Sitting of 9 May 1990

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

    Hostages
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he taking to seek to secure the release of John McCarthy.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We are delighted that the former American hostage, Mr. Frank Reed, has confirmed that John McCarthy is alive and in reasonable health. Mr. Reed's release indicates that Iran and Syria can, if they wish, secure the release of hostages in Lebanon. We shall persevere with our efforts to persuade them that continued holding of hostages is in nobody's interest. We believe that this is true both in Lebanon and elsewhere.
    Mr. Barnes: Just what are the efforts that the British Government are involved in? Will they stop taking are intransigent stance and seek to develop a position in which they can at least talk about the possibility of diplomatic relations being established with the problematic regimes of Iran and Syria? Will they take a lead from the President of the United States, who has condemned all hostage taking in the middle east, including the Israelis taking Palestinian hostages, and will he be willing to use third parties such as the United States to achieve results similar to those that that country has achieved?
    Mr. Hurd: We follow up every lead and piece of information which we think might be promising and we use every contact that we think might bring results. I have discussed our position with the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, in the past few days and it is on all fours with United States policy. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer that I gave, he would have heard me say that I believe that the principle that the continued holding of hostages is in nobody's interest is true in the Lebanon and elsewhere.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to approach this matter is this? There are three British hostages, one Irish British hostage, and Roger Cooper who has been languishing in prison in Tehran for some four years and was near release last year when certain events took place. How far can we get towards effectively implementing their release without the restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria? I ask about the two countries separately.
    Mr. Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Mr. Cooper. It is true that we have three substantial problems with Iran: the hostages; Mr. Cooper, who has been in prison for four and a half years; and the Rushdie affair, in which the Iranians maintain their threat to the life of a British citizen as well as making demands of the British Government which we could not meet. It is worth recalling that it was the Iranians who broke with us. To be precise, the Majlis passed a resolution in February last year demanding that we show respect for Islam, withdraw our support for Rushdie and his book and express regret at the offence caused to Muslims. When we rejected that, they broke off relations. I have made it clear that we have indirect contacts with Iran, and I do not rule out the possibility of direct talks if we felt that they were likely to produce results, but the restoration of diplomatic relations against such a background is certainly not a matter for the British Government alone.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned Syria. We broke with Syria in 1986 over state-supported terrorism and that issue remains unresolved. We have had indirect contacts with Syria since then on behalf of hostages.
    Sir David Steel: As the Foreign Secretary correctly said, we broke off diplomatic relations with Syria and Libya some time ago for good reason, but now that other Governments have acknowledged the helpfulness of the Syrian and Libyan Governments with the release of hostages, is not there a case to reconsider reopening diplomatic relations with those two countries?
    Mr. Hurd: As I said in my original answer, according to what we have heard the Syrians have been helpful with the release of the American hostages. I welcome that, as do the Americans, but it does not remove the background that I mentioned. Obviously, the future nature of our contacts with Syria must depend on their prospects for success.
    Mr. Adley: We all utterly deplore without reservation the taking of hostages, but do not the Israelis take hostages just as the Iranians have done? Is not one of the problems the fact that in the middle east we are not perceived to be even handed in the way in which we deal with people who behave in that way?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that my original reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), which I have already repeated once, will reassure my hon. Friend when he studies it. The process of hostage taking is a dangerous and criminal affair by whomever it is done.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there must be no deals that reward hostage taking or give incentives to further hostage taking? That being so, will he respond to the charges made by the released United States hostage Mr. Frank Reed and by Mr. al-Shara the Syrian Foreign Minister that the British Government are not being sufficiently active in their efforts to release the hostages? Will he assure the House that the Government are active day in and day out in their efforts to secure the release of the British hostages? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the British people, seeing hostages of other nationalities being released, have every right to expect the release of the British hostages?
    Mr. Hurd: They have every right to expect what the right hon. Gentleman asked for—day in and day out efforts on our part with that aim. I can assure him that

    177
    those efforts continue. I have every sympathy with Mr. Frank Reed, who has survived a terrible ordeal, but of course he is in no position to know anything about our efforts on behalf of the British hostages.
    I do not regard the Syrian Foreign Minister as an entirely objective observer. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what our policy is. I think that it is a policy which he accepts, and it would be useful to have it on record as the policy of the House. We shall do everything that we can to bring about the release of all hostages, short of making concessions or striking bargains with those who hold them. That is because we want a safer world and not a more dangerous one.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is not there a world of difference between doing a deal, striking a bargain and making an offer of something substantial which Iran and Syria want in return for release, and carrying on discussions and talks with a view to resolving differences between countries? Is not my right hon. Friend doing the latter and perfectly properly refusing to do the former?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. and learned Friend draws the borderline exactly where I do. It is perfectly right to have contact and discussions and it is utterly wrong to strike bargains or make concessions with those who have taken hostages.

    German Unification
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet West Germany's Chancellor Kohl and the Foreign Minister to discuss German unification: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I meet Chancellor Kohl and the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic often. We did so at the special European meeting in Dublin on 28 April where we discussed German unification. I also met Herr Genscher at the NATO Council on 4 May and the two-plus-four meeting in Bonn on 5 May. I expect that there will be further contacts soon. We have made clear our long-standing support for German unity on the basis of free self-determination.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not it a sad sight to see the Tory Government and politicians of all parties grovelling at the feet of the West German Chancellor about reunification? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that at the weekend the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated the No. 2 spot at the IMF to the Germans, along with the Japs, and Britain was relegated to No. 4? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that a large body of British people understand all too well that the West Germans are turning their economic power into political muscle and getting too big for their jackboots?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that there has been much grovelling. That is certainly not the accusation usually made against us. We have played a good and consistent role. We have maintained our support for the principle of German unification, as have successive Governments for many years, and we have helped to establish the machinery for making it clear that the external aspects of unification should be decided and pursued in an orderly way.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is it the judgment of my right hon. Friend that the new and negative Soviet attitude in the negotiations on arms control and reduction is due to the Soviet Union's desire to put pressure on the west in connection with German unification and membership of NATO? If so, is that not rather unwise in view of the state of collapse of its economy and its need for economic help from the west?
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is right. There has been a stiffening of Soviet attitudes in the arms control negotiations, at the open skies conference and at the two-plus-four talks in Bonn. That stiffening owes much to the pressures on President Gorbachev and the Soviet Government, of which they now speak more openly. We wish to see perestroika and those policies succeed, but we shall not follow that aim at the expense of western interests or principles. It is in the interests of Britain and Europe that a united Germany should be a member of NATO.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to clarify the position following the two-plus-four talks as there appears to be some difference in interpretation between Chancellor Kohl and his Foreign Secretary? Where does the Foreign Secretary stand on the proposal made by the Soviet Foreign Minister to decouple external security issues from German unification?
    Mr. Hurd: That proposal was not put forward by the Soviets at the talks—it was put to Herr Genscher by the Soviet Foreign Minister before the talks. Herr Genscher reported it to the allies and we agreed that we should examine it. I agree with Chancellor Kohl's comments. It would be wrong and possibly dangerous to uncouple or delink the internal and external aspects of German unification.
    Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend spoke of his hopes that perestroika would succeed, although many people feel that it has failed. What view does he take about the increasing talk of the ungovernability of the Soviet Union? What effect will that have on the two-plus-four process? If it has delayed and slowed the settling of the external security position of a united Germany, will it also delay the unification process within Germany which is moving ahead so strongly?
    Mr. Hurd: The latter point is not likely to prove correct, but my right hon. Friend is right about the link between what is happening inside Soviet Union and the effect of its policies on the rest of us. The Soviet Union has three big problems—the national problem, the economic problem and the problem of the disintegration of the one-party state, all of which are developing rapidly and there is a limit to our influence on them. We must deal with the external aspect and maintain our principles and interests.
    Mr. Kaufman: With regard to the implications of German reunification for NATO, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Prime Minister said after her meeting in Bermuda with President Bush that she continued to advocate the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons? President Bush has now announced that they will not be modernised. With whom does the Foreign Secretary agree—the President or the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has manufactured a difference which simply does not exist. A replacement for Lance has been abandoned by the United States and by the

    179
    alliance because circumstances have changed, but the President and the Prime Minister—in Bermuda and sine—have been absolutely clear that NATO will continue to need a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapon; in Europe. I hope that the Opposition concur with that.

    Lithuania
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement or Her Majesty's Government's policy on the present situation in Lithuania.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Soviet Union about Lithuania.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We have repeatedly stressed the need for progress through dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians so that a settlement acceptable to both sides can be reached enabling the Lithuanian people to decide their own future That was the theme of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's message to the Prime Minister of Lithuania when the latter made a very welcome call on her at 10 Downing street this morning.
    Mr. Jack: Many of my constituents would encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his endeavours to encourage the brave people of Lithuania in their fight for freedom. To that end, do the British Government properly recognise the legitimate claims of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia in their quest for freedoms Will my right hon. Friend tell us more about the practical steps being taken to encourage them in their quest?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right and it is well known on both sides of the House that no British Government have ever accepted the incorporation of the Baltic states as a result of the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. We must now advise on and address from outside the question of how it is most likely that their right can be achieved. It would be irresponsible to lead them to believe that help of a kind that cannot in reality be forthcoming from the west could be so forthcoming. We are urging on both sides a diplomatic and constitutional process that will lead to their right being made a reality.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Government recognise the importance of negotiations, have they stressed to President Gorbachev in particular the need to recognise the Helsinki agreement and the rights of people to determine their own internal and external political status? If we are to encourage the President of the USSR to come to the negotiating table, will the Minister stress that the west wants to speak with one voice and to achieve a resolution through integrity and dignity and not through force? We will not stand by and see any more Munichs or Czechoslovakias.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady is entirely right. I am happy to say that we see no prospect of that, but if there were to be suppression in the way that the Czechoslovakian, Hungarian or East German people were suppressed by tanks and overt force, all the gains that have been made in east-west relations would surely be lost. I am
    180
    sure that Mr. Gorbachev understands that. It is worth remembering that it is very unlikely that the Baltic states would have this glimmer of real hope ahead of them if Mr. Gorbachev was not in place in the Soviet Union.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us were able to meet Mrs. Prunskiene, the Lithuanian Prime Minister today, and were very impressed with what we saw and heard? Will my right hon. Friend comment or the Lithuanian view that pressuring Mr. Gorbachev helps rather than hinders him in his fight to maintain democracy and reform in his country against the reactionary forces which would prevent not only independence for the Baltic states, but any reform throughout the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to say that the two Prime Ministers left their meeting this morning saying that they saw eye to eye on those issues. Both were more optimistic and they agreed that there was no reality of progress without the development of a diplomatic and negotiated process. We see eye to eye on that.
    Mr. Robertson: Does the Minister accept that there is widespread sympathy in the House for the ambitions of the people of the Baltic states for greater autonomy, but that the future of President Gorbachev and of his reform programme, both of which have contributed to allowing the Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian people to express their views now, are of acute concern to the Baltic states and to the world in general? Will the Minister adopt the wise and cool approach of the American Administration and continue efforts to get dialogue and negotiations going in a spirit of compromise between Moscow and the Baltic republics?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is very pleasant to hear from Opposition Members for the second time today the belief that American policy is our best touchstone in these matters, and I agree. The American President has behaved wisely and I am glad that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) joins us in stating that our exactly parallel policy—which has, of course, been discussed with the Americans—is the right one.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: As it is clear that we have never recognised the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union and, therefore, that we still recognise those nations as independent states, may we have an assurance that the Foreign Office will apply without bias its usual criteria in recognising democratically elected Governments in those countries and will deal normally with them?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend conflates two things. We recognise states, not Governments. It is perfectly clear at present that there is no independent state of Lithuania to recognise. We wish to encourage the processes that could lead to that rightful outcome.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan concerning the situation in Kashmir.
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India concerning the situation in Kashmir.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of India concerning the situation in Kashmir.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We are in regular contact with both the Indian and Pakistani Governments who are aware of our views on the current situation in Kashmir.
    Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he recognise that Britain has a special role to play because two Commonwealth countries are in conflict? Does he agree that the most important thing is to make sure that that conflict does not reach the point at which armed conflict takes place? Has not the time come to bring in the United Nations as a mediator in that terrible conflict?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's desire that we should seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict. I hope that he accepts that it is primarily a matter for the two Governments involved. Indeed, under the 1972 Simla agreement, India and Pakistan resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed between them.
    Mr. Madden: Why do the British Prime Minister and Government cheer the struggle for self-determination by the people of Lithuania but ignore the struggle for self-determination by the people of Kashmir? Will the Minister urge the Prime Minister and the British Government to persuade the Government of India to allow the people of Kashmir an early opportunity to determine the destiny of their own country? Will he also urge the Indian Government to lift the news blackout and allow a British parliamentary delegation to visit Kashmir at an early opportunity?
    Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman considered the history of the position in Kashmir he would realise that there are few parallels with Lithuania. In the various United Nations resolutions on Kashmir over a long period the issue was always whether Kashmir should accede to Pakistan or India—not independence, which was never on the table.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of the New Delhi-based report from the committee for initiative in Kashmir, which has confirmed not from Pakistani or international sources but from Indian sources the scale of the atrocities and repression that the people of Kashmir are suffering at the hands of Indian forces? Does he agree that the propaganda from India that the conflict is wholly caused by infiltrators from Pakistan is the most absurd nonsense? Can he tell the House why the Commonwealth seems incapable of taking any action in a dispute involving two Commonwealth member states?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We are aware of the recent report on events in Kashmir, compiled by a four-member team on behalf of the committee for initiative in Kashmir. We are worried at the report from Jammu and Kashmir of abuses of human rights. My noble Friend the Minister of State made clear when speaking to the Indian Foreign Minister
    182
    the importance that we attach to respect for human rights. We have also made it clear that we cannot support those who use violence for political ends.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the disgraceful way in which the Indians have behaved in Kashmir and other areas, is not it surprising that Opposition Members have not called for sanctions, as they do for countries in other parts of the world?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I share my hon. Friend's surprise to some extent. We should all combine to urge both sides of the conflict to show restraint and to follow up what they agreed to do in the Simla agreement, which is to seek to resolve their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.

    Visas
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning delays in the processing of visa applications at United Kingdom high commissions and embassies.
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the procedure for processing visa applications at United Kingdom embassies and high commissions.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We receive a number of representations, both from hon. Members and from the public, about entry clearance procedures and delays at our embassies and high commissions.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister give the House some assurance that Government policy will be changed soon to ensure that people who are applying for visas to this country are treated in a humane way rather than a squalid one and are not subject to the delays in which many representations have said the present policy results? Such practices do the British Government and the British people no credit and I hope that the Minister will ensure that the current situation is not allowed to continue.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the hon. Lady that we keep our systems, procedures and facilities under constant review. I look into any complaints about individual cases that are brought to us. If the hon. Lady has any, perhaps she could let me know so that I can have them investigated.
    We strive to treat the different categories of visa applicants on a different and fair basis. The House may be aware that the vast majority of visit visa applications in the Indian sub-continent are dealt with within 24 hours, but settlement visa applications obviously require a longer procedure and more inquiries.
    Mr. Worthington: Is not it obvious to the Minister that something more needs to be done, as the complaints are always from black countries rather than white ones? The Government should get rid of the suspicion that their immigration policy, either operated at Lunar house in this country or at their overseas embassies, seeks to ration applications and treats unfairly those applications from members of the black Commonwealth. Something more active needs to be done than what the Government are now proposing.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I totally reject the suggestion that then is some discrimination on grounds of colour in our visa policy. We get complaints about delays and the procedures from many countries, including eastern European ones. It is not without significance that the total number in the queue awaiting interview at the end of 1979 was 42,800 whereas now it is 7,104.
    Mr. Dickens: Was not it the Labour party that gave two amnesties to illegal immigrants? Was not it this Government who promised firm but fair immigration controls? When issuing visas for visiting the United Kingdom, we must take great care and that means taking time. Sometimes it is understandable that such care meant taking time at our embassies.
    Mr. Sainsbury: On that matter, as on many others, my hon. Friend is entirely correct when he states the Opposition's policy. In the case of applications for settlement in this country, we need to make certain inquiries, and if we are to do that fairly, a little time required. Equally, we seek to deal with all applications for visit visas as quickly as possible, and the greatest number of those are dealt with within 24 hours.
    Mr. Boswell: Bearing in mind the recent events in eastern Europe and the large number of people who will want to travel from there either for holidays or for working holidays, will my hon. Friend keep in mind the possibility of relaxing the visa provisions so that, apart from anything else, we do not build up large quantities of unconvertible foreign currencies to match the visa applications that are extremely expensive for the applicant?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We keep the possibility of relaxation under constant review and we have just agreed, under a European Community initiative, that we are prepared to negotiate a visa abolition agreement with the German Democratic Republic. We are responding to the increasing demand from eastern Europe wherever possible by allocating increased resources for the visa-issuing procedures in those countries.
    Mr. Foulkes: But does not the Minister accept that there is widespread and genuine concern both in the House and beyond about the confusion, overcrowding, long waits and delays that many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his recent visit to India, have experienced? They have seen the queues, the confusion and the unfortunate circumstances in which people have to queue. Instead of dealing with this in an ad hoc way, as the Minister implied in his earlier reply to my hon. Friends, would he seriously consider initiating a special and systematic review of the staff complements and procedures in our embassies and high commissions for dealing with the problem, to see if we can alleviate it and treat people in the civilised manner they deserve?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that there are substantially fewer people queueing now than 10 years ago and delay times are substantially less than they were a year or two ago. I do not think that a review at any one moment is a sensible way forward, because we wish to allocate resources to meet requirements that change from time to time, even from month to month, and vary between different countries and
    184
    different posts in the same country. Therefore, we believe that the best way forward is to keep under constant review the queue lengths, number of applicants and resources we have, particularly of manpower, at each post.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held with the Chinese Government in respect to Hong Kong; and what confidence-building measures Her Majesty's Government have urged the Chinese Government to implement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): The Chinese ambassador called on the Prime Minister on 16 March to discuss Hong Kong and other issues of common concern. Our ambassador in Peking is in frequent contact with the Chinese Government; and the Sino-British joint liaison group met in Peking from 24 to 27 April. There is therefore a close and continuing dialogue. The Chinese Government have reiterated their commitment to the joint declaration and its implementation.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the unhelpful, if not belligerent, comments coming out of China about the government of Hong Kong only cause instability that is not in the interests of Britain, Hong Kong or China? Does he agree that, if the Chinese Government were to continue such comments, they might invalidate the Sino-British agreement of 1984 by doing so?
    Mr. Maude: As I have said, the Chinese Government have consistently reaffirmed their commitment to the joint declaration, which binds us and the Chinese Government to work together for the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. We shall continue to work together to achieve that.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When next discussing Hong Kong matters with the Chinese Government, will the Minister raise the issue of trade in ivory between China and Hong Kong? Dr. Leakey has recently been saying that there is to be an extension of the reservation on behalf of Hong Kong. As the Minister has an opportunity today, will he make it quite clear that in no circumstances will there be an extension of the reservation allowing further trade in ivory from Hong Kong beyond mid-July?
    Mr. Maude: I am glad to take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no extension of the reservation. We said that there would not be, and there will not.
    Mr. Banks: Thank you.
    Sir Hal Miller: Does the Minister agree that it was because the events in Tiananmen Square undermined confidence that China accepted the principle of one country, two systems that there was such a loss of confidence in Hong Kong? What measures have our Government suggested to the Chinese Government to demonstrate to the people of Hong Kong that the concept of one country, two systems is alive and well?
    Mr. Maude: The Chinese Government have specifically said and done nothing to undermine their commitment to the separate maintenance of the capitalist democratic system in Hong Kong. They have constantly reaffirmed

    185
    their commitment to the joint declaration, which retains that separate way of life in Hong Kong. We and the Hong Kong Government have taken a number of steps within our powers to reaffirm and reassert confidence in Hong Kong, and support by the Chinese Government for those moves would be helpful.
    Mr. Michael Welsh: Will the Minister ask the ambassador to tell the Chinese leaders, when he meets them again, that it would help to build confidence in Hong Kong if we had a reassurance that after 1997 they will send into Hong Kong just the police and not the army? If they were to send in the 27th, I would not like it.
    Mr. Maude: It was always understood that, once Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong returned in 1997, there would inevitably be a right for the Chinese Government to station troops in Hong Kong, should they choose to do so, but that troops could be there only for external defence purposes. We have constantly said that the way in which troops are deployed will affect confidence in Hong Kong.

    Romania
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards free and fair elections in Romania.
    Mr. Waldegrave: There has been some progress. The interim authorities have passed an electoral law and welcomed outside observers. But we remain concerned at the continuing allegations by some opposition parties that they are being unfairly treated during the election campaign.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the concern expressed, not least by the Church, which, after all, fired the revolution in Romania, about the unfairnesses to opposition parties? Will he make it absolutely clear to the Romanian authorities that continuation of reconstruction funds, and in particular know-how funds, will be dependent upon the election being seen as fully free and fair?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm that we have received a number of allegations, from both representatives of the Churches and from a wide variety of opposition groups. I am also delighted to reaffirm that not only Britain's support but the support of the European Community and the Group of 24 is clearly conditional upon progress and upon the legitimacy of the next Government in Romania. That depends on the fairness of the election. We have not released know-how funds to Romania. We do not yet believe that we should do so. We have given some humanitarian aid. We will watch the election carefully to see whether the conditions which we have all laid down are truly met.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In connection with travel between Romania and the United Kingdom, what progress has been made towards the abolition of the requirement for visas?
    Mr. Waldegrave: These matters are discussed jointly with our European partners, because it is obviously sensible to try to move in step. So far, we have made a move in relation to the German Democratic Republic because that is a special case.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Surely my right hon. Friend is now aware that the situation in Romania is deteriorating fast and that the prospect of the election later this month being either fair or free is fast disappearing. Is he aware that there is widespread intimidation, including physical harassment, of democratic parties and their leaders by the Communist provisional Government, and a refusal to provide them with the normal facilities of newspaper publicity and a share in broadcasts? Is he further aware that there will be no independent scrutiny of the voting or counting procedures in the election itself, and that the army will be taking the ballot boxes away for six days before the announcement is made? [Interruption.]
    In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend persuade our European partners—
    Mr. Cryer: Send an observer from the Lords to discuss abortion.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should not barrack the Father of the House.
    Sir Bernard Braine: In these disgraceful circumstances, will my right hon. Friend ensure that our European partners make it crystal clear that, unless the position changes quickly, there can be no aid or support after a fraudulent Government are returned?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I wholly sympathise with the vehemence of my right hon. Friend's concern. No one in the House has done more than he has to support dissident minorities in eastern Europe. I am aware of many of the allegations that my right hon. Friend has repeated today, not least because he has brought them to my attention. That means that they have been brought clearly to my attention.
    Because of the very concerns that my right hon. Friend expresses, we are paying for 12 additional observers from local government in Britain to go and observe the election, and the formidable duo of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is going from the House. I calculate that there will be about 100 other western observers, from a variety of countries and organisations. All this will help us to warn the Romanian authorities of the importance of having a free election, and will enable us to judge whether that election has been free.
    Dr. Reid: Does the Minister accept that it is an unfortunate corollary of the development of free and democratic procedures in eastern Europe, including Romania, that views which are in themselves highly distasteful and highly dangerous are nevertheless tolerated lest it be felt that here is some impingement on the new freedoms? In exactly that context, we are seeing a new wave of anti-Semitism in Romania and throughout eastern Europe. What representations has the Minister made to combat the spread of this poisonous creed?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I accept the implication at the start of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is perhaps inevitable that growing freedoms bring some of the unpleasant aspects of freedom. The only way to put down these unpleasant aspects is through true democratic parties fighting and winning the elections. We have been closely in touch in the Soviet Union and in other eastern European countries with groups that are trying to monitor

    187
    anti-Semitism and the resurgence of fringe fascist group of one kind or another. The best guardians against all that are free and fair elections.
    Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend is right when he say that the Government are correct to offer encouragement and help to Romania and to other countries as they move towards what we hope will be free and fair elections. The news media also have a role to play. What are till Government doing to improve the quality and quantity of the broadcasts to eastern Europe by the world service of the BBC, as the countries in that area move towards the democracy that we all want to see?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have recently somewhat increased broadcasting on the world service to eastern European countries. However, there is in addition an important roll for what we might call the more ordinary media of the west to spotlight through television and newspapers what going on in those countries. I hope that representatives no only from this House and from other democratic Parliaments but many journalists will be observing those elections.

