruled illegal and would be governed by other parts of the law. Certainly, the Unification Church falls outside the law in some respects. Secondly, I should be happy to entrust a decision about the distinction between a small, perfectly proper sect and a small sect that may be regarded as improper by a majority of people to a proper advisory body, which could at all times have an accountable reporting function.
  Of course it is a difficult distinction, but our case is that one starts with the faith for which there is substantial current demand. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) made it clear that we are talking about large numbers of people. Of course, with small denominations, the distinction is more difficult but it cannot be beyond the wit of humans to determine a pragmatic method of deciding, always subject to revision.
  I listened to the Minister's remarks about what he hoped to do in relation to the third proposal that had been put to him. I should like to explain what those of us who wish him to adopt that proposal are seeking to achieve.
  Let me quote from the IBA's fifth background paper, produced for the Report stage:
  "We agree that the prohibition of control of mainstream television services at a national level by bodies whose aims are wholly or mainly religious should be maintained. We would not consider it unreasonable in principle, however, for permission to be granted to such bodies to hold a licence for cable and satellite channels, particularly where these services are provided on a subscription or pay per view basis. Clause 6(4) would be a restraint on possible abuse. We do not believe that the 'no editorialising' requirement of Clause 6(4) would prevent the broadcasting of religious services or acts of worship which coincided with the religious affiliation of the owner of a service. Clause 6(4) would only be infringed if the service was used to promote the particular religious views and opinions of the person providing the service."
  We should not allow the matter to depend on what the IBA believes; it should be a matter of law, and clear in law. Moreover, I do not think—I hope that it is not the view of the House—that we should prevent someone who owns a
  166
  service from preaching or teaching or sharing a religious service that reflects his view. For example, I refer to a Nonconformist view, a Presbyterian view, a Roman Catholic view, a Methodist view, an Anglican view or anything else—even a different view and a known different view on key tenets of the Christian faith. Surely those matters must be able to be transmitted, irrespective of whether they are the views of the owner of the station in question.
  I presume that the Minister of State would hope to address the link problem—the micro version of which my previous point is the macro version, which was pointed out by the Isle of Man authorities when it looked as though they might be running foul of the law—so that, as was made clear in a briefing that the Minister will have seen, small radio stations which transmit at Christian festivals such as the Greenbelt festival or the other examples cited and Llandudno Methodist Easter festival can do their job without running foul of the law.
  1 am
  Is it right, as has been put to me in one of the letters that I have received, that it is still illegal to advertise sales of the Bible on television? If that is the case, is it not ludicrous that we can allow advertising of many other things—literature and so on—all of which, of necessity, must be less valuable? If that is the case, do we not need to do one last bit of tidying up of the law as well?
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I appreciate that the hour is late, so I shall not unduly detain the House. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for the tolerance with which he has listened to the arguments in Standing Committee and recognised that the undue prominence provisions in the Bill, mainly clause 84(2), should be amended. Clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, we have been guided by the National Council for Christian Standards in Society and Mr. Gareth Littler, who have indicated the strength of the arguments about over-editorialising and undue prominence. Many hon. Members will recognise that the major problem is that religious broadcasting has been sanitised. I was quite surprised by the secular controls of the present regime upon religious broadcasting and the impact it has on the simple matter of spreading the gospel.
  In Standing Committee we removed the worst aspects of American religious broadcasting. At the same time, we created a framework that is acceptable to the majority of society, giving freedom of religious broadcasting. This is the last piece in the jigsaw. I urge the House to endorse the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. His clear, strong and well-thought-out ideas should be introduced into the other place so that we can then commend them when they return here.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: It looks as though it has fallen to me to deliver the epilogue in the debate. Therefore, I shall be as brief as possible. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who has fought a distinguished arid persistent battle in a worthy cause. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friends who fought hard in Committee, athough I was not a member of the Committee.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby is absolutely right to draw attention to the considerable number of letters that many hon. Members have received on this matter. The tenor of letters that I have received

  167
  from my constituents is that the Government are bringing forward a Broadcasting Bill, yet they seem to be penalising the Christian faith. I inform the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that this is a Christian country, and it is right and proper that our constituents expect that we should ensure that the Christian faith occupies a central role in broadcasting religious matters. I am not opposed to opportunities for minority faiths, but we must remember that we must not ignore the majority —the Christian people of this country.
  I appreciate that the Minister has concerns. I like to think that he is concerned not so much about the Moonies as about the heresies of some of our bishops and that he is anxious to keep some of those off the air. I have no doubt that, being a good lawyer, he will keep his own counsel on that issue.
  The Bill is before us to provide a framework to cope with the advance in technology that has taken place. The diversity is already there. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed that out. We are trying in the Bill to create the framework within which that technology can be made to work to advantage and without risk of abuse.
  I congratulate the Minister on the moves that the Government have made. This is yet a further example among the legion of examples that exist of the Government listening. I am fed up hearing about how the Government do not listen. The Minister has worked extremely hard on this issue. We agree that it is a difficult area on which to tread. He has acted with great distinction.
  Concern has been expressed about his proposals for dealing with the problem of no editorialising. I hope that he will ensure that hon. Members have a proper opportunity to examine his detailed proposals so that we may satisfy ourselves that we shall not end up with, as he called it, the ludicrous situation of having a channel run by the Church of England but being unable to broadcast its own services for the reason that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, quoting from the IBA briefing which says it all:
  "Clause 6(4) would be infringed only if the service was used to promote the particular religious views and opinions of the person providing the service."
  What on earth is a sermon for if it is not to promote the views of the Christian faith? With that caveat, I warmly welcome the Minister's proposal and hope that he will pilot it through with the success that he has achieved so far.
  Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said that he had the epilogue, but I have an even more welcome epilogue to his epilogue, which is to say that, in the light of the Minister's helpful response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1
  THE INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION
  Amendment made: No. 225, in page 2, line 2, leave out `six' and insert `eight'.—[Mr. Mellor]
Schedule 1

  THE INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 226, in page 134, line 16, at end insert—
  '(aa) a member or employee of the Corporation;'.
  No. 227, in page 136, leave out lines 1 to 14.—[Mr.Mellor.]

Clause 2

  REGULATION BY COMMISSION OF PROVISION OF TELEVISION SERVICES
  Amendment made: No. 612, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—
  '(2A) Subsection 2(a)(ii) shall not be construed as affecting the discharge by the Director General of Fair Trading, the Secretary of State or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of any of his or their functions in connection with competition.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 3

  LICENCES UNDER PART I
  Amendment made: No. 229, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
  '(6A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6), the Commission shall not give their consent for the purposes of that subsection unless they are satisfied that any such other person would be in a position to comply with all of the conditions included in the licence throughout the remainder of the period for which it is to be in force.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 4

  GENERAL LICENCE CONDITIONS
  Amendments made: No. 119, in page 4. line 16, leave out `fee or'.
  No. 120, in page 4, line 17, after 'be', insert—
  'in accordance with such tariff as may from time to time be fixed by the Commission; and the amount of any fee which is to be so paid by the holder of a licence of a particular class or description shall be'.
  No. 121, in page 4, line 18, leave out 'licence holder' and insert—
  'holder of such a licence'.
  No. 122, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
  '(3A) The tariff fixed under subsection (3) may specify different fees in relation to different cases or circumstances; and the Commission shall publish that tariff, and every revision of it, in such manner as they consider appropriate.'. —[Mr. Mellor.]
  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr.Durant.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

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

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
  That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1990 (S.I. 1990, No. 758), dated 28th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Question agreed to.

  Baltic Gold
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  1.9 am
  Sir Jim Spicer: Today might be considered an appropriate day on which briefly to discuss the disposal of gold that was owned and stored in London for safe keeping by the three Baltic states in the early 1920s. It is appropriate, first, because it is the day on which we have seen the arrival in London of the Prime Minister of Lithuania. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other hon. Members will give her a warm welcome. Secondly, today follows upon a weekend which has seen all the Baltic states announce their independence from the Soviet Union. Finally, it is the anniversary of VE day in 1945 which brought freedom and happiness to many but brutal subjugation for the people of the Baltic states under the Soviet yoke.
  I shall briefly outline the background to the Baltic states and what happened to them during their brief period of independence between 1919 and 1939. In 1919 the Baltic states were beset on all sides by foes—the White Russians, the Red Russians, the Poles and briefly the Germans. However, they fought through and bravely declared their independence. But they were still under threat, so in the early 1920s they decided to transfer their gold reserves to the United States, London and Paris for safe keeping. I emphasise that the reserves were transferred for safe keeping. Not merely gold bullion was transferred. The people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia also gave to their new Government their rings and heirlooms as a mark of their determination to help their country through the difficult period that they knew must lie ahead.
  I have heard various figures put on the value of the gold deposited here. It was about £500,000 plus at that time. Between 1919 and 1939 those three small but independent states watched with some horror—they were close enough to see what sort of state was operating alongside—what was happening and the evil doings in the Soviet Union, its big neighbour next door.
  Then came August 1939, the date of the infamous accord between the Soviet Union and Hitler which gave the three small states to the Soviets under the hidden protocol. The occupation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania took place in 1940. From 1941 to 1944 they suffered German occupation. In 1944, just when the rest of us were looking forward to peace and freedom, the Baltic states saw the return of Stalinist forces to their countries. That was followed by massive deportations, killings and torture plus an inward movement of Russians arid Ukrainians in an attempt to break down the national coherence of the Baltic states.
  For all those years until 1989, the Baltic states suffered under the Soviet yoke. As hon. Members will probably remember, last year, on the anniversary of that infamous pact between Molotov and Ribbentrop, 1 million people in the Baltic states joined hands in a silent, peaceful demonstration of their determination to regain their independence. In 1990 the Baltic states, led by Lithuania, declared their independence from the Soviet Union.
  Throughout the past 50 years three small countries have suffered annexation and oppression while the world looked on and took no action. In fairness, what could the

  171
  world have done? None of us liked to see Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania swallowed up by the Soviet Union in 1945, but in the times in which we lived, there was no other way, and we could not even protest because of the position we faced. The most important point was that, although we gave de facto recognition to the Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states in the post-war world, we have always withheld de jure recognition of Russian sovereignty.
  Against that general background, I turn to the unbelievable action in 1968 of the then socialist Government of this country, who handed over to the Soviets the value of the Baltic gold that had been deposited in this country for safe keeping. At that time, the value of the Baltic gold had risen to between £4 million and £5 million. That happened when Brezhnev ruled in the Soviet Union, the invasion of Czechoslovakia had just taken place, and when, as we all know, the gulags were still operational and hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens were being detained in the gulag camps.
  The Foreign Compensation Bill authorising the transfer received its Second Reading on 7 November 1968. I am proud that all Conservative speakers in the debate, particularly my old friend, the late Lord Chelwood, then Tufton Beamish, strongly attacked the disreputable deal, which handed over to the Soviet Union gold bullion that did not belong to it or to us. It was a betrayal of trust, made worse because the United States and France made no similar deal with the Soviets and, to this day, retain the funds lodged with them by the Baltic states. Her Majesty's Opposition voted against the Bill on Third Reading in 1968, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined her colleagues in the No Lobby, and the present Speaker of the House was a teller for the Noes.
  That the British Government, in 1968, acted in a despicable way cannot be in dispute. They had no legal right to pass to a third party—the Soviet Union—funds that should have remained blocked until recognised Governments were reinstated in all three Baltic states. It would be totally unrealistic to ask the present Government immediately to right that wrong by making full restitution. However, I can ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to undertake an examination of all the papers relating to the unlawful transaction in the hope that, thereafter, a Conservative Government will give some commitment to the Baltic states that, as and when they achieve full independence, they will receive direct support and help from the United Kingdom.
  My right hon. Friend has taken a major part in the setting up of the know-how fund, initially for Poland, then Hungary and now eastern Europe. It would be only right and proper for the Government to consider setting up a special know-how fund for the Baltic states that could be given to them to help them in the difficult days that will inevitably follow the transfer of full independence back to them. That is the very least that we, as an honourable Government, can do to help those people who have suffered so much and so grievously during the past 60 years.
  1.18 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Sir J. Spicer) for
  172
  giving me the opportunity to respond to the subject of the debate which, as he rightly says, is potentially one that is coming out of the history books and back into reality.
  The origin of the gold and its deposit in London was accurately described by my hon. Friend. On the essence of the action taken by the Government in 1967 and 1968 I would only say that it is no part of my job to defend a previous Labour Government, but, just as it must have seemed inconceivable at that time under Brezhnev that there was any hope of freedom for the Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian republics, it must also have seemed more immediately pressing that there were British citizens and others with claims which had not been met. It must have seemed at least pragmatic sense to write off the claims for the original loans, which had been lost, and which had been taken out by the Lithuanians in London, against the gold which was then available and which was doing nobody any good. So a pragmatic view, which it is not my job to defend, was taken for the benefit of those British citizens.
  Mr. Whitlock, who was the junior Minister responsible for the legislation, repeated in column 608 of the Official Report for 22 January 1969 what he had said in Committee:
  "nothing contained in or done under the Bill would preclude any independent Baltic republic at some time in the future from submitting a claim to the British Government of the day in respect of the property in question if it considered that it had such a claim"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,19th November 1968, c. 23.]
  Therein lies the heart of the matter.
  My hon. Friend correctly said that we had never recognised de jure the incorporation of the states into the Soviet Union. We believe that independence now can be achieved only by a process of negotiation. Doubtless that is the course of action which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will discuss with the elected Prime Minister of Lithuania at their meeting tomorrow. Doubtless she will wish to urge and explore the possibility of a route to successful negotiation.
  If such negotiations were successful, if independent statehood was achieved and if recognition could be accorded, there would be nothing to preclude that state, or any of the other Baltic states, bringing action if they believed they had a claim and could prove title in succession to the original Governments. They would then have to accept that if they were in a position to make claims they would also be in a position to accept their obligations. That would be a matter for the courts at the time.
  My hon. Friend referred to the know-how funds for eastern European countries. If the happy outcome which I have described were to be achieved, we and, I am sure, other western countries would not be backward in bringing help and know-how to independent Baltic states. Sadly, we are some way from that, although Baltic independence is now a real possibility which would have seemed inconceivable in 1968.
  If there is a happy outcome, and if the Baltic states win back their legal right to independence, the matters may come before the courts again. Nothing in the action of the Government in 1968 could prevent that from happening. The outcome would be a matter for the legal jurisdiction at that time.
  That is about all that I can say to my hon. Friend. He has recorded our party's opposition to the Bill at that time and reminds us of our country's opposition to the

  173
  incorporation of the Baltic states. That opposition has remained clear and unwavering, although the practicalities of how to achieve a solution are more difficult to see clearly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past One o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Economic Development
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by year for the last five years, the economic development that has been made available in South Yorkshire by(a) the EEC and (b) by central Government.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The question as drafted calls for a major exercise of economic impact assessment which could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The hon. Member may have a more specific query in mind, in which case he may wish to rephrase the question.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, in a manner consistent with the reply to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 31 March 1988,Official Report, columns 604–6, for each privatisation

  Company

  Date of sale

  Government Merchant Bank Adviser

  Government Broker

  Reporting Accountant

  Advertising Agency

  Solicitors

  (Joint appointment unless otherwise stated)

  Professional and Executive recruitment

  1988

  Lloyds

  —

  Coopers and Lybrand

  —

  Field, Fisher Martineau

  Rover Group

  1988

  Barings Brothers

  —

  —

  —

  Slaughter and May

  British Steel

  1988

  Samuel Montagu

  Rowe and Pitman

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Saatchi and Saatchi

  Norton Rose

  General Practice Finance Corporation

  1988

  Hambros

  —

  Peat, Marwick McLintock

  —

  McKenna and Company

  Harland and Woolff

  1989

  Lazards

  —

  —

  —

  Lovell White Durrant

  Short Brothers

  1989

  Kleinwort Benson

  —

  Deloitte Haskins ad Sells

  —

  Norton Rose

  Water Companies

  1989

  Schroders

  Rowe and Pitman

  Touche Ross1

  Collett Dickenson Pearce

  Clifford Chance

  Skills Training Agency

  1990

  Deloitte Corporate Finance

  —

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  —

  Field, Fisher Waterhouse

  Tax Share (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the formula used to calculate Northern Ireland's attributed share of United Kingdom taxes.

  Mr. Lilley
  The ways in which certain taxes are collected means that, for Northern Ireland, a share of the revenue yield must be attributed by applying a set formula. These are set out in Statutory Instruments 1975/1313, 1977/1879, 1983/1599 and 1988/1667, made under section 15 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
  2
  measure since 1987, the Government's merchant bank advisers, brokers, reporting accountants and solicitors and details of any advertising agency involved; and whether any form of competitive tendering was undertaken in each case.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government's merchant bank advisers, brokers and solicitors in each privatisation 1987 are listed below. Reporting accountants and advertising agencies employed in the sales were usually joint appointments with the company, and are also listed. In addition, a number of sales of subsidiaries were carried out by nationalised industries. Details of the advisers for these sales are not held centrally.

  In each of the privatisations the appointment of merchant bank advisers, brokers and advertising agencies was subject to competition.

  The appointment of reporting accounts was subject to competition in all except two of the cases listed. In the case of Short Brothers the company's auditors were appointed without obtaining alternative tenders, to take advantage of their existing knowledge as this was expected to give rise to worthwhile savings in terms of time and costs. In the case of the Skills Training Agency, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells were appointed on a single tender basis, following the appointment of Deloitte Corporate Finance as merchant bank advisers. In each case a competitive rate was negotiated.

  The appointment of solicitors was subject to competition in all cases except Rover, where Slaughter and May were appointed jointly with Barings Brothers.

  Oil Taxation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates were used by the Inland Revenue in concluding in paragraph 9 of a press release of 20 March, entitled "Oil Taxation", that the longer-term revenue effects of the taxation charges discussed in the press release are expected to be broadly revenue-neutral overall.

  Mr. Lilley
  Costings of this sort, involving many projections well into the future, are inevitably extremely uncertain. Estimates of abandonment expenditure are
  3
  based on surveys of industry intentions. The revenue effects of the measures referred to in this part of the press release also depend on a wide range of other assumptions, such as about oil prices and production levels and about other expenditure.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the longer-term annual revenue effects of the measures proposed in(a) clause 52 and clause 53, (b) clause 54, (c) clause 55 and clause 56, (d) clause 96 and (e) clause 97 of the Finance Bill.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have nothing to add to the aggregate estimates in the annex to chapter 4 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1990–91 and, as far as clauses 55 and 56 are concerned, in the 22 January 1990 Inland Revenue press release entitled, "North Sea Oil—Restriction of Capital Losses".

  United States (Foreign Investment)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest available figures for (1) annual and (2) total direct foreign investment in the United States by(a) Great Britain, (b) Japan, (c) the Netherlands, (d) West Germany and (e) France.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: Information is published by the Central Statistical Office on United Kingdom outward foreign direct investment by United Kingdom companies in the United States. Figures are also published by the United States Department of Commerce on inward foreign direct investment into the United States by a number of countries. Because of differences in coverage, country attribution, accounting practices and methods of compilation, figures for United Kingdom direct investment in the United States from these two sources will not correspond. The latest available information from both sources is as follows:

  United Kingdom information

  United Kingdom direct investment in the United States

  Net outflow 1988

  Book value of investment end-1987

  £ million

  9,854

  30,635

  (equivalent to $ million)

  (17,536)

  (57,808)

  Source: CSO Business Bulletin Overseas Direct Investment (28/90).

  United States information

  Direct investment in the United States by:

  Net inflow 1988

  Net investment position end-1988

  United States $ million

  United States $ million

  United Kingdom

  18,774

  101,909

  Japan

  17,838

  53,354

  Netherlands

  4,766

  48,991

  West Germany

  2,306

  23,845

  France

  962

  11,364

  Source: United States Department of Commerce: Survey of Current Business.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following the meeting of the 12 Finance Ministers in Galway on 31 March and 1 April, what proposals have been made for the timetable of introducing phase 2 and phase 3 of European monetary union.
  4
  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: No such proposals have been made. It was agreed at the special meeting of the European Council on 28 April that the preparations for an intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union which will begin in December this year should be intensified with the objective of finishing the work of that conference in time to permit ratification of the results before the end of 1992. It is too early to say how feasible such a target will be.

THE ARTS

  British Museum (Research)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what responsibilities he has in respect of the level and type of academic research carried out by the British Museum (Natural History); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The day-to-day running of the Natural History museum, and decisions on the museum's research programme, are matters for the director and trustees of the museum.

  I understand, however, that the Natural History museum fully intends to continue to undertake a wide range of academic research work, but that it plans to concentrate research effort primarily into important scientific programmes relevant to contemporary needs and issues such as the environment and human health.

CIVIL SERVIE

  Administration Trainees
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service in 1989 what percentages of successful applicants for the Civil Service administration trainee direct entry scheme were(a) educated at Oxford and Cambridge, (b) arts graduates and (c) attended fee-paying schools.

  Mr. Luce
  Of the 65 candidates recommended for appointment as administration trainees/higher executive officers (development), 55 per cent. were educated at either Oxford or Cambridge and 56 per cent. were arts graduates. The identity of schools attended by candidates is not recorded for statistical or other purposes.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain for his Departmental library a copy of the Consumers Association's report on British Rail services dated March 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend received a copy of the Consumers Association's report on 1 March. He will be meeting representatives of the Consumers Association on 24 May to discuss the article.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which driving test centres had(a) the 10 highest percentage pass rates and (b) the 10 lowest percentage pass rates per annum for each of the last five years; and how many people these figures represent.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is not the Department's policy to publish comparative pass rates for test centres.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1987–88

  1988–89

  North Eastern (Newcastle)

  47

  49

  51

  55

  54

  North Eastern (Leeds)

  46

  46

  48

  48

  51

  North Western

  50

  50

  52

  54

  54

  West Midland

  48

  47

  49

  48

  49

  Eastern (Nottingham)

  50

  50

  51

  51

  52

  Eastern (Cambridge)

  47

  48

  50

  51

  53

  South Wales

  49

  50

  50

  51

  53

  Western

  51

  51

  52

  52

  54

  South Eastern

  49

  48

  49

  50

  51

  Scotland

  50

  50

  53

  53

  54

  Metropolitan

  47

  47

  48

  50

  50

  National average

  49

  49

  50

  51

  52

  Noise Pollution
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review procedures for dealing with complaints from those whose personal environment has been badly affected by noise from new motorways.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am satisfied with the procedures for dealing with complaints from those affected by noise from new motorways and that the Department handles these complaints sympathetically.

  Motorways
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will outline his Department's policy on the provision of ribbed edgelines on motorways;

  (2) what regional differences of policy exist in his Department on the provision of ribbed edgelines on motorways to reduce the number of accidents on motorway hard shoulders;

  (3) what plans he has to introduce ribbed edgelines onto all motorways in the United Kingdom as standard carriageway markings.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has encouraged the use of ribbed edgemarkings on motorways since 1987 following experience earlier on. The extent of installation in each region is influenced by the need for replacement and maintenance of existing lining systems. We are shortly to offer advice to English regional offices which should encourage further installation of ribbed edgemarkings on motorways and appropriate all-purpose dual carriageway trunk roads.

  It is our intention to include these markings in our consultation document on the traffic signs regulations and general directions, due to be circulated in the early autumn.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the success of experimental schemes to fit ribbed edgelines on motorways in reducing the number of accidents on motorway hard shoulders.
  6
  The average percentage pass rates for the Driving Standards Agency regions for the last five years for which figures are available were:

  Mr. Atkins
  The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is encouraged by the results of earlier experience and trials conducted so far. On the basis of the available evidence it is not possible to establish the likely balance of costs and benefits across the network as a whole. Conclusive research would take many years to yield results. Operationally these lines appear to offer benefits in terms of enhancing visibility and driver awareness of the edge of the carriageway. Both these factors help to reduce the risk of accidents.

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to create any new categories of driving offences.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our proposals for the reform of road traffic law are set out in the White Paper, "The Road User and the Law" (Cm. 576). These include the creation of a new offence of"causing death by careless driving while unfit through drink or drugs"
  and the reformulation of the reckless driving offences.

  Legislation to implement these proposals will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his approval was required for the exemption given to the helicopter companies operating over the North sea from the new rules against excessive fatigue for pilots.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). I understand that of the 540 pilots employed on offshore helicopter operations on 1 May 1990, the date of the new requirements, 10 were in excess of the new limit of 800 hours flying time in any 12-month period. Of these, the highest had completed 835 hours and was inside the old limit of 900 hours maximum.

  In order to avoid grounding these pilots for approximately three months, the authority has issued

  7
  exemptions valid until the end of August 1990 when all 10 will be within the new reduced maximum 12-monthly flying hours limit.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail and the developers of the King's Cross site about the choice of the London terminal for the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  The choice of preferred location for the second London terminal for channel tunnel rail services was made by British Rail. My approval to British Rail's investment plans for the station will be required before they can proceed. The terms of the agreement with the developers and other land owners are a matter for British Rail; but this Department has had discussions with British Rail and the developers on the implications for the road and public transport networks in the King's Cross area.

  Traffic Forecasts
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a geographical breakdown of the traffic forecasts which have produced the average estimates for 2025 of 83 per cent. to 142 per cent. increase in road traffic.

  Mr. Atkins
  The national road traffic forecasts 1989 (NRTF) apply to Great Britain as a whole. Local forecasts, consistent with the NRTF, are made where necessary when particular problems and improvements are considered. These forecasts take into account local differences and can be lower or higher than the national forecast.

  London Underground
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the closure of the Circle line at Liverpool Street station on Wednesday 2 May.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Underground Ltd (LUL) tell me that Liverpool Street Underground Station was closed and evacuated on Wednesday 2 May between 09.45 and 10·20 whilst the London fire brigade attended following a report of smoke. The current was discharged to allow the firemen on to the track. The cause of the smoke was found to be burning paper, probably ignited by a train "arcing". The fire brigade extinguished the burning paper, the "all clear" was given and the station was reopened.

  I understand that LUL is currently carrying out a programme of improved cleaning measures, in particular, to remove litter from the track. It is also looking of eliminating or minimising arcing of trains.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fires have been reported on London underground in each of the last 12 months; for how many the fire brigade was in attendance; and how many required evacuation of the premises.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Underground Ltd. (LUL) tells me that the latest 12-month period for which details of fires are available is April 1989 to March 1990. The record consists of four-week periods rather than calendar months. The figures are as follows:8

  Period

  No. of Fires Reported

  129.4.89

  464

  127.5.89

  584

  124.6.89

  456

  122.7.89

  436

  119.8.89

  385

  116.9.89

  398

  114.10.89

  370

  111.11.89

  276

  19.12.89

  393

  16.1.90

  1259

  13.2.90

  303

  13.3.90

  339

  131.3.90

  424

  1 Four weeks ending

  The London fire brigade was in attendance at all fires. LUL do not keep records of evacuations of stations as a result of fires, though in 540 cases the train service either did not stop at the station or was suspended, which suggests that the station was evacuated.

  It was not necessary for LUL to report all fires to the Secretary of State. Those which had to be reported fell into the categories at Schedule 1, Sections 6(d), 6(e), 7(e) and 7(f) of the Railway (Notice of Accidents) Order 1986. This was set out in the answer to the hon. Member on 23 March 1990, Official Report, c.774–75.

  Supply Index
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his Department's decision not to participate in the Government supply index.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department makes use of GSI by sharing facilities with DOE. The driver and vehicle licensing agency in Swansea has its own subscription.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (First Aid Kits)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department proposes to introduce legislation to compel heavy goods vehicles to carry first aid kits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: Knowing the right thing to do when serious injury occurs can make the difference between life and death. I welcome the steps taken by responsible employers and by individuals themselves to spread this knowledge. Carrying a first aid kit is something that many road users sensibly already do, but it is no substitute for human common sense and knowledge and I do not propose to make it compulsory.

  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the draft code on nuclear waste transboundary transport drawn up by the experts panel of the International Atomic Energy Agency; how the United Kingdom was represented on the experts panel; and how the report will affect current safety regulations for nuclear materials transport in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  An official of the Department of the Environment attended the meeting of the expert panel which drew up the

  9
  draft code of practice. Current safety regulations for the transport of all radioactive materials in the United Kingdom comply with the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Any proposed changes to these recommendations resulting from the adoption of the code of practice will need to be agreed by the IAEA before they are embodied into United Kingdom law.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rural Regeneration
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what work has been undertaken by the inter-departmental committee on rural re-generation under the chairmanship of the permanent secretary in the Department of Agriculture; and when it will report its findings, proposals and recommendations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The inter-departmental committee on rural development has been in operation since January 1990. It continues to work to its general remit of preparing advice for Ministers on how best to carry forward action to tackle the social and economic problems in the most deprived rural areas.

  Discussions have taken place with district councils, the rural action project and the promoters of rural development projects. Following a recommendation from the committee it was agreed to fund the rural action project for a further year to 31 March 1991.

  The committee will report to Ministers as soon as possible commensurate with a comprehensive review and positive recommendations.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the estimated cost of providing the necessary infrastructure in Northern Ireland to ensure maximum availability of natural gas in the main centres of population in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what is the estimated cost of linking Northern Ireland by pipeline to the national gas grid of Great Britain.

  Mr. Needham
  No information is available on these costs which could only be obtained through detailed and expensive financial and technical studies.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence exists of the likelihood of natural gas reserves in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) off the coastal areas of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Small amounts of natural gas have been encountered in hydrocarbon exploration wells in County Fermanagh but work on enhancing the yields to commercial levels was not considered warranted by the prospecting companies as gas shows were so small. Elsewhere in Northern Ireland some geological features exist which control the formation and accumulation of hydrocarbons but to date exploration has not confirmed the presence of any significant traces of natural gas or oil. Exploration is continuing under three prospecting licences for areas in Co. Antrim.
  10
  Little is known of the geology of the off-shore area but from what evidence is available the prospectivity of the off-shore area in the vicinity of Rathlin and East Antrim is similar to the adjacent on-shore area.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the nearest identified source of natural gas in Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Previous studies of the options for the supply of natural gas from Great Britain to Northern Ireland indicated that the most convenient route would be a supply via the west coast of Scotland. The studies also concluded that such a supply would not provide the basis of a viable gas industry for the Province.

  DNA Profiling
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any scientist at the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory has published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of DNA profiling.

  Mr. Cope
  No such articles have been published.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many samples have been taken from how many persons suspected of(a) scheduled offences and (b) non-scheduled offences, distinguishing between (i) samples taken with the consent of the suspect and (ii) samples taken without the consent, and further distinguishing between intimate, and non-intimate, excluding mouth samples, and mouth swabs as defined in schedule 14 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, under the terms of schedule 14 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and subsequently under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, since the commencement of schedule 14 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

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

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will publish in the Official Report the administrative guidelines for records of DNA samples taken from persons acquitted or not proceeded against in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  Guidance to the police on the identification, by body samples, swabs and impressions, of persons detained under the general criminal law has already been published in the codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1989 (copies of which are in the Library of the House). Guidance on the identification, by similar means, of persons detained under emergency legislation will be published shortly.

  Second-level Students
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students in second-level education reached their 19th birthday and completed their courses in each year since 1980.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  School year

  Number of 19-year-old leavers

  1979–80

  542

  1981–82

  615

  1983–84

  705

  11

  School year

  Number of 19-year-old leavers

  1985–86

  789

  1986–87

  672

  1987–88

  695

  Figures are not available for the school years 1980–81, 1982–83 and 1984–85 and not yet available for 1988–89.

  Irish Language Teaching
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many copies of the proposals for the teaching of Irish in Irish-medium schools were sent out by the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council; how many schools were consulted; how many questions there were in the consultative proposals to be answered; weeks each school was given to reply to the consultative proposals; what was the closing date for replies; how many schools replied to the consultative proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Copies were sent to all grant-aided schools and to other bodies. A total of 7,800 copies were issued and 165 responses were received, of which 50 were from teachers or schools. The copies were issued on 19 February and schools were asked to reply by 30 March, a total of six weeks. To assist the analysis of comments, the council issued a proforma which contained 25 questions but respondents were at liberty to comment also on other matters.

  Extradition
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications relating to terrorist offences have been made for extradition from the Irish Republic to Britain(a) between 1972 and 14 November 1985 and (b) since 15 November 1985; how many have been refused; how many have been granted; and for how long any outstanding cases have been under consideration.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Application submitted (persons)

  Persons returned

  Extradition refused

  Other1

  1 January 1972 to 14 November 1985

  80

  3

  38

  238

  15 November 1985 to date

  32

  4

  3

  226

  1 The category "other" includes cases where warrants were returned or withdrawn for a variety of reasons; or where the person sought was found to be deceased (2 cases) or was subsequently arrested in the United Kingdom (15 cases). There were 19 applications outstanding as at 3 April 1990; since the majority of these persons have not so far been arrested, an account of time spent by each under consideration would not be appropriate.

  2 The figures within each category do not tally because in one pre-15 November 1985 case the individual concerned was returned after that date.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations were responsible for the 37 terrorist killings which have been carried out in the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone since 15 November 1985; and in how many of these killings(a) someone has been convicted for murder by the courts, (b) there is a murder charge presently outstanding and (c) there has been a failure to charge anyone with murder.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: Republican terrorist groups are believed to have been responsible for each of the 37 terrorist murders about which the hon. Gentleman has asked. One person has been convicted in respect of two of them; and five persons are awaiting trial charged with two additional murders, as well as related serious offences. Police inquiries still continue in respect of the remaining 33 murders, but to date no-one has been charged.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the target reductions for energy consumption in the buildings occupied by his Department.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: The target reduction for energy consumption over the period April 1990 to March 1995, on buildings occupied by the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments, is 15 per cent. of the total energy bill for the year 1989–90.

  EC Energy Development Programme
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what applications for European Community funding under the Valoren energy development programme in respect of lignite mining or peat extraction for fuel use are currently under consideration; and if he will indicate the project name, site location, date and level of European Community funding sought.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: No such applications are under consideration.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of the last three years those projects which have received European Community funding under the Valoren programme in respect of lignite mining or peat extraction for fuel use, and in each case indicate the project name, site location, date and level of European Community funding.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: Since the Northern Ireland Valoren programme commenced in May 1986, £23,411·35 of European Community funding has been provided to LEDU in respect of financial assistance paid to two investment projects involving the extraction and processing of peat for fuel.
  13

  Name and address of project

  Amount of European funding £

  Period of claim

  1. Cam Peat Ltd., 84 Ringsend Road, Leek, Limavady

  14,260·50

  1 May 1986–31 December 1987

  5,238·35

  1 January 1988–31 December 1988

  Site: Cam, Macosquin, Coleraine

  2. Biofuel Products (NI), The Cutts, Dunmurry, Belfast

  3,912·50

  1 May 1986–31 December 1987

  No lignite mining projects have been assisted under the Valoren Programme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what arrangements have been made to permit the BBC to broadcast a radio programme from a Committee Room of the House; on what terms; and whether he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Arrangements have been made for a radio programme to be recorded in the Grand Committee Room. The authority for any direct broadcast from the House, other than of Proceedings of the House, is the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services); it is permissible, however, to record a meeting sponsored by an hon. Member, for broadcasting at a later date.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), as representing the House of Commons Commission, whether any House of Commons staff are involved in the arrangements for a BBC programme to be recorded in a Committee Room of the House on 8 May; and whether any reimbursement is being made by the BBC to the Commission for staff or other costs.

  Mr. Beith
  Staff of the House are available to administer Committee Rooms with regard both to sittings of Committees of the House and private meetings sponsored by hon. Members; in the case of the meeting arranged in the name of the Leader of the House on 8 May no additional costs have been identified and the question of reimbursement does not arise.

  Select Committees (Advisers)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list for the current year by Committee the names, qualifications, experience and remuneration of advisers to Select Committees of the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The appointment of specialist advisers is a matter for the Select Committee concerned. The names of the specialist advisers who assisted Select Committees during the 1988–89 Session of Parliament can be found in the most recent Sessional Return (HC(1989–90)110). During the current Session, the following advisers have also assisted Select Committees:

  Defence Committee

  Mr. A. Preston

  Education, Science and Arts Committee

  Mr. J. Fish

  Dr. D. B. Thomas

  Professor J. M. Ziman

  14

  Employment Committee

  Professor A. Likierman

  Energy Committee

  Professor Sir Herman Bondi

  Environment Committee

  Professor J. N. Bell

  Professor R. Y. Cartwright

  Mr. D. Gould

  Mr. R. B. Macrory

  Professor R. Perry

  Mr. A. J. Rosenfeld, CB

  Foreign Affairs Committee

  Dr. J. Barber

  Sir Patrick Moberly

  Mr. R. Pollock

  Dr. A. Pravda

  Dr. P. Sabin

  Social Services Committee

  Dr. B. Castleton

  Dr. D. Hunter

  Mr. D. Plank

  Professor D. Piachaud

  Mr. D. Willetts

  Professor J. Wing

  Mr. G. Wistow

  Miss J. Young

  Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House

  Mr. R. Wright

  Trade and Industry Committee

  Dr. C. Preston

  Dr. B. Rider

  Transport Committee

  Professor D. Heald

  Mr. E. Humphreys

  Mr. F. Taylor

  Mr. G. Wilkinson

  Welsh Affairs Committee

  Professor P. J. Cloke

  Miss M. Constable

  Dr. R. W. Vickerman

  Dr. R. William

  Advisers currently retained by select commitees have a wide range of experience and qualifications and include retired civil servants and service officers, university academics and consultants.

  Specialist advisers are remunerated on a per diem basis, plus travelling expenses, on the same scale as that used within the civil service for comparable appointments, which ranges between £38 and £115 per day. Details of individual remuneration are not disclosed. The total cost of specialist advice for each select committee in the financial year 1988–89 can be found in the most recent Sessional Return (HC(1989–90)110).

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's bilateral aid to Zimbabwe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 24 July 1989 at column 454 and 4 December 1989 at column 9. Figures for expenditure in 1989 should be available later this month.

  Poland
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 26 April,Official Report, column 282, what plans exist to increase the £2·3 million so far provided for Poland under the know-how fund.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We expect that expenditure under the know-how fund for Poland in 1990–91 will be considerably higher than the £2·3 million spent in 1989–90. It is too soon to predict an exact figure.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 26 April,Official Report, column 282, what plans exist to increase the size of the know-how fund.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Much of the £50 million know-how fund for Poland has yet to be committed to specific projects, and

  United Kingdom bilateral aid 1984–1988 at current prices

  £ Thousands

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Burma

  821

  983

  2,945

  4,717

  2,222

  China

  561

  1,201

  2,190

  4,011

  28,383

  India

  146,537

  106,466

  143,481

  78,464

  101,045

  Indonesia

  28,292

  33,649

  8,898

  12,223

  17,365

  Jordan

  6,105

  2,332

  5,641

  4,809

  4,091

  Malaysia

  4,992

  7,454

  55,494

  9,779

  10,057

  Philippines

  3,803

  1,840

  205

  262

  1,042

  Sri Lanka

  26,203

  17,316

  15,981

  18,690

  21,718

  Thailand

  20,036

  7,437

  4,215

  5,358

  23,244

  Yemen Arab Republic

  3,103

  3,104

  3,775

  5,168

  6,603

  United Kingdom bilateral aid 1984–1988 at constant 1988 prices

  £ Thousand

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Burma

  1,003

  1,137

  3,291

  5,029

  2,222

  China

  686

  1,390

  2,447

  4,276

  28,383

  India

  179,095

  123,180

  160,344

  83,657

  101,045

  Indonesia

  34,578

  38,932

  9,944

  13,032

  17,365

  Jordan

  7,461

  2,698

  6,304

  5,127

  4,091

  Malaysia

  6,101

  8,624

  62,016

  10,426

  10,057

  Philippines

  4,648

  2,129

  229

  279

  1,042

  Sri Lanka

  32,025

  20,034

  17,859

  19,927

  21,718

  Thailand

  24,488

  8,605

  4,710

  5,713

  23,244

  Yemen Arab Republic

  3,792

  3,591

  4,219

  5,510

  6,603

  Percentage of aid and trade provision to gross bilateral aid 1984–1988

  Per cent.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Burma

  30·7

  31·9

  69·0

  79·4

  29·1

  China

  —

  —

  —

  27·1

  80·8

  India

  16·7

  8·3

  6·0

  0·1

  9·4

  Indonesia

  20·7

  58·6

  0·6

  8·5

  6·6

  16
  there are no plans to increase the size of the overall fund. As already announced, know-how funds have been extended to Hungary, East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 26 April,Official Report, columns 282–83, what is his estimate of the number of people who have benefited from the specific training provided for potential local joint venture partners with Poland.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The initiative under the know-how fund relating to the training of potential local joint venture partners has been introduced only recently and detailed arrangements are being worked out. A number of companies have registered their interest in the initiative in respect of Poland and we are looking carefully at their proposals.

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report correlating for the last five years for which data are available (a) United Kingdom bilateral aid to (i) Burma, (ii) China, (iii) India, (iv) Indonesia, (v) Jordan, (vi) Malaysia, (vii) the Philippines, (viii) Sri Lanka, (ix) Thailand, (x) the Yemen Arab Republic in real and cash terms and (b) the proportions in each case of this aid tied to trade deals involving United Kingdom companies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The answer is as follows:
  17

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Jordan

  56·3

  —

  —

  2·7

  9·8

  Malaysia

  1·1

  22·3

  90·3

  59·3

  19·3

  Philippines

  0·8

  4·5

  —

  —

  —

  Sri Lanka

  10·7

  2·6

  48·8

  28·1

  20·8

  Thailand

  1·1

  3·1

  9·6

  4·7

  2·5

  Yemen Arab Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18·2

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will update figures for the occupied territories in his answer of 20 April 1989 to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist),Official Report, columns 241–2, on Overseas Development West Bank and Gaza Strip; and if he will give a project breakdown between (a) the territories and (b) projects with Israel.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Updated details of our assistance to the West Bank and Gaza are as follows:

  £

  NGO projects

  Order of St. John

  Outreach programme based on St. John ophthalmic hospital

  615,000 (1984–90)

  Support for surgery, nurses training, clinical trials

  80,000 (1987–88)

  Oxfam

  Mennonite central committee land reclamation and water system construction

  24,539 (1988)

  Bethlehem arab society for the physically handicapped

  26,703 (1988–90)

  Annahda women's association centre for the mentally handicapped

  17,800 (1988)

  Oxfam (ex-progressive action for childhood education)

  Early childhood resource centre

  63,042 (1986–90)

  Quaker Peace and Service

  Middle East placement programme

  51,576 (1985–89)

  Action around Bethlehem, children with disability

  Water catchment project

  23,800 (1987–88)

  Solar energy project

  31,300 1987–88)

  Save the children fund

  Resource centre

  85,500 (1988–89)

  Physiotherapy training

  97,300 (1988–91)

  Rafah sewerage project

  44,600 (1987)

  Revolving loan fund

  46,875 (1990)

  Drinking water development project

  100,000 (1990)

  Small scale sewage treatment project

  50,000 (1990)

  Primary Health care project

  25,000 (1990)

  Small enterprises project

  18,750 (1990)

  Co-operation for development

  Small enterprise revolving credit funding programme

  813,700 (1987–90)

  Women's education and training programme

  74,140 (1985–89)

  Gaza enterprise training scheme

  28,816 (1987–88)

  Universities educational fund for Palestinian refugees (UNIPAL)

  English language teaching project

  37,000 (1984–89)

  War on Want

  Zababdeh early childhood resource center

  58,636 (1988–89)

  Abasan biscuit factory project

  20,920 (1988)

  Baby food production project

  17,200 (1989)

  Mobile clinic Gaza

  8,960 (1989–90)

  18

  £

  Appropriate health resources technologies group (AHRTAG)

  Bir Zeit community health unit

  62,235 (1988–92)

  United Nations association international

  service (UNAIS)

  Seed propagation/botanist project

  20,328 (1990–92)

  Food technician project

  20,328 (1990–92)

  Business administrator

  20,328 (1990–92)

  Development research project

  20,328 (1990–92)

  Women's cooperative worker

  6,940 (1989)

  Medical aid for Palestinians (MAP)

  A1 Rajaa centre for special education

  20,975 (1989)

  Physiotherapy centres

  98,736 (1989–90)

  Christian aid

  YMCA affected children project

  22,670 (1989)

  Y care international

  Relief for victims of the uprising, dependants, and training

  83,000 (1987–90)

  British Red Cross—ICRC

  Provision of tents for emergency housing

  38,000 (1988)

  World vision of Europe

  Emergency relief to dependants of victims of the uprising

  24,000 (1988)

  Request from NGOs for additional funds amounting to over £1 million are under consideration.

  1989–90 £

  Training programme

  200,000

  Book presentation programme

  12,000

  The sum of £5·5 million is being contributed through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in 1990. About £0·7 million was attributable to the United Kingdom in 1989 of the European Community programme for the West Bank and Gaza. In addition £3 million of the Community's contribution to UNRWA was attributable to the United Kingdom.

  The United Kingdom does not support any projects either with or in Israel.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq (Arms Component Exports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what information the Defence Export Services Secretariat had about the export to Iraq of steel equipment for use in weapon construction.
  19
  The Prime Minister
  In the light of the charges laid against individuals on 25 April, and in the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister what value for money savings have been achieved by the Cabinet Office in the last year; and how much of this was as a result of advice from the central unit on purchasing.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1989–90 are not yet available. Provisional figures prepared for the central unit on purchasing show value for money improvements of £1,510,000 achieved by the Cabinet Office during 1989–90.

  It is not possible to attribute particular value for money savings to advice from the CUP. The role of the unit is to provide advice and guidance on best purchasing practice.

  Government Supply Index
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about the Cabinet Office's decision not to participate in the Government supply index.

  The Prime Minister
  Because the Cabinet Office spends only a comparatively small amount on items covered by the Government supply index, full membership would not represent good value for money for the Department.

  Training (Scotland)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will seek to amend the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Act 1987 to include training matters in Scotland among those subject to the ombudsman's scrutiny.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, on 2 May at column 587.

  Engagements
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.
  20
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including Chancellor Vranitzky of Austria and received a delegation representing the Eisenhower centennial committee led by Vice-President Quayle of the United States of America. 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.

ENERGY

  Power Generation
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated contribution to power generation in the 1990s of(a) wind power, (b) tidal power, (c) estuary barrages and (d) geothermal power.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Renewable energy technologies are at an early stage of development and there is great uncertainty about future projections. No estimates are available for the 1990s. Longer term estimates for 2025 have been published in Energy Paper 55, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  British Coal
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his intervention of 4 December 1989,Official Report, column 41, what was the value of British Coal on 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The value of British Coal as at 31 March 1990 will depend on a detailed assessment of the earnings potential of each mine over its remaining life. I expect this work to be completed by late summer. I cannot prejudge in the meantime what this final figure will be. I have, however, satisfied myself that under any likely scenario over half the Corporation's collieries are likely to show a negative cash flow over their remaining lives, and that this will lead to the write-off of at least half the industry's £4 billion fixed assets. On this basis, and taking into account the losses incurred in 1989–90 and earlier years, I have in accordance with section 1(3)(b) of the Coal Industry Act 1990, paid British Coal an interim sum of £3 billion in deficiency grant. This sum was paid on 29 March 1990 and allowed an immediate and corresponding repayment of outstanding debt.

  UKAEA
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the chairmanship of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have today appointed Mr. John Maltby as part-time chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority from 1 July 1990 in succession to Mr. John Collier. This appointment is for three years.

  Dr. Brian Eyre's appointment as a full-time member of the UKAEA which was due to expire on 31 July 1992 will now expire on 30 April 1995. The UKAEA has appointed Dr. Eyre as chief executive and deputy chairman.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Fraud
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the practice of the prosecution authorities in cases of fraud involving sums of money in excess of £1 million; what is the Director of Public Prosecution's policy where culprits are over the age of 67 years; what consideration is given to the length of time a crime has remained undetected; and what consideration is being given to the implications for prosecution policy in respect of the War Crimes Bill of these policies.

  The Attorney-General
  The principles set out in the code for Crown prosecutors promulgated by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution Offences Act 1985, govern all decisions taken by the Crown prosecution service including those relating to alleged fraud. First, the evidence must be sufficient to afford a realistic prospect of conviction; second, the circumstances must be such that the public interest requires a prosecution.

  The factors referred to in the hon. Members question are relevant to assessment of the public interest which can arise only if the evidential criterion is satisfied. The sum involved goes directly to the seriousness of the offence which, together with any aggravating features, for example, persistence or breach of trust, must be balanced against other factors militating against prosecution such as advanced age. So far as time elapsing since the commission of a crime is concerned, the Crown prosecution service is slow to prosecute if the last offence was committed three or more years before the probable date of trial, unless, despite its staleness, an immediate custodial sentence of some length is likely to be imposed. Less regard will be paid to staleness, however, if it is contributed to by the accused himself, the complexity of this case has necessitated lengthy police investigation or the particular characteristics of the offence have themselves contributed to the delay in its coming to light. Generally, the graver the allegation the less significance will be attached to the element of staleness.

  If Parliament enacts the War Crimes Bill currently before it, the same principles will apply to the offences made justiciable by that legislation.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made in the investigations into allegations of a £1 million fraud by Mr. Alex Swern and Mr. Laurence Rosen; whether the police have now completed their investigations; when a decision with regard to prosecution will be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  A report relating to the case to which the hon. Member refers was submitted to the Crown prosecution service on 30 March 1990. Having considered the report and had the benefit of advice from counsel, the Crown prosecution service concluded that the criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors were not satisfied. The Metropolitan police were advised that no proceedings should be instituted against either proposed defendant.

  PO John Black, RN
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Attorney-General when he anticipates that he will be heard by the court on his application for a fresh inquest into the death of Petty Officer John Black, RN in Spain in December 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The case is in the warned list for hearing during the current law term, but no date has yet been fixed for the hearing. I will write to my hon. Friend informing him of the hearing date as soon as it is fixed.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average delay between a social security commissioner's oral hearing and notification of the decision to the claimant; and how much of this is ascribable to administrative delay.

  The Attorney-General
  The average time taken between the oral hearing by a commissioner and the despatch of the decision to the parties for the quarter ending March 1990 was 105 days, of which it is estimated that the time taken in processing decisions by administrative staff, including typists, was 50 days.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Office of the Social Security Commissioners are actively considering ways of reducing delay in this area.

  Lottery Tickets
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given by the Crown prosecution service to initiating proceedings in relation to the posting of lottery tickets to the United Kingdom from West German state and institutional lottery groups; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No such case can be identified within the Crown prosecution service from the information that is given. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me setting out more details about the alleged offence, I will cause further inquiries to be made.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Poland
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 26 April,Official Report, column 282–83, how many companies have taken advantage of the investment protection and promotion agreement which exists for Poland; and what is the value of such contracts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not held centrally, since companies are not obliged to notify the Government in order to benefit from the existence of an IPPA.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth dated 25 April, what plans exist to increase the £150,000 currently made available by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the scholarships and awards scheme to enable Polish students to study in Britain.
  23
  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are looking at ways of increasing the overall provision for students from eastern Europe, including Poland, to study in the United Kingdom under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and awards scheme.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people refused refugee status by the Hong Kong authorities have been accepted by the UNHCR under its own mandate.

  Mr. Maude
  The UNHCR has chosen to exercise its mandate on behalf of 106 refugees so far. This is less than 1 per cent. of cases decided by the Hong Kong Immigration Department and the refugee status review board (RSRB).

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the reasons why refugee status review boards sit in closed private session when reviewing cases of Vietnamese boat people refused refugee status.

  Mr. Maude
  The refugee status review board (RSRB) perform an administrative rather than a judicial function. It replaces a function originally performed by the Executive Council which also sits in closed private sessions during its deliberations. Although the refugee status review board make its final decisions in private session, a representative of the UNHCR is allowed to be present when a board interviews an asylum seeker. UNHCR and its operating partner, the agency for volunteer service (AVS), also have the opportunity to make representations on individual cases, before the final decision is taken, at their weekly meeting with the chairman of the board.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide for Vietnamese boat people's legal representatives to be allowed to attend screening interviews and sessions of the refugee status review boards.

  Mr. Maude
  The purpose of the screening interview is to record and assess the facts relating to an asylum seeker's claim to refugee status. The presence of a legal representative would serve little purpose in this context. The refugee status review board does invite UNHCR legal counsellors to be present during its interviews and a copy of the record is made available for comment.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide for a legal adviser to be assigned to each Vietnamese boat person applying for refugee status before screening.

  Mr. Maude
  The provision for legal services to asylum seekers is not the responsibility of the Hong Kong Government. Under the statement of understanding agreed between UNHCR and the Hong Kong Government in September 1988, UNHCR accepted responsibility for providing legal advice to asylum seekers at all stages of the screening and review procedures. Legal aid is not available in Hong Kong except in the High Court and the district court.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the figures for 24
  the number of cases regarding the refusal of refugee status to Vietnamese boat peope by refugee status review boards that have been decided (a) unanimously or (b) by a majority.

  Mr. Maude
  An application for review of a negative decision can be rejected only if all members of the review panel decide that the review should not be allowed. If one member of the panel decides in favour of the asylum seeker, the director of immigration's decision will be overturned. Any decision against the asylum seeker must therefore be unanimous.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that Vietnamese boat people awaiting screening for refugee status receive a written description of the nature and conduct of the process in Vietnamese before interview.

  Mr. Maude
  Under paragraph 6 of the comprehensive plan of action agreed at the UN conference in Geneva last June, provision of information about screening is the responsibility of UNHCR. They have distributed in all centres an information book describing the status determination procedures.

  Refugee Law
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the UNHCR, the Law Society and the Bar Association regarding the possibility of lawyers from outside Hong Kong with expertise in refugee law being allowed to practise in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  UNHCR employs lawyers from outside Hong Kong as full-time legal counsellors to monitor the screening procedures. In addition, UNHCR provides individual legal representation at the review stage through its operating partner the agency for voluntary services (AVS). The AVS has, with the approval of the Law Society, been allowed to recruit lawyers from outside Hong Kong for this purpose.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people have escaped from Hong Kong detention camps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: In 1989, 2,033 Vietnamese boat people escaped from the camps. The figure so far this year is 2,254. In most cases, the motive for escaping is to visit relatives in other camps or often simply to walk about Hong Kong, rather than to try to escape from the territory. Most of those who escape are returned to their camps.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current size of ivory stocks in Hong Kong; and on what date it was assessed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The current size of commercial ivory stocks in Hong Kong was 472 tonnes (to the nearest tonne) as at 21 April 1990.
  25
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 5 April,Official Report, column 765, if he will state the amount of ivory involved in each of the recent seizures; from whom it was seized; and what was the country of origin of the ivory and the current whereabouts of the ivory together with his proposals for its disposal.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The following seizures of ivory were made by the special task force of the Customs and Excise Department in Hong Kong between 1 June 1989 and 22 March 1990:

  Quantity (kg)

  Seized from

  Country of Export

  58·9

  raw ivory

  Kim Ki Woo

  Korea

  15

  raw ivory (powder)

  Au Kin Choi

  China

  8·5

  raw ivory

  Tsai Shin Sheng

  Taiwan

  11·7

  worked ivory

  Abandoned by Choi Don-soo

  Korea

  7·55

  worked ivory

  Lau Ming Hei

  Thailand

  0·2

  worked ivory

  Yue Hwa Chinese Product Emporium Ltd.