    Guatemala
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about human rights it Guatemala.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We have received a number of representations in recent months expressing concern about human rights violations in Guatemala.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware of the concern of various groups in Guatemala that there has been an increase in the activities of the death squads in that country? Many people expect that that increase in activity will increase further as Guatemala heads towards the elections. What steps will the Government take to monitor the situation there, and how will they put pressure on the Government of Guatemala to do what they can to stop the activities of these squads?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I regret that there has been a marked deterioration over past months in the context of human rights, as the hon. Gentleman says. We do not think that the Government of Guatemala are themselves responsible for abuses, or that they encourage or condone violations. The problem is rather one of that Government's ineffectiveness in dealing with violations. We have made our views clear on the issue of human rights abuse and have expressed our concern about it on a number of occasions. In the past few months I have spoken about it to the Foreign Minister of Guatemala, to Vice-President Carpio and to the Interior Minister, Mr. Morales, when he was in London. On those three occasions, I emphasised the importance that we attach to an improvement in human rights.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: In considering these important matters, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that President Cerezo is the first directly elected President after 29 years of military rule? He has to cope with the murderous activities of far left guerrillas as well as with the activities of frustrated military potentates.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right to dray attention to the abuses of human rights by the Unidad Revolucionara Nacional Guatemalteca. We welcome the democratic elections of President Cerezo and hope that elections to be held later this year will also be free and fait and will continue the tradition of democracy recently established in Guatemala.

    EC General Affairs Council
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items ht expects to be raised at the next meeting of the European Community General Affairs Council.
    Mr. Maude: The Foreign Affairs Council on 18 June is likely to discuss, among other matters, political union preparations for the European Council meeting, EC-EFTA relations, EC-eastern Europe and EC policy towards the Mediterranean.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister take the opportunity of those and other meetings to register the strongest possible protest at the prolonged detention of Mr. Paul Ashwell as a hostage for his lorry's cargo in Greece? May I voice the growing protests of thousands of British lorry drivers that Mr. Ashwell is becoming the fall guy for the incompetence of the Department of Trade and Industry? May I invite the Minister to contrast the efficient and fair actions of the Turkish authorities in relation to the consignments bound for Iraq with the antics of the Greek authorities, who are supposed to be our European Community partners?
    Mr. Maude: We have taken a number of opportunities to express to the Greek Government our concern about Mr. Ashwell's circumstances: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the case with the Greek Prime Minister on 28 April, our ambassador in Athens raised it with the Greek Minister of Justice on 2 May, and I raised it with the new Greek ambassador in London on Thursday last week. Our embassy in Athens remains in touch with Greek officials, and we hope that Mr. Ashwell's release will be secured before long.
    Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend impress on the Ministers the fact that Britain is the only truly European country, as we have put most EC directives into law? Countries such as Italy speak loudly of political union, but until last summer it had passed only seven directives. It recently passed another 100, but still has about another 350 to go. While other countries do not keep to their European obligations, we do.
    Mr. Maude: Certainly any scrutiny of the implementation of Community agreements shows our record to be exceptionally good—usually the best in the Community. Some other countries—my hon. Friend mentioned one —have a far poorer record. We attach great importance to meeting European obligations, and we are making a proposal to the European Commission that should emphasise the importance of so doing. Details will emerge before long. If we are to make a reality of Europe, we must ensure that agreements are implemented.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: When the Minister attends the meeting, will he raise with our Community partners the appalling events that took place in the Jabaliya refugee camp on 26

    189
    April, when, as a result of excessive force used by the Israeli military, three Palestinians died and 215 were wounded? Will he remind our Community partners that they, like us, are signatories of the fourth Geneva convention and have a responsibility towards those Palestinian people? Will he encourage them to take the appropriate action?
    Mr. Maude: We regularly raise those matters, and they are frequently discussed among the Twelve.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Will my hon. Friend also ensure that membership applications from Malta, Austria and Norway are not lost sight of?
    Mr. Maude: At present, two applications are in front of the Community. There is general agreement among the Twelve that the Community has some major tasks to undertake in the near future. It would not be right to consider negotiations for further accessions for the next couple of years. It would be a surprise to most of us if it was still a Community of only 12 countries at the end of the century.
    Mr. Winnick: Do the Greek authorities understand the immense harm that is being done to relations between our two countries as a result of the way in which Mr. Ashwell is being treated? If anyone is totally innocent in this whole miserable affair, it is him. Why are the Greek authorities insisting that there can be no bail? Is not it important for the British Government to make perfectly clear the strong feelings in Britain over what has happened? Great harm could be done—which is most unfortunate, as Britain and Greece are friends—to relations between our two countries if Mr. Ashwell stays in prison.
    Mr. Maude: As has been said repeatedly, we fully accept Mr. Ashwell's innocence and have made that clear to the Greek authorities. We shall continue to press that case to make it clear to the Greek Government—as the hon. Member suggests—that there is strong feeling about this in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lester: In any other business that is discussed in the Council, will my hon. Friend consider the elections in Burma later this month? We have already heard indignation expressed about elections in Romania, but in Burma we have seen—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this to do with Europe?
    Mr. Lester: Yes. The European Community has already made a demarche to Burma about its elections, and it is concerned. Not only have the Burmese Government killed more people than died in Tiananmen square but they have enforced massive resettlements, imprisoned the official opposition and will take three weeks to complete the count. Should not the European Community represent strongly its views on elections that are no longer free or fair?
    Mr. Maude: Certainly it is difficult to contemplate that an election during which the opposition are imprisoned is likely to be fair.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister share the sense of frustration at the stalling of the peace process in the middle east, in large part because of internal developments in Israel? Will he take this opportunity to urge our European partners to increase pressure on Mr. Shamir, and in
    190
    particular, to show that, if he persists in the policy of increasing or enlarging the existing, settlements in the occupied territories, or allowing Soviet immigrants to go there, that can have only a negative impact on the prospect of peace in the middle east?
    Mr. Maude: Certainly recent events have stalled proceedings for the time being, but we shall urge that the new Israeli Government should pursue the Baker plan and get down to discussions with the Palestinians at the earliest possible date.

    Angola
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the use of chemical weapons against UNITA forces in Angola by the MPLA.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are aware of the allegations that chemical weapons have been used by both sides in the Angolan conflict, but we have seen no proof of this.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will recognise that the continuing conflict in Angola is in stark contrast with the agreeable trend towards peace in Namibia and southern Africa generally. Will he consider using the information that he has to bring international pressure on the parties involved to come to a negotiated settlement?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. It is encouraging that the first direct contact between the Angolan Government and UNITA took place last week in Lisbon. We hope that that will be followed by further contacts. If it is, that will be thoroughly welcome to us and, I am sure, to both sides of the House.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that those of us who have seen children whose legs have been blown off by UNITA-planted mines and who understand the problems of both sides will encourage him in trying to find a solution to this dreadful war and in supporting the United Nations and Perez de Cuellar in so doing?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. The hon. Member draws attention to the fact that, as in Afghanistan, there will be a terrible task of rebuilding in Angola, even if war is successfully brought to a conclusion. I fear that the sort of casualties that he describes will go on for many years.

    Eastern Europe (Elections)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about democratic elections in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: The elections in the GDR on 18 March and in Hungary on 25 March and 8 April were free and fair. We hope that the forthcoming elections in Romania, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia will be so too. I am glad that Members of this House are observing most of these elections under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We shall be sending teams of local government electoral officials to observe the elections in Romania and Bulgaria.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that our increasing levels of aid to eastern Europe are conditional on free and fair elections in countries there?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, this is extremely important, and we have made it clear to the countries concerned that the level of help, co-operation and friendship that they can expect to receive from us and from members of the European Community will be directly related to their progress in democratic and economic reform.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Soviet Government to the fact that there have been free elections in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? Will he also draw the attention of President Gorbachev to the fact that, while many of us support what he is doing, up to a point, Lenin in the early days of the Soviet state argued strongly for the self-determination of all peoples? That is why those three states got their self-determination. Even Stalin—it must have been an aberration—wrote a pamphlet on the rights of nationalities and said that self-determination was acceptable. Since those three states were democratic and free until they were occupied by the Soviet Government in 1940, let us make it plain that perestroika, democracy and freedom must apply when the people themselves decide what they want.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member is right. Stalin allowed into the Soviet constitution—I think that it was in 1936 —a provision that republics could leave the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, he omitted to provide any way in which they could actually do that. That omission has recently been repaired by the Supreme Soviet. The principle of self-determination is accepted, as is the right of people in the republics to leave if that is their freely expressed wish. We now need a discussion or a dialogue between the Baltic republics—first, Lithuania—and the authorities in Moscow to bring that about in an orderly and sensible way.

    Hostages
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in establishing the whereabouts and procuring the release of British subjects held prisoner by Arab or Iranian terrorist groups in Lebanon.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are encouraged by the recent release of a number of hostages in Lebanon. We are especially pleased that one of those released has confirmed that Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Keenan are alive. We very much hope these turn out to be the first moves towards freedom for all hostages. There has certainly been progress, but there have been previous disappointments. It could be a long process.
    Mr. Latham: Stripped of diplomatic verbiage, is not the honourable course for Iran and Syria to get these entirely innocent people released forthwith and the death threat to Mr. Rushdie lifted, following which it will be possible to consider the resumption of normal diplomatic relations?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend draws clear attention to some of the difficulties that lie between us and Iran.

  BILL PRESENTED
    SAFEGUARDS FOR RESIDENTS IN REGISTERED HOMES
    Ms. Harriet Harman presented a Bill to extend legal safeguards for residents in registered residential care homes and nursing homes; to extend the Registered Homes Act 1984 to cover homes with fewer than four residents; to require the police to disclose to registration authorities any relevant criminal convictions of someone applying to register a home; to require all registered homes to have a complaints procedure; to give residents in registered homes the right to an advocate on their behalf; to require that nursing procedures in registered homes are only carried out by trained nurses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

Numbering of Premises
3.32 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that commercial, industrial and certain other premises in built-up areas shall display the street or other number of the address of such premises.
Although my intention is that the Bill should apply to the whole country, London is governed currently by the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939. Section 11(1) of that Act provides:
"The Council"—
in those days, that meant the London county council—
"may order that any buildings in any street way, place row of houses or block of buildings shall for the purpose of distinguishing them be marked (whether already marked by a number or name or not) with such numbers or names or numbers and names as may be specified in the order or shown upon a plan referred to in the order and that any existing numbers or names which differ from those specified in the order shall be abolished."
As if that were not enough, section 12 states:
"The Council shall make regulations with respect of the marking of the numbers or names or numbers and names of buildings … and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision such regulations may provide for the number or name … of any building to be marked in some appropriate position either on the building or on some part of the premises of which the building forms part as may be prescribed by the regulations."
As I am not a lawyer, I do not, thank God, have to attempt to understand all that. Indeed, if my Bill were given leave to proceed, there would never be any need for any lawyer to attempt to understand those provisions ever again. The problem with the sections to which I have referred is that there are too many "mays" and not enough "shalls". The result is complexity of legislation and ignorance of the regulations. This has led to widespread indifference.
I emphasise that the Bill would cover commercial and industrial premises only. It does not attempt to cover houses, and nor does it attempt to cover places in the country. For example, Rose cottage, Great Snoring in the Marsh, would not have to be called No. 10 The Street. It could retain its picturesque name, which doubtless adds greatly to its value.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill because there must be many, many people throughout the country who, every
194
day, set out to find certain premises that they have not visited before. They may want to go to a travel agent. They look up the address in the telephone directory, and see it listed as No. 133 High street. London is full of high streets, and some of them have numbers going up to 1,000 plus.
People are at a disadvantage because they do not know at which end of the street to start because most of the premises do not display street numbers. They either walk or drive along the road, but perhaps only one in every 10 or 12 premises has a number. Even if they find No. 100, for example, they would not know which way to go. They would have to walk past another 10 or 12 premises until they found the next number, which might be No. 90—so they would have to turn around and walk back again. Some roads have odd numbers on one side and even numbers on the other; others are numbered consecutively. People do not know which side of the street they are on. They do not know whether they are going this way or that way, or whether they are coming or going.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic in his seat because there are well-documented instances of people driving their cars into other cars because they are concentrating on looking for street numbers. That has caused a number of accidents. If I were given leave to introduce the Bill, and it was allowed to proceed, people would no longer have to put up with the aggravation of trying to find premises. Their blood pressure would go down, which would benefit the National Health Service, insurance premiums would go down, and any number of other benefits would flow.
I hope that I shall be given leave to introduce my Bill and that the House will allow me to proceed with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugo Summerson, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Keith Mans, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Patrick Thompson.

NUMBERING OF PREMISES
Mr. Hugo Summerson accordingly presented a Bill to require that commercial, industrial and certain other premises in built-up areas shall display the street or other number of the address of such premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
Orders of the Day
  Broadcasting Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Broadcasting Bill
    Clause 4

      GENERAL LICENCE CONDITIONS
      3.38 pm
      Mr. Timothy Raison: I beg to move amendment No. 729, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
      'Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Commission to require any Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel or 5 to include any conditions requiring the licence holders to include party political broadcasts in the licensed service.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, we shall discuss the following: Government amendment No. 491.
      Amendment No. 730, in page 29, line 4, leave out clause 33.
      Government amendments Nos. 670 to 672, 540, 471 and 543.
      Mr. Raison: Coupled with amendment No. 729 is amendment No. 730, to leave out clause 33. That clause contains the power for independent television commissioners to require party political broadcasts.
      My objective is to abolish any statutorily based requirements to carry party political broadcasts or independent television. I should like to see the end of party political broadcasts on independent television. If anyone is prepared to consider the matter from an objective point of view, he is bound to concede that I am putting forward an overwhelming case.
      I am dubious about party political broadcasts on any channel. I do not want to see them at all and I do not think that anyone could possibly defend them on the ground of popularity. I have yet to meet anyone who said that he liked to see political broadcasts as part of hi regular fare. I am sure that all hon. Members know from anecdotal evidence that that is the case. It is difficult to establish a scientific basis for what I say. It is well known that regular research is carried out on party political broadcasts by the BBC. They look into the number of viewers for each broadcast and find out what people think of them. I believe that political parties also carry out research on such broadcasts and how they go down, but I have discovered that there is a notable lack of willingness on all sides to reveal the results of all that research. I wonder why.
      Most of us suspect that if we got the results they would not look very impressive. I am told by one authority that one reason why research is not published is that there is an enormous variation between one broadcast and another and that publishing varying figures would give a misleading impression. I do not think that that is a persuasive argument. Results of research on any other type of programme would be published, and if they showed a variation one would say that it was rather useful research.
      There are many popular legends about what happens when party political broadcasts come on. I shall not give details but none of the legends is based on the supposition that people want to stay glued to their sets.
      196
      Party political broadcasts have become slicker during the past few years. They are technically better managed than they used to be. I cannot help recalling the time in the mid-1970s, when I was shadow Minister for the Environment, and once or twice I was commissioned by Conservative central office to make a party political broadcast. It consisted of marching on to College green or St Stephen's green on a day when there was a howling gale and the wind was blowing about us—I am sure hon. Members today are familiar with this—to utter a few, well-chosen platitudes.
      It is one of the more futile forms of broadcasting by any standards, but to try to do a party political broadcast against the background of a howling gale was not easy. It was not that I was not promoting a good cause. I was promoting the sale of council houses, which is one of the great achievements of our time. Somehow I could never bring myself to believe that the popular response to that cause had anything to do with what I said on St Stephen's green in a howling gale during a party political broadcast. It is perhaps relevant that shortly afterwards my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister decided that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) would be rather better than I at standing on St Stephen's green in a howling gale to promote the cause and I retreated to the Back Benches.
      Party political broadcasts have never been one of the highest art forms, although they have certainly become more skilful. I gather that the policy in such broadcasts now is to relegate the politicians and to bring in actors, who resemble what is deemed to be the common man.
      Sometimes such broadcasts are skilfully done. I saw a Conservative broadcast last week about the community charge which was technically rather good. I suppose that it is possible that it was good enough to persuade some people how to cast their vote, but I doubt it. I do not believe that what changes people's minds about their voting behaviour has anything to do with party political broadcasts.
      As a matter of principle, I do not believe that that is the way in which we should be putting our policies before the electorate. It is not the way in which we should be presenting our arguments, and it is not in accord with our notion of adult democracy. I should prefer the time allocated to party political broadcasts to be used for broadcasting the House of Commons. I looked into the possibility of inserting a provision to the effect that the time saved by not having party political broadcasts on ITV could be transferred to broadcasting the House. The trouble is that the Bill implements a decision by Parliament operating through an Act of Parliament, whereas the decisions about broadcasting the House are taken by resolutions of the House and it was rather difficult technically to incorporate such a measure.
      3.45 pm
      In general, I am sceptical about party political broadcasts, but if we must have them, and if there really is a need and a demand for them, why on earth should we have to have them on four, and now five different channels? Surely one or perhaps two transmissions of any party political broadcast must be quite enough. Surely it is quite reasonable to confine them to the BBC, as I propose. After all, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has said time and again, the Bill is about choice and diversity. To transmit the same party political broadcast

      197
      on five different channels in any one week cannot be said to have much to do with choice or anything to do with diversity. Even the FA cup final and the Derby are not broadcast on every channel, so why on earth should party political broadcasts be so broadcast? I really cannot believe that we as politicians require to bind to ourselves a semi-captive audience.
      Having put the case, which, considered objectively, must be conceded to be a powerful one, may I say that what amazes me about the Bill is that my hon. and learned Friend, in amendment No. 670, proposes to make the powers in the Bill stronger and to insist more firmly on the provision of party political broadcasts on independent television. His amendment changes the provision in clause 33, which states that a licence for Channel 3, 4 or 5 "may" include a requirement for party political broadcasts, to say that it "shall" include such a requirement. It introduces compulsion.
      According to an article by Mr. Alan Boyle, entitled,
      "Political Broadcasting, Fairness and Administrative Law",
      the present position is that
      "Neither the BBC nor the IBA is obliged to carry party political broadcasts, but they have in practice always done so"
      Until now there has been no legislative requirement for party political broadcasts, but amendment No. 670 proposes to change the "may" provision into a "shall" provision. It would be a regressive step to impose party political broadcasts so that all viewers of independent television were bound to be faced with them sooner or later.
      I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will think again that the Government will relent in their view and, will let us all off what by any standards would be an unloved imposition.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The issue of party political broadcasts arose in Committee almost inadvertently, because it appeared that the Bill as drafted might by a side wind have done away with the established practice of providing party political broad-casts, which, as the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, is not rooted in the law.
      It is important to consider why we have party political broadcasts and do not rely on other communications media to get across the message of different political parties.
      Democracy depends very much on the direct communication of the messages of the parties that the public must evaluate in deciding how to vote. Other methods of communicating with the public at large depend on a filtering process, a process of editorialising and a process of comment. Although that is necessary and desirable, it is not sufficient. Political parties should be able to convey their message to the public by the most modern means of communication available—broadcasting—unadorned by the intervention of editorial comment.
      The right hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested that more parliamentary coverage might suffice, but that argument cannot be sustained for a minute. In deciding what images from this place to portray on the television screen, we are properly seeing the editorial process at work, but we are not seeing the direct communication of a message. Those who view the proceedings of this place
      198
      —no doubt it is a powerful image and a clear message —form their own judgment. The case for maintaining party political broadcasts is strong.
      It is not entirely surprising that a Conservative Member is attempting to do away with party political broadcasts, because, by and large, the Conservative party commands the ownership of the written media of communication, and the editorial policy of most of the newspapers is extremely sympathetic to it. A predominance of coverage of the Government flows from that. It is clear from the studies that have been carried out, including that recently published by the Hansard Society, that the Government of the day overwhelmingly dominate the broadcast proceedings of the House. Inevitably, a bias in favour of the Government is built into the system, because, through their announcements and comments on what is happening, they make the news. It is important to have another source of political opinion—that of the parties.
      The right hon. Member for Aylesbury rather frivolously suggested that the party political broadcast is an art form. Few people would subscribe to that view. It is widely recognised to be the deadliest of boring topics, but that does not mean that it is not worthy of being seen.
      The right hon. Gentleman recognised that the party to which I have the honour to belong produced one of the most informative party political broadcasts on the virtues of fair voting and proportional representation. It was entertainingly and memorably presented by John Cleese. It was extremely effective in showing that it is not necessary to be dull to convey a message. It is right that the format of the broadcasts in which the right hon. Gentleman participated more than a decade ago was different from that which has become common under Mr. Peter Mandelson and other skilled performers.
      Any attempt to curtail the direct communication of political parties with the public by the most modern medium of communication, which has the greatest coverage, would be a retrograde step and not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, a progressive one.
      Mr. Julian Critchley: Compared with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), all hon. Members are irredeemably frivolous.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) deserves the gratitude of the nation. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that our great party—perhaps I might even say, "my" great party—is not well loved at the present time. I need only remind the House of the Mid-Staffordshire by-election, the public opinion polls and the local election results, although I confess that in certain parts of the country there were lights at the ends of all sorts of tunnels. None the less, at the moment the Conservative party is not particularly popular.
      Many of my colleagues in the Conservative party and in the 1922 Committee are worried about their fates. What would they do if they were to lose their seats? Newspaper advertisers from California and Phoenix, Arizona are looking for footmen and butlers. Who better than a Conservative Member of Parliament to take red wine out of the fridge and who better than his wife to do the gardens for them? The only other possible option for a defeated Conservative Member is to read the weather on British television. How splendid it would be if we Conservative

      199
      Members who must have a publicity fix every morning it order to function could end our days as weathermen or BBC1.
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Here is a frivolous intervention.
      Mr. Critchley: In that case, I will give way.
      Mr. Maclennan: Regardless of what other career might be suitable for the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), he would fail at broadcasting the weather if he did not have a Scottish accent.
      Mr. Critchley: I confess that I would be comprehensible. My message to the country each day would be to wrap up warmly. Having done that before the 9 am news I would be my old self.
      I have a suggestion or two for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House which, if they were to be adopted, might bring about a remarkable revival in the fortunes of the Conservative party. First, the British sausage must be defended at all costs against the Common Market. There is every sign that, on the issue of the British sausage, our great leader stands firmly in her place.
      The second practice that the Conservative Party might adopt to recapture the affection of the electorate is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested, to do away with the party political broadcast. Having had high tea at 5.30 pm, we all know that the British wish for nothing more than to slump in front of the set from 6.30 pm until 11.30 pm, rising only for calls of nature or to switch channels halfway through a programme.
      However, as soon as the news dawns on them that a much-loved politician of any party is about to embark on a five-minute broadcast of mendacity, assertion and amplification, up they get. They go into the kitchen; switch on the stove and brew a hot milky drink. They take no notice of the pleas of our political masters, whether they be in Smith square or in Walworth road.
      At the moment, the Tory party has earned the gratitude of the manufacturers of Ovaltine. Let us set our sights higher. Let us look for the resumption of our natural popularity. Put the British sausage first and with the cancellation of party political broadcasts, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may even get a fifth term of office.
      4 pm
      Mr. Bruce Grocott: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is persuasive on many issues, but not on this one. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) presented the more accurate face of the Conservative party. I was not surprised, but I was concerned, by the way in which the right hon. Member for Aylesbury was anxious to move towards a free market in the dissemination of news to the electorate from political parties.
      I should regard the abolition of party political broadcasts as a step backwards. For all their faults of production and presentation, they are an established means of communication and the best means we know of mass communication with large sections of the electorate. They reach more people than any other method could
      200
      achieve. I should find it worrying if we moved towards ever greater deregulation of the way in which political parties can communicate with the electorate.
      There is already an astonishing paradox in our electoral laws. There are the strictest controls over what candidates can spend in their constituencies, but no controls whatever over the amount of money that can be spent at national level on advertising by the various political parties.
      I am not surprised that far and away the richest party —the Conservative party—is basically in favour of a free market. The one area of news coverage and communication where there is some regulation, where party political broadcasts have been developed over the years, and where news coverage is required to he fair and impartial is BBC radio and television, and ITV. In that area, the Government are moving towards greater deregulation. Although it is not spelt out in the Bill, I fear that, before long, some Conservative Members may argue that parties should be allowed to pay for commercials on television in the horrendous fashion that we see in other countries.
      The great advantage of the party political broadcast is that it enables political parties to reach the maximum possible audience fairly and in a regulated way. The practice has developed over a long period and it is a part of our democratic process. It may be a part which one can deride in some respects—I acknowledge that some of the party political broadcasts are dreadfully bad—but it is a part of our democratic process which has been worked on over the years. It is worrying to notice the ease with which hon. Members can recommend in apparently innocuous amendments to a Bill that an important part of our democratic process should be discarded.
      What is particularly worrying about the whole Bill is that, if the philosophy behind it is allowed to develop—I shall do all I can to see that it does not—and a less regulated system is created, the method by which our people receive news information will become less and less reliable. Some of that information is gained from the admittedly partisan means of party political broadcasts. Information will come from more and more channels with smaller audiences and there will be fewer requirements for fairness and impartiality.
      The general election that we are approaching could be the last in which we can be fairly certain that the vast majority of the electorate receive at least an attempt at a fair exposition of the news, governed by regulations on balance between the parties. Again, the party political broadcasts are a manifestation of that
      I fear that we shall have a system with numerous channels, many without any news programmes or without news programmes in prime time, and with no guaranteed means by which people can obtain political information. I am profoundly relieved, and impartial and fair Members of Parliament should be relieved too, that all the opinion polls show us that most people in Britain are more likely to trust the broadcast media than the press for their information about politics. Thank heaven for that. The press is not subject to any requirements for fairness and impartiality.
      If we accept the amendment, we shall be in danger in a few years of leaving only one area of competition between the parties that is strictly regulated for fairness. That will be the area of expenditure by individual candidates in constituencies—a regulation which everyone regards as absolutely essential to the democratic process. After the abolition of party political broadcasts, everything else—

      201
      national expenditure by the parties, advertising, access to the news media—will be deregulated apart from that one, relatively unimportant, area of competition.
      Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Given the hon. Gentleman's curiously old-fashioned view about the wonderful nature of party political broadcasts, he has failed to note one important change. He argues that strict impartiality is the key. Now that the House is broadcast and Mr. Speaker maintains a strict impartiality over all of us, those broadcasts are a far better way in which to transmit political messages fairly than any party political broadcast.
      Mr. Grocott: Hon. Members may enjoy their own speeches, and I am sure that most of the demand for cassettes are from Members wanting a record of their speeches—I am sure that there is little demand from the public. A properly presented party political broadcast is a much more effective way in which to present the views of a party to the electorate than a random selection of speeches from individual hon. Members.
      We all know that the party political broadcast is open to fun and jest, but if we slung that part of our democracy aside, we would be abandoning the best established means of communication, bearing in mind the millions that television can reach. We would abandon such broadcasts in favour of a free market view of competition between the parties, and we would never achieve fairness and impartiality. I hope that we throw the amendment out.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I have always believed that the allocation of time for party political broadcasts on television and radio is at least an attempt at fairness that is never matched by the daily national press. Arangements for allocating as fair an amount of space in the press would be an important development and would ensure some degree of equality between the political parties. However, we know that most of the daily press, national and provincial, tends to support the Conservative party and therefore there have been no efforts to introduce even a shadow of fairness and equality into the press.
      The party political broadcast is a fair target for criticism and mockery. Although the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has set his target on the party political broadcast he has not evidenced any criticism of the interruptions to programmes from advertisements. Such advertisements are far more mendacious than party political broadcasts and the advertisers unscrupulously abuse every human emotion on which they can lay their hands in order to sell products. Any criticism should be levelled against such advertisers rather than against party political broadcasts.
      Mr. Critchley: Is the hon. Member aware that all the evidence shows that commercials are far more popular than any of the programmes?
      Mr. Cryer: I have seen no such research and the right hon. Member for Aylesbury did not adduce any research about party political broadcasts. He merely said that there was an absence of such research and that, therefore, such broadcasts must be unpopular. Whatever people may think of advertisements must involve an element of masochism on their part because most adverts tend to abuse every decent human emotion.
      Mr. Raison: A lot of research is carried out, but the interesting feature about it is the great reluctance to publish the outcome of it.
      Mr. Cryer: What I am saying amounts to the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to invoke that research because of a lack of publication.
      Party political broadcasts invoke a certain degree of fairness. I accept that the level of quality varies greatly. The Labour party is extremely short of money and often it must use the most limited means to produce a party political broadcast.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that the objections to party political broadcasts arose only once the Labour party started to turn out some extremely good ones?
      Mr. Cryer: I was about to say that occasionally the Labour party has scaled the heights of stimulating public interest in television broadcasting. In the early 1980s there was a growing problem of racism in our society and the Labour party produced a broadcast about the association of racism, the far right fascist political parties and football supporters in such a way that it stimulated discussion virtually nationwide.
      I can also recall when the Labour party took its courage in its hands and produced a party political broadcast about unilateral nuclear disarmament. I know that that is not the sort of thing that is much talked of in the Labour party these days, but it was a stimulating broadcast which challenged ideas. On occasions, those five-minute slots can produce debate, dissent and challenge in an entertaining way so that the ideologies capture the viewer's imagination. It is worth retaining that opportunity and the degree of fairness rather than discarding party political broadcasts and leaving them to what would inevitably be the free marketplace.
      I share the suspicion of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that this is a precursor to giving political parties the opportunity to buy advertising space on television channels. That would mean that we would revert to the American system where the cost of elections is massive because the limitations on advertising costs in television and other media are extremely sloppy. We do not want to see that. I recognise the difficulties of producing party political broadcasts, but I certainly wish them to continue. I should like to extend the principle of fairness to our newspaper industry, but that seems a long way off.
      Mr. Alistair Darling: It strikes me that this short debate is like having a party political broadcast in the middle of prime time evening viewing. We are between major debates on matters that are quite clearly of concern to people inside and outside the House. I make no criticism of the point raised by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) because the matter was raised in Committee.
      I do not join in the eulogies for party political broadcasts that we have heard this afternoon. I am ambivalent about them. I do not know whether they are effective, and I suppose that it is not for us to judge, as we tend to be cynical about broadcasts produced by our opponents and by our own parties. However, they do have an effect and have moved on from the days when a grey man addressed the camera and told the audience what a

      203
      wonderful thing his party was doing to mini films, such a; Mr. Mandelson's magnum opus, "Kinnock—the movie." There was a memorable occasion during the elections last year when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes was filmed clutching a baby rabbit. I often wonder what happened to the rabbit: perhaps it went the same way as the mould breakers.
      I do not know whether party political broadcasts work but I believe that on balance we should keep them. They provide an opportunity for parties, especially at election time, to make their pitch, whether good or bad. Until someone persuades me that the disadvantages of showing them outweigh the advantages, I think that they should be shown, even if it means a boost for the Ovaltine industry
      I commend the Government for bringing forward the amendment promised in Committee to make it clear that if party political broadcasts are shown anywhere, they must be shown everywhere. It would not be right to force the BBC to carry them and to let other channels off, as has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury
      I was concerned about the provision in the Bill that it might be possible for Granada Television to carry party political broadcasts and the neighbouring television franchise, Central Television, not to do so. Everyone muse be favoured or cursed with the same thing, or no one at all or there will be great inconsistencies. We welcome the Government's amendments and should not delay the House much more before pressing on to matters that, on any view, are of greater moment.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): Party political broadcasts, like the British weather or English cricket, are a target for mockery. I could contemplate living in a world without party political broadcasts, but that day has not dawned. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has been kind enough to make clear, the Bill reflects agreement between the parties on arrangements for the showing of party political broadcasts.
      It is important that parties should have direct access to television. The extent of the direct access is fairly limited. It is not too high a price to pay for the absence of political advertising on television, which otherwise would have to come about; nor is it too high a price for the viewer to pay for the privilege of living in a democracy in which he has the luxury of choice, a luxury denied to well over 100 member nations of the United Nations. If part of the price that we pay for democracy is the party political broadcast, I cannot help feeling, when we look at the human misery in countries which have to suffer the broadcasts of one party incessantly, that we make a modest imposition on our broadcasters and fellow citizens.
      4.15 pm
      The reason for the Government amendments is to take account of the fact that the IBA was the broadcaster and could therefore direct the various constituent companies of the ITV network to show party political broadcasts. The ITC will not be the broadcaster. Therefore, we require a statutory framework.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central was right in saying that the amendments make a requirement for all channels to show party political broadcasts but that they allow some regions to show different ones. Obviously the political position in Scotland is different from that in
      204
      England. The political message of a party may not be sc relevant in Land's End as it is in John o'Groats. For that reason flexibility is allowed.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend, having aired this interesting topic, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Raison: With the leave of the House, may I reply to the debate?
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said that he felt ambivalent about party political broadcasts. That has been the keynote of the debate. We have had some rum contributions. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) admitted that party political broadcasts could be dreadfully bad but somehow he saw them as a pillar of the constitution. I thought that speech was a hymn to regulation. He seemed to be terrified of anything other than the orderly provision by central authority of information on politics. I assure him that I am not a Tory stalking horse on this or any other matter. I was not put up by the Government to air a change. Indeed, the Government and I take different views.
      I thought it strange that the hon. Gentleman should praise party political broadcasts for fairness and impartiality. The idea that they are models of impartiality is an altogether new twist to the argument which I did not expect to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer; seemed to be afraid of competition in the expression of opinions. I am not sure whether he was talking about commercial competition or whether he could not bring himself to bear the idea that people should express their views in different ways, without recourse to the mechanism that we are discussing.
      I was not particularly persuaded by the arguments that have been put forward. No doubt the issue will rise again another day. As the House wants to get on to other business, I am happy not to press the amendment. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 2

      RESTRICTIONS ON THE HOLDING OF LICENCES
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 315, in page 138, line 29, after 'means', insert
      'a director of that body corporate, or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 316, 317, 345, 346, 349 to 353 and 318 to 320.
      Mr. Mellor: Amendments Nos. 315, 316, 317 and 345 are minor technical amendments to part I of the schedule. The other amendments in the group deal with the undertakings which I gave in Committee about religious ownership; they allow the ITC to waive the disqualification of religious bodies, in the case of licences, to provide non-domestic satellite services and licensable programme services. We discussed the issues in detail last night on the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the amendments as sensible and in line with well-known principle.
      Mr. Darling: As the Minister has said, we welcome the vast majority of these amendments, and agreed them in Committee. I should like to ask a question about

      205
      amendment No. 352. Quite clearly, the idea is that, when dealing with religious organisations, the commission can at its discretion waive the normal requirements about restrictions on ownership. What criteria are to apply, and where might one find them? Plainly, there is no intention of preventing an elder in the Church of Scotland or a similar officer in the Church of England from being a director of a company. However, does it go rather further?
      It would be helpful if we knew the consideration that the commission would have to apply. We have no objection to the amendment, but it might lead to some difficulty. It would be as well to know the precise position, because it might be necessary to tidy up the matter in another place.
      Mr. Mellor: I ask leave of the House to speak again. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise this matter, and I am happy to make the position clear. For the reasons that I gave last night, there must be some filter mechanism to prevent either religious cults or unacceptable American religious broadcasters from taking advantage of an amelioration of the rules for religious broadcasting that are designed to benefit the mainstream of religious groups in the United Kingdom. The amendment provides that mechanism, and gives the ITC unfettered discretion to use its judgment reasonably about who to accept and who to reject.
      We tinkered with a whole range of ideas about how to provide criteria for the exercise of that discretion. We concluded that it would be much more sensible to rely on the good sense of the ITC to separate the sheep from the goats. The obvious intention is that the ITC would permit mainstream religious groups to take advantage of the new arrangements but would not hesitate to act against organisations such as the Unification Church.
      I say again that, with a cheek that I find baffling, the director general or whatever he calls himself of the Unification Church had the temerity to write to The Times saying that Britain needed the stimulus of the religious uplift that would be provided by Moonie television or radio. I trust that I carry the House with me when I say, "No thank you very much." These arrangements, if properly carried through—as I am sure they will be by the ITC—will ensure that that does not happen.
      Mr. Darling: I entirely agree with the Minister and, on balance, I see no alternative to giving the ITC the discretion that he wants to give it. Difficult cases which are not as clear cut as the Moonies against the Church of England may arise; it may be necessary for the ITC to publish the criteria, because it may be taken to court, and there is the possibility of judicial review. The Minister should think about that, because it may be necessary to have another look at the matter before the Bill completes all its stages.
      Mr. Mellor: That intervention is helpful. If the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member has the answer to the conundrum about how we could sensibly fetter the discretion, I should be interested to hear it. Such matters can be further attended to in later stages of the Bill. The ITC will have to make a whole host of difficult judgments on, for example, the rules about religious advertising and religious sponsorship. There is nothing to stop the ITC
      206
      publishing guidance—and every reason to think that it should—showing clearly how it intends to exercise its discretion. I think that the ITC will do that.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 316, in page 139, line 22, leave out 'taken into account as a relative or' and insert
      'regarded as a relative or taken into account'.
      No. 317, in page 139, line 31, at end insert—
      'and, where any such reference has been amended by an order under this Schedule varying the percentage in question, this sub-paragraph shall have effect in relation to it subject to the necessary modifications.'.
      No. 345, in page 140, line 5, leave out from '4' to 'House' in line 6 and insert
      'An order under this Schedule shall not be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each'.
      No. 346, in page 140, line 32, after 'to', insert '(e) and'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 363, in page 140, leave out lines 40 to 44.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 347 and 348.
      Mr. Hattersley: I move the amendment in part in preparation for an amendment on a similar and related subject—ownership and concentrated ownership which I hope we shall debate later. I move it in a spirit of inquiry rather than by way of condemnation in the hope that the Minister will explain the exact purpose of the words that I seek to delete from schedule 2.
      Let us not mince words. As I understand part II of schedule 2, the words that I seek to delete would have the effect of removing from the prohibitions of part II of schedule 2 Mr. Rupert Murdoch and the companies that he owns in the United Kingdom. I mention Mr. Rupert Murdoch at the outset, because I do not think that it is right to be mealy-mouthed about these matters, and also because he plays a special part in these debates, not because of his character or political allegiance, but because of the size of his ownerships: the number of papers and publishing concerns that he owns, and his interest—specified and made public—in the ownership of other newspapers and magazines.
      It is right to remind the House how great Mr. Murdoch's ownership is. As well as his substantial newspaper ownership and his continuous and expanding television aspirations, he owns media companies in other countries. In order to obtain the ownership of American television companies, he found it necessary to change his nationality from Australian to American. If the words that we seek to leave out remain in the schedule, while some persons will be allowed to have major television interests only if they are citizens of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or a state that is a member of the European Community, a local delivery licence or a licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service will be removed from that qualification. Perhaps I misunderstand the Minister's intention. There may be some general principle —political, philosophical, technical, astral—
      Mr. Mellor: Transcendental.
      Mr. Hattersley: —or any word that the Minister cares to invent to justify it.

      207
      I have no wish to discuss it ad hominem if the Minister assures me that that is inappropriate. However, why are so many broadcasting organisations, institutions and corporations to be limited to ownership by citizens of the, United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Island and states in the European Community, or to those who are ordinarily resident in those places? If that is the case why has the licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service been excluded? Perhaps it is purely coincidental that Sky Television comes into that excluded category. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain that it is al a matter of principle and that the idea that it is done with a specific intention is an unworthy suspicion that I should banish from my mind. I have moved the amendment, so the Minister will tell us whether that is the case.
      My strong preference is for broadcasting in the United Kingdom to be limited to companies that are owned by citizens of the United Kingdom or the European Community. That is not simply because EC regulations require it; if we are part of an integrated community, the opportunity should be offered to all member states. I have strong reservations about ownership outside the Community, whoever the owner may be. It was quaint that Mr. Murdoch was prepared to change his citizenship from Australian to American in order to obtain American television companies. I have no idea whether he would be prepared to do it again if our amendment is successful, a what cricket team he would then support, having beer Australian and then become British, via the United States.
      Can the Minister convince us that it was not done with one specific company in mind, but that there is a principle behind it? If he can at least go some way towards doing that, we can wait for our major argument until we reach clause 110.
      Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has raised some fair points I am grateful to him for doing so, and with such vigorous good humour. I shall endeavour to satisfy him. I entirely agree with his basic proposition that it is right that British broadcasting should be owned in the main by British interests, and—as an inevitable consequence of our EC membership—by European Community interests.
      We have gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure, for instance in relation to the allocation of Channel 3 franchises, not only that that restriction applies but that firm regional commitments are built into the franchise allocations that will preserve not just national but regional characteristics, so that the companies concerned are likely to be rooted in the region. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that basic proposition. The relevant part of the schedule that he mentioned disapplies that general rule in two instances, not one.
      4.30 pm
      The first instance is local delivery operators. I recall the properly vigorous view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), expressed last night, that he would like to see more performance and less promise in the cable industry; I second that, and I believe that it is about to happen. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of interest in local delivery operators —those who will be cabling the country—from north America, France and other countries.
      It is as welcome that they should be involved in this as it is that they are investing in a range of other industries.
      208
      We should be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if w prevented them from coming in, particularly when it appears that there is no great queue of British and European entrepreneurs ready to make up the difference For that reason, we disapplied the tight rules about British or European control for local delivery operators.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: Is it not the case that local delivery services, rather than initiating programmes, merely carry them? Is there not a difference between those who merely deliver—a commercial operation—and those who create programmes? Is this no where we should seek a national requirement?
      Mr. Mellor: That is a further distinction that could be drawn, and if I had to justify that exception, I could use that argument. However, I should not go on to say that there is no case in which programme makers, producers or broadcasters should not, if other circumstances are right also be exempted.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was interested in the second example—non-direct broadcasting by satellite services. These are international in character They are not United Kingdom-allocated frequencies. The IBA does not allocate them, and they are brought under the control of the ITC to ensure the appropriate framework for the protection of the public—for example from pornography and other inappropriate programming —that fits into the European framework. They make us of a non-British satellite, although a number of the channels are linked from within the United Kingdom Therefore, they do not arrive in our homes by virtue of any arrangement to which the British Government have see their hand.
      Having regard to the international character of these services, it seems inappropriate that they should be subjected to the ownership restrictions that would be thought appropriate to United Kingdom-licensed services where one is licensing for positive requirements and not merely licensing to protect against negative programmes. That is the point of distinction. I appreciate that there are some who think that we should be wrong to do this, but I make one point clear. The best known of these non-DBS services is Sky Television, but there are plenty of others.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Name them.
      Mr. Mellor: I can certainly name them. The hon. Gentleman should not set such easy challenges. After all the months I have had to immerse myself in these matters, I should know. W. H. Smith has two channels. Mr. Maxwell—one would not expect him to be far behind Mr. Murdoch in this or any other game—has one. There is Canal Plus—I may have got that name wrong, but it is a German satellite service that is causing a little controversy.
      Mr. Darling: It sounds French.
      Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is a truly international figure. I withdraw my reference to that, because I am obviously misleading myself and the House. There are other services, however, which can be picked up by anyone who has an Astra satellite dish. Given the capacity of that satellite, I dare say that there will be plenty of other services. The question is whether the hundreds of thousands of persons who watch these services will watch

      209
      services that are uplinked from the United Kingdom or those that are uplinked from countries other than the United Kingdom.
      I have always taken the view—not because of any slavish subservience to the interests of Mr. Murdoch or of anyone else—that it would be an own goal of fairly spectacular proportions to require Sky Television to be uplinked from somewhere on the continent, with the loss of 1,000 jobs, which I expect Opposition Members are every bit as solicitous about retaining as I am.
      That is why there seems to be no compelling reason why the national ownership requirements, which I believe in and have firmly advocated should be part of the United Kingdom directly regulated system, should find a part in what is a truly international service. I refer to non-DBS satellite services that can be uplinked from anywhere in Europe. We should remember that the Astra satellite is a Luxembourg venture, not a British one, and is open to all comers. Many more channels will become available on that satellite before very much longer.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook treated this issue as a trailer, as it were, for the main feature to which we are to come. I hope that I have given him an adequate explanation, but it would not surprise me if my explanation has not satisfied him. Nevertheless, I have set out our case for doing what we have done. I dare say that we can return to the matter later.
      Mr. Buchan: I shall make a brief intervention in the debate because I accepted the offer which was made last night. I shall speak at greater length when we consider Sky.
      The Minister must not believe that he has taken anyone in with his spurious excuse. We know that there is only one effective commercial satellite programme apart from Sky, and that is BSB, which is just getting off the ground, as it were. Those are the only two that matter at present. There is only one non-domestic satellite, and that is Sky. That is why some of us have regarded this measure as a de facto hybrid Bill rather than a de jure one. It seems that it has been designed to exclude Mr. Murdoch, and in the process of exclusion a complete argument has been disregarded in relation to broadcasting within Britain. Wherever it is beamed from, Sky is directed towards Britain. It does not come within the nationality requirements, which the Minister argued were useful for broadcasting within Britain, within which we are creating programmes.
      Even more important is the excuse of the other disqualification, which is cross-media ownership. As it happens, Mr. Murdoch owns more than 35 per cent. of the daily and Sunday newspaper circulations. It is a power that no one has had before. Beaverbrook, for example, did not have a satellite station. It is the cross-media relationship that is the danger.
      I tried to solve the problem by saying that there should be foreign station status. The Government wish to exclude because jobs are involved, but the Minister has said that we can ignore nationality and level of ownership. If he says that we cannot touch, as it were, a satellite station that is beamed from abroad, let it be treated as a foreign station. Everything else follows from that, and in that way we could proscribe such stations. We must find ways of bringing all stations within the same competitive sphere.
      However beneficial the Government's proposals would be to the Tory party, we cannot allow the Government to
      210
      get away with them. The Minister responded with a Tory answer and I am sure that even he did not believe in it. We shall be dealing with these issues at greater length when we reach the heart of the matter with the Sky amendments.
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall not detain the House for more than a few seconds. I accept the Minister's point. Indeed, I accept without qualification his assurance that the words to which I took temporary exception were not intended to benefit Mr. Rupert Murdoch. It so happens that he is the principal beneficiary at the moment, but I accept that they were not intended for that purpose. I thank the Minister for being kind about the spirit in which I moved the amendment. However, I do not find wholly convincing his explanation of why the satellite stations, organisations and operations should be excluded. It is the nature of satellites that they are international. The place from which they are launched is hardly the appropriate criterion on which to judge how their broadcasts should be regulated.
      Mr. Mellor: My point was about the place from which the satellite services are uplinked. There are 650 jobs in west London with more to come. As the Labour party has a strong regional base in Scotland, perhaps of more relevance to it are the 250 jobs in Livingston. What would be the point of Parliament passing ownership restrictions that had the effect of transferring those jobs to the continent?
      Mr. Hattersley: I did not use the word "uplinked", but I understand the Minister's point. If he is saying that things must be done in this way to protect jobs it is a partial argument that I accept. However, he also attempted to make some point of principle that it would be wrong to control these matters because of the nature of satellites. He does not believe that it would be wrong to control the content—indeed, that is his intention. There is some inconsistency in his distinction between offering ownership, some degree of control over ownership or refusing a degree of control over ownership, but nevertheless believing that, despite the international character, there can be some degree of control over the broadcasts.
      Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced political figure who was in office for a number of years. Political arguments are inevitably composed of a combination of principle and practicality. The place where the satellites are uplinked within the international satellite system is very important because that is where the jobs will be. The 250 jobs in Livingston are in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague in the shadow Cabinet. Does his colleague accept a policy that would deprive his constituency of 250 jobs?
      Mr. Hattersley: The Minister is making it difficult for me to withdraw the amendment. I shall do that when he gives me the chance. If he allows me to speak the operative words, I shall seek permission to withdraw the amendment. I shall first make two points about his latest intervention. He well knows that every member of the shadow Cabinet agrees with every word that I say, as we all agree with every word that each of us says.
      The more important point is that there is no reason to assume that if there were regulations relating to control jobs would necessarily disappear. They might go into other ownerships, but the idea that they exist only because some

      211
      supernatural force—satellite and Mr. Rupert Murdoch —wills them to exist is a misunderstanding of the whole industry.
      That is not the main issue in the concentration of ownership. I intend to pursue the principle of the issue when we debate amendment No. 110. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 347, in page 140, line 41, leave out 'or'.
      No. 348, in page 140, line 42, at end insert—
      '(c) a licence to provide a licensable programme service, or
      (d) a licence to provide a licensable sound programme service,'.
      No. 349, in page 141, line 2, after '2', insert
      '—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2),'.
      No. 350, in page 141, line 11, leave out 'and'.
      No. 351, in page 141, line 13, at end insert
      'and

      (g) a body which is controlled by an individual falling within paragraph (f) or by two or more such individuals taken together.'.