  Japan

  2·9

  worked ivory

  Lam Kin Pui

  Taiwan

  7·19

  raw ivory

  Kwong Fat Cheung Ivory and Mahjong

  Japan

  700

  raw ivory

  Pei Lei Lai Kai

  Singapore

  15·5

  mammoth ivory

  Lee Chor Mui

  Japan

  2·3

  worked ivory

  Andrew Stephen Yuen

  Thailand

  100

  worked ivory

  Sun Hung Ngai Trading Company

  USA

  55

  worked ivory

  Wong Wing Shing

  Spain

  4

  worked ivory

  Unclaimed baggage

  France

  26·3

  worked ivory

  Art of Sea Ivory Company

  China

  3·1

  worked ivory

  Liu Shih Haiao

  Taiwan

  3·8

  worked ivory

  Shih Shia Loon

  Taiwan

  1·3

  worked ivory

  Fang Tsu Chick

  Thailand

  2·5

  worked ivory

  Chang Lin Kuei Chuo

  Taiwan

  17·5

  worked ivory

  Left by Transit Passenger

  Thailand

  The confiscated ivory is kept in the Hong Kong Government stores. The Hong Kong Government have no plans at present to dispose of the confiscated items.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 5 April,Official Report, column 765, if he will state (a) the period covered from 26 February during which 35 kg of ivory was exported from Hong Kong, (b) how much ivory has been exported since that date; and to which countries it was exported.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The period covered was from 26 February to 30 March 1990. The Hong Kong CITES management authority has not been notified of any ivory exports since 30 March 1990.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is going to happen to the 116 tonnes of ivory currently held in Hong Kong without CITES documentation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The owners may continue to keep the ivory under possession licence or to dispose of it locally. But export licences will not be issued for any exports.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to apply isotope analysis to ivory stocks in Hong Kong to ascertain their place of origin.
  26
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: We do not propose to take a view on whether to apply isotope analysis to ivory stocks in Hong Kong until the technique has been properly evaluated. As my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, stated in his reply of 13 November to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the proposals concerning this technique were not discussed in any of the formal sessions at the CITES conference in October 1989. But we will study any information which may be forthcoming about these techniques in consultation with our scientific advisers.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 5 April,Official Report, column 764, if he will give details of the items which led to 92 prosecutions being initiated by the Hong Kong authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Ninety-two prosecutions were initiated by the Hong Kong authorities in the second half of 1989 as a result of confiscation of the following items:

  Item

  Amount

  Monkey

  2hd

  Slow Loris

  8hd

  Musk Deer

  6 pc pod

  10·2 g grain

  Ivory:

  Raw ivory

  769·9 kg

  Worked ivory

  123·62 kg

  Rhino Horn

  20 kg

  Felidas (cat family):

  (a) Stuffed specimen

  1 hd

  (b) Live

  2hd

  (c) Skins

  226 pc

  Pangolin:

  (a) Live

  2hd

  (b) Scale

  0·68 kg

  (c) Meat

  5·4 kg

  (d) Meat and scale

  1·4 kg and 20 pc

  Cetacean spp Meat

  0·4 kg

  Owl:

  (a) Dead

  1 hd

  (b) Live

  6 hd

  Birds of prey:

  (a) Stuffed specimen

  3 hd

  (b) Live

  2 hd

  Parrots

  64 hd

  Yellow Tortoise

  11 hd

  Sea turtle:

  (a) Stuffed specimen

  13 hd

  (b) Egg

  40 pc

  (c) Shell

  1 pc

  Lizards:

  (a) Live

  1 hd

  (b) Skins

  8,231 pc

  Crocodile Meat

  0·79 kg

  27

  Item

  Amount

  Python Skin

  15pc

  Giant Salamander

  6 hd

  Asiatic Bony Tongue

  21 tails

  Coral

  15 pc

  Giant Clam

  14 pc

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are used to determine the location, number and frequency of restaurant inspections in Hong Kong to ensure that no rare and endangered species of animals and plants are offered for sale as food; and what information he has on the number of restaurants in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The criteria used to determine the location, number and frequence of restaurant inspections in Hong Kong, for the purpose of ensuring that no rare and endangered species of animals and plants are offered for sale as food, include known black spots, reports and intelligence from various sources and the type of restaurant and menu served. Random checks are made as a deterrent. There are approximately 7,400 restaurants in Hong Kong.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overstayers were deported in the latest available year where evidence has been brought forward that they were in stable marriages to British citizens with the right of abode.

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

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the results of the police and immigration officers' investigation carried out at weddings being held on 21 April at(a) Hackney and (b) Walthamstow and (i) how many people were detained, (ii) how many have since been charged and (iii) with what offence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In a joint Metropolitan police/immigration service operation on 21 April, eight persons were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to contravene the Immigration Act 1971. Three persons were arrested at Hackney register office; four in a simultaneous visit to an address in Walthamstow; and one further arrest was made at a separate address later that day.

  Three of those arrested were subsequently released without charge and two persons have been given bail to return to the police station on 15 May. Three persons have been charged with conspiracy to contravene the Immigration Act 1971 contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (as amended)—two remanded in custody, the third released on bail.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received over the past 12 months about concessionary television licences for retirement pensioners and disabled people.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the year ending 21 March 1990 we received four petitions and 696 letters calling for reduced price or free television licences for pensioners or disabled people. A total of 385 of the letters were cyclostyled, and clearly sent as part of a local campaign. Of the rest 139 were from hon. Members, and three of the petitions were submitted through them.

  Police Houses
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police houses are vacant in(a) Cardiff and (b) South Glamorgan; and what proportion this is of the total police housing stock in (a) the city and (b) the county.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not held centrally, but I understand from the South Wales constabulary that there are currently 11 vacant police houses in south Glamorgan which represent 14 per cent. of the total police housing stock in the county. Six of these vacant police houses are in Cardiff and represent 11 per cent. of the total police housing stock in the city.

  Strangeways Prison
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of Strangeways prison, Manchester.

  Mr. Waddington
  As I said on 3 May in exchanges following the question from my hon. Friend the member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), an assessment of the structural damage to the wings at Manchester is being made. When it is completed, we shall review the various options for the prison's future. I can see the attractions, and the importance to the staff, of bringing at least part of the prison back into use as soon as possible.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that the costs of policing the Strangeways riot will be met fully by central Government.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Greater Manchester police authority has asked for a meeting to discuss the financial implications of policing the Strangeways disturbance. We will listen carefully to its points but any request for special assistance would have to be judged against the normal criteria of exceptional and unforeseen expenditure of a scale that threatens the efficiency of the force.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the governor of Strangeways prison, Manchester was given every facility necessary to quell the riot at that prison.

  Mr. Waddington
  Considerable support was afforded to the governor of Manchester under contingency arrangements. The available support will be among the matters which Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry will address.
  29
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations took place in the first 24 hours of the riot at Strangeways prison about the use of force.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: The Governor of Manchester prison, the acting regional director and the deputy director general of the prison service were in frequent consultation about the tactics to be adopted in dealing with the disturbance.

  Detentions (Manchester Airport)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures for the number of people arriving at Manchester airport over the last three months who have been detained.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 22 people who arrived at Manchester airport during the first three months of this year were detained for one or more nights.

  Deportations
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of deportations of permanent residents arising out of criminal convictions in England and Wales in the last six months; and if he will give the proportion of those which were not recommended by the courts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the second six months of 1989, a total of 164 persons were removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process on the recommendation of a court following conviction for a criminal offence (section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971). A further 32 were deported on the ground that deportation was conducive to the public good following a criminal conviction (section 3(5)(b)). Separate information is not readily available for those who were settled in the United Kingdom.

  Football licensing Authority
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken towards establishing the Football Licensing Authority.

  Mr. John Patten
  Responsibility for the establishment of the Football Licensing Authority has been transferred to the Home Office. My right hon. and learned Friend made a commencement order under the Football Spectators Act 1989 on 21 March providing for the Football Licensing Authority to be set up from 1 June 1990.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the chairman and members of the Football Licensing Authority will be appointed.

  Mr. John Patten
  Appointments to the Football Licensing Authority will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what date has been set for the commencement of operation of the Football Licensing Authority.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Football Licensing Authority will begin its operation as soon as possible.

  Lottery Tickets (Germany)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions he has raised with the West German authorities the practice of sending lottery tickets from Germany to the United Kingdom in breach of the Lotteries and Amusements Act; what assurances he has had on each occasion; and what action he now proposes in light of the continued posting of such tickets to United Kingdom citizens from West German state and institutional lottery groups.

  Mr. John Patten
  At our request, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last year initiated exchanges with authorities in the Federal Republic of West Germany about the postal promotion here of two lotteries based in West Germany, contrary to the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, and these exchanges are continuing. Most recently, the director of each lottery has undertaken to draw to the notice of its agents that the mass promotion of the lottery in another country where that is unlawful is contrary to the rules under which the agents operate.

  Together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we will consider what other effective action may be taken if the mass postal promotion of these lotteries continues. The promotion here of these and other foreign lotteries is already inhibited by steps which have been taken domestically. Among these is that HM Customs and Excise have impounded, for subsequent destruction, very substantial quantities of promotional material for them.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement providing guidance to United Kingdom citizens about the appropriate action to take with lottery tickets sent to them by West German state and institutional lotteries and about the legal position over the sale of such tickets in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  The promotion or conduct of public foreign lotteries in Great Britain is unlawful under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. It is not an offence under the Act to purchase tickets in such lotteries. But the Act defines a range of activities connected with unlawful lotteries which are themselves unlawful. These activities include the bringing into Great Britain of foreign lottery material; its sale, distribution or advertisement in this country; and the sending or attempted sending out of money or other valuables received in connection with such a lottery. Together, where appropriate, with the Gaming Board for Great Britain, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we take action to prevent or curtail the promotion of foreign lotteries contrary to the Act.

  We already explain this in reply to correspondence from Members of Parliament and of the public who write to us about the unlawful promotion here, by post, of foreign lotteries, including some based in West Germany.

  Immigration (Carriers' liability) Act 1987
  Mr. Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20th April,Official Report, column 1030, what were the departure points of those passengers without proper documentation which led to airlines being tined under the carriers' liability legislation since its introduction in March 1987.
  31
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information before 1 July 1989 is not readily available. In the last six months of that year airline passengers giving rise to charges under the Carriers' Liability Act arrived in the United Kingdom from almost 200 primary ports of embarkation. I will write to the hon. Member enclosing the full list. Listed are the 42 airports from which more than 50 such passengers departed for the United Kingdom.

  Bombay

  New York

  Paris

  Jedda

  Moscow

  Lagos

  Nairobi

  Colombo

  Frankfurt

  Cairo

  Mogadishu

  Tehran

  Dubai

  Hong Kong

  Singapore

  Amsterdam

  Los Angeles

  Lusaka

  Istanbul

  Delhi

  Abu Dhabi

  Bangkok

  Accra

  Dhaka

  Zurich

  Brussels

  Geneva

  Toronto

  Addis Ababa

  Copenhagen

  Madras

  Larnaca

  Bahrain

  Warsaw

  Rome

  Karachi

  Budapest

  Johannesburg

  Stockholm

  Riyadh

  Manila

  Muscat

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 1030, how many passengers whose arrival without proper documentation resulted in fines under the carrier liability legislation claimed refugee status.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average outstanding fine of those women prisoners serving sentences for non-payment of fines.

  Mr. Mellor
  The amount of fine outstanding is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the average weekly earnings of women prisoners.
  32
  Mr. Mellor
  Inmates' pay schemes and the calculations made of average earnings make no distinction between male and female prisoners. For details of average earnings for all prisoners, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) on 18 April at column 910.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of women in prison were convicted of crimes involving violence;

  (2) if he will list the numbers of women in prison according to the category of their offence.

  Mr. Mellor
  The readily available information relates to the sentenced population and was published in table 8 of "The Prison Population in 1989", Home Office statistical bulletin 12/90.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the daily average number of women in prison(a) in 1980, (b) in 1985 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The average number of females in prison service establishments in England and Wales, including those held in police cells, was 1,536 in 1980, 1,540 in 1985 and 1,768 in 1989. This information is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 1.5 of the latest report (Cm 825)), copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost per inmate of running a women's prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  The average weekly cost per inmate in a female establishment during 1988–89 (the latest year for which information is available) was £399.

  Prisoners (Dependent Children)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) men and (b) women prisoners have dependent children under the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not available.

  IBA (Transmission Functions)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the ownership restrictions which are to be placed upon the transmission company which is to take over the Independent Broadcasting Authority's transmission functions.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our announcement of 4 July last year recognised that the private transmission company which takes over the IBA's transmission operation will have a powerful market position, and that economic as well as technical regulation would be necessary. This will be achieved through the licensing regime of the Telecommunications Act 1984. A working draft of a licence to be issued under the Act for this purpose was circulated during the Broadcasting Bill's Committee stage. The licence will enable regulation to be carried out by the Director General of Telecommunications in order to ensure that the transmission market operates fairly and that transmission standards are maintained.
  33
  We also consider that the transmission company should be subject from the outset to certain ownership restrictions in order to promote greater competition in broadcasting and telecommunications. It is intended that the total holdings of Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees (or the ITV franchise holder before 1993) should not exceed 20 per cent., so as to guard against excessive vertical integration and to ensure that competition for these services is not restricted when the BBC's system enters the market. Because it already has a significant hold over the broadcasting communications market we also propose to limit any BT shareholding to no more than 20 per cent. The necessary provisions will be included in the new company's Telecommunications Act licence. In addition, whilst the BBC's transmission system remains in public hands, it will not be allowed any holding in the private transmission company.

  Our long-term aim is to remove the ownership restrictions on BT and the Channel 3 and 5 franchisees when the market allows. We will therefore review the need for either of these restrictions when we consider that circumstances have changed in such a way as to call for the position to be reassessed. If the need for either restriction has not already been reviewed prior to the privatisation of the BBC's transmission system, it will be reviewed at that point.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of cases awaiting settlement under the criminal injuries compensation scheme as at 31 March 1988, 31 March 1989 and 31 March 1990 or the latest available date identifying the numbers of prisoners and police staff included in those totals; and if he will provide a similar analysis for cases awaiting settlement under the scheme involving residents of the Northern region.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 2 May 1990]: The published figures for cases awaiting settlement under the scheme are 78,000 on 31 March 1988 and 82,000 on 31 March 1989. These figures reflect the difference between he board's cumulative record since 1964 of the number of cases received and settled. On that basis over 100,000 cases would now be outstanding whereas a physical count of cases showed that on 31 March 1990, the number outstanding was about 87,000. I am pleased to be assured by the board that this lower figure accurately reflects the caseload on that date.

  The board does not record numbers of applications received from separate categories of applicant, or on a regional basis.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Expenditure, Wigan
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Wigan; and if he will make a statement.
  34
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received in the last month two representations about expenditure on education in Wigan.

  Schools (Ethnic Composition)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the freedom of parents to withdraw children from schools on the basis of racial mix.

  Mr. Macgregor
  Under section 6 of the Education Act 1980, parents have the right to express a preference as to the school they wish their child to attend. Such preferences can be expressed at any time. Local education authorities and school governors must comply with a parent's preference if the school concerned has a suitable place available. If there is competition for places, authorities and governors cannot allocate them on racial grounds.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if parents' rights to choose educational establishments on grounds of ethnic composition is to apply to nursery provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if parents' rights to choose educational establishments on grounds of ethnic composition applies to nursery provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of primary school pupils in the constituency of Richmond and Barnes in each of the past five years belong to non-white racial communities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is not available centrally but my right hon. Friend announced in circular No. 16/89 that ethnic statistics will be collected by local education authorities from schools from September 1990 and the first aggregated LEA returns will be made to the Department in June 1991.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further action he proposes to take regarding local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo).

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about local financial management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from local education authorities and others. Many of these welcome the opportunities which delegated budgeting brings to governing bodies and headteachers.
  35
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to introduce flexibility for schemes for the local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the evidence from the pilot schemes which have been in operation for the local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The evidence from pilot schemes is that governors and headteachers have experienced considerable benefits from delegated budgets and local decision making.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take regarding local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further action he proposes to take regarding local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo).

  Teachers (Public Standing)
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had recently with the National Union of Teachers concerning the public standing of teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This issue has arisen in a number of separate discussions that my right hon. Friend has had with the National Union of Teachers. Its leaders know how much we value the professionalism and hard work being shown by the great majority of teachers and understand our concern that the growing public recognition of this could easily be undermined by action which disrupts children's education and which lowers the standing of the teaching profession.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of(a) English and (b) Cornish children go into further and higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  Twenty-nine per cent. of all English school leavers go on the full-time courses in further and higher education; whereas 37 per cent. of Cornish school leavers do so. However, 29 per cent. of children in Cornwall choose to stay on in school at 16, as opposed to 33 per cent. in the country as a whole.

  Education Standards, London
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the recent transfer of the responsibility for education in 36
  London to the individual borough; and what assessment he has made of the likely effect of this transfer on educational standards.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The recent transfer of responsibility for education in inner London to the 13 new local education authorities took place satisfactorily on 1 April. The transfer has provided the basis on which to secure improvements in the standards and responsiveness of the education service.

  West Sussex Education Committee
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next intends to meet the chairman of West Sussex county council education committee.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Morale
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the morale of teachers in public sector schools.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he will take to improve teachers' morale.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the morale of teachers and pupils in(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) local authority schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions foresees substantial gains in the self-confidence of teachers as the Government's education reforms are successfully introduced. The recommendations of the committee should significantly increase the attractiveness of teaching as a profession. My right hon. Friend announced on 5 April that he had decided to accept all the committee's recommendations, subject to some minor modifications. They will be implemented in full by 1 January 1991.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on teachers' pay.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced on 5 April that he had decided to accept the recommendations contained in the third report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions, subject to some minor modifications. They will be implemented in full by 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will be making an announcement before 1 August about new arrangements for determining teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced his proposals for new permanent pay negotiation machinery in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 26 April 1990 at columns 267–70.

  Education Expenditure, Hammersmith and Fulham
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Hammersmith and Fulham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received in the last month or so a small number of representations about expenditure on education in Hammersmith and Fulham.

  Education Expenditure, Brent
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has regarding expenditure on education in Brent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received in the last month or so a small number of representations about expenditure on education in Brent.

  Pupil Testing
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his plans for testing at seven years.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his plans for testing at seven years.

  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the testing and assessment of children at the various stages of their study of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 6 March (Official Report, column 578) and to my right hon. Friend's published letter of 9 April to the chairman and chief executive of the School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received recently about his plans for introducing assessment of pupils undertaking the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has received this year a number of representations about the implementation of the national curriculum assessment arrangements, including from headteachers, teachers, parents and other interested individuals and organisations.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding teacher shortages in mathematics, science and technology.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations about teacher shortages in these subjects and more generally. We shall continue to monitor the situation and to take the action necessary to ensure an adequate supply of teachers.
  38
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to meet leaders of the teaching unions to discuss ways of reducing the problem of teacher shortages in the south-east.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the various teacher unions from time to time to discuss a wide range of concerns in education. He will be addressing the annual conference of the National Association of Headteachers next month.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out his latest estimate of teacher shortages in inner London.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Inner London education authority estimated in March that there were 200 uncovered teacher vacancies in inner London. These posts were being filled by the use of supply teachers and by other short-term measures.

  The new inner London education authorities are taking steps to improve teacher supply in inner London. My right hon. Friend is supporting their efforts and will continue to monitor the position.

  Education Expenditure, Islington
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Islington; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

  Education Expenditure, Derbyshire
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Computer Equipment in Schools
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the adequacy of computer equipment in schools to meet the requirements of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A number of representations were received both in response to the consultation exercise on the draft orders for technology and subsequently. The Department's education support grant programme makes provision for a substantial increase in the numbers of microcomputers in schools.

  Education Expenditure, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Lambeth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent representation about expenditure on education in Lambeth.

  Education Expenditure, Southwark
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Southwark; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations about expenditure on education in Southwark.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the role his Department is taking in the fight against drug abuse by young people.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under the national curriculum, all maintained schools in England are now required to provide education about drug misuse. In 1990–91 the Department is supporting a £7 million programme of LEA expenditure on preventive health education. This will include education about drugs. The Department has also funded the development of curriculum materials for use in schools, and has issued bulk copies of a fact sheet on the drug "crack" to be used in the light of local circumstances.

  Education Expenditure, Haringey
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Haringey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations about expenditure on education in Haringey.

  Education Expenditure, Rotherham
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Rotherham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Rotherham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received in the last month or so a small number of representations about expenditure on education in Rotherham.

  Elton Report
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in implementing the recommendations contained in the Elton report on school discipline.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 2 May 1990 at column 572.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding the national curriculum.
  40
  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley).

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley).

  School Allocation Procedures
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to take steps to change the law in the light of the Greenwich decision for school allocation procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is not at present contemplating a change in the law in the light of the recent judicial decisions in the case R.v London Borough of Greenwich, ex parte the Governors of John Ball primary school. The law has been stated, and local education authorities and governors will in future have to take account of it in their school admission policies. The Department will, however, continue to keep the situation under review.

  Graduate Tax
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss the committee's suggestion for a graduate tax.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend most recently discussed support for students' living costs with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 19 February. Discussions with officials are continuing.

  Publications
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to stop the publication of works of low educational quality aimed at assisting with GCSE studies.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend does not have, nor does he seek, the power to control the publication of educational material. It is for individual publishers to make their own decisions on what they publish; and for purchasers to decide what materials best meet their needs.

  Education Expenditure, Doncaster
  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Doncaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Doncaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations about expenditure on education in Doncaster.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the state of preparations for paying loans to university students.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 received Royal Assent on Thursday 26 April. The Student Loans Company is continuing to make good progress with preparations to provide loans to students for autumn 1990, subject to Parliament's approval of the regulations. Arrangements are in hand for publicising the loans and explaining the application procedure.

  16 to 19-year-olds (Curriculum)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has regarding the curriculum for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has regarding the curriculum for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has regarding the curriculum for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are actively considering improvements to the curriculum for 16 to 19-year-olds. My right hon. Friend commissioned work in November 1989 from the National Curriculum Council (NCC) and the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) on the core skills which should be included in the programmes of study of 16 to 19-year-olds taking A and AS levels. He recently received a report from the NCC, which he is now considering, and will announce his conclusions shortly.

  Education Spending, Barnsley
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Barnsley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received in the last month two representations about expenditure on education in Barnsley.

  Polish Students
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make a statement on the TEMPUS (trans-European mobility scheme for university studies) programme;

  Spanish

  French

  German

  Other modern languages

  Number of full-time teachers teaching the language

  1,800

  17,400

  6,300

  900

  Of which, the number for whom this was their main teaching subject

  600

  11,800

  2,800

  300

  The numbers of teachers of Italian within the figures for "other modern languages" are too small to estimate reliably.
  42
  (2) what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the European Community to increase numbers of Polish students studying in western centres of advanced education.

  Mr. Jackson
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment made clear in the House on 3 May in the debate on the Commission's proposal, the Government welcomes and supports increased opportunities for Polish students to study in the Community under the TEMPUS programme. The United Kingdom has supported the proposed programme since it was originally discussed by the European Council in Strasbourg on 8–9 December 1989 and has worked actively for its adoption.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply of 27 April,Official Report, column 337, what plans exist to increase further the number of full-time students from Poland taking higher education courses in universities, polytechnics and other publicly funded colleges.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government welcome students from Poland, as from any other country, who wish to study in the United Kingdom, but it is for individual universities, polytechnics and colleges to determine how many such students to provide for. The Government are looking at ways of increasing publicly-funded support to enable such students to study here.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people in the United Kingdom are estimated to have a workable knowledge of two, three or more than three European Community languages.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Of the 656,000 pupils who left school in England in 1987–88, 260,200 had a graded result at GCSE (or O level/CSE) in at least one European Community language other than English. Of these, 216,700 had a graded result in only one such language, 41,800 had graded results in two and 1,700 had graded results in three or more.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers of Spanish, French, German and Italian there are in the United Kingdom at the secondary level.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The numbers of modern language teachers in maintained secondary schools in England in March 1988 were as follows:

  Information on teachers in the rest of the United Kingdom is the responsibility of my right honourable Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  43
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science at what age schoolchildren begin to study a foreign language.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under the national curriculum, all pupils will be required to study a modern language from the age of 11 and will continue such study throughout the five years of compulsory secondary schooling. Primary and middle schools are free to provide foreign language teaching outside the national curriculum to pupils aged under 11, if they have the necessary staffing and other resources to do so.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places there are in universities for students to learn Spanish, French, German and Italian.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information about the numbers of places available for students to study specific subjects is not held centrally. The data below show the numbers of full and part-time students, both undergraduates and postgraduates of both home and overseas domicile, studying at United Kingdom universities during the academic year 1988–89.

  Language

  Number

  French

  4,096

  German

  1,802

  Italian

  371

  Spanish

  664

  Source:

  Universities Statistical Record.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the initiatives to promote the study of a foreign language in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 27 March 1990 at column 172. We set up last August a national curriculum working group for modern foreign languages which is expected to recommend, by July 1990, attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages based on current best practice, in order to raise standards and to promote a stimulating and worthwhile challenge to pupils of all abilities during their period of compulsory secondary schooling. We aim to start implementing the attainment targets and programmes of study in schools from autumn 1992. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the working group's initial advice which was published on 15 March. The national curriculum applies to England and Wales.

  The teaching of modern foreign languages in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the responsibility, respectively, of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what have been the percentage cuts in the university departments teaching oriental and African languages in the last five years in respect of(a) undergraduate and (b) postgraduate provision.

  Mr. Jackson
  Following the 1986 Parker report on Oriental and African language and area studies in universities, the University Grants Committee allocated £1·5 million to strengthen teaching and research in these subjects.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the numbers of 44
  students in British universities studying oriental and African languages for the years 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information covers university full-time and part-time students, undergraduates and postgraduates. Information for the academic year beginning in 1989 is not yet available centrally.

  Students at universities in Great Britain studying oriental and African languages

  Academic year beginning

  Chinese

  Other/Oriental/Asian/African

  1986

  Home

  270

  389

  Overseas

  26

  124

  Total

  296

  513

  1987

  Home

  268

  505

  Overseas

  28

  176

  Total

  296

  681

  1988

  Home

  289

  561

  Overseas

  37

  183

  Total

  326

  744

  Source: Universities Statistical Record.

  ECCTIS 2000 Ltd.
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the contractual connection between the Department of Education and Science and ECCTIS 2000 Ltd;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the practice of his Department to refer inquiries about university courses to the firm ECCTIS 2000 Ltd.

  Mr. Jackson
  The education counselling and credit transfer information service (ECCTIS) is a database of courses in further and higher education which has been developed by the Department to provide a comprehensive source of computerised information for students and others inquiring about the availability of courses in particular subjects. Following a limited tender exercise, ECCTIS has been managed and operated since 1 January 1990 on behalf of the Department by ECCTIS 2000 Ltd., under a contract which runs until 31 December 1994.

  The Department does not itself hold details of all courses available and it is its practice to refer inquirers to ECCTIS where the circumstances of the inquiry suggest that this would be appropriate.

  School Closures, Richmond and Barnes
  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 within the constituency of Richmond and Barnes.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information at constituency level is not available centrally. The number of schools which have closed in each of the last five years in the Richmond local education authority area was as follows:
  45

  Number of schools closed

  1985

  2

  1986

  0

  1987

  0

  1988

  12

  1989

  23

  1 Closed for the purpose of amalgamation.

  2 Two schools closed for the purpose of amalgamation.

  Conflict Resolution
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what action his Department is taking to encourage the national curriculum council to examine ways of integrating the teaching of non-violent conflict resolution into specific subject or project ideas;

  (2) what measures he is taking to ensure that human rights education takes place throughout the schools system;

  (3) what account Her Majesty's inspectors of schools are taking of the recommendation contained in the report "Violence and Conflict Resolution in Schools" concerning the implementation of human rights education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The requirement for a balanced and broad based curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils, as set out in section 1 of the Education Reform Act, represents an effective framework for the provision of human rights education. HMI will, as a priority, be looking at all pupils' access to the whole curriculum. The National Curriculum council proposes to issue curriculum guidance to schools covering a range of cross-curriculum themes, including citizenship, which contribute to the personal and social education of all pupils.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to ensure that teacher training courses in classroom management include aspects relating to problem solving, interpersonal relations, conflict resolution and mediation.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has provided that as regards in-service training the management of pupil behaviour has been designated as a national priority area within the local education authority training grants scheme, attracting the higher rate of grant on expenditure of up to £1·7 million in 1990–91. In addition, the revised criteria for the approval of initial teacher training courses which he introduced with effect from 1 January 1990 provide that all such courses should include compulsory and clearly identifiable elements of practical training in the management of pupil behaviour. It is for the course providers to decide on the content of these courses with the objective of achieving good standards of classroom behaviour.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he received the report "Violence and Conflict Resolution in Schools" published by the council for cultural co-operation of the Council of Europe in July 1989, and what response he proposes to make to the recommendation on the teaching of non-violent conflict resolution as part of the curriculum;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the contribution to the recommendations of the report "Violence and Conflict Resolution in Schools" by the council of cultural
  46
  co-operation of the Council of Europe 1989 could make to tackling the problems of aggression, violence and vandalism in schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend received a copy of the report last January. The report has not been forwarded formally to Governments, but is still under study within the Council of Europe. The report will contribute to the continuing debate on this important matter and my right hon. Friend will be interested to see the Council's comments once its work has been completed.

  Parental Rights
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps have been taken to increase parents' rights to choose a school for their child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This Government have done more than any other to increase parents' chances of getting the school they want for their child. Under the Education Act 1980, parents have the right to express a preference as to the school at which they want their child educated and, unless certain specified reliefs apply, that preference has to be met by the local education authority and governors concerned. The more open enrolment provisions of the Education Reform Act build on this solid foundation and, by taking account of the physical capacity of schools, will give to all parents an even better chance of getting the school that they want for their child.

  Student Statistics
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out for 1979–80, 1984–85 and 1989–90 or the latest available figures the number of students (i) in secondary education, (ii) entered for(a) CSE and (b) GCE O levels in (1) drama, (2) music and (3) art, (iii) entered for GCE A levels in each of the above subjects, (iv) receiving individual tuition in a musical instrument and (v) entering (1) drama school, (2) music college and (3) art school.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Not all the information is available in the requested form. The numbers of school leavers attempting public examinations in music and art were as follows:

  Thousands

  1979–80

  1984–85

  1987–88

  Music

  A level

  2·92

  3·27

  2·65

  GCSE

  —

  —

  10·77

  O level (but not GCSE)

  14·73

  16·49

  2·34

  CSE (but not GCSE/O level)

  10·31

  10·22

  12·08

  All GCSE/O level/CSE

  25·04

  26·70

  25·18

  Art

  A level

  13·01

  13·76

  13·29

  GCSE

  —

  —

  44·12

  O level (but not GCSE)

  78·34

  81·36

  8·24

  CSE (but not GCSE/O level)

  74·20

  59·52

  113·68

  All GCSE/O level/CSE

  152·54

  140·88

  166·03

  All school leavers

  750·73

  736·21

  655·96

  Source: School Leavers Survey.
  47
  The numbers of students under 20 years of age on their first year of a course in colleges in the public sector were as follows:

  1985–86

  1988–89

  Colleges of Art/Art and Design

  9,710

  11,318

  Colleges of Music

  716

  998

  Source: Further Education Statistical Record.

  Note: These figures include full-time and part-time students; they exclude students following similar courses in other public sector and private establishments.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table of full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools for January 1990, broken down by aggregate total, school type and subject area for England.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information is not yet available.

  Contraception
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research is being undertaken on contraception; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The main agency through which the Government support medical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science.

  The Medical Research Council is funding major research projects into contraception at the following establishments:

  (a) MRC establishment
  1. MRC reproductive biological unit, Edinburgh Project title:

  (i) Identification and characterisation of gamete specific antigens. Immunological infertility and contraceptive vaccines.

  (ii) Clinical evalulation of new methods of contraception and menstrual induction, and new treatments for menstrual disorders and impotencey.

  (b) Grant holders in University Departments etc.

  1. Dr. C. R. Kay, Royal College of General Practitioners, Manchester: Study of oral contraception

  2. Profesor M. P. Vessey, Social and community medicine, Oxford university: Joint perspective study of the effects of different methods of contraception

  3. Dr. K. McPherson, community medicine and general practice, Oxford university: Investigation of oral contraceptive use in early life and subsequent breast cancer risk

  Subject Group 1987–88

  University

  Education

  Medicine Dentistry and Health

  Engineering and Technology

  Agriculture Forestry and Veterinary Science

  Biological and Physical Sciences

  Administrative Business and Social Studies

  Architecture and other professional and vocational subjects

  Language Literature and other area studies

  Arts other than languages

  Total

  Aberdeen

  0

  77

  2

  0

  5

  7

  0

  1

  4

  95

  Dundee

  0

  281

  29

  90

  18

  49

  0

  449

  0

  917

  Edinburgh

  10

  239

  6

  1

  21

  133

  1

  13

  17

  442

  Glasgow

  0

  0

  0

  1

  37

  21

  0

  2

  23

  84

  Heriot-watt

  0

  0

  0

  0

  53

  50

  0

  0

  0

  104

  St. Andrews

  1

  59

  90

  0

  35

  49

  9

  57

  1

  300

  Stirling

  8

  80

  36

  0

  3

  5

  0

  2

  0

  133

  Strathclyde

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  55

  7

  8

  0

  109

  Scotland

  19

  736

  202

  91

  172

  370

  17

  533

  45

  2,185

  Subject Group 1988–89

  Aberdeen

  0

  64

  1

  5

  0

  9

  0

  5

  0

  84

  Dundee

  4

  262

  35

  21

  62

  53

  0

  163

  1

  601

  48
  In addition, the Medical Research Council supports the following range of projects which are related to, or include in part, studies of contraception.

  (a) MRC establishments

  1. Clinical research centre, section of medical statistics, Harrow
  Project title

  (i) Provision of statistical collaboration and support to clinical research centre (and other) research programmes

  2. MRC child psychiatry unit, London
  Project title

  (i) Childhood experiences as predictors of life events in early adulthood

  3. MRC laboratories, Kingston, Jamaica
  Project title

  (i) Effects of oral contraceptives on haematological and clinical features of sickle cell disease

  4. MRC reproductive biology unit, Edinburgh
  Project titles

  (i) Role of neuropeptides, inhibin and gonadal steroids in the differential secretion of pituitary gonado-trophins

  (ii) Lactational amenorrhoea in women. Implications for contraception and family planning

  (iii) Application of neuropeptide analogues and steroid antagonists in the regulation of the pituitary gland

  (iv) Endocrine, paracrine and autocrine regulation of the ovary, with reference to physiology of the follicle and corpus luteum

  (v) Sexuality and wellbeing of women. Relationship to the menstrual cycle, lactation, contraception and disorders thereof

  (vi) Prostaglandin biosynthesis in the female reproductive tract. Interactions with steroid hormones and their antagonists.

  5. Institute of Cancer Research, London
  Project title

  (i) Epidemiology and biostatistics in cancer research

  (b) Grant holder in University Department

  1. Dr. E. Chantler, obstetrics and gynaecology, Manchester university: Spermicides as a local control for HIV type I transmission.

  PICKUP
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide, for the universities located in Scotland, disaggregated PICKUP full-time equivalents by vocational category for the academic years 1985–86 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Information on PICKUP courses in universities is not available before 1987–88. Figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are as follows:
  49

  University

  Education

  Medicine Dentistry and Health

  Engineering and Technology

  Agriculture Forestry and Veterinary Science

  Biological and Physical Sciences

  Administrative Business and Social Studies

  Architecture and other professional and vocational subjects

  Language Literature and other area studies

  Arts other than languages

  Total

  Edinburgh

  4

  81

  6

  1

  14

  86

  2

  91

  4

  290

  Glasgow

  6

  0

  0

  0

  110

  21

  2

  5

  2

  146

  Heriot-Watt

  0

  0

  0

  0

  34

  66

  0

  118

  0

  217

  St. Andrews

  1

  76

  78

  6

  49

  111

  14

  66

  0

  400

  Stirling

  0

  452

  47

  0

  3

  33

  0

  0

  0

  535

  Strathclyde

  0

  0

  59

  0

  16

  57

  2

  18

  0

  152

  Scotland

  15

  936

  225

  33

  288

  437

  19

  465

  7

  2,425

EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Expenditure
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent for each standard region and for Great Britain as a whole, in both cash and real terms, by his Department, the employment service and the Training Agency, formerly Manpower Services Commission, in each year since 1979–80; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available for standard economic planning regions.

  The total amount spent in cash terms by the Department of Employment is available from the appropriation accounts for the relevant year. (Volume 2, class IV for 1979–80, volume 4, class IV for each of the years 1980–81 to 1985–86 and volume 5, class VII for 1986–87 to 1988–89).

  Real-terms expenditure can be derived by applying the GDP deflator to the cash total for the year in question.

  Vocational Training
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the contribution made to employment in the United Kingdom by the European Communities European centre for the development of vocational training.

  Mr. Eggar
  The chief purpose of the European centre for the development of vocational training (CEDEFOP) is to support the work of the European Commission and others in promoting training at Community level. It does this through a programme to co-ordinate initiatives, by disseminating research and information and by proposing innovative means of tackling training issues across the Community. It therefore does not have a direct effect on employment in the United Kingdom beyond promoting the benefits of training.

  Social Fund
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there have been any delays by his Department in the allocations of the European social fund; when decisions will be made in these allocations and whether allocations to the non-statutory sector will be equal to their funding from this source in 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  The reform of the European Community's structural funds imposes an entirely new procedure for deciding ESF allocations in 1990, with many new tasks falling to Member States. My Departmment has been 50
  working with applicants to revise operational programmes according to the requirements set out in the European Commission's community support frameworks, so that the agreement of the Commission can be obtained. I will shortly be making proposals about allocations. As the European Commission is providing the United Kingdom with less money in 1990 than in 1989, no sector can be guaranteed the same allocation as last year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what month ESF programme funding has been paid out to voluntary organisations in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  ESF payments have been made to voluntary organisations during the following months:

  1987: July, August, September, October, November and December.

  1988: Payments made in every month.

  1989: Payments made in every month.

  1990: January, February, March, April, to date.

  These payments were for activities started in the same year, and for those completed in preceding years.

  The same information in respect of earlier years before records were computerised, can only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what conclusions he has drawn about the action of those voluntary organisations which have continued to run training programmes since January 1990 before being told whether they had ESF funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My department informs all applicants to the European social fund that because of the European Community procedures for handling applications many applicants may need to start their projects without certainty of any ESF support. This has always been the case, and remains so following the reform of the Community's structural funds.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training places with Scottish voluntary organisations supported by ESF funding are being provided in the current years.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been no decisions announced regarding individual organisations' ESF support for 1990. Therefore I cannot say how many training places will be funded for the Scottish voluntary organisations this year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when (1) he will issue application forms to voluntary organisations for the European social fund programme starting in 1990;
  51
  (2) whether he has any proposals for improving the administration of ESF applications from voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is the first year of operation of the major reform of the Community's structural funds including the European social fund, and entirely new application procedures are being developed. My Department has been working with the European Commission and applicant organisations to determine these new procedures and hopes to be able to issue project application forms and guidance within the next month. As the new procedures are implemented, they will be reviewed in the light of experience.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if ESF money is used by the Government to subsidise benefit payments on the employment training programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  The ESF supports additional training places on the employment training programme. Of the various types of expenditure eligible for funding a small proportion is claimed for trainee allowances, which are over and above benefit entitlement.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he intends to make to the resolution sent to him by 40 voluntary member organisations in Scotland protesting about his administration of ESF funding to voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Eggar
  I will be responding in due course to the resolution sent by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he anticipates he will pay money out to voluntary organisations for ESF programmes which started in January 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is expected that first payments from the European social fund to projects will be available to all applicants during the summer, as has been the case in previous years prior to the reform of the Community's structural funds. The timing will however depend in large part on when the European Commission gives approval to operational programmes.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been allocated by him to voluntary organisations for the ESF programme starting in January 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  No decisions have been taken yet on the amounts of ESF to be allocated to any organisation in 1990.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many voluntary organisations withdrawing from training work have given reasons for their withdrawal; and in how many cases the way the ESF funding is administered by his Department has been mentioned.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no means of being able to establish comprehensive information about the numbers of voluntary organisations withdrawing from training work nor the reasons why. Any information which is available can only be extracted at a disproportionate cost and relates only to Government training schemes.
  52
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to guarantee to approve the training programmes of those voluntary organisations who have operated on the assumption that they will receive ESF money for programmes starting in January 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  No guarantee of funding can be offered to individual applicants in advance of the approval by the European Commission of operational programmes and decisions about the eligibility of individual projects. No such guarantees have been given in previous years. Once projects are approved, however, expenditure from 1 January 1990 will be eligible for support.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training places were provided by Scottish voluntary organisations supported by ESF funding in 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1989, ESF assistance was approved for Scottish voluntary sector organisations to provide 3,272 training places. I cannot say how many of these places were taken up as the final claims for payment from all these organisations have yet to be received.

  Training Projects, Lambeth
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are(a) the total number of trainee places cut for each employment training project in Lambeth, (b) the unit allocation per trainee to each employment training project under the new guidelines in Lambeth and (c) the unit allocation per trainee paid to each employment training project under their previous contracts and the amount claimed by each project in respect of child care and travel costs in the last financial year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on employment training in respect of(a) is not available. Details of (b) and (c), unit allocations and amounts claimed in respect of child care and travel costs, are confidential to the Training Agency and individual ET training managers.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when training matters in England and Wales were brought within the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training programmes in England and Wales run by the Government came within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration when the office was established in 1967.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make it his policy to inform hon. Members of the amount that is being spent on the mainstream and non-mainstream of the employment training budget.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 3 May 1990 at column 639.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make it his practice to inform hon. Members of how much use is being made of day care funding on the employment training scheme.
  53
  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 13 February 1990 at column 204.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has of industry's response, in areas where TECs, are established, to the Government's incentives for financial contributions by companies to TECs.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been greatly encouraged by the enthusiastic response that we have had from business leaders to setting up training and enterprise councils. The Government have offered matching funding up to £125,000 in a TEC's first operational year and will provide tax relief on company donations. I am confident that these measures will ensure that TECs are able to attract financial contributions.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, for employment training, output-related funding for training and enterprise councils, the target percentage of positive outcomes for Great Britain and each standard region in 1990–91 set out by the Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The target percentage of positive outcomes for those leaving employment training for Great Britain and each training agency region in 1990–91 is shown in the following table.

  Percentage

  South-East

  50

  London

  46

  South-West

  46

  West Midlands

  43

  East Midlands

  45

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  46

  North-West

  46

  Northern

  39

  Scotland

  41

  Wales

  47

  Great Britain

  44

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what powers unemployment benefit officers have to suspend claimants' unemployment benefit and/or income support once an employment service councellor

  Table A

  Assisted places scheme: Payment to schools Financial years 1981–82 to 1989–90

  School

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Christ College, Brecon

  7,986·23

  21,443·90

  36,063·63

  48,289·45

  62,116·51

  95,473·37

  131,470·78

  155,404·79

  189,033·43

  Howell's School, Denbigh

  11,011·65

  37,883·95

  70,107·35

  96,156·03

  132,971·98

  179,033·86

  225,465·70

  243,740·40

  237,474·63

  Howell's School, Llandaff

  17,774·38

  57,094·30

  106,799·85

  144,940·27

  209,858·38

  274,274·74

  314,274·85

  319,099·95

  334,290·42

  Llandovery College

  3,737·60

  9,217·81

  19,615·84

  31,013·22

  38,279·65

  454,407·00

  55,732·49

  75,308·91

  92,650·75

  Monmouth School (for Boys)

  18,515·90

  52,035·40

  92,610·93

  134,170·47

  181,642·40

  233,684·75

  307,291·19

  277,352·49

  323,194·26

  Monmouth School (for Girls)

  9,644,70

  21,677·09

  37,072·44

  52,598·51

  68,760·75

  90,225·23

  109,297·62

  114,422·49

  128,010·24

  Penrhos College, Colwyn Bay

  5,108·80

  21,973·10

  38,489·50

  62,843·75

  81,089·97

  99,399·15

  140,459·21

  136,944·07

  156,617·49

  Rydal School, Colwyn Bay

  4,194,13

  38,206·67

  53,896·86

  56,864·75

  67,768·55

  93,274·00

  110,254·91

  112,767·80

  128,121·05

  Lowther College1

  23,709·08

  15,244·92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  101,742·47

  274,777·14

  455,156·40

  626,876·45

  842,488·19

  1,519,772·10

  1,394,246·75

  1,435,040·90

  1,589,392·27

  1 Lowther College closed in July 1982.

  54
  has raised doubts about the claimant (i) being available, (ii) actively seeking work or, (iii) the claimant is suspected of voluntary unemployment, prior to the decision of an adjudication officer.

  Mr. Eggar
  Employment service officials have the power to make arrangements for payment only where there is no doubt about entitlement. Where doubts arise, they must refer the matter to an independent adjudication officer for a decision on whether unemployment benefit should be paid. Pending the adjudication officer's decision, it would be wrong to pay benefit if entitlement is in doubt. The only exception concerns cases where doubts arise about the availability for work of claimants already being paid unemployment benefit; regulations provide specifically for payment to continue under those circumstances. Entitlement to income support is a matter for the Department of Social Security.

WALES

  National Curriculum (Pupil Testing)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the testing and assessment of children in Wales concerning the national curriculum.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales wrote to the Chairman of the School Examinations and Assessment Council on 6 March and 9 April setting out the Government's views on the arrangements for assessing pupils at age seven, 11 and 14. Copies of this correspondence are available in the Library of the House.

  At age 16, the main instrument of assessment will be the GCSE. Decisions on the arrangements to assess music, art and physical education will be made at a later date.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount was paid in grants by his Department to each of the private schools in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Payments made to independent schools for fee remissions under the assisted places scheme are set out in the following table A. The scheme did not commence until 1981–82. In addition, the Department has paid grant under the direct grant scheme as set out in table B.
  55

  Table B

  Grant to direct grant schools

  £

  1979–80

  1125,000

  1980–81

  168,000

  1981–82

  167,000

  1982–83

  120,000

  1983–84

  10,000

  1984–85

  10,000

  1985–86

  11,000

  1986–87

  19,000

  1987–88

  13,000

  1988–89

  15,000

  1989–90

  16,000

  1Included grant to former direct grant schools which subsequently become independent.

  The only direct grant school remaining is TS Indefatigable, Anglesey.

  Wales

  (000's)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Civilian work force in employment in June1

  1,157

  1,125

  1,054

  1,027

  1,014

  1,040

  1,044

  1,055

  1,073

  1,117

  1,200

  Persons employed in more than one job2

  17

  —

  17

  —

  19

  21

  22

  28

  33

  40

  45

  Persons on work-related government training schemes in June3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  10

  13

  18

  21

  31

  1 Defined as employees in employment, the self-employed and, from September 1983 onwards, participants on work-related government training schemes.

  2 Spring labour force survey estimates produced biennially to 1983, and annually thereafter. These data are subject to large sampling errors and are not directly comparable with published employment estimates.

  3 Included in 1; not applicable before September 1983.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many job clubs there are in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are currently 62 job clubs in Wales.

  Welsh Office Financial Management
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any further payments were made to the contractor responsible for the August 1986 contract to install in his Department a computerised management information system following the £1 million payment referred to in paragraph 3.25 of the National Audit Office report on the Welsh Office: Financial Management.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A payment was made to the contractor in January 1990 following delivery, installation, testing and acceptance of the finance systems which were the final component of the contract with the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for how long the period of dual running of the manual and computerised financial management information systems persisted prior to the introduction on 1 April of the operational management system; and whether the manual financial information system has now ended.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The new computerised financial information system was comprehensively tested between November 1989 and March 1990. During this period, its output was compared and reconciled with the partially computerised system which has now been superseded.

  Government Training Schemes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people are currently engaged on Government training schemes in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  At the end of March 1990 there were 22,665 young people participating in the youth training scheme in Wales.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what was(a) the total civilian work force in employment in Wales, (b) the number of people employed in more than one job and (c) the number on Government-funded work-related training schemes for the years 1979–89.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any further contractor was brought in to complete the contract originally awarded in August 1986 to install a computerised management information system into his Department referred to in paragrapn 3.24 of the NAO report, Welsh Office: Financial Management.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No further contractors were brought in to complete the contract referred to in the question.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the name, address and other details of the contractor submitting the lowest tender to computerise his Department's management information system in August 1986 referred to in paragraph 3.24 of the NAO report, Welsh Office: Financial Management.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The company concerned was IBM United Kingdom Ltd., whose address is PO Box 41, Portsmouth.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the cost impact of the delay in the installation of a computerised management information system to his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The financial consequences of the delay in the installation of a computerised management information system were taken fully into account during negotiations with the contractor and were reflected in the settlement which was agreed with my Department. The details of that settlement are in confidence for commercial reasons.

  Welsh Office, Cardiff (Security)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he anticipates completion of the high-security entrance porch to his Department's Crown building at Cathays park, Cardiff;

  (2) what is the estimated cost of the new high-security entrance porch to his Department's Crown building at Cathays park, Cardiff.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Cabinet Office has advised a number of Government Departments, including the Welsh Office, on the security necessary to protect Government employees and property. It was recommended that the new Cathays park building of the Welsh Office, which is occupied by 2,000 members of staff of the Welsh Office and the Export Credits Guarantee Department, should have installed an electronic access control system. The installation is underway and I am informed that the anticipated cost will be £594,000 plus VAT, which will be met by Property Holdings (DoE).

  The hon. Member has suggested in public statements that this security expenditure is being made to protect Ministers from public demonstrations, but I am sure that he will be aware that Welsh Office Ministers are located in the old Cathays park building, not the new one. Normally, such demonstrations as there are take place outside the old building, to which none of this expenditure relates.

  I am informed by Property Holdings (DoE) that the completion date of these security works will be July 1990.

  Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the name and full title of the new general manager of the Clwyd family health services authority;

  (2) if he will list the names of the new family health services authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on 22 January 1990, at column 512. Family health services authorities will come into being later this year following passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently before the House and will replace the existing network of family practitioner committees.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the salary scale of the administrator of the Clwyd family practitioner committee;

  (2) what is the salary scale of the general manager of the Clwyd family health services authority.

  Mr. Grist
  The current salary scale of the administrator of Clwyd family practitioner committee is as follows:

  £22,404

  £23,301

  £24,233

  £25,202

  £26,210

  £27,258

  The flat rate salary of the general manager of Clwyd family practitioner committee is £31,750.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many female administrators of family practitioner committees in Wales there were in 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  One.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current position 58
  in the Clwyd family health services authority of Mrs. Jennifer Jackson, formerly administrator of Clwyd family practitioner committee.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the family practitioner committee as the employing authority.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many female general managers of family health services authorities there are in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  No female general managers were selected during the recent recruitment exercise.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the effects on medical research in Wales of the proposal to create the post of chief of research and development.

  Mr. Grist
  The White Paper "Priorities in Medical Research" (Command 902) identified the need for a full review of the arrangements for managing and funding medical research in Wales in parallel with developments in England. This review is currently in progress.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how cases of glaucoma were recorded in each of the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 in Wales;

  (2) how many cases of glaucoma diagnosis were recorded in each of the years (a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d) 1989 in South Glamorgan health authority area.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many eye tests were carried out in the six months from(a) 1 April 1986, (b) 1 April 1987, (c) 1 April 1988 and (d) 1 April 1989 in South Glamorgan;

  (2) how many eye tests were carried out in the six months from (a) 1 April 1986, (b) 1 April 1987, (c) 1 April 1988 and (d) 1 April 1989 in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Since April 1989, many sight tests will have been private transactions, and statistical information on these is not available centrally. The Government have commissioned a survey of sight tests to cover the first quarter of 1990. The report on the survey results will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons, some time in the early summer.

  The available information, which relates to eye tests paid for by family practitioner committees, is given in the following table:

  South Glamorgan

  Wales

  Six months from 1 April 1986

  48,279

  310,371

  Six months from 1 April 1987

  54,071

  325,474

  Six months from 1 April 1988

  52,882

  329,925

  Six months from 1 April 1989

  26,708

  170,073

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many referrals were made to ophthalmic surgeons in(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d) 1989 in (i) South Glamorgan health authority and (ii) Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information, which relates to new out-patient attendances at ophthalmic clinics is given in the following table. This information is collected on a quarterly basis.
  59

  South Glamorgan

  Wales

  Year ending:

  1986

  7,907

  39,235

  1987

  8,493

  39,213

  1988

  8,286

  42,838

  Quarter ending:

  March 1989

  2,221

  11,596

  June 1989

  2,182

  12,050

  September 1989

  1,956

  11,270

  Parliamentary Answers (Cost)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the reply given to the question by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 1 May seeking a list of achievements during his period of office as Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The cost was £169, including an estimated £44 for printing in Hansard.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Technology
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation along the lines of the United States Export Administration Regulations, part 778, concerning the special control of nuclear technology.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government have no plans to introduce new legislation to control the export of nuclear-related goods and technology. The United Kingdom's obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty are given effect through the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 (SI 1989 No. 2376), as amended, under which a licence is required to export sensitive nuclear-related goods and technology. It is not our practice to license exports which give rise to proliferation or other concerns.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the information that his Department collects about auditors and audit reports.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department obtains copies of the lists of members published by the bodies recognised under section 389 of the Companies Act 1985, supplementing the information as necessary by consulting the body concerned. The Department also maintains a record of auditors who have been individually authorised by the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State. Audit reports delivered to the registrar of companies with company accounts are made available by Companies house for public inspection. In addition, my Department collects information about auditors and audits from a wide variety of sources, including the investigation of complaints, press reports, research studies, and contacts with the profession and users of accounts.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to ensure that the organisations seeking recognition as qualifying bodies under the Companies Act 1989 are required to have student observers on their councils.
  60
  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will announce the date by which any member of the public may object to the granting of supervisory status to any accountancy body.

  Mr. Redwood
  This will depend on when the supervisory body applies for recognition under part II of the Companies Act 1989, and how long it takes to determine the application, but I would expect the consideration of a body's application to take several months, which should give members of the public ample opportunity to make representations.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the steps he is taking to reduce the influence in auditing policy-making bodies of accountancy firms criticised by the Department of Trade and Industry and the joint disciplinary scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  If, as I assume, the hon. Member has in mind the Auditing Practices Committee, I refer him to the answers I gave to his questions on 27 November at columns 92–93, 18 December at columns 22–23, 21 December at columns 392–93, and 10 January at columns 634–35, when I explained that membership of that committee is a matter for the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the membership of the United Kingdom accountancy bodies incorporated by royal charters.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of members are published by the chartered bodies of accountants, from whom up-to-date membership numbers are freely available on application.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will create a single independent organisation to regulate both accounting and auditing standards.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Government's attitude to this proposition has not changed since it was debated during the Committee stage of the Companies Bill last year.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the steps his Department is taking to bridge the expectation gap in auditing.