      No. 352, in page 141, line 13, at end insert—
      '(2) If the Commission are satisfied that it is appropriate for a person to hold—

      (a) a licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service, or

      (b) a licence to provide a licensable programme service, being a person who, apart from this sub-paragraph, would be a disqualified person in relation to any such licence by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), they shall make a determination to that effect; and so long as any such determination remains in force in relation to that person, sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply to him in relation to any such licence.'.

      No. 353, in page 141, line 15, leave out
      'a licence granted by the Authority'
      and insert
      'any licence granted by the Authority other than a licence to provide a restricted service'.
      No. 318, in page 141, line 45, leave out 'or 2'. —[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 609, in page 142, line 40, at end insert—
      '( ) community radio service'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments:
      No. 580, in clause 78, page 60, line 38, at end insert—
      '( ) for a particular area or locality in the United Kingdom for a service that is for community not commercial benefit (a "community service")'.
      No. 582, in clause 79, page 61, line 20, after 'services', insert
      'both profit and non-profit seeking'.
      No. 583, in clause 79, page 61, line 26, at end insert—
      '( ) to facilitate the provision of local and community licensed services which (taken as a whole) in any area offer a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests; and'.
      No. 595, in clause 97, page 76, line 11, at end insert—
      '(iii) involve persons or bodies both in programming and in the production of programmes and that would benefit the relevant communities; and'.
      No. 596, in clause 98, page 76, line 49, at end insert—
      '( ) the extent to which any such proposed services would involve persons and bodies living in the area or locality for which the service would be provided and to what extent programmes and other services would be provided for the relevant communities.'.
      Mr. Maclennan: Our debates in Committee were productive of great change, especially in respect of television. I regret that we did not make greater progress towards reforming the provision of radio, and in particular that we did not secure the position of community radio. This batch of amendments is an attempt to deal with that issue.
      4.45 pm
      The amendments start from the premise that community radio and local radio are not, as the Bill would have it, the same. They are different in structure, in finance, in their purposes and objectives, and in what they broadcast, who broadcasts and who listens. Both local and community radio are worth while and we should support both. They need not be rivals and they need not dip into the same pot for advertising revenue. They can compliment each other. However, unless the Bill provides for their separate treatment, the restrictions to regulate commercial stations will merely stifle the growth of community radio, and those that are successful will quickly fall prey to takeovers by commercial companies which regard community radio's audience, if not its service, as a threat.
      We can study the experience of other countries where community radio has been protected in the manner that I propose—such as Australia, where it is thriving—but where there has been an unregulated market, as in Italy and France, community radio has been swallowed up. The French recognised the problem and after eight years of deregulation the responsible regulatory authority has designated community radio as a separate category.
      Even since the publication of the Bill, there has been a better understanding of the difficulties of expanding local services. Manchester's Sunset radio has been much in the news with the sacking and then the reinstatement of its founding managing director, Mr. Mike Shaft. In that case, the trouble seemed to have been a classic example of some board members wanting a higher financial return, which required a broadening of the music appeal and cuts in certain other programmes, including the provision of news —thereby making the news team redundant.
      Services such as Sunset—which is aimed at an Afro-Caribbean audience—and WNK and London Greek Radio in north London won their licences because of the services that they were offering. The market is quite limited and not necessarily attractive to advertisers. For Afro-Caribbean services, there are not sufficient numbers of business men able to subsidise those services. There is a difficulty with definition because such stations are often founded or taken over by people interested in radio as a business venture. For incremental services, the proper answer would be a radio fund of some sort—we discussed that in Committee—which could be used to enable stations to carve out an audience over a period of time and to aim their rates at small, local businesses.
      For such stations, reliance on national advertising would almost certainly lead to bankruptcy. They would fail to attract such advertising. That is why I do not consider that backing community radio would be damaging to local radio. Alternatively, forcing such stations to seek wider audiences will result in their specialist task being whittled away. Building a specialist audience takes time and creditors do not wait. Copyright fees and the interest from the considerable facilities and

      213
      equipment that the Independent Broadcasting Authority requires stations to install is a burden that many small radio stations find hard to bear.
      The market that these stations aim for and the staff who are prepared to work long hours, sometimes without reward, might best be served if the stations were set up as community stations with the limited aspirations and equipment that that requires and the protection that it would bring. Mixing outside commercial ventures and stations providing a service for a particular community, and then treating them in the same way, as the Bill does, more often than not will place intolerable burdens on the less profitable services and lead to their demise.
      An interesting example of such a service, which I commend for special treatment, is the proposed Radio Heartland in Perthshire. The service is proposed because of poor reception there due to the terrain and because the cost of improving services is high and beyond the scope of commercial financing. The population is a modest 12,500 people. The radio station will be locally owned and will draw programmes from local sources to reflect the diversity of the population, it will be legally constituted as a non-profit maximising body and will involve the community through training and the use of their facilities.
      In Radio Heartland's own words:
      "In many ways it will be like campus or hospital radio (Like them, it will be low budget—no hi cost hi-tech!) made by and for a special group, the people of Highland Perthshire."
      The service that they intend to provide and are raising funds for could be of benefit throughout rural areas in Scotland, parts of Wales, the south-west or Northumberland and Cumbria—sparsely populated areas to which it is difficult to bring local radio. Such areas are often out of contact with the cultural possibilities offered by local broadcasting.
      The amendments which have been selected do not cover finance. That is obviously crucial and we shall have to return to it if the Government accept the principle of recognising the difference between local and community radio.
      The provisions that I am suggesting are in keeping with a resolution of the European Parliament passed in April 1989 which, among other things, recommended measures to safeguard and develop local broadcasting and private radio stations, which should be safeguarded at community level and not left to the mercy of market forces. Those objectives of the European Parliament seem to me to be sensible.
      The amendments are more necessary than I believed them to be when we discussed the subject in Committee due to the disappointing response by the shadow Radio Authority to the Minister's request, on behalf of the Committee, for a note about how it envisaged licences would be granted following the debate in Committee on community radio.
      That revealed that the incipient authority has a restricted understanding of the subject. While it talked about filling in the white areas and meeting the needs of ethnic minorities, it did not mention community radio and made no distinction between commercial and non-commercial stations. It seemed to be almost beyond its
      214
      comprehension that there could be broadcasting by non-commercial stations. That response to the Minister's request cannot inspire confidence for the future.
      I shall describe the amendments briefly as I do not wish to take up too much time. The issue of principle is the most important matter and the one that I want to establish. Amendment No. 609 would ensure that under the ownership restrictions of schedule 2 community radio was designated separately.
      Amendment No. 580 provides that community radio should be designated separately when the authority exercises its regulatory function. Amendment No. 582 would ensure that the authority had a general duty to do all that it could to secure a range of non-profit-making and profit-making services. Amendment No. 583 would ensure that it was a function of the authority that it facilitated a wide range of local community services in an area. Under the Bill the authority could consider the country as a whole when planning services. Amendment No. 584 provides for the existence of a community licence alongside other licences.
      Amendments Nos. 585 and 586 are crucial because they will allow the provisions of part III to part V of schedule 2 on ownership to be waived if the authority thought it necessary to ensure the provision of a community service. It is right that there should be protection from local authorities or from political abuse of whatever persuasion. The ownership rules for commercial stations that the Government have incorporated in the Bill should reflect that. Those provisions are appropriate for local radio but they are not appropriate for non-profit-making community radio. In the case of small community stations in an inner city or rural area, the participation of a local councillor or the active involvement of a local council, whether by providing cheap finance or the use of a council building, could make the most colossal difference to a station's existence.
      There should not be hard and fast rules. The authority should have wide discretion to ensure that the needs of the area come first. If a station appears to have been operating in a manner which leads to abuse, the relevant rules should be adjusted.
      Amendment No. 594 requires authorities to designate between local community services when publishing a notice of grant or licence. Amendment Nos. 597 and 598 apply to local commercial stations as much as to community stations. The companies involved should be required to say how the stations will be part of the community and use the local community and so provide local employment. We have discussed the question of employment time and again in Committee. Local and regional broadcasting can give an important injection of employment. Local and community stations can help in such a way.
      If we ensure community-based radio which provided a service for a specific community, it would allow a major increase in stations which are complementary rather than rivals to existing commercial stations. There is no evidence that the market will sustain a free-for-all expansion. Falling advertising revenue suggests otherwise.
      Some people who speak for local radio have expressed the fear that assisted commercial radio could constitute a threat. For the reasons that I have already given, they will not be dipping into the same pot. If it were necessary to

      215
      ensure that they did not dip into the same pot, I should be happy to contemplate further amendments along those lines if the Minister was so disposed.
      The Government want growth in community radio, but the Bill—as the Minister will acknowledge—does not make specific provision for such stations. The Minister was not persuaded earlier that it should do so. I hope that on mature reflection he is now persuaded of the virtue of the separate designation procedure that I have suggested, and that he will give the Bill a fillip by agreeing, at least in principle, to the points I have made.
      Mr. Roger Gale: There is always a danger at times like these that we will re-run debates which have been rehearsed in Committee. However, in the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I feel that I should be brief.
      With many other hon. Members, I have been committed to the cause of local and community radio since it was first introduced in this country in 1963. I have watched its development with great interest at local level and now I am interested in the development of community radio. We are on the threshold of tremendously exciting possibilities for local communities.
      Community radio does not exist in this country at the moment, and nor does local radio. Anyone who tries to suggest that it does is misreading the true nature of local and community radio. We have good regional radio stations run by independent companies and by the BBC, but they are not truly local and they are certainly not community stations as I or the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland understand the meaning of the word.
      I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I part company with him only in my firm belief that community radio can and should be commercially viable. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister is in danger of allowing a Bill to go through which in its present form might inhibit rather than assist the development of community radio by the restrictions on ownership. We have become almost paranoid about cross-media ownership and we need to examine carefully the way in which we treat local and particularly community radio stations.
      5 pm
      There is already a network of hospital radio stations across the country, many of which are ideally poised to become genuine community stations. In effect, they are already providing part of that service, but they need to augment their power, staffing, reporting capability and air time to enable them to serve a wider community than the hospitals to which they are "narrowcasting" rather than broadcasting. That can be achieved, but I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider carefully between now and when the Bill reaches another place an argument that I have raised before. It is a grave mistake to bar local newspapers from ownership of or major share participation in community radio stations. There are many good local newspapers throughout the country with good reporting teams providing excellent local coverage. It would be quite wrong to seek to add to that layer of local reporting expertise—which often feeds regional and national radio and television stations—another layer of local journalism.
      216
      Community radio stations simply would not be able to afford the journalistic expertise that would be necessary to provide a good community news service. Local newspapers have that expertise and should be allowed to harness it to good effect. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister will say that there is nothing to stop a local newspaper providing the news service for a community radio station in addition to having a 20 per cent. shareholding in that station. But that would defeat the object of the exercise. If we are so concerned about cross-media ownership, clearly we should not permit that. If we apply the free market—as I believe that we should —and freedom for community and local stations to develop in harmony with and compatible with local newspapers, surely local newspapers and other local businesses must be allowed to take a stake in the community radio stations and to harness and augment their reporting expertise to provide a better service for the community radio station and for the local newspaper.
      It would also be a mistake to insist on the establishment of a separate advertising sales force. Local newspapers usually have that. We are in danger of missing an opportunity. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, but they need further consideration, which I hope that they will receive from my hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I left the Chamber about half an hour ago, I told my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that I would return at the beginning of the debate on his amendments, assuming that at the beginning of each new set of amendments a call would be put out by one of the attendants from the back of the Chamber into the Lobby. I was on the telephone in the Lobby. Can you confirm whether that is the case and, if so, will you ask that it be carried out on a regular basis?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not quite sure what the practice is, but I will certainly inquire into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), to which I am a signatory. I wish to make a couple of substantive points in support of the general argument for community radio. Obviously I did not follow or participate in the debates in Committee in the same detail as my hon. Friend did. I am aware that the Minister has been sympathetic to the points that my hon. Friend raised, but the Bill has not yet been amended to make concessions for the existence of community radio in the way in which we and many people outside the House would wish.
      The most important point, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), is whether it is always necessary for community radio to be commercially self-sustaining. Community radio cannot always be commercially viable and it is wrong to expect that. One of the problems of media ownership is that access is easily available to those who can accumulate the capital to purchase it. Obviously they have to enter competitive tendering and put together a good package. So long as they can do that, however, if they cannot buy one station they will buy another.

      217
      As independent radio has grown throughout the country, we have seen the gradual acquisition of shares in the opportunity to broadcast by a small minority. The other common example of access to the dissemination of information is the newspaper network. Although there may be a community of interest between local newspapers, which do a good job serving a local community, and local radio stations, we cannot expect that to be the norm. It is wrong to expect that to be the norm as it concentrates the dissemination of news locally in single hands. We want to break down that concentration and to open up access across the range of people and talent in the community and not limit it to those who already have a foot in the door or a share of the market in broadcasting or the printed word.
      It is important that we accept and write into the Bill the principle that there should be provision for community radio and that we do not presume that it will always be independently and commercially viable. Experiments with commercial and community radio in London have led to the development of easy music stations as the commercial arm of local radio. There have been very small community radio stations—for example, the Greek radio stations and other ethnic community radio stations. One station goes by the wonderful name of "Wicked, Neutral and Kicking". Perhaps not all Members of Parliament have listened to that station, but it is none the worse for that.
      Those community radio stations broadcast for a small community. Their catchment areas tend to be small and they tend to attract a small number of listeners, so the potential financial resources available are limited. Ethnic community and local community stations will find it increasingly difficult to compete. That would be to the great disadvantage of opening up the airwaves.
      If we are seeking to allow ordinary people without great capital backing to enjoy the opportunity of broadcasting —perhaps only for a short period—we must want to offer that opportunity to ethnic minority communities, particularly in urban areas. There is a whole diversity of ethnic minority communities in London. The Vietnamese community, for instance, is a refugee community but it is significant as it is the largest Vietnamese community in Britain. It has no financial resources and is unlikely ever to command any significant backing. Such communities are small but important. Their members are often isolated and do not benefit from the normal communications media because most people around them do not speak their language. They rely even more than the other people whom we always pray in aid when we stress the importance of radio—the elderly, the infirm and hospital patients—on local and community media.
      I hope that the Minister understands that we cannot always expect proper community radio to be run by the big boys and girls and to secure big backing. It will need some financial support from the community. Secondly, community radio must be seen to be supported by the Government and the House and to be encouraged by the funding and other practical arrangements that the Bill provides.
      I hope that the Minister will be much more positive than I understand that he has been so far and that his support will be converted into practical commitment. If
      218
      that happens, my hon. Friends and I will be well pleased. Many communities are awaiting the outcome of the debate with great interest.
      Mr. Mellor: It was not my wish that debate on the Bill should focus more on television than on radio. Anticipating that that would be the likely trend, on Second Reading I deliberately concentrated on the first four paragraphs of a Home Office press notice on the expansion of radio before dealing with television.
      I believe in radio as a medium of communication. The Bill's effect on it and on its development will be more profound than its effect on the development of television. There will be, I hope and believe, not only three new national independent radio stations but several hundred local and community radio stations. In 10 years' time, the most obvious and noticeable effect of the Broadcasting Act will be on radio. That is not to say that it will not have a considerable effect on television, but it will be most noticeable on radio.
      I am not averse to considering changing the Bill's provisions on radio, as I was not averse to changing its provisions on television. The most substantial change in the Bill is that the internal diversity test postulated for national independent radio has become an external diversity test, with the power for the Radio Authority to state what station it wants, so that not only is each of the three stations different from the others but one is speech-based and one is not pop music; but the unavoidable consequence is that the other presumably will be a pop music station. There could have been three pop stations, but the fact that there is only one is a move in the right direction.
      I take issue with a theme that ran through the speeches made by the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—that community radio is not catered for in the Bill. I am a great believer in community radio. In an earlier incarnation, I was responsible for the production of the radio Green Paper. In fairness, most of the work was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who was a firm believer in community radio.
      I appreciate that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey speaks with much enthusiasm on these matters, but he may not have had the chance to follow them as closely as those who served on the Committee. He was under the misapprehension that finance is of the essence in the ownership of radio stations. Some financial wherewithal will be necessary, but it will be limited to the amount of equipment necessary to get the station going.
      To help in that process, we have removed some of the belt-and-braces technical requirements that were a feature of the old IBA system. It will be perfectly possible to run a creditable radio station without meeting some of the high Rolls-Royce specifications that previously applied. We did that to enable local radio stations to continue. Was it Radio Woody that we came to know and love? It makes me feel quite nostalgic.
      Mr. Gale: And Radio Cabin.
      Mr. Mellor: And Radio Cabin. My God, how could I Forget Radio Cabin?
      There is no requirement to put money up front for local radio. The Government made that deliberate omission to ensure that the financial big battalions are not preferred. If there is a contest between an extremely well resourced

      219
      popular music station that wants to broadcast in one of our towns or cities and a community station that wants to produce programmes devoted to the community, there is an assumption, which we all too readily make, that the well moneyed station will win, but that is not how the Bill will work.
      The criterion that is established is clear: when competing applications are to be considered, it is the extent to which the station would add to listener choice and reflect local audience demands. The test of extending listener choice is likely to be heavily biased in favour of community stations, because they are absent from the airwaves in most parts of the country. Most parts of the country have good regional radio, but they do not have genuine community radio. It therefore follows that a good community radio application is almost bound to be successful if the criterion is local choice, as it is under the Bill.
      5.15 pm
      The extension of choice is the right criterion. We do not want radio services offering more of the same, to use the tired old American analogy—it is not true, but as so many people say it I might as well use it—where one pushes 30 buttons and gets the same thing. To set up a radio station requires not money or technical sophistication but some proof that the people concerned can run it. I do not think that that will be difficult to establish.
      Much was said in praise of ethnic stations, for which there is a case in some parts of the country. We already have them under the incremental arrangements, which shows that the system is not biased against the emergence of such stations. A false assumption has flowed through the debate—I make no criticism of it because I am saying this not in a clinical sense but merely as an observation —that it is easy to define a commercial as opposed to a community station. No commercial station will be a big money earner unless it is one of the big regional stations. Equally, no community station can afford to be oblivious to commercial realities.
      It would be an interesting test to ask those who think that it is an easy distinction whether the 20 incremental stations announced by the IBA should be categorised as commercial or community stations. Having sought to do that, I can assure the House that it is not a self-evident distinction. Even the ethnic station in west London that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned plays a sufficiently high proportion of popular music for it to be criticised for not being within its remit. That is not a matter on which I would purport to comment, but I raise it simply as an issue.
      The Government believe in community radio. We have provided an opportunity for the biggest expansion of radio that there has ever been. The test to be applied—broadening listener choice—is biased in favour of community stations.
      I will reflect on all the points that have been made, and, to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I certainly do not rule out further thinking on the amendments. The Bill will rightly be subject to the rigorous scrutiny of the other place, so there is still potential for revising it.
      I hope that I have established that the mere fact that we do not purport—it is unnecessary to do so—to have a different defined category of community radio on the face of the Bill does not mean we do not profoundly believe in
      220
      it. It is of the essence of the Bill that it makes provision for community radio. That is the basis on which I commend the Government's proposals to the House, and on which I hope I have persuaded the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that he need not press his amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: I agree with the Minister that the changes in radio will be the most significant changes in the Bill, and not least the changes that could happen in local communities if the Bill leads to a first generation of community radio. However, I still believe that the Minister has got it wrong. He needs to consult more fully on the issue.
      I accept the Minister's sincerity when he says, as he said in Committee, that he is a great believer in community radio. However, his citing of the Green Paper was not convincing evidence in support of his view. He knows very well that the Green Paper was heavily criticised, not least by the enthusiasts who have done much thinking and work on community radio. The Green Paper did not understand that community radio is not just a small-scale version of regional or local radio: it is a distinct type of animal.
      In comparison to what the Minister said in Committee, this afternoon he seemed to give glimpses of that realisation. This afternoon he began to use words like "non-commercial" and "widening choice". I believe that he genuinely cares and has a glimpse of community radio, but he is not prepared to accept the logic of his position. He cannot accept that there must be a specific remit and a distinct definition of community radio on the face of the Bill to make it different from local or regional radio. Unless there is a different remit and a different understanding of its non-commercial position, the future of community radio is very uncertain.
      The experts and officials in the new Radio Authority —including Mr. Peter Baldwin and his colleagues—understand that point. Within the terms of their brief, they have done well with the allocation of the first 20 incremental radio licences. At least half of those have gone to stations that have some pretension to being community stations. Whether the fragile financial base of some of those stations will survive beyond the first year is extremely uncertain. The Minister and other hon. Members will join me in wishing them well, but they face difficulties.
      Without a distinct remit and financial support in training, start-up costs and quality programming to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred in connection with his radio fund, the future for genuine community radio which widens the range of voices that can be heard and the range of local agenda and debates is very uncertain. Some stations may survive, but they will do so on the back of a great deal of music input to attract advertising.
      The Minister is not creating a separate category for community radio in the Bill. To leave those stations to the vagaries of the commercial market will mean that the future of the stations will be uncertain. It will be difficult enough for the new generation of local radio stations. It will be even more difficult for community stations that have a different community brief arising from those communities and giving voices to those communities. That will not be commercially viable.
      France and Italy have discovered that, if community stations are left to the free market, they wither and die or

      221
      they are taken over if they are profitable. Only Australia has managed to sustain a community station network, because community stations there have a separate understanding; they have financial support from the Government and the voluntary sector and a wide range of non-commercial organisations such as the trade unions, universities and ethnic groupings.
      Without that kind of understanding of the distinct problems facing genuine community radio stations, the Government's good wishes and the Minister's sincere belief in community radio will be stillborn. That would be sad, because I do not believe that that is what the Government or the Minister intend.
      In the later stages of the Bill, I urge the Minister to consult more fully with the Community Radio Association and other bodies in this country so that he may understand their problems and their particular concerns. I urge him also to consider the Australian model. I know that his officials have considered that model. If the Minister considers it fairly, he will see that there are distinct problems and opportunities in community radio that are different from low-scale, local commercial radio. Unless the Minister addresses that, his good wishes will not come to fruition. That would be sad.
      Mr. Maclennan: I have no doubt that, in putting his confidence in the provisions in the Bill that refer to the extension of listener choice in connection with local radio and the duties of the regulatory authority, the Minister is expressing his genuine hope that community radio will be one of the benefits of the Bill. However, perhaps inadvertently, he revealed the need for my amendment in the way in which he replied to the debate and in particular when he drew attention to the difficulty of defining existing stations as either community stations or local stations.
      That difficulty stems from the fact that it is proving extremely tough for genuine community stations to survive as community stations. They have necessarily become somewhat ambivalent about their role because of the financial straits in which they find themselves. The Minister referred to the example of a station in west London which began life as an ethnic community station. As he rightly said, that station has been considerably criticised for apparently going beyond its remit. It has defended its actions by asking why it should not provide pop radio to its target audience. However, it is generally recognised that commercial need has driven that station towards the provision of local rather than genuine community radio. By his example, the Minister has shown the need for a separate definition and status of community radio. We need that definition, and that need is supported strongly by many people.
      I had hoped that the Minister would reveal a greater understanding of the distinctiveness of community radio. I had hoped that he would have identified the difference and the unsuitability of seeing it as an offshoot of local radio. We all pray that he will see that, but as he has not, I feel that it is right to express our commitment to the provision of community radio by inviting the House to divide on my amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 269.

      Division No. 196]

      [5.27 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Allen, Graham

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Alton, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Anderson, Donald

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Home Robertson, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Ashton, Joe

      Hoyle, Doug

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Barron, Kevin

      Illsley, Eric

      Beckett, Margaret

      Ingram, Adam

      Beggs, Roy

      Janner, Greville

      Beith, A. J.

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Kilfedder, James

      Blair, Tony

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Blunkett, David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Boyes, Roland

      Leighton, Ron

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Lewis, Terry

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Buchan, Norman

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Buckley, George J.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Caborn, Richard

      Loyden, Eddie

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McAllion, John

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      McCrea, Rev William

      Canavan, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Cartwright, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McKelvey, William

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McLeish, Henry

      Cohen, Harry

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Corbett, Robin

      McWilliam, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Crowther, Stan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cryer, Bob

      Mallon, Seamus

      Cummings, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Martlew, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Eastham, Ken

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fearn, Ronald

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morley, Elliot

      Fisher, Mark

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Flynn, Paul

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mullin, Chris

      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

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      George, Bruce

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Patchett, Terry

      Gordon, Mildred

      Pendry, Tom

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Prescott, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Haynes, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      223

      Reid, Dr John

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

      Richardson, Jo

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Robertson, George

      Turner, Dennis

      Rooker, Jeff

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wallace, James

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Short, Clare

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wilson, Brian

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

      Winnick, David

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

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Snape, Peter

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Soley, Clive

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr. Simon Hughes.

      Straw, Jack

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Alexander, Richard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Allason, Rupert

      Cran, James

      Amess, David

      Critchley, Julian

      Amos, Alan

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

      Ashby, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkins, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Devlin, Tim

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dunn, Bob

      Batiste, Spencer

      Durant, Tony

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evennett, David

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Benyon, W.

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Body, Sir Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Franks, Cecil

      Boswell, Tim

      Freeman, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      French, Douglas

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gale, Roger

      Bowis, John

      Gardiner, George

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gill, Christopher

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gorst, John

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gow, Ian

      Burns, Simon

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Butcher, John

      Green way, John (Ryedale)

      Butler, Chris

      Gregory, Conal

      Butterfill, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grist, Ian

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ground, Patrick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Grylls, Michael

      Cash, William

      Hague, William

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Chapman, Sydney

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

      Chope, Christopher

      Harris, David

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

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Colvin, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      224

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hind, Kenneth

      Pawsey, James

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Price, Sir David

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Irvine, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Jack, Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Janman, Tim

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rost, Peter

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Latham, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridgo)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sims, Roger

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Speller, Tony

      Lilley, Peter

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Squire, Robin

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Steen, Anthony

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stern, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Madel, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Marland, Paul

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Marlow, Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thorne, Neil

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mellor, David

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Tracey, Richard

      Mills, Iain

      Trippier, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Moate, Roger

      Viggers, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Walden, George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waller, Gary

      Mudd, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Neubert, Michael

      Watts, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wells, Bowen

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Whitney, Ray

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wilshire, David

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Paice, James

      Wolfson, Mark

      225

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 319, in page 143, line 34, after 'participant', insert—
      '(a)'.
      No. 320, in page 143, line 35, at end insert
      ', or

      (b) in two or more such bodies corporate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 321, in page 144, line 16, after '(2)', inset 'Subject to subsection (2A),'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take also the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 322 to 332.
      No. 110, in page 146, line 35, at end insert 'or

      (c) a domestic satellite service or non-domestic satellite service.'.

      No. 8, in page 146, line 35, at end insert—
      '(c) a domestic satellite service or a non-domestic satellite service which in either case is a designated service.
      (1A) A service shall be a designated service for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) and paragraph 3(1)(c) if the Secretary of State so directs by order and the Secretary of State shall so direct if it appears to him that the service is intended primarily for reception in the United Kingdom and is broadcast for reception in three million or more dwelling-houses in the United Kingdom.
      (1B) Any order made under sub-paragraph (1A) shall be so framed as to provide that the service shall not be a designated service until the expiry of twelve months after the making of the order.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 333 to 335.
      No. 9, in page 147, line 8, leave out 'or (b)' and insert '(b) or (c)',
      Government amendment No. 336.
      No. 10, in page 147, line 17, leave out '1(2)(b) or (c) or'.
      No. 111, in page 147, line 26, at end insert
      'or

      (c) a domestic satellite service or non-domestic satellite service.'.

      No. 11, in page 147, line 26, at end insert—
      '(c) a domestic satellite service or non-domestic satellite service which in either case is a designated service,'.
      No. 36, in page 147, line 28, at end add
      'or may hold more than a twenty per cent. interest in another Channel 3 licensee'.
      Government amendments Nos. 337 to 339.
      No. 13, in page 148, line 6, leave out '1(2)(b) or (c) or'.
      No. 12, in page 148, line 6, after 'schedule', insert
      'or within sub-paragraph (1)(c)'.'
      Government amendments Nos. 340 to 342.
      Mr. Mellor: The amendments reflect a further trawl through schedule 2 and deal either with commitments entered into in Committee or with further thoughts that we have had about the framing of schedule 2—a highly technical one—to make it clearer what are the arrangements in it.
      The principal controversy in the debate will, I suspect, centre around not the Government amendments, but the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) and others. I believe that it would be best if I listened to what he and others had to say and perhaps had the opportunity to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. John Watts: My hon. Friends and I have tabled amendments Nos. 8 to 13 to try to address a loophole in the Bill's safeguards against excessive cross-media control. I followed the progress of the Bill through Committee, although I was not a member of it, and I decided to raise this problem on Report because I believe that not all the issues and options available to the Government have been fully considered.
      The debate should not be dominated by an argument centring on Sky Television and News International newspapers, as I believe that the public interest arguments go a long way beyond that. I have no wish to be involved in any vendetta against a particular newspaper group and one which has done a great service to the newspaper industry by its introduction of modern technology. The amendments could apply equally, now or in the future, to other non-domestic satellite broadcasters.
      Should my hon. and learned Friend see fit to accept the amendments, they will provide consistent safeguards against the cross-control of the media that covers all broadcasting outlets directed at a United Kingdom audience. They will also ensure that the current state of the new and developing market of satellite broadcasting is allowed to flourish and, where successful, to provide just rewards for those who have made the investment in that high-risk area.
      Satellite television services broadcasting to the United Kingdom are unchecked by the safeguards that apply to terrestrial broadcasters or to the national direct broadcasting by satellite services through their contract with the Independent Broadcasting Authority. As the Bill stands, there are no safeguards against a foreign satellite user broadcasting to the United Kingdom population while owning a powerful and significant proportion of the national daily press and having a 20 per cent. stake in the Channel 3 franchise. I believe that that loophole undermines the basis of the present controls and the integrity of the long-established separation between newspapers and television.
      Keeping the control of broadcasting and the press separate has been the cardinal principle of British media policy and was firmly established to be in the public interest after the Pilkington committee report of 1962. On the question of public interest, the committee noted:
      "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, and that if those same people are too few or have broadly the same political affiliations there will be an increasing one-sided presentation of affairs of public concern. There might, too, be a failure to present some of these affairs sufficiently or at all."
      The report concluded:
      "The concern expressed was at the threat to democracy."
      The Television Act 1963, following that report, established the current framework for ownership restrictions. That framework has been endorsed by successive Governments of both political parties in the Television Act 1964, the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 and the Broadcasting Act 1981. The framework was extended to include the then new United Kingdom direct broadcasting by satellite franchise in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984.
      In 1977, the Royal Commission on the press stated:

      227
      "We believe that it is right to maintain policies to ensure that the newspaper companies do not control broadcasting companies."
      The Royal Commission recommended:
      "The existing policy of ensuring that no broadcasting company is effectively controlled by a newspaper company should be maintained and strengthened to exclude effective control by newspaper companies in combination."
      In June 1988, the third report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, entitled "The Future of Broadcasting", contained the following conclusions:
      "It is an important democratic safeguard that no one should be able to control more than one major means of public information. We have no wish to stifle international investment but we can see the danger of over-concentration of ownership, both nationally and internationally … We consider that the reasons for restrictions on ownership remain valid and recommend that the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981, appropriately updated, should be included in the forthcoming legislation."
      In the section on ownership, the Government's 1988 White Paper on broadcasting said:
      "clear rules will also be needed which impose limits on concentration of ownership and on excessive cross-media ownership, in order to keep the market open for newcomers and to prevent any tendency towards editorial uniformity or domination by a few groups."
      My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when Home Secretary, said on 18 January 1989:
      "We will propose extensive and effective rules to prevent concentration of broadcasting ownership and unhealthy cross media ownership. It is crucially important that we should have such rules. Real choice could be undermined if British broadcasting were allowed to be dominated by a handful of tycoons or international conglomerates."
      In a paper that it recently circulated to hon. Members, the IBA stated:
      "The IBA believes that the case for restrictions on newspaper interests in non-DBS satellite operations is as strong in principle as it is on BDS services, since these services will be in direct competition with each other, although we see the difficulty of applying ownership controls retrospectively. We therefore support the thrust of Amendment No. 8 which proposes that the Secretary of State should be required to apply the 20 per cent. limitation on newspaper ownership of a non-DBS satellite service once the service achieves significant market share."
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has rightly disavowed vindictiveness against any particular newspaper or group. Was the amendment, as worded, suggested or in any way influenced by BSB?
      Mr. Watts: I have made it clear in speaking to a number of newspaper correspondents that the structure of the amendment standing in my name was suggested to me by BSB. As I shall continue to argue, I believe that the approach that I have adopted, and that I am suggesting to the House, is a valid and sensible solution to the problem facing the House and the Government.
      Mr. Buchan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that most people who are concerned with the issue are quite prepared to look at evidence put forward by any side, including BSB, if it helps to get more liberty on television, despite the points made a moment ago?
      Mr. Watts: Yes, of course, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members would approach the issue with fairly open minds. I have discussed my proposals with representatives from Sky Television, as I felt that it was proper that I should listen to the arguments they put to me directly, not merely by using their influence through certain hon. Members.
      228
      In a paper on competition, diversity and cross-media ownership, News International plc said:
      "excessive concentration of media ownership is undesirable for economic and political reasons."
      Diversity in the provision of information must be ensured to avoid the concentration of too much power in too few hands. Limited cross-media investment has existed for many years, and I am not suggesting that a limited stake by a newspaper in a television company will necessarily lead to mischief. Limited cross-investment does not threaten the public interest—it is cross-control that is the cause for concern.
      The House is well aware of the problems that can arise if cross-media control is tolerated. Many of my hon. Friends will recall that, in 1989, early-day motion 434 called for ownership safeguards to apply to those broadcasting from outside the United Kingdom. That early-day motion attracted 87 signatures, of which 67 were from my hon. Friends. More recently, between 3 and 30 November last year, 141 hon. Members were contacted by Gallup—I know what great faith all of us have in opinion polls—and of those Members, 80 were Conservative, 52 were Labour and nine were from other parties. Of the Members polled, 83 per cent.—and more than 70 per cent. of Conservative Members polled—believed that the maintenance of the separation between the control of newspaper and television services was an important principle.
      Significant concentrations of interest in national newspapers and national broadcasting services carries a risk of distortion and the promotion of self interest. In May 1989, the Broadcasting Research Unit carried out a case study on cross-media ownership and its impact on public opinion. The survey was supported by the IBA and noted in its report on page 2:
      "Analysis of a recent major study on broadcasting, however, does suggest that a systematic pursuit of particular editorial themes may have a marked and measurable effect on public opinion which goes beyond the acceptable boundaries of promoting the commercial interests of proprietors"
      As hon. Members will be aware, the possible promotion of self-interest through biased editorial coverage or subsidised advertising and selective coverage has become a matter of concern, and the Government have instigated the Sadler inquiry to report on those concerns. However, that inquiry will not be completed until after this Bill has become law, and its terms of reference specifically exclude the ownership issues covered by the Bill.
      Currently, the Bill rightly provides that a national newspaper proprietor may not have more than a 20 per cent. stake in a company that provides a Channel 3 or Channel 5 service, and vice versa. However, those safeguards in the Bill do not automatically apply to services provided by satellite. I understand that Ministers have made clear their intention that they should, quite rightly, apply to a domestic service provider.
      The Bill provides the Home Secretary with powers to prescribe restrictions on users of foreign satellites by order. I welcome the principle that underlies the Government's proposals, but I also recognise that, by refusing to extend the ownership safeguards in the Bill to include foreign satellite users, which may be exclusively directed at this country, the provision's integrity is seriously undermined.
      Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend tell the House, first, whether he supports the principles of the Council of Europe transfrontier broadcasting convention, of which

      229
      the Government are a signatory and behind which the former Home Office Minister, now the Patronage Secretary, was the driving force? If he does support it, will he say how his proposals will be compatible with the convention when the jobs that he seeks to destroy in this country are moved to, for example, Luxembourg?
      Mr. Watts: I am not seeking to destroy any jobs in this country. I am anxious to ensure that the principles on cross-media control, which the Government clearly consider are still important because they are to be applied to terrestrial broadcasters and the domestic satellite service provider—
      Mr. Gale: That would be outside the terms of the convention.
      Mr. Watts: I am not sure that my hon Friend is always so enthusiastic in his support for European initiatives. If the effect of the arrangement to which he refers is that we have to give up the important principle of controlling cross-media ownership, I am against that European initiative.
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: I hardly need remind my hon. Friend that, like the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I have the privilege and pleasure of working for Sky Television, in the same way that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has the privilege of working for The Times.
      Will my hon. Friend answer two queries that worry me and with which he has not yet dealt? First, have there yet been any abuses of the kind that he fears? Secondly, will he describe the mechanism by which he envisages this Government having the authority to control satellite broadcasting by companies not based in this kingdom, operating through satellites not controlled from this kingdom, with the uplift to the satellite not within our sovereign control?
      6 pm
      Mr. Watts: On the first point, I am not suggesting that there is any proven abuse as yet, or indeed that there is likely to be abuse. Surely the principle which has always applied is not that abuse has to be proven before action is taken, but that control over the ownership of the broadcasting media is established, so that the possibility of abuse through excessive concentrations of control and cross-media control cannot arise. That principle is being carried forward in the body of the Bill and will be applied to all other means of broadcasting television services into this country. Curiously, it is not being applied to non-domestic satellite services. I look forward to hearing later from my hon. and learned Friend why such application is not intended.
      On the second point—
      Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
      Mr. Tim Devlin rose—
      Mr. Watts: May I deal with the second point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) before I give way?
      I shall deal later with the way in which my amendment would operate once the trigger point was reached. The
      230
      connection arises when someone who owns a British newspaper also has a controlling interest in a service which is directed to the United Kingdom. Although my right hon. Friend may argue that we are not in a position to control the ownership of a foreign company which may own the television service, we certainly are in a position to control the ownership of a British newspaper company or group.
      Indeed, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench must believe that such controls are feasible, or there would be no point in including in the Bill the power which enables them to give directions, by order laid before the House, as to the ownership of such services. So there cannot be, at least in the minds of Ministers and their officials, any practical problem of application of the principle.
      Mr. Tebbit: It appears that my hon. Friend would favour Ministers taking action against a British company in this country in respect of the actions of an allied company outside British jurisdiction. Is that not a slightly odd proposal?
      Mr. Watts: No, not at all. We are dealing with the position in which one media company or group controls certain national newspapers and also has a controlling interest in a broadcasting service which is directed to this country. Whether one of the companies is registered abroad is irrelevant. Indeed, as I have already said, Ministers and their officials must have concluded that there is no practical obstacle to applying such controls, or it would make nonsense of one of the powers which they have included in the Bill.
      Mr. Riddick: Is not my hon. Friend a little out of date? He referred to the Pilkington committee of 1962. Is it not the case that there were only two television stations in existence then, and that to stop cross-ownership was an important principle at that time? Is it not now the case that there are 17 television channels, that such cross-ownership controls as are necessary are already in the Bill, and that the controls suggested by my hon. Friend are unnecessary and go against all the principles of the free market in which Conservative Members believe?
      Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend advances a respectable argument. If the Government, through the Bill, were advancing the argument that, with the development of technology, particularly satellite broadcasting, there would be such diversity and competition between broadcasters that controls over ownership and over cross-media control were no longer necessary, that would lead to another very interesting philosophical debate. If that were to be the argument, surely it would apply not just to a non-domestic satellite service but also to the domestic satellite service, to the Channel 3 franchisees, and to Channels 5 and 4. If we are dealing with the principle, as I am trying to do, I suggest that the principle should be applied across the board and that there should not be just one convenient exception.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) also wished to intervene.
      Mr. Devlin: I wanted to intervene earlier to ask my hon. Friend whether it would not protect the media owner if he were not to be put in the position where, because of his interest in newspapers and in broadcasting, an accusation might be made that he was a monopolist in the media

      231
      generally. Whether or not there had been an abuse in the past, the suspicion would arise among the consuming public that these practices might occur in future, or may even be happening now but are well concealed.
      My second point concerns the longevity of the Bill. When we are framing legislation, surely it is designed to last for a considerable time, and we cannot merely take cognisance of the circumstances as they exist on the ground at the moment, and say that for these reasons we shall do something which we may change in a few years. Surely, in a Bill to cover broadcasting for the next 20 years, we should seek to establish general principles which will take us through the entire period.
      Mr. Watts: On the first point, there could be protection for newspaper owners, although I have not seen them beating a path to my door, urging me to press hard proposals to give them protection. My suggestion would give them certainty about the way in which restrictions might be imposed upon them. As I understand it, the power now in the Bill could be exercised by the Home Secretary as he wished, subject to the consent of the House, without any guidelines for the operation of the powers being laid down in primary legislation. I believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out the rules.
      As to my hon. Friend's second point, the whole thrust of the Bill and of Government policy is that controls over concentrations of media ownership and cross-media control are still important for British broadcasting. If that is the case, that principle should be applied to all who operate in the broadcasting services.
      As to the reasons for the exception, in May 1989 my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who was Minister of State, said:
      "No Government can stop British newspaper proprietors buying into overseas transmitters that have been linked to non-DBS services that are not controlled by this country." —[Official Report, 19 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 634.]
      I went into that point in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. Clearly that is no longer the position of the Government, because they have taken powers which presumably they have the intention of exercising in certain circumstances.
      The group of amendments that I have tabled would give much greater certainty to the provision which is already in the Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made it clear in Committee that the Opposition wished to impose, at the earliest possible date, divestment regulations upon non-domestic satellite broadcasters with newspaper interests. My approach does not seek to bring the axe down so rapidly and perhaps precipitately: it seeks to restore the integrity and commercial certainty to cross-media ownership safeguards.
      Under the amendments, if a domestic or foreign satellite service that was intended primarily for reception in the United Kingdom exceeded a penetration of 3 million households, it would be made subject to cross-media ownership rules. Those rules would apply to BSB as much as to any other satellite broadcaster, and would provide a level playing field for all satellite operators. The figure of 3 million households encompasses what I understand to be the industry's view, and the financial projections of both BSB and Sky Television. The view of the City is that, at
      232
      that level of penetration, a satellite service becomes profitable. Some reports as recently as March have suggested that 2·5 million viewers might be a viable level.
      I make it clear that I am not firmly wedded to one figure. If the principle of establishing a threshold of penetration at which satellite services would become subject to the same controls as terrestrial broadcasters were to be accepted, and if good and sound arguments could be adduced to show that another figure might be more appropriate, I would not argue at length that 3 million is necessarily the right figure.
      I understand that Sky Television is only one third of the way towards the trigger point that I have suggested in my amendments. That means that there would be plenty of time for that service to continue to develop and to plan for the point at which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State would be required to lay an order requiring the divestment of 80 per cent. of the interest.
      I know that Sky Television disputes the 3 million threshold figure contained in my amendment. In a letter to one of my hon. Friends, Sky says:
      "By the time we are received in three million homes, it is most likely that we will have recorded a cumulative deficit of some £400 million, while we may well remain unprofitable on an operating basis. You should know that the bulk of our income is from subscription fees, rather than advertising. At the time when three million homes can receive Sky, fewer than one million may in fact be subscribing to our film channel. Thus, your amendment would force us to divest ourselves of Sky at a 'distressed' price, depriving our investors of the legitimate rewards of their long standing financial support of Sky."
      That is certainly not my intention, and I am prepared to be flexible on the precise threshold. I intend it to be at such a level that the business is viable and profitable and divestment could take place at a profit rather than at a loss to those who have pioneered this substantial investment.
      I am disappointed that the Bill fails to provide adequate safeguards against broadcasters who use foreign satellites and who also have considerable interests in the national daily press. The Minister of State's recognition of the need for safeguards is seriously undermined by this loophole. My amendments will permit the safeguards against cross-media ownership to be applied equitably and consistently without fear or favour and with due regard to this new market and its development to successful maturity. This is a proper and fair solution to a problem that the Government have apparently had difficulty in addressing.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has said that the Government have decided not to extend ownership controls to foreign satellite users, partly because they use a different frequency from that used by domestic satellite services. In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend said:
      "There is a maximum of five DBS channels under international agreement, all of which have been allocated by the IBA to BSB, so giving it a monopoly."
      Speaking about the non-DBS channels, he said:
      "There is potentially open-ended scope for … developments under diverse ownership … the case for restricting entry to the market is not remotely the same as it is for the five DBS channels under a single owner."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 30 January 1990; c. 383–4.]
      6.15 pm
      I did not think that the principle on which the Government's approach was founded was the principle or monopoly but that it related to the dangers implicit in

      233
      concentrations of media ownership, especially of cross-media ownership. It is logically indefensible for the Government to maintain that cross-media control is generally wrong, but that it is all right if a particular technical method of broadcasting is used. Any problems that may arise from the concentration of power over the outlets of information will not arise because of the technical mechanism by which the signal arrives in the home.
      It is irrational and arbitrary to base a decision on whether the ownership of the service should be regulated solely on the frequency or power of the broadcasting equipment that is being used. By analogy, if there were a proposal to regulate the printing processes that are used by different newspapers, it would be seen as preposterous. It would be ridiculous if we had one mechanism for those using hot metal and another for those who use modern technology.
      It is not sensible to draw a distinction between foreign satellite users and the DBS operator on the grounds that BSB enjoys a monopoly of the United Kingdom direct broadcast by satellite services. All the broadcasters—terrestrial stations, cable and satellites—whether domestic or non-domestic, will be competing with one another, and none will enjoy a monopoly. That is one of the benefits that the greater variety of that technology and the legislation will now provide to the British people.
      The question is best looked at from the point of view of the viewer. As he sits watching television, he does not see any technical distinction between the different satellite services, or even between satellite and terrestrial services. The amendments address a serious loophole in the safeguards against excessive cross-media control. The Government have recognised the need for restrictions, but have failed to apply them equally to domestic satellite and terrestrial broadcasters and to those using foreign satellites. The amendments will give integrity to the cross-media ownership safeguards and ensure that the Bill preserves the public interest. They will provide for control only when needed, once profitability and significant market penetration have been achieved, thereby ensuring that investment can be maintained in this important and developing industry.
      The Bill will mark a crossroads or a turning point for safeguards against cross-media control, but if we fail to maintain the standards that have acted effectively across all media interests until now, the principle of the safeguards will be discredited.
      I urge the Minister of State to give serious further consideration to the principle underlying my amendments. Even if he is unhappy about the precise trigger point of 3 million homes which I have suggested, I hope that he will look again at the principle of establishing a trigger point at which the controls over cross-media ownership will be made to apply to satellite services.
      Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) began one of his interventions, as one would expect from a man of such conspicuous honour, with an announcement about his employment by Sky Television. He then referred to my employment by The Times. The matter is absolutely trivial and I would not raise it except for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has done so. I have not accepted work for any Murdoch paper since
      234
      Wapping, and I do not propose to do so. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks because that is not his way. I simply correct his error and am pleased that he gave me the opportunity to clarify the matter.
      Although the Opposition amendment appears earlier on the list than the one moved by the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), I was happy to give precedence to him because I suspected from his amendments—a suspicion which was confirmed by his speech—that the Opposition would be happy to support him if he wished to press his amendment to a vote. We will withdraw amendment No. 110 to give him that support, for the simple reason that the principles embodied in his amendment are the same as those embodied in ours. The basic difference between his amendment and ours is that we want some instant protection written into the Bill, and he is proposing that protection should arise at what I gladly concede is the important moment—when a satellite station not now covered by the Bill achieves a number of viewers that makes it comparable with a Channel 3, Channel 4 or a Channel 5 broadcasting system.
      Although we will vote on amendment No. 110 if there is no vote on amendments Nos. 8 and 9, we will gladly withdraw our amendment in favour of his, because it seems to us that the hon. Gentleman made two essential and undeniable points: first, the concentration of ownership is bad for democracy in this country, as democracy requires a pluralistic media system almost as much as it requires a pluralistic political system; secondly, concentration of ownership is bad for every section of the economy.
      The hon. Member for Slough was interrupted by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) who asked, I suppose rhetorically, whether he believed in the free-market system. The hon. Member for Colne Valley nods. If he is opposing amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 110, he is saying that the best way to preserve the free-market system is to encourage concentration. The hon. Gentleman may believe that, but Adam Smith did not: Adam Smith believed that Governments had to act to prevent concentration, which is what the amendments aim to do. Therefore, I offer the merits of our amendment No. 110, but repeat that I will gladly withdraw it if amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are pressed to the vote.
      As with other amendments that have already been moved, the intention of amendment No. 110 is to limit concentration of media ownership. It aims to avoid increasing concentration—an aim that, if the White Paper is to be believed, is shared by the Government. Paragraph 6.48 of the White Paper was precise on that when it said:
      "the Government is determined that ownership in the independent sector should be, and remain, widely spread."
      My only reservation about that statement is the implication that ownership of the media is widely spread now. It is not; indeed, it is so concentrated already that I look forward to the day when a Monopolies and Mergers Commission general reference examines not simply the misuse of concentration—one company promoting a sister company, or a different company within the same ownership—but the principle of media concentration, and gives the Government of the day advice on how that concentration can be ended.
      In other countries, when concentration of ownership is regarded as being against the public interest, it results in Government action to split up—"disperse" is the phrase