  Mr. Redwood
  In so far as the public expects auditors to safeguard their interests, the Government's legislation on the financial services sector (including insurance and banking) has already removed an obstacle which was seen as inhibiting auditors from reporting direct to the various regulatory authorities information relevant to the functions of those authorities. The forthcoming imple-mentation of part II of the Companies Act 1989 will introduce a new regulatory regime for auditors which will help to underpin the quality of auditing.

  It is, however, primarily a matter for the auditing profession to consider how to respond to the public's expectations, and my Department welcomes and supports the relevant initiatives which the profession has taken (for example, its guidance on dealing with fraud) and is developing. It is equally incumbent on the public to inform itself of what auditors can and should reasonably expect to accomplish.
  61
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether he will take steps to ensure that all auditing firms auditing large companies would be required to participate in peer reviews;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to deny supervisory body status to any organisation under the Companies Act 1989 unless it offers arrangements for peer reviews.

  Mr. Redwood
  Under the Companies Act 1989, the Secretary of State may recognise a supervisory body only if, among other things, the body apears to him to have adequate arrangements and resources for the effective monitoring and enforcement of compliance with its rules. It will he for each supervisory body to set out the precise arrangements and resources through which it proposes to meet this criterion.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, under the Companies Act 1989, he will refuse to grant supervisory status to any accountancy body which has continued to nominate individuals from the accountancy firms sued by the Government for negligence, criticised by the Department of Trade and Industry and the joint disciplinary scheme on audit policy-making organisations.

  Mr. Redwood
  No applications for recognition from supervisory bodies have yet been made. When applications are received they will be considered on their merits and in the light of the requirements laid down in part II of the Act, including the requirement that a recognised supervisory body must be able and willing to promote and maintain high standards of integrity in the conduct of company audit work.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to require any organisation seeking recognition as a supervisory body to ensure that the membership of its major policy-making committees is elected.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Language Training
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what talks have been undertaken with the chambers of commerce and related commercial interests on the training of business men in oriental and African languages.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend and I believe it is important for business men to be able to communicate in the languages used by their customers. We have therefore encouraged business men to learn appropriate foreign languages, including oriental languages and those spoken in Africa. We would be happy to discuss the subject with representatives of chambers of commerce or other business organisations, if they wished to do so.

  Also, my noble Friend the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young, announced on 2 March 1989, a Japanese language training initiative. Financial support from my Department and the private sector is currently being given to four universities with the aim of doubling the number of graduates who have Japanese language ability allied to a commercially relevant skill.
  62
  An important initiative aimed at business men has been the establishment of the network of language-export (LX) centres, which have received pump-priming funding from the Department of Education and Science under the PICKUP programme. LX centres provide language courses tailormade to meet the needs of business men.

  Alexander Howden Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the reasons for his decision not to publish the inspector's report on Alexander Howden Group plc which was completed on 26 June 1987.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have come to no such decision. The question of whether the inspectors' report into the affairs of Alexander Howden Group plc should he published is under consideration following the conclusion of criminal proceedings in relation to that company.

  Product Safety
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with trading standards officers on product safety.

  Mr. Forth
  I have met trading standards officers and members of their representative organisations on several occasions at which product safety was one of the issues discussed. Officials of my Department keep in regular contact with trading standards officers.

  Accounting Standards Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the priorities of the Accounting Standards Board will he determined.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter which the Financial Reporting Council and the proposed Accounting Standards Board will need to consider.

  Investment Services
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers on the EC investment services draft directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department made a number of representations to the European Commission before its formal proposal for an investment services directive was submitted to the Council, and continues to press the United Kingdom interest in achieving an effective, liberalising directive in subsequent discussions in the Council working group. The directive has not yet been discussed at ministerial level in the Council.

  Accounting Standards Board
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that the Accounting Standards Board is not dominated by the professional associations in accountancy; and whether he proposes to refer this matter to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that the
  63
  employing organisations of members of the Accounting Standards Board do not exercise influence over its proceedings; and whether he proposes to refer this matter to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. These are matters which the Financial Reporting Council and the proposed Accounting Standards Board will not doubt consider. At this stage, therefore, no question of reference to the Director General of Fair Trading arises.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to seek views on the membership of the Accounting Standards Board from(a) the Equal Opportunities Commission and (b) the Race Relations Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the criticisms of the firm of the chairman-designate of the Accounting Standards Board by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Redwood
  As far as I am aware, no firm of which the chairman-designate of the Accounting Standards Board was a partner at the time has been criticised in reports of inspectors.

  Financial Advice Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money was provided in grant aid for money advice services and debt counselling services(a) from his own Department and other Government sources and (b) from private sector sources in each of the financial years 1983–84 to 1989–90.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department does not provide funds specifically or directly for money advice and debt counselling services. However, my Department does fund the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) and Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) to enable them to support local bureaux, who provide money advice and debt counselling services. Total grant-in-aid paid by my Department to NACAB and CAS during the last seven years is as follows. I am not able to five figures for private sector funding of money advice, nor am I able to provide figures for other Government Departments.

  Year

  NACAB and CAS £

  1983–84

  6,041,000

  1984–85

  7,093,617

  1985–86

  7,993,445

  1986–87

  8,604,088

  1987–88

  8,954,000

  1988–89

  9,404,962

  1989–90

  10,044,071

  Aircraft Industry
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom aircraft industry is in a competitive position in respect of high speed propeller technology.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am pleased to announce that the Department has awared a grant of £3·146 million for a64
  major project to research into the problems associated with the design and operation of civil aircraft powered with advanced high-speed propeller (or open rotor) propulsion systems.

  In line with current Government policy the project is collaborative; British Aerospace (Commercial Aircraft) Ltd. and Dowty Aerospace Ltd. are the lead companies, with the Aircraft Research Association as a major sub-contractor.

  The overall objective of the project is to ensure that United Kingdom firms are ready to embody into new civil aircraft projects these radically different power plants in the event that they become a viable alternative to conventional turbojet engines. The considerably lower fuel consumption (around 20 per cent.-30 per cent. less) of the open rotor could, after allowing for higher initial cost and maintenance costs, save some 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. on aircraft direct operating costs, depending on movements in fuel costs. The reduced fuel consumption could also give environmental benefits from reduced exhaust emissions.

  Most of the early work has been done in the United States of America, and has been largely concerned with power plants mounted on the rear fuselage. The present project will consider wing-mounted open rotors which are likely to be chosen for aircraft in the 80-to-100—seat category, a market in which the United Kingdom and Europe have been relatively successful.

  Iraq (Arms Component Exports)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of inquiries by his Department into contacts between the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and his Department on behalf of Walter Somers Ltd. over export orders for Iraq.

  Mr. Ridley
  In the light of the criminal charges laid against individuals, and in the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information on these matters.

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of state-subsidised imports of waste paper from North America on the United Kingdom waste paper market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  It is not possible separately to identify the volumes of waste paper imports derived from mandatory collection schemes in North America, whether subsidised or not. However, the following information is available: during 1989, the United Kingdom imported 80,357 tonnes of waste paper; 23,069 tonnes of which came from the United States of America and Canada. In the same year, the United Kingdom exported 479,385 tonnes.

  In the period up until the end of March this year, the United Kingdom imported 19,665 tonnes of waste paper (including 8,676 tonnes from the United States of America and Canada) and exported around 114,000 tonnes.

  Matrix-Churchill Plant
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he took to satisfy himself that the die-forging plant to be built by Matrix-Churchill would
  65
  not be used in producing parts for ballistic missiles or the supergun project Babylon before he issued an export licence.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on individual licensing matters. Exports for Iran and Iraq are subject to the ministerial guidelines on defence sales announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the House on 29 October 1985.

  600 Services
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration was given to the site at which, and the purposes for which, the lathes produced by 600 Services of Colchester for al-Hillal were to be used before he issued an export licence.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on individual licensing matters. Exports for Iran and Iraq are subject to the ministerial guidelines on defence sales announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the House on 29 October 1985.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which areas have been granted designated territory status under the Financial Services Act 1986; on what dates and after satisfying which criteria; how many firms from each designated territory have now become members of self-regulatory organisations; how many members of each self-regulatory organisations are drawn from areas with designated territory status; and whether self-regulatory organisations have refused membership to any firms from designated territories.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The countries and territories designated by order under section 87 of the Financial Services Act in respect of specified classes of collective investment schemes are: the Isle of Man (12 December 1988); the Bailiwick of Guernsey (30 December 1988); the Bailiwick of Jersey (30 December 1988); Bermuda (19 January 1989). The criteria applied are those set down in section 87(2) of the Act.

  The countries and territories designated by order under section 130 of the Act in respect of certain insurance business are: the Bailiwick of Guernsey (5 April 1988); the Isle of Man (5 April 1988); the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1 February 1990). The criteria applied are those set down in section 130(4) of the Act.

  Questions concerning membership of the self-regulatory organisations are matters for the particular bodies concerned.

  Scientific Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated level of investment in scientific equipment was, both in total and per capita, during the years 1985 to 1989; and what comparable figures he has for other OECD countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has completed his review of the work of the deregulation unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The review foreshadowed in the White Paper on "Releasing Enterprise" (Cm. 512, November 1988) is being completed, but it is too soon to make a statement.

SCOTLAND

  Wetlands
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 18 April,Official Report, column 930, how many of the estuarine sites of special scientific interest which have been listed for possible designation under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds are national nature reserves; shellfish harvesting is controlled through byelaws; which local authorities have made byelaws to control access to the foreshore; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The area of a national nature reserve may not always extend to the whole area of a site of special scientific interest. Of the 11 estuarine sites covered by the EC directive, four contain national nature reserves. The information requested about byelaws is not available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 18 April,Official Report, column 930, what proposals he has considered to control or prohibit damaging operations below low-water mark for the purposes of meeting Her Majesty's Government's obligations under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance and under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Damaging operations below the low water mark in any area, whether or not designated under the Ramsar convention or the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds, can be controlled or prohibited through byelaws under section 37 and schedule 12 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 after designation as a marine nature reserve. It is for the Nature Conservancy Council to propose suitable areas for designation to the Secretary of State under section 36 of the 1981 Act.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 18 April,Official Report, column 930, what information he has on the mechanical harvesting of inter-tidal organisms, such as cockles, on sites of special scientific interest; and where this harvesting is being undertaken by persons who are owners or occupiers of the sites, what steps he proposes to take in order to fulfil Her Majesty's Government's obligations under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance and under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Nature Conservancy Council has informed me of mechanical
  67
  shellfish harvesting on various inter-tidal areas of the upper Solway flats and marshes site of special scientific interest. I await the council's views and advice once it has considered the recently completed research report on the impact of cockling. At common law, the public have a right to take small shellfish including cockles from the foreshore. Access to the foreshore for mechanical vehicles may be controlled by byelaws and I have encouraged the council to consider how such control might be applied.

  Feudal Superiors
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to legislate to abolish the powers of feudal superiors in Scotland to attach conditions to the use of land.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Law Commission is considering land tenure law reform with a view to completion of the reform of feudal tenure. Its report will provide a basis for considering what legislation will be appropriate.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he will make it his practice to make information on(a) the undertakings given by local enterprise companies about training, (b) expenditure per head on YT and ET programmes and (c) the amount to be spent in various training agencies in Scottish Enterprise areas, available on request to hon. Members;

  (2) what information about training that is currently available he will cease to make available to hon. Members when Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are operational.

  Mr. Lang
  Final decisions have yet to be taken on the range of information about training programmes which local enterprise companies will be required to collect. When these decisions have been taken I shall write to the hon. Member with a detailed list of information which will be collected centrally. My right hon. and learned Friend will make such information available to hon. Members provided that it is not commercial in confidence or personal information about individual trainees.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether when the Training Agency has re-negotiated employment training and youth training contracts, he will inform hon. Members of the results of those renegotiations.

  Mr. Lang
  When the current recontracting exercise has been completed I will be glad to provide general information about the outcome for hon. Members. However details of individual contracts remain commercial in confidence and will not be made available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make it his practice to make information on(a) the amount of unused capacity on ET and YT schemes, (b) the extent to which expenditure on ET and YT schemes in Scotland exceeded budgets and (c) the steps taken to investigate complaints about the workings of YT and ET schemes, available on request to hon. Members.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on the investigation of complaints about employment training and youth training 68
  will be made available so far as this does not involve matters which must be considered to be commercial in confidence or personal information about individual traineess.

  I do not provide information on matters relevant to the contracts with individual training providers. Information about unfilled places on both employment training and youth training is currently available for Scotland and for each Training Agency area office. Information about expenditure on these programmes is already available for Scotland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the type of information about employment training and youth training schemes which he is(a) prepared and (b) not prepared to give to hon. Members.

  Mr. Lang
  I am always ready to supply to hon. Members any reliable information about employment training and youth training schemes which is collected by the Training Agency provided that information is not commercial in confidence or personal information about individual trainees.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make it his practice to inform an hon. Member of the number of employment training and youth training places being offered by particular firms or organisations.

  Mr. Lang
  Information about the employment training and youth training places offered by particular placement providers is and will remain commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make it his practice to make information on(a) the number of places being offered on YT and ET schemes in particular skills, (b) the number of places for trainees with special needs being offered on YT and ET and by which organisations and (c) the instructions being given to Training Agency staff on the principles by which they negotiate training contracts with training agents and training managers available on request to hon. Members.

  Mr. Lang
  I am happy to provide hon. Members with details of any general instructions issued to Training Agency staff on the principles by which they negotiate training contracts where such general instructions exist. However, the new flexibilities introduced for youth training and employment training mean that the basis on which training contracts are negotiated will vary from contract to contract as dictated by local circumstances.

  I do not provide information on matters relevant to contracts with individual training providers. General information about numbers of people in training by occupational categories and on trainees with special needs is not currently available because the Training Agency is presently modifying the computer systems used to collect training data.

  Fast Transport
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the need for fast passenger and freight transport to the continent from Scotland after 1 January 1993 with representatives of the(a) Scottish business community and (b) British Rail.
  69
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On a number of recent occasions my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have discussed with the Scottish business community the provision of through passenger and freight services to the continent through the channel tunnel, and they have urged all Scottish businesses to make known now, to assist British Rail's planning, the full extent of the services to Europe they expect to require when the tunnel opens.

  As part of our regular and useful contacts with British Rail, my right hon. and learned Friend and I discussed links to the channel tunnel and various other topics relating to rail transport when we met the former chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, and the former general manager of ScotRail, Mr. John Ellis, on 31 October 1989.

  A1 (Improvement)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an early announcement of the date of commencement of the construction of the Tower to Dunglass improvement scheme on the A1.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Member that the Scottish Development Department will be issuing tender documents for the scheme later this month. I can assure the hon. Member that we will start this important improvement at the earliest possible date thereafter and I anticipate that the start to construction will be made in late summer.

  Foreign Language Training
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special financial incentives Her Majesty's Government are giving to Scottish students in order to increase their training in foreign languages.

  Mr. Lang
  Financial incentives are not offered specifically to encourage students to undertake language courses, but the normal student support arrangements apply to a wide range of language courses and to courses which include a language together with another subject.

  In addition, Scottish domiciled students wishing to undertake part of their course abroad, with the associated foreign language training, may participate in the European Community action scheme for the mobility of university students (ERASMUS). This programme provides specialist assistance for that purpose, in addition to the general assistance available under the students' allowances scheme.

  Lothian and Greater Glasgow Health Boards
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the financial situation of the Lothian and Greater Glasgow health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board has allowed commitments to exceed its income and has been asked to bring forward proposals to bring its expenditure and income into balance. Management consultants are helping the board to assess the scale of the deficit, and are advising on ways to provide their existing services more efficiently. The management team's report and recommendations on these crucial matters is not yet complete and I understand that it is to be presented at the next meeting of the board on 24 May.
  70
  Only at that stage will the board be able to assess whether changes to the present pattern of service will be required.

  In common with the remaining health boards Greater Glasgow health board is operating within the budget allocated through the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation (SHARE) process.

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the (i) capital, (ii) revenue and (iii) total allocation made to the health boards in Scotland in each of the last five years and in the last financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The information is as follows:

  1984–85

  £ million

  Health board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  13·215

  91·463

  104·678

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3·374

  65·902

  69·276

  Borders

  8·084

  19·088

  27·172

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1·923

  33·734

  35·657

  Fife

  6·510

  62·329

  68·839

  Forth Valley

  7·023

  59·960

  66·983

  Grampian

  5·271

  113·677

  118·948

  Greater Glasgow

  20·333

  346·301

  366·634

  Highland

  7·442

  47·849

  55·291

  Lanarkshire

  6·666

  104·996

  111·662

  Lothian

  18·099

  207·852

  225·951

  Orkney

  0·240

  3·475

  3·715

  Shetland

  0·638

  4·341

  4·979

  Tayside

  5·781

  122·978

  128·759

  Western Isles

  0·759

  6·508

  7·267

  Total

  105·358

  1,290·453

  1,395·811

  1985–86

  £ million

  Health Board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  12·136

  96·811

  108·947

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4·011

  70·447

  74·458

  Borders

  10·059

  20·163

  30·222

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·382

  35·642

  38·024

  Fife

  5·373

  67·720

  73·093

  Forth Valley

  11·499

  63·634

  75·133

  Grampian

  7·421

  120·189

  127–610

  Greater Glasgow

  24·288

  360·693

  384·981

  Highland

  7·458

  51·552

  59·010

  Lanarkshire

  6·951

  111·060

  118·011

  Lothian

  21·655

  218·430

  240·085

  Orkney

  0·273

  3·674

  3·947

  Shetland

  0·657

  4·523

  5·180

  Tayside

  6·719

  128·462

  135·181

  Western Isles

  0·871

  6·998

  7·869

  Total

  121·753

  1,359·998

  1,481·751

  1986–87

  £ million

  Health Board Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  8·889

  105·779

  114·668

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3·931

  77·304

  81·235

  Borders

  5·716

  21·815

  27·531

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·516

  37·925

  40·441

  Fife

  3·765

  72·509

  76·274

  Forth Valley

  12·466

  69·112

  81·578

  Grampian

  6·954

  130·395

  137·349

  Greater Glasgow

  18·519

  384·189

  402·708

  Highland

  5·804

  56·033

  61·837

  Lanarkshire

  5·829

  119·060

  124·889

  71

  Health Board Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  Lothian

  15·973

  235·556

  251·529

  Orkney

  0·205

  3·961

  4·166

  Shetland

  0·564

  4·807

  5·371

  Tayside

  5·819

  136·722

  142·541

  Western Isles

  0·505

  7·476

  7·981

  Total

  97·455

  1,462·643

  1,560·098

  1987–88

  £ million

  Health Board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  7·789

  112·982

  120·771

  Ayrshire and Arran

  7·323

  83·268

  90·591

  Borders

  6·391

  24·472

  30·863

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·035

  40·802

  42·837

  Fife

  4·579

  77·921

  82·500

  Forth Valley

  10·108

  74·587

  84·695

  Grampian

  7·740

  143·425

  151·165

  Greater Glasgow

  20·216

  410·551

  430·767

  Highland

  6·015

  59·791

  65·806

  Lanarkshire

  8·054

  129·067

  137·121

  Lothian

  18·776

  252·411

  271·187

  Orkney

  0·658

  4·443

  5·101

  Shetland

  0·686

  5·226

  5·912

  Tayside

  5·101

  145·895

  150·996

  Western Isles

  0·484

  8·189

  8·673

  Total

  105·955

  1,573·030

  1,678·985

  1988–89

  £ million

  Health Board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  7·450

  125·235

  132·685

  Ayrshire and Arran

  10·900

  93·940

  104·840

  Borders

  4·650

  27·248

  31·898

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·235

  45·258

  47·493

  Fife

  4·000

  87·817

  91·817

  Forth Valley

  9·932

  82·157

  92·089

  Grampian

  9·332

  161·965

  171·297

  Greater Glasgow

  21·365

  456·646

  478·011

  Highland

  4·787

  66·494

  71·281

  Lanarkshire

  7·790

  144·336

  152·126

  Lothian

  18·600

  282·518

  301·118

  Orkney

  1,642

  4·934

  6·576

  Shetland

  1·642

  6·077

  7·719

  Tayside

  7·184

  162·295

  169·479

  Western Isles

  0·865

  9·078

  9·943

  Total

  112·374

  1,755·998

  1,868·372

  1989–90

  £ million

  Health Board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  7·510

  132·698

  140·208

  Ayrshire and Arran

  18·074

  103·515

  121·589

  Borders

  2·241

  30·051

  32·292

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·251

  49·440

  51·691

  Fife

  3·518

  95·192

  98·710

  Forth Valley

  7·933

  89·628

  97·561

  Grampian

  11·812

  172·032

  183·844

  Greater Glasgow

  28·031

  478·163

  506·194

  Highland

  3·631

  72·575

  76·206

  Lanarkshire

  8·601

  152·518

  161·119

  Lothian

  29·819

  296·825

  326·644

  Orkney

  1·069

  5·562

  6·631

  Shetland

  1·597

  6·572

  8·169

  Tayside

  11·980

  172·003

  183·983

  Western Isles

  5·332

  9·937

  15·269

  Total

  143·399

  1,866·711

  2,010·110

  72
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the (i) capital, (ii) revenue and (iii) total expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland in each of the last five years and in the last financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The information requested is readily available only in financial years and is set out in the following table:

  £ million cash

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  1984–85

  118

  1,782

  1,901

  1985–86

  132

  1,882

  2,015

  1986–87

  116

  2,027

  2,144

  1987–88

  120

  2,208

  2,328

  1988–89

  131

  2,460

  2,591

  11989–90

  189

  2,663

  2,852

  1 Supply Estimate Provision.

  Health Board Expenditure
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the (i) capital, (ii) revenue and (iii) total allocation made to each of the Scottish health boards in each of the last five years and in the last financial year in constant prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The information requested for the years 1984–85 to 1988–89 is set out in the table. Details of expenditure for the year ended 31 March 1990 are not yet available.

  1984–85

  £ million

  Health Board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total expenditure

  Argyll and Clyde

  14,251

  122,476

  136,727

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3,511

  93,278

  96,789

  Borders

  8,209

  25,961

  34,170

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,028

  43,952

  45,980

  Fife

  6,170

  84,194

  90,364

  Forth Valley

  8,488

  77,091

  85,579

  Grampian

  5,371

  145,281

  150,652

  Greater Glasgow

  19,176

  418,859

  438,035

  Highland

  7,596

  62,140

  69,736

  Lanarkshire

  6,680

  144,256

  150,936

  Lothian

  16,757

  259,340

  276,097

  Orkney

  266

  4,969

  5,235

  Shetland

  331

  6,130

  6,461

  Tayside

  5,079

  151,120

  156,199

  Western Isles

  639

  8,864

  9,503

  Total

  104,552

  1,647,911

  1,752,463

  Note: Information obtained from Health Board Annual Accounts.

  1985–86

  Health Board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total Expenditure

  Argyll and Clyde

  11,794

  129,570

  141,364

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4,348

  99,938

  104,286

  Borders

  10,005

  27,942

  37,947

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,399

  46,628

  49,027

  Fife

  4,968

  90,634

  95,602

  Forth Valley

  12,665

  83,294

  95,959

  Grampian

  7,887

  155,405

  163,292

  Greater Glasgow

  23,199

  439,391

  462,590

  Highland

  7,136

  66,538

  73,674

  Lanarkshire

  7,007

  152,553

  159,560

  Lothian

  19,653

  274,017

  293,670

  Orkney

  269

  5,252

  5,521

  Shetland

  566

  6,271

  6,837

  73

  Health Board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total Expenditure

  Tayside

  5,399

  158,053

  163,452

  Western Isles

  798

  9,587

  10,385

  Total

  118,093

  1,745,073

  1,863,166

  Note: Information obtained from Health Board Annual Accounts.

  1986–87

  Health Board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total expenditure

  Argyll and Clyde

  11,593

  143,013

  154,606

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4,992

  110,308

  115,300

  Borders

  5,638

  30,777

  36,415

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,562

  51,147

  53,709

  Fife

  2,929

  101,184

  104,113

  Forth Valley

  13,519

  92,049

  105,568

  Grampian

  8,130

  169,085

  177,215

  Greater Glasgow

  16,308

  471,470

  487,778

  Highland

  5,366

  74,090

  79,456

  Lanarkshire

  5,917

  167,522

  173,439

  Lothian

  15,244

  303,157

  318,401

  Orkney

  189

  5,664

  5,853

  Shetland

  458

  6,975

  7,433

  Tayside

  5,874

  171,565

  177,530

  Western Isles

  454

  10,656

  11,110

  Total

  99,173

  1,908,753

  2,007,926

  Note: Information obtained from Health Board Annual Accounts.

  1987–88

  Health board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total expenditure

  Argyll and Clyde

  8,771

  155,616

  164,387

  Ayrshire and Arran

  8,692

  121,593

  130,285

  Borders

  6,178

  34,126

  40,304

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,866

  55,219

  57,085

  Fife

  3,647

  108,893

  112,540

  Forth Valley

  10,607

  98,872

  109,479

  Grampian

  7,911

  184,021

  191,932

  Greater Glasgow

  16,968

  499,824

  516,792

  Highland

  6,660

  79,846

  86,506

  Lanarkshire

  8,030

  178,702

  186,732

  Lothian

  17,710

  324,308

  342,018

  Orkney

  676

  6,321

  6,997

  Shetland

  629

  7,353

  7,982

  Tayside

  4,348

  183,110

  187,458

  Western Isles

  453

  11,517

  11,970

  TOTAL

  103,146

  2,049,321

  2,152,467

  Note: Information obtained from Health Board annual accounts.

  Gastroenterology

  Few or no in-patients waiting more than one year for treatment.

  Rheumatology

  Urology

  General surgery

  IACC is examining waiting lists for these specialties, and advised that the appointment of a new consultant was not a high priority compared with other districts.

  Orthopaedics

  Ophthalmology

  Relatively small impact predicted on waiting lists compared with other districts and specialties.

  ENT

  Audiological medicines

  Consultant would work in out-patient and Community clinics and hence have no impact on in-patient waiting lists.

  Last year north Staffordshire received £92,000 from the sum reserved from the waiting list fund for districts with particular waiting problems. This sum was earmarked for the T&O, ophthalmology, ENT and gynaecology specialties. This enabled an additional 950 patients to be
  74

  1985–86

  £ million

  Health Board

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total Expenditure

  Argyll and Clyde

  6,881

  173,351

  180,232

  Ayrshire and Arran

  10,283

  134,837

  145,120

  Borders

  3,076

  39,640

  42,716

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,143

  61,245

  63,388

  Fife

  3,755

  120,383

  124,138

  Forth Valley

  11,376

  110,116

  121,492

  Grampian

  11,452

  208,343

  219,795

  Greater Glasgow

  24,778

  559,196

  583,974

  Highland

  4,914

  89,552

  94,466

  Lanarkshire

  7,713

  199,522

  207,235

  Lothian

  18,628

  362,302

  380,930

  Orkney

  1,441

  6,902

  8,343

  Shetland

  1,387

  8,439

  9,826

  Tayside

  7,415

  204,749

  212,164

  Western Isles

  381

  12,642

  13,023

  Total

  115,623

  2,291,219

  2,406,842

  Note: Information obtained from Health Board Annual Accounts.

HEALTH

  Consultants
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, of 25 April, what criteria were not met by each of the nine unsuccessful bids for consultant posts made by north Staffordshire district health authority under the 100 consultants scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The criteria for this scheme were set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North on 25 April at columns 216–17.

  We received about 250 bids for the 100 available posts, and a large number of these bids met the criteria, they were assessed within each specialty according to the extent to which they would reduce long waiting lists and times.

  In assessing North Staffordshire's need for the limited number of posts available, we took account of the applications for the West Midlands region as a whole and consulted Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy (IACC), which is examining this district's waiting lists as part of the waiting list initiative.

  North Staffordshire's bid for a consultant gynaecolo-gist was successful. We were unable to give priority to the district's other bids for the following reasons:

  treated from the waiting lists. The district's waiting lists are being examined again this year, and it may qualify for a further allocation from the £12 million set aside for the longest lists.

  Mental Health Tribunals
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average delay between a detained patient's request for a mental health review tribunal under sections of the Mental Health Act, other than section 2, and the holding of the tribunal.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In relation to tribunals held during the first quarter of 1990, patients subject to restriction orders had waited on average 26·5 weeks for a tribunal hearing while patients not subject to restriction orders had waited an average of 12 weeks. There are a number of factors which influence the length of time taken to mount tribunals. These include the time taken to obtain medical and social services reports, and medical second opinions when the patient or the patient's solicitor considers these would be helpful. Officials have been asked to carry out an urgent review of the methods and procedures involved to identify any scope for improvements.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) of 8 February,Official Report, column 764, if he will list by regional health authority (a) how many helicopters are currently in service in the ambulance service and (b) what is their annual upkeep cost, including air and maintenance crews.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 23 January at columns 656–57. No information is available centrally on the annual operating costs of helicopter ambulances in use in the NHS.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 26 April,Official Report, columns 293–94, (1) what advice is available to local education authorities which would assist them further to reduce the incidence of head lice;

  (2) what advice is available to health authorities which would assist them further to reduce the incidence of head lice.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Health Education Authority has published guidance including a booklet, "What to do about Head Lice", copies of which have been placed in the Library, which is widely available to both health and local education authorities, as well as to the general public. Pharmaceutical companies also publish information on the use of their products in the treatment and prevention of head lice infestation.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 26 April,Official Report, columns 293–94, about head lice, if certain geographical areas are more affected than others.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the number of infestations with vermin among children aged five to 14 in each of the regional health authorities for 1987–88.
  76

  Infestation with vermin: 1987–88 Number examined (thousands):

  Number found to be infested (thousands):

  Number of infested pupils as a percentage of 5–14 population

  England

  Individual examinations

  Individual pupils found to be infested

  Infested pupils as a percentage of 5–14 population

  England

  4,546·3

  91·4

  1·6

  Northern

  427·6

  6·3

  1·7

  Yorkshire

  586·1

  10–8

  2·4

  Trent

  577·3

  9·2

  1·6

  East Anglia

  60·9

  3·2

  1–3

  North West Thames

  200·1

  4·7

  1·1

  North East Thames

  176·8

  8·2

  1–8

  South East Thames

  92·2

  3·6

  0·8

  South West Thames

  147·6

  3·4

  1·0

  Wessex

  81·2

  2·4

  0·7

  Oxford

  17·5

  1·1

  0·3

  South Western

  303·7

  8·1

  2·1

  West Midlands

  812·8

  16·4

  2·5

  Mersey

  348·3

  3·5

  1·1

  North Western

  714·2

  10·5

  2·1

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 26 April,Official Report, columns 293–94, about head lice, if the incidence of infection is greater among primary or secondary pupils.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Data on incidence of the conditions listed in the reply of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 26 April at columns 293–94 is held centrally only for the age group 5–14.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) the present and (b) the expected future relationship between his Department and the medicines control agency; and what staff have been seconded to the agency from his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) is an agency within the Department of Health (DH). It took over the functions and staff (medical, pharmaceutical, and administrative) of the former medicines division of DH. A single director was appointed, after advertisement and competition, from outside the civil service. The director is reorganising MCA in pursuit of greater effectiveness and efficiency in decisions about the licensing of medicines. The present priority is to implement and exploit these changes. Further change would be considered in the light of experience of the operation of the new organisation.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the improvements in health care arising from the developments in biotechnology.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Advances in biotechnology have made available novel or improved treatments for a wide range of diseases. It is now possible to produce a number of therapeutic compounds in large quantities that were hitherto very difficult to obtain. The following list,
  77
  which is by no means exhaustive, gives an indication of biotechnology-derived products already on the market; human insulin for the treatment of diabetes; vaccines for hepatitis B; human growth hormone for the treatment of dwarfism; and alpha-interferon for the treatment of, for example, certain leukaemias.

  Other improvements in health care include the development of more rapid, sensitive tests for the diagnosis of a wide variety of microbial diseases. Also, there are increasing applications in the area of clinical genetics for the greater precision that is now possible in the detection of those at risk from genetic diseases. In addition, we now have a real prospect of providing treatment for certain of the inherited diseases, although this is still some time away.

  RHA Newspapers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual cost of "Health View", the newspaper of the Yorkshire regional health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the regional health authority. The hon. Member may like to contact Sir Bryan Askew, chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority for further information.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by his Department to regional health authorities regarding the publication of information sheets or newspapers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All health authorities are expected to keep their local populations informed of service achievements, developments and proposals for change. How they do this is a matter for them.

  Income Support
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the benefits for which he is responsible which are provided free for families whose head of the household is receiving income support.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Income support families can obtain the following benefits for which the Department is responsible provided they satisfy any additional qualifying conditions:

  Free prescriptions

  Free dental treatment

  Free sight tests

  Full-value vouchers for glasses

  All hospital travel costs

  Free wigs and fabric supports

  Free milk and vitamins

  Help from the family fund

  Birth Control
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the provision of contraceptive services for teenagers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department asks health authorities, in organising contraceptive services for young people, to consider separate, less formal arrangements than those for older age groups, with staff experienced in dealing with young people and their problems. However, the level of such provision is a matter for individual health authorities to determine in the light of local needs and 78
  priorities. A number of health authorities provide services for young people through Brook advisory centres. On 4 April I announced increased central support for Brook of £65,000 per annum.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the voluntary organisations funded by the Department of Health involved in(a) family planning and (b) abortion;

  (2) if he will specify the amount spent by his Department on voluntary organisations involved in family planning and abortion in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department provides funding towards the headquarters administrative costs of the following voluntary organisations involved in family planning:

  Family Planning Association

  Brook Advisory Centres

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

  SPOD (The Association to Aid the Sexual and Personal Relationships of People with a Disability)

  The amount given in section 64 core grant funding to these organisations in total, in each of the last five years, is as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  222,250

  1987–88

  248,500

  1988–89

  248,500

  1989–90

  251,000

  1990–91

  308,200

  A further £64,550 has been given in additional grants for one-off projects and capital equipment.

  Grants are not provided to voluntary organisations involved in abortions.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the availability in the National Health Service of male and female sterilisation for non-medical reasons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health Authorities are asked to make both male and female sterilisation operations available as an NHS service both for medical reasons and on family planning grounds, and to ensure that persons with a priority need for the operation are enabled to receive it quickly. The priority which can be given to these operations generally is a matter for clinical judgment and local decision.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will mount a public information campaign on availability of family planning services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Guidance issued by this Department to health authorities stresses the importance of widespread publicity about the availability of family planning services and gives advice on the type of information that should be provided and the various publicity methods that may be used.

  The Family Planning Information Service, which receives substantial Government funding through the HEA, produces a series of leaflets, available to the public, about the various methods of contraception. These leaflets also contain information about how to find a family planning doctor or clinic.

  In addition, family practitioner committees and general practitioners themselves are required to publish, and make

  79
  available to the public, information about whether individual general practitioners provide contraceptive services.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of doctors currently in general practice who(a) hold and (b) do not hold qualifications issued by the joint committee on Contraception.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is not held centrally. Advice from the joint committee on contraception indicates that up to 14 March 1990 a total of 27,077 certificates have been issued to doctors in the United Kingdom. However, within this total, no breakdown is readily available for general practitioners.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of unplanned and regretted pregnancies in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of unplanned and regretted pregnancies is not available.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the training provided for general practitioners both initial and in-service on contraception.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All medical students receive instruction in the principles of human reproduction and family planning.

  GP trainees are instructed by their trainers at practice family planning clinics and may also attend theoretical and practical family planning courses provided by health authorities to obtain the family planning certificate. Updating courses on contraception are also provided for established principals by health authorities and medical institutions.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the help available to women to assist them in avoiding unplanned pregnancies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Free NHS family planning advice and services are available from specialist clinics and from general practitioners. Some 4 million people make use of these services each year. A wide range of information and help on contraception and planned

  Family planning clinic services: 1983–1987/88

  Number of sessions held at family planning clinics

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  England

  200,129

  197,127

  196,075

  195,700

  190,935

  Northern

  10,791

  11,113

  10,436

  10,870

  10,667

  Yorkshire

  12,106

  11,998

  11,966

  11,908

  11,952

  Trent

  15,099

  15,286

  14,994

  14,367

  14,019

  East Anglia

  5,848

  5,853

  5,674

  5,326

  5,428

  North West Thames

  20,200

  20,069

  20,048

  21,064

  17,704

  North East Thames

  20,638

  20,363

  21,970

  22,422

  21,962

  South East Thames

  19,944

  19,920

  19,024

  18,316

  17,994

  South West Thames

  16,452

  16,041

  15,346

  15,385

  15,154

  Wessex

  9,952

  10,006

  10,500

  10,375

  10,511

  Oxford

  8,627

  7,704

  7,739

  7,557

  8,357

  South Western

  11,233

  10,541

  10,454

  10,337

  10,036

  West Midlands

  23,172

  22,225

  21,338

  21,491

  21,135

  Mersey

  10,101

  9,965

  9,850

  9,964

  9,857

  North Western

  15,966

  16,043

  16,736

  16,318

  16,159

  80
  parenthood is also available from voluntary bodies like the Family Planning Association, Brook advisory centres, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and the Association to Aid the Sexual and Personal Relationships of People with a Disability, all of which receive a departmental grant. In addition the Family Planning Information Service, which receives financial support from the Government-funded Health Education Authority, also provides information and material to the public, professionals and media on family planning methods and services and related areas of health care.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the change in the availability of family planning clinic services in the last three years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are aware that a number of health authorities have made or propose to make reductions in the number of sessions offered by their family planning clinics, often as part of a rationalisation of services to make more effective use of available resources. About two thirds of the 4 million people who make use of the NHS family planning services each year go to their GP. The day to day management of health services such as this is a matter for individual authorities since they can best judge local circumstances and needs. However, guidance issued by this Department makes clear that we expect health authorities to strike a balance between services provided by specialist clinics and those provided by GPs.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state for each regional and district health authority the number of sessions of family planning clinics held in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of sessions held in each regional health authority, in the five years up to 1987–88 is shown in the table. Over the same period the number of people seeing GPs for family planing services increased by 8 per cent. Data for 1987–88 are for the financial year, those for earlier years are for the calendar year.

  Figures for district health authorities for the five-year period are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sex Education
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the provision of sex education.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject to the requirements of the National Curriculum, governing bodies are responsible for determining their school's policy on the content and organisation of sex education.

  In the wider sphere, the Health Education Authority's strategic plan 1990–95, published last November, announced the extension of the authority's work on AIDS public health education to include the maintenance of good sexual health, with the aims of educating the public and promoting a supportive climate of social opinion, and to support workers and agencies concerned with sexual health. The authority's family and child health programme will continue to provide information on pregnancy, parenting and the care of young children generally. Education for schools on family life and personal responsibility is also promoted through the authority's extensive programme for young people.

  Sex education is also a central part of the work of the Family Planning Association and Brook advisory centres.

  Foetal Monitoring
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for approximately what percentage of births there is electronic foetal monitoring;

  (2) how many obstetric units routinely use electronic foetal monitors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the location of monitors or the extent of their use is not collected centrally, but I understand that research studies show that they are in regular use in virtually all NHS maternity units.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research studies there have been into the benefits of electronic foetal monitors; and what conclusions were reached;

  (2) what evidence is available as to whether foetal monitoring has affected (a) perinatal mortality or (b) the percentage of births which require a caesarean section.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that studies have established that electronic foetal monitoring gives a more detailed measurement of foetal heart rate than the intermittent use of foetal stethoscope. Clinical practice on the interpretation of the readings from electronic monitors varies and evidence that they reduce the risk of perinatal mortality is not conclusive. The studies show that the caesarian section rate is up to one third higher where there has been electronic foetal monitoring, but the incidence is lower if there is complementary monitoring by foetal scalp blood sampling.

  Midwives
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives have been employed by the National Health Service; how many births there have been; and what has been the ratio of births to midwives in the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The requested information is shown in the table.
  82

  NHS midwives in post,1 total births1 and ratio of births to midwives —England

  Year

  Midwives at 30 September2 wholetime equivalent

  Total births

  Number of births per midwife

  1984

  22,790

  604,000

  26·5

  1985

  23,070

  622,730

  27·0

  1986

  23,330

  626,950

  26·9

  1987

  23,550

  646,550

  27·5

  1988

  23,620

  657,550

  27·8

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

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10). Unrounded figures are used to calculate ratios.

  2 Includes agency staff and students.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwife posts are currently vacant in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if any action is planned to increase the number of midwives in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the responsibility of individual health authorities to determine the level of midwives required to run local maternity services, both in hospitals and the community. At 30 September 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of midwives (whole time equivalent) employed in the National Health Service was 19,090, an increase of 3,060 (19·1 per cent.) since 1981.

  We are continuing to take steps to improve staffing in this vital area. Rates of pay have increased; in 1988, 9 out of 10 staff midwives were graded E or above under the new clinical grading structure and receive average pay increases on assimilation of 23 per cent. Since 1979 their pay has increased by over 50 per cent. in real terms.

  We are proposing an increase in the numbers of those undertaking three-year pre-registration training and in the advance diploma in midwifery by distance learning.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report the number of NHS eye tests carried out between 1 April and 30 September 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of NHS sight tests paid for by FPCs and health boards between 1 April 1989 and 31 September 1989 was as follows:

  Million

  England

  3·380

  Wales

  0·170

  Scotland

  0·282

  Great Britain

  3·832

  Of these 1·813 million were conducted before 1 April and 2·018 were conducted after 1 April and paid for before the end of September.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will release the results of the survey commissioned by his Department into the number of eye tests in the first quarter of 1990 compared with previous years; and what
  83
  allowance will be made when analysing the figures for the £1 million advertising campaign encouraging people to have eye tests.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The results of the survey commissioned by the Department into the number of sight tests in the first quarter of 1990 will be available by the early summer. A summary of the findings will be placed in the Library. No special allowance will be made when analysing the figures for the advertising campaign encouraging people to have sight tests, which took place in the summer and autumn of 1989.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give a detailed breakdown of how the saving from the imposition of eye test charges has been reallocated to other areas of primary health care;

  (2) if the estimated saving to the National Health Service budget arising from the imposition of eye test charges has been reallocated within primary health care as new additional funds on top of last year's budgetary allocations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The saving from restricting the National Health Service sight-test to certain priority groups with effect from January 1989 was taken into account in setting budget plans for 1989–90 and subsequent years. Estimated total net expenditure on family practitioner services including administration in 1989–90 was £294 million higher than the total spend in 1988–89, an increase of nearly 7 per cent., and is planned to increase further in subsequent years. In budget planning the total available resources are distributed according to service need; savings in one area are not directly earmarked to specific expenditure in another.

  Abortion
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the availability of abortion services in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The level of gynaecological provision including abortion, like other provision within the National Health Service, is decided by individual health authorities. The Government believe that such decisions are best taken locally in the light of authorities' first-hand knowledge of local needs and priorities and competing claims on resources.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the abortion rate for the last year for which figures are available in the United Kingdom and other EEC countries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The abortion rate for Great Britain2 and other EEC countries for the latest year for which figures are available is shown in the table.

  Country

  Year

  Rate (per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44)

  Great Britain

  1988

  316·0

  Denmark

  1986

  17·7

  Germany, Federal Republic

  1986

  6·4

  France

  1985

  14·5

  Greece

  1985

  10·1

  Netherlands

  1985

  15·1

  Italy

  1984

  118·6

  Belgium

  4

  84

  Country

  Year

  Rate (per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44)

  Irish Republic

  4

  Luxembourg

  n/a

  Portugal

  n/a

  Spain

  n/a

  Note: n/a =Not available.

  1 Provisional.

  2 The 1967 Abortion Act does not apply to Northern Ireland.

  3 Great Britain data was prepared from OPCS sources and the General Registrar Office, Scotland.

  4 Not applicable.

  The hon. Member may also be interested in the research report by Jennifer Gunning on "Human IVF, embryo research, foetal tissue for research and treatment, and abortion, International Information", published in February 1990, which provides additional information and is available in the Library.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the causes of late abortion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1988, the latest year for which data are available, there were 22 abortions in England and Wales after 24 weeks gestation. Eighteen of these were carried out on the grounds of suspected serious foetal abnormality whilst the other four were as a result of a serious risk to the pregnant woman should the pregnancy continue having been identified.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions in the last year were carried out on (i) an in-patient and (ii) and out-patient basis.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1988, the latest complete year for which data are available, there were 77,455 abortions carried out where the woman did not stay overnight. A further 105,796 abortions were performed where the duration of stay was one or more nights, (which would include any planned day cases where the woman stayed overnight). There were 547 notifications received on which this information was not recorded.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury,Official Report, 19 April, column 990, when he expects to announce the name of the successful bidder for the centre for applied microbiology and research, Porton Down, Wiltshire.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 April at column 990.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he lays down for the temperature at which hospital incinerators operate; and whether any analysis of the output of chlorinated dibenzodioxins (dioxins) and dibenzofurans from such incinerators has been made.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Hospital clinical waste incinerators are required to conform with British Standard 3316—that is,
  85
  to operate at a temperature of 800°C. The monitoring of flue-gas emissions is a matter for individual health authorities.

  New, higher standards for the operation of such incinerators will be introduced following the enactment of the Environmental Protection Bill. These will include new operating temperatures and more stringent flue-gas emission controls.

  Erythropoetin
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newbury, (Sir M. McNair-Wilson),Official Report, 9 March, column 902, whether any decision has yet been reached on licensing of the drug erythropoetin.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am not yet able to add to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on 9 March at column 902.

  Tinnitus
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to increase the level of funding for research into tinnitus.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for the Medical Research Council (MRC) to decide on the balance of funding for the areas of research within its responsibility. It is currently funding research into tinnitus and, although no major new initiative is planned in this field, the MRC is always willing to consider sound proposals for research which will be considered in competition with other applications.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 18 April,Official Report, column 890, how much the average poll tax in Scotland would be in 1990–91 if the rebate scheme was financed by poll tax payers and not central Government; and if he will give the figure for each district and region in Scotland.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that it is not possible to answer the hon. Member's question. If the community charge benefit scheme was financed by the authority's charge payers, the community charge level itself would rise and rebates would rise accordingly. This spiral effect should eventually level out but it is not possible to estimate at what point.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what regulations govern the assessing of the applicable amount for a youth training trainee for community charge purposes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Many YTS trainees will complete their course before they are 18 and so will not be liable for the personal community charge. Those trainees who are liable to pay the personal community charge may 86
  claim community charge benefit. The applicable amount relevant to a claim depends, besides age, upon the claimant's personal circumstances, for example whether or not he or she is married. The applicable amounts are set out in schedule 1 of the Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989, as uprated by the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 1990.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if there are any proposals to amend the day on which state retirement pensions are paid to the qualifying date rather than the following Monday.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no proposals to do so. Under current provisions an individual is entitled to a full weeks pension by the seventh day following the date of their claim. Retirement pension is a regular weekly payment and not payable for part weeks.

  Income Support
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the benefits for which he is responsible which are provided free for families whose head of the household is receiving income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Families receiving income support are entitled to maximum help with eligible rent through housing benefit and maximum community charge benefit. They may also get help from the social fund. Such families are also automatically entitled to various other benefits (including exemption from National Health Service charges, free school meals and free welfare milk and vitamins) for which my right hon. Friends in other Departments are responsible.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers Department of Social Security officers have to stop or suspend a claimant's income support if notified by an unemployment benefit office that the claimant is suspected of being voluntarily unemployed, but the adjudication officer's decision is still awaited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Under regulation 22 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, as amended, an unemployed person claiming income support, whose claim for unemployment benefit has not been determined because a question of disqualification arises for being voluntarily unemployed, is entitled to income support at a reduced rate only. The reduction, which is applied to the claimant's personal rate of benefit, ensures that he does not receive the same benefit as someone who clearly satisfied all the conditions, but at the same time he is not left without financial support while the question is investigated.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers Department of Social Security officers have to stop or suspend a claimant's income support if notified by the unemployment benefit office that the claimant's (i) actively seeking work or (ii) availability has been called into question but the adjudication officer's decision is still awaited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Under section 20 of the Social Security Act 1986, as amended, an unemployed person
  87
  claiming income support has to be actively seeking employment and available for employment. In specific circumstances he may be treated as fulfilling these conditions. Otherwise, where there is a doubt, normal benefit cannot be paid.

  Regulation 8 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, as amended, however, excuses a claimant from these requirements if an adjudication officer is satisfied that he or a member of his family will suffer hardship if income support is not paid. In such a case regulation 22 of the same regulations provides for payment of benefit at a reduced rate.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, if he will provide information as to the proportion of (i) income support and (ii) unemployment benefit claimants successfully claiming reduced income support under the hardship rules following(a) disqualification or (b) disallowance of benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A claimant disqualified from receipt of unemployment benefit because of voluntary unemployment can receive income support at a reduced rate without needing to show hardship.

  From October 1989 to March 1990 there were 1,860 such awards and 733 refusals. These figures are provisional and are subject to amendment.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims and awards of family credit were made in each month since April 1988; and how many claims were outstanding at the end of each month.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is in the table:

  Claims

  Awards

  Outstanding

  1988

  April

  96,505

  40,213

  n/a

  May

  41,721

  June

  52,293

  36,145

  July

  46,100

  37,912

  63,836

  August

  46,376

  40,249

  49,501

  September

  47,759

  24,158

  64,888

  October

  56,373

  44,944

  57,560

  November

  57,850

  46,234

  50,001

  December

  44,834

  35,797

  45,672

  1989

  January

  63,638

  42,712

  48,701

  February

  60,318

  45,180

  45,111

  March

  68,637

  47,184

  47,096

  April

  96,752

  43,300

  78,214

  May

  123,038

  39,178

  120,781

  June

  107,276

  73,778

  86,440

  July

  66,075

  50,004

  70,116

  August

  62,397

  48,158

  57,472

  September

  80,792

  54,498

  54,355

  October

  80,670

  50,510

  59,084

  November

  85,530

  55,077

  61,305

  December

  70,996

  43,694

  61,071

  1990

  January

  78,122

  50,225

  57,953

  February

  76,049

  51,772

  53,052

  March

  89,088

  57,961

  52,081

  April

  77,080

  42,794

  65,697

  Notes:

  1. The figures are for the four or five weeks ending on the last Friday of the month.
  88
  2. The figures for claims received include those made to renew existing awards and those made more than four weeks before the expiry of an existing award (and therefore invalid).

  n/a = Not available.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) newspaper advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) television advertising, and (d) all other promotional material relating to the community charge proposals (i) since its inception and (ii) in each respective year; what is his latest estimate for the current year; and what is the budget for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There has been no newspaper, radio or television advertising of community charge benefit in the 1988–89 or 1989–90 years by the Department.

  The costs of promotional material in 1988–89 was £34,817 and in 1989–90 was £75, 682,

  There will be a press campaign publicising the importance of claiming community charge benefit starting on 6 May. The total budget for 1990–91 is £750,000.

  Assessment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his estimates of the additional costs of assessing individuals separately for(a) community charge benefit, (b) housing benefit and (c) income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that it is not possible to provide the hon. Member with the information requested. It is a fundamental principle of the income-related benefit system that married and unmarried partners are assessed together. The wide range of assumptions needed to estimate the additional costs of assessing all individuals separately for all the income related benefits means that any estimates would be both arbitrary and uncertain.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Terry Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local Department of Social Security offices in the midlands region received an extra allocation for their social fund grant budget in 1989–90.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  Details of local offices that received additional social fund budget allocations in the financial year 1989–90 were placed in the Library.

  Government Actuary (Report)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for the delays in the production and publication of the Government Actuary's quinquennial report; when he received the report; and when it will be published.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have not yet received the Government Actuary's report. We are informed by the Government Actuary that the delay has been due to heavy work demands and recruitment difficulties which have now been resolved. However, we understand that the report is now almost completed and that the Government Actuary expects to submit the report within the next few weeks.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to abolish the reduced earnings allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The policy intention, as explained in "The Way Ahead", Cm. 917, January 1990 (copies of which are in the Library), is to provide for no new entitlements to reduced earnings allowance from the autumn of 1990.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the annual expenditure on the industrial injuries scheme in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is set out in the table.

  Industrial Injuries Benefits1 out-turn expenditure2

  £ million

  1987–88

  513

  1988–89

  514

  31989–90

  535

  1 Source: Table 14.1, Cm. 1014, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93."

  2 Includes industrial death benefit.

  3 Provisional.

  Benefits
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was (i) the total number of recipients and (ii) the total sum spent in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 on(a) disablement benefit, (b) reduced earnings allowance, (c) retirement allowance, (d) constant attendance allowance and (e) exceptionally severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table.

  Industrial injuries benefit recipients1 2

  April 1988

  April 1989

  Disablement benefit

  189,000

  185,000

  Reduced earnings allowance

  151,000

  147,000

  Constant attendance allowance

  2,000

  2,000

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  700

  500

  1 The table shows the numbers of awards of each benefit on 2 April 1988 and 1 April 1989. These figures, and especially those for April 1989, have less than complete coverage, for example, because of late claims.

  2 The corresponding financial year expenditure figures are not available.

  Savers (Interest)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what rate of interest is imputed to savers under community charge calculations; and if he will give the statutory basis for this rate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information required is shown in the table.

  The calculation of tariff income from capital is laid down in regulation 35 of the Community Charge Benefit (General) Regulations 1989.
  90

  Tariff income assumed from capital Lower Limit £3,000.00

  Capital not more than £

  Weekly tariff income £

  Tariff income as annual percentage of capital

  Maximum effect of tariff income on CCB £ p

  Reduction of CCB as annual percentage of capital

  3,000

  0

  0·0

  0·00

  0·0

  3,250

  1

  1·6

  0·15

  0·2

  3,500

  2

  3·0

  0·30

  0·4

  3,750

  3

  4·2

  0·45

  0·6

  4,000

  4

  5·2

  0·60

  0·8

  4,250

  5

  6·1

  0·75

  0·9

  4,500

  6

  6·9

  0·90

  1·0

  4,750

  7

  7·7

  1·05

  1·1

  5,000

  8

  8·3

  1·20

  1·2

  5,250

  9

  8·9

  1·35

  1·3

  5,500

  10

  9·5

  1·50

  1·4

  5,750

  11

  9·9

  1·65

  1·5

  6,000

  12

  10·4

  1·80

  1·6

  6,250

  13

  10·8

  1·95

  1·6

  6,500

  14

  1·12

  2·10

  1·7

  6,750

  15

  11·6

  2·25

  1·7

  7,000

  16

  11·9

  2·40

  1·8

  7,250

  17

  12·2

  2·55

  1·8

  7,500

  18

  12·5

  2·70

  1·9

  7,750

  19

  12·7

  2·85

  1·9

  8,000

  20

  13·0

  3·00

  2·0

  8,250

  21

  13·2

  3·15

  2·0

  8,500

  22

  13·5

  3·30

  2·0

  8,750

  23

  13·7

  3·45

  2·1

  9,000

  24

  13·9

  3·60

  2·1

  9,250

  25

  14·1

  3·75

  2·1

  9,500

  26

  14·2

  3·90

  2·1

  9,750

  27

  14·4

  4·05

  2·2

  10,000

  28

  14·6

  4·20

  2·2

  10,250

  29

  14·7

  4·35

  2·2

  10,500

  30

  14·9

  4·50

  2·2

  10,750

  31

  15·0

  4·65

  2·2

  11,000

  32

  15·1

  4·80

  2·3

  11,250

  33

  15·3

  4·95

  2·3

  11,500

  34

  15·4

  5·10

  2·3

  11,750

  35

  15·5

  5·25

  2·3

  12,000

  36

  15·6

  5·40

  2·3

  12,250

  37

  15·7

  5·55

  2·4

  12,500

  38

  15·8

  5·70

  2·4

  12,750

  39

  15·9

  5·85

  2·4

  13,000

  40

  16·0

  6·00

  2·4

  13,250

  41

  16·1

  6·15

  2·4

  13,500

  42

  16·2

  6·30

  2·4

  13,750

  43

  16·3

  6·45

  2·4

  14,000

  44

  16·3

  6·60

  2·5

  14,250

  45

  16·4

  6·75

  2·5

  14,500

  46

  16·5

  6·90

  2·5

  14,750

  47

  16·6

  7·05

  2·5

  15,000

  48

  16·6

  7·20

  2·5

  15,250

  49

  16·7

  7·35

  2·5

  15,500

  50

  16·8

  7·50

  2·5

  15,750

  51

  16·8

  7·65

  2·5

  16,000

  52

  16·9

  7·80

  2·5

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his best estimates of the amount that will be saved in community charge benefit through the operation of the community charge transitional relief scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The community charge transitional relief scheme will reduce the total cost of community charge benefit by around £100 million to £2·5 billion on a full year basis and at 1990–91 benefit levels and prices.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure the independence of veterinary officers charged with safeguarding animal welfare at abattoirs.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the legislation to safeguard the welfare of animals at abattoirs. In addition, officers of the State Veterinary Service visit all abattoirs to monitor welfare standards and to give advice.

  In so far as veterinary surgeons may have responsibilities in abattoirs, they are subject to the code of professional ethics of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

  New Jobs, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the staff presently employed by the agricultural intervention board at Kenton Bar, Newcastle, are included in the 350 new jobs announced for Newcastle; and whether they will be expected to apply competitively for those jobs.

  Mr. Curry
  The work which is now being carried out at Kenton Bar will remain there and other functions will be transferred to the total of 350 jobs. The existing staff, who are employed on a temporary basis, will be invited to apply for these permanent jobs which will be advertised in the local newspapers in line with civil service rules on open and fair recruitment.

  Farmers, Northumberland
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what benefit farmers in Northumberland will receive from the recent price fixing agreed by the EEC Agriculture Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The settlement reached in Brussels last month was a very good one for the United Kingdom. In particular, we secured a substantial devaluation of the green pound which will increase sterling support prices for crops by 10·7 per cent., for beef by 8·5 per cent., for milk by 6·8 per cent. and for sheepmeat by 11 per cent.

  Pigs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the chemical components of recent contaminated pig feed.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not possible to list all the components of the feed concerned. My Department has, of course, investigated those components which might be implicated in recent pig health problems.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of pigs which had been given feed contaminated with CYNOX 425 which had entered the food chain.

  Mr. Gummer
  My estimate would be none, on the basis that these pigs were adult sows newly weaned and some 92
  adult boars. The sows were between lactations and would only have been slaughtered for welfare reasons. The feedingstuffs company has confirmed that animals slaughtered for welfare purposes have not entered the food chain.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of posts to be transferred from the intervention board in Reading to Newcastle upon Tyne excluding posts already located in that city.

  Mr. Curry
  The work of the agency's external trade division, together with some common service support, will be transferred. The additional number of posts involved, excluding the 136 already located at the agency's Kenton Bar office, is expected to be about 220 jobs.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what site or sites have been identified to accommodate staff transferred from the intervention board in Reading to Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Curry
  The intervention board is interested in a new building in the Newcastle business park but is considering a number of other office development sites.

  Mineral Water
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure mineral water is correctly labelled.

  Mr. Maclean
  European Community rules on the labelling of natural mineral waters are contained in the Natural Mineral Waters Regulations 1985. Recent information that we have received regarding Perrier water has raised a number of questions about the labelling of this particular natural mineral water and whether it complies with the EC rules. I believe that the labelling does not comply with EC requirements and so we have raised the question with the European Commission and await its reply. The Government are firmly committed to the principle that labelling of any product should not be misleading to the consumer.

  Whales
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's current policy on the hunting of whales and the Norwegian proposal to recommence the killing of Minke whales;

  (2) what approaches he has had from the Norwegian authorities on their proposals to recommence the hunting of Minke whales;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to block at the next international whaling conference the proposals by Norway to recommence the hunting of Minke whales; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will make a statement on his contacts with the Government of Norway over whaling.

  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom played a leading role in achieving the current moratorium on commercial whaling agreed by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In my view there can be no question of the
  93
  moratorium being lifted unless and until the scientific advice is that whale stocks can be sustained at healthy levels and there is no likelihood of a species being endangered. I also consider that before there can be any consideration of resumption of commercial whaling, the IWC must develop a new management procedure to guarantee that there would be no repeat of the past history of over-exploitation. The moratorium is to be reviewed at the IWC's annual meeting this summer. If the assessments of the scientific committee, which are to be prepared for this IWC meeting, cannot confirm that the whale stocks are in a satisfactory position we will work hard for the moratorium to be continued.

  Norway's recent action has been to request that the agenda of the forthcoming IWC meeting formally includes reconsideration of the protection stock classification of the north east Atlantic minke whale. The stock is already in
  94
  the programme for a detailed comprehensive assessment at this year's meeting of the scientific committee of the IWC. The current classification means that even if there were no moratorium, this stock should not be exploited. A change in classification requires detailed assessment and evaluation by the scientific committee of the IWC in order for advice to be put to the Commission. This has yet to take place. As with the moratorium, I consider that no changes should be made without clear scientific advice as to the safety of the stock.

  The Norwegian government are very aware of our views on whaling. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made our position very clear when he met the Norwegian Fisheries Minister earlier this year. In addition we also have frequent contacts at official level under the umbrella of the work of the International Whaling Commission.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environment Protection
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details of centrally funded information proposed by his Department or by the Central Office of Information on his Department's behalf in each year since 1983 in respect of environment protection and countryside matters.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since 1983 my Department has funded, either directly or through COI, several hundred items of publicity and information on environmental protection and countryside matters. The main items are as follows:

  1983

  "Lead in Paint" leaflets; "Lead in Paint" TV fillers; "Asbestos in Housing" leaflet1:

  1984

  "Endangered Plants" leaflet1.

  1985

  Bothered by Noise" leaflet1.

  1986

  "Conservation and Development" booklet; "Tree Preservation Orders" leaflet1; "Endangered Species" (Cites) leaflet1; European Year of the Environment leaflet; Two anti-litter TV fillers ("Motorist" and "Domestic"); stand at "International Pollution Abatement Exhibition".

  1987

  "Wildlife in Danger" (CITES) bookmark1 and wallchart; "Radon in Houses" leaflet1; HMIP introductory leaflet; "Towards a Cleaner North Sea" broadsheet; Unleaded Petrol leaflet; Two anti-litter TV fillers ("Sceptered Isle" and Beaches); publicity material for North Sea conference; "Contaminated Land" leaflet.

  1988

  "Protecting Britain's Wildlife" leaflet1; "Protecting Your Environment" booklet; "Conservation and Business Sponsorship" booklet1; "Adjust to Unleaded" booklet1 and poster; Two TV anti-litter fillers "Lethal Weapon" and "Excuses"); exhibition stand at "Enprotec"; "Campaign for the Countryside" touring exhibition; Radioactive Waste Video.

  1989

  Unleaded Petrol press and TV advertising; Endangered Species (CITES) display cabinets at Gatwick airport; Environment in Trust packs containing leaflets and broadsheets on "Air Quality", "Cleaner Seas", "Radioactive Waste Management", "The Countryside", "Pollution Control Systems", "One World", and "River Quality"; Clean Technology booklet, North Sea Report leaflets 1 and 2; "Global Climate Change" booklet; Anti-litter TV filler ("Clanger"); publicity and exhibition material for the International Ozone Conference; exhibition stand at CBI conference.

  1 These items have been revised and/or reprinted in later years.

  1990

  Stand at "Green Show" at NEC in June; "Citizen and the Environment" leaflet.

  During the same period my Department has produced several hundred items of information concerning environmental protection and countryside matters in the form of statutory instruments, circulars and priced publications, in addition to the publicity/information items already mentioned. The DOE's HQ Library already produces a comprehensive list of these in its annual list of publications.

  Included in the publications category are parliamentary publications (such as Command Papers and House of Commons Papers), pollution papers, waste management papers, methods for the examination of waters and associated materials (MEWAM's), and annual publications such as the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" and the reports of the radioactive waste management advisory committee.
  96
  In addition to the regular items mentioned in paragraph 2 above, there are numerous ad hoc publications; an indication of which is given below:

  1983

  "Manual of Environmental Appraisal", "Disposal Facilities on Land of Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste".

  1984

  "Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste at Sea", "Sponsored Research on Radioactive Waste", "Rayner Review on the Nature Conservancy Council", Circulars on "Green Belts", "Water and the Environment", and "Clean Air Acts".

  1985

  "Conservation on the Harp Seal and Hooded Seal", "Convention of the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats", "Farm and Forestry Development in the National Parks", "Asbestos on Contaminated Land", "The Control of Organotins in Antifouling Paints", "The Control and Use of Marine Antifouling Paints", "Lead intakes of Young Children from Dust and Other Sources", "Monitoring of Beach Contamination following incident at BNFL Sellafield, Cumbria in November 1983".

  1986

  Levels of Radioactivity in the UK from the Accident at Chernobyl", "River Quality in England and Wales 1985", "Conservation and Development: The British Approach", "Protecting the Countryside", "Acidity in UK Fresh Waters", "Air Pollution Control in Great Britain", "UK 2000: Working For A Better Environment", "The Water Environment: The Next Steps".

  1987

  "Ozone in the UK", "Acid Deposition and its Effects", "Unleaded Petrol: Fuel of the Future", "Air Pollution and You", "Green Belts 1980–1987", "Towards a Cleaner North Sea", "Development involving Agricultural Land", "Rural Enterprise and Development".

  1988

  "The Effects of Acid Deposition on the Terrestial Environment in the UK", "Air Pollution in Great Britain", "The Effects of the Great Storm", "Protected Trees: A Guide to Preservation Procedures", "Possible impacts of Climate Change on the Natural Environment in the UK".

  1989

  "Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna", "Dioxins in the Environment", Command Paper on the Greenhouse Effect, "Our Common Future", "Keeping and Use of Radioactive Materials", "Radioactive Waste Management and Radioactivity in the Environment", "Guidance on Safeguarding the Quality of Public Water Supplies".

  In addition to all items listed above, there are numerous reports resulting from research funded by the Department but not necessarily published by them; these are also listed in the Library's annual list.

  Arrangements are being made for the House of Commons Library to receive future and back copies of the "Annual List of Publications" which is, at present, distributed to university libraries, local authorities, metropolitan councils and private sector companies.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a list of all sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty, their exact reason for designation and their geographical location.

  Mr. Trippier
  A list of all areas of outstanding natural beauty, plus a map showing their geographical locations, can be found in the publication "Countryside Commission Annual Report 1988–89" which is already placed in the Library of the House.

  This publication does not however, contain the criteria for designation, which is set out under section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 —also to be found in the Library of the House.
  97
  A list of SSSIs in England and Wales by county, was placed in the Library in August 1989. There are currently over 5,000 and it would be impracticable to place the reasons for their individual designation in the Library. The criteria for the designation of biological sites can be found in "Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSI" which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the annual figures for toxic or hazardous waste arising in each of the last five years in

  tones

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Arisings within the waste disposal area

  Cleveland

  119,178

  136,310

  137,292

  239,550

  451,600

  Tyne and Wear

  222,000

  n/a

  282,701

  80,732

  62,959

  Exports out of the waste disposal area

  Cleveland

  11,723

  11,310

  26,407

  57,759

  1206,100

  Tyne and Wear

  29,000

  n/a

  228,409

  72,469

  48,095

  Imports into the waste disposal area

  Cleveland

  1,918

  3,430

  929

  12,540

  800

  Tyne and Wear

  26,000

  n/a

  219,668

  12,741

  4,905

  Disposals within the waste disposal area

  Cleveland

  109,373

  128,430

  111,814

  194,331

  246,300

  Tyne and Wear

  219,000

  n/a

  273,960

  21,004

  10,769

  1 Includes 147,300 tonnes for sea disposal.

  2 Estimated figures; source HMIP.

  Specific figures for disposal by type of facility are not held centrally. Waste disposal under licence at sea is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, Cleveland county council informs us that in 1988–89, 147,300 tonnes of waste were exported from the county for sea disposal.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing how much toxic and hazardous waste was produced in the north-east region in each of the last five years, how much was disposed of locally, and how much was moved out of the region for disposal.

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (1) Arisings within the region (tonnes)

  169,922

  n.a.

  270,050

  368,293

  583,724

  (2) Deposits within the waste disposal area (tonnes)

  209,367

  n.a.

  318,779

  316,741

  401,097

  (3) Net export (difference between (1) and (2)) (tonnes)

  -39,445

  n.a.

  -48,729

  51,552

  182,627

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of local district councils indicating the multiplier that they are using for standard community charge on second properties.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not yet available.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to end the exemption from charge capping for local authorities with budgets of less than £15 million.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am reviewing the operation of all aspects of the community charge and will make an announcement when decisions have been reached.
  98
  (a) Tyne and Wear and (b) Cleveland; and in each case how much waste of this nature was disposed of (i) within the county, and by what means and (ii) by sea dumping.

  Mr. Trippier
  The figures on arisings and disposal of dangerous or difficult waste, which correspond to "special wastes" as defined by the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980, are provided annually to the Department by waste disposal authorites. For Cleveland and Tyne and Wear these are as follows:

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).

  The figures on arisings and disposal of dangerous or difficult waste, which correspond to "special wastes" as defined by the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980, are provided annually to the Department by waste disposal authorities. For the purposes of this question I shall take the North East region to comprise the administrative areas of Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear. The figures are as follows:

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will deposit in the Library, in respect of each charging authority, information on(a) the charging authority's demand on the collection fund, (b) the appropriation from and to their financial reserves, (c) income from specific and supplementary grants, (d) income from sales, fees, charges and other income, (e) gross revenue expenditure showing (i) capital charges net of capital financing grants, (ii) levies and (iii) unallocated contingencies, (f) estimated general and city fund revenue reserves at 1 April, (g) aggregate parish precepts and (h) other precepts, using the information provided by authorities on forms DAP1 and DAP2, corrected by his Department where necessary;

  (2) if he will place in the Library information in respect of each collection fund on (a) total demands and precepts, (b) revenue support grant, (c) payments from NNDR

  99
  pool, (d) safety net adjustment and special grants, (e) other adjustments, (f) amount of community charge income and (g) the average charge, using the information provided by authorities on forms DAP1 and DAP2, corrected by his Department where necessary;

  (3) if he will place in the Library information in respect of each precepting authority on (a) aggregate of precepts on the collection funds, (b) appropriation from and to financial reserves, (c) net revenue expenditure, (d) income from specific and supplementary grants, (e) income from sales, fees, charges, interest receipts and other non-grant income, (f) gross revenue expenditure including (i) capital charges net of capital financing grants, (ii) levies and (iii) unallocated contingencies and (g) estimated general and county fund revenue reserves at 1 April, using the information provided by authorities on forms DAP1 and DAP2, corrected by his Department where necessary.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer I May 1990]: I am arranging for copies of the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Information for some authorities is incomplete because not all authorities were required to complete lines 2 to 10 of the DAP1 and DAP2 returns, and in the event a number elected not to do so. The missing information will not be available until budget returns are received. When those later returns are received the information in these tables may need to be revised.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of total community charges in England will be raised by(a) personal, (b) standard and (c) collective charges, respectively; and if he will list those English local authorities whose percentage raised by (b) and (c) jointly diverges up or down from the average by a factor of two or more.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: This information is not yet available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have community charge levels below £300, which have standard spending grants and other direct standard spending grants which exceed £400 per capita.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The following authorities have set average community charges below £300 and receive more than £400 per head of relevant population in revenue support grant (net of the area safety net) and special grants (inner London education grant and low rateable value areas grants):

  Barking and Dagenham

  Bradford

  Calderdale

  City of London

  Isles of Scilly

  Kirklees

  Lewisham

  Tower Hamlets

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list in order of highest to lowest the poll tax charges levied by non-metropolitan district councils.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: I am arranging for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.
  100
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing 20 per cent. of the poll tax in each local authority.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: I am arranging for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the reasons for the delay in providing his written answer of 3 May for the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East on local government revenue.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member on 3 May explaining the position.

  Monkton Cokeworks
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to provide a substantive response to the complaints made to him in November 1988 about the activities of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in relation to Monkton cokeworks, Hebburn.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department received a letter from the environment services officer of South Tyneside metropolitan borough council on 23 November 1988 expressing the concern of the council's environmental health and control committee about Monkton cokeworks. This received a full and detailed reply on 10 February 1989. If the hon. Member wishes to refer me to further correspondence on this matter I shall be happy to look into it.

  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why flue gas desulphurisation equipment is not required for battery No. 4, Monkton cokeworks, Hebburn.

  Mr. Trippier
  The fitting of flue-gas desulphurisation equipment has never been part of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's requirements for pollution control of emissions from coke works, nor does the EEC place any requirement on the United Kingdom to control such emissions. The costs involved are considered to be disproportionate to the environmental improvements which would result from the removal of the relatively small quantities of sulphur dioxide. The height of the chimney at the works is sufficient to prevent adverse local effects from any emissions.

  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution had with National Smokeless Fuels about the delay in installing cokeside arrestment equipment at battery No. 4, Monkton cokeworks, Hebburn;

  (2) what factors Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution took into account when deciding not to take legal action against National Smokeless Fuels for non-installation of cokeside arrestment equipment at battery No. 4, Monkton cokeworks, Hebburn.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution engaged in a series of meetings with National Smokeless Fuels to discuss the arrestment of dust associated with discharging coke from the ovens at Monkton cokeworks.
  101
  These meetings involved management at all levels within the company culminating in a meeting between the chief inspector and the chairman of British Coal. The installation of cokeside arrestment equipment was agreed in principle following the miners' strike although the actual installation was delayed as a result of proving trials of a prototype system at the coke works at Cwm. The equipment was eventually installed and commissioned in 1989.

  Football Pools
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he proposes to hold on how the extra income from the football pools will be allocated on a divisional basis.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My officials have had discussions with the Football Trust 1990 and the Pool Promoters Association about the arrangements for the distribution of the extra money that will be available to football as a result of the proposed reduction in pool betting duty announced in the Budget statement. It is the intention that the Football Trust 1990 should distribute the money fairly, having regard to the differing needs and resources available to the clubs in the Football League and Scottish League and to the three national stadia, Wembley, Hampden park and Windsor park. The Football Trust has proved a most effective means of channelling funds to where they are most needed in football.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has received any invitation to contribute to, or participate in, the European summer school on environmental decision making on waste management, at Vrije university in Brussels, on 26 to 29 June.

  Mr. Trippier
  No such invitation has been received by my Department.

  Neighbourhood Notification Schemes
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans further to encourage or make compulsory the use by local planning authorities of advance neighbourhood notification schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. The Department's advice to local planning authorities on publicity for planning applications is set out in appendix B to circular 22/88, and I have no evidence that those arrangements are not generally working satisfactorily.

  Right to Buy, Barnsley
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the outstanding debt repayments of Barnsley metropolitan borough council in respect of council houses sold under the right-to-buy legislation; and if he will consider freeing the local authority from such debts on its former assets.
  102
  Mr. Chope
  Authorities generally manage their housing debt on a collective basis, so it is not possible to attribute a specific amount of debt to former council houses sold under the right-to-buy legislation. However, any outstanding debt in Barnsley's housing revenue account will be taken into account in the calculation of the authority's entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy.

  County Halls (Sales)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he estimates the savings on capital account would be if county halls were sold off following the merger of their functions with the district councils.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have no plans for such a merger and my right hon. Friend has made no such estimates.

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when planning policy guidelines to local authorities in respect of applications by football clubs for relocation of their stadiums will be issued.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend is considering planning policy guidance on the considerations relevant to new and redeveloped stadiums for Football League clubs and on other issues. He hopes to issue a draft document for consideration soon.

  Uniform Business Rate (Fishermen)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to treat premises used by commercial fishermen in the same way as those of farmers in terms of the levying of uniform business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  Under the Local Government Act 1988 (which in this respect broadly restated the equivalent provisions of the General Rate Act 1967), agricultural and market gardening land and buildings which are used for the production of food for consumption are exempt from non-domestic rates. However, premises used for ancillary activities including the processing of food, wholesaling and retailing are not exempt. Similarly, fish farms and certain fishing rights are exempt from non-domestic rates. But premises occupied by commercial fishermen, which are commonly used for the processing of the catch or for purposes connected with servicing the fleet, are not exempt.

  Gas Emissions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give constant emission factors for nitrogen oxides for each of the emission sources listed in table 2.6 of the latest "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics".
  103
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: Summary of emission factors used to estimate emissions of nitrogen oxides in 1988.

  Solid fuels (kg/tonne)

  Coal

  Anthracite

  Coke

  SSF

  Petroleum coke

  Domestic

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  —

  Commercial/public service

  4·8

  —

  4·8

  4·8

  —

  Power stations

  9·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Refineries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·8

  Agriculture

  4·8

  —

  4·8

  —

  —

  Other industry

  4·8

  —

  4·8

  4·8

  —

  Railways

  4·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source: Warren Spring laboratory.

  Oils (kg/tonne)

  Burning oil

  Fuel oil

  Gas oil

  Miscellaneous

  Naphtha

  Domestic

  2·1

  7·4

  4·5

  —

  —

  Commercial/public service

  2·1

  7·4

  4·5

  —

  —

  Power stations

  —

  10·71

  11·37

  —

  —

  Refineries

  —

  7·4

  4·5

  7·4

  7·4

  Agriculture

  2·1

  7·4

  4·5

  —

  —

  Other industry

  2·1

  7·4

  4·5

  —

  —

  Railways

  2·1

  7·4

  50·6

  —

  —

  Shipping

  —

  6·3

  3·2–80

  —

  —

  Source: Warren Spring laboratory.

  Gases (kg/million therms)

  LPG

  Natural gas

  OPG

  Town gas

  Others1

  Domestic

  5,275

  5,275

  —

  5,275

  —

  Commercial/public service

  —

  10,550

  —

  10,550

  —

  Power stations

  —

  26,380

  —

  —

  —

  Refineries

  10,550

  10,550

  10,550

  —

  —

  Agriculture

  —

  10,550

  —

  —

  —

  Other industry

  10,550

  10,550

  10,550

  10,550

  10,550

  1 Others gases includes blast furnace gas, coke oven gas and colliery methane.

  Source: Warren Spring laboratory.

  Non fuel

  Incineration (kg/tonne of waste)

  (kg/tonne production)

  Domestic

  1·5

  —

  Agricultural

  1·5

  —

  Industrial

  1·0

  —

  Acid production

  —

  3–12

  Source: Warren Spring laboratory.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give constant emission factors for methane for each of the emission sources listed in table 2.12 of the latest "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics."

  Solid fuels (kg/tonne)

  Coal

  Anthracite

  Coke

  SSF

  Petroleum coke

  Domestic

  676·6

  813·4

  803·6

  774·2

  —

  Commercial/public service

  659·6

  —

  796·5

  766·3

  —

  Power stations

  588·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Refineries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  800

  Agriculture

  659·6

  —

  796·5

  —

  —

  Other industry

  659·6/710

  —

  796·5/820

  766·3/790

  —

  Railways

  659·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oils (kg/tonne)

  Burning oil

  DERV

  Fuel oil

  Gas oil

  Miscellaneous

  Naptha

  Petrol

  Domestic

  859

  —

  850

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Commercial/public service

  859

  —

  850

  857

  —

  —

  —

  Power stations

  —

  —

  850

  857

  —

  —

  —

  104
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: Summary of emission factors used to estimate emissions of carbon dioxide, as carbon, in 1988:
  105

  Burning oil

  DERV

  Fuel oil

  Gas oil

  Miscellaneous

  Naptha

  Petrol

  Refineries

  —

  —

  850

  857

  800

  940

  —

  Agriculture

  859

  —

  850

  857

  —

  —

  —

  Other industry

  859

  —

  850

  857

  —

  —

  —

  Railways

  859

  —

  850

  857

  —

  —

  —

  Road transport

  —

  857

  —

  —

  —

  —

  855

  Shipping

  —

  —

  850

  857

  —

  —

  —

  Gases (kg/million therms)

  LPG

  Natural gas/colliery methane

  OPG

  Town/Coke oven gas

  Blast furnace gas

  Domestic

  1,874,000

  1,537,000

  —

  1,599,000

  —

  Commercial/public service

  —

  1,537,000

  —

  1,599,000

  —

  Power stations

  —

  1,537,000

  —

  —

  —

  Refineries

  1,874,000

  1,537,000

  1,627,000

  1,599,000

  —

  Agriculture

  —

  1,537,000

  —

  —

  —

  Other Industry

  1,874,000

  1,537,000

  1,627,000

  1,599,000

  6,274,000

  Non-fuel

  Incineration (kg/tonne of waste)

  Domestic

  200

  —

  Agriculture

  200

  —

  Industrial

  194

  —

  Cement

  —

  1137·3

  Gas flaring

  —

  21,537,000

  Gas Production

  —

  21,537,000

  Source:

  Warren Spring laboratory.

  1kg/tonne.

  2 kg/million therms.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for sulphur dioxide concentrations recorded by each of his Department's 287 sites and each of Warren Spring Laboratory's seven sites in the latest available year.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: Data on the annual average concentration of sulphur dioxide measured

  Solid fuels (kg/tonne)

  Coal

  Anthracite

  Coke

  SSF

  Petroleum coke

  Domestic

  0·125

  0·015625

  0·015625

  0·015625

  —

  Commercial/public service

  0·000875

  —

  0·000875

  0·000875

  —

  Power stations

  0·001875

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Refineries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·000875

  Agriculture

  0·000875

  —

  0·000875

  —

  —

  Other industry

  0·000875

  —

  0·000875

  0·000875

  —

  Railways

  0·000875

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oils (kg/tonne)

  Burning oil

  Fuel oil

  Gas oil

  Miscellaneous

  Naptha

  Domestic

  0·000875

  0·00075

  0·000875

  —

  —

  Commercial/public service

  0·000875

  0·00075

  0·000875

  —

  —

  Power stations

  —

  0·001125

  0·000875

  —

  —

  Refineries

  —

  0·00075

  0·000875

  0·00075

  0·00075

  Agriculture

  0·000875

  0·00075

  0·001625

  —

  —

  Other industry

  0·000875

  0·00075

  0·000875

  —

  —

  Railways

  0·000875

  0·00075

  0·165625

  —

  —

  Shipping

  —

  0·001875

  0·001875-0·1125

  —

  —

  106
  at the 287 sites of the EC Directive network for April 1988-March 1989 have been published by Warren Spring Laboratory in Report No. LR 763 entitled "UK Smoke and Sulphur dioxide monitoring networks: summary tables for April 1988-March 1989". A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The seven other sites referred to are part of Warren Spring Laboratory's automatic monitoring network. The location of the sites is shown in figure 2.1 of the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics, No. 12, 1989. Results for a full year are not yet available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give constant emission factors for carbon dioxide for each of the emission sources listed in table 2·11 of the latest "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics."

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: Summary of emission factors used to estimate emissions of methane in 1988:
  107

  Gases (kg/million therms)

  LPG

  Natural gas

  OPG

  Town gas

  Others1

  Domestic

  10·5625

  4·3125

  —

  4·3125

  —

  Commercial/public service

  —

  1·9125

  —

  1·9125

  —

  Power stations

  —

  1·9125

  —

  —

  —

  Refineries

  1·9125

  1·9125

  1·9125

  —

  —

  Agriculture

  —

  1·9125

  —

  —

  —

  Other industry

  1·9125

  1·9125

  1·9125

  1·9125

  1·9125

  Non-fuel

  Incineration (kg/tonne of waste)

  Domestic

  0·009375

  —

  Agriculture

  0·08125

  —

  Industrial

  0·09375

  —

  Gas leakage

  —

  1807·25kg/million therms

  Landfill

  —

  —2

  Cattle

  —

  —2

  Other animals

  —

  —2

  Flaring and venting

  —

  —2

  Coal mines

  —

  —2

  1 Others include blast furnace gas, coke oven gas and colliery methane.

  2 No simple factor.

  Source: Warren Spring laboratory.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give constant emission factors for sulphur dioxide for each of the emission sources listed in table 2.3 of the latest "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics".

  (kg/tonne)

  Coal

  Anthracite

  Coke

  SSF

  Petroleum coke

  Solid fuels

  Domestic

  19·36

  16·00

  16·00

  16·00

  —

  Commercial/public service

  26·60

  —

  19·00

  19·00

  —

  Power stations

  28·88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Refineries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19·00

  Agriculture

  26·60

  —

  19·00

  —

  —

  Other industry

  22·60–28·00

  —

  19·00

  19·00

  —

  Railways

  26·60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (kg/tonne)

  Burning oil

  DERV

  Fuel oil

  Gas oil

  Miscellaneous

  Naphtha

  Petrol

  Oils

  Domestic

  0·20–0·62

  —

  38·904

  5·0

  —

  —

  —

  Commercial/public service

  0·62

  —

  38·904

  5·0

  —

  —

  —

  Power stations

  0·62

  —

  38·904

  5·0

  —

  —

  —

  Refineries

  0·62

  —

  38·904

  5·0

  38·904

  38·904

  —

  Agriculture

  0·62

  ·

  38·904

  5·0

  —

  —

  —

  Other industry

  0·62

  —

  38·904

  5·0

  —

  —

  —

  Railways

  0·62

  —

  38·904

  5·0

  —

  —

  —

  Road Transport

  —

  3·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·8

  Shipping

  0·62

  —

  38·904

  5·0

  —

  —

  —

  (kg/million therms)

  Gases

  Coke oven gas

  Other industry

  143,000

  (kg/tonne product)

  Non-fuel

  Acid production

  3·28–13·33

  Source: Warren Spring laboratory.
  108
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: Summary of emissions factors used to estimate emissions of sulphur dioxide in 1988:

  Danish Technology Institutes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to invite to a meeting with him(a) the cleaner technology centre at Taastrup in Denmark, to discuss environmentally friendly technology and (b) the Jutland technological institute, Denmark, to discuss product substitution and design for environmental improvement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet these organisations. The Department of the Environment is, however, keen to participate in the international exchange of information on the subject of low-waste or clean technology as part of its efforts to promote greater awareness of cleaner methods of production in the United Kingdom industry. The Department is hosting a UNEP seminar in September 1990 on "Cleaner Production" and I am pleased that senior officials from the Danish National Agency of Environmental Protection have accepted invitations to attend.

  Treasury (Fire Certificate)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there is a valid fire certificate for the Treasury building in Parliament street.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The work required to obtain one has been identified and tenders are being invited for it to be carried out.

  Mr. Gordon Blower (Correspondence)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to reply to the letter written on 29 December by Mr. Gordon Blower of Kingsland, Brownston Street, Modbury, I vybridge about the property blight resulting from uncertainty regarding the future of the Darenth Park hospital site, Dartford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: A reply to Mr. Blower's letter of 29 December 1989 was sent by the Department on 2 May 1990. My right hon. Friend is currently awaiting information from the South East Thames regional health authority about their future intentions for the Darenth Park hospital site, but I hope that a decision can be taken soon on the authority's proposals for residential development at the site.

  Government Housing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Government houses are vacant in(a) Cardiff and (b) South Glamorgan; and what proportion this is of the total Government housing stock in (a) the city and (b) the county.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no vacant houses in Cardiff or South Glamorgan for which my right hon. Friend has responsibility. The hon. Member should inquire direct of other Government Departments in respect of any houses for which they have responsibility.

  69 Cowcross Street, EC1
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions or guidance he has given to the London residuary body in relation to the proposed disposal on the open market of 69 Cowcross street, London EC1.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None, apart from general guidance on property vested in residuary bodies, issued in August 1986.

  Glass Recycling
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance the Government have given towards the industry target for glass recycling; and what figures he has for the number of bottle banks in operation in(a) 1986, (b) at the present time and (c) estimated for 1995.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The industry's target of 5,000 bottle banks by July 1991 was agreed at a conference organised by the Department of Trade and Industry on 2 July 1986. Following that conference, and with the support of the glass manufacturing industry, my Department and the local authority recycling advisory committee (LARAC) set up a series of regional seminars, held between November 1986 and April 1987, with the aim of increasing the number of bottle banks in local authority areas, and LARAC subsequently produced a booklet entitled "Expanding Glass Recycling". Figures from the British Glass Manufacturers Confederation show that there were 2,842 public bottle bank sites in 1986 and 4,330 at the most recent count. The industry target of 5,000 banks by 1991 should comfortably be reached.

DEFENCE

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) of 23 April,Official Report, column 75, when, and in what form, he expects to make the conclusions of Mr. David Heyhoe's report on Mr. Colin Wallace available to the House.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make copies of the report's conclusions available shortly to the Select Committee on Defence and in the Library of the House.

  Sports
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of each rank is currently registered to play each of the sports listed by the combined services sport board.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All service men and women are eligible to take part in sports recognised by the combined services sport board. Information is not held in the form requested.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently registered to play each of the sports recognised by the combined services sport board.
  111
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All service men and women are eligible to take part in sports recognised by the combined services sport board. Specific registration is not required by the combined services sport board.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total grant aid paid to each of the sports recognised by the combined services sport board for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The combined services sport board does not receive any public money and does not give grants in aid. The services themselves receive funds in the form of grants for sports equipment and for recreational travel. Information is not readily available on how this is apportioned between sports.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which sports are listed by the combined services sport board for the purpose of receiving grant aid.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no combined services sport board list of recognised games and sports for the purpose of receiving grant aid.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of recruits to the armed forces from each of the three ridings of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Cheshire for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not possible to provide the information in the precise form requested.

  For the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force it is not possible to give figures for the number of recruits who originated from a particular area without checking each recruit's personal file. However, the following figures show the number of non-commissioned recruits enlisted at individual careers information offices in the counties that now make up the three ridings of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Cheshire, following the Local Government Act, 1972. It is possible though that some recruits did not live in the area from where they were recruited.

  Careers information office

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  North, South and West

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  Barnsley

  24

  16

  1—

  Hull

  103

  138

  127

  Leeds

  149

  143

  133

  Sheffield

  143

  127

  132

  York

  45

  45

  37

  Lancashire/Greater Manchester/Merseyside

  Blackburn

  88

  91

  90

  Liverpool

  184

  217

  281

  Manchester

  82

  134

  152

  Preston

  54

  55

  70

  St. Helens

  102

  102

  155

  Cumbria Carlisle

  80

  74

  64

  Royal Air Force

  North, South and West Yorkshire Bradford

  58

  38

  68

  112

  Careers information office

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Huddersfield

  37

  56

  62

  Leeds

  159

  127

  147

  Sheffield

  117

  116

  192

  York

  55

  65

  79

  Lancashire/Greater Manchester/Merseyside

  Blackpool

  43

  68

  76

  Liverpool

  134

  183

  283

  Manchester

  263

  252

  347

  Oldham

  56

  87

  96

  Preston

  97

  135

  148

  St. Helens

  87

  69

  91

  Cumbria Carlisle

  43

  61

  43

  Note: There are no RN or RAF CIOs in Cheshire (although there are CIOs in neighbouring counties).

  1 Now closed.

  It is not possible to give comparable figures for officer applicants to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, as these are handled centrally.

  The following figures for the Army include officers and soldiers.

  County

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  North Yorkshire

  283

  293

  312

  South Yorkshire

  450

  592

  618

  West Yorkshire

  596

  759

  791

  Lancashire

  882

  944

  525

  Greater Manchester

  1,107

  964

  812

  Merseyside

  710

  708

  728

  Cumbria

  190

  212

  477

  Cheshire

  483

  533

  550

  Low Flying
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give details of the type of aircraft involved in a low-flying air defence exercise which flew over Mintlaw academy in the Banff and Buchan parliamentary constituency at 9.42 am, 9.52 am and 9.54 am on Thursday 26 April;

  (2) if he will give details of the starting point and destination of the exercise in which the aircraft which flew over Mintlaw academy, in the Banff and Buchan constituency, on Thursday 26 April were involved and the aircraft involved.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is likely that the aircraft concerned were F-16 aircraft of the Royal Danish Air Force participating in exercise Elder Forest 90 which were tasked to carry out simulated attacks against the RAF radar station at Buchan and continue to Tain range in Ross-shire.

  Equipment Co-operation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions were reached at the recent meeting between the United Kingdom and France on defence equipment co-operation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend reviewed a wide range of defence equipment co-operation issues with Mr. Chevenement on 4 May. A copy of the statement issued after the meeting has been placed in the House Library.

  Naval Frigates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the decision by France and the United Kingdom to study the possibility of working together on naval frigate programmes.

  Mr. Neubert
  The primary role of the Royal Navy's planned replacement for the Type 42 Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) destroyers at the turn of the century will be to deploy a naval support defence missile system (SDMS). We have already announced our intention of joining, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, the Franco/Italian family of anti-air missile systems (FAMS) programme to meet the SDMS requirement and these negotiations are underway. We are also holding a series of meetings at official level with our French colleagues to identify the elements of our two ship programmes where further collaboration appears to offer mutual advantage. It is too early to say what the outcome will be.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of replacing Tritium in nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  For security reasons, and in accordance with the practice of successive Governments, details and costs of procurement of special nuclear materials cannot be disclosed.

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  October

  7

  3

  8

  3

  7

  13

  November

  15

  7

  10

  2

  6

  6

  December

  4

  7

  5

  4

  5

  4

  January

  5

  12

  2

  13

  7

  6

  February

  16

  8

  16

  11

  17

  8

  March

  8

  12

  9

  20

  11

  15

  April

  11

  6

  11

  16

  16

  14

  Total

  66

  55

  61

  69

  69

  66

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the results of his review of search and rescue operations at RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There has been no such review.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to carry out any review of the terms and conditions applied to dependent locally entered civilians in Cyprus.

  Mr. Neubert
  The pay and conditions of service of dependant locally entered civilians (LECs) in Cyprus, are the subject of regular reviews. Revised pay and conditions awards were implemented for this group of staff in early 1989, following the settlement of awards for MOD's Cypriot work force and teachers employed by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. These reviews have as the basis local "good employer practice" and pay trends in the Cypriot economy.

  RAF Leuchars
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence1 if he is continuing to review search and rescue operations at RAF Leuchars;

  (2) if he has any proposals for the resumption of 24-hour flying for search and rescue operations at RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 21 February 1990 at column 820.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft are deployed and how many RAF personnel, and of what ranks, are engaged in search and rescue operations at RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 14 July 1988 at col.321. There are currently two Wessex aircraft at RAF Leuchars available for search and rescue duties.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by month the number of search and rescue missions flown from RAF Leuchars since 24-hour flying was discontinued and the number flown in the equivalent months in each of the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The search and rescue service at RAF Leuchars was reduced to daylight hours only from 1 October 1989. The figures therefore cover search and rescue missions flown from RAF Leuchars from 1 October to 30 April in each of the years from 1984–85 to 1989–90 inclusive.

  I can confirm that these arrangements will continue to apply in the future; however, I cannot be specific as to the particular timing of pay and conditions reviews or the resulting awards.

  Germany
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the special review of the terms and conditions applied to dependent locally entered civilians in Germany has been completed; and whether there are any implications for locally entered teachers.

  Mr. Neubert
  The special review of the terms and conditions of dependent locally entered civilians has been completed. As a result, a number of changes are to be implemented and those affecting the majority of dependant employees will be announced in May.

  Locally entered teachers (LETs) will receive a pay increase with effect from 11 May 1990, as will all dependant employees. The review highlighted areas in which improvements to LET conditions could be made

  115
  and work is in hand to define new procedures and introduce them at the earliest opportunity. They will be aimed at providing greater security of employment and improving the status of LETs.

  Royal Artillery Museum
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his Department's current plans for the provision of a permanent site for the Royal Artillery museum.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Artillery museum is already accommodated in Ministry of Defence property at Woolwich and the Department has no plans to change these arrangements.

  Royal Artillery, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the future of the Royal Artillery garrison at Woolwich; and with what result.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  One disposal which has been in hand for some time is that of Connaught barracks, Woolwich, which is due for completion of contract in July this year. No further major disposals are envisaged at present.

  National Sports Centre, Cardiff
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations were made into the standard of maintenance of the shooting range at the national sports centre, Cardiff, prior to the incident of a bullet passing through the backstop wall in July 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Army does not conduct safety inspections at civilian maintained ranges unless specifically requested to do so by the owners. Prior to the incident in July last year, no such request had been received as regards this particular range since its certification in July 1972.

  Departmental Housing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence houses are vacant in(a) Cardiff and (b) South Glamorgan; and what proportion this is of the total Ministry of Defence housing stock in (a) the city and (b) the county.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 March 1990, the latest date for which complete figures are available, there were three vacant Ministry of Defence housing properties in Cardiff, amounting to 6·5 per cent. of the total stock; the figures for south Glamorgan as a whole (including Cardiff) are 171 and 19·5 per cent. respectively. The majority of these vacant properties are either undergoing or awaiting major modernisation work, while the remainder have all been allotted to service families who will be moving in shortly.

  Training
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) regular, (b) territorial and (c) cadet forces were training in each United Kingdom land force district in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend.

  Ranges (Manorbier and Penally)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the annual usage of (i) Manorbier range, Pembrokeshire and (ii) Penally range, Pembrokeshire including the types of unit using each range, the numbers, frequency and the main uses for which the ranges are used.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Manorbier range is used mainly by Royal Artillery units for practice firings of low-level air defence weapons including Javeline and Blowpipe. In 1989, regular and Territorial Army use totalled 11,067 and 11,294 man training days respectively.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) regular Army personnel and (b) civilian personnel are employed (i) full time and (ii) part time at Manorbier and Penally ranges in Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Two regular Army and eight civilian personnel are employed full time at Manorbier ranges and eight civilian personnel are employed at Penally. No part-time staff are employed at either range.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of (i) Manorbier range, Pembrokeshire and (ii) Penally range, Pembrokeshire; and if he will break down the annual costs into their main components.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Manpower costs alone total £98,000 for Manorbier and £69,225 for Penally. Further detail is not readily available in the form requested.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many beds are available at (i) Manorbier range, Pembrokeshire and (ii) Penally range, Pembrokeshire for visiting troops.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is accommodation for 600 visiting troops at Penally range; there are no beds available for visiting troops at Manorbier range.

  Personal Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of (i) regular Army personnel, (ii) territorial army personnel and (iii) civilian personnel in(a) each United Kingdom land forces district and (b) each United Kingdom land forces district headquarters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Approximate numbers are:
  117

  Headquarters

  Whole district

  Regular

  TA

  Civilian

  Regular

  TA

  Civilian

  Scotland

  70

  30

  70

  2,800

  9,800

  2,100

  South East

  100

  40

  70

  26,300

  10,100

  9,900

  North East

  80

  30

  50

  10,600

  12,300

  3,400

  East

  60

  40

  100

  7,700

  8,000

  2,900

  London

  140

  20

  120

  9,200

  11,100

  2,100

  South West

  80

  30

  120

  16,500

  4,700

  5,600

  Wales

  30

  20

  90

  1,200

  4,900

  2,200

  Western

  50

  20

  50

  4,700

  5,800

  4,100

  North West

  60

  30

  90

  1,600

  6,900

  1,300

  Total

  670

  260

  760

  80,600

  73,600

  33,600

  Landforce Districts
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of each United Kingdom landforce district headquarters; and if he will break down the costs into their main components.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the rank of the senior officer in each United Kingdom landforces district.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Except for Scotland, Northern Ireland and South-East district which are each commanded by a lieutenant-general, Army districts in the United Kingdom are commanded by officers of major-general rank.

  Army Recruits
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the percentage and number of entrants to the regular army recruited in each United Kingdom landforce district in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is not available in the precise format requested. The table gives details of entrants to the regular Army (excluding officers), by district, for the last four financial years.

  Enlistments to the Army by United Kingdom landforce districtfinancial years 1986–87 to 1989–90 for servicemen (including YoungSoldiers and Juniors) and servicewomen (WRAC and QARANC)

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage

  1986–87

  North East

  2,695

  212

  2,907

  16·3

  Western

  1,311

  125

  1,436

  8·1

  Eastern

  2,314

  137

  2,451

  13–8

  South East

  1,934

  104

  2,038

  11·4

  London

  814

  31

  845

  4·7

  South West

  1,459

  102

  1,561

  8·8

  North West

  2,981

  99

  3,080

  17·3

  Scotland

  1,881

  124

  2,005

  11·3

  Wales

  1,031

  77

  1,108

  6·2

  Northern Ireland

  374

  10

  384

  2·2

  Total

  16,794

  1,021

  17,815

  100·0

  1987–88

  North East

  3,156

  201

  3,357

  17·4

  Western

  1,457

  98

  1,555

  8·0

  Eastern

  2,594

  146

  2,740

  14·2

  South East

  1,868

  111

  1,979

  10·2

  London

  807

  37

  844

  4·4

  South West

  1,543

  80

  1,623

  8·4

  118

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percent age

  North West

  3,299

  114

  3,413

  17·7

  Scotland

  1,995

  103

  2,098

  10·9

  Wales

  1,125

  84

  1,209

  6·3

  Northern Ireland

  491

  14

  505

  2·6

  Total

  18,335

  988

  19,323

  100·0

  1988–89

  North East

  3,369

  253

  3,622

  18·5

  Western

  1,659

  125

  1,784

  9·1

  Eastern

  2,396

  193

  2,589

  13·2

  South East

  1,699

  125

  1,824

  9·3

  London

  720

  27

  747

  3·8

  South West

  1,525

  104

  1,629

  8·3

  North West

  3,267

  157

  3,424

  17·5

  Scotland

  2,084

  150

  2,234

  11·4

  Wales

  1,125

  101

  1,226

  6·3

  Northern Ireland

  448

  35

  483

  2·5

  Total

  18,292

  1,270

  19,562

  100·0

  1989–90

  North East

  3,593

  339

  3,932

  19·8

  Western

  1,766

  157

  1,923

  9·7

  Eastern

  2,438

  179

  2,617

  13·1

  South East

  1,586

  132

  1,718

  8·6

  London

  762

  40

  802

  4·0

  South West

  1,492

  124

  1,616

  8·1

  North West

  3,031

  195

  3,226

  16·2

  Scotland

  2,079

  168

  2,247

  11·3

  Wales

  1,310

  123

  1,433

  7·2

  Northern Ireland

  366

  23

  389

  2·0

  Total

  18,423

  1,480

  19,903

  100·0

  Army Units, Wales
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many regular army units are permanently stationed in Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Though many units visit Wales to train and significant numbers of personnel are employed on numerous duties such as managing training establishments and ranges, there are no formed units permanently stationed there.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions since 1960 his Department has initiated an application under the planning laws and subsequently claimed Crown immunity to overide an adverse planning decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None. My Department follows the planning procedures as laid down in the appropriate DOE,
  119
  Scottish Office and Welsh Office circulars. Where the local planning authority concerned raises objections to an application for development by my Department, it would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to decide whether or not to refer that proposal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Wales, as appropriate.

  Army Costs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the relative annual costs of(a) a regular Army private based in the United Kingdom and (b) a Territorial army private.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Relative full annual costs of a regular Army private based in the United Kingdom and a Territorial Army private are as follows:

  £ per annum

  (a) Regular Army private

  17,870

  (b) TA private

  1,471

  The cost of a regular private is based on a full year of 365 days whereas the annual cost of a TA private is based on an average number of 20 training days each year.

  Radar Installations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to site additional radar installations in west Wales in addition to the over the horizon radar installation proposed for the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are no current plans for additional radar sites in west Wales, beyond the planned two-year trial of an over the horizon radar at St. David's airfield.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any evidence as to whether the operation of over the horizon radar installation proposed for the site of the former St. David's airfield could cause cancer or AIDS to people living in the near vicinity.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Faslane
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations, guidelines or criteria have been used to assess the safety of the proposed shiplift facility at Faslane; and in what circumstances he envisages the shiplift being used during the trials of the Trident submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The shiplift at the Clyde submarine base, Faslane is being designed and built to stringent nuclear safety standards, comparable with those in the civil nuclear power industry. The facility will not be approved for use until its safety has been independently assessed. There is no planned usage of the shiplift during submarines' sea trials, but should a defect occur which requires a submarine to be docked, then the shiplift would be one possible option to meet this contingency.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he anticipates that the construction of the shiplift at Faslane will be completed(a) on schedule and (b) without cost increases.
  120
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The shiplift at the Clyde submarine base, Faslane is expected to be ready within the timescale required for Trident and other submarine programmes. It is not our policy to discuss estimated costs of individual projects but there has been some increase because of the need to meet stringent nuclear safety requirements.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any changes to the contract with Cementation Construction Ltd. for the construction of the shiplift at Faslane have been negotiated since the signing of the original contract.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The contractual arrangements with the main contractor for the shiplift are commercially confidential.

  Tanks
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of Defence what re-assessment has been made in the last 12 months of the number of tanks that will be required to replace the Chieftain tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 30 March 1990 at col.331.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to make a statement to the House announcing his decision regarding orders for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made earlier today.

  Ghurka (Community Charge)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the average community charge for Ghurka service personnel stationed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The average community charge for Ghurka personnel stationed at the four major locations in the United Kingdom is about £364 per annum.

  Chieftain Tank
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications have taken place between his Department and Vickers regarding the economic and industrial consequences of decisions regarding the replacement of the Chieftain tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Reserves
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will be increasing the role of reserves in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The role of the reserves is continually reviewed in the light of prevailing conditions, including international developments.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Lord Clinton-Davis
Stanley Clinton Clinton-Davis, Esquire, having been created Baron Clinton-Davis, of Hackney in the London Borough of Hackney, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Serota and the Lord Mishcon.

St. David's Airfield, Dyfed: Transmitter
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their plans to build a large transmitter on St. David's airfield in Dyfed can be reconciled with their environmental policies, given the Secretary of State for the Environment's statement on 13th December 1989 concerning the importance of national parks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, in his address to the Countryside Commission conference to mark the 40th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, on 13th December last year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment referred to the principles against which any proposal to locate a major development within a national park should be judged.
The announcement by my honourable friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, on 30th March that he had decided in principle to embark upon the trial of an over-the-horizon radar which would involve the construction of a transmitter at St. David's airfield in Dyfed was entirely consistent with this statement.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. According to my information, this installation will extend over a distance of about a mile. It will consist of numerous masts of about 120 feet in height, linked by wires. In the light of that information, does the noble Earl not agree that the installation will have a damaging and even a devastating impact on the landscape within the national park? Is he aware that at the proposed site the installation will be seen for many miles along the heritage coast footpath around St. David's Head, as well as inland?
Does the noble Earl not agree that his Answer is in contradiction to the policy of the Government concerning national parks? Can he say whether it has been shown that there is no possible alternative and that there is an overriding need for this site? I shall be very grateful if the noble Earl can reassure me on those points.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am happy to be able to say that I can reassure the noble Lord on those points. We are sensitive to the objections concerning national parks. We are committed to consulting very fully the local planning authority and the Countryside Commission over any significant development within a national park. St. David's airfield was selected as the location for the transmitter only after an exhaustive search for suitable sites. In all, some 160 sites were examined. Our proposals, which will be submitted to the local planning authority, will fully examine the need for appropriate landscaping to minimise the impact upon the environment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Government confirm that the installation is for the use of the United States armed forces and that the British Government are, naturally, contributing to the cost? Can the Minister please tell us how much the British contribution will be? What will happen if the Americans take the installation away, as it is a speciality of the installation that it is moveable from site to site?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, a memorandum of agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States to cover the joint trial was signed on 20th April this year. Broadly speaking, it provides for the United States to supply the equipment and remove it again if it is decided not to retain it after the trial; for the United Kingdom to provide and prepare the sites; and for the running costs to be shared. All information from the trial will be shared. The cost of the trial is estimated at about £15·5 million.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that it is always wise to wait for all the facts before reaching conclusions? However, will he accept from me, a former Member of Parliament for the area who used to live at St. David's, that local anxieties have been greatly magnified by the not very happy way in which the matter was handled initially, which included the sending of a letter to the wrong Member of Parliament? Perhaps I may say how welcome it therefore is that the Minister, Alan Clark, is now to address a public meeting at St. David's. I should like to ask that all information, including the medical information and accurate information about the size and shape of the facility, is made available so that those of us who are anxious about the matter can reach a judgment on fact and not on surmise.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. The facts, through the means of representation and consultation, will be made fully available. As he rightly said, my honourable friend the Minister for Defence Procurement will be visiting the site on Thursday and will do his very best to allay fears that may exist in the area, which, as my noble friend said, have been very much exaggerated by the local press.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in view of the signs of deétente all round, not least from the

1233
Eastern bloc and Russia, have the Government carried out any reassessment of the strategic need for the facility at this time and at this site? In view of the damaging impact on the environment and on tourism locally, will the noble Earl bear in mind that the militarisation of yet another area of Britain is directly contrary to the Government's environmental aspirations?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I say straight away to the noble Lord that the requirement to protect the United Kingdom from air attack will continue for the foreseeable future. Over-the-horizon radar can enhance the effectiveness of meeting that requirement. The problem, if any, that may be caused for tourism will be addressed in the environmental impact assessment when that is made.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the Government accept that the old county of Pembrokeshire has had a long and close association with the Ministry of Defence and is as faithful to the concept of the defence of the country as any Minister in this House or in another place? Will they further accept that the concerns expressed by the local people—perhaps out of lack of knowledge—have not necessarily been magnified by the local press? Indeed, as a regular reader of it over the past 50 years, I happen to believe that the local press has truly reflected concerns in the district. Those concerns may be met by the Minister's visit—certainly his visit is welcome—but the House would be ill advised to assume that the people of Pembrokeshire are concerned for no reason.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hasten to reassure the noble Lord that in no way do we minimise the possible impact of the facility in that location. Therefore everything possible is being done to make the local inhabitants fully aware of what will happen. There will be a formal presentation by the United Kingdom and the United States in the locality towards the end of this year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that this is one of the most historic and revered areas in Wales and indeed in the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that the wishes and views of the local inhabitants must be treated with great respect? What is the reaction of Dyfed County Council, the local district council and the Council for National Parks to the proposal?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that there is natural apprehension in the area about the proposal. But as I have also said, things will become clearer in the light of the new consultation which is about to take place.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, in view of the comments from those who know the area best, will we have an opportunity to discuss the matter or will the Minister take the decision in the light of the information he will gather? Will we have a further chance to discuss the matter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not completely certain how to answer the noble Viscount's question, but it probably could be done through the usual channels.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as the locality is likely to lose some of the benefits of toursim as a result of this development, what investigations have been made about the effect on employment during and after the building of the installation? Will there be any permanent jobs to comfort the local residents? Will the installation be built by local labour or will people be brought in from outside?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the building of the installation will be put out to tender. The other points raised by the noble Baroness will be fully considered in the environmental impact assessment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, since, as I understand it, no planning permission is required before this unsightly transmitter is erected, is there any prospect of some independent means being used to balance the interests of national defence against the disfigurement of St. David's Head?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that although the Crown is formally exempt from planning legislation it is our practice to follow the normal planning consultation procedure as laid down, in this case by the Welsh Office.