      235
      used in America—the companies that form the conglomerate. I have no doubt that that is right and necessary for the media industry in Britain. No doubt a future Labour Government would want to make such a monopolies reference.
      Mr. Nigel Forman: I have been following the right hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and on an a priori basis I sympathise with it. However, can he enlighten the House further by giving some figures relating to the extent of present concentration and cross-ownership? One of his arguments is that the problem is already fairly severe.
      Mr. Hattersley: I proposed to give the basic figure later, but I will give it now, and repeat it later. We all know that Mr. Rupert Murdoch owns 35 per cent. of Sunday newspaper circulation and approaching 35 per cent. of daily newspaper circulation. That is unhealthy—
      Mr. Riddick: What about television?
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall deal with that, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.
      We also know that Mr. Murdoch owns a satellite station, and that he hopes that that station will have millions rather than hundreds of thousands of viewers. Hon. Members must decide whether that degree of concentration—for which the hon. Member for Slough is preparing with his trigger mechanism, which will be "ticked in" when the viewing population of Sky Television reaches a certain figure—is such a danger that it wants to support an immediate proposal to limit that concentration.
      The Bill is right to provide that no proprietor of a local or national newspaper shall have more than a 20 per cent. share in the ownership of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 company. If we have a complaint about that, it is that it is not sufficiently rigorous in trying to separate the ownership of newspapers and television. The only intention in our amendment—and, I think, in the amendment of the hon. Member for Slough—is to try to apply that same principle to all types of television broadcasting.
      The words that we seek to include in page 146 would apply that principle to all types of satellite broadcasting. It would technically apply to BSB, as it would apply to Sky Television. I want the Minister to tell the House where BSB stands on those matters, and how far it is governed by the present regulations.
      If the right hon. Member for Chingford is interested in what advice I have had from BSB, I can tell him that I received a good deal of advice before the Bill's Second Reading. I also had some advice from Sky Television to correct my supposed errors. It is almost impossible to avoid advice from the young gentleman who represents Sky Television on such matters. I have talked to both interests, in both directions. These things are best discussed without suggestions of motives, or the suggestion that anyone who takes advice from anyone who knows about the industry is failing to fulfil his obligations as a Member of Parliament.
      As I understand it, the reservations about limitations on ownership of newspapers and television do not, as the Bill stands, apply to BSB. However, BSB has told me, as it has told other hon. Members, that it believes that secondary legislation will apply limitations. That was
      236
      made clear by the Minister in Committee. However, Sky Television will not have any such limitations imposed on it. Ownership of 35 per cent. of British newspapers—both Sundays and weekdays—will not in any way prohibit or inhibit outright ownership of Sky Television.
      In Committee, the Minister gave four reasons why he thought that Sky Television should not be caught by that provision. He said that non-domestic satellite broadcasters would remove their uplinks to the continent, and so lose jobs in Britain. He said that Astra services could not be regulated efficiently and effectively by the Independent Television Companies Association Ltd. He said that regulations should not be used to stunt the growth of an infant company. He said that he disapproved of vendettas against Mr. Rupert Murdoch.
      In an earlier debate, we discussed his second point—about whether regulation is possible. I agree with the hon. Member for Slough that if we are saying it is wrong, illegal, improper and undesirable to hold simultaneously ownership of, or a controlling interest in, two institutions, the regulation can be applied at either end of the equation by saying that companies can continue to broadcast if the European convention on transfrontier broadcasting requires it, but that that requires a person to divest himself of interest in and control of British newspapers that are his personal possessions. That is said in the United States of America and in most countries with an active, efficient and effective monopolies policy, and there is no reason why it should not apply in Britain.
      I must make it clear to the Minister that we have no wish to see jobs go, and no belief that they would go if the Sky organisation were required to choose between one industry and the other. The Minister was quoted in The Guardian as saying that he did not want to pull the plug on a company that was already up and running and had cost vast amounts of money. I do not believe that the plug—in his elegant phrase—would be pulled. The operation would continue, but adjustments would be made in terms of ownership. That is what happens in other countries that apply an effective monopolies policy, and there is no reason why it should not happen here.
      Too often Mr. Rupert Murdoch has come to the Government and said, "Unless you do exactly what I tell you, I shall pull out and leave the company in the wilderness and throw the men on the unemployment scrap heap." He said that about buying The Times and The Sunday Times and about buying Today. On both occasions, the Government said, "Okay, if you hold the pistol at our head, we shall do what you tell us and succumb to your threats." The threats were not real then and they are not real now.
      Mr. Mellor: I am sorry if my phraseology does not pass muster with a litterateur of the sophistication of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will come to the point underlined, however infelicitously expressed. As I understand it, hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in Sky Television, which at the moment is one of those rare businesses that spend money but do not make any. Is the basis of his proposition that there will be a queue of investors ready to pick this up, as of now, if the House were minded to insist on divestment? The right hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to say that he thinks it wrong for Rupert Murdoch to own Sky Television, but not wilfully to mislead us about the consequences of making that change.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Hattersley: The experience of other countries—Australia in particular—demonstrates two things. First, a large number of investors are ready to put money into television potential rather than immediate television returns. Secondly, television companies are like football clubs in that they hold an awe for a certain sort of person —one who, for reasons such as, dare I say it, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Prime Minister and the Government, is prepared to lose money on television so as to be a television tycoon. The idea that if we tell Mr. Murdoch that he cannot do both with the present degree of ownership Sky Television will disappear from the screens is a fantasy. The Minister should do better than that in defending his proposals.
      Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but if he is I am puzzled to know why the sponsors of BSB have had such difficulty in raising money to launch their company. There does not seem to be a queue of investors ready and able to put in money on the scale that is required and to lose money for three, four or even five years on this scale.
      Mr. Hattersley: My information is that they have not had anything like the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. That is probably as accurate as what he said about me and The Times and The Sunday Times. On the other hand, I believe that BSB will prosper in spite of the restrictions placed on it, as Sky Television will prosper eventually under the Murdoch ownership or any other ownership. The idea that it would collapse without this one man owning and controlling it is a fantasy.
      The Minister also suggested that our concern about this is related to, using his word, a "vendetta" against Mr. Rupert Murdoch. Let me make my position clear. I am sceptical about all newspaper proprietors. I do not like the idea of a newspaper and its policies being owned and controlled by one man, and even less do I like the idea of several newspapers and their policies being owned and controlled by one man. My concern is for concentration in general to be reduced and, wherever possible, to be avoided. Mr. Murdoch becomes the example around which I base that argument, for two reasons: first, he gets a clear advantage under the Bill; second, the extent of his newspaper holdings.
      In answer to an intervention I gave only the bare bones of the extent of Mr. Murdoch's ownership. He owns two Sunday newspapers whose circulation is about 35 per cent. of all copies sold. He owns three daily newspapers whose circulation is about 35 per cent. of all copies sold. He owns seven magazines, 20 per cent. of Pearson plc, which publishes the Financial Times, and 50 per cent. of The Economist. He has now acquired the Collins Publishing Group, with its publishing and printing interests. He is the issue because he owns so much.
      Mr. Gale: Let us put that in context. There are 22 national newspapers, published by 11 companies, and more than 1,000 national daily, weekly and regional newspapers of which Mr. Murdoch owns none. Some of them are investing in BSB.
      Ms. Diane Abbott: Who pays you?
      Mr. Gale: I have no vested interest in this whatsoever.
      238
      Is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) criticising the proprietor of newspapers who sells newspapers? Is he criticising success?
      Mr. Hattersley: I am not criticising the proprietor of a newspaper. It may be that any of us, given the chance, would acquire those newspapers and use them to promote a position. I am criticising the system and a Government who allow the concentration to fall into the hands of one individual. The hon. Gentleman suggests that Mr. Murdoch's position is not a dominant one. That is in defiance of all the regulations and legislation that, on other occasions, the hon. Member will support.
      According to the criterion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Mr. Murdoch was in such a dominant position that he should not have acquired The Times and The Sunday Times or Today without investigation. Therefore, even before he acquired those national newspapers, he was in a dominant position as defined by the legislation governing monopolies and mergers. No moral blame attaches to Mr. Murdoch. The system that the Government have allowed to continue and intensify permits him to control a vast number of newspapers. The idea that he should be allowed to move into television is dangerous in itself but also inevitable when the provisions in the Bill allow him to do so in a way not allowed to other institutions, companies and organisations.
      The Minister signified agreement when I said that, while the Bill does not specify regulations over BSB, the position of that company will be qualified and changed. We are talking about Sky Television. We have to ask anybody who disagrees with amendments Nos. 110, 8 and 9 how they can justify a system that says, as the law does, that as we are worried about concentration, particularly as it applies to Channels 1 and 3, and other national terrestrial channels, there shall be a limit on cross-ownership involving such channels, but not on cross-ownership of satellite channels and newspapers, even if—Mr. Murdoch would say when—the satellite channels have a viewing figure as great as, or equivalent to, those for BBC1 or ITV.
      What is the principle in saying that it is wrong for this or that newspaper to have an interest in independent television when independent television has a viewing figure of 20 million, but it is right for Mr. Murdoch to have an interest in his satellite channel even if it achieves a viewing figure just as great as that for independent television? It is impossible to make a distinction between the two. The two things are logically incompatible. If we prevent cross-ownership in one case, logic requires us to prevent cross-ownership in the other and that is all that we are asking for. We are asking that every television company shall be restricted in its relationships with newspapers, as is the case with independent television companies and Channels 1 and 3.
      I hope and believe that the proposals made both by me and the hon. Member for Slough will commend themselves not only to the House but to Mr. Rupert Murdoch. One of his great achievements and contributions to life in Britain is his invention of new words. In "Sky Update" he says:
      "One of the advantages of the Bill is a level playing field. The Bill will create a more neutral field of competition by eliminating certain preferences and privileges that previously offered advantages to certain broadcasters not available to the others."

      239
      The Bill offers to certain broadcasters advantages that are not available to the others in that it has no prohibition on cross-ownership between satellite channels and newspapers.
      Amendments Nos. 110, 8 and 9 provide the level playing field for which Mr. Rupert Murdoch calls. If any or all three are carried, we shall get not a reduction in services or employment, nor a vendetta against one man or one company, but a system under which, in a democracy, a concentration of newspaper ownership and television ownership is seen as fundamentally bad. We are standing out against such concentration in this temporary way until we can have a proper investigation into cross-ownership and multi-media ownership and a real distribution of power and influence.
      Mr. Tebbit: I shall be brief because, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we want to make progress. I hope that he will excuse me for saying that I am disinclined to take too much of a lecture from him on the evils of the concentration of media ownership when I recollect that he is a member of a party which opposed the introduction of independent television to break the BBC monopoly. Indeed, the Labour party opposed the introduction of independent radio to break the BBC's monopoly.
      Mr. Robin Corbett: That was 20 years ago.
      Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman, who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, is saying that the Labour party has learnt something over the past 20 years, that is a good thing, but I suspect that it has not learnt very much. It seems that it has not learnt that one of the consequences of publishing a successful newspaper is that that journal acquires readers. That, however, is one of the things which is understood by Mr. Robert Maxwell. After all, the circulation of the Daily Mirror is close to that of The Sun. It is understood also by the proprietors of The Independent, which was launched in the teeth of competition from dominant owners. It now has a circulation about the same as that of The Times. We should be talking about access to the market and consumer choice rather than the concentration of ownership.
      It has already been said that there is vast consumer choice on the news stands. I know that it is irritating that so many consumers happen to choose newspapers published by Mr. Murdoch, but that is one of the penalties of success. So long as there is open access, however, the problem does not seem as serious as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook pretends.
      The same is true of television. If there were still only three channels, the consideration would be different—that would be so if there were only four channels—but we now have 17 channels and there are more to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) put the issue neatly when he asked the House to consider the matter from the viewer's point of view. If viewers happen to enjoy watching a television station owned by an ogre who happens to own a newspaper, that is the viewers' choice. If there are many other television stations whose programmes they could watch if they wished, is it an absolute evil that they watch those shown by the station owned by the newspaper proprietor? Is it anti-democratic to give people
      240
      a choice and allow them to use the channels that they wish, regardless of who owns them, provided that there is adequate choice?
      It seems that we have never had more choice in terms of our daily press, magazines and television than we have today. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) wears an expression of distaste. He should remember just how long ago it had been since a new newspaper such as The Independent was launched. He should remember, too, that The Independent was launched by a group—not by a great press baron—which has carved out a successful newspaper in remarkable style. We are now considering the possibility of newcomers entering television in a similar way.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook chided me for suggesting that BSB had had difficulty in raising the money to launch its satellite. All right, I accept that he is correct and that it is not difficult to raise the money to start a new satellite television station. I will take his word for that, withdraw what I said and accept his argument. Let us assume that there will be many satellites in the sky. According to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it will not be difficult to find people to finance satellite television stations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said, all that we have to do is to consider these matters from the viewer's point of view. Those who are responsible for television stations must show programmes which viewers like. I do not accept that there is a problem as great as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggests. I know that it is unworthy of me, but I suspect that any problem might have something to do with the same events which caused the right hon. Gentleman to cease to write for Mr. Murdoch and The Times.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I declare an interest as someone who is involved in programmes twice a week for Sky Television, as the humble assistant to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I clean up the blood afterwards in the studio. I represent freedom, truth and justice. I am still not sure what the right hon. Gentleman represents. That ends the commercial break.
      I am not here to defend Mr. Murdoch. He owns so many national newspapers that he does not need me to do that job. I am not here to defend Sky either. It does not need my defence because it has been an extremely successful set of channels. It is filling a need and adding variety to viewing. It is providing what I find to be a most attractive public service, a good news service. If this short debate allows me to say nothing else, I am at least able to say that. Unfortunately, I do not think that the debate will achieve much else.
      I question the motives of amendments Nos. 110 and 8. It is clear that on the Opposition Benches there is an overwhelming dislike of Rupert Murdoch. That dislike is so strong that it is irrational and distorts judgment. The Australian and New Zealand Labour parties have seen the virtues of working with someone who owns powerful communication media so that they can put over their case. Here in the United Kingdom, however, the Labour party's irrationality has distorted its judgment.
      Secondly, there is the Labour party's dislike of the events which took place at Wapping. In my view, that dislike is justified. Those events were monstrous, but they related to the newspaper medium. If we are still carrying

      241
      on the argument over Wapping, it is incumbent on us all not to co-operate with or write for The Times, The Sun or other Murdoch newspapers. Instead, we should continue the struggle. It would be incumbent upon us all also to bring forward proposals that the Labour party can implement when it forms the next Government. I shall be interested to hear what proposals we have to right the wrongs of Wapping. If we do not have any, hitting out is irrelevant, and in a way that is damaging to the Labour party's case. We are talking about a powerful medium of communication and we need to put over our case on all the channels that are available to us. That is essential.
      As I have said, our motive is an irrational dislike, while amendment No. 8 deals with commercial rivalry. It has been admitted that amendment No. 8 springs from BSB. It is surely incumbent upon us to legislate neither for simple vindictiveness nor for commercial rivalry.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend that Sky News is very good. I have been willing to appear on it, when I have been asked, because it is a platform. It is surely important that we should seek out platforms. My hon. Friend does his own side a grave injustice, however, when he suggests that the Labour party's approach is part of a Murdoch vendetta. I do not like the man, and I have no reason to like him, but we are talking about cross-media ownership and concentration of power. If my hon. Friend misses that point, he should sit down and not bother to continue.
      Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I remind him that I am standing on my side of the Chamber, that the Labour party is my party, and that I am advancing my case. I shall take up the substance of my hon. Friend's argument when I have advanced a little further in my speech.
      Do not mistake the side on whose behalf I am speaking. I am speaking on the side of the Labour party and in support of communicating my party's ideals, policies and ambitions to the wider electorate. I suggest that the Labour party's irrational dislike—this applies to both amendments—distorts judgment. If the aim is to restrict monopolistic ownership and overlapping cross-ownership, irrational dislike is not the right approach. That is not the sensible way to approach these issues. We are lashing out without having made any rational calculation of how to achieve our objectives. That is about as sensible as using an incinerator to improve standards on The Sun.
      Sky Television is here. We are not legislating for something that is to come, like Channel 5. Sky is a fait accompli, and a successful one. I hope that those of my colleagues who are involved in programmes for BSB will be successful and will not face some of the consequences that have had to be borne by those who have been involved with Sky Television. I hope that they will work for a channel that is a success story. Sky Television is interesting and it is successful, and the Labour party should not be opposed to pluralism. Viewers want it. It increases choice and diversity, and it is good in itself.
      What we should be doing, and what our opposition to this Bill attempts to do, is to defend the basis of viewing —the duopoly that has provided such high quality throughout the years. That should be our aim—not to outlaw pluralism, which is what my party is seeking to do.
      242
      The service is there; it is on Astra. Rupert Murdoch saw an opportunity, as an entrepreneur would, and took it. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley): if there is so much money around, why did no one else do that? Why was it left to Murdoch? Where were all the British entrepreneurs rushing forward wanting to spend £2 million to £3 million a week in losses?
      An entrepreneur like Murdoch does not need the permission of the Labour party to set up his station. Indeed, he does not really need the permission of the Government, other than that it is on cable. The station has given an undertaking to abide by the same rules of impartiality and standards as the terrestrial channels. I am as inclined to trust that as to trust the impartiality of a news service provided by the Daily Mail on BSB. The station is there and it is no use sulking about it. Initially, I dreaded it. I thought that it would debase standards. It has not done so, partly because standards on the terrestrial channels are so high. It has not been the disaster that I thought it would be; on the contrary, it has been very successful. It will have to continue to be if it is to pay off its enormous debt and sustain employment. It will need a period of profit to be viable.
      With Sky facing that decision, what should we do through this legislation? Should we be vindictive, as the amendments are? Should we say, "Let us get at Murdoch"? Should we sulk and try to get our own back for the wrongs of Wapping—kick it or close it? Or should we try to deal with it in a way that will sustain a business that adds variety to people's viewing, that provides jobs, and that provides diversity and competition in news services? That is what it should be about.
      The amendments would effectively close the station. The Opposition's amendment No. 110 says that he must divest now, which effectively means its collapse. No one will rush forward to sustain losses of £2 million a week. Amendment No. 8 is a time bomb—divest at some future stage, to be determined by BSB the commercial competitor. That is what is so monstrous about that amendment. There is no point in getting at Rupert Murdoch by endangering 1,000 jobs and four or five new channels. It would be daft to do that. The station will eventually be successful. As the principle of the Labour party's policy review is, "For heaven's sake, don't frighten anybody", why are we rushing in with such draconian penalties for one medium, one channel, one television system and one person? It does not make sense to do that. We are just saying, "Boo."
      There is a case for stopping cross-ownership. That is a basic principle of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) should not accuse me of selling out. I want to achieve the case in a sensible, coherent way, not by simple vindictiveness. That was our approach to Channel 3, the ITV companies, and it is sensible to sustain that approach. We cannot achieve that by the suicide method, by immediate destruction. We must allow the ITC, at its discretion, at a time when it will not be disruptive to employment, at a time when it will sustain the variety for viewers, to take that decision. If we were serious about the legislation, if we were serious about its objectives, we would do it in that way and not through the two amendments, which are silly gestures that will achieve nothing. We must first take a decision on "whether" and then decide the how and the when. If we do not do it that way, we are not being serious.

      243
      We would be indulging in gesture politics—schoolground politics—"Yaboo, sucks to Murdoch, we are going to get you." Frankly, that is a game I do not want to play.
      Mr. Aitken: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made a courageous speech. It certainly illustrated the difficulties in which he sometimes finds himself within his party. His at least was a speech which looked forward. He understands what television in the 1990s is all about. The speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) showed that he understood only what the newspapers of the 1920s were all about. His was a curiously old-fashioned speech, although it contained all the contemporary characters. It was full of Murdoch-bashing. I had a touch of sympathy with some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments because I, too, have been a Murdoch-basher. The House may recall that, almost alone on the Conservative Benches, I opposed Mr. Murdoch's takeover of the Sunday Times and The Times when some of those who appear to be supporting the amendments today—which will restrict ownership of television stations—were curiously silent. The defects in the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the way in which it applied to the concentration of newspapers which then existed were far more relevant to what was happening then than the amendments are to what is happening today.
      As I listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) on amendment No. 8, I recalled John Betjeman's famous line:
      "Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough."
      That is what should happen to my hon. Friend's amendment, which attacks an imaginary monopoly that does not and is not likely to exist. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook harked back to yesteryear—an era when dominant newspaper proprietors issued edicts to their editors such as "Praise this man" or "Attack that political party" and their edicts were carried out. That does not happen in the modern, pluralistic world of television. It hardly exists even in newspapers, although they still retain some vestiges of that old-fashioned control because editors can spike stories, print leaders and write whatever headlines they like. There is a great myth about proprietorial control in television.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook attacked Mr. Murdoch largely on his newspaper interests. Mr. Murdoch has been given a bum rap by Opposition Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Mr. Murdoch—whose unqualified admirer I am not—is a media mogul whose virtues outweigh his imaginary vices as a media monster. He has done a great deal of good for the British newspaper industry by creating a new climate of opportunity. He has been a brave investor, investing more than £500 million in the print industry. He has liberated the entire national newspaper industry from the fetters imposed on it by the print unions and the quicksands of soft management. Other newspapers do not like admitting it, but it was only because Mr. Murdoch blazed the trail in changing the labour structure and labour costs of the newspaper industry that it was possible for newspapers such as The Independent to be born and for a whole range of newspapers to become profitable and viable once again. There is now a whole new range of printing practices, including colour printing. On the whole, the good that Mr. Murdoch has done for the
      244
      newspaper industry is much greater than the harm that he has done with the bad standards that he has allowed to creep into his tabloid newspapers.
      On the newspaper argument alone, the contention that Mr. Murdoch is a dangerous animal with too much power concentrated in his hands is obsolete. The argument of obsolescence becomes much greater with regard to what is happening in television. We are now entering an era of evolution almost equivalent to the printing revolution in the time of John Caxton several centuries ago. A completely new scene is emerging. One has only to stop for a moment to realise that by the time the Bill becomes law there will be 41 television channels available in this country, of which Mr. Murdoch will own four.
      Mr. Hattersley: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, as one always says on these occasions, but will he take it a step further? If he believes that concentration of ownership no longer matters—partly because newspaper owners no longer give instructions to editors and partly, as I suppose that he may say in a moment, because technology in newspapers and television means that new industries develop and new companies come into the market—does he believe in any restriction at all? Does the 20 per cent. rule embodied in the Bill have any validity for independent television channels—for instance, for Channel 3? Does it make any sense? The hon. Gentleman's stance is logical only if he says that he wants no restrictions at all. Will he explain why he seems to support restrictions in general, but not restrictions on Mr. Murdoch?
      7 pm
      Mr. Aitken: The age of the regulator in television is passing. In a few years' time the Bill will look old fashioned. The restriction to 20 per cent. Ownership—although it placates the political community, which needs to reassure the public—will seem unnecessary and foolish in a few years' time.
      Just as there has been an expansion of diversity and plurality in newwspapers, so there is a greater expansion of diversity in the world of television. If Mr. Murdoch owns only four of the 41 channels which will exist by the end of the year, that cannot be said to be a dangerous concentration. He has taken on four channels with tremendous financial risk. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby who said that to attack Mr. Murdoch for what he has done is to attack the essence of pluralism and diversity.
      There is a myth about proprietorial control in television. I have some experience of television and I do not believe that the proprietor of a television station will be able to sit in his castle, counting his doubloons, with his fingertips on the levers of power and get results. In reality, a modern television station is a honeycomb of power cells that one cannot control. When I was briefly a chief executive with power over a television station in this country I found that it was absolutely impossible to control the 500 journalists, every one of whom was a prima donna, or the five famous presenters who were more trouble than the 500 journalists, or the whole regiment of temperamental graphic artists and producers. Even the unions—usually a bastion of conservatism in television stations—for the technical staff and journalists, were wild gazelles out of control. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who I see is in

      245
      her place, was shop steward of the journalists' union at TV-am. She was scarcely susceptible to control, and nor were old uncle Rowland rat and all—none of them could be controlled.
      If Mr. Murdoch is better at controlling my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) or the hon. Member for Great Grimsby than I was at controlling the galére at TV-am, he may be a better man than I. The idea that such old-fashioned, 19th-century political control exists is a virtual myth and an impossibility. Yet Mr. Murdoch's enemies believe that it will still exist in television companies in future. That is all nonsense.
      The only argument made by the deputy Leader of the Opposition with which I have some sympathy was in relation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That safeguard still exists. It can always be called into play by any Government against any commercial organisation in this country. I do not think that Mr. Murdoch, or any other television mogul, has anything to fear from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because of the expanding diversity of television in this country.
      On the ground that Mr. Murdoch has four channels out of 41, the argument about political control looks like nonsense. Therefore, the amendment is misplaced and, despite some reservations that we all feel about Mr. Murdoch, it is wrong and I hope that we shall vote it down.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) took us back to TV-am and he said that things have moved on since then. They have not moved on. He referred to one of his former employees with whom he had had some difficulties. Clearly the situation remains the same—the bosses are over there on the Conservative Benches and the workers are over here.
      I say to the hon. Member for Thanet, South and to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that this is not an argument about Rupert Murdoch. I have no brief for Rupert Murdoch. As I said in an intervention, Sky News is very good and I wish it well. In many ways, it is a professional set-up staffed by some ex-BBC employees whom I knew previously and who are first-rate workers. They make a good product.
      The debate is about the concentration of media power. That is what this part of the Bill is all about and that is what the amendments try to prevent. Obviously there will be some arguments about when we do it, but clearly there is a feeling that yet again there will be concentrations of power in an area where there is potential for abuse. We know that broadcasting, and television broadcasting in particular, is the most powerful communications medium in the country. Hon. Members must express concern and interest about how the ownership of such a powerful medium is used.
      In our society, whoever controls the channels of communication has real power. One does not need power from guns, bullets and tanks in our society. In many ways real power comes from the control of the channels of communication. We must be wary that there is no great concentration of ownership in the channels of communication because there is always the potential for power abuse.
      From experiences overseas we know what happens if there is a coup. The first thing that they rush to get hold
      246
      of is the radio and television station. They know that the person who controls the channels of communication has real power.
      Market forces cannot be allowed free rein in such a sensitive area. In theory, it may be very well to suggest that we are all able to print newspapers and open television or radio stations, but in reality we know that that freedom does not exist on an equal basis and so it is nonsense to suggest it.
      There is far too much concentration of ownership in the media in this country already. I no more like Mr. Robert Maxwell's approach to the media than I like Mr. Rupert Murdoch's. I do not want to see millionaire moguls strutting around with so much of the power in our society concentrated in their hands.
      I shall quote from statistics which appeared in some Labour research earlier this year which makes it quite clear that:
      "seven national newspaper owners have widespread media interests … Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell, 'Tiny' Rowland, Lord Stevens, Viscount Rothermere, Viscount Blakenham and the Scott Trust which owns The Guardian."
      The report particularly highlights the position of Mr. Rupert Murdoch and Mr. Robert Maxwell.
      I do not come with a brief from British Satellite Broadcasting, although I have done some work for it. I am an occasional presenter of an excellent programme produced by BSB called, "Left, Right and Centre".
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): We know now.
      Mr. Banks: I shall bear that stricture in mind. I wish that the programme was seen by more than half a dozen people, but I am sure that the quality arguments will eventually emerge. However, we are not treating BSB and Sky Television in an even-handed fashion. News International UK's newspaper and other publishing interests and its control of Sky Television are in direct conflict with the standards of cross-media ownership applied, in the public interest, to other media groups, including the equally fledgling British Satellite Broadcasting.
      The Government have defended what we consider to be an inconsistent approach by arguing that the public interest inherent in Sky Television's role in opening up broadcasting outweighs the public interest in preventing over-concentrations of influence. That is nonsense. The Bill, which has been even handed in other respects, has been drafted in such a way as to exclude Sky Television and Rupert Murdoch from regulations that apply to other stations, including BSB. It is not the case that the Labour party wants to take some revenge on Rupert Murdoch for what happened at Wapping. We have no reason to love the man, but we are far more concerned about the concentration of the media in his hands and in the hands of people such as Robert Maxwell.
      Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to be aware that such concentrations are unhealthy in our society. Even if they do not like the amendmens, they must be prepared to introduce provisions that ensure that there is no development of concentration that would undermine the democracy for which we all stand.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Those of us who served on the Committee considering the Bill have witnessed an interesting metamorphosis within the Labour party. At first, whenever Sky Television was mentioned,

      247
      there was laughter among Labour Members, on the basis that nobody watched it and that it had no chance of success. As we spent hundreds of hours discussing the Bill, the attitude of the Labour party changed, as Labour Members realised that, at a relatively fast rate compared with other new media, people were equipping themselves with satellite dishes and the audience was growing.
      The culmination of that metamorphosis has occurred in today's debate. The Labour party now takes Sky Television so seriously that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) devoted his entire speech to Rupert Murdoch. He protested that he was not interested in Rupert Murdoch and was concerned only with the principle, so why did he devote virtually his entire speech to him?
      The reason was made quite clear by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in a remarkable and excellent speech. Of course, it is simply a Labour vendetta against Rupert Murdoch and News International because of what happened at Wapping and because the Labour movement wants to do down Rupert Murdoch and News International. That causes me immense anxiety about the way in which the Bill is drafted, but not in the same direction as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) and some Opposition Members.
      As the Bill is drafted, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government, they would be able to put Sky Television out of business overnight. They would not even need an affirmative order of the House. They could use a negative resolution by pretending that there had been an offence against the rules of cross-media ownership laid down in the Bill. They would not even have to come to the House, although I think that they should have to.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook screws up his face and nods from side to side, but perhaps he should have read the Bill; he would then know what it says. A Labour Government would not need to come to the House for an affirmative order to enable the Home Secretary to take action against a satellite channel. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to examine whether there should be further protection in the Bill for the satellite operators.
      The other side of the debate has been an attempt by British Satellite Broadcasting to knock out the competition. That is reasonable. BSB sees an opportunity to knock out Sky Channel, but I do not think that it will succeed. It is rather odd that it should try, because it was clear in the trade press to those of us following the issue that, under the former Home Secretary, BSB was offered exactly the same cross-media rules as now apply to Sky Channel, Astra and non-terrestrial satellites. BSB cannot complain if something that it rejected is being allowed for Sky Channel and other non-terrestrial satellite stations. Therefore, it is important that we reject both arguments.
      7.15 pm
      Compared with other television outlets, Astra is not limited. The DBS channels have been allocated to BSB; that is fair enough. The terrestrial channels have been allocated, and franchises come up from time to time. However, Astra, Astra 2, and possibly Astra 3 in future are not so limited. Anyone who can raise the money could set up in competition with the existing channels.
      The exchange drawn out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was interesting. Either the Labour party believes that the money is
      248
      available and that it is easy for anyone to compete, or it believes that it is difficult to raise the money. It seemed to me that the Labour party wanted the best of both worlds.
      If the amendments are carried, there will be one of two possible effects on Rupert Murdoch and News International. Either Sky Channel will have to move out of Britain and beyond the jurisdiction of the Bill, and the jobs and the technological advances made by Sky Channel would leave the country, surely to the detriment of Great Britain, or Sky Channel will have to be sold. The only people who could afford to buy Sky Channel and keep it going would be foreign media interests. Either the Labour party wants to lose jobs from Britain or it wants foreign people to take over those interests.
      Mr. Cryer: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about jobs. Has he made any representations to HTV, which is to sack more than 100 television workers next Monday because it needs to build up money for the war chest engendered by the Bill? It has plans in the pipeline to get rid of more jobs. The hon. Gentleman should do something about those jobs instead of defending Rupert Murdoch.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) or anyone who has worked in television knows that there has been substantial overmanning in the television industry, as there has been in the newspaper industry, so a shake-out is likely. If the hon. Gentleman knew what he was talking about, he would know that the administrative jobs and the jobs in Livingston in Scotland are particularly sensitive and would be at risk.
      My hon. and learned Friend has got the balance between principle and practicality exactly right. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support that. Otherwise, we shall simply be backing a vendetta by the Labour party, and I want no part of it.
      Mr. Buchan: I very much regret the tone that the protagonists of Mr. Murdoch have taken in today's debate. If there is an axe being ground, it is pro-Murdoch rather than anti-Murdoch. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has been on the Committee with me for the past three months and I resent totally any suggestion that my attitude towards the freedom of the press and television and the safeguarding of the rights of the British people has something to do with a personal dislike of Mr. Murdoch. I have encountered Mr. Murdoch only once and I felt sorry for him—he is not a particularly impressive character.
      Mr. Michael Foot: He has the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) as a friend.
      Mr. Buchan: If he has the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) as a supporter, that is the final indictment. He is not a very impressive character. Like one or two others, he has great ability to read a balance sheet, which I have not, but I do not consider that that makes him particularly bright. I do not think that he is even particularly interested in what his papers and broadcasting interests say. It is most curious. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) was involved with the Daily Express when Beaverbrook ran it. At least Beaverbrook had something to say. He had some odd views, and I may have disagreed with his values, but he had some values.

      249
      The curious aspect is the valuelessness of Murdoch—the fact that money has become the only criterion and he measures his success by money.
      I do not want a marvellous instrument such as television and broadcasting, which allows us to speak to humanity throughout the globe, to be left in the hands of anyone who is concerned only with making money. When the alphabet was invented, it was not flogged off letter by letter. Yet the Government, with such an instrument in their hands, are flogging it off not for the purpose of educating or entertaining—they have dropped the need to educate, inform and entertain—but to make money. I regret that that is what the right hon. Member for Chingford and the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) are defending.
      Mr. Tebbit: I am defending not Mr. Murdoch's ability to make money, but the right of viewers and readers to choose to watch his channels or read his newspapers rather than somebody else's if they so wish and if there are plenty of other channels and newspapers. It may irritate the hon. Gentleman that they choose to read Mr. Murdoch's newspapers and to watch his channels, but that is the way it is. If Mr. Murdoch is interested in money, that is perhaps better than some of those who have used the media solely for the purpose of politics. We can see the evils of that in many countries east of the iron curtain.
      Mr. Tony Banks: What about Beaverbrook?
      Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is right. Beaverbrook frequently used his newspapers for propaganda.
      The right hon. Member for Chingford is wrong. He is not very bright or knowledgeable. He talks about the number of new newspapers and The Independent. I remember when there were three evening papers in Glasgow, but now there is only one. Twenty or 30 years ago there were more newspapers. We on the Left know how many newspapers have been lost. The right hon. Member for Chingford boasts about the number of new newspapers. Five people control more than 93 per cent. of the entire daily and Sunday press circulation. Does the right hon. Gentleman call that breadth of choice? Where is the choice between The Sun and the Daily Mirror? No great popular paper is breaking new ground.
      Under the Bill, there will be a choice between a series of money-making, pap-producing television programmes. There is nothing wrong with football—it is my favourite sport—but there is something wrong with only football. There is nothing wrong with quiz games and pap, but there is something wrong with only quiz games and pap. The competition under the Bill will not expand people's ideas to gain credit even from a man like the right hon. Member for Chingford—it will seek to maximise its audience. The purpose is not to broadcast minority programmes to 3 million or 4 million people, but to maximise profit. That is what the right hon. Member for Chingford wants to do with this marvellous instrument.
      The argument is more serious than the monopoly that I have described. Hitherto, even the monopoly of the press has been balanced because we have had regulated broadcasting. The commercial companies and the BBC have had the duty to inform, entertain and educate and to ensure diversity of opinion and of programmes. Despite all the weaknesses of the press, at least it was balanced by a
      250
      broadcasting system which had relative objectivity, breadth and diversity. That will no longer be so. Instead of a balance being achieved by the broadcasting system, it will reinforce the effects of the popular press. Murdoch and Maxwell will be reinforced, not balanced, by their broadcasting systems. That is the menace of cross-media ownership. Even the Government have established a committee to consider certain effects of cross-media ownership. They recognise the problem, but they are taking no means to deal with it.
      Why the concentration on Murdoch? Any Member who served on the Committee with me will know that if it had been Maxwell or anyone else I would still be seeking diversity and not a cramping but an opening up of broadcasting. Labour Members see the commercial undertaking as a cramping of quality and censorship. Five people control 93·9 per cent. of the entire daily and Sunday press circulation. Broadcasting is being released to the people who own, have shares in and monopolise it. That is a tremendous danger to human freedoms and liberties. Labour Members are concerned about that, but it does not enter the consciousness of Conservative Members because they equate success and diversity with the making of pap. That is why we are anxious and concerned. To call that a simple vendetta is disgraceful.
      I have spoken frequently on this subject in the past two months.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Ad nauseam.
      Mr. Buchan: Ad nauseam, indeed.
      The problem that we face is dangerous because there is only one final security for our people—that each man's truth can be known and expressed. We have seen the worst expression of censorship in the case of Salman Rushdie. We must say to people that the answer to a book is to write an alternative book, that the answer to a speech is to make an alternative speech, and the answer to a monopoly in broadcasting is to ensure diversity. That will not happen if we allow untrammelled cross-media reinforcement of the attitudes of the providers.
      That is why we are opposed to the clause and why we say that it is not to do with the individual but to do with the fact that one group controls more than 35 per cent. of the daily and Sunday press and a plethora of publishing companies. Collins—the main publisher of the Bible, God help us—is also owned by Murdoch. We must take a stand against that huge monopoly on human ideas and expression. I hope that the Labour party will give a pledge that when it is returned to office it will not allow anyone to develop whatever monopoly he likes in television.
      We know that the purpose of the amendment was to exclude Murdoch's group—that is why so much of the argument has centred around him—but it would have been the same if it had been someone else. The Government's proposal is dangerous. The limitation of freedom in this country has been increasing when it should have been decreasing.
      Mr. Simon Coombs: I am always delighted to follow the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) because it is fascinating to hear him develop his arguments. His suggestion that newspaper producers should cease to concentrate on making money leads me to suggest that, if they were to do that, they might soon cease to be newspaper producers. That is like suggesting to

      251
      politicians that they should not concentrate so much on winning votes because they would be much better people if they did that. I am sure that that argument would not hold much sway among hon. Members on either side of the House.
      Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Coombs: No. I want to make my speech.
      I speak as the chairman of the all-party cable and satellite television committee. More importantly, I speak as a viewer of and subscriber to Swindon Cable. I can watch 27 channels if I so choose. Four of those channels are provided by Sky. I am delighted to say that as of a few days ago five channels are provided by BSB. Other channels come from overseas and some are provided by the BBC and by independent television companies. I believe that that is diversity, and that is what the debate should he about. I reject any amendment which in any way offers the possibility of a reduction in that diversity.
      I am not violently keen on the idea of restrictions on cross-media ownership. I said that on Second Reading and I repeat it today. I would be far happier if the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission between them could deal with abuse instead of the question of ownership. If this Bill had come from the Department of Trade and Industry rather than from the Home Office, the debate would have gone in that direction instead of towards arbitrary restrictions on ownership. I hope that we can get away from that idea.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission operates by similar yardsticks of ownership. There is a share of market test.
      Mr. Coombs: I appreciate that.
      We should not be concentrating on ownership which of itself may be neutral or beneficial. However, that is not the point. We should be concerned with what abuse, if any, springs from the ability to control sections of the media.
      I do not believe that the additional ownership of four channels out of 27—and some have said that there may be more than 40 in a while—is likely to lead to a reduction in the freedom of choice. If anything, freedom of choice will be increased. Since the introduction of Sky and BSB, my particular loves of watching cricket and listening to classical music have been attended to, one by Sky and the other by BSB. Where is the reduction in standards of quality which many Opposition Members have suggested would be inherent in the introduction of new channels provided either by satellite or by cable?
      I want to encourage entrepreneurial investment in this country; I do not want to depress it. Anyone who seriously suggested that we should send a signal to News International that as from today it had a limited lease of life with regard to the ownership of the Sky Television network channels would clearly be off his head. There would be no more investment and that would mean a loss of £2 million a week for Sky Television from the day that that signal left the House. That would occur under the Opposition's proposal to cut off the operation at the knees as of tomorrow or as soon as possible. Similarly it would occur if the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for
      252
      Slough (Mr. Watts) in his amendment that there should be a period of grace of perhaps two or three years and a limit of 3 million homes were to be accepted.
      What does that limit mean? It would mean that more than 20 million homes would not have an opportunity to watch Sky Television. It does not follow automatically that those that could would want to. Where is the interference, domination and control in practice from the figure of 3 million homes? I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough is not in the Chamber to respond to that question, because it is an important and valid one.
      I hope that the Government will be firm in resisting the temptation to allow the Labour party to indulge itself in bloody revenge on the owner of News International. That is blatantly what the debate is about for most Opposition Members—although not all—who have spoken in this debate, in Committee and on other occasions. That is clear to me, and I am sure it must be to other Members.
      This debate is about competition between owners of the media and competition for readers and viewers of the media. Parliament should be trying to protect the latter and to broaden it to give as much competition as possible for readers and viewers. That should be our priority. If in the process of trying to achieve that we find that abuse is caused by a smaller amount of competition in ownership of the media, we should act decisively to prevent that. Of itself, that ownership is not an evil, and that is why I shall vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Riddick: I was surprised by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts). I thought that he believed, like me, in choice, diversity and the free market. However, I was not surprised by Opposition Members. Their main motivation seems to be spite. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) gave the game away when he said that he would never again write for Murdoch's newspapers. Clearly the right hon. Gentleman holds a grudge against Murdoch. The Labour party has been carrying out a vendetta against Murdoch since the Wapping incidents. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) confirmed what Conservative Members had suggested—that amendment No. 110 is motivated simply by spite.
      As we all know, the Murdoch stable has been responsible for the newspaper revolution in this country. With News International, Murdoch destroyed the stranglehold that some of Labour's paymasters—the print unions—held over the newspaper industry. Murdoch did away with restrictive practices and ensured that innovation could enter the industry. I believe that Murdoch is responsible for the existence today of newspapers such as The Independent, The Independent on Sunday, Today and The Sunday Correspondent.
      Opposition Members have suggested that News International dominates the newspaper market. It has three daily and two Sunday newspapers. It also has 1,500 provincial papers. However, back in the 1970s when the Mirror group had a similar market share to that held by Rupert Murdoch today, the Labour party said nothing about that. It did not complain in 1976 when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a successful member of the then Labour Government. I believe that he was the Minister responsible for prices and incomes when inflation was touching 30 per cent. At that time, the Mirror group had 42 per cent. of the Sunday circulation. Today,

      253
      Murdoch has considerably less. Concentration of ownership is no greater today than it was 10 or 15 years ago.
      I congratulate News International on its massive investment in satellite television. That is private enterprise at its best. Murdoch has shown that he is prepared to take the risks and take massive gambles. I am not convinced of the need for any restrictions on cross-media ownership now that there is such diversity within the newspaper industry and the television business. I understand that 17 television channels are available for British viewers. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough referred to the Pilkington committee in 1962, when there were only two television channels. Things have changed dramatically since then.
      The obvious effect of amendment No. 110 would be to force Murdoch to sell, and that would put Sky out of existence. That would mean less diversity and less choice. It has been pointed out that BSB could free itself of the ownership rules if it so wished, but that would mean BSB giving up its exclusive right to the direct satellite broadcasting channels and the consequent advantages.
      I believe that BSB enjoys the use of a scarce limited resource that Sky does not have the opportunity to enjoy. There are limitless opportunities for new entrants to Sky's market. Clearly, BSB does not like the competition, and it is unfortunate that it is using underhand tactics to destroy competition. I hope that the House will see through that.
      What evidence is there that Murdoch's newspapers are abusing their position and relationship vis-a-vis Sky Television? I have not seen any such evidence. I am a regular reader of The Times and The Sunday Times, and I see no evidence that those newspapers seek to brainwash me. If they do, they have not been very successful, because I do not even own one of those famous dishes that we see springing up all over the place.
      If News International abused its ownership of the two media vehicles in some way, the viewers and readers would see through that abuse and register their disapproval in the most effective way possible: they would stop reading the newspapers and watching the television channels that Murdoch own. The key is to ensure that there is sufficient choice and diversity to provide alternative newspapers.
      There is an unholy alliance between my hon. Friends who intend to support the amendment—knowingly or unknowingly they will vote for a vested interest—and Opposition Members who will vote for the amendment out of spite for Mr. Murdoch. For all its supposed new-found moderation, the Labour party's position on this issue proves that it is still beholden to its trade union masters. Its motivation is not a desire to improve the Bill but sheer spite and malice.
      I wholly oppose this unnecessary, bureaucratic amendment. I am in favour of competition, choice and diversity. In short, I expect my hon. Friends and those who believe in the free market to support it, too.
      Mr. Gale: I wish to consider the amendment in the context of the future of the United Kingdom television industry throughout Europe. When we embarked on the Bill, we considered it as a Bill that would take United Kingdom and European television into the 21st century. Early in our debates, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred to the legislation as a
      254
      Bill for the early 1990s. Yesterday, in a nice turn of phrase, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said that we were backing sideways into the brave new future of television. If we accept the amendments, we shall take British television back into the 1970s and we shall miss out on the future that we could have Europewide.
      The Council of Europe convention, to which I referred earlier and on which I received no satisfactory answer to my question, was fought for by both Conservative and Opposition Members in the Council of Europe. The Labour party was as staunch in its support as the Conservative party to secure a free framework for broadcasting throughout Europe. I am not sure that the amendments are acceptable within that convention. The convention and the European Community directive were framed with a view to transfrontier pan-European broadcasting. That is the opportunity that faces the United Kingdom television industry now.
      We have an opportunity to make programmes for, not only the 40 million to 50 million people who watch television in Britain but an audience of 400 million to 500 million Europewide. Opportunities will also arise in eastern Europe. That is the prospect on offer. If we vote for the amendments, we shall cut off at the legs the successful embryo United Kingdom television industry before it has had a chance to develop. The amendment is spiteful. It is designed to regulate something the moment that it becomes successful. It criticises success.
      We have a tremendous opportunity Europewide, but if we accept the amendments, the developments in satellite television, the jobs involved, even the satellite service that had the courage that no else had to carry the televised proceedings of the House on one of its channels for at least a short period will go overseas. The jobs will not die altogether: they will go to Luxembourg, France or Germany. The satellite television industry, which is complementary to cable and which will feed our cable system, will develop not in the United Kingdom but elsewhere in Europe, as so many other innovations have done. That is what the Labour party seeks to impose on us, and what we must vote against tonight.
      Mr. Mellor: Our debate has been conducted with great vigour by both Conservative and Opposition Members. It has been attractively marked by divisions of view on each side. Personally, I believe that Parliament is the better, not the worse, for that.
      There is no absolute truth on either side of the argument on this issue. I fully accept that, by resisting the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) spoke with dignity and restraint I shall disappoint several hon. Members and several distin-guished people outside the House. I accept that it is perfectly possible for people of good will to differ on the matter.
      I wish to make it clear that, during the passage of the Bill, I have sought to consider each of the major issues as they arose. When I was persuaded that there was a case for change, I made the change where the discretion was vested in me. Where it was not, and where I needed to consult colleagues, I did so. For the most part, my colleagues have been indulgent enough to agree that those changes should be made.