Civil Defence: Geneva Conventions
2.58 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to ratify Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 12th August 1949, Chapter VI of which deals with civil defence.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have been considering carefully the legal, political and military implication of both Protocols I and II additional to the Geneva Conventions. This has involved a detailed and continuing process of consultation with our allies in NATO. Final decisions will be made when that process of consultation is complete.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he realise that the United Kingdom cannot play its full part in the international decade for disasters until the first protocol has been ratified? The Foreign Office and the Home Office between them have had 12 years in which to prepare for this. When is it likely to be done?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is likely to be done when the process of consultation is complete. This has taken longer than expected but much progress has been made in the past year. The protocols are long and legally complex. The United Kingdom must be clear on the obligations it would undertake before making a decision. I can tell my noble friend that in regard to the civil defence

1235
implications—there is a good deal more in this than civil defence—at present we have no plans to make reservations on Chapter VI.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what are the current levels of annual spending on civil defence in the United Kingdom and how they compare with comparable spending in NATO as a whole?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords; I cannot answer that question without notice. I think that it is a little distant from the Question which appears on the Order Paper. However, I shall try to find the necessary information and inform the noble Lord accordingly.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in this context, under the definition given in the protocol, civil defence also includes natural disasters?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords; I am aware of that fact. However, it applies only to civil defence in times of war.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the light of recent events in Eastern Europe can the noble Lord say whether our NATO allies have reduced their spending on civil defence?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. That question is also a long way from the one which appears on the Order Paper which asks whether we shall ratify this particular protocol. I am afraid that I do not have the answer.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is 12 years the normal time for consultation? Is it par for the course?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it depends upon what we are consulting.

Manchester Prison Violence: Police Costs
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost so far of the Greater Manchester police force's involvement in the Strangeways prison riot.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it is not yet possible to put a figure on the full additional cost to the police of the disturbances at Strangeways prison. However, it is estimated that up to £500,000 was expended in the first 10 days in containing the prison perimeter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is it not a fact that if the cost of those 10 days were to be added to the total expenditure, it would amount to a significant sum of money? Will he also agree that if the expenses of the fire service were also included it
1236
would amount to a substantial sum of money which the ratepayers, or community charge payers, of Greater Manchester will have to pay next year? Bearing that fact in mind, will the Minister make an approach to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department suggesting that his department should carry the full cost for this particular exercise? In my opinion this should not be the responsibility of the ratepayers of Greater Manchester.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. If one carries out a simple mathematical calculation of the amount which was spent during the first 10 days together with the amount spent over the total number of days, one will arrive at a certain figure. However, it would not necessarily be an accurate one because the police commitment altered from day to day.
I am aware of the noble Lord's concern about the charge payers of Greater Manchester, but I should tell him that the criteria for special assistance is applicable only where the expenditure is exceptional and unforeseen and on such a scale as to threaten the efficiency of the force. He suggested that I make approaches to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State regarding the cost. I can tell him that the Greater Manchester Police Authority has asked for a meeting with Ministers. Of course we shall listen to what it has to say.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that the expenditure was indeed exceptional and unforeseen and that it was due in part to national conditions within the prison service? Will he also agree that it would be quite unjust for the charge payers of Greater Manchester to have to incur the whole burden?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that what took place was exceptional and unforeseen. However, it was not necessarily on such a scale as to threaten the efficiency of the force. I should remind the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that, although there may be national conditions, the Government pay a 51 per cent. grant towards the running of the police force. They also contribute considerably towards the local authority's expenditure on policing by way of the block grant.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, in deciding whether to intervene earlier, did the Government take into account, first, the enormous cost of repairing the prison; and, secondly, the fact that we might be, as we are effectively, without one prison when there is an extreme shortage of prison space?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when the decisions were made as to whether to intervene they were taken on the basis of operational advice provided by the deputy director general of the prison service. Clearly, there was a case on the second day when 300 to 400 prison officers were present who could have been deployed against nearly 200 fresh and violent prisoners. It was considered inappropriate to intervene on that basis because of the risk of possible danger to life and fatalities.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that decisions in regard to this disaster which took place at Strangeways prison were taken at a national level? If such decisions are taken at that level and not at local level, is not the resulting expenditure a national matter? Does the noble Earl also recall that on April 26th his right honourable friend said in another place that he had in fact agreed to set up a meeting with the people of Manchester in order to hear their representations? Can he tell the House whether that meeting has been fixed and, if so, for what date?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, any outbreak such as the one we have witnessed is a national as well as a local matter. My right honourable friend takes advice and acts upon it. On this occasion he also took advice. As I explained, the Greater Manchester Police Authority has asked for a meeting with Ministers and we intend to listen to what it has to say. I should remind the noble Lord that, although it may be a national matter, central government provide a very great deal towards the costs of police authorities in order to take account of the national element of their policing responsibilities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the local authorities selected for poll tax capping by Mr. Patten is situated in the Greater Manchester area; namely, Rochdale? Is he also aware that if the costs involved amount to a substantial amount of money and if that has to be met by local ratepayers, it may well result in some of the other nine authorities coming within the criteria for poll tax capping? If the Government or Mr. Patten were to do that next year, does he not consider that that would be grossly unfair?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the way in which authorities are charge-capped is a separate issue, although I agree that it may have a bearing on the matter. I can only repeat that the Government, through central funds, provide a very great deal towards the cost of policing. They pay additional sums only where there is exceptional and unforeseen expenditure on such a scale as to threaten the efficiency of the force. The only recent occasion on which that has happened was in relation to the Hillsborough disaster.

Bail Hostels: Statistics
3.7 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many places are now available in bail hostels in England and Wales, and whether they are fully used.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are at present 20 approved bail hostels with 344 places. In addition, there are 82 approved probation/bail hostels providing 1,679 places, many of which are available to those on bail. According to the latest information available, just over 85 per cent. of available places in bail-only hostels were occupied compared with 82 per cent. of places in all approved hostels.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, is special provision for individuals charged with offences involving drugs or alcohol widely available? My second question concerns bail hostels proper. I am not an enthusiast for privatisation in law and order in general. However, is there not a case for handing over management of these hostels to the private sector? I bear in mind that the first experimental bail hostel was financed by a private individual who happened to be a friend of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State of the day and that it was run successfully by a body which had nothing to do with government; namely, the Salvation Army.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, regarding the question on drugs and alcohol, there are issues which remain to be decided following the consultation paper which we issued on 13th February. We expect to be able to make an announcement on the matter within the next few months. We shall take into account the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, about the privatisation of bail hostels. However, we consider that such hostels are best run as they are at present by the probation service.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, are there plans to open hostels for young men on remand aged 16 to 18 so that they do not have to go to prison and mix with older prisoners?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the probation service has developed bail information schemes over a number of areas. I cannot tell my noble friend whether there are separate hostels for young offenders but I shall see whether I can find the information and let her know.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, is the Minister aware that in many cases hostel managers are refusing admission to bail hostels not merely to those with drug and alcohol problems but to those with mental problems? In the consideration which he says is being given to the matter is thought being given to setting aside special places in bail hostels for people with those problems?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, consideration is being given to that point. The noble Lord will be aware that we shall be spending over £36 million up to 1993 on providing 1,000 new places. How those places will be allocated will have to be decided.

Business
3.11 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill will be taken.

Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Bill
Brought from the Commons on Friday last; read a first time, and to be printed.
Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 108AD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 108AE:
Before Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
("Funding of community care
—(1) The Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards the expenses of local authorities incurred in connection with the exercise of their community care functions.
(2) Grants made in accordance with subsection (1) above shall be used by local authorities solely for the provision of community care for purposes described in plans drawn up in accordance with section 44 below.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not later than 30th November in the year preceding any financial year lay before Parliament his estimate of the total amount of grant likely to be disbursed under this section in respect of that financial year, together with a statement of the sums requested by local authorities and the formula for distribution between such authorities, and shall at that time publish forecasts for the following two financial years.").
The noble Lord said: We have now reached the provisions in the Bill relating to community care. The purpose of the amendment is to propose the insertion of a new clause to ensure that the resources made available for that purpose through the revenue support grant are clearly identified and that the grants are used solely for providing community care services. I speak with some diffidence about provisions relating to money in a Bill which has already passed through another place but the issues involved are important and are causing widespread anxiety.
Once upon a time, when I was in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as it then was, I thought that I had some dim understanding of local government finance. I make no such claim now, but without an amendment such as this there is a risk
1240
that the admirable ambitions set out in the Bill will go sadly wrong. The Government took long enough in all conscience, as the Committee will recall, before they could bring themselves to accept Sir Roy Griffiths' recommendation that community care responsibilities should be entrusted to local authorities. They then stopped short of accepting his accompanying recommendation that there should be specific grants which would in part fund the cost of community care.
The Government are not against specific grants in principle. The Bill indeed provides for such a grant in the context of mental illness, although alas not, incomprehensibly, in respect of mental handicap. The Government said in the White Paper, briefly and without detailed argument, that they had come to the conclusion that a large-scale specific grant was not necessary to secure community care objectives. I wonder.
The Government are committed to transferring to local authorities that part of the social security budget already being used to pay for places in private and voluntary homes. No doubt we shall soon be told what the amount involved will come to. For the rest, as I understand it, the idea is to allocate, through the revenue support grant, an amount based on standard spending assessments, with any necessary extra money having to come from the proceeds of the local poll tax. That mechanism for distributing a nationally determined amount of grant for the personal social services unfortunately falls a little way short of perfection. For one thing, although the allocation for the present year has, I believe, been increased more than for other blocks of expenditure, it is represented to me from all quarters that there is a sizeable gap between the allocation and the real needs.
There is, I fear, a lack of confidence that there will be anything like enough cash to fill the gap and to go on to start providing for the additional cost of the new responsibilities. The allocation is not tailored to the particular needs of individual authorities, which can vary quite a lot. There is no guarantee that the allocation will be devoted wholly to community care.
I believe that so far local authorities have managed pretty well to protect social services spending. Many of them, I am sure, will continue to do so; but there can be no certainty that that policy will continue with all local authorities in the new era of local government finance which we are now approaching.
With the prospect of the Government matching their zeal to promote the principle of local government accountability with their enthusiasm for capping those authorities which they regard as excessively extravagant, it looks as though we may be in for two somewhat undesirable developments. The first is a period of uncertainty about future planning about commitments, given that the criteria for capping are revealed only when the authority has set its poll tax. The second is the prospect of a scramble with other claimants in the queue for an allocation from a local authority's limited resources. Putting it crudely, it is feared that there is not likely to be enough money and that there is no guarantee that what is allocated for community care will

1241
necessarily and invariably become available for that purpose.
I have been deluged with representations in support of what the amendment suggests. There is undoubtedly much anxiety. It is not a party political matter. I do not know what assurances the Government can give about there being enough money, not for anything dramatic—not for a Big Bang overnight—but for a worthwhile start on the implementation of these new proposals.
The amendment would at least oblige the Government to state how much money is to be made available through the revenue support grant. It would enable Parliament to debate each year, if need be, the level and adequacy of central funding. It would also ensure that the money intended for society's most vulnerable people would reach its destination. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: From these Benches we are very pleased indeed to support the amendment. It intends that earmarked or ring-fenced central funding should provide some specific estimate within the standard spending assessment for community care, as the noble Lord has said, to allow for parliamentary scrutiny and also to enable a comparison of resources with demographic and community needs.
The only money committed to community care is that part of the social security budget already used to pay for care in private and voluntary homes. I took the trouble to approach the director of social services in my home county of Wiltshire. I asked him for his views on the proposals on community care. I quote briefly from his letter:
"There will, undoubtedly, be a transfer of resources from the Social Security budget to cover the costs of those people who formerly were admitted to residential care and financed through public funds. The costs of implementing community care, however, will be substantially greater than the funds which may be transferred from Social Security. The reasons are: first, there is a shortfall between the level of benefits provided by Social Security and the cost of the fees. In Wiltshire the shortfall is approximately £30 per week for a residential care home, but substantially more for a nursing home. There will be a statutory assessment of all clients which is not provided for at the present time".
We are all aware of the pressures on community care arising from the ageing of the population and the problems of the disabled elderly in particular. The OPCS survey on disability showed that two-thirds—4-2 million out of 6-5 million—of those identified as disabled were over 65.
There is the other effect of the ageing of the population—the growing lack of carers. Governments of all complexions have shamelessly exploited carers for years. The demand for domiciliary services has increased, while the relative supply has fallen. It is estimated that there will be a 20 per cent. increase in severely disabled elderly people between 1986 and the year 2000, from 750,000 to 900,000.
It seems, from reading the White Paper, that the Government feel that market pressures may provide part of the answer. We feel that it is certainly not the answer to apply these to community care. The Griffiths Report specifically called for earmarked or
1242
ring-fenced funding for community care. Rejection of the central proposal of the Griffiths Report effectively torpedoes the main recommendation of Griffiths that local authorities should take the lead in the planning and organisation of community care.
If there is no ring fencing, how do the Government propose to ensure that the community care budget is not raided for other purposes? I emphasise that nobody has asked for 100 per cent. central funding, but there must be a specified proportion of central funding that is earmarked for community care. There is the existing gap between funding and demand. In 1988-89, the local authorities planned to spend £190 million more on personal social services than the total government allocation for 1991. There are substantial unmet needs to be catered for before any expansion in services can take place.
The Association of Directors of Social Services, in conjunction with BBC Radio, conducted a national survey of local authority social services departments. It showed that 75 per cent. of local authorities believe that they will have insufficient resources to operate community care under the legislation in 1991. I cannot do better than quote the president of the ADSS, Mr. John Rea Price, who said:
"This is a worrying picture. Many authorities say they are reducing their existing budget in order to scrape together sufficient cash to fund community care. So, without adequate central government assistance, next year's community care will be paid for by cuts in this year's community care: increased home help charges, the transfer of homes to the independent sector and reduced grants for sheltered housing and other community developments".
In all this there is the over-arching problem of the poll tax. It is fundamental to the practice of the poll tax that all expenditure which is not met by central grants, governments grants and the unified business rate must come from the poll tax. There will be tremendous pressure on local authorities to keep the level of poll tax down. As we saw last week, the Government are prepared and ready to make the maximum political capital out of the apparent high-spending authorities. Indeed, it is a political conjunction which almost encourages central government to underfund.
In these circumstances, does anyone really believe that the community care budget will receive the priority it needs if the legislation is to work properly after next April without the protection of ring fencing? The roles of assessor, inspector, the gatekeeper of finances, the purchaser or provider of services will extend the resources of social service departments to their limits. In reality, considerable extra funding and staffing will be required.
We know that the Government are not oppopsed to the principle of ring fencing. We have an example elsewhere in the Bill with grants for mental illness. There was an interesting example of ring fencing in the Budget. The Government proposed that the levy on football pools should be reduced and the amount that was thus saved should be a matter of agreement between the Treasury and the football authorities, but to ring fence it, to spend it on the improvement of football grounds. That seems to me to be an extremely good example of the hypothecation of taxation, which I understand is the Treasury's cardinal sin, and the ring fencing of expenditure. We

1243
hope that the Government will not say that they are quite prepared to ring fence the funding of football ground improvements but not to ring fence community care.
For all those reasons it is essential that the central funding of community care is ring fenced and protected. We hope that the Government will see the force of these arguments and accept the amendment.
Lord Hunter of Newington: During the discussion on the part of the Bill dealing with the health service, many anxieties were expressed. On one or two occasions the Government narrowly defeated amendments based on these anxieties. The vote was sufficiently close to convey the real concern felt by doctors and others.
What has emerged was clearly expressed when the Secretary of State talked to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It was that there might be a rather modest start in certain areas, particularly in relation to contracts. But the Govenment were committed to evolution and a sensitive examination of results, particularly in relation to the first NHS contracts and funded general practices. This chink of light, taken with the awareness of the need for a director of research and development, begins to create the climate of evolution and change in a complex situation.
We have now come to community care and the same concerns will be expressed. There is no machinery at present to carry out the objectives and for that reason the amendment has been put down. The wording may not be right but we hope to hear in the Minister's reply a firm basis here also for evolution. Much is at stake, not least the Government's capacity to work constructively with local government.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment, having been a chief officer in local government and director of social services. I do so for three reasons. First, the expectations of the public on community care have been so raised that if community care is introduced slowly and is set back because of lack of money we shall lose the confidence of the public. Secondly, my noble friend Lady Cox has said for a long time that a number of people in the nursing profession disapprove of social services departments carrying out this work. If it is not properly carried out to start with, people will lose confidence in the whole concept of community care.
Thirdly, when I was a chief officer, I had to prepare my estimates round about September for the following year. If local authorities, and social services departments in particular, do not know exactly how much money they will receive, it will be difficult for them to prepare their estimates. On two occasions when I worked as a director of social services I prepared my estimates, but then some other need arose in the city council and the workload of my department had to be cut back. Unless money is specifically allocated to community care, that process will inevitably occur in some areas. I therefore support the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Many groups which support the notion that there should be earmarked funding or ring fencing of the funding for community care in local authorities do so because they believe it will bring more money to community care. That is their reason for supporting the measure. It is extremely unfortunate that we seem to have arrived at a situation where in addition to those people with that understanding, politicians have been lining up somewhat on party lines. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated that he was speaking for the Benches behind him. It is unfortunate that that has happened because the reality of the situation is that the people who are most vulnerable and who need the money for this purpose are likely to get less rather than more. That worries me. I am speaking not as someone who is a natural supporter of this Government—however, I am such a supporter—but as someone who has spent a long time in local government. I hope that other Members of the Committee sitting opposite who have even greater experience of local government than I have will feel the same way. It is important to realise how the system works.
We are told that the reason for the amendment is that it is the only way to ensure that the money provided by the taxpayer goes to community care. The noble Lord who moved the amendment told us that if the additional functions involved in community care were simply added to local government funding, the money might go elsewhere. The objective of this Committee must be to pass legislation and to set up an arrangement which enables the money that is required to go to community care. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that on the whole local government has been able to protect its social work budget. An examination of local government funding would reveal that local government has done more than that. It has increased spending proportionately through the years. The reason for that is clear. People are concerned about community care. It is an emotive issue. It is as much as a councillor's life is worth not to spend adequately on social work.
I was chairman of an education committee for a number of years and I had the greatest possible difficulty preventing my budget being raided for social work. It was constantly raided for that purpose. I have just received a community charge booklet which tells me what my charge is and other details. The booklet provides an account of how money was spent last year, and how it is anticipated that it will be spent next year. My local authority has just been re-elected at the recent local elections. It increased its community charge last year by only 2.5 per cent. over the previous year. However, it has increased spending on social work by 17 per cent. That is characteristic of what happens through the years. Members of the Committee should not be afraid that the political process in local authorities will result in community care not receiving its fair share of the budget. I do not believe that is a danger.
Normally local authorities dislike earmarked funding and ring fencing very much indeed. When the Government introduced the technical and

1245
vocational education initiative, which was a ring-fenced mechanism for funding, local authorities and many Members of this Chamber fought it to the death. They nearly fought it to the death of TVEI. However, eventually that prevailed; and on the whole it has achieved a lot of good. However, that is typical of the dislike of ring fencing of funding which local authorities have always displayed. Local authorities quite rightly want freedom to do the best job that they can for their electorate. I would have defenced that concept to the hilt when I was a councillor. Local authorities want to get the best possible value for money, and they want to save money in one area in order to spend it in another. They want to vire between heads of spending; but they seldom vire away from social work. However, for some reason local authorities now want to abnegate that responsibility. They want to be told what sum they are to receive. They want to spend the money as best they can and, doubtless, complain if they do not have enough money.
Lord Carter: It is clearly understood that no one is asking central government to fund the community care budget 100 per cent. The amount that is allocated for that budget should be protected. However, local authorities are perfectly free to add to that if they wish to do so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I accept that. The noble Lord is. correct. The amendment makes that concept plain, too. However, if the amendment is adopted, the area of local government activity which should be the least politicised and which should be most carefully run on pragmatic grounds in a way that will help vulnerable people who would be frightened by politicians talking politics, will become much more highly politicised. If the amendment is adopted, the beginning of the cycle will occur when Parliament discusses the global sum that will be allocated to community care. There will be a tremendous political discussion about the awful things that will occur if the sum is not larger. That is inevitable. I suppose that those who support the amendment want that. The sum of money will be fixed. Then I suppose there will be a public discussion—perhaps that is what the amendment seeks—on the way the money is allocated between authorities. That formula will have to be public.
At the moment there is a discussion between authorities and the Minister concerned concerning the sum that will be allocated to each council. On the whole that is carried out privately, and the best possible arrangement is arrived at. I have attended many such discussions, as have other Members of the Committee. The year will proceed and we shall begin to hear of all the things that are going wrong in local authorities because there is not enough money. To some extent the situation will be the same as the situation that exists now in the health authorities. The health authority in Lothian, for example, is saying that it is £20 million short, and that it will have to close two of the best hospitals in the region. A 75 year-old friend of mine broke her hip last week. She arrived at a hospital and was told by the surgeon that she had a bad break. However,
1246
he told her he could not do anything about it for at least two days because the hospital had run out of money. That is what will happen in community care. I do not know whether or not the surgeon would have dealt with her hip, but that is what he said to somebody who was in a very vulnerable position. That is what will happen to vulnerable people who need the care of local authorities. They will be terrified by hearing discussions about how there will be no more home helps, how this home will close or that home will close because the Government have not provided enough money. Do Members of the Committee really want that? Do Members of the Committee who aspire to government want to be responsible for that? It seems to me to be the most extraordinary idea.
With ring-fencing there is no way in which the Government can decide on the right amount of money. How can they know what is the right sum to provide when local authorities have to draw up the specifications, make arrangements for homes which are cost-effective and try to reduce inefficiency in the private sector as well as in the public sector?
I disagreed with Griffiths. I believe that even the Bill as it stands presents many problems. I should have preferred the health boards to be responsible for the specification and local authorities to be agents. However, that is not what the Government have decided. Nevertheless, they have gone part of the way. I believe that Griffiths was quite wrong to suggest ring fencing. I am very surprised that people who understand the political process in local government and its relationship with central government believe that this is a responsible way to deal with the affairs of vulnerable people. I shall not support the amendment.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she would answer a question. She said that it was her view that many vulnerable people were likely to receive less assistance rather than more. I wonder why she feels that this is a party political issue. All the local authority associations, of whatever political complexion, are in favour of ring fencing. So far as I know from the massive amount of correspondence that I have had, almost all of the voluntary organisations, most of which are non-political, take the same view. They take that view because they share the concern which the noble Baroness expressed at the beginning of her speech. If the Government can make an assessment of the needs of the National Health Service why can they not also make an assessment of the needs of community care?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I said that vulnerable people would receive less rather than more assistance because when councillors allocate budgets a great deal of give and take occurs. A ring-fenced sum will already have been allocated to a particular department and the other departments will not give much. The political effect of ring fencing is always that less money from other sources is allocated to a department.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has experience of the process of sharing out money in

1247
local government, but I can assure him that that is what occurs. I am sure that other Members of the Committee will agree with me in their heart of hearts.
On the subject of politics, I made it clear that the groups which favour ring fencing do not do so on party political grounds. They believe that they will receive more money as a result. I said that I was sorry that a number of Members of the Committee seemed to be dealing in a political way with a subject which should be discussed by people who understand local government and who can help others understand the effect of this method of funding.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: Since my name is attached to the amendment I should like to say a few words to explain why it is supported by my noble friends and myself. However, first I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, mention the recommendation of Sir Roy Griffiths that the funds should be ring fenced. She begged to differ, but nevertheless that recommendation stands on the record.
That was not only Sir Roy's recommendation. It was also a recommendation contained in the 1984-85 report of the Select Committee on Social Services of another place, which is an all-party committee with a Conservative majority. Therefore Sir Roy Griffiths' voice was by no means the only one raised in favour of the proposal.
Turning to the question of the merits or demerits of ring fencing, the argument against it has already been undermined by the fact that the Government are contemplating ring fencing funds for expenditure on the mentally ill. Presumably that would mean that social services departments would be able to draw their funds for that purpose directly from central government. The mentally ill are a very important sector. There have been shortcomings in their treatment when they leave institutions, and some people have talked about them falling into a dark hole. There is just as much danger of other people such as the elderly or the disabled for whom there is also inadequate funding also falling into a dark hole. Therefore the Government cannot possibly argue against ring fencing in principle if they already contemplate it for one section of those treated under community care plans.
There are arguments against ring fencing, but in the initial phase it would be preferable to assist local authorities by making it clear precisely what funding will be available from central government for this purpose. That is specified in subsection (3) of the amendment. Therefore, although the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, suggested that local government might not be keen on ring fencing, I believe that there is considerable reason why central government should wish to ensure that the money which is provided for that purpose is spent for that purpose.
The Government have taken the plunge and awarded community care funds to local authorities. I believe that that is quite correct since there is nowhere else for the money to go. That is a decision
1248
on which we congratulate the Government. However, having taken that decision the Government cannot want the scheme to get off to a bad start. It is my submission to the Committee that if some arrangement along these lines, perhaps not necessarily in the words of the amendment, is not made the scheme is likely to get off to a very bad start.
Lord Butterfield: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to clarify one aspect of the very interesting amendment before the Committee. Each local authority will have to make a social diagnosis of the burden that it is likely to face. As I read the amendment, and having listened to the debate, we appear to be concentrating on the resources available to deal with an unknown problem. The amendment states that the Secretary of State shall:
"make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards the expenses of local authorities incurred in connection with the exercise of their community care functions".
Can the noble Lord assure me that local authorities would not be debarred from carrying out surveys to establish what problem they face in order to exercise their community care functions sensibly, wisely and fairly across the spectrum? I am not clear whether that would be prevented by the wording that is used.
That is the question of an ingénue, but it bothers me that under Clause 45 we shall debate the assessments of the needs of persons. Essentially I am trying to discover whether those moneys could be involved in the assessment of the needs of persons or whether they would simply involve community care facilities.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, addresses the question to me, but I am not the best person to answer it. Perhaps he should have addressed it to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is much more authoritative in these matters than me.
However, on reading subsection (1) of the new clause, my simple answer is that the exercise contemplated by the noble Lord would be covered because it would be part of the additional expenses that authorities will incur in making the scheme work. Obviously, they will have to make the assessment that the noble Lord suggests. They will also have to make individual assessments of all the people who are potential candidates for community care. Those are all additional requirements over and above the current responsibilities of social services departments. Therefore I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was entirely right in suggesting that they were already managing well. She did not take into account the additional expenses that will be incurred in that exercise.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, that all directors of social services in this country are at the moment doing a survey in their areas of the need for facilities and the needs of the people who would use those facilities.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: As my name is first to the amendment, perhaps I may add that the answer

1249
is certainly that local authorities will be able to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, there is no question of suggesting that the grants from central government should be 100 per cent. It will be for each local authority to decide what additional burden it should bear from its own resources and to take whatever steps it thinks appropriate to assess what that burden should be.
Baroness Young: We have all listened with great interest to the debate on this important issue of principle which has arisen. I fully recognise that the recommendation of Sir Roy Griffiths was that there should be some such proposal for finance. As we all know, having received many letters from them, the issue has been raised by voluntary organisations and others which would like to see something like that happen.
As someone who was in local government for 15 years, albeit some time ago, I am bound to say that I am somewhat surprised that local authorities should be as keen on the proposal as they appear to be. I went into local government in 1957 and, if my memory serves me aright, in those days there were specific grants. There was certainly one for education. The great objective of local government in those days was to get rid of specific grants and to have a general grant on the grounds that that made for much greater responsibility in local government. You had the money; it was up to the elected councillors to determine how it should be spent.
I am therefore surprised at the enthusiasm for the proposal that there appears to be in local government. I wonder whether local authorities have thought through what it would mean. It is difficult to argue on the one hand for specific grants and on the other for increased responsibility because the more specific the grants, the more the local authority becomes in effect an agency for central government.
Under Clause 47(7D) on page 53 of the Bill, there appears to be a proposal that there will be grants to local authorities in respect of social services for the mentally ill. I accept that, but I am not sure that I think it is a particularly good idea and I shall listen carefully to what is said on the matter. However, one feature which distinguishes it from the proposals before us is that it is a much narrower issue—like the TVEI; again, I understood the arguments which were put against that—than funding a large part of education by specific grant from the Government. I do not think that it is quite the same case.
As I understand it, we are discussing the duties under Clause 44 as they relate to the amendment. It would therefore be a specific grant. However, as I understand it, under subsection (3) of the new clause the Secretary of State would lay before Parliament his estimate of the total amount of grant likely to be disbursed and at the same time the local authorities would put to Parliament what they thought they required. It does not take much political understanding to realise that those two sums of money are most unlikely to be equal. In those circumstances, there would be every incentive for local authorities—naturally enough arguing that they were only doing what was in the best interests of
1250
their communities—to put up the largest amount of money that they thought they could reasonably get away with. It is unlikely that the Government would match it.
We therefore have an absolutely classic recipe for a major clash between the government, of whatever complexion, and local authorities, of whatever complexion. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy quite properly pointed out, we should then find throughout the year a constant series of examples of homes which should be open but are closed and of people who should be helped but are not being helped. If, at the end of the day, Parliament dealt with it, those people who most need to be helped would suffer the most.
That is not a good way of proceeding. I do not support the amendment. I hope that, when he answers the debate, my noble friend Lord Henley will perhaps give us some indication of where the money for the proposals will come from. I should like to know whether my understanding of the Bill is correct. If not, perhaps he will correct me.
It has already been indicated that there will be some transfer of resources from the social security department to local authorities for the new service. Obviously, there will be some money in the revenue support grant which will come each year. Because the voluntary sector is involved, there will presumably be some money which local authorities will have to see as a benefit to a local authority, at least via the voluntary sector. I am not clear whether there is any other source of income. I should have thought it unlikely. It will be helpful to know in as much detail as possible how my noble friend sees the money for the service being provided.
The other point that I should like to make is that, if one reads the amendment in relation to the next amendment that we shall debate, one sees that one enters into difficult discussions about what is called adequate money. "Adequate" is a difficult word to define in legislation. One person's idea of adequate is not another's. I fear that, if we support Amendment No. 108AE, we shall find ourselves drawn into the next amendment which, as far as I can see, is almost a recipe for asking for a blank cheque. That will not help social services departments, nor will it in the end help those most in need.
I hope that, having listened to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will feel able to withdraw the amendment. Despite all that has been said by the organisations, I do not believe that the proposal is in the best interests of those in greatest need. My noble friend Lady Carnegy set out the arguments well. If we go down this path, we shall put local government on a slippery slope.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I was glad to discover that the amendment had been tabled because it attempts to meet the widespread concern in social services departments throughout the country. Certainly, in the area from which I come I have heard the concern expressed again and again that only one part of the Griffiths Report is being implemented. Was it not Churchill who said,
"Give us the tools, and we will finish the job"?

1251
The job of community care is never finished.
As has been well said, to put major responsibilities on local authorities without adequate and guaranteed additional central government funding, while at the same time conducting a campaign to keep the poll tax as low as possible, seems to be a recipe for a bad start.
If the Minister is not to respond favourably to this amendment, I hope that at least he will give a very clear indication where the funds are to come from. It seems to me to be totally unjust to lay major responsibilities on local authorities without answering very clearly that kind of question.
I should like to comment on one or two points that came up in the debate. First, it has been said that the social services have been remarkably successful up and down the country in defending their budgets. My impression is that that is only partially true. What they have been able to do is immensely to their credit but my impression of morale within the social services at a time of acute financial constraint is not one that would encourage such optimism. I believe that it would be unfortunate for this Chamber to send out a complacent signal to indicate that all was well on that side.
With regard to arguments and conflict between central government and the local authorities, frankly the situation could not be much worse than it is at the present time. I shall not make any comment, at any rate at this moment, on where the responsibility for that lies. It seems to me that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, does not stand up. I cannot see that ring-fenced grants of this kind would improve the argument. When it comes to matters which impinge on local communities, such as the closure of old people's homes or whatever, inevitably the levels of both the poll tax and central government grant would be in question whether or not there are ring-fenced grants.
I hope very much that the Committee will look with favour on this amendment, that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will not withdraw it and that the Minister will be able to comment sympathetically on the ideas that lie behind it.
4 p.m.
Lord Rochester: It would be wrong for discussion on this important amendment to be concluded without some contribution, however brief, from these Benches. I have no experience of local government nor of health administration. Nevertheless, I have listened to the debate and, taking into account the difficulties raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in particular, I find myself wholly in sympathy with the principle of ring fencing for the funding of community care which underlies this amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I must begin with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, because I was not in my place to hear him move the amendment. However, I have sought to inform myself of the burden of the case that he made, which, I have to say, is not one that is unfamiliar. On a number of occasions one has heard it advanced by
1252
several particular interests who, as my noble friend Lady Young said, manage to convince themselves that somehow they would do better if they had an earmarked grant than if they had to argue their case with the other spending departments in local authorities.
During my time as Social Services Secretary—and in this I do not think I followed a policy that was any different from that of my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—I, like him, faced pressures from Treasury colleagues to seek to curb local government spending. It was not a Conservative Minister who coined the phrase "The party is over"; it was the late Anthony Crosland. I am sure that, in addressing our social services audiences—both, as it were, the lay and voluntary audiences, but in this context more importantly the chairmen of social services committees and their directors—we sought to argue that within an overall constrained budget we would encourage them to do the best that they could for their clients.
I say with some diffidence that we have to take issue with the right reverend Prelate who spoke a moment or two ago. If one studies the figures in the Government's White Paper which preceded this part of the Bill it seems that the expansion that has taken place in both residential and non-residential care (in the provision of home helps and a whole range of other services) is ample testimony to the point made by my noble friend Lady Young that social services committees and their departments have succeeded in obtaining a very fair share of the cake when it comes to dividing the resources of a local authority between the various claims upon it.
In a very interesting intervention the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seemed to say, "Well, what is the difficulty? The National Health Service has funds distributed from the centre. Why shouldn't the same apply to community care?" I am sorry; it was not the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who said that. I apologise to both noble Lords.
To follow the logic of that argument, does one want the community care service to become like the National Health Service with appointed committees? That would be the logic of it. It seems to me that one cannot transfer the whole or a large part of the cost of a substantial government department to the Exchequer—to the central government—without the central government having a great deal more say in how the money is disbursed and ultimately a say in how people should be appointed. It seems to me that the one follows from the other. It is a fanciful idea that somehow one could transfer the cost to the centre while still leaving local authorities entirely free to decide what to do with the money. That is not the way that it works. It is not the way that it works in the National Health Service and I should not want it to be the way that it works in local authority community care services.
The other day my attention was drawn to a very interesting booklet put out by the Association of County Councils. It sought to describe half a dozen entirely different local government initiatives—county council initiatives—in the sphere of

1253
community care. I shall not weary the Committee with the details. I am sure that most Members will have seen the publication. Each of the examples represented imaginative innovation in the provision of services—decisions to allocate particular funds to a specific purpose which had been identified in the locality. The councils did not have to seek the consent of the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security. They did not have to seek Treasury approval. The budget was their own.
That is the way in which improvement in the quality and delivery of care—innovations in the provision of different kinds of services—can happen. It happens because local authorities currently have complete discretion on how they disburse their funds If there were an earmarked grant, does any Member of the Committee seriously imagine that such innovations would be possible without having to go to the central government department and say, "This is how we propose to spend your grant. Is that all right by you"? I suspect that that would be fanciful. Of course they would have to seek what might be a deviation from the standard norms laid down by the Department of Health for the provision of services.
As the right reverend Prelate said, there is much unhappiness currently in local government for a variety of reasons. In this hugely important area of local government provision of services (and, so far as I can see, everybody has welcomed the main thrust of the reform, which is to put the duties firmly on local authorities and to augment their general finances to be able to perform them), if one were to add that new tension and constant necessity for argument and counter-argument, does anyone seriously imagine that the relations between government and local authorities would improve? That would not be my experience.
I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in the light of that argument—we have not yet heard it all as we have not heard from my noble friend on the Front Bench—may prefer to withdraw his amendment. If he does not, I most strongly urge the Committee to vote against it.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say this. One of the troubles with former Secretaries of State, or any former head of department, is that they are inclined to stand still and not to move with the times. The noble Lord may think the same of me as I think of him.
There are three factors that seem important. First, we need to have, as we have learnt, a continuity of service for health and community care. Secondly, the pattern of community care across the country varies far more than the pattern of health care because of the different method of funding. Thirdly, the Government, who make funds available to local authorities, need some assurance that part of that money will be used for the purpose for which it is intended. When the noble Lord says that the provision will make life more difficult and conflicts greater, he must know that the vast majority of
1254
local authorities want exactly what is written in the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Since the noble Lord intervened when I thought that I had already sat down, perhaps I may respond briefly. I share one hundred per cent. the view expressed a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the extraordinary ambivalence of local authorities when they are faced with the question of general or specific grants. When they have a specific grant they argue passionately for a general grant—the revenue support grant as it is now called. When they wish for something particular to happen or some service to have priority, they argue passionately for a specific grant. I suspect that if we were to go down the road of making this a specific grant, as sure as eggs are eggs within a few years the local authorities would be back saying, "It is tying our hands. It is destroying our initative. It is removing our incentive to innovate and develop our services. Can it not now be returned to a general grant?"
I am a very strong supporter of the concept of the general grant. One looks at deviations from it with great care. With regard to the mentally ill it is a very interesting deviation. We shall no doubt come to that, as has already been indicated. It has been a Cinderella service, as no one knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. He tried to do a great deal to support it and I hope that I followed his policy in that regard. It is not a popular service. Relatively small numbers of people need some very specific services. I believe that to earmark a very small part of the budget for such a group is acceptable. To earmark a large part of a large budget—it is certainly a large part of the budgets of the main social services authorities—would be going entirely in the wrong direction.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: We have had a very interesting debate. Perhaps I may start by saying how grateful I am for the support of those Members of the Committee with local authority background as members of authorities.
As the Committee knows, the only way that the amendment could be effected would be through a large specific grant, ring fenced or earmarked, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, put it. The underlying intention of the amendment is clearly to protect community care funds. There is concern that they would otherwise be vulnerable to attack from what might be seen by local authorities as more compelling, or more "sexy", as one might put it, interests. I am obviously now well aware of the body of feeling within the Committee that there might be a strong case for ring fencing funds for community care.
I should like to turn to one point that came out of an exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, quite obviously the amendment merely specifies a minimum. It would then be up to a local authority, if it wished, to go above that minimum. However, the very argument that noble Lords have been putting

1255
forward for ring fencing applies to that position also. If there is a specific grant, members of the authority representing other committees and services could very well say—as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, pointed out—"Yes, you have your money. You will not receive any more. As members representing other committees we shall use the money that you raised from the community charge payer for other services such as education, libraries highways, or whatever".
As has been pointed out this afternoon, Sir Roy Griffiths recommended specific ring fenced, earmarked (or whatever one wishes to call them) grants. As the Committee knows, the Government decided after careful consideration of all the arguments—and I accept as did the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that there must be a balance of arguments—that central support for community care expenditure by local authorities, as with other important local authority functions, is best provided through the revenue support grant. Community care forms such a large proportion of local authority expenditure on personal social services that the provision of a large specific grant would be akin to drawing the service into central administration. That would be wholly inconsistent with the local decision making and accountability that is at the root of our proposals.
Many of the arguments for ring fencing local authority community care funds could be applied equally well to local authority child care services or any other local authority programme. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, or other Members of the Committee, would not wish, for example, to ring-fence expenditure on aspects of education, highways, or other services. The Government are not seeking to take over local authority responsibility for community care. They are seeking to support and encourage them by providing the right legislative and financial framework and helping to develop good managerial and professional practice.
Neither do the Government wish to substitute their view for that of local government in the allocation of resources between community care and other local authority services. Recent trends in expenditure show no reason to fear that local authorities will give low priority to social services. The unprecedented expansion in expenditure by local authorities on social services over the past decade (37 per cent. in real terms) has taken place without specific grant or the high profile now being given to community care through both the White Paper and the Bill.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester accused us of complacency in this matter. If that is complacency, then I ask: can it be complacency to say that you trust the local authorities to spend?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: If the Minister will give way, perhaps I may say this. The same point will apply to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Surely the number of elderly has been increasing very rapidly. Of course there is more expenditure in that field.
Lord Henley: I accept, as I accepted before, the demographic trend of an increasing number of elderly. There is also a 37 per cent. increase in real terms which more than covers any increase over the eight or 10 years about which I have been talking of expenditure by local authorities. One cannot describe an action which imposes trust in local authorities as being complacent.
The Government do not underestimate the scale of the challenge facing local authorities. The natural worries that such an enterprise is bound to evoke are understandable. We have no doubt about the need for investment to reap the benefits of our proposals, but it must be the right kind of investment.
We intend to play our part in ensuring that the right framework and resources are available in order to promote and encourage progress. The financial framework outlined in the White Paper was designed with those principles in mind. Inevitably, we have had to address the question of balancing local freedom with the need for central intervention. But we believe that we have the balance right.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked for assurances that there would be enough money available. We have given a very clear commitment to provide adequate resources, taking into account both demographic pressure and the new responsibilities. Such a commitment outside the public expenditure survey is most unusual and reflects the importance that we attach to the community care programme. Work on ensuring the right level of funding is well in hand. The transfer of resources will allow for the projected growth in the number of people needing support, taking account of demographic factors. Local authorities will be able to make more effective use of the transferred resources than income support through assessment and case management, and thus will be able to make more efficient use of resources and ensure that they are directed to where they are most needed.
The cost to local authorities of the new policy will be considered in this year's public expenditure survey. The amount of the transfer will be announced as soon as possible and this will feed into the personal social services standard spending assessment on a £for £basis. Specific grants would only act to weaken the local accountability that we have already achieved.
The Government will make clear their view of what local authorities need to spend in order to provide a standard level of service without restricting local authorities' freedom to decide their own priorities, but they will be accountable for those decisions.
My noble friend Lady Young wanted to know where the Government expected the money to come from. Government support for the new community care responsibilites will be distributed through the standard spending assessment for personal social services. Account will be taken of a range of need indicators, including the authorities' increasing responsibility for clients who would previously have been funded through social security payments. The formula is currently being reconsidered in the light

1257
of the new policy and discussions with the local authority associations.
In deciding that local authorities should have responsibility for the new budget we recognised that they already had responsibility for the full range of social care services and had developed a great deal of expertise. We also had confidence that local authorities would be willing and able to deliver the policies without the need for us to erode local discretion on the use of large slices of their resources. Alongside that responsibility must come accountability. We have provided for the means to monitor local authority performance on community care and for intervention through extended powers of direction where this becomes necessary. Clause 47 strengthens the Secretary of State's ability to take effective action if local authorities fail to discharge their duties to plan for and provide social services.
As I have said, recent trends in expenditure show no reason to fear that local authorities will give low priority to social services. While we recognise that development has been uneven we believe that this can be addressed by encouraging the spread of good practice.
To this end we are seeking to support and encourage local authorities by providing the right legislative and financial framework and helping to develop good managerial and professional practice. We see our proper role as one of working in co-operation with the service providers and enablers to evolve a strategy for implementation. To this end we have set up a number of project teams and working groups involving people from local authorities, the NHS and the voluntary and private sectors, and most importantly we are also looking to involve represenatives of carers and service users.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords mentioned the survey of all social services directors. It showed that in 1990-91 funding for some 70 per cent. of local authority social services departments had increased. That indicates that personal social services expenditure tends to do better in a non-ring-fenced environment than when funding is artificially constrained. As I said earlier, expenditure increased by some 37 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1989–90 on personal social services.
We have considered very carefully the arguments in favour of ring fencing or linking resources allocation to planning but remain convinced that the widely shared objectives of the White Paper can be achieved without such constraining measures and that the disadvantages firmly outweigh the advantages. Proper local decision-making and local accountability are paramount if local authorities are going to make the most of this opportunity, and we do not want to inhibit that. We are consulting the local authority associations on all financial aspects of the proposals.
The noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Kilmarnock, rightly said that we are not against the use of specific grants. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also mentioned the Budget and football pools, though I am not sure that that is analogous.
Lord Carter: It is absolutely analogous.
Lord Henley: I do not accept that it is. We accept the case for specific grants on some occasions and we do not underestimate the usefulness of targeted specific grants in a context which can be clearly defined (for example, training needs); nor of central funds for special initiatives as in the case of the successful care in the community demonstration programme. We believe that the proposed specific grant for mental illness is the right kind of vehicle for ring-fenced funds. Here there is a definable need to move quickly from the very low baseline of current services to the position where local authorities are taking the primary responsibility for the social care of those people in the community who have a mental illness.
There is also a need to ensure that such service developments are fully co-ordinated with NHS developments; hence our concern to ensure that the grant is paid through the RHAs. It would not be possible to channel the money this way without ring-fencing it. But the need to foster rapid co-ordinated development is not so acute for other client groups or community care generally.
The specific grant for the support of services to mentally ill people is being introduced in response to the particular needs of that situation. Social care for mentally ill people has been largely health authority based in the past and the decision to give primary responsibility to the local authorities for this service necessitates their building rapidly upon their existing low baseline. We believe that it is right to target resources to this service but to give freedom to the social service authorities to decide the pattern of response appropriate to their local needs. We do not consider that other client groups have such a compelling case for such treatment.
We have also considered proposals for specific grants in relation to other groups and conclude that mental illness represents a special case which does not apply to other groups. We are of course anxious that all client groups should receive all the care that they need. But there is generally not the need for such rapid expansion from such a low base. We see a particular need for local authorities to rapidly improve and expand the services they provide for the mentally ill. Furthermore, the social care needs of this group are often met by the NHS at present, which is clearly inappropriate and not conducive to their welfare.
Having explained that specific grants for the mentally ill are a different matter from the total grant for community care, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and consider that we can leave local authorities to decide how to spend the money as they think best.
Lord Carter: We have had a good debate on this first amendment. Before the noble Lord, Lord Allen, decides what to do I wish to respond to a few of the points that have been made.
The crucial point is that, with ring fencing, the local authorities will know that they will receive at least the amount that has been ring fenced for community care. Farmers and landowners in the

1259
Committee will not need to be told that ring fencing is by far the best protection of property available. It has been pointed out that in the past local authorities disliked ring fencing. Of course they did, but the reason for their change of mind illustrates their concern at the implications of the requirements of community care which are to be placed upon them. That is why they have asked for ring fencing. I have already said that they will still have the freedom to add to ring fenced funds. It is by no means a constriction but they will be sure of receiving at least that amount.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy and Lady Young, appeared to be curiously reluctant to have a public debate about the allocation of community care. Personally, I cannot see what is wrong with that. One looks with interest to see whether Members of the Committee who opposed ring fencing as a matter of principle will oppose the specific grants for mental illness which come later in the Bill.
It has not been mentioned that under the new system, there will be 140,000 new applicants for community care. That is the size of the new demand on resources. There is a whole new system of planning and responsibility for community care.
Cynics may claim that having legislated for the ends, central government are anxious not to be held responsible for the lack of means. We have heard a lot as to how the sums are to be decided. The Minister made it clear that the Government have to do the sums now. They have to make their estimates and forecasts. Those sums have to be done now. One is merely asking that the sums provided as part of that are ring fenced and protected. The figures are not just pulled out of the air by the Government. They have to be worked out now.
The Minister said that resources will be adequate. He should have a word with his noble friend Lady Young who said that she was worried about the use of the word "adequate" in the next amendment which we shall consider. Ring fencing does not restrict the local authorities. They can add the sums that they wish. As I pointed out when I first spoke, they will have to do that through the poll tax. That is the accountability which the Government want.
Despite the extra resources to which the Minister was entitled to refer, there is still a gap of unmet need in the order of £200 million. That has to be met first before all the new responsibilities of community care are able to be met by the local authorities.
The Minister did not say why it is that everybody is asking for this provision. All the local authority associations and voluntary organisations have asked for the protection of ring fencing. The Government have handed it down from on high that they do not believe that that is a good idea and, therefore, that that is the end of the argument. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will pick up the other points which have been made and then consider whether he should ask the opinion of the Committee on this amendment. 4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord does not seem to trust the local authorities. He asked what local
1260
authorities have said about this. We have not heard much from them. However, it is interesting that the only two Members of the Committee who spoke with local authority experience as elected members both said that they did not want this, and that local authorities would prefer not to have their money ring fenced.
The noble Lord quite rightly said that the amount which was ring fenced was a minimum and the local authorities could top up that amount. If the noble Lord lacks faith in local authorities, does he not believe that perhaps they would not go further than that minimum but merely stick to it?
Lord Carter: All the organisations which represent local authorities have asked for ring fencing. We have been inundated with briefing which requests and sets out the arguments for ring fencing.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, can make clear whether he envisages in the amendment that everything which a local authority spends on community care—including what is allocated at present through normal government grants for their existing social services functions—is to be ring fenced. Will the local authorities lose their discretion as to how they spend existing money? The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke about money coming from the poll tax. However, there is an enormous social services budget at present for local authorities. Is that to be ring fenced or does that merely apply to the extra amount?
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: We have had an interesting debate; but to my mind it has been slightly disappointing. I thought that the arguments for not accepting the recommendations of Griffiths and the Select Committee might be rather stronger than have emerged so far from the discussions.
To deal with the point which has been raised, the amendment is quite clear that it relates to community care functions. As the Bill proceeds, I hope that we may discover what are those functions. However, that is a point to be considered later.
I tried very hard to avoid raising this matter as a party political issue, and I am pleased that not all the voices from the other side of the Committee were against the proposal. Incidentally, I tried to avoid using the words "ring fencing".
On the specific grant aspect, although I have listened with great care to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who know more about local government than I, it seems that there is a misunderstanding. I realise that the Home Office is a black sheep in the field of specific grants. I believe that it still clings to the police grant as a separate specific grant. However, this amendment does not propose a specific grant of that sort—that is a fixed percentage of approved expenditure. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, this is a grant to which local authorities are free to add according to their needs and desires. The amendment suggests that the Government should be under an obligation to tell the world how much money they will provide.

1261
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about subsection (3) including the provision that that statement to Parliament should include an explanation of what the local authorities have asked for, and the possibility that that would give rise to a great deal of political argument. I can see that that part of subsection (3) should go without any tears.
I still believe that what is proposed here is wanted by the local authorities who do not look upon it as a specific fixed percentage grant. In the new world in which we are moving—and I believe that there is a danger in devoting too much importance to what has happened hitherto—there can be a risk that the most vulnerable members of society will not receive the money which has been intended for them. There is not even a guarantee that the money transferred from the social security budget will find its way to helping on community care. That risk is not universal, but it exists.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that it would be very difficult to work out the amount of grant. It is very difficult to work out the amount of the spending assessment; and, as my noble friend Lord Hunter of Newington said, we are in an evolutionary processs and we shall not achieve perfection on the first day.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the specific question that if the amendment were not accepted, perhaps the Government could make it clear from where the money is coming. I do not know if the reply she received from the Government satisfied her on that. It did not satisfy me. I am still left in doubt, and I must take the view of the Committee on this amendment.
4.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108AE) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Airedale, L.

Crook, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

David, B.

Alport, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ampthill, L.

Diamond, L.

Ardwick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Aylestone, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Birk, B.

Ennals, L.

Blease L.

Erroll, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ezra, L.

Bottomley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brightman, L.

Falkender, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Butterfield, L.

Foot, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gallacher, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gibson, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Carter L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Gregson, L.

1262

Grey, E.

Nicol, B.

Grimond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hampton, L.

Oram, L.

Hanworth, V.

Parry, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peston, L.

Hayter, L.

Phillips, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Porritt, L.

Hunt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Rea, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jay, L.

Rochester, L.

Jeger, B.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sainsbury, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kearton, L.

Scanlon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Serota, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shannon, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Smith, L.

Somers, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stallard, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stedman, B.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McNair, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mais, L.

Tordoff, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Underhill, L.

Marsh, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Walston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Molloy, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mulley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Allerton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Annaly, L.

Gainford, L.

Arran, E.

Gisborough, L.

Auckland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Balfour, E.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Marylebone, L.

Beloff, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Havers, L.

Bessborough, E.

Henley, L.

Bethell, L.

Hesketh, L.

Blatch, B.

Hives, L.

Blyth, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Boardman, L.

Hooper, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ingrow, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Joseph, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Caithness, E.

Kitchener, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Cawley, L.

Luke, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lyell, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cross, V.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

1263

Mountevans, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharples, B.

Munster, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Nelson, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Norrie, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathspey, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Swansea, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinton, E.

Pender, L.

Terrington, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Teviot, L.

Perth, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Pym, L.

Tranmire, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Davids, V.

Westbury, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wise, L.

Savile, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.47 p.m.
[Amendment No. 108AD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 108AEA:
Before Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
("Implementation of Part III
Timetable for implementation
—(1) This Part, other than this section and section 44 below, shall have effect subject to the making of an Order of Orders by the Secretary of State after consultation with such organisations representative of local authorities, users and carers as appear to him to be concerned.
(2) Section 44 below shall have effect from the date of Royal Assent.
(3) No Order shall be made in respect of any other provision of this Part under section 63(2) below except where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the resources available to local authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of their duties in a manner conducive to the interests and welfare of any person for whom community care services may be provided or arranged.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, no Order shall be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that resources sufficient to the requirements of subsection (3) above are available in respect of the implementation by authorities of the functions subject to the Order in the first financial year in which they apply and that such resources are likely to be sufficient in the succeeding four financial years based on his estimate of the likely cost of those functions over those years.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 108AEB. These amendments follow on naturally from our victory on the previous amendment. They are intended to ensure that community care is brought in on a proper timetable to match the resources available and that the necessary start-up costs are properly funded.
As we know, from April of next year financial responsibility for residential care will be transferred from social security to local authorities, together with the introduction of assessment, a case management system and the proposed arm's length inspectorate.
The local government information unit has produced a very useful table listing the new or increased functions that are proposed in the Bill. They are: to produce and publish a community care
1264
plan and to revise it regularly; to publish criteria for undertaking individual assessments; to carry out individual assessments; the assessment and collection of individual contributions towards the cost of services; to create monitoring and inspection units; to set up complaints procedures; to create purchasing and budgeting systems; and to set up systems for case management. For all those functions no additional funding is proposed.
All that will involve heavy expenditure on information technology, recruitment, training and, of course, the associated infrastructure costs. One estimate suggests that information systems alone could cost £140 million to £200 million over an 18-month period. There is also the problem of bringing local authority residential homes up to the new standards required, and that could cost another £200 million or more.
Therefore, the purpose of this clause is to make it a duty for local authorities to draw up their community care plans for 1991, when the Bill has received Royal Assent, laying a requirement on the Secretary of State to assure himself that sufficient funding is available to meet the needs detailed in the plans. As more people are moved out of long-stay hospitals in pursuit of the community care ideal, initial funding will be required to ensure that supported housing schemes are available.
We fear that the alternative is perhaps a rise in homelessness, particularly among those with a history of mental illness or mental handicap. The clause will enable the Secretary of State to make a specific grant to cover the capital and revenue cost of starting up the new services which are necessary. As I have just said, the amendments require that the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself, according to subsection (3), that:
"No order shall be made … except where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the resources available to local authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of their duties in a manner conducive to the interests and welfare of any person for whom community care services may be provided or arranged".
Presumably, no responsible Secretary of State would wish to do other than as set out in that subsection. Therefore, we are confident that the Government will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has put the matter very fairly. I wish to make a few comments as general points quite apart from this particular amendment. None of the amendments that carry my name and practically none of those in the names of other Members of the Committee is intended to knock the Bill. This Bill represents probably the finest and biggest move forward for social care that we have seen in all the 40 years during which I have been involved with social problems. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that these provisions are carried out.
Perhaps I may give an example: very shortly, local authorities will be making their assessments of needs for care in their areas. They will provide a package for clients. A client will be perfectly reasonable and understand that one cannot immediately cure a large shortage of speech therapists or physiotherapists and so on. What is even more important, he will

1265
understand that the necessary housing and special accommodation to meet the needs of the disabled cannot be produced immediately.
However, he will not understand that the one matter that can be cured overnight—namely, the provision of money—is the one issue which is spoiling the whole exercise. If that issue stopped the exercise it would be criminal folly. These amendments are quite moderate. We have to be very careful that the financial resources are available before the measures are put into effect.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Is this not a case of putting the best before the good? Is it really suggested that local authorities should not be free to implement this very important part of the Bill? I acknowledge the commendation which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has just given. I share his view in saying that this is an extremely important part of the Bill. As I read the clause, is it seriously suggested that there has to be a kind of tripwire in that no local authority can go ahead and implement these plans until all local authorities have satisfied the Government that their resources are adequate? Presumably, it would be only then that the Secretary of State would be able to make his commencement order.
Let us consider for a moment what the effects will be. Let us suppose that, for perfectly honourable reasons—there may be other reasons which have a more political slant—there are local authorities which are determined to go on proving to the Government that in their view their resources are inadequate. Let us suppose that the Government go on seeking to negotiate by argument and by making their case and that those arguments drag on month after month. In those circumstances, is it seriously suggested that the Secretary of State will have to delay his commencement order so that nobody can go ahead with these arrangements? That is the effect of this amendment.
I am open to correction by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, or any other Member of the Committee, if that is not what the amendment means. If the amendment means what I think it does, then it is a classic example of willing the end without willing the means. If this amendment provides such a valuable advance then its provisions should be allowed to go ahead as quickly as possible. I find the arguments put forward on this matter slightly awry.
This Bill has consisted of two arguments. The first is that the Government are rushing ahead and implementing it far too quickly and everything is a great rush. The second is advanced by people who say how terrible it is that the Government are dragging their feet; that they have had the report for years and they have not done anything about it. We have to decide the direction in which we are going and what we want to do. There should be a measured pace which involves having a report, reaching a decision and then pressing ahead, making sure that we can implement the measures even if, right at the beginning, it is obvious that they will not be perfect.
1266
We had that situation as regards the last part of the Bill in connection with the health service. Agreements are not going to spring fully armed like the goddess Athena out of the breast of Zeus—or perhaps I have got my mythology wrong. The agreements are going to evolve in the same way that local authority community care will evolve. I suspect that community care will evolve more rapidly through experience and by working forward rather than by seeking to have everyone coming to the starting line and being asked whether they are properly mounted and ready to go, following which the Secretary of State makes a commencement order and off everybody goes.
With the greatest respect to Members of the Committee opposite who appear to be making that case, I do not believe that that approach adds up. There must be consultation. There has always been continuing dialogue between central and local government, both with individual authorities and with local authority associations, and that must continue. I believe that the Government would wish to implement this part of the Bill as quickly as possible and so begin to secure the advantages which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and I and many others hope will flow from it.
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not be seduced by the arguments put forward by Members of the Committee opposite and advise the Committee to accept this amendment, because I shall not. I believe that that would be quite wrong.
Lord Seebohm: I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, understands how this scheme will work. The Secretary of State made a statement quite recently to the effect that the first task of every local authority will be to make a review of all the existing services in its area. The plan then has to include what extra services are required. That will involve a fairly straightforward assessment of the additional costs that have to be met. After talking to local authorities, the Secretary of State's answer will be, "The state is behind you in meeting this additional finance". That is all that is involved. Unless the Secretary of State gives that kind of answer no responsible local authority will begin putting these packages into effect.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Much of the discussion about financial implications which took place in connection with the last amendment applies also to these amendments. However, asking the Government for an unlimited commitment is a very different kettle of fish in terms of the substance of the amendment. In the whole area of community care our policy is designed to put the clear lead responsibility with local authorities building on the vital lead role that they have had for social care provision over the past 40 years.
The principles behind our community care White Paper have met with widespread support, as has been said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for again confirming that point this afternoon. For years governments, whatever their party, have wanted to improve and enhance care in

1267
the community. Nevertheless, there has never been so great a need for us to grasp the nettle and to enable services to be improved through giving a clear lead and accountability to local authorities working at all times in close collaboration with other statutory, voluntary and independent agencies. I hope that such accountability is not interfered with as a result of the Committee's acceptance of the previous amendment.
The new clause contained in Amendment No. 108AEA refers to the timetable for implementation of the proposals. We propose that the main social security benefit changes to bring our proposals into effect should be made on 1st April next year. At that time, therefore, local authorities will need to have in place sufficient arrangements to cater for those people who would otherwise have looked to the social security system for their public support. We are also expecting at that time that initial community care plans will have been developed. I note that the amendment supports that planned implementation approach.
However, the proposed new clause goes on to require consultation with a number of representative organisations before the Secretary of State can make an order. It requires him to be satisfied about the availability of resources. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, an enormous amount of consultation is already quite properly going on with local authority associations, with directors of social services, with the voluntary sector, with users' and carers' organisations, with the independent sector and with other statutory agencies, particularly housing authorities, health authorities and family practitioner committees. Inevitably the pace of consultation is stepping up all the time and will very soon include consultation on drafts of the guidance material promised in the White Paper on, for example, care plans, assessment, complaints procedures, inspection units and contracting. Therefore consultation in a very full way is due to take place prior to the implementation of our proposals. I again agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin that the effect of the amendment would be to provide a recipe for delay and bureaucratic procedures.
I recognise the difficulty in deciding what funding is adequate. It is nearly as difficult as defining what is reasonable. Nevertheless, our courts succeed in doing something on those lines almost every day. Both here and in another place we have consistently said that resources to fund the new proposals will be adequate. My noble friend Lord Henley restated that point in regard to the previous amendment. Negotiations over funding are taking place in the present expenditure round in the normal way. Very detailed discussions are taking place with the local authority associations in order to inform these negotiations.
We are not expecting everything to happen at once on 1st April 1991 in the community care field any more than on the National Health Service side. I have indicated where the priorities lie for ensuring that facilities are available to deal properly with people who would otherwise have looked to the
1268
social security system for support. We are well aware that it will take some time after a particular implementation date to ensure that all the changes that may be required by the new policy are fully operational and running. We shall have to learn and build on experience. Therefore, all the considerations which the new clause would require to be taken into account are already on board in the consultation and negotiation processes which are currently taking place. Those negotiations can, of course, include taking account of any representations which are made about start-up costs, to which Amendment No. 108AEB refers.
For all those reasons I urge that the amendments be withdrawn and certainly that they should not have the support of the Committee.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, I think she is overlooking the fact that the amendments are important as we are now in the whole new world of ring-fenced funds. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the need for a measured pace. He is absolutely right. The amendments are intended to achieve a timetable of implementation which proceeds at a pace with which the Secretary of State is satisfied. The timetable for implementation must satisfy the Secretary of State alongside the protection of the sums allocated.
The Minister said that the amendment requires an unlimited commitment from the Government. I cannot help feeling that her brief was prepared on the expectation that the previous amendment would not be accepted. She referred to start-up costs. She knows that there is considerable concern on this point among all local authorities. I referred earlier to information technology, which could cost £140 million to £200 million. In previous Acts allowances for start-up costs in a number of areas have been allowed for. They have not been allowed for in the community care aspects of the Bill. For those reasons, it is extremely important to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 108AEA) shall be agreed to:
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Airedale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Alport, L.

Crook, L.

Ardwick, L.

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Birk, B.

Diamond, L.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ennals, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Erroll, E.

Bottomley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Ezra, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Falkender, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Falkland, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Carter, L.

Foot, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gallacher, L.

1269

Galpern, L.

Molloy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ogmore, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Oram, L.

Greenway, L.

Parry, L.

Gregson, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Grey, E.

Peston, L.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Porritt, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rea, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hunt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Rochester, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Russell, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Jay, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jeger, B.

Seebohm, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Serota, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kearton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Smith, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stedman, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lockwood B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Longford, E.

Thurlow, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Underhill, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Walston, L.

McNair, L

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mais, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Allerton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

Balfour, E

Hailsham of Saint

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Beloff, L.

Harvington, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hesketh, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ingrow, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Joseph, L.

Caithness, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kitchener, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Layton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Clanwilliam, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Colnbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Luke, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lyell, L.

Cranbrook, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cross, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L.

Margadale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Elles, B.

Mersey, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Milverton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

1270

Mountevans, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharples, B.

Munster, E.

Somerset, D.

Nelson, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Norrie, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swansea, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinton, E.

Pender, L.

Terrington, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pym, L.

Tranmire, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Romney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Davids, V.

Westbury, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Young, B.

Savile, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 108AEB:
Before Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
("Start-up costs
—(1) The Secretary of State may, for up to five years from the date of any Order under this section, in relation to the functions covered by that Order and with the approval of the Treasury make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards any expenses incurred by local authorities in connection with the establishing of functions and activities arising under this Part, and in making any determination as to the adequacy or otherwise of resources under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of making grants under this subsection.
(2) A grant made under subsection (5) above may be for capital or revenue expenditure.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Provision of accommodation and welfare services: agency arrangements]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 108AF:
Page 46, line 9, after ("disability"), insert ("mental disorder, dependency on drugs or alcohol or being substantially handicapped by any deformity or disability").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is aimed in a very friendly way at discovering which people will be covered by the enlarged powers of local authorities to find accommodation for those in need. Under the provisions of Clause 40(1)(a), the relevant section of the National Assistance Act 1948 would be amended so as to provide that it was the duty of a local authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, to provide residential accommodation for persons aged over 18 who by reason of age, illness, disability "or other circumstances" are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them.
If one turns to Clause 53 of the Bill, a Scottish clause, it will be seen that this adds a new section to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. It deals with the provision of suitable residential accommodation where nursing is provided. The persons eligible are those,

1271
"who appear to them to be in need of such accommodation by reason of infirmity, age, illness or mental disorder, dependency on drugs or alcohol or being substantially handicapped by any deformity or disability".
I appreciate that there is an amendment on the Marshalled List under the aegis of the Scottish Law Society which proposes drafting amendments to that provision. However, that does not affect the point I am trying to make.
The fact that in the Scottish clause it is necessary to spell out that the provisions apply to those suffering from mental disorder or those who are dependent on drugs or alcohol or handicapped by a deformity presumably means that such groups are not covered by the amendment in the Bill to the English legislation. However, is that in fact correct? Does the word "illness" in Clause 40(I)(a) include mental illness? Can the Government tell us rather more about the words which they have selected and what they actually mean? Why is the Scottish provision, which is, admittedly, about accommodation with nursing care, so much more detailed?
I am aware of the drafting defect in the amendment in that if it were adopted the word "disability" in line 9 of the Bill would have to go. However, that is a minor point. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It is most important that it should be made absolutely specific to whom the community care provision is applicable. It is not, except in a certain part of the Bill, written anywhere specifically. It is only right and proper that those who have to administer the provisions of the Bill should know exactly to whom "community care" refers.
Lord Ennals: I too support the amendment. It may be that when the Minister replies she will have an explanation. However, on the face of it, it is a strange situation where, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, Clause 53, which deals with the Scottish responsibility, takes in precisely the words:
"infirmity, age, illness or mental disorder, dependency on drugs or alcohol or being substantially handicapped by any deformity or disability".
That is a very good explanation. One could perhaps argue that it does not include everyone; but the clause with which we are now dealing is so very limited. That creates immediate concern among each of the headings. For example, if we look at mental disorder, there are many aspects which necessarily require treatment. No one is arguing that such residential accommodation is necessary or that medical or nursing treatment is required. But it seems to me to be most unwise to exclude those categories from the definition. It would also create a great deal of confusion.
Similarly, there are times when those suffering from senile dementia will need treatment. There are some schizophrenics and drug dependency cases which will inevitably need treatment. I am looking at paragraph 7.8 of the Government's policy document Tackling Drug Misuse. It is a summary of the Government's strategy which states that, as the incidence of drug taking has increased, so primary
1272
health teams, including general practitioners, have become increasingly involved in treatment and support. Treatment in many cases consists of assessment, counselling, general medical care and social support.
I received a document only today from Turning Point, the largest national organisation providing advice, care and rehabilitation for people experiencing alcohol and drug-related problems, as well as those with mental health-related difficulties. It is extremely worried that under the new proposals the needs of the client groups that it serves will apparently not receive sufficient priority from individual local authorities. It is concerned to see the amendment accepted. There are many arguments for including the same definition in the English part of the legislation as is found in the Scottish part. The Minister may give us a totally satisfactory explanation. If not, we wait to see.
The Earl of Balfour: The problem is that doctors do not want to know anyone suffering from the effects of drugs or drink. It is a serious problem. We must remember that, except where someone has been held in hospital under a three-day order, a person has a right to discharge himself. The only way that a person who has become seriously mentally deficient through, for example, alcohol can be held in custody is under the Mental Health Acts. At the end of a period of 28 days, the detention requires a court order.
I am not fully familiar with the legal provisions in the Bill, but as I understand it, a person has the right to discharge himself from hospital unless he is held under those special provisions. I believe that the Committee will find that there is nothing to prevent someone from discharging himself. I realise that the amendment provides that the person should be held for a period—somewhere it says 21 days—for treatment. That is a wonderful idea, but I do not believe that the existing legislation covers that point, which is what worries me.
Lord Mancroft: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, put the arguments well. Those working in the field, and the sufferers, would be grateful to have a clearer definition of the term, which is what the amendment seeks to provide. The next amendment is probably the one upon which to discuss the problems of alcohol and drug treatment, which is the area in which I am interested in relation to this amendment. A closer definition of "disability" would be helpful and is probably long overdue.
Baroness Blatch: The clause consists of a number of technical amendments to the National Assistance Act 1948. Their general thrust is to make it clear that local authorities can make arrangements for the provision of services with both the private and voluntary sectors. As such they form one of the corner-stones of our new community care policy because they give local authorities the power they need to develop a mixed economy of care. By using their considerable purchasing power skilfully, local authorities should be able to promote the

1273
development of a robust market in care provision which will enable them to secure the most cost-effective delivery of services.
Subsection (1) of this clause paves the way for all this by amending Section 21(1) of the 1948 Act, which empowers local authorities to provide or arrange the provision of residential accommodation (including residential accommodation where nursing is provided) for the full range of people who may require it. It was to ensure that that part was fully comprehensive that the Bill amends "infirmity" in the original legislation to "illness [or] disability". That change both brings the terminology up to date and marks a widening of the people covered to include those—this is important—for whom the local authority may arrange nursing home care in accordance with the new subsection (1A) of Section 26 of the 1948 Act set out in subsection (2) of this clause.
Since the aim is to be comprehensive, we have not referred to particular client groups but instead used broad definitions of the qualifying conditions; for example,
"age, illness, disability or any other circumstances",
which provide someone in need of care and attention with facilities not otherwise available to them.
Although I understand the motive behind the amendment, I must question whether it would be wise to press it. Being specific in one direction usually implies some restriction in another. I fear that to mention drug or alcohol dependency or severe handicap, for example, would have the effect of narrowing the wide application that this subsection needs to have. In addition, the terms used have no precise legal definitions and their inclusion might raise doubts not only about other client groups but about whether someone possibly falling within one of those groups mentioned was really qualified.
What is, of course, critically important is that local authorities should make arrangements as appropriate for all those people who may be entitled to public support and in need of social care provision. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is concerned that some vulnerable groups may be excluded or not catered for in arrangements for social care. I have explained that Clause 40 is deliberately designed, by adding "illness, disability" to the National Assistance Act 1948, to be wide and comprehensive in its coverage of all clients for whom social care may be necessary.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. For those of us who are interested in the subject, the point she is making is important. Is she saying that those groups are already included within the meaning of the words "illness" and "disability" and therefore that the words in the amendment are unnecessary and that no problem can possibly arise? The arguments put forward are that the words are necessary and that problems can arise. It is a matter of interpreting the law. Is the noble Baroness saying that there is no difficulty because those groups are definitely included? Can she give an absolute assurance that that is so?
Baroness Blatch: I can give an unequivocal answer. The answer is yes. Whether the person is suffering from an alcohol-related problem, from drug abuse or whatever it may be, if a local authority deems there to be a need for provision, it is the local authority's duty to respond to that need. Those groups are included. It will be for local authorities to determine, first, the need, and, secondly, the provision.
I recognise that those concerned with or representing different vulnerable groups, including but not exclusively those to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, refers, are concerned that some clients may fall between a gap in provision between health authorities and local authorities. There is that danger now, if any authorities seek to shrug off their proper responsibilities. What our new proposals do is to make responsibilities and accountability clearer and also to make the arrangements made locally more transparent and clear. In other words, at the outset they will have to plan provision for all client groups, which will include those named in the amendment. In their care plans local authorities will have to show what their arrangements are for dealing with all client groups, and that will include agreed plans with health authorities where clients may, as they often will, need both health and social care.
Mention has been made of aligning Clause 40 with the Scottish Clause 53, but that clause deals only with the provision of nursing home accommodation and Clause 40 deals with both residential care and nursing homes. Accordingly, it needs to include a much broader definition of the classes of people who can be helped. That apart, we can see severe difficulties of interpretation with the Scottish clause, as the speaking note explains. That speaking note is my response to the amendment.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked, "Whom is community care for?" That was her specific question. Community care is for everyone who needs it. That is why the definition is cast in wide terms. We think that it is more helpful than listing various conditions. Disability, as is made clear in Section 29, means blind, deaf, dumb, mentally disordered—that is ill or handicapped. It would substantially—I am having great difficulty in reading this note—include permanent handicap by illness, injury or congenital deformity. The Secretary of State has power to prescribe further definitions. "Disabled person", for example, means any person to whom Section 29 of the 1948 Act applies. The definition in Clause 40 goes on to include other circumstances. The Scottish definition includes only nursing home provision.
Through the guidance we are preparing for local authorities, we need to ensure that their plans cater for all groups. That is the main point that I am making in my response. I assure the Committee that we shall do that and think further about how best to ensure that this is effective. We should give more thought to what has been said in the debate. I shall therefore return to the issue on Report. In the meantime I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Lord decides what to do in response to that reply, perhaps I may make a few remarks. The noble Baroness made an important point when she reminded us that mental disorder covers both the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. I read the clause as meaning that the mentally handicapped are excluded from the Bill. If the Government are going to re-examine it, I hope that they will bear that point in mind.
Baroness Blatch: In response to that, we shall look at the point most carefully between now and the Report stage. I can say that if there is deemed to be a need and the problem is one of mental handicap, then the local authority has an obligation to respond.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for suggesting that she would consider this before the Report stage. A little earlier, she implied—and I may have misunderstood—that the handling of the provision would be in guidance rather than being included in the Bill. I am glad that there will be good guidance but I believe that it needs to be on the face of the Bill.
I was not impressed with the argument used by the noble Baroness as to why the Scottish clause was appropriate but a similar English clause would not be appropriate. When she considers the matter between now and Report stage, I hope that she will conclude, as we do, that there needs to be a clear definition. This is not a great problem; she says that the provision may exclude people. We have dealt with definitions like this under the Mental Health Act and other Acts. I should not have thought it was difficult to produce a definition which would be applicable both to the circumstances in Scotland and those in England.
I was encouraged by the thought that the noble Baroness would consider the matter carefully and read what has taken place in this brief exchange.
Baroness Blatch: I must confirm that there is no intention of excluding any group that is deemed to require community care or nursing provision. I said that we need to think further about how best to ensure that the service is effective. That will probably take the form of guidelines but I wish to return to this at Report stage.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: As the noble Baroness said that she would re-examine the matter, perhaps she will look at the unpopular specialties like alcohol and drugs. It is easy for them to be forgotten. So that nobody is forgotten, can the word "including" be contained in the provision in the Bill so that nothing is omitted?
Baroness Blatch: That will be taken into account. I must emphasise that it will be for local authorities to decide how they plan to make provision for all client groups deemed to be in need in the community care plans. Therefore it would be difficult to name a group. By naming one, we suggest implicitly that the others have been excluded.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: We all know what Clause 40 is aimed at. However, I am still left in some ambiguity. The noble Baroness argues that it is dangerous to have a specific list. But she has not explained why, in those circumstances, there is a specific list later in the Bill dealing with residential nursing accommodation in Scotland. As she has undertaken to look at the matter again before the Report stage, I have no intention of pursuing it further now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 108B:
Page 46, line 40, after ("authority") insert ("subject to subsection (1BA) below").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 109A. I must first declare an interest in that I am a director of a treatment centre providing care for drug and alcohol users. I am also chairman of the Addiction Recovery Foundation and secretary of the Promise Trust which is another charity providing care for those people. I also speak after extensive meetings with both Turning Point which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned earlier and with the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, the NCVO and Alcohol Concern.
The purpose of the amendment is to examine and draw attention to the problem of emergency admissions into facilities, particularly of alcohol and drugs sufferers. By that we mean the voluntary sector! and private facilities, as they carry most of the burden of this care.
The reason for the figure of 21 days in Amendment No. 109A—I know that the Government are not happy with such a figure—is that most of the treatment centres call these admissions crisis intervention. Drug and alcohol sufferers do not walk down the street and decide to go somewhere for help. They go for help because they are in a state of crisis. That usually means that their use of alcohol and drugs is threatening their health to a dangerous level.
To help someone over that crisis does not happen overnight. It does not take two or three days, nor four or five days. The minimum requirement—and this is a real minimum requirement—is 21 days. The most talked about drug addicts in Britain are heroin addicts. To take an addict safely off heroin to a state where he can be returned to the community without being a serious danger to himself takes 21 days. That is how the figure is arrived at, although it is open to debate.
It is helpful at this stage if we look at the size of the problem. A small part of the Bill is involved and a small area of community care. There are reckoned to be something like 150,000 street addicts in the country, all of whom are in need of treatment. There are approximately 800,000 people with alcohol problems. In its report of June 1989, the Association of Community Health Councils reckoned that there were between 800,000 and 1.65 million people suffering from prescription drug addiction. In many ways the latter is even more difficult to deal with.
It is also important to realise that one is dealing largely with unwilling patients. They do not wish to

1277
come forward. It often takes a crisis to persuade them to come for care. If we do not catch them when they come, we shall lose them. They will go back into the community until they surface again in a casualty ward, the magistrates' court or in some other situation which is expensive to the community. There is difficulty in assessing them and I shall give the Committee this example. My right honourable friend David Mellor, in a debate in another place in December 1989, stated that there were 15,000 registered heroin addicts. In the same breath he explained that there were probably 150,000 of them. The reason for the discrepancy in the figures is that people simply will not come forward for assessment. They are frightened to register, frightened of statutory bodies like health authorities and local authorities. They want to keep out of their way.
I shall give the Committee another example. A few months ago I visited a needle exchange centre which is a front line facility being run in the Midlands. It is partly funded by the local authority. The local authority put an assessor into that tiny little facility to help assess the patients coming through the door. However, as soon as it became known in the local community that a nurse from the health authority was carrying out assessments, the number of people walking through the door dried up overnight. I believe, therefore, that it will be difficult for health authorities to make assessments.
Another reason why that is so difficult is that there is a marked lack of expertise. This is, relatively speaking, a new area of health care, but it is a growing and difficult area. Local health authorities will find it difficult to get people who have the expertise to make assessments. That is why my amendment suggests that they delegate the assessments to the voluntary sector and to private facilities which have the expertise.
Reports written last year state that 25,000 people with alcohol problems were admitted to psychiatric wards. However, alcoholism is not a psychiatric disease. That is an inaccurate assessment. However, 25,000 inaccurate assessments a year means there is an awful waste of time and money in this area. Most of those people end up on benzodiazepines. Those are the 800,000 to 1·6 million people mentioned by the Association of Community Health Councils. Those people should never have been put on those drugs in the first place. Those are inaccurate assessments. As a service and as a community we cannot allow 800,000 inaccurate assessments to be made. That is a frightful waste of money.
Who then will make these assessments? We know that GPs do not like dealing with these difficult, expensive and time-consuming patients. Social workers do not have the time or the expertise to deal with these patients and often patients come forward via probation officers. However, probation officers should not be in the business of assessing health needs. That is not their job. They do not want to do that but they are forced to do it and they are being put in the place of expert assessors who do not exist.
The next problem is a logistical problem. The kind of facilities that we are talking about do not exist in
1278
every health or local authority. Therefore patients sometimes have to travel far and wide to reach the right facility. They are mobile patients. They were born in one place, educated in another, have worked in another and are resident in a third or fourth place. Yet they turn up for treatment in a fifth place. We are expecting a harassed administrator in a facility to chase around and find out where a patient is registered or resident. He must find the right person in that authority to make the assessment before the patient is admitted.It is just not practical to do that.
The new methods of payments which appeared in the social security legislation are already tripling the workload of administration in these facilities. These facilities do not have much money or time. To prevent them making the assessments which they are expert at making would be a grave mistake. I am engaged in a facility in Nottingham. When we take patients from other authorities and write to their authorities it takes weeks to obtain a reply. We wrote to various health authorities in the first week of April about patients who had been admitted to our facility. We are now in the first week of May but we have not had any reply to those letters. Strictly speaking, the 21-day period is too short.
The Government have said what local authorities and health authorities can do and what they will do. However, in my experience, that is not what is happening. As an example I would mention a treatment centre in Kent of which I am a trustee. Staff at that centre wrote to Kent County Council inquiring about patients entering the facility. I have the reply here, but I shall not quote from it. Kent County Council stated that it did not anticipate having any patients in treatment facilities of that kind because there were quite enough facilities in Kent to deal with them. There are in fact no facilities in Kent for dealing with them.
Broadway Lodge is the oldest voluntary sector facility of its kind in the country and it has now been running for 17 years. It specialises in street drug addiction, as it were. In all that time Avon and Somerset has never given that facility one single penny or paid for one single patient. We have no reason to believe that that will change. In its recent letter the county council outlined the fact that there will be no change.
There is a registered nursing home in Bournemouth called Quinton House which has over the past two months written to 73 local authorities. However, only 27 have bothered to reply and of those eight have definitely stated that they will not fund patients suffering from drug and alcohol abuse in voluntary sector establishments. That does not bode very well for the future. The situation is that the largest purchaser of care is not keen on buying care from the largest provider. That is not quite what the Government have in mind.
It is important to note that the private and voluntary sector establishments support this Bill. They think it contains some necessary and good reforms. They think the theory of the Bill is great but that in practice it will not work. Judging from the evidence that we have, they are right. The Bill will not work in practice. It is not a question of what authorities can do but what they will do. They have

1279
been slow to react in the past and with a relaxation of the rules, as is anticipated now, and with the evidence that we have, there is no reason to assume that the inadequate services that are presently available will continue. Many of them will collapse overnight.
Voluntary sector facilities are always short of cash. They are charities and all charities are short of cash. The patients that enter the facilities for a month or perhaps six weeks will find that those facilities have gone out of business if there is as much as a month's hiccup in funding. The expertise that they have gained will be lost and there will be little or no treatment available for this large group of sufferers. It seems a pity that a month after this Government hosted the largest ever conference on drug addiction and drug problems and outlined in detail their policy for what they call drug demand reduction—that involves treatment among many other things—they promote a Bill which may seriously affect the entire policy of drug reduction. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: I support this amendment, which has been so admirably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. In his speech the noble Lord alerted the Committee to a real and serious problem. I hope that, after listening to his speech, many Members of the Committee who were perhaps marginally aware of this problem will have become a little more acutely aware of what it involves. When this problem arises, it frequently requires urgent attention.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has rightly said, it is a problem which general practitioners frequently encounter. As an ex-general practitioner, I should say at once that GPs do not on the whole deal with this kind of situation very effectively. They do their best to deal with it, but often that is not good enough.
The Committee is now aware of the real problem. The problem has existed for a long time, but the Bill as it now stands does not provide a solution to it. A solution must be provided. I hope that as a result of moving this amendment we shall at least receive a clear answer on how this problem can be solved so that the kind of events which the noble Lord described so graphically do not continue to occur and recur in various parts of the country. I support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I also support the amendment. I believe that the amendment standing in my name, Amendment No. 114ZC, which also concerns assessments will come before the Committee on Thursday. The Government have encouraged many voluntary and non-governmental agencies to carry out the difficult work involved in the drug and alcohol fields. Some of the activities of those agencies act as an alternative to prison. That is important as our prisions are far too full. As we know from the incidents at Strangeways, our prisons are causing great problems. The agencies carry out crisis work as well as longer term treatment.
1280
Unless the legislation is improved and an efficient method of assessment and funding is found many agencies will close down, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider all of the amendments and try to work something out because the issue is very important.
Lord Carter: I am very glad to support the previous speakers from these Benches. This is a very sensitive and important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, speaks with great experience on the subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, he has drawn the attention of the Committee to what could be a very serious problem.
The amendment is intended to ensure rapid emergency admission and treatment for drug users, especially those who are most at risk from HIV infection. That is a matter which we know causes great concern to a number of voluntary organisations. We have all heard from those organisations on the subject. We hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that their fears are unfounded. The amendment also deals with the detoxification of those with alcohol problems where speed is of the essence if a relapse is to be avoided.
All of the organisations concerned with those problems are very worried that the requirement to seek the agreement of a district health authority prior to admission will impede access to emergency care. We cannot believe that that is the Government's intention. We hope very much that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government understand the problem and have plans to deal with it.
Baroness Hooper: This is an important area. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the Government understand the problem. I appreciate the desire of my noble friend Lord Mancroft for greater clarity. I also recognise that this is an area of concern not only to Members of the Committee but also to the providers of facilities, many of whom are in the voluntary or private sector.
I recognise that my noble friend's intention is to ensure that where people are in need of urgent admission to residential accommodation in which nursing care is provided such services are available to them on an emergency basis when there is no time initially to undertake a full assessment of their longer term needs for which the local authority may be responsible. There is also the question of which local authority may be responsible.
Nothing in the Bill changes the responsibilities of either health or local authorities where they have statutory duties to provide emergency care. A client, perhaps someone suffering from the effects of drugs or alcohol and in need of emergency or urgent treatment, will have the same access as now to emergency care.
The Bill places responsibilities clearly with those health and local authorities, working with the voluntary and private sectors, to ensure that arrangements are in place to meet the needs of the clients they serve. That will ensure that arrangements

1281
for emergency care are in place and will entail meeting, the costs according to the agreements that are made locally for such services. Those arrangements will be set out in community care plans which will be published. There will therefore be considerably more transparency about the provision which is available than exists now. We shall require consultation to take place as to how arrangements for services will be made where more than one providing agency may legitimately be involved.
I understand that it may be said that present emergency or urgent care arrangements are not necessarily ideal and I know that some difficulties can and do arise. I also know that some of the emergency and urgent treatment facilities currently provided are made by the voluntary sector using income support payments to users and that concerns have been expressed that support for those facilities could be withdrawn.
A great deal of work is being undertaken to implement the policy of placing that responsibility on local and health authorities. As part of that work arrangements will have to be made locally by getting together to work through care plans. We shall discuss that in greater detail during our deliberations on Clause 45. Those arrangements must ensure that emergency and urgent care is available for those needing it. It is therefore up to the responsible authority to ensure with other agencies that provision is available on which they can call as necessary.
Of course I agree that where emergency treatment and care are required a full assessment of the client's needs will have to follow after the crisis intervention has taken place. Equally, a client with a long-term problem will already have had his or her needs assessed. Means of coping with potential emergencies needs to be part of the plans for the care of that individual.
I agree that greater clarity is desirable, but I am doubtful that it is necessary to have such clarification on the face of the Bill because there must be local agreements which will be more specific. Nevertheless I should like to consider the matter further in the light of what has been said to see what could be done. I trust that in the meantime my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification of something that she said. She referred to the responsible authority. One of the major problems when dealing with alcoholics and certainly with drug addicts is that they have often been turned out of their homes. They have no fixed address, they roam the country and often seek treatment in districts other than their own. They want to get away from their home districts because they are not very popular there and for reasons of confidentiality. Many drug addicts nowadays are HIV positive which makes the problem even more difficult because confidentiality is involved.
Baroness Hooper: The intention is that for everyone, everywhere there will be an authority which is responsible for them. It will be up to the
1282
individual to say where his or her normal residence is, whether it is under a bridge or elsewhere. The authority in that area will be obliged to take responsibility for that individual.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am a little disturbed by the complacency which is evident on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, painted a very accurate picture of the situation. I can assure the Committee that when drug addicts are in crisis they are available for treatment. If they have treatment, then one can do something about the problem. If the treatment is not provided there and then one loses them. They go back to Piccadilly or elsewhere, have a fix and are not seen again.
Therefore, this is one of the issues which needs to be tackled. Treatment must be provided as required. I have said before in this Chamber that drug rehabilitation centres should be like VD clinics: one goes in and receives treatment. This problem is even more important because the person who seeks help is usually in crisis. They tend not to come unless they are in crisis. When they are in crisis they are capable of being treated and they respond to treatment if they are treated then. What is lacking in the resources available at the moment is adequate treatment at that moment.
There is anxiety that the Bill introduces the question of responsibility for assessing and paying for the already inadequate emergency treatment which is available. I should be grateful if, in considering the issue, the Minister would bear in mind the urgency of the situation in terms of what is required for the patient at that moment. It is not just a question of which authority is responsible, how it assesses or what assessment is made. It is a question of regarding that as a treatment which you can provide at that moment and which will save you many problems later.
I have said this once before in the Chamber and I say it again: if we set out seriously to treat our drug addicts, we would save a great deal of the money that we spend on enforcement and through other agencies. We are making a mistake in that we do not take seriously enough the way in which, by treating addicts when they are in crisis, we can save ourselves many problems. I realise that I have spoken for longer than I had intended, but I hope that the Minister has taken the point.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I cannot imagine what was contained in my previous remarks to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that there was any complacency about the situation. We regard it as extremely serious. The intention is that crisis intervention should not only be as good as it is now, but that we should be able to improve upon what now exists.
Lord Mancroft: We have had a useful debate and I am certainly reassured by the knowledge that the Government are more aware than they perhaps were of the extent of the problem. That is a comfort. Certainly, we are all aware that this is a framework Bill. Perhaps that is one of the problems that one

1283
has with framework Bills. It is rather like being asked to buy a car which does not have an engine. I would not buy one like that. It is difficult to know how good the framework is if one does not see the regulations within it. I am aware that this area is very much dependent upon the care with which the regulations are drawn up. I know that much care is going into that. I am much heartened by what my noble friend said. She said that she would go away and look further at the matter, and I shall look forward to hearing what she has to say about it. I thank her and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 46, line 41, leave out ("the consent of the District Health Authority for the area") and insert ("an assessment notified to him in writing and agreed by both the local authority and the District Health Authority.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 110A and, if the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will allow me, to Amendment No. 109ZB to which my name should have been attached.
People may think that Amendment No. 109 is rather esoteric and pernickety, but it is serious because the relationship between the health authorities and the social services has always been delicate. I do not think that anyone knows more about it than I do. It sometimes leads to quite stormy relationships. One must therefore be careful in the wording of the measure. The Bill states that the consent of the district health authority must be obtained when moving someone into a home where nursing care is required. We propose to say that there should be:
"an assessment notified to him [the person concerned] in writing and agreed by both the local authority and the District Health Authority".
There must be agreement between the health authority and the social services.
The amendment stands on its own, although Amendment No. 110A deals with what happens if there are disagreements. That amendment simply deals with the question of who pays. If the district health authority insists that someone requires nursing care, and the local authority believes that something less elaborate is required—we know perfectly well that a combination of accommodation and nursing care will be in short supply with the increasing number of old-age people—the district health authority should pay the cost. Similarly, we do not agree that the district health authority should have the right to close a ward in order to move people out and therefore transfer the cost to the local authority.
Those are the main points of the amendment. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is similar in that, if people are moved into accommodation by the district health authority and the local authority has to pay, obviously the latter should be consulted and make an agreement to that effect. That is the essence of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I must advise the Committee that, if
1284
Amendment No. 109 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 109ZA.
Baroness Faithfull: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. His name should also have been appended to the amendment. Perhaps I may add a little to what he said.
We are seeking a joint assessment of every case because if there is a joint assessment between the district health authorities and the local authorities, there will presumably be agreement at the end of the assessment.
I am a little confused. Perhaps the Minister can explain the situation to me. As I understand it, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, it is intended that the local authority will not be asked to pay for the cost of something without knowing what the cost is. If there is a joint assessment followed by a joint agreement, there will be agreement about the cost. As I understand it, the local authority would pay for a nursing home. Where in the Bill does it state that social services departments are responsible for nursing home fees as well as those for other accommodation? Having said that, I should add that I support the amendments.
Lord Ennals: This group of amendments is not at all pernickety. I speak particularly to Amendment No. 110A, but the group hangs together very properly. Unless some adjustment is made, we are building up for ourselves a great deal of ill-feeling between health authorities and social services departments.
As I read it, there is a distinct ambiguity in the Bill about the powers of the district health authorities. On the one hand, the Bill aims to prevent local authorities from placing individuals in nursing homes without the consent of the health authority, as set out in Clause 40(1)(b) on page 46 of the Bill. That is right. On the other hand, there appears to be no restriction on health authorities making placements without the consent of the local authorities. In those circumstances it is unclear who would be expected to pay if the patient required support from public funds. Obviously, the issue of assessment is crucial in this matter.
As the Bill now stands, district health authorities—in future that will cover NHS trusts or provider units—would have every incentive to create nursing homes which could be registered by the health authority without reference to the local authority and to impose the bill on the local authority. They could thus transfer responsibility for expenditure to the local authority apparently without any let or hindrance. Obviously, that would be grossly unsatisfactory and I cannot imagine that that is what the Government intend. The rapid growth of nursing homes is a well-known phenomenon and now outstrips that of residential care homes which was the phenomenon a year or so ago.
Nursing home places are much more costly. Proprietors can and do charge much larger fees for nursing home places. If it is easier for patients to gain access to them rather than to residential care homes, there would be a double incentive for that sector to develop, it would seem, without control.

1285
Let me give an example. In Scotland one health board converted several hundred beds into nursing home beds which will draw money from the social security system. When we turn to the English situation, one private company decided to change a number of homes into nursing homes to the tune of 940 beds—that is in Letchworth, Malvern, Preston, Blackburn, Dudley, Oldham, Warrington and Bolton. Also there is a plan for a home or extension in the course of construction to be converted into nursing home beds. I could continue with much disturbing evidence in that respect.
After April 1991 local authorities will have to pay for new admissions and apparently have no necessary say in the appropriateness of those admissions unless they are by joint assessment, as referred to in Amendment. No. 109. I do not object to the NHS paying for admissions which local authorities believe to be inappropriate or for which the local authority has no funds. It would be inappropriate for the health authority to make a decision which could pre-empt the money available to local authorities for community care, whether or not they are ring fenced.
As I said earlier, I am sure that the Government do not intend that to happen. If so, they must either accept amendments such as this one or make some other change. Otherwise, on the face of the Bill there would be a situation which would be grossly unsatisfactory and which, as I said at the beginning of the debate, could lead to great conflicts between health authorities and local authorities. That is the last thing that we want to do in this Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: I was very interested to hear the expression "joint assessment" used by my noble friend Lady Faithful. That might be a loophole when dealing with some of the complicated cases. If the district or local authority's medical officer of health, a general practitioner and/or a psychiatrist were all to agree that a certain patient should have treatment, that might be a way in which legislation could be tightened up to enable people to be respectfully forced to take treatment. That might be a way forward.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Amendment No. 109 has two parts to it. The first is about the notification of the outcome of an assessment to the person who has been assessed, and we shall be coming on to discuss those issues also when we reach Clause 45. The other part of the amendment seeks that both the local authority and the district health authority should agree that arrangements are necessary before they are made to place someone in residential accommodation where nursing care is provided.
I believe that this part of the amendment is redundant since the requirement in Subsection 1B of the 1948 Act, now contained in Clause 40(2) of the Bill, covers that concern to obtain the consent of the relevant DHA. The local authority, in the circumstances envisaged by this amendment, will already have decided that residential accommodation with nursing care is necessary. This
1286
will almost invariably be as a result of a multi-dis-ciplinary assessment involving staff from the DHS and we are providing that the placement should not take place without the consent of the DHA. Therefore the anxiety with which this amendment deals is already met in the wording of the Bill.
Turning to Amendment No. 109ZB, at present there are two ways involving a district health authority in which a person may enter a nursing home. Under the first, the authority advises a hospital in-patient that he is ready for discharge from hospital but will need nursing home care. The patient and his family then arrange such care, and if they require help from public funds to meet the fees the patient claims income support. The second way is for the health authority itself to enter into a contractual arrangement with the nursing home. Under that the hospital is responsible for the full cost of the place in the home. The patient moves into the nursing home but remains a hospital in-patient which means that he cannot be charged for his care or accommodation and that his entitlement to social security benefits is very limited.
When the new community care arrangements come into efect, patients leaving hospital will no longer be able to claim a special rate of income support to meet the fees in nursing homes (unless they have preserved entitlement to income support at the registered homes rate). Thus, if they are unable to meet the fees themselves, such patients will need to seek help from the local authority. The local authority will assess their needs for community care in accordance with Clause 45 of the Bill, and if it decides their care needs call for the provision by the authority of nursing home care, the authority will proceed to arrange that in accordance with the new Section 26(1A) of the National Assistance Act 1948. The local authority will in effect be giving its consent to provision of nursing home care by agreeing to arrange it. It will also need to seek the consent of the health authority before making arrangements, in accordance with the new Subsection IB to Section 26 of the 1948 Act, which we are considering. We expect that normally the health authority will give that consent by taking part in a multi-disciplinary assessment of the patient's community care needs. Thus, provisions already in the Bill mean that a person cannot enter a nursing home for which a local authority will have to pay without that authority being closely involved in the process and consenting to the move.
There still remains the second possibility that I mentioned earlier. A health authority may decide to place a person in a nursing home by making a contractual arrangement with that home. In that case, the health authority pays for the care which means that the patient is receiving support from public funds. However, the local authority will not have to pay for this and it seems quite unnecessary to require the health authority to seek the consent of the local authority before placing a patient in a nursing home in that way.
So the Bill already provides for the local authority to give its consent before a patient for whom it will have to pay is placed in a nursing home. If a health authority attempted to prejudge the outcome of a

1287
community care assessment and placed a patient in a nursing home without seeking the consent of the local authority, the local authority would be perfectly entitled to refuse to support the patient unless and until it decided, by carrying out a community care assessment, that this form of care was necessary for him. On the other hand, it does not seem reasonable to require the local authority to give consent to health authority contractual arrangements with nursing homes.
I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the third amendment in this group, Amendment No. 110A. When the new community care arrangements come into effect, there will be an overlap of responsibility between local authorities and health authorities, both of whom will be able, albeit in different ways, to provide continuing nursing care. It is important therefore that they draw up ways of working together so that both authorities are clear for which people they should be providing. The key to this is in the preparation of community care plans under Clause 44 of the Bill. Local authorities will be advised, in accordance with the White Paper Caring for People, that plans should include planning agreements with district health authorities. One such agreement should cover the need for nursing home places arranged by the local authority and the criteria for admission to them. The assessment and placing of individual patients in these places will then take place in the context of that planning agreement. Given that general scenario, the outcome in each of the three sets of circumstances envisaged in the amendment we are now considering would be as follows.
First, when the local authority does not agree that the person's care needs call for the provision by them of nursing home care, the local authority cannot be required to pay for the care. Indeed I have no doubt that the local authority would refuse to pay for nursing home care and would be quite justified in doing so.
Secondly, when a person leaves hospital as part of a planned change of service provision, I agree that the health authority should make some contribution to the cost. Under our proposals this would be achieved as follows. The number of nursing home places would have been agreed by the authorities, as I have explained. This agreement should take account of any planned hospital closures. Where extra places are required on this account the authority should also agree on the finance that would be transferred from the health authority to the local authority under the joint finance arrangements, in accordance with the Government's care in the community policy, to enable the local authority to provide the required number of places. If arrangements are made on these lines the position of the local authority will be fully safeguarded and I see no need for any further more explicit provisions.
Thirdly, there is the situation when the patient moves to a registered nursing home which offers services other than nursing, which I take it means a private hospital. In accordance with the arrangements set out in the clause that we are now discussing, when a local authority has agreed, following an assessment that a patient's care needs
1288
call for the provision by them of nursing home care, they will then negotiate with a registered, or exempt, nursing home for the provision of appropriate care. That is what they will pay for and that is what the patient will be entitled to receive. I do not see that it matters what other services the nursing home provides. If the assessment is properly carried out and the proper agreement drawn up with the nursing home there ought to be no possibility of the local authority finding itself paying for private hospital treatment—something that they have no power to pay for anyway. If a person provided with nursing home care in a home which was also a private hospital needed acute treatment, he would have to enter a National Health Service hospital for that purpose unless the health authority, not the local authority, entered into a contractual arrangement with the nursing home hospital to provide the acute treatment required.
It has been a lengthy and, I have found, a somewhat complicated response to the amendments proposed. However, I hope that I have been able to demonstrate by that lengthy explanation that the three parts of Amendment No. 110A are already provided for. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the movers of these amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Faithfull: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that I find her explanation slightly complicated. The Minister stated in her first statement that Section 40 deals with district health authority consent for local authority placements. However, the amendment which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, requires local authority consent before the district health authority placement if the local authority is required to pay. It is complementary to Section 40.
What would happen to someone placed by the district authority in a nursing home if the local authority refused to pay? Could the district health authority be forced to pay if the patient had agreed to be transferred?
I do not expect an answer now but perhaps the noble Baroness will write to me. We have had many complications from her and I have added to them. Perhaps I might have a letter on the subject.
Baroness Hooper: I am very happy to comply with my noble friend's request. I shall endeavour to make it a short letter. I shall make it available to other Members of the Committee who may be interested.
Lord Ennals: My questions may be even simpler than those posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It is rather difficult stuff; it is not like poetry. One has to follow every word. I have three simple questions. First, Clause 40(1B) states:
"No such arrangements as mentioned in subsection (1A) of this section may be made by an authority for the accommodation of any person without the consent of the District Health Authority for the area in which he is ordinarily resident".
That makes it quite clear that such arrangements will not happen that way round. I do not quite understand why, even if these amendments are not

1289
right, the assurance the other way round cannot be given with the same precision.
Secondly—I am trying to turn into one sentence what the noble Baroness said—is she saying that there can be no circumstances in which a local authority will be charged for nursing home accommodation without having given its consent? That will be a very important statement if she says yes. It might be better if it were written in the same terms as those for the protection for the district health authority.
Thirdly—and if the Minister cannot reply now, so be it—can she explain the massive growth in nursing homes to which I made reference? There is obviously a campaign afoot, mainly in the private sector, to turn one type of accommodation into another. Usually if someone does that there is a motive behind it. I suspect that there is some profit motive behind it. Why should that be going on if there is nothing to worry about?
Baroness Hooper: I believe I said at the beginning of my lengthy oration that there are provisions in the Bill which mean that a person cannot enter a nursing home for which a local authority will have to pay without that authority being both closely involved and consenting to the move. That is an answer that I can clearly give at this stage. Perhaps I may read the record and include any other answers to questions raised by the noble Lord in my reply to my noble friend.
Lord Seebohm: The noble Baroness has not answered my first point on Amendment No. 109. It was a question about the relationship between the health and social services. It is a very dicey issue. Amendment No. 109 stands entirely on its own, quite apart from who will pay and who goes where. Has the noble Baroness given that thought?
Baroness Hooper: I may not have given it sufficient thought. I should like to do so before responding to the noble Lord.
Lord Seebohm: In that case, before I take counsel's advice on the long statement, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 109ZA:
Page 46 line 41, leave out from ("of) to end of line 42 and insert ("such District Health Authority as may be determined in accordance with regulations").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Hooper.
Our intention is that in England and Wales no one should enter a nursing home at the public expense until the health authority which continues to have responsibility for providing continuing nursing care to that person has given its consent. The health authority will normally give its consent through a process of multi-disciplinary assessment. The Bill as it probably stands refers to the consent being required of the district health authority in which the person is normally resident. The concept of ordinary
1290
residence in relation to a district health authority, is however, inappropriate in this Bill. In future district health authorities will have primary functions. Clause 3(1) defines their primary functions as being functions exercisable by directions under Sections 13 and 14 of the National Health Service Act 1977.
These directions given in regulations will set out those for whom district health authorities are responsible. The regulations have not yet been drafted and the precise terminology has therefore not been agreed. However, the policy is that district health authorities will be responsible for providing health services to, among others specified in regulations, people living within their districts. It is important that the new subsection (1B) of Section 126 of the National Assistance Act 1948 should correspond with the regulations made under Clause 3(1) so that the consent of the right district health authority can be obtained. It is for that reason that the reference to "ordinarily resident" is being replaced by a power to make regulations which will set out which district health authority is to give consent. Such a provision is needed to cope with the overlapping responsibilities of health and local authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 109ZB and 109A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 110 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 110A not moved.]
[Amendment No. HOB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 110BA:
Page 46, line 48, at end insert:
("(1D) Before arrangements are made by virtue of this section with any person, that person shall disclose to the local authority making the arrangements any relevant criminal convictions.
(1E) On request by a local authority, a police officer shall disclose to the authority any relevant criminal convictions of any person with whom it is proposed to make arrangements by virtue of this section.
(1F) Relevant criminal convictions for the purposes of subsections (1D) and (1E) above shall be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(1G) Any person in respect of whom a disclosure is made under subsection (1E) above shall be informed of the disclosure.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 113ZA to which I do not propose to speak. There are separate arguments and I wish that they had not been grouped together.
As regards the amendment tabled in my name, I appreciate that I am stepping into an area where, like Agag, it is necessary to tread delicately. However, as I spent a substantial part of my career dealing with the police, I venture to press the Government a little about the problem. I have not overlooked the relevant exchanges which took place in our debates on the Children Bill; nor have I overlooked the report in today's Times about the excessive demands made on the police for access to their records.
The aim of the amendment is obvious—how to ensure that information comes to light about the relevant criminal record of anyone seeking to run a residential home. I know that the Government are aware of the problem. On 1st May in another place (col. 881) the Minister for Health said that registering authorities should ask an applicant to provide details of any previous criminal convictions and that it was planned to require such disclosure when the regulations under the Registered Homes Act 1984 were next revised.
I imagine that the regulation-making power in the 1984 Act is wide enough for the purpose. I have a slight doubt but I am not a lawyer. Incidentally, I hope that Mrs. Bottomley did not mean what she said when talking about getting an applicant to provide details of any previous criminal conviction. We require the particulars of relevant criminal convictions, and the offences could be listed. It would not be of great consequence to know that an applicant had been convicted of exceeding the speed limit.
Be that as it may, the problem would not be solved unless there was access to police records. If an applicant knew that there was no such check he might take the risk of not disclosing a conviction. If it were known that there would be a check—and that procedure could be explained on the application form—the risk of an applicant taking such a chance would be much less. In practice little extra burden would fall on the police.
For some years I was chairman of the Gaming Board for Great Britain. Any applicant for a certificate to act as, say, a croupier in a casino had to declare any convictions and his record was checked against police records. I cannot help wondering whether it is not as important to protect the elderly and infirm from being entrusted to the care of someone who has a conviction for cruelty or blackmail as it is to protect a gambler from handing his bet to a croupier who has a conviction for dishonesty. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment but having read and thought about it again over the weekend, I am a little worried about one point mentioned by the noble Lord. Under the Children Act one always asks anyone, first, whether he or she has a conviction and, secondly, whether one has his or her permission to go to the police. I always believe it right to ask for that permission. If a person has a conviction of the type enumerated, one usually receives a letter the next morning stating that they have another job and will be moving to another part of the country. Therefore, one is saved the trouble of worrying the police for a reference. I support the amendment but I now wish that a provision had been included to the effect that the applicant would be informed at the beginning that the police would be contacted and that his or her permission would be obtained.
Lord Seebohm: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 113ZA, which is grouped with that standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Allen. I am at a great disadvantage because I have never been a Permanent
1292
Secretary at the Home Office or chairman of the Gaming Board for Great Britain.
The provision contained in my noble friend's amendment is merely an extension to the voluntary bodies. I am reminded of an amendment which is no longer on the Marshalled List; it is that relating to the control of small homes. I am worried about the matter but cannot think of a suitable amendment to put forward. I do not know whether I am out of order in asking the Minister to comment. There appears to be a danger in unregistered and unlicensed homes which are run on commercial lines and I hope that something can be done about that.
I agree with my noble friend that if applicants are told that their names will be passed on to the police, who will check whether they have convictions, that will stop many people from putting their names forward. Therefore, it will not cause a great deal of trouble for the police.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I had not intended to intervene but I must oppose Amendment No. 109. From what has been said it would appear that the floodgates would open as soon as anyone applied to operate a residential home. Ex-convicts from all over the country could apply and nobody would know unless the police were consulted. To my certain knowledge the police are disturbed about the fact that they do not receive from hospitals, doctors and others vital information that would prevent crimes.
I have the greatest sympathy with the point made about elderly people who are vulnerable and in the care of those running commercial homes. It is important that those who are responsible for them should be of impeccable character. Nevertheless, they are not the only people at risk. Often people in local authority homes have cause for complaint and when they are being mistreated it is extremely difficult for them to lodge any complaint whatever.
I fear that if this amendment were to be accepted, it would open the floodgates. It would be highly undesirable from the point of view of the public, civil liberties and so on if that sort of information became freely available. A person having a grudge against another who wants to open a residential home may seek to place information against that person. That has happened and could happen in the future.
There are many other areas in which one would like to think that access to information from the police was possible. For example, I recall when I represented the city of Gloucester that an ex-prisoner from one of the special units in the prison was teaching in one of the local primary schools. The prison warder's child was being taught by that ex-prisoner. However, it would not have helped if the police had been able to give information about the ex-prisoner because he had applied for the iob under an assumed name.
I know that that is not likely to happen in the case of a person opening a residential home. However, I believe that that is a very dangerous precedent and that other ways should be found of ensuring that people who are granted permission should be thoroughly vetted and approved. However, that should stop short of consultation with the police.
Lord Peston: I thought that this amendment was completely non-controversial until the intervention of the noble Baroness. I am now obliged to be a trifle controversial which, as she knows, is not my habit. I was going to begin by saying that the matters before us are entirely non-political. If one looks at the Committee stage of this matter in another place, anxieties on this were raised by honourable Members of all parties. I still believe that there is no political content: in the amendments.
I also add that as I read the Committee discussions in the other place, the key problem about which the Minister was anxious was to do with bureaucracy rather than civil liberties and matters of that sort. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, dealt with the bureaucratic side of the matter very well. The provision will act to reduce rather than increase the number of cases likely to be taken up. Therefore, I was somewhat surprised because it looked as if the Committee stage in the other place would lead the Minister to table amendments, but that did not happen. That is why the matter is now before this Committee, not having been dealt with in another place.
I am speaking to both amendments because I believe that the points of principle are the same in both cases. However, the case is overwhelming. There should be no doubt that people carrying out this sort of function should be fit and proper. If they have a criminal conviction or, to use the precise words, "any relevant conviction", it seems to me that one should pause especially, as I understand it—and I am not an expert in the field—if similar considerations already arise in the case of child care. Therefore, I fail to see the logic of arguments that that consideration should not arise in the case of the elderly.
As regards the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, I stand second to none in my anxieties on civil liberties, but I do not regard this as a civil liberties issue at all. I am surprised that that question arises. This is purely a matter of the relevant information that should be before those who are taking the decisions in this sphere. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the wording, but that is not fundamental at this stage. However, I hope that these amendments can be accepted or that the Government will say that they will come back with amendments of their own to deal with this matter.
I have listened as an interested but inexpert person to the contributions made and I find it very hard to conceive of any argument to reject the line which the two amendments take.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: When we were working on our young people, alcohol and crime report, we looked at this matter in relation to publicans. We felt that anybody with a criminal record should not run a public house. However, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act covers that. I was interested when the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke about the Children Act because children are covered by this legislation and it does not seem to have opened
1294
many floodgates, as the other noble Baroness said it may do.
We are dealing with people in residential care who are very frail and elderly, and the disabled people in such care will be very disabled or very mentally ill or handicapped. Therefore, they need protection. They would be very vulnerable if a thief tried to steal from them.
Also, in future nurses will be able to prescribe, which could be very dangerous if such a nurse had a criminal record. Therefore, this matter needs careful consideration and should be looked into. I should like to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, as to whether the floodgates were opened when children became protected by this legislation.
Baroness Hooper: As is generally recognised, the thrust of the Government's community care proposals is to give the individual in need of care or support the highest possible quality of life. This means providing the services and support which people who are affected by problems of ageing, mental illness, physical handicap and other disabilities need to be able to live as independently as possible in their own homes or in homely settings in the community.
We are all too aware of how vulnerable these people can be. I therefore sympathise with the objective underlying these two amendments. It is clearly important that sensible precautions and safeguards should be built into local arrangements. However, we believe that in negotiating contracts, there will be adequate scope for authorities to satisfy themselves as to the fitness of the people supplying the services. Our guidance on contracting will advise authorities on the factors they should take into account. Clearly, this will be one of them.
In addition, the Registered Homes Act 1984 requires authorities to satisfy themselves that proprietors and managers who run residential care homes and nursing homes are fit to do so. In saying that, I recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, small homes catering for four or fewer people are not included in that. Nevertheless, applicants for registration are therefore very carefully vetted and our standing advice to authorities is that they should require people wanting to set up a home to disclose any previous criminal convictions including convictions which, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, are treated as spent. In saying that, I recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes that a person may operate under an assumed name and be unwilling to disclose any previous convictions. That is an enormous problem.
This requirement, not at present found in the schedule, is included in regulations made under the 1984 Act which spell out what information applicants for registration must supply to the registration authority. Proposals to amend the regulations to correct this omission will be made as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.
That brings me to the question of access to police records raised by Amendment No. 113ZA. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, there are already

1295
arrangements in place for checking on people involved in the care of children. Since 1986 the police have given priority to implementing new arrangements for checking the background of people whose work in schools, the health service and in social services brings them into regular contact with children. Together with the Home Office we are presently exploring, through three pilot schemes, the feasibility of extending these arrangements to those who work with children in the voluntary sector. If the pilot schemes are successful and extension of these child protection arrangements to the voluntary sector is agreed, there will be a substantial addition to the workload of the police. I think that that goes some way towards answering the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Nevertheless, I can report that officials from the Department of Health and the Home Office have opened up discussions on the specific issue of access to criminal records in respect of residential care home and nursing home proprietors. I have nothing to report as yet, but this is an important development and we must await its outcome before seeking to make further demands on the police.
Against that background, I have to say that the purpose these amendments seek to achieve is not best served by introducing primary legislation. Therefore, I trust that the movers of the amendment will not wish to press it.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I do not propose to press my amendment at this stage but before Report stage we should all like to know a little more about what is in prospect and what is possible. I confess that I was a little surprised by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. Far from opening the floodgates, it seems to me that we would be closing them. There have been too many instances where people running homes have turned out to have unsatisfactory characters and convictions. A factual check on their records could only be helpful.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene because I do not want my noble friend to withdraw his amendment before I ask the noble Baroness a question. I said earlier that it looked as though the Minister of State in the other place was at one stage going to introduce government amendments. The noble Baroness referred to discussions between officials. Is there still some possibility of government amendments? Was the noble Baroness trying to convey that to the Committee?
Baroness Hooper: No. I believe my conclusion was that we do not feel that the inclusion of this in primary legislation is the way forward.
Baroness Faithfull: Is it therefore intended to put it in regulations?
Baroness Hooper: I am not in a position to say at the moment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: It is precisely on that point that we require more information before we decide whether to pursue the matter on Report. Certainly I should like to keep the position open.
1296
Perhaps I may add that this is a modest amendment. It is not suggested that individuals should be exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders legislation, which I am afraid does apply to my casino croupier. We are not proposing to extend such legislation to employees but only that it should apply to owners and managers of homes. I am blessed if I know how dealing with this matter by a contract and by the local authority satisfying itself that the persons are of good character can possibly meet the difficulty if the local authority has no means of checking on a possible criminal record.
I do not believe that this will place a greater burden on the police for the reasons that I have explained. I emphasise, following up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that it is a crucial feature of the scheme that the applicant should be told on the application form that information is liable to be checked with the police.
I have wrestled with this kind of problem for many years and I am conscious of the fact that there are many members of society, many institutions and many bodies who would dearly like to be able to go to the police. I think that in some respects the police have tended to go too far. I am not at all surprised at the fuss that is blowing up about the possibility of criminal records and their disclosure being put into the hands of a non-police body. I have some sympathy with the feelings. Before I withdraw the amendment I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, wishes to intervene.
Lord Ennals: I felt that the noble Lord was about to withdraw his amendment. Before coming back on Report perhaps he will bear this point in mind. Obviously a number of Members of the Committee have been involved in the care and rehabilitation of offenders. We are not suggesting—at least I do not think the noble Lord is suggesting—that all those who may have committed an offence are necessarily to be excluded. As I understand him, he is saying that we need to know. There are some offences the nature of which would make such people entirely unsuitable for coping with those who need help and understanding and also very frail people. There are some types of one-off offence which would make a person totally unsuitable to be in charge of a home but which might not preclude other types of employment. However, we must know.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I support that entirely. One hopes that a list of offences could be drawn up. For example, a conviction for murder, manslaughter, blackmail, physical cruelty or various types of sexual offences would debar an applicant. However, a person caught driving without car insurance perhaps would not be excluded, but it would be nice to know. It is possible that a person with a long string of convictions which are not themselves of great moment would cause one to pause and consider whether he is a suitable person.
The great problem is defining the categories of people for whom the police should provide a service. I submit that looking after the elderly and infirm is one such category. There are others who would like to obtain help from the police of whom that is not true in my view.

1297
Having said all that, we await with interest to see whether anything emerges before Report stage so that we can consider what to do then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 110C:
Page 47 line 7, at end insert:
("(3A) At the end of subsection (2) of that section (under which the arrangements must provide for the local authority to make payments in respect of accommodation provided) there shall be inserted "if the organisation providing accommodation is a registered housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985, any arrangements for payments towards the costs of any individual resident shall not meet the whole costs of the placement but will cover that element of the weekly charges attributable to the provision of personal or nursing care and any services or other charges that are ineligible for housing benefit."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to deal with a complicated but, I am sure, unintended problem arising from the drafting of the Bill. Where local authorities place disabled people in residential care the authority will meet the full cost of that placement and recover a contribution from the resident, including any income support and housing benefit. That takes no account of the way in which housing associations which provide housing for community care projects are required to collect rents in order to qualify for housing corporation finance.
This amendment seeks to make housing associations a special case to ensure their continued funding through the Housing Corporation, which is extremely important for them. The residents in such homes, would have the care element paid for by social services but would pay the rent element direct to the housing association. The residents would then be eligible to claim housing benefit on the rent in the usual way. The amendment ensures that there would not be a gap between the rent element and the other services that the local authorities pay for.
As the proposals are currently framed, the local authorities place an individual in residential care and pay the full cost of the placements to the organisation or proprietor running the scheme. The authority will then carry out a means test on the individual and recover a proportion of the cost. Such an assessment will take into account the resident's income support and housing benefit.
The Department of Health proposes that the housing benefit is calculated on a notional basis by taking the average cost of one and two-bedded properties in an area and averaging it out. That notional element will be taken to be the housing benefit entitlement for the resident and will be taken into account in turn when the means test of resources is carried out.
However, that system has a number of faults. What is important for this amendment is that it ignores the fact that the housing associations receive their funding from the Housing Corporation. They need to be able to show that the landlord-tenant relationship exists so that the scheme can be counted as a housing scheme. In addition, because of new requirements by the Housing Corporation it is
1298
necessary to show a reasonable market return on the capital invested in the scheme.
We are sure that it is not the Government's intention to discourage housing associations from funding community care schemes; for example, where a housing association fulfils housing needs, other agencies contract for the care element and the case manager brings the whole system together. The National Federation of Housing Associations has made it clear that the proposed new arrangements are incompatible with the housing associations and the funding system as operated by the Housing Corporation.
This morning I received a letter from Sense, in the Midlands. We all know of the remarkably good work done by the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association for some of the most severely handicapped people in society. In referring to residential accommodation and the continuing education that it provides to deaf-blind students, Sense states:
"Of necessity, time in an educational establishment must be limited and Sense has therefore entered into partnership arrangements with a number of housing associations to develop permanent homes for students who are ready to move on from the further education centres. Twenty-four such places will become available in the next financial year and further provision is planned across the country.
The costs of developing accommodation for adults with dual sensory impairments are very high because of the special needs of the client group, and Sense would not be able to contemplate development of further places without the financial support available from the Housing Corporation through Housing Associations".
Unless that anomaly is dealt with that situation will arise. As I said, we hope that all these matters have led to an unintended result in the way in which the Bill is drafted. The wording of the amendment may not be perfect and we shall be quite prepared to withdraw it if the Minister can assure us that the Government recognise the problem and have specific plans to deal with it. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I strongly support this amendment. There is a growing tendency for housing associations, particularly with physically disabled people as their residents, to work in conjunction with other voluntary organisations for physically disabled people and where the other organisations provide the nursing care element. It is essential that that is paid for by the local authorities.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: I wish to take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Carter. I think that in making these arrangements the Government may have affected the basic funding policy of the housing associations unintentionally. I believe that that may be unintentional because I know that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee understand and appreciate the vital role that the housing associations play in this area. Over the years they have been encouraged to do so by successive governments.
As the Committee knows, housing associations are now expected to finance new schemes under these arrangements partly by raising the money through

1299
private loans. That is only possible if residents can claim housing benefits on the normal basis and the associations can continue funding through the Housing Corporation, as my noble friend has pointed out. That is a key point and I do not apologise for emphasising it.
The amendment would make the community funding arrangements and the housing associations' policy compatible. Therefore I hope that the Government can take it seriously. The amendment would also preserve the direct landlord-tenant relationship, which is of great importance. Otherwise residents will lose control of their own finances and they will be unable to handle their own money, and it will undermine the principle of choice and independence which is basic to the housing associations philosophy in this regard. I cannot believe that the Government wish to do that.
As the noble Baroness said, the whole question is highly complicated. Indeed, this whole Bill is highly complicated. I shall not go into any further detail at this point. As the Bill stands the most serious consequences will follow. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure us. I fully support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Henley: As the noble Baroness has just said and as her noble friend Lord Carter said earlier, this is a very complicated matter. I hope that I can assist the Committee. The provisions of Sections 21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, as amended by the clause we are now considering, and of Section 22 of the same Act, as amended by Clause 42 of the Bill, have the effect that a local authority which arranges residential or nursing home care for someone must charge that person the full amount he is assessed as being able to pay in accordance with regulations the Secretary of State will be making under Section 22(5) of the 1948 Act. The effect of this will be to leave the person with an amount, also to be prescribed in regulations, for personal expenses.
The financial assessment provisions will be prescribed in regulations and will be legally binding on local authorities, with the aim of securing equality of treatment for people in residential care and nursing homes across the country and obliging local authorities to collect the full amount legally payable by such people. That will be fair both to people in homes and to charge payers. I assume that these arrangements will commend themselves to all Members of the Committee. As the noble Lord has explained, the purpose of the amendment is to relax the mechanism by which payment will have to be made. Under Section 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948 this has to be as follows: the local authority negotiates a charge for the place in the home representing the full cost of providing accommodation, care and services. It then charges and collects from the resident the amount he can afford to pay, taking into account any income support or housing benefit to which he is entitled. That explains the difficulties that are created both for housing associations, which stand to lose valuable support from the Housing Corporation, and for users, who may be being encouraged to take more
1300
responsibility for their own affairs, including paying their rent, to prepare them for life back in the community.
I agree that there seems to be a problem here. Indeed that is already under investigation by officials of the departments concerned. I would not like to speculate today what the outcome will be or whether this amendment is the answer. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue. I hope that we shall come back at a later stage with further proposals if, when our officials have finished considering the matter, there seems to be a need for them. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I do not wish to be pedantic, but he said that he hopes to come back with another suggestion. I hope that he will return at the next stage of the Bill with some proposals.
Lord Henley: It was an assurance without commitment. I said that when our officials had finished considering the matter, if there seemed to be a need for an amendment, we should return with other suggestions.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 111 to 113 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 113ZA:
Page 47, line 26, at end insert:
("(7) Any voluntary organisation or other person making arrangements with a local authority under subsections (5) and (6) above shall ensure that each person employed in the provision of services discloses any relevant criminal conviction.
(8) On request from the local authority, police must disclose relevant convictions of any person employed in the provision of services under subsections (5) and (6) above. For the purposes of this section, "relevant criminal convictions" shall be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State and laid before both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I am not letting this matter drop by any means. We shall bring it back at Report stage. For the time being I withdraw this amendment.
[Amendment No. 113ZA not moved.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 113ZB:
Page 47, line 26, at end insert:
("(7) In placing any contract with a voluntary organisation or person for the purposes of the provision of community care under section 26 of that Act as amended by this Part, a local authority may, where it considers it conducive to the maintenance or improvement of the type, quality or range of care, or of the continuity of such care, include in any contract with such an organisation or person any of the following matters—

(a) the hours of work, or rate of remuneration, of workers employed by the organisation or other person;

(b) any arrangements for training given by or on behalf of the organisation or person to workers before or during their employment;

(c) the use of volunteers;

1301

(d) the composition of the workforce of the organisation or person in respect of sex, race or disability, in relation to the type, quality or range of care available to persons under the contract.").

The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. There is no doubt that some local authorities and some health authorities have had disappointing experiences in the field of private contracts for work that has been put out to tender. Part II of the Local Government Act 1988 prevents local authorities from imposing what it calls non-commercial considerations when awarding contracts. That legislation applies to all contracts.
The Government's community care proposals seek to encourage local authorities to stimulate the provision of care services by the voluntary and private sectors. This will mean that local authorities will increasingly enter into contractual arrangements with the voluntary and private sectors. It is of great concern that the quality of service to consumers should not suffer as a result of that trend. This matter is very much in the minds of the local authority associations and, in particular, of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
The real danger with the White Paper proposals is that the introduction of the tendering principle to social care services and the emphasis on stimulating competition will encourage service providers to cut costs. Traditionally, workers engaged in caring or domestic duties have had little status and have been open to exploitation. The easiest way for non-unionised employers to reduce overheads and provide a competitive unit cost is to employ staff on a casual basis, at low hourly rates of pay and with no training given. Workers who are undertrained, poorly paid and overworked will not provide service users with high quality care delivered with sensitivity or warmth.
The experience from contracted out local government services other than community care sometimes gives cause for concern. There have been some disturbing experiences and sometimes contracts have been ended for that reason. For example, where private contractors have taken over contracts for the provision of welfare catering they have usually been able to submit a competitive bid by imposing significant reductions in the terms and conditions of employment. As a result, too often staff turnover has become a major problem—400 per cent. per annum in one recorded welfare catering contract. There have also been some very unsatisfactory results from cleaning contracts, both with local authorities and with health authorities.
A separate but related issue is the use of volunteers in the provision of social care services. While I recognise and support the valuable contribution which volunteers make—being involved with voluntary organisations, I emphasise this point very much—sometimes there must be concern about the way in which their voluntary effort might influence the ability of voluntary organisations to submit tenders which to all intents and purposes represent unfair competition. Volunteers should be used as a supplement to and not a substitute for properly paid
1302
labour. Local authorities must therefore be able to stipulate this in their contract specifications.
Social service departments will be arranging contracts for the provision of care services for some of the most vulnerable members of the community.
I am thinking of elderly people, people with mental handicaps and so on—frail people. All those currently involved in the provision of care services to such groups, including government bodies such as the Social Services Inspectorate, are agreed about the need for adequate training of staff to ensure good quality care. Stipulations with regard to the training of staff are also deemed to be non-commercial considerations under the terms of Part II. It is increasingly acknowledged that social care services can be effective only where those providing the services reflect the cultural experiences of those in receipt of them. Where this is not the case research shows that services will suffer from low take-up and that those who use such services are likely to suffer from insensitive approaches to meeting their needs. We are thinking in terms of race, of gender or of disability, and stipulations about the cultural experience of those involved are considered to be non-commerical considerations under Part II.
All the above considerations are disallowed in contract specifications under the provisions of Part II of the Local Government Act. It is those that we are challenging. The amendment seeks to reverse the situation to ensure that considerations which are essential to the provision of good quality social services are allowed to be stipulated in the specification of contracts arising from community care legislation. The purpose is to allow local authorities to make these provisions locally; and only in situations which are appropriate and not across local authority services as a whole. The purpose of the amendment therefore is to influence only those contracts that are involved with the work of social service departments.
Additionally, the spirit of previous legislation—of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in particular—places an emphasis on user involvement and satisfaction. This amendment would be in pursuance of those aims, aims for which all noble Lords fought long and hard during the passage of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. It is encumbent on government to honour that legislation by acknowledging the value of this amendment. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: As we have discussed in going through Clause 40, the clause covers the provision of accommodation and welfare services enabling local authorities to make arrangements for the provision of care in private and voluntary homes for people assessed as needing that form of care. It enables authorities to employ as their agents in the provision of welfare services individuals and organisations as well as voluntary organisations. Noble Lords will be aware that the purpose behind making these provisions is to encourage local authorities and enable them to select from the full range of available provision that which best meets

1303
the needs they have identified for their local community. It will therefore be for the local authority to make, via contractual arrangements, the most apropriate agreements that they can with those providing the services.
Authorities will need to give a good deal of thought to the kinds of contracts they wish to enter into and the skills that they will need to set up and negotiate these contracts. It is for each authority to determine the most apropriate form of contract it will enter into, and contracts may range from block arrangements for quite a large number of residential places with a single provider to one-off purchases of specialist facilities. Different forms of agreement may be appropriate in those different circumstances. The amendment before us proposes certain requirements which local authorities may make of those with whom they contract.
We should not determine from the centre the most appropriate features to be taken into account in drawing up a contract. This will depend upon the kind of arrangements the local authority wishes to make and the facilities which the individual or organisation providing the service has at its disposal. The important factor is to secure the right quality of care for those who will be using the facilities at a cost to the authority which is reasonable. The features of the contract which this amendment describes may be regarded as desirable or essential in some cases and by some authorities; others may have different priorities for contract arrangements which they will use to secure the best outcomes for their clients. This is clearly a matter for local discretion and for local determination. The Department of Health is in the process of preparing draft guidance on purchasing and contracting to help local authorities develop their own approach. We do not propose to prescribe particular features of the contract in the way this amendment seeks to do. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Before the noble Lord decides what he will do with the amendment, I should like to ask the Minister a specific question. Paragraph (d) of the amendment is quite important in terms of the people who are employed. I say that because if we are to take into account the needs of individuals in specific areas, we must also take into account their race, religion and other such matters.
If the Minister is saying that under the proposed guidelines local authorities will be encouraged to take such matters into consideration, then I am quite happy. However, I did not gain that impresssion from what the noble Baroness said. I should like her to confirm whether she was suggesting that that would be so.
Baroness Blatch: There are two responses. First, it is my understanding that all employers are bound by the race discrimination laws and those regarding discrimination against people with disabilities. Therefore, all employers would be bound in any event by the law as it stands. Equally, it would be open to any local authority when making contractual arrangements to determine their own parts of the
1304
contract which would relate to paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d).
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I was not suggesting that the authority would be discriminating; I was suggesting that the authority should positively concern itself with such factors. I was trying to elicit from the Minister whether she agrees with me that the authorities would be encouraged under the regulations to act in the way that I suggested.
Baroness Blatch: The authorities would be entirely free to concern themselves with such factors.
Lord Ennals: The Minister has been most helpful. However, I hope that she will give some thought to the point made by my noble friend about guidelines. We want to ensure that local authorities can specify that the workers employed in non-statutory agencies are properly trained and have appropriate working conditions and rates of pay. They should also ensure that service providers are equal opportunity employers, and that they are able to deliver services which meet the religious or cultural needs of the client groups.
When we come to consider quality of service, which is perhaps the most important issue because it affects clients, it is hard to monitor whether clients are receiving the appropriate quality of service. How do you build into a contract for home helps the stipulation that such workers must be kind and friendly as well as being good at keeping the home clean?
Leaving aside the issue of whether this provision finally finds its place in the legislation, I should be much less inclined to press the matter on Report if I thought, as my noble friend said, that there would be guidelines to local authorities about these very sensitive issues affecting people who need very sensitive care and treatment. If the Minister can say something now or later—and I am not trying to press her on the matter—I should be most grateful.
Baroness Blatch: So far as I am aware, there will be guidelines. However, if I have misled Members of the Committee in any way, I shall put the matter right at a later stage.
Lord Ennals: I know that the noble Baroness would never intentionally mislead the Chamber. I shall not press the amendment to a Division. However, I shall study carefully what has been said and consider whether I shall return to the issue on Report. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Residential accommodation with nursing]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 56, line 27, leave out ("substantially handicapped by any deformity or") and insert ("handicapped by any deformity or physical or mental").
The noble Lord said: Clause 53 inserts a new section, Section 13A, into the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. It requires a local authority to make provision for residential accommodation with nursing facilities available for persons in need of such accommodation by reason of,
"infirmity, age, illness or mental disorder, dependency on drugs or alcohol or being substantially handicapped by any deformity or disability".
This concerns one of the complications of the Bill to which I referred on Second Reading. We should have had a separate Bill dealing with Scotland. I say that because we are dealing not with a new Bill; we are dealing with amendments to other Scottish legislation. When I point out to the Committee that this is an amendment to the 1968, albeit rather seminal, Act—namely, the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—it will be realised just how ill-fitting are these clauses in a UK Bill.
There is also the question as to whether this new section is even inserted in the correct place in the 1968 Act. Section 13, after which this section will be inserted, relates to the provision of assistance by local authorities in finding suitable work for "persons in need" who are able to work and for "disposing of the produce of their work". The new section bears no relation whatever to that section.
Additionally, the legislation refers to Section 12 of the Act which sets out the "general social welfare services" which local authorities must provide. We believe that this section would be more appropriately inserted after Section 12 and new Section 12A as new Section 12B. I commend the amendment to the Minister who will reply. Perhaps he will at least take that part of the proposal away and concede that issue, if nothing else.
There is also anxiety regarding the definition of those who must be provided with residential accommodation with nursing facilities if necessary. What constitutes a substantial handicap? Why under the terms of the new section will accommodation with nursing be provided only for those who are,
substantially handicapped by any deformity or disability"?
Those specific definitions could lead to very serious difficulties of interpretation. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): The noble Lord can be assured that I shall look to see whether this particular section is in the correct place in the Bill. However, we believe that the attempt to clarify, for the purposes of local authority powers to provide residential nursing care, the term "disabled" as extending to both physical and mental disablement is unnecessary.
In practice local authorities in Scotland have exercised their social work functions over the past 21 years or so on the basis of a definition of a "person in need" as contained in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, to which the noble Lord referred. It refers to disability without any distinction. As regards the description of the level of handicap, the term "substantially handicapped" is already used in the definition of a "person in
1306
need" as contained in Section 94 of the 1968 Act. That governs the recipients of certain services under the Act. In any event, persons with less than a substantial handicap would be unlikely on that account to have need of nursing care under this section. I am sure that the noble Lord recalls the passing of that Act.
Accordingly, I urge Members of the Committee to reject the amendment as it is unnecessary for the purpose about which we are quite clear: residential nursing care should be reserved for persons who cannot be expected to sustain normal living in the community and who have needs which make ordinary residential care inappropriate for them. In other words, the present wording in this section does not cut off anyone in need.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I shall welcome the Minister's statement if the provision covers all disabilities including mental disability. If that assurance is given, I shall be happy with the statement.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, I can give that assurance.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister always tries to be as helpful as his powers allow. I look forward to hearing his reply as to whether the provision is in the appropriate place in the Bill. Again, like my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I am pleased that the Minister included all disabilities. The Minister made a complicated reply for which I am grateful. I look forward to hearing his comments when we return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In so doing, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee meet again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Computer Misuse Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill [H.L.]
7.31 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ezra.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1988]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 20 to 24.
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 2, as both amendments are probing amendments. We come to the Committee stage of a Bill which had its Second Reading in February. At that time I expressed my distaste for the Bill generally because it seemed to me that there were three major issues with which the Bill attempted to deal in a catch-all, leave-all way; and that some of the elements that the Bill attempted to put right required a major consideration and should come before both Houses of Parliament with a great degree of agreement among traders, manufacturers, consumer bodies and the Government. The absence of such agreement was demonstrated rather well in the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willams of Elvel, who with other Members of this place agreed that the matter was of considerable importance.
The amendments tabled in my name on the Order Paper are designed to flesh out some of the areas where the Bill cannot deal with the problems practically. I turn therefore to Amendment No. 1, which deals with signing, if I may so describe it, of certain classes of used motor vehicles. I say "certain classes" because who is to say what is an unroadworthy vehicle? It is a matter of judgment. In different areas of the country, authorised examiners for Department of Transport tests (MoT tests) have different opinions as to where danger obtains.
In 1989, 6 million used cars changed hands, some of them more than once. As the Bill stands, it is impractical to label a selection of those 6 million motor cars. Motor cars come from auction houses and fleet owners into dealers' premises, usually in large numbers. They are generally deposited on a forecourt or parking area which may also be used as a sales area. It is impractical to go around labelling motor cars during the first few days when the vehicles are on the premises.
As the Committee may have noted, I do not wish to delete subsection (6A)(b) because it is easy to print on a standard order form a line stating:
"This vehicle is roadworthy/unroadworthy".
When a salesman discusses a transaction with a buyer it is easy for him to strike out the appropriate words. That is why I have left the provision in the documentation, but it is impractical to sign vehicles on a forecourt or in a sales area.
There is nothing inherently wrong with with selling unroadworthy vehicles. The trade has for all time recognised that inter-dealer buying comes under the old adage of caveat emptor. A dealer does not expect to be told. A retail customer may wish to buy a vehicle which is deemed to be unroadworthy. He may want it because it is unique or to break for spares and so on.
For a legitimate trader to put up a sign which actively sends away customers is a restraint on reasonable trade. I said "legitimate". There are those
1308
who would argue that, if a used car trader offers a report, however genuine it may be, a customer may be reasonably satisfied as to the vehicle's roadworthiness, so additional signing would not be necessary.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, "As he"—that is the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—
"rightly pointed out, the sale of unroadworthy vehicles is a criminal offence under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988".—[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1076.]
He then added that clocking is a criminal offence under the Trade Descriptions Act. We have therefore clearly established that there are two offences. We are talking about enforcement not the definition of a new offence. The offence exists.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister, who I hope will contribute to our debate, whether the Government have any plans to stiffen Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 at some time. It is also necessary, particularly in the light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, said during Second Reading, to remind the Committee that a minimum—less than 1 per cent.—of fatal and serious injury accidents are caused as a result of mechanical defects. That suggests to me at least that there cannot be many unroadworthy vehicles on our roads.
I also wish to remind the Committee of what I said during Second Reading, that some agencies—certain motor clubs and independent engineers—carry out examinations of vehicles. On a typical three to four year-old vehicle, the cost of such an examination is 6 or 7 per cent. of the windscreen value of that car. Most used car buyers are attracted to a car and, come what may, they will buy it, whatever the colour, model or style. Few will ask for details of ownership or whether there has been a mechanical examination. I believe therefore that the necessity for signing them is misplaced.
Amendment No. 2 extends the functon of trading standards officers and others by permitting authorised officers, irrespective of qualification, to become vehicle examiners. The trading standards service is already under much pressure. I wonder whether there is great value in extending its functions. In this regard it has no authority other than that which obtains after the sale has been made. It has no specific authority before the sale to extend an authority to others who may not be qualified. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to explain to the Committee who will pay for this additional demand on the service and for the training of the officers. There is already a totally competent body of examiners in the vehicle inspectorate of the Department of Transport. I can see no value whatsoever in extending that responsibility to yet another body of people. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to delete the requirement that a car dealer charged with selling or exposing for sale an unroadworthy car could use the statutory defence only if he had also displayed a prominent

1309
notice on the windscreen that the car was unroadworthy.
It is generally acknowledged that the present statutory defence provision available to persons charged with selling or exposing for sale an unroadworthy vehicle makes the law difficult to apply. Following the Second Reading debate, together with Mr. Gareth Wardell, who introduced a similar Bill in another place, I had a meeting with the Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Atkins. He wrote to me about a number of issues in the Bill. In the letter he confirmed that it was the Government's intention to make it more difficult for motor dealers to avoid prosecution for selling unroadworthy vehicles. He stated:
"our objective is to ensure that dealers take more care, and to ensure that the purchaser is well aware of the facts in the case of a legitimate sale of an unroadworthy vehicle".
Those are clearly stated words. Our objective in seeking to retain the clause corresponds exactly with that of the Government. We only appear to differ in the means by which our common objective might be achieved.
The route favoured by the Government is apparently to strengthen the defence provision by inserting what is known as the "due diligence" defence into Section 75(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This type of defence is commonly used in consumer protection legislation. It allows the person charged with an offence to escape conviction if he can satisfy a court on the balance of probabilities that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. It has proved its value time and again through its application in many general areas of consumer protection law.
However, it can be questioned whether such a general defence is appropriate in the specific area with which we are concerned. Its inclusion could in some cases weaken the present position and would not fulfil the common objective: namely, to ensure that the dealers take more care and the purchaser is well aware of the facts in the case of a legitimate sale of an unroadworthy vehicle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, it is perfectly proper to sell unroadworthy vehicles. It is perfectly proper to purchase such vehicles. Where I fail to follow his logic is that he said that, if there were a notice drawing attention to the fact that some of the wares in the forecourt were unroadworthy, this would somehow inhibit the commercial operation. I should have thought it would do precisely the reverse. Those who are interested in purchasing unroadworthy vehicles could immediately have their attention drawn to them. Those who wished to avoid such vehicles could look elsewhere.
At Second Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already reminded us, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made the point that the proposed new defence could impose an onus on the seller to decide for himself whether a vehicle was roadworthy, It is fair point to make. Nevertheless, following that debate I received a letter from Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading. He said that nobody would be required to make an expert
1310
decision about the roadworthiness of his or her car. It would simply be, as is the case now, that anyone who sold a car which was unroadworthy would be liable to be convicted in the absence of a defence. Any seller who knew that his or her car was unroadworthy or who suspected that it might be unroadworthy could take advantage of the defence provided for in this clause of the Bill.
We have proposed a simple system which meets a particular need in a uniform way. It meets the common objective, along with the requirement to include information in sales documents. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—who pointed out to us that it was a probing amendment—will not pursue it.
Perhaps the Committee will now allow me to refer to the noble Lord's second amendment, as he dealt with that as well. Its effect is to remove the provision which would give trading standards officers powers to go on to forecourts to check that vehicles offered for sale were roadworthy. Again this was extensively debated in our Second Reading.
All parties are in agreement that the offence of exposing for sale and selling unroadworthy vehicles is of vital importance. There is much discussion about how the defence can be tightened up to ensure that it is effective. But what is the use of a solid offence provision if it is coupled with, as we contend, ineffective enforcement? At present, as Members of the Committee will recall, two organisations have enforcement responsibilities recognised under the Act: the police and the Department of Transport vehicle examiners. Neither body has in the past recognised it as one of its priorities periodically to go on to garage forecourts and subject cars exposed for sale to a check for roadworthiness.
When people buy a car which turns out to be unroadworthy, their first port of call, should the dealer not voluntarily put matters right, will more often than not be the local authority trading standards or consumer protection department and not one of the bodies designated under the legislation. In some cases local authorities have used their general powers to take proceedings following the sale of an unroadworthy car. However, unlike in other situations involving product safety—for example, the sale of an unsafe electric fire—they have no power to go on to the trader's premises to check purely whether other cars that are available for sale are safe. That is because motor vehicles are exempt from the general safety provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
If the cars on the forecourt have a description applied to them, for example that of being in good condition, trading standards officers can use their powers under the Trade Descriptions Act to enter the premises and check whether the description is correct. However, where no description is applied, even where they suspect that a garage is regularly selling unsafe vehicles, they can take no action other than to pass the matter on to one of the existing enforcement agencies which do not regard forecourt checks of this nature as one of their priorities.
It is surely wrong therefore for trading standards officers not to have the necessary powers to ensure effective enforcement as regards this offence. They

1311
are responsible for ensuring that a wide range of goods are safe for use. They are the first port of call for aggrieved consumers. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said on Second Reading that trading standards officers are not experts in assessing roadworthiness. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also made that point. That is indeed so, but nor are they generally experts in the safety of electrical goods, the composition of petrol, the determination of fineness of precious metals or in checking if a car is in good condition. Nor are they likely to be experts in assessing the level of radiation in irradiated food. However, these are all jobs that they are expected to carry out. Trading standards officers have the power to collect evidence but they employ experts from whatever field is involved to obtain the evidence they require. That is the way in which they now operate in all these diverse matters and there is no reason whatever why they could not operate in such a way in respect of used cars being offered for sale on garage forecourts.
It would be up to the experts employed by the trading standards officers to ensure that the examination and opinion conformed with whatever criteria are used to satisfy their legal requirements. Trading standards officers naturally seek advice from persons with impeccable and proven professional credentials. In many instances these are likely to be officers from one of the existing agencies. I was pleased to have the assurance from the Minister responsible for roads and traffic at a meeting which I have referred to that his examiners would be able to respond reasonably quickly to requests for inspections. Past experience, however, indicates that unless trading standards officers are given the power to investigate checks on garage forecourts to ensure the road worthiness of vehicles on display, such checks are unlikely to be carried out effectively by those currently possessing the enforcement responsibility. It is for those reasons that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will not pursue Amendment No. 2.
Viscount Ullswater: I note the amendments being moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas but I should like to remind the Committee of what I said on Second Reading as the Government's view has not changed since then. I would say in answer to the question of my noble friend that the Government intend to put proposals before Parliament, as soon as time permits, to make it more difficult for unscrupulous motor traders to escape conviction where they knowingly sell unroadworthy cars which are likely to find their way onto the road in that condition. But statutory defences under the criminal law need to be drafted and considered with great care. That is not necessarily to say that the Bill is defective in that respect, or that the amendment of my noble friend is not welcome, but I believe that it is preferable for this matter to be dealt with in a Government Bill, prepared by the parliamentary draftsmen.
I do not therefore propose to move any Government amendments today, either to this clause or to any other part of the Bill. However, I support the intention of the second amendment moved by
1312
my noble friend Lord Lucas to the extent that it would remove one of the Bill's unsatisfactory features. As I said on Second Reading, trading standards officers are generally not qualified to assess vehicle roadworthiness. No doubt they would say that they would take experts with them for this purpose and I am sure they would.
However, it seems an odd proposal to give the TSOs those powers which they are not qualified to use themselves when there exists—the Government wish to stress this point to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—an expert inspectorate which already has the necessary powers and whom TSOs can call upon if they suspect that a garage is selling unroadworthy vehicles. My noble friend has said these are probing amendments and I am sure he will deal with them in that light.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, says what he is going to do with his amendments, I wish to ask the noble Viscount what we are to make of his broader remarks. The Government do not deny that a problem exists. There is a serious problem here, and for the people who buy cars in this area it is a matter of some urgency. It is not a trivial matter and it should not be delayed. This is the only Bill before us. There is no government Bill. However, the Government will introduce proposals when time allows. I could give the noble Viscount a long list of government legislation that many of us would not like to see on the statute book. If that were dispensed with, there would be a great deal of time for a Bill of this kind. However, I shall not bother with such a list at this time.
I did not intend to intervene until this point, but my concern is that we would be a great deal more impressed with the Government's view if we could be told whether there is any sense of urgency on the government side. I do not seek to defend this wording if there is better wording available. My reading of the Bill is that it would help the consumer, at least to some degree, but I would much rather have a government Bill that did the whole job, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, feels the same way. However, I would not like to feel that a government Bill was to be introduced at any old time, which means never. Has the noble Viscount anything to say to us to reassure us as to when such a Bill would be introduced? Obviously he cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but will he say how urgently the Government are dealing with this matter?
Viscount Ullswater: I went a little further on Second Reading. I can inform the Committee and the noble Lord that we anticipate that this matter will be dealt with in a road safety Bill which is due to come before the Chamber. However, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, I do not wish to anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech in the autumn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving a timetable as regards what the Government intend to do on the matter of enforcement elements. Frankly, that is the

1313
right way to go about these two matters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is a serious matter. It has been a serious matter for many years. Nevertheless it is odd that the purchase, sale and maintenance of motor cars evoke the most extraordinary emotions in people, whereas perhaps an exploding gas cylinder in a mower does not evoke nearly the same kind of feelings.
In the first part of our discussion in Committee this evening the Minister reminded us that to legislate in the area of the designation of roadworthy and unroadworthy vehicles, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned, the defence, brings in its train an element of revision of the criminal law. Amendments to the criminal law are best dealt with by government rather than private legislation.
I have made my points. I have heard the views of the Committee, which I shall consider. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
8 p.m.
Clause 2 [Power to make regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 5:
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:
("Power to make regulations
2.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for the purpose of regulating the circumstances and manner in which information relating to the distance travelled by any motor vehicle shall be recorded or declared at any time by any person, whether or not acting in the course of a trade or business or in the public service of the Crown; and

(b) for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of any regulations made under this section.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under this section may—

(a) provide that expressions used in the regulations shall be construed in a particular way for the purposes of this section;

(b) provide that a contravention of any provision of the regulations shall constitute a criminal offence punishable—

(i) on conviction on indictment, by a fine or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both;

(ii) on summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(3) Where the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under this section, it shall be his duty before he makes them—

(a) to consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal; and

(b) to consult such other persons as he considers appropriate.

(4) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and shall include power—

(a) to make different provision for different cases; and

(b) to make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I should like to say that I have paid particular attention to the words of the noble Viscount, Lord
1314
Ullswater, at Second Reading. Referring to the existing Clause 2, he said at col. 1080 of Hansard of 9th February:
"The Bill would confer on the Secretary of State the most sweeping powers to make regulations to govern the motor trade. These enabling powers are so widely drawn that they could be used for almost any purpose from introducing a licensing system for the motor trade right down to regulating the width of the stripes on a car salesman's suit".
I have taken that wording to heart. Not wishing to prescribe the way in which car salesmen should dress I thought it desirable to introduce an amendment which would limit the scope of the clause. The new Clause 2 which I now propose would contain regulations giving powers to the Secretary of State in only one specific area, namely that relating to the recording of mileage information.
The evil of clocking and its cost to both consumers and reputable traders were well expounded at Second Reading. There appears to be general agreement that there is a need for some form of mileage recording scheme. The difficulty lies in agreeing exactly what kind of scheme is most appropriate.
Options include the following. There could be a scheme which would require the mileage of all vehicles to be recorded at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre (DVLC) each time they are relicensed or ownership is transferred. There are many who would support that proposal. Alternatively there could be a similar scheme but applying only at the time when a vehicle changes ownership; or there could be a scheme based on either of the above but restricted to recent vehicles, namely only those of less than three or four years old, which are most prone to clocking. In other words, the scope of any regulation would be limited to cars which are most likely to be clocked. Finally, there could be an even more restricted scheme limited to cars sold by fleet owners. That is the choice.
There is also room for debate about whether any scheme would best be administered solely through the existing mechanisms of the DVLC or whether it should be in private hands, or perhaps a combination of both. There are a number of firms which have established themselves in that area. Since the Second Reading debate I have been advised by some of them of the very extensive and valuable work which they do.
A further area for debate is whether there is a need for any legal compunction to require those subject to a scheme to provide information or whether it should depend purely on their co-operation. I know that the Government favour the most minimal scheme, operated by the private sector and dependent on co-operation. That is the impression that I have of the Government's thinking on the matter. My choice would be for a scheme having statutory backing, applying at least to cars up to four years old and with information being recorded at the DVLC at each licensing date.
A scheme involving the voluntary co-operation of fleet owners has already been tried. It failed through lack of co-operation. There are very good reasons for that in practical terms. Put simply, ex-company cars are usually in good outward condition. They

1315
have, after all, been used to represent the business. They are not very old—four years is generally the maximum. However, usually they have covered a higher than average mileage. The highest price will be obtainable from a dealer, who can make the highest profit on the car. That, unfortunately, will often be the dealer known as a "clocker", because those are the ideal vehicles for clocking. As soon as word goes round in the trade that a particular company is co-operating with a mileage recording scheme and another is not, the first company will almost inevitably find its ability to sell its cars severely handicapped.
None of that should be taken even to imply that fleet car companies work hand in glove with clockers. Of course they do not. However, it is a fact of commercial life that only a few companies would co-operate if they knew that some of their competitors would not. It seems clear, therefore, that if only to ensure fairness in the market place a statutory provision requiring recording of mileage information is necessary.
The question of whether any scheme should be within the private sector or include the DVLC leaves room for discussion. Indeed, discussions are currently taking place between the Institute of Trading Standards Administration—with which I am connected as president—and the DVLC, and also with one of the large private sector companies interested in developing this area. Even that company, however, expects that the basic information would be acquired using the DVLC under statutory powers as the collection agency. It is very interesting that that should be the response of a leading member of the private sector in this area.
The scenario is thus one in which everybody is agreed on the need for some scheme. Private sector information providers, fleet car operators, consumer bodies, motoring organisations, trade associations and enforcement interests see the need for a scheme to have some degree of statutory backing. The proposed amendment meets that need in giving the Secretary of State flexible powers to regulate on the detail of any type of scheme which might be agreed or to act quickly to make a change to a scheme already under way. I beg to move.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I rise to support the insertion of new Clause 2, a clause which is designed to help to clear up some of the misdeeds of the second-hand car racketeers. I was astonished to learn that, of the 7·5 million used-car transactions per year, 3·75 million vehicles were sold by the trade, of which 2,800,000 were shown to be unroadworthy. I am not referring to the legitimate trader, but if 25 per cent. of those vehicles are illegal, there is an urgent necessity to look sympathetically at all suggestions to curb these dangerous fraudsters and eventually abolish the practice of selling cars which the dealer knows to be unroadworthy, riddled with faults and with false mileages on the clock.
I am therefore concerned with those unscrupulous forecourt car dealers who take advantage of the ignorance of the unsuspecting car buyer. It is not
1316
possible for every second-hand car buyer to have a qualified car mechanic with him when considering a purchase. I feel especially sorry for the couple making their first purchase without qualified assistance. I believe that they need some legislative protection. This new clause is designed to make some progress in that direction; to stop the dangerous, illegal practice of turning the second-hand car mileage clocks back; cheating; and selling a partially clapped out car irrespective of the dangerous consequences of such a fiddle.
I understand from surveys carried out that, over a period of 10 years, 20 per cent. of second-hand cars have had their mileage clocks tampered with. Just imagine the deaths and injuries which may well have been caused by nearly clapped out engines under car bonnets travelling at speed on motorways and suddenly the engine fails. It is too late then. There is a pile up and there are casualties, all because of greed, the profit motive and the urge to make a quick quid by falsely enhancing the value of the car with a low mileage on the clock.
When the last survey took place on the problem of unroadworthy cars, Barnsley was one of the towns involved. The survey in Barnsley revealed that, on visiting 28 garages and examining 81 cars, 70 cars were regarded as unroadworthy; that is, 86 per cent. The number of cars regarded as seriously unroadworthy was 34; that is, 42 per cent. Bob Wright, Barnsley's director of consumer and environmental services, stated:
"The results are a damning indictment on the motor trade and will shock and alarm the public. We are not surprised by the results—we know the problem was immense. However, it takes a survey of this nature to prove that unsafe cars were and still are being sold all over the country".
New Clause 2 is concerned with the appalling, illegal practice of re-clocking an odometer and cheating a car buyer into believing that a car is younger and safer than it is—a major fraud, prevalent in our country, with all the despair that it brings to the car purchaser and the deaths and casualties that it can cause on our roads.
It is estimated that in excess of £100 million per year illegal profit is currently made by unscrupulous motor dealers winding back high mileage readings. A typical case in Barnsley concerned a Vauxhall Cavalier which was sold with a mileage indication of 27,000 miles. That was claimed to be a correct indication. On investigation by the trading standards officer, it was learnt that the vehicle had travelled over 114,000 miles—87,000 miles in excess of that stated. Every 1,000 miles reduced its worth by £30. It is not unusual for a reading of 75,000 to be reduced to 25,000, bringing with it an illegal profit of £1,500.
The new clause suggests one way as to how we might deal with the clock fiddlers and encourages the Minister to bring forward regulations which will by law necessitate the mileages travelled by a vehicle to be recorded or declared at any time by any person; and records to be kept, supplied by the motorist at the time of registration and re-registration; in other words, there will be a tightening of the law to catch the clock-fiddling fraudsters.
To those potential killers—no doubt some of those unroadworthy vehicles have killed persons in motor

1317
car crashes—fines and minor prison sentences are insufficient to stop them. Longer gaol sentences should be imposed. Computerisation of mileages recorded by owners of every car every time it changes hands might be effective, but I fear not to the unscrupulous car sharks. The threat of a long sentence in gaol; lost business; being barred from the trade thereafter—all that might well cause them to think again and to realise that it can never be worth the risk. Penalties are contained in the new clause. I support them, but I personally would have been much more severe.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I did not move the two previous amendments because, in re-framing the clause, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has perhaps removed some of the most objectionable parts of the Bill as it then stood. Nevertheless, I am not happy on a number of grounds with the new clause that he proposes.
It is wrong to give the Secretary of State flexible powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, called them, to deal with this one and only matter—mileage recording. Those who may well become Secretaries of State might impose the most draconian regulations upon the industry. I do not believe it right that power should be given unless it is in primary legislation and there is virtually 100 per cent. agreement. That agreement must come not only through the consumer bodies but through the industry, including manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, read out a number of options, none of which appealed to me and all of which I could beat with no problem at all. I can assure him of that. One of his proposals was limitation to fleet owners. Who are fleet owners? There are some respectable names among the renters. They are the people who rent out cars. Their turnover of motor cars is about nine months to 12 months. The turnover of cars which are provided as perquisites for certain employees in lieu of cash is about 36 months with very low mileage. The turnover of salesman-type cars is about every 18 months at around 40,000 miles. The average mileage per year—you can read this in most motoring magazines once or twice a year—is about 11,000 or 12,000 miles.
It does not take much intelligence—it does not even take added reading of motoring columns in newspapers and magazines—to tell a prospective purchaser what he might reasonably look for. It is nonsense to suppose that a car should be re-registered each time it is licensed at the DVLC. The period preferred by the noble Lord was four years. If one looks at the statistics, one sees that about 3 million cars are company registered, either in the company's name or in the secretary's name. A quarter of those are leased. As I said, about 6 million cars change hands annually. An average age for a motor car is about 6·3 years. Many different figures and criteria therefore apply. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that in the short time that I was in my noble friend the Minister's position at the Department of Transport, we examined that problem and could not find an equitable solution.
1318
Perhaps I may now turn briefly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be proud of what he said when he reads Hansard tomorrow. He used very strong language. He talked about dangerous cars. I do not know whether that was in the context of unroadworthy cars or clocked cars because he did not make it too clear. He talked about deaths and killing. I have dealt with the killings and deaths on roads due to mechanical failure. That is not the kind of language which will endear anyone to the supporters of the legislation that we want to see. Mention was made of the unlawful cheating to the sum of £100 million per annum involving unsuspecting purchasers. I have been a long time in the motor trade and I have not met many unsuspecting purchasers. Most of them are pretty canny.
Nevertheless, there is a problem which in my view there is only one way to solve, and which cannot be restricted to one element of the trade (a three or four year-old fleet car or whatever it may be). The solution would avoid credence being given to spurious mileage records deposited at the DVLC or any other registry, at some cost to some body. It is for the Government, the Department of Transport, the retail organisations and the consumer organisations to enter into meaningful conversations with manufacturers to develop a system of mileage recording which is at least 75 per cent. or 85 per cent. foolproof and tamper-proof. We shall then get an evenly spread over and pretty fair chance of catching the rogue.
Again I remind the Committee that this is a matter of enforcement. The law is already in place. I look to the Government to advise on how enforcement of the current law can be better carried out. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will not persist with a measure that is essentially spurious, faulty, cannot be enforced, can be circumvented easily and would bear more harshly (in his preferred course) on one sector, a sector which I do not believe should carry that kind of burden.
Lord Ezra: I cannot refrain from intervening again in the light of those critical comments from the noble Lord on what I thought was a quite limited and on the whole helpful amendment. He says that he does not believe that any of the variants that I indicated could work, that he does not understand what is meant by "fleet car owners" and that the only measure that could possibly work would be some form of tamper-proof odometer which has still to be devised, marketed and introduced into cars as yet unborn and unmade. Obviously that will take a very long time.
We are concerned with a present problem. I suggest that the views that he expressed are not necessarily shared by the Government. I should like to quote again from the letter that I received from Mr. Robert Atkins after my meeting with him. It is dated 14th March. On the question of clocking he says:
"I am in no doubt that this problem can best be tackled by the private sector through the development of a scheme which makes

1319
best use of information already available in the trade. The idea would be to concentrate on those vehicles most likely to be at risk of clocking (eg: good condition high mileage company cars)".
That is precisely to what I referred, but what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, feels is not a worthwhile endeavour. The letter continues:
"Such a scheme would depend on the co-operation of those companies with car fleets, auction houses and garages generally. Nevertheless"—
this is very important—
"we recognise that the sponsors of such a scheme may wish to have some co-operation from DVLC. Officials are already considering with several interested parties how such a scheme might work, and they are also looking at what additional resources might be needed at DVLC".
I bore that in mind as well as the observations of the noble Viscount at Second Reading when I put forward this revised Clause 2. It seems to me that it is entirely in line with the way in which the Government are now thinking.
Viscount Ullswater: I note that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in moving this amendment to his Bill is responding to the criticism which I and other noble Lords made at Second Reading about the scope and imprecision of Clause 2. I note that he now proposes that the regulation-making powers of the clause should be restricted to the question of car mileages. However, this still leaves all the difficulties which were discussed at some length at Second Reading. There is a number of fundamental outstanding questions: for example, how mileage records would be verified; what demand there would be for such information; and how the service would be funded.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said:
"In debates in this House all systems that have been put forward have been found to be defective in some way. Therefore, I do not believe that the clocking side of the Bill takes us much further. I should like to see much more thought given to the matter before primary legislation is produced".—[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1077.]
On that point I agree with the sentiments expressed by the then spokesman for the Opposition.
The Government deplore the practice of clocking and remain ready and willing to consider practical ways of deterring it. But legislation is not always the right answer. I believe that if there is to be a mileage recording scheme, a non-statutory one would be preferable. I suggest that that could provide a basis for a more flexible and targeted scheme which would be financed by those who want to make use of such information rather than being paid for by the taxpayer.
The Government would like to see that course pursued thoroughly first before they could accept the need for additional legislation. Having said that, the Government take note of the amendment.
Lord Ezra: I am pleased to note what the noble Viscount had to say. I believe that this is an important issue. The amendment does not deliberately lay down precisely how the matter should be dealt with but discussions are taking place. I believe that the amendment will help to focus attention on this issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
New Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Damaged and rebuilt vehicles etc.
In section 23 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 (regulations with respect to the transfer and identification of vehicles) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following—
"(dd) make provision generally with respect to vehicles which have been damaged, including provision for the endorsement on any registration document issued in respect of a vehicle after it has been rebuilt of particulars of the rebuilding, provision for a vehicle to be subject to a safety check before the issue of such a document, provision for the surrender of registration documents relating to vehicles which have been damaged and provision with respect to certificates and the marking of vehicles;"").
The noble Lord said: This amendment introduces a new clause after Clause 3. As the wording makes clear, it deals with the rebuilding of insured vehicles after impact accidents. The fact is that between 250,000 and 300,000 vehicles are currently written off by insurance companies every year and notified to the DVLC. According to the statistics, approximately half of those vehicles are repaired and re-registered through the DVLC without any safety inspections. That is the nub of the problem.
The police in particular are much concerned with stolen cars which may be disguised by using written-off vehicles and taking on their identification plates. But that is not the problem with which this amendment is concerned. The problem is the large number of dangerous, repaired vehicles—often two or three vehicles put together—which are sold to the public without any proper safety examination. Trading standards officers receive in excess of 80,000 complaints annually relating to second-hand motor vehicles.
I can quote a few examples of such repaired, written-off vehicles to give the Committee an idea of the scope of the problem. For example, a Saab written off in Scotland was sold for £300 scrap value. It reappeared shortly afterwards and was retailed for nearly 10 times that value—£2,900. It was described by an engineer, who examined it subsequently, as totally unroadworthy and necessitating repairs estimated at £4,000.
Similarly a £7,500 Volvo sold in Scotland was immediately valued at £2,000 less when examined by an independent engineer. A scrap Cavalier sold in Humberside for £450 reappeared with its mileage altered and its body repaired with filler and paint. The car, which sold for £3,500, was found to have a twisted frame. I have many other examples that I could mention to the Committee.
On 4th February 1987 the then Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Peter Bottomley, held a meeting with interested parties from the police, the DVLC, the trade motoring organisations, and trading standards officers. The trade was unanimous that all repaired and rebuilt ex-write-offs should be subjected to independent examination before being

1321
relicensed by the DVLC. Subsequent to that meeting, the Association of Chief Police Officers after wide consultations produced a comprehensive report on the subject together with detailed recommendations. A copy of that report was sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Office and a copy has been placed in the Library of another place.
The report called for surrendering of vehicle registration documents to DVLC in the case of seriously damaged vehicles, and that the vehicles should not be reregistered until they had undergone a test by a Department of Transport vehicle examiner. The test, which would obviously be paid for by those trading-in the vehicle, would ensure that the vehicle's identity was not disguised, and that the vehicle has been repaired to satisfactory safety standards. A further recommendation was aimed at actively discouraging wrecked vehicles being used to disguise stolen vehicles, and at informing subsequent purchasers of rebuilt wrecks of the true history of the vehicle.
Those are the purposes of the amendment. The subject has been exhaustively inquired into. All interested parties consider it a matter which urgently requires to be dealt with. The references made by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, in his intervention earlier about dangerous vehicles certainly apply to this category. I believe that there is an obligation to minimise the risk. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I rise again to support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and hope that this new clause might be accepted.
The problem of the motor trade, in particular the second-hand car business, continues to be real for local authorities and their trading standards officers. I am informed that in Barnsley we have considerable difficulty in ensuring that unroadworthy, falsely described and clocked cars are identified. The clause deals with the problems arising from damaged and rebuilt vehicles and the need to divulge information on registration documents, and provisions for safety checks.
The new clause seeks more effective enforcement, and for the Minister to provide regulation making powers to ensure that seriously damaged vehicles would not be reused on the road until they had passed a safety check and registration documents had been reissued by the driving licence centre.
The second-hand car dealers who rebuild insurance write-offs must be dealt with. The Institute of Trading Standards has campaigned long and hard for increased safety measures against the crooked elements in the second-hand car trade. The last joint survey carried out by the trading standards officers and the Department of Transport inspectors reveals that of the 193 vehicles tested and examined, an amazing 153 were not fit to be on the road.
Bob Wright—who is Barnsley's consumer watchdog, the environment and consumer affairs officer—who carried out the inspections in Barnsley produced a report which revealed that faults discovered included severe structural damage, dangerous brakes, wayward steering, worn seatbelt
1322
mountings and faulty lights. Trickery was common place, and many garages had attempted to mask faults with paint or filler. In one case the worn tyres of a Fiat car had been cunningly recut to make it appear that there was tread on the rubber although it was bald. The sub-frames of several Mini cars were falling apart. It was not uncommon to find seatbelt mountings corroded, and numerous cars offered for sale with foot and hand brakes not working. Bob Wright stated that many of these vehicles could have put lives at risk. It is not just drivers about whom we have to think, but passengers and other road users.
Increasing numbers of comprehensively insured vehicles are being rebuilt after impact accidents and are being relicensed having earlier been notified to the DVLC either by insurers or the police as uneconomic to repair. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has stated, between 250,000 and 300,000 vehicles are currently written off by insurance companies in this way and are subsequently notified to the DVLC. Approximately half of these vehicles are repaired and reregistered through the DVLC without any safety inspections by anyone in authority. Consequently, there are a large number of dangerous repaired vehicles, many of which are cannibalised, which are sold to the public without any proper safety examination.
That is the crux of the problem. It is a highly dangerous practice. Ways and means should be found by Government to stamp it out. This new clause makes a start. Second-hand car dealers who rebuild insurance write-offs need to be dealt with. I hope therefore that the Minister is sympathetic to the call that is made in the new clause.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am certainly sympathetic to the calls that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, make. Both of them have totally misdirected their attention. The new clause that is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is a catch-all catch-none clause. It is badly drafted. For example, it states:
"make provision generally with respect to vehicles which have been damaged".
There is then reference to what we in the trade used to call the cut-and-shut job—two parts of a vehicle welded together. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred to some motor cars which were for sale and which apparently had been purchased. However, anybody with any reasonable wit, intelligence and eyesight can tell a tyre that has been recut. It does not take very much to make a prosecution on that.
The serious element that I suspect lies behind the amendment is this. A vehicle that is written off is taken away from the then owner and he receives cash in lieu. It then becomes the property of the insurance company. The insurance company make the best they can out of the deal and sell the vehicle. It is there that the fault lies. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that it very often is not the used car trader who commissions or undertakes the work of serious accident damage repair, it is another totally different body of people. The car then comes on the market perhaps in an auction or elsewhere. It is the insurance company which has

1323
the responsibility to look after its goods and the potential insured person. It is he who is ultimately the loser.
I have dealt again with death and serious injury incidental upon mechanical failure. I do not wish to go over those figures again. It is a serious matter. I urge the Minister to engage in serious conversation with the insurers. It is with them that the real responsibility and remedy lie, not with such a catch-all catch-none amendment which involves three different people, all at great expense, whom someone—the consumer at the end of the day—will have to pay.
Viscount Ullswater: Again, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, appears to be proposing the establishement of a complex, expensive and bureaucratic system that would be of doubtful value in practice. There is no reliable evidence that vehicles repaired after serious damage represent any significant threat to road safety. Therefore, the Government note the noble Lord's proposal, but do not believe that it would make any tangible contribution to road safety.
Consumers can take elementary precautions to protect themselves when considering the purchase of a used motor car. For example, it is highly desirable to have the car examined by an independent expert before committing oneself to buying it. The prospective purchaser would also be well advised to ask to see the vehicle registration document. If the seller is not prepared to agree to either of those requests my advice to the consumer is to consider looking elsewhere.
As regards the "ringing" of vehicles, arrangements have been in place for many years which involve insurance companies, the DVLC and the police. I do not see the need for them to be replaced with statutory requirements. However, the Government take note of the amendment.
Lord Ezra: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and for the fact that the Government take note of the amendment. I listened with care to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, particularly about the insurance companies. I am sure that they would wish to co-operate in any scheme which, at the end of the day, would be as much in their interest as anybody else's. It would keep cars on the road in a safer condition than would otherwise be the case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The Committee will agree that we have covered most of the elements contained in the Bill. I suspect that Members will wish to deal with more pressing and urgent business this evening. Therefore, it would not be helpful if I embarked on the reasons why I do not like Clause 4. Indeed, neither do I like Clauses 3, 2 or 1.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra Moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert ("and to make provision for the recording of mileage information and for damaged and rebuilt vehicles etc.").
The noble Lord said: In the light of the amendments previously moved, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed, Bill reported with amendments.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 53.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 113ZAA:
Page 56, leave out lines 33 to 40 and insert:
("registered with the local authority under this Act for the provision of accommodation in those premises.
(2)(A) before registering any establishment under this Act
where nursing is provided, a local authority shall consult the Health Board in whose area the establishment is situated.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the clause is to establish a unified system of registration for nursing and residential homes. The amendment provides that nursing homes should be registered by the new local authority inspection units in the same way as will happen for all types of residential homes. Nursing homes are currently registered by health boards under the Nursing Homes Registration Act 1983. However, the Secretary of State has the power to exempt certain homes from that requirement by regulation.
Local authorities are to be responsible for the funding of both residential and nursing homes. Therefore, it is important that they register both types of establishment in order to ensure consistency of standards and quality. Given the pressures on local authority time, it is unlikely that contractual conditions with nursing home providers will be enforced sufficiently strictly to provide by themselves a check on standards. There are already examples that the system of dual registration enables homes to avoid providing high quality service. Some establishments that would have been refused registration as residential homes by local authorities because they failed to meet current standards have succeeded in being registered as nursing homes.
Apart from the worrying implications for quality of care, that illustrates the fact that the distinction between nursing and residental homes is to some extent historical and of limited relevance today. Health boards are experts in nursing care. Therefore, it will be important for the local authority to consult them in the same way as local authorities consult fire and building authorities and other organisations about their areas of expertise. I hope that the Minister will see that the amendment is worthwhile and at least take it away for consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Like other Members of the Committee, I received the same brief as that provided to my noble friend Lord Carmichael. I do not propose to read it again but I wish to give additional authority. The amendment has been prepared by the Care in the Community Scottish Working Group to which I am reasonably close. It is largely a voluntary organisation concerned with care in Scotland. I can vouch for the fact that it is deeply concerned about the matter and has no political axe to grind. I am chairman of the Scottish action group on dementia which is associated with Alzheimer's disease in Scotland and deeply involved in mental health care. On reading the brief provided, the case appears to be self-evident. I hope that the Minister will respond to the concern.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I understand the object of the noble Lord's amendment. It is an attempt to transfer from health boards to local authorities the responsibility for the registration of establishments when nursing care is provided. Other considerations apart. I believe that it is defective and does not spell out how registration is to be administered; nor does it alter health boards' present statutory responsibilities for both registration and inspection of nursing homes.
It would not be helpful to give local authorities that responsibility because it involves separating responsibility from expertise which go together under the present health board arrangements that we have in Scotland. It is true that local authorities register residential care homes; but although the registration of nursing homes is similar, the nursing care is provided by health care professions and the standards of care which they provide are health care standards. In that sphere, health boards are the experts. Local authorities have no function in the clinical health field. The fact that the Bill will give them power to arrange accommodation in private nursing homes does not alter that position.
The proposal in the amendment seems to place local authorities in the very difficult position of having to decide on matters which are in the camp of another agency. I believe that it would be a recipe for friction both at professional level and between agencies. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said about that, but it cuts both ways. In Scotland we have examples of a health board upholding something to which a local authority has objected and vice versa. If local authorities were to equip themselves with clinical expertise there would be wasteful duplication of effort and professional skills.
It may be argued—and here we come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—that since in future local authorities will be able to make arrangements for persons who need institutional care to be accommodated in nursing homes, they should have the power to register and inspect such homes. I fully accept that they should be concerned about the standard of nursing or residential homes which they may seek to use in this way. That is beyond dispute. If they do not wish to rely on the assurances of the registering health board, they can examine such homes for themselves as part
1326
of the deal with the home. We fully accept that they should be free to reach their own conclusions, but they do not need to register homes themselves for that purpose.
I hope that, with that explanation and in view of the need to achieve the right balance, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will understand why I wish to see the continuation of the present arrangements.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made a very telling point when he said that there are already examples of the system of dual registration enabling homes to avoid providing high quality services. Some establishments which would have been refused registration by the local authority as residential homes because they failed to meet current standards have succeeded in being registered as nursing homes. That is one of the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was anxious to emphasise. I wonder whether the Minister's reply really touched that problem.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I can give an example. The Argyll/Bute health board is being accused of being far too tough as regards the regulations that it wishes to impose for the establishment of a nursing home. Therefore, I was saying that there are problems on both sides. However, I believe that the professional skills of those involved in nursing care on health boards should not be overlooked, though at the end of the day the local authority has the right to say that it does not wish to use a particular home for the reasons that I stated in my earlier remarks.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am only too willing to accept that it is very difficult to try to check on nursing and residential homes. However, I am anxious that we should all become aware that there are undoubtedly nursing and residential homes which are, to say the least, dubious. That is particularly the case as regards private homes, not those run by voluntary organisations. I know a number of homes in the Argyll area which are extremely expensive and conditions are not very good. On the other hand, I know of others run by voluntary organisations—for example, the Church of Scotland—which are extremely good. In fact, they are excellent.
How can we maintain that standard? Old people do not complain. Their relatives are always reluctant to complain because of the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation, as there is a shortage. I believe that the Minister finds the problem as difficult as I do. I do not believe that dual registration is the solution. I shall read what the Minister has said and take advice on it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 113AA:
Page 56, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 57.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to ask what is the purpose of this subsection. I believe that it was added to the Bill at a very late stage. It appears to make local authorities responsible for

1327
health board functions. If that is the case, there will need to be a means of recompensing the local authority for what could be an extremely costly duty. Will the health board behave as a client of the local authority in those circumstances or will the Scottish Office increase the care allowance to each local authority? As I say, I do not quite understand what is meant by these words, I was asked if I could try to interpret them. I tried to do so and then wondered why I should do that when there is an excellent Minister who can do it for me. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Neither the noble Lord nor I were about when the provisions in the 1947 Act were brought in. We have to go back to that Act to find the meaning of this part of the Bill.
I had assumed that this was a probing amendment because I guessed that the noble Lord does not wish to remove something inserted by his own government. The new Section 13B provides the local authorities with power to arrange the care and aftercare of ill people. It is a re-enactment of Section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, most of which has long since been repealed or re-enacted elsewhere. There is a clear advantage in having the main social work legislation consolidated into one main Act. That greatly assists practitioners in knowing precisely what powers are available to them and what duties they are under. That is why we are now proposing to insert this provision in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
New Section 13B states that local authorities may arrange care and aftercare of ill people with the Secretary of State's approval but they must do that if the Secretary of State so directs. I am happy to say that on very few occasions since this came into operation has the Secretary of State ever had to direct. Arrangements for medical, dental or nursing care or health visiting are excluded since they are now the responsibility of health boards. In effect, this provision gives the Secretary of State a useful reserve power to ensure that in specific circumstances a local authority can be required to provide the necessary community care for individuals—for example, for people being discharged from long-term hospital care.
The purpose of the new Section 13B is to consolidate existing legislation into one main Act. I have been through this and it may look rather convoluted. However, I assure the noble Lord, having gone through the various ways that that is achieved, that that is the ultimate result. If the noble Lord wishes more details, I am quite happy to explain them to him outside the Chamber because it is quite a difficult jigsaw puzzle to see how we get from the 1947 Act to the current situation. It is a consolidation measure.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I accept that this is a consolidation measure. The only point I make is that, if there is overcrowding in local authority establishments, a problem arises for the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Secretary of State has used his powers so sparingly because he is aware of that difficulty.
1328
I take the point that this is a consolidation measure. I shall pass on the information to those who asked me about this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Exclusion of powers to provide accommodation in certain cases]:
[Amendment No. 113AB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
9 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 113AC:
Page 48, line 4, after ("to") insert ("such persons for whom residence in relevant premises is no longer appropriate with respect to their needs, or any other").
The noble Lord said: This too is a probing amendment. Clause 41 appears to exclude people from assistance of the local authority until they cease to reside in relevant premises, which are defined. The amendment seeks to clarify what will happen to someone whose needs for care change; for example, they may require more intensive nursing than the existing home can provide. Will someone in that position be eligible for assessment and assistance from the local authority?
Clause 41 also exempts local authorities from their duty to arrange accommodation for people who are already resident in private or voluntary residential nursing homes when the clause comes into force unless those people are of a description which is specified in regulations. Subsection (3) of the clause states that,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide",
and so on. Subsection 4 states that:
"The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe the circumstances in which persons are to be treated as being ordinarily resident in any premises for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section".
Therefore, this amendment is also designed to probe that subsection and the regulation-making power. For example, will a change in care needs be one of the criteria included in such regulations?
It is understood that we must have regulations to provide for those people who are ordinarily resident in the type of accommodation listed in the event that the home is unable to care for them any longer; perhaps due to management problems, bankruptcy, or disruption of the home through fire. Equally, the home simply may be unable to care for an individual because that person's condition has deteriorated. In such a situation it is important on health grounds that such a person—or, indeed, his or her advocate—should be able to call on the local authority to provide care that is more appropriate to the individual's changed needs.
In order to provide this choice for the individual there is no reason why a person who is resident in such accommodation should be compelled to stay if his or her circumstances change. Clients who are in residential or nursing homes due to dependence on drugs or alcohol frequently need to move to other such homes. It is common practice for residential rehabilitation to be conducted in a number of stages.
We feel that it is important to establish the criteria which the Secretary of State will use in exercising his powers under Clause 41(3) and (4). Of course, we assume that he will be flexible and responsive to needs in the exercise of those powers.
The comprehensive nature of health and social service provision in the UK will be severely undermined if there is no statutory requirement for local authorities to provide or arrange for accommodation in either the independent or public sectors. I hope that the Minister can give a suitable assurance on the points I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue which I am glad to tell him has already been addressed in the clause by other means. The opening words of subsection (1) specify that local authorities are debarred under it from helping people with the provision of accommodation under Sections 21 or 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Those sections deal with the provision of accommodation. If a person leaves residential care or a nursing home to live independently he or she will be able to apply for local authority help with day or domiciliary care on the same basis as anyone else. These services are provided under a different legal provision from residential and nursing home care and local authorities are not debarred from providing this help to people with preserved entitlement.
The noble Lord referred to people who, so to speak, go up in their care needs; in other words, those going from residential to nursing home care. Obviously they would automatically qualify for the higher rate of nursing home care and their entitlement would be preserved.
The noble Lord also asked how my right honourable friend intends to use his regulation-making powers. We have always said that these powers will be used to exempt other groups of people if necessary. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I will read with care what he said because I wish to be absolutely sure that the clause covers the people brought to our attention who, through drugs or whatever, are in these stages of rehabilitation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Exclusion of powers to provide accommodation in certain cases) :
On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: In opposing this clause I am probing the Government's intentions. The clause as it stands provides no duty to provide accommodation in certain circumstances. In fact, if the person concerned meets the criteria which involve having been resident in certain defined
1330
premises immediately before the day appointed for the coming into force of the clause concerned, accommodation may still not be provided.
I am not clear what is to be achieved by virtue of this clause. My interpretation of the clause as drafted is that if a person is resident in a registered establishment under Section 62 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, in a registered nursing home. or a private hospital registered under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, or any other premises which the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe, the effect is that, by virtue of that residence on the day before this clause comes into force, the local authority may not provide accommodation to that person at any stage in the future.
What would happen if a person currently registered in a nursing home left the home for two years, for whatever reason, even for a short period of time? That person continues to be in need of accommodation. There is no fundamental change in his circumstances but, by virtue of his residence at a certain point in 1990, that accommodation could not be provided. That appears to impose a life-long disqualification for no apparent good reason and in a quite arbitrary fashion which surely cannot be the intention of the clause. I would welcome some clarification of this complicated clause.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I want to look closely at what the noble Lord has discovered about this clause. I shall try to explain to him how I see the position. The clause prevents local authorities from taking responsibility except in prescribed circumstances—I shall come back to that—for providing accommodation to people who are in residential or nursing home care on the day before the new community care provisions are due to come into force.
The intention is that people who are receiving residential care or nursing home allowances under income support before 1st April 1991 will continue to receive such support as they need, and are entitled to, from the Department of Social Security and that they should not be able to call on local authorities for this purpose.
The Government's intentions are two-fold. This was the subject of considerable discussion in the other place. First, we wish to avoid the possibility of confusion whether in the minds of people seeking accommodation as to where they should look for support or in the minds of local authorities as to where their responsibilities lie. Under Clause 54 it will be quite clear that those currently receiving support from the DSS will continue to do so, while those going into care after 1st April 1991 will look to the local authority.
Secondly, we do not wish local authorities to find themselves suddenly burdened on 1st April 1991 with requests for financial assistance from thousands of people who previously had looked for support entirely from the DSS. That would produce administrative as well as financial difficulties for them of a very considerable order. In our view it is far better for local authorities to be responsible only for new cases seeking support after 1st April 1991, which will grow steadily in number as people come

1331
into the new system. That will give local authorities the opportunity to adapt properly to their new responsibilities.
A great deal of concern has been expressed during the passage of the Bill about the adequacy of the level of income support for those who will remain the responsibility of the DSS. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has considered these concerns carefully. As a result, he amended the Social Security Bill in another place to enable him to take account of the levels of payment made by local authorities under their community care responsibilities in the calculation of the relevant limits for income support.
Clearly that is a difficult matter and responsible government have to tread a very careful line between providing adequate support on the one hand and writing a blank cheque for residential and nursing care on the other. As I have already mentioned, Clause 54(3) allows my right honourable friend to prescribe special cases in which local authorities will be able to take some financial responsibility for people already in care on 31st March 1991. I suggest that the noble Lord looks at that particular subsection of the clause.
Very careful consideration is being given to what the special cases should be but no decisions have yet been made. Possibilities include persons already receiving topping-up from local authorities, people under pensionable age, those residents who do not satisfy the DSS adjudication test and those who face genuine hardship or who are being made homeless. Whatever the financial arrangements are one matter is clear: the whole thrust of the community care measures is to improve services and afford proper protection for vulnerable clients.
It is no part of our policy that people should find themselves turned out of residential or nursing home care for financial reasons. I wish to read what the noble Lord said about people in this category who might leave home and wish to come back. The removal of this provision from the Bill would produce considerable difficulties and possible confusion for local authorities and claimants alike. It would risk upsetting the close alignment of responsibility and financial resources both for the DSS and local authorities which we have secured under Clause 54.
It would also create uncertainty about where to seek support, which could extend to clients who are already frail or confused. It would tend to produce unhelpful complications where clarity and simplicity are required. I urge the noble Lord to consider very carefully what my right honourable friend said and did about this matter in the Social Security Bill, which will shortly come before this House.
It is a difficult balancing act to get this absolutely right. However, because of the changes that we have made during the course of this Bill through another place we believe that we have got pretty near to what the noble Lord is seeking.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have listened very carefully to what my noble friend has said about this
1332
very important matter. It is clearly understandable that the existing way of funding individuals should continue; otherwise a sudden change would mean everything moving onto the budget of the local authority.
The clause is expressed in terms of premises. My noble friend's answer dealt with funding. Did he answer the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as regards a person who has to move from his existing home for some reason? Will the funding remain the same even though it may be at a different level in connection with the new home? It is very important to be clear about this. It will be very helpful if he can answer that point.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I wish to look very carefully at that particular circumstance. I believe that the funding arrangement for someone who falls into that category will follow that person. It will be the responsibility of the DSS to ensure that such a vulnerable client does not fall between two stools. However, I want to have another look at the matter because we have not made that particularly clear at this stage. If it is necessary to make alterations to the Bill, we shall do so.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: After listening to the noble Lord's answer, I am even more certain that I was correct in opposing the Motion. He has shown that it was necessary to oppose the Motion in order to raise points about which he himself was in doubt. As he said, his answer was very complicated. I shall certainly look at it and take advice.
Clause 54 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 42 [Charges for accommodation provided by local authorities]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 113AD:
Page 48. line 30, at end insert:
(" ( ) Persons who are provided with accommodation under Part Hi of that Act in premises managed by a person other than a local authority or a landlord who is a registered housing association shall be eligible for housing benefit and the Secretary of State shall prescribe that the amount of housing benefit payable shall be calculated based on the average eligible rent and eligible service charges for residential care homes and nursing homes (excluding homes where the landlord is a registered housing association) in the relevant area.
( ) Persons who are provided with accommodation under Part II! of that Act in premises where the landlord is a registered housing association shall be eligible for housing benefit on the eligible rent and eligible service charges calculated on the same basis as for any other claimant in private rented accommodation.
( ) "registered housing association" has the meaning set out in the Housing Associations Act 1985; "eligible rent" and eligible service charges" have the meanings set out in the Housing Benefit Regulations.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to clarify the basis on which housing benefit will be paid to people placed in private and voluntary homes by the local authority. The Government have proposed that, rather than calculating housing benefit for each case, the local authority would establish a notional rent figure payable to all residents in all types of home. The Department

1333
of Health has consulted bodies representing local authorities, housing associations and other voluntary sector bodies, including organisations representing the disabled, on how the notional rent should be based on the average of actual rents and eligible service charges. However, many of those organisations have rejected the idea of a low notional rent that is not based on the real charges made by the providers of special needs housing and care. This was made clear in those discussions but so far the department does not seem to have responded with any new proposals.
Subsection (2A)(i) provides that where the landlord is not the local authority or a housing association, the Secretary of State shall take an average of the eligible rent and eligible service charges for an area and that this figure would form the amount of housing benefit payable. That is in some conflict both with what I should have thought are the facts and with what is stated in paragraph 8.18 of the White Paper:
"Those sources of income from the benefit system will remain the same when a person enters or leaves a private or voluntary residential setting. This is the approach that has already been adopted for people in board and lodging hostel accommodation … Most significantly, it allows housing benefit payments to be determined in the light of local conditions".
I do not see that it actually does that.
I have had representations from Sense, an organisation referred to by my noble friend with which I have had long and admiring relations. It is clear to Sense that many people who are both deaf and blind must be extremely vulnerable in their day-to-day lives. Residential establishments must have a complement of staff to allow residents opportunities to be independent and to lead fulfilling lives. In turn, large numbers of staff mean that the revenue costs of such a residential scheme must be high, and social services departments must already provide considerable sums—possibly £300 to £400—to top up the existing DSS board and lodging limit of £210. As my noble friend has said, those who are both deaf and blind are so disabled as to require an enormous amount of support at very great cost. I know this from the evidence of my son who worked for several years on the staff of Sense.
When the system of funding of residential care changes. Sense believes that it will be essential to maximise income for all sources to avoid unnecessarily burdening social service departments, which will be responsible for funding costs over and above housing benefit and income support. Sense fully supports this amendment which will allow accommodation costs for residents to be calculated as for tenants of privately rented accommodation for housing benefit purposes. This will mean that the housing benefit claimed will reflect a realistic rent and service charge for each residential care home developed by a housing association, rather than a notional rent which is likely to be too low.
The amendment more accurately accords with the intention of the White Paper to ensure that support for people in residential accommodation matches as closely as possible the support available in the community and reflects local conditions. It is our view that it is appropriate for consumers and
1334
organisations providing care that housing costs should be accurately reflected in the funding formula.
As the proposals are currently framed, the local authority will place an individual in residential care and pay the full cost of the placement to the organisation or proprietor running the scheme. The authority will then carry out a means test on the individual and recover a proportion of the cost. Such an assessment would take into account the resident's income support and housing benefit. The Department of Health has proposed that the housing benefit is calculated on a notional basis by taking the cost of one-bedded and two-bedded properties in an area and averaging the figure out. That notional element would then be taken to be the housing benefit entitlement for the resident and would be taken into account when the means test of resources was carried out.
I have also received evidence from the Spastics Society, which says:
"It is essential for us to be able to ensure that the Housing element of our costs are covered from the resident's housing benefit entitlement. Where large capital costs of conversion or building are involved we need to know that we can cover the investment through the fee structure. If we arrange a complete package that leaves us with the risk of having to cover a large deficit if the local authority do not agree the final fee. In our recent experience SSDs are going to be reluctant and in many cases will refuse to cover housing costs accounted for in fee packages. This is especially true if the housing costs reflect the capital costs of developing new schemes. A low notional rent that does not reflect real cost will not do this".
Although the figure arrived at as a result of the amendment would still be notional to the extent that it reflected an average for special needs housing in the area, it would far more accurately reflect the cost of housing for disabled people in the community. Therefore, it would provide a sound basis for the future development of care in the community schemes and encourage the participation of the voluntary sector, which could be better assured of meeting development costs within the housing element. It would also ensure a fairer system for disabled people, who would be less reliant upon discretionary payments for part of their needs.
Finally, subsection (2A), paragraphs (ii) and (iii) ensure that housing associations are separated from the structure proposed for voluntary organisations and the private but not the profit sector. It is important for housing associations that they should be able to function under the normal regime for housing benefit that is in existence for private tenants. The amendment thus makes sure that they are not included in the arrangement for notional rents. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: This is not an area of the Bill upon which I speak with any great confidence. However, I should like to say a few words in support of what is proposed, which was so clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. In my view it is a good idea to have a notional rent rather than having to calculate housing benefit in each individual case ad hoc.
As housing benefit will be making a significant contribution to the funding of residential care and nursing home placements in the future, it seems to

1335
me that there is a good argument for including a provision on the face of the Bill that the notional rent should be calculated on the basis of actual rents and services in residential care homes and nursing homes in the area rather than on an average of rents for all types of accommodation, taking into account bedsitters, flats with no services and so on.
For those briefly put reasons, I support the amendment. I also underline the point that housing association homes should be taken out of the scheme because social services will be paying only the care element.
The Earl of Balfour: I hope that I can take this opportunity to ask a question. More than one amendment has been tabled to Clause 42. Therefore, this may be as convenient a time as any to refer to it. One of the matters that always concerns me when reading legislation is whether it applies to Scotland. Clause 63 provides:
"Part III of this Act, other than subsection (3) of section 40, subsections (1) to (3) of section 42 and section 43, does not apply to Scotland".
I understand that that (3) should be (6). In other words, does the whole of Clause 42, with the exception of subsection (7), apply to Scotland?
Lord Henley: The purpose of the amendment is to prescribe the way in which housing benefit should be calculated in cases where a person is provided by his or her local authority with a place in a private or voluntary residential care or nursing home. That involves consideration of detailed aspects of the rules affecting social security benefits. The Committee may therefore find it helpful if I start by outlining the way in which the social security system will provide help to people needing this type of care after April 1991.
At present, people who live in residential care or nursing homes can get help with their fees through special rates of income support. From April next year, those special rules will be abolished for new residents of those types of accommodation, though anyone actually living in a registered home on 1st April next year will retain their right to benefit under the old scheme. For new residents, the same range of social security benefits will be available as to people living in other sorts of accommodation. Thus, income support will be paid at the normal rates, including premiums where appropriate, to meet day-to-day living expenses. Housing benefit will be available to help with accommodation costs. Finally, where a person has been provided with a place in a residential home by a local authority, following an assessment of his or her care needs, additional help may be provided from the local authority's care budget.
Those proposals mirror other changes made in April and October of last year to remove the special rates of income support paid to people in board and lodging accommodation and hostels. Residents of residential care and nursing homes represent the last major category of people for whom the benefit system makes that type of special provision. The situation is anomalous and goes against the main
1336
thrust of the 1988 social security reforms. Income support is not an appropriate vehicle for meeting care and accommodation costs. It is right that all claimants, whatever type of accommodation they live in, should look to the same sources for financial assistance. In the context of community care, it is especially important that the benefit system should not embody perverse incentives towards residential care or inhibit the development of initiatives for looking after people in their own homes. I believe that the special rates of income support paid to people in residential care and nursing homes can provide just that sort of perverse incentive.
I turn now to the proposals in the amendment. They are concerned with the way in which housing benefit should be calculated for people who are provided with residential care or nursing home places by their local authority. Housing benefit is intended to help people meet their reasonable housing costs. Broadly, that means rent and any eligible services. Eligible services are defined in the housing benefit regulations and are intended to cover compulsory charges which are clearly related to the provision of accommodation rather than personal services. Examples would be charges for the use of furniture or for cleaning and maintaining any communal areas. If any items which are not eligible for housing benefit, such as meals, fuel or personal care, are included in the rent, their value must be deducted to work out how much benefit is payable.
Housing Benefit is administered and paid on behalf of the Government by local authorities, which are reimbursed up to 97 per cent. of their housing benefit expenditure by central government. There are arrangements to ensure that local authorities administer housing benefit prudently. In particular there are provisions for the referral of housing benefit claims for deregulated tenancies—that is, all tenancies created since January last year—to the independent rent officers. They determine whether the rent charged is at a reasonable market rate, and local authorities are not generally reimbursed if they pay housing benefit on rent above the market rate. This is a slightly simplified description of what can sometimes seem to be a very complex benefit, but I hope that the Committee will find it helpful.
The Government made a commitment in the White Paper, Caring for People, to consult the local authority associations on the way in which housing benefit should be calculated for this new category of cases which they would have to deal with from April next year. Those consultations have started and are still under way. As some Members of the Committee may be aware, one of the proposals on which we are consulting is that housing benefit for people in residential care and nursing homes should be calculated using a notional rent. By that I mean that maximum housing benefit in all such cases would be a fixed sum, perhaps based on the average cost of rented accommodation in the area. There would be considerable administrative advantages in such an approach. The amendment before the Committee in effect prescribes a method of producing a notional rent to apply to residential care homes not run by a housing association. For housing associations the normal rules would apply.

1337
I appreciate the concerns that have motivated this amendment. Housing associations are anxious about the effect of any discrepancy between the basis on which housing benefit is awarded to their tenants, and their actual rent costs, as identified for the purposes of grant funding arrangements. We are aware of these concerns and intend to address them in our final decisions on this subject.
The proposal put forward for assessing housing benefit in other residential care and nursing homes is interesting. It proposes a notional rent based on the average eligible rent and services for all residential care and nursing homes in the area. I think this approach would have serious disadvantages in practice. To calculate the average local authorities would have to make a large number of housing benefit assessments in respect of tenancies for which there was no actual claim for benefit. This is something they have no legal power to do and such inquiries might well be resented by homes with no residents claiming housing benefit. The method of calculating the average would have to be set out in detail in regulations. It would, for example, be necessary to work out how the figures should be weighted to take account of large and small homes. But, once again, I appreciate the concern that lies behind the amendment, that the housing benefit paid to people in residential care and nursing homes should reflect their actual rent levels.
The Department of Social Security is currently considering all these issues as part of the process of consultation with the local authority associations. I therefore feel that this amendment is inappropriate at this stage. Nevertheless I am grateful for the views of the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Allen, who made them known in a constructive manner. We shall take them into account in our consultations.
Lastly, perhaps I may turn to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Balfour. It appears that in Clause 42, subsections (1) to (6) should apply to Scotland. I shall, however, take the point away, seek legal advice and bring forward a government amendment if required. With those assurances that we shall continue the process of consultation with local authority associations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful and detailed reply. I wish to press him a little further. He thinks that the proposals in the amendment are inappropriate, but for that matter I think that the proposals in the Bill without the amendment are inappropriate. They are so because there is an enormous range of differences in the residential costs. I know that the noble Lord said "without services", but often one cannot provide housing without services. The range of charges for a youngster who is placed in a Sense residence or in a Spastics Society residence, with all the costs that that involves, will be enormously different from the charges for those who are in no way disabled. I do not see how a satisfactory arrangement will be arrived
1338
at when no consideration has been given to those particular costs. The amendment refers to the costs that are incurred in residential care homes to produce a figure that is more relevant to the kind of cases I have referred to. How does the reply given by the Minister relate to organisations such as Sense and the Spastics Society?
I know that consultations will go on. I welcome that, but what is the timescale involved? Will we be able to add something on Report which reflects the results of the consultations, or will everything be left to regulations? As I said at the beginning, I think the formula that is proposed by the Government is as unsatisfactory and inappropriate as the Minister considers my formula to be. It is not satisfactory to say that we shall deal with this matter when the Bill has been completed. These are problems that concern organisations that deal with seriously disabled people.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord presses me to go further. The noble Lord said that I said his amendment was inappropriate. I did not say it was inappropriate but rather that it was inappropriate at this stage. I shall continue with my conciliatory remarks. I also described the proposal as interesting. However, I then went on to say that it had serious disadvantages. I honestly do not think that I can or would like to go any further tonight other than to say that the Department of Social Security is considering these matters. We shall continue the process of consultations with local authorities. This has been a useful debate and we shall certainly take on board in our consultations and consideration the views expressed by the noble Lord tonight.
Lord Ennals: Will the Minister give me any hope that we shall get some feedback so that we can deal with this matter in a realistic way on Report? After all, there are only a few weeks between now and Report. Does the Minister anticipate that we shall be able to agree on a measure across the Floor of the Chamber by then?
Lord Henley: Obviously I cannot promise that. However, as the noble Lord knows, the Whitsun break will come between now and Report and therefore we have quite a while before we reach another stage of the Bill. I make absolutely no promises other than to say that we shall continue our consultations with local authorities in our consideration of these matters.
Lord Ennals: What the Minister says is very interesting, helpful and kind. In that spirit I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that we can consider the matter carefully before we come to the Report stage. I hope that the Minister and representatives from this side of the Chamber will be able to confer with organisations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who is so aware of the problems of organisations which are concerned with accommodation for disabled people, will also be able to take part. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, wanted me to give way.
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord, with the noble Lord, Lord Allen, wishes to have a meeting with me or with my officials, I am sure that that can be arranged between now and another stage.
The Earl of Balfour: All I wanted to say is that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Henley for his information on whether Clause 42(1) to (6) applies to Scotland. Normally numbers are not changed in a Bill, but as this is a point that obviously does or does not affect Scotland, I hope that that point will be confirmed when we reach Clause 63. That is all I require. I did no mean to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
Lord Henley: I am sure that we can deal with the matter when we reach Clause 63. If this relates to Scotland, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Sanderson will be able to deal with my noble friend's point.
Lord Ennals: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 113AE:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert:
("(3A) Persons who are provided with accommodation under Part III of that Act in premises managed by the authority or by another local authority shall, where they meet the financial criteria prescribed by the Secretary of State, be eligible for Income Support and Housing Benefit on the same basis as if accommodated under Part III of that Act in premises managed by a person other than a local authority.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 113AE, with the leave of the Committee, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 113AG. I must apologise because on reaching the end of what has been a good day I am not sure that in discussing this group of amendments and the following amendment we shall experience the same sweet reason and light as on the previous amendment.
The amendments deal with what many people regard as a major flaw in the proposed care structure. They seek to extend to residents of local authority homes the same rights to benefit as apply to residents of homes in the private sector. We know that the private sector is subsidised by social security payments to approximately half the weekly cost, whereas the local authority sector will have to bear the full cost of residential care. To be fair, the Government's intentions were clearly set out in the White Paper Caring for People. On page 28 it said:
"The arrangements for paying social security benefits to people in local authority homes will not change as a result of the new proposals. The Government wishes to ensure that local authorities have every incentive to make use of the independent sector when placing people in residential settings. The local authorities will therefore continue to meet the full cost of maintaining people in authorities' own homes, including the costs of accommodation and food. All authorities will need to review the extent to which they need to maintain homes of their own in those circumstances. Some rationalisation is likely to be required".
Those last two sentences are significant.
We believe that the Government propose in effect a compulsory transfer to the private sector, with virtually no consultation with residents. I have some questions for the Minister on the subject. What
1340
evidence is there that those proposals will lead to a better standard of care? What will happen to the many associated activities in many local authority homes—the old people's clubs, the meetings and the day centres, which provide very valuable respite care? What about the training of the staff who work in the homes in the private sector? Will the private sector be as keen as the public sector to ensure that proper standards of training are achieved? Crucially, what evidence is there that this system will not result in higher rather than lower costs?
The director of social services for Tayside regional council produced a report which compared the public and private sector charges in Tayside. The director discovered that the highest cost in the private sector was £300 and the highest local authority cost was £211. The average cost in the private sector was £175 and the average local authority cost was £160. The lowest cost in the public sector is also lower than that in the private sector. Even if the issue is considered on the basis of cost, the local authorities which provide a higher quality of care while dealing with clients who are frequently more demanding seem to do so more cheaply.
Whatever happened to choice? Why can people not choose whether they are cared for in the public or the private sector? It seems to us that the government proposals will destroy choice. They seem to be based more on ideology than on genuine care. The amendments seek to correct that situation.
We know, because the Government have said, that they intend that the social security system should have a neutral effect on decisions about whether people are supported in their own homes or go into residential care. However, the principle of the level playing field about which we have heard so much should apply within as well as between types of care. Under the Government's proposals residents of local authority run homes will be excluded from housing benefit, unlike those in a private or voluntary home. They will also be paid a lower rate of income support. Local authorities will thus find it cheaper to place people in private or voluntary homes than in the homes which they run because they will be able to reclaim a larger contribution towards the cost of care. As a consequence, they will be discouraged from providing residential accommodation.
We believe that it is essential that local authorities remain in the residential accommodation market in order to ensure that there is as much variety and choice of accommodation as possible. Secondly, it will fall to the local authority to meet the needs of those in the private and voluntary sectors they cannot accommodate. It is in the interests of those residents that the local authority is not the provider of last resort. If it is discouraged from catering for a variety of needs, standards in the residual accommodation it provides are likely to be low because it may be difficult to recruit staff of the right calibre who are willing to work in what may come to be seen as "sink" institutions in a low-status branch of local authority activity. The amendment seeks to ensure that, in a mixed economy of care, the various providers of residential accommodation, including the local authority, compete on equal terms.
I cannot help feeling that the Government's level playing field is rather like the pitches which England met in the West Indies. This is an important matter. If the Government accepted the amendment, or something like it, it would result in a more economic use of resources in community care. Sadly, we are now accustomed to the knee-jerk argument, which may be summed up as public bad, private good. That is not a proper basis for organising this crucial aspect of community care. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I should like to say a few words in support to the amendment, which seems to be of considerable importance.
We keep being bedevilled by bits of jargon. I believe that this area has been described as a level playing field. Anything less level would be hard to imagine. As I understand it, if you find the social services department putting someone in a residential care or nursing home within the private or voluntary sector, the social services department will normally pay the proprietor. It will then recover as much of the cost as possible from the client and it will receive the whole of the housing benefit. If the client is placed in a local authority home, the social services department receives no housing benefit and recovers a sum equal to only a proportion of the basic retirement pension. The difference between the two can be quite considerable.
Perhaps I may ask the Government two questions. Is it simply their desire to kill off the local authority residential care sector? That seems to be the only interpretation that one can put on it. If that is the intention, what about the last-resort cases with which the independent sector cannot cope? What about the local authorities having some experience of running those places so that they can carry out their duties of advice and inspection? What about the choice of the individual? It seems to me, on the knowledge that I have and until I hear the Government's explanation, that the present provisions simply will not work satisfactorily. I hope that we can be given some indication that, if the amendments cannot be accepted, some change to the Bill will be considered.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quoted an example from Tayside, where I live. Although I am not familiar with all the homes which relate to his comments, I was interested in the figures that he gave. Does he know the extent to which the local authority concerned, Tayside Regional Council, uses the private homes in Dundee, which is where the homes that he mentioned are located?
The object of the Bill is to exert a downward pressure on the costs of homes. My information is that they are little used by the local authorities. If they were more used and were properly in competition with the lower cost homes of Tayside Regional Council, it might have a good effect on the cost. Does the noble Lord have any figures about that or is he simply quoting different levels of the costs of both the private and public sector in Tayside?
Lord Carter: I can deal with that point immediately. This was a report prepared by the director of social services in Tayside. The extract that I have does not mention the proportion of use, for which the noble Baroness asked. If the government proposals are accepted, the ludicrous result will be that Tayside will receive such a large subsidy to put its clients into private care that it will be cheaper for Tayside to put them into the more expensive sector.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My concern is to have the best for the people of Tayside. At the moment some very good homes, which I think I am right in saying might be used by the local authority, are not being used. I hoped that there might be some inducement so that a wider variety of homes could be used in that area. I was not so worried about that point. I just wondered whether the noble Lord knew to what extent the local authority uses private homes now.
Lord Henley: We are dealing here with what I consider to be two rather different amendments. I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the first one and convince him that the second will be unnecessary.
It may be helpful if I explain how residential care in homes under local authority management will be funded under the new community care arrangements. Basically this will be in the same way as at present. The local authority will be responsible for the costs of providing the care and will charge residents what they can afford. In that respect it is on the same lines as the system now proposed for public support in independent homes. Residents will be allowed to keep a sum, to be specified in regulations, for their personal expenses. That figure will be the same for all comparable types of accommodation, which means that the allowance for people in local authority homes will be brought up to the level for people in independent homes at a cost of £10 million a year.
Thus, so far as the amount residents are allowed to keep for their personal expenses goes, there will be no difference between residents in local authority homes and those in independent homes. Where the difference comes is in the amount that the local authority may be able to charge a resident. Residents in local authority homes will not be able to claim housing benefit and will only be able to claim income support at a special low rate equivalent to the standard rate of retirement pension. Thus, the amount that a resident who qualifies for income support will be able to pay will be much less at a local authority home compared with an independent home.
As we said in the White Paper, Caring for People, which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, correctly quoted, that is a deliberate choice. We want to give local authorities every incentive to use independent sector provision to improve choice for potential residents and their carers. But clearly as a result there will be a need for local authorities to review their residential accommodation. However, we do not expect there to be any rush to privatise homes. Authorities will

1343
need to proceed slowly, considering how they can strike the best balance between residential provision (of all types) in their areas and other forms of community care and avoid the creation of local monopolies. It will also be important to take into account the views of residents and their families and, for that matter, the local communities—the electorate.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked what evidence there was that this would lead to better care. It will be for the local authorities to negotiate fees with the private and voluntary homes through contracts. They will be able to determine the services that they want the home to provide and to what standard they should be. These requirements will also be taken into account when the fee is agreed. We expect that local authorities will be able to use their extensive purchasing power to secure the best value that they can for the resources that they invest.
Turning to Amendment No. 113AG, although in form this is very similar to Amendment No. 113AE, in fact it is not required. Paragraph (b) of the new Section (4A) of Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 as set out in Clause 42(7) of the Bill provides that when a person attending a workshop is placed by a local authority in a hostel run by a private or voluntary body, the appropriate parts of Section 26 of the 1948 Act will apply to him.
These sections provide that the local authority will negotiate the cost of the place with the providers of the accommodation and pay the full cost to them. The authority will then charge the person what he can afford to pay and the person is required to pay over this amount subject to an allowance for personal expenses, prescribed in regulations. That is in fact the same system as will apply to all independent residential care and nursing homes. The important change is being made in the corresponding social security and housing benefit regulations. This will enable people in such accommodation to claim housing benefit and to receive income support based on the standard applicable amount and any premiums for which they are qualified. It will apply to people in hostels under Section 29 as well and
1344
they will accordingly be in exactly the same position in any event as other people in independent sector homes. There is therefore no need for Amendment No. 113AG. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I hope that he will also feel able to withdraw his earlier amendment for the reasons that I gave earlier.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister although I felt that we would not agree. I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage of the Bill. However, I shall give the Minister an example. Perhaps he will place the reply where all Members of the Committee can see it. I have referred to the example where the cost of accommodation is £200 a week. In the private or voluntary sector, with the various allowances and benefits, the income available is £123 a week. The local authority therefore has to meet the difference of £77. If the client is at income support level, in a local authority home the various allowances and benefits available add up to £36. The local authority has to meet the difference of £164 compared with £77 in the private voluntary sector. The extra cost to a local authority of placing a client in one of its own homes, on the assumptions stated, is therefore £87 a week, or in excess of £4,500 a year.
I do not wish to bore the Committee with the details. It is a point that worries many people. A very substantial financial incentive will be exercised on local authorities to persuade them to use not local authority homes but the private sector. It is important that the point is dealt with. I shall read with care what the Minister has said.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord will not expect me to respond to that example, which depends on various assumptions and details. I shall certainly write to him when I have read the exact point that he has made.
Lord Carter: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 113AF:
Page 48, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (5) (dealing with treatment of income and capital when assessing ability to pay) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) In assessing a person's ability to pay, the local authority shall disregard from a resident's capital, any dweling occupied in whole or part by a person—

(a) whose sole or main residence is that dwelling; and

(b) who was providing a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to the resident (and who was not employed to provide such care by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment) prior to the resident's admission to residential care.

(5B) Where a person has been provided with accommodation under Part III of that Act in premises managed by a local authority or a person other than a local authority, but the local authority considers that he may at some future date be able to return to his previous home, in assessing his ability to pay, the local authority may disregard any or all of the following—

(a) the capital value of that previous home;

(b) a sum of income equivalent to such charges as are necessary for the retention of that previous home, as the authority considers appropriate;

(c) a sum of income equivalent to any proportion of a personal or standard community charge which remains payable by that person after all community charge benefits and any exemptions from payment have been obtained for such period as the local authority deems appropriate.

(5C) In assessing a person's ability to pay, in taking into account any earnings or other payments, the local authority may disregard their value in whole or in part if it appears to the authority that to take such earnings or payments into account as resources would be contrary to the authority's philosophy of care or detrimental to the objectives of the care programme.").
The noble Lord said: This is the last amendment before the Committee this evening. It stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Carter, but it is my job to speak to it.
The problems that arise with regard to the amendment are connected with the amendments that we have just discussed. They arise from the question of how much residents should be charged, what they can afford and how we assess all those factors. The problems that arise from the means testing that emerge here are not specific to this case or this Bill. They are the standard problems that arise whenever means testing occurs. In endeavouring to introduce—I hate the expression as much as anyone but it has become part of the terminology of this system—a level playing field, the Government have produced perverse effects. The reason is well known to economists; namely, that, in levelling this playing field, one unfortunately ignores the fact that the rest of the world is not flat. Therefore the distortion that one thinks one is removing adds new distortions. Members of the Committee will be well aware of that problem. It is a commonplace proposition in contemporary economics. I wish to mention some of the distortions which arise and to which the amendment is directed. I shall work backwards through the three subsections, dealing first with income.
The most commonplace proposition is that, if you take income into account, it acts as a disincentive
1346
to earn. Therefore, in cases where you feel that it is a good idea for those concerned to earn income you will have exactly the opposite effect to that which you want. A good example is given in the briefing by the Spastics Society which all Members have seen. The society strongly encourages people with cerebral palsy living in residential care homes to try to take paid employment. It does so not because there is a monetary need per se but because it has a therapeutic value. I assume that the therapeutic value occurs in the psychological dimension as well as in other ways. However, if such people find that over and above any minimal amount they earn they are subject to 100 per cent. tax rate—which would be the effect of the Bill as it stands—they will not take the work.
That is one example of the problems that can arise and I am sure that Members of the Committee can produce many others. It is the reason why subsection (5C) gives the local authority some chance to disregard earnings and payments. It can do so if it believes that that will help its philosophy of care or that not to do so will be detrimental to the objectives of the care programme. I particularly emphasise the latter because, in so far as the care programme is helped by people going out to work to a limited degree and earning income, it would be perverse to include that income in any assessment of charges.
In the second example, subsection (5B), a similar set of considerations arise. The capital value of the home owned by the person in care is an asset. No one doubts that. Unless you think about such things carefully, you may say, "It is an asset and you must take it into account in considering ability to pay". However, homes are a special kind of asset. They belong to you as part of your life as well as part of your financial assets. Therefore, the charging system could cause you to realise the value of that asset. On common sense grounds that is sensible; it is an asset and you should realise it in order to pay for your residential care. However, it would mean that you would not be able to return to your home.
Again, to someone as ignorant of such matters as I, let alone to experts, that appears to be detrimental to the person taken into care. If a person has gone into a nursing home or some other form of residential care, the notion that they are somehow obliged to cut off their retreat on capital assessment grounds (in this case) is perverse to say the least. As an economist I can see how the Government found themselves in that mess—they are keen to assess resources as accurately as possible—but it has perverse disincentive effects.
One could wax even more strongly on many other aspects of the Bill. However, I wish to emphasise one other in particular; it is the role of carers. We believe, and I certainly believe, that carers play an important role in our society. The duty of care applies to all of us. Many Members of the Committee have been involved with care, and as we grow older many of us may be either cared for or have to do some of the caring. I do not believe that the institutional approach is correct. So far as possible, one would prefer to see the caring done within the family. However, if the person who is being cared

1347
for goes into residential care, and the carer will then be expelled from the home because it does not belong to him, the disincentive to caring becomes somewhat stronger.
That seems to me to be a case worth considering for disregarding that particular part of the person's resources. I do not go to the other extreme, and nor does my noble friend Lord Carter, where one says that all ability to pay should be ignored. One is simply pointing out that the moment one becomes involved in this ability to pay game, all sorts of unattractive results follow.
The amendment is tabled in order for us to hear how the Government will argue their case. Clearly, we do not intend to divide on the issue this evening. However, the matter is serious enough for us to return to it on Report with more specific amendments which we may press on the Government. At present we wish to hear whether the Government can produce a logical and persuasive argument. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The principle behind the charging arrangements for residential and nursing home care set out in Section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948, as amended by this clause in the Bill, is that residents should pay as much of the cost of their place in the home as they can afford, subject to their being allowed to retain an amount, prescribed in regulations, for their personal expenses. The same rules for working out what residents can afford to pay will apply to homes in all sectors and we shall bring people in local authority homes into line with those in the private and voluntary sector at a cost of £20 million a year.
As the noble Lord points out, our major difficulty with this approach concerns the treatment of property owned by residents. I make it clear straightaway that at present local authorities have no power to require the sale of any property, nor will they have in future. What they can do, and will still be able to do, is to count the value of the property as part of the resident's capital assets, and charge them accordingly. If the resident does not wish to sell the property, it is open to him to seek to pay the charge by some other means. Alternatively, he may agree to a legal charge being placed on the property so that any charges outstanding can be paid from the proceeds when the property is sold.
Under Section 21 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (which we intend to bring into effect when the changes in Clause 43 of the Bill have been made) the local authority will if necessary be able to place a charge on the property without the resident's consent. But clearly as the noble Lord suggests, there will be occasions when it would be appropriate for the value of the property to be disregarded altogether, either because someone else still makes their home there, or because the admission to residential or nursing home care may not be permanent. In the former
1348
case, since it is our intention to align the local authority and income support schemes, our regulations will be modelled on similar provisions for income support. These provide for the value of property to be disregarded if the resident's spouse continues to live in it, and in other cases permits it to be disregarded if it is not reasonable to expect the person living there to find alternative accommodation because of age or infirmity. I should also add that when the resident is only part owner of the property in question, only his share of the value will be counted as his resource.
As the notes on the Section 22(5) regulations annexed to the Notes on Clauses make clear, the local authorities will also have power to disregard the value of property so long as it has not been decided that the person's admission to residential or nursing home care is permanent.
I now turn to the noble Lord's third point—which was his first point, as the noble Lord went backwards—for which I was most grateful as we were not entirely clear on the point that the noble Lord was making, and we wanted to hear what he had to say. The treatment of earnings will be covered by the charging regulations; that is, regulations under Section 22(5) of the 1948 Act. I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord said, and I can assure him that we shall bear that very much in mind as we prepare the regulations.
I remind the Committee that the regulations will receive scrutiny in another place. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that complex matters such as these are best left to regulations which, as I said, require the agreement of another place before they can become law. Bearing that in mind, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for his reply which I shall read with care. I found some parts of it most reassuring, but others rather horrifying; and perhaps when the noble Lord reads his reply, he will reach the same conclusion.
I do not entirely agree with his remarks on the regulations. I agree with him generally on regulations but the principles on which regulations are based should be laid down both in this place and the other place. The complexities can subsequently be worked out. One particular matter which concerned me, to which I shall return after reading precisely what the noble Lord said, is whether the possibility of disregard on a person's home would apply, for example, to a daughter. There is the typical case of a rather old person going into care and the daughter herself is in her late 60s. It was not obvious from the noble Lord's reply that the family home could be disregarded so that the daughter could continue to live there.
Lord Henley: I said that it would not be reasonable for such a person to find alternative accommodation where age or infirmity was a factor. However, I will

1349
write to the noble Lord if he wants me to expand on the position before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord. I heard him say "age and infirmity" and it is precisely because there might be no great age and no infirmity—
Lord Henley: Or infirmity.
Lord Peston: Even so, I would welcome—and I am sure other noble Lords would welcome—rather more clarification.
I am not desperately seeking to criticise the Government. I appreciate the difficulties that arise. There is a difficult set of problems to solve. However, I believe we should come back to these problems rather than leave them for regulations which we shall one day moan about. However, having said that and thanked the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113AG not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  CGT DEPENDENT RELATIVE RELIEF
  CGT DEPENDENT RELATIVE RELIEF
  CGT INDEXATION RELIEF WITHDRAWAL
  CGT INDEXATION RELIEF WITHDRAWAL
  FOSSIL FUEL LEVY REGULATIONS 1990
  FOSSIL FUEL LEVY REGULATIONS 1990
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: FUNDING
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: FUNDING
  EC SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAMME: EMPLOYMENT IMPLICATIONS
  EC SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAMME: EMPLOYMENT IMPLICATIONS
  PRISONS: DISTURBANCES
  PRISONS: DISTURBANCES
  MANCHESTER PRISON: FUTURE
  MANCHESTER PRISON: FUTURE
  MANCHESTER PRISON: YOUNG OFFENDERS
  MANCHESTER PRISON: YOUNG OFFENDERS
  DURHAM PRISON: YOUNG OFFENDERS
  DURHAM PRISON: YOUNG OFFENDERS
  PRISONS: OFFICER/INMATE RATIO 1950–90
  PRISONS: OFFICER/INMATE RATIO 1950–90