      255
      7.45 pm
      If I had any doubts on this issue, I should be only too willing to recommend a change. However, nothing that I have heard tonight shakes my conviction that we are right to take the view that we do. I shall not go into detail of the merits of the case, because so many others have put the case eloquently for both sides of the argument. I simply emphasise that, where there is scarce spectrum and where that spectrum is allocated by United Kingdom processors, we have the most rigorous cross-media control. I defend that, because I believe that it is right. For instance, neither Mr. Murdoch nor Mr. Maxwell could have a controlling interest in an ITV franchise. Indeed, they could not have a controlling interest in BSB, which has been granted a monopoly on the five United Kingdom high-power satellite frequencies that are available to us.
      As I said earlier, the non-domestic broadcasting by satellite services are different. They are not granted by United Kingdom regulatory bodies. They are carried on a satellite that is not subject to United Kingdom jurisdiction. It is a satellite with a seemingly endless potential for new channels. It is not scarce spectrum. Already there are 16 channels, including one owned by Mr. Maxwell, who would equally well be caught if the amendment were accepted. There could well be 32 channels soon; some people suggest that there could be 48. There is no scarce spectrum.
      There is no reason of principle why we should seek to control the ownership of a brave entrepreneurial effort. I admired the speech of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on that subject. We do not know whether that entrepreneurial effort will succeed or fail, but I do not envisage a great queue of people ready to emulate it. Nor will stations consist of wall-to-wall game shows. Plainly, whatever anyone says, Sky News is a serious venture which has nothing to do with pap and everything to do with quality television, as is clear from the nature and quality of the journalists and technicians employed by it, many of whom we all know in other contexts.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: With some exceptions.
      Mr. Mellor: Of course, there are exceptions to that rule among both Conservative and Opposition Members, as the Home Secretary's Parliamentary Private Secretary says.
      There is no reason of principle for the amendments. On the practical side, I cannot for the life of me see the advantage of forcing a successful channel to go overseas and putting ourselves in the ludicrous position of having to distort the arrangements in the Bill, which are designed to act against pornographic stations, simply to prevent a newspaper proprietor whom some people dislike from doing a perfectly legitimate job, either as a newspaper proprietor or as a broadcaster.
      When we are properly solicitous about the loss of some dozens of jobs in south Wales, we cannot be oblivious to the consequences of losing almost 1,000 jobs, some of them in west London but 250 of them in Scotland, where people are sensitive about jobs. I am consistent about this —I am unhappy about the loss of jobs anywhere. However, I have one consolation. If the ITV system is overmanned, the creation of new broadcasting opportunities should create new opportunities for people within
      256
      the industry to work. That is why we must have a diverse broadcasting market and why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale).
      I do not think it right in principle to impose restrictions on the ownership of Sky Television or MTV, Mr. Maxwell's venture, straight away. It would be wrong for the House to arrive at some arbitrary figure at which we allege—we have no basic reason for thinking so—that profitability would be reached. I am far from persuaded that providing such services to 3 million homes means that profitability has been achieved, given the hundreds of millions of pounds that will have been expended in trying to make those ventures a success.
      I can legislate only for the period in which the Government have their majority. Who knows what the future may hold? We are principled about this, in the sense that all the ownership restrictions are in a schedule to the Bill and any one of them can be changed by an affirmative resolution of both Houses. If, in five or 10 years' time, a different Government take a different view, it is open to them, through a resolution passed by both Houses, to change the restrictions. I hope that any future Government that sought such change would do so for reasons of principle and not through spite.
      Mr. Buchan: Come on.
      Mr. Mellor: I am not making any allegations about spite now; all I am saying is that, if the moment came for change, I hope that it would be actuated by principle, not spite. I am at some pains to say that I understand that there is a case on the other side of the argument. Let any change take place as and when it is the view of a Government that that change should be made.
      My view is entirely clear: on practical grounds and on grounds of principle it would be wrong to move the goal posts at this point. Although it is perfectly proper that we have had this debate and perfectly proper that the issue has been joined with great vigour, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough feels that he can properly withdraw the amendment so that we can move on to the many other issues that will detain us this evening.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 322, in page 144, line 19, leave out second 'is' and insert—
      'appears to the Commission to be'.
      No. 323, in page 144, line 20, leave out 'is' and insert—
      'appears to them to be'.
      No. 324, in page 144, line 24, at end insert—
      '; and, where a person is the holder of a licence to provide such a relevant service, he shall not be a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of such a licence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above or which provides such a service as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.
      No. 325, in page 144, line 25, leave out 'In this sub-paragraph' and insert—
      '(2A) In sub-paragraph (2)—'.
      No. 326, in page 144, line 28, at end insert—
      'and a service shall be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of that sub-paragraph if the programmes included in the service are at all times the same as those which are for the time being broadcast in a Channel 3 service or on Channel 5.'.
      No. 327, in page 144, line 43, leave out 'any' and insert 'a significant'.
      No. 328, in page 144, line 51, after 'licence', insert—
      'or in two or more such bodies corporate'.
      No. 329, in page 145, line 4, at end insert—
      'or in two or more such bodies corporate.'.
      No. 330, in page 145, line 13, leave out 'to' and insert ',(2), (3) and'.
      No. 331, in page 146, line 10, at end insert—

    'POWER TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION BY PERSONS OTHER THAN LICENCE HOLDERS
    9. Where, by virtue of any provision of this Part of this Schedule, any restriction applies in relation to participation in any body or bodies corporate of a particular description, the Secretary of State may by order provide for further restrictions to apply in relation to participation in any such body or bodies corporate, being restrictions which—

    (a) are imposed on persons to whom the first-mentioned restriction does not apply, and

    (b) are framed by reference to the number of bodies corporate in which such persons are participants.'.

    No. 332, in page 146, line 27, leave out 'any' and insert 'a significant'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Amendment proposed: No. 110, in page 146, line 35, at end insert
    'or

    (c) a domestic satellite service or non-domestic satellite service.'.—[Mr. Hattersley]

    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 275.

    Division No. 197]

    [7.53 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dixon, Don

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Dobson, Frank

    Allen, Graham

    Doran, Frank

    Anderson, Donald

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Eastham, Ken

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Ashton, Joe

    Fisher, Mark

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Flannery, Martin

    Barron, Kevin

    Flynn, Paul

    Battle, John

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Beckett, Margaret

    Foster, Derek

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Foulkes, George

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

    Fraser, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fyfe, Maria

    Blair, Tony

    Galloway, George

    Blunkett, David

    George, Bruce

    Boateng, Paul

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Boyes, Roland

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Graham, Thomas

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Buchan, Norman

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Buckley, George J.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Caborn, Richard

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Clay, Bob

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Clelland, David

    Home Robertson, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cohen, Harry

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Crowther, Stan

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cryer, Bob

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cummings, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Ingram, Adam

    Darling, Alistair

    Janner, Greville

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Dewar, Donald

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    258

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Prescott, John

    Leighton, Ron

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Lewis, Terry

    Radice, Giles

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rees. Rt Hon Merlyn

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Reid, Dr John

    Loyden, Eddie

    Richardson, Jo

    McAllion, John

    Robertson, George

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    McCrea, Rev William

    Rooker, Jeff

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McFall, John

    Rowlands, Ted

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Ruddock, Joan

    McKelvey, William

    Salmond, Alex

    McLeish, Henry

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheerman, Barry

    McWilliam, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Madden, Max

    Short, Clare

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mallon, Seamus

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marek, Dr John

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Martlew, Eric

    Snape, Peter

    Maxton, John

    Soley, Clive

    Meacher, Michael

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Meale, Alan

    Strang, Gavin

    Michael, Alun

    Straw, Jack

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Turner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Walley, Joan

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morley, Elliot

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Mullin, Chris

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wilson, Brian

    Nellist, Dave

    Winnick, David

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    O'Brien, William

    Worthington, Tony

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wray, Jimmy

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Patchett, Terry

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Pendry, Tom

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Pike, Peter L.

    Mr. Tony Banks.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Bright, Graham

    Alexander, Richard

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

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Allason, Rupert

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Amess, David

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Amos, Alan

    Buck. Sir Antony

    Ashby, David

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Atkins, Robert

    Burns, Simon

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Butcher, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Butler, Chris

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Butterfill, John

    Batiste, Spencer

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Beggs, Roy

    Carrington, Matthew

    Beith, A. J.

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cash, William

    Bendall, Vivian

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Body, Sir Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Boswell, Tim

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Colvin, Michael

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Conway, Derek

    Bowis, John

    Coombs. Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Cormack, Patrick

    Brazier, Julian

    Couchman, James

    259

    Cran, James

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Curry, David

    Knowles, Michael

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

    Latham, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Day, Stephen

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Devlin, Tim

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lilley, Peter

    Dover, Den

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Durant, Tony

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Evennett, David

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Favell, Tony

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Maclean, David

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Maclennan, Robert

    Forman, Nigel

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    Madel, David

    Franks, Cecil

    Malins, Humfrey

    Freeman, Roger

    Mans, Keith

    French, Douglas

    Maples, John

    Gale, Roger

    Marland, Paul

    Gardiner, George

    Marlow, Tony

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Gill, Christopher

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mellor, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gorst, John

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Gow, Ian

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Mills, Iain

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gregory, Conal

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Moate, Roger

    Grist, Ian

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Ground, Patrick

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Grylls, Michael

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hague, William

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mudd, David

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Neubert, Michael

    Hannam, John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Harris, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hayes, Jerry

    Page, Richard

    Hayward, Robert

    Paice, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Pawsey, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Portillo, Michael

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

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Price, Sir David

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Redwood, John

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Irvine, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Jack, Michael

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Jackson, Robert

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Janman, Tim

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mon)

    Rost, Peter

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Ryder, Richard

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Key, Robert

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Kilfedder, James

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knapman, Roger

    Sims, Roger

    260

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Tredinnick, David

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Trippier, David

    Speller, Tony

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Viggers, Peter

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Squire, Robin

    Walden, George

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wallace, James

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Waller, Gary

    Steen, Anthony

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stern, Michael

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stevens, Lewis

    Watts, John

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Wells, Bowen

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Sumberg, David

    Whitney, Ray

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wiggin, Jerry

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

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Thorne, Neil

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Mr. David Lightbown.

    Tracey, Richard

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 333, in page 146, line 39, leave out 'any' and insert 'a significant'.
    No. 334, in line 43, after 'extent', insert 'permitted under sub-paragraph (1)'.
    No. 335, in line 43, leave out 'sub-paragraph (1)' and insert 'that sub-paragraph'.
    No. 336, in page 147, line 8, at end insert—
    '(bb) prescribe restrictions on the extent to which the proprietor of a national newspaper may be a participant in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide a relevant service falling within paragraph 1(2)(f) or (3)(b) in Part III of this Schedule, or in two or more such bodies corporate;'.
    No. 337, in line 32, leave out 'any' and insert 'a significant'.
    No. 338, in line 37, after 'extent', insert 'permitted under the sub-paragraph'.
    No. 339, in line 50, at end insert—
    '(bb) prescribe restrictions on the extent to which the holder of a licence to provide a relevant service falling within paragraph 1(2)(f) or (3)(b) in Part III of this Schedule may be a participant in a body corporate which runs a national newspaper, or in two or more such bodies corporate;'.
    No. 340, in page 148, line 7, leave out from 'in' to end of line 8 and insert
    'a body corporate which runs a national or local newspaper, or in two or more such bodies corporate.'.
    No. 341, in line 33, at end insert
    'or a national public telecommunications operator of any description specified in the order'.
    No. 342, in line 42, after 'whole', insert
    ', or substantially the whole,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 6

      GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO LICENSED SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 230, in page 6, line 1, at end insert
      ', by using images of very brief duration or by any other means,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 8

      GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS
      No. 491, in page 7, line 30, at end insert—
      '(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as prohibiting the inclusion in a licensed service of any party political broadcast which complies with the rules (so far as applicable) made by the Commission for the purposes of section 33.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 11

      USE BY COMMISSION OF RECORDINGS ETC. TO MONITOR PROGRAMMES
      Amendments made: No. 615, in page 10, line 8, leave out `may include conditions enabling the Commission to require' and insert
      `shall include conditions requiring'.
      No. 616, in line 13, leave out
      `to produce any such recording to the Commission'
      and insert
      'at the request of the Commission, to produce to them any such recording'.
      No. 617, line 15, leave out
      `to produce to the Commission'
      and insert
      'at the request of the Commission, to produce to them'.
      No. 618, in line 15, after 'script', insert 'or transcript'
      No. 231, in line 17, at end insert—
      '(3) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as requiring the Commission, in the discharge of their duties under this Part as respects licensed services and the programmes included in them, to view such programmes in advance of their being included in such services.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 12

      AUDIENCE RESEARCH
      Amendments made: No. 232, in page 10, line 18, at end insert—
      '(a)'.
      No. 233, in line 20, at end insert—
      `(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 included in licensed services.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 14

      ESTABLISHMENT OF CHANNEL 3
      Amendment proposed: No. 117, in page 11, line 15, at end insert—
      '(2A) If it appears to the Commission that it would be appropriate for a particular Channel 3 service to do so, they may determine that the service shall include the provision of different programmes—

      (a) for such different parts of the area for which it is provided, or

      (b) for such different communities living within that area,

      as they may determine.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 239 and 118.
      8 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: It would be churlish to allow this moment to go by without saying how grateful we in Scotland are to the Government for amendment No. 239, which has been tabled in response to a debate we had in
      262
      Committee and will ensure that the Scottish channels cannot all be acquired by a single company. I thank the Government.
      Mr. Mellor: I am touched by what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has said. We have sought to honour that and all the other undertakings that were given, and I am glad that this is a popular move.
      Dr. Kim Howells: This group of amendments touches on crucial issues affecting the television service in Wales and provides a valuable opportunity to improve that service. The Broadcasting Bill affects Wales in two major ways. First, it recognises the success of the Welsh fourth channel S4C and goes some way towards securing its continued financial security. It also sets out the future of Channel 3, which includes the franchise area for Wales.
      ITV's strength has been its commitment to regional programming, and its regulation by the IBA has been a key factor in maintaining a generally high standard of quality programming. Both the BBC and Channel 3 Wales are catering for a country with particular assets and problems, and should be helped to improve consistently their contacts with the people of Wales in order for local experience to receive the expression that it deserves. Without a genuinely broad menu of local programming, television does not present a valid picture of the area that it serves. The Bill and the amendments prompt us to decide where we stand on the balance between television as a service and as a business.
      Wales is a small country and its population, in viewing terms, a minority audience. The interests of the audience in English and Welsh, and of the television industry in Wales, must benefit as much as possible from the legislation. Apart from Northern Ireland, Wales may be the only television region to be served on Channel 3 by a single company. That should oblige the winner of the franchise to be particularly aware of its obligations. If it falls short of the obligations, there will be no other Channel 3 company producing Welsh programming in the English language. The obvious consequences would be grave.
      Already the Government have accepted that there should be specific provision for children's religious and regional programming. Further provision should be enshrined in the Bill to ensure that the Channel 3 company in Wales will have a specific duty to produce certain types of programming. I am concerned that the absence of a legal requirement will create loopholes for the unscrupulous to exploit. The ITC is to be allowed to draw up illustrative guidelines, but it is not yet clear how well equipped the commission will be to insist on the standards for which it aims. I fear, too, that without certain quality provision being written into the Bill the general standard of programming on Channel 3 will deteriorate.
      The television industry in Wales is a major employer. The Bill should enhance that status and not threaten it. The integrity of Wales as a national region must be preserved. Unlike the position in Scotland, Channel 3 in Wales is represented by a single franchise which coincides with the national boundaries. The Bill does not eliminate the possibility of Wales being divided between two or more non-Welsh franchisees—for example, a company based in Manchester and perhaps another based in London or Bristol. If that happened, indigenous Welsh programming could disappear. Wales should remain a national television

      263
      region. That would allow Channel 3 to play a constructive role in Welsh national life and would make broadcasting more responsive to the needs of English-speaking Welsh people while taking its place within a bilingual nation.
      In the case of the national region of Wales, a suitable range of programmes should include current affairs, documentaries, drama, adult education, sport, social action, light entertainment, and religious, arts and school programmes. Programmes from each category should be scheduled regularly at main viewing times. At least 75 per cent. of the programmes should be made within the Welsh region. That broad range of programmes is currently being produced in Wales and the legislation must allow for at least such a range. Viewers in Wales deserve to see their local concerns dealt with and their experiences reflected in the television medium. A requirement for a range of regional programmes to be shown within the main viewing hours would encourage the Channel 3 contractor to produce programmes of quality. Without such a requirement, regional programmes could be ghetto-ised to the least accessible viewing times. Unless 75 per cent. of local programming is made within Wales, I believe that there will be a significant drop in employment and in the quality of the television industry in Wales.
      To sustain such a capability, a full regional production and managerial presence should be mandatory in each Channel 3 region, and particularly in national regions such as Wales. I fear that that issue has been overlooked in the Bill. It is vital that the managerial staff demonstrate a commitment to and a knowledge of Wales and of Welsh culture and issues. There are fears that, without protection, English or European owners of Channel 3 Wales would not appreciate or develop the channel's role as a monolingual service within a bilingual society.
      In the event of a company applying for a Channel 3 franchise as a publisher-contractor, it is imperative that such an applicant should demonstrate that that method of contracting will not diminish the quality of the service provided. If a contractor has an integrated programme and production set-up, the monitoring of the output at every stage—from concept through production to transmission—is relatively easy, but the method of operation of a publisher-contractor requires careful scrutiny. The company should demonstrate adequate commissioning and quality control systems, as well as a commitment to commissioning the majority of its output in Wales.
      8.15 pm
      I am also concerned that without a requirement for training within the ITV sector in Wales there will be an inadequate, ad hoc system. all the more damaging if the industry becomes either wholly or predominantly based on freelance workers, however excellent many of the productions in which they have been involved.
      Channel 3 franchise holders are to operate a full network arrangement, but there should also be a transitional network arrangement during the bidding process. Such a networking arrangement would enable companies to have access to a range of quality programming far in excess of the programmes which it could acquire alone. Inevitably, the companies with a smaller local output—of which the Welsh contractor will be one—would be the most seriously affected by the absence of such an arrangement.
      Nationwide showing of local material aids communication within Britain. Without such an arrangement, the
      264
      concerns of regions such as Wales would be further isolated. The network commissioning body should be required to take a considerably greater number of programmes from regional companies than at present, if the regional companies wish to offer them. It is important for quality programmes made in Wales to be seen in the rest of Britain.
      I believe also that the initial contractor will require a period of stability in which to establish itself and to deliver the promised programme service. The ITC must be empowered to scrutinise all companies taking over licence holders. Otherwise, the quality threshold and other guidelines will be invalidated. In other words, there should be a moratorium of a minimum of three years on takeovers in the period immediately after the franchises are awarded.
      As well as accepting the framework that I have outlined for Channel 3 Wales, I urge the Minister to ensure that the Home Office will continue to offer S4C a safety net, should advertising revenue drop to such an extent that the 3·2 per cent. share of the net advertising revenue is insufficient for S4C to continue its current programming. As I am sure the Minister knows, S4C fulfils a unique cultural and national remit. Since its inception, a large and thriving independent television sector has developed in Wales, providing S4C with approximately 380 hours of viewing per year—soon to increase to more than 500 hours. Its existence is affected directly by S4C's funding. To strengthen its position, I press the Minister to ensure that cable operators are required to carry public service channels and S4C on all distribution systems in Wales. Without that requirement, viewers in some areas would be deprived of their only Welsh language channel.
      Mr. Ted Rowlandss: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). It was a portmanteau of a speech, covering the gamut of issues raised in Committee and on Report. I want to argue the case which we started making in Committee. The development of S4C has produced successful and flourishing Welsh language programmes, but it is important that there are opportunities for what we describe, in inverted commas, as Anglo-Welsh writers and productions. That is the most important lesson that we have learned from S4C. Talent exists and can be developed not only in Welsh but also in Anglo-Welsh.
      I should like to explain what we mean when we talk about the Anglo-Welsh language. In our different ways, we speak it ourselves. It contains the sounds, the rhythms, the tones, the experiences and the history not only of the Welsh-speaking communities in our Principality but of the Anglo-Welsh-speaking community. They are different.
      Dylan Thomas is one of our most underrated poets. He wrote Anglo-Welsh poetry and combined Welsh and English in the sounds and rhythms. I shall quote to the House a typical example of his poetry:
      "It was my thirtieth year to heaven

      Woke to my hearing from harbour and neighbour wood

      And the mussel pooled and the heron priested shore

      The morning beckon. …

      And I rose

      In the rainy autumn

      And walked abroad in a shower of all my days …

      And I saw in the turning so clearly a child's

      Forgotten mornings when he walked with his mother

      Through the parables of sunlight and the legends of the green chapels. …."

      That could not have been written by an Englishman but only by an Anglo-Welshman.

      265
      We are continuing in this debate the case that we started to make in Committee. We want to see in the broadcasting system which, hopefully, the Bill will create a combination of arrangements and opportunities that will allow the expression of poets, writers and social commentators. That will produce a distinctive experience that is different from that produced solely by English or Welsh speakers. It will be an Anglo-Welsh culture of its own, but part and parcel of the total culture of our society.
      We are worried that, in the process of organising the broadcasting arrangements, this major dimension will not be effectively catered for. There are a number of ways in which we can cater for it, and the Government amendments provide the opportunity to do so. It can be done through the new broadcasting opportunities. It may be done by cable television, but we know how limited that will be in the Principality. In yesterday's debate, the Minister responded to the possibility of the variations that could occur on Channel 5. We might be able to take that opportunity.
      We have to rest our case on the broadcasting facilities in the next decade. That will be done through BBC Wales and the commercial station HTV or its successor. That combination of existing broadcasting facilities should create a stream of Anglo-Welsh writing, broadcasting and productions in the character of Wales. That is what S4C has done. One of the most potent ways in which we can do that is by getting a greater share of the network arrangements for HTV or its successor company for the Principality plus the west.
      I do not believe in breaking up the Wales-Television South-West combination, because it makes up a successful, large company. It has dual management, and dual control of the whole show will produce a major shift in the balance of networking and will create extra opportunities for a Welsh national Wales and the south-west commercial company that will produce programmes and give opportunities to many talented people in the Principality. That channel would speak not only to us but would enable us to reach a greater audience. It is a two-way flow that could be improved by a major shift in the networking arrangements.
      It is extremely important to send a message from the House to HTV, BBC Wales and any other company that, in the new decade of the 1990s, we expect them to develop and promote the enormous talent that exists in the communities that we represent. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd whose passionate speech I welcome and support.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: I am powerfully reminded, when listening to my two colleagues, the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), of arguments that go back over 30 years in Wales. The arguments for a fourth channel in Wales, especially in the early 1970s, were for a channel that would be additional to the others throughout the United Kingdom. That campaign went on for a decade in Wales and it was overtaken by a campaign in the rest of the United Kingdom for a very different sort of fourth channel.
      Unfortunately, when the channel was given to Wales the deprivation argument continued, because that fourth channel gave Wales a great advantage—for the
      266
      non-Welsh-speaking Welshman—a channel that did not have Welsh language programmes. That meant that such people were not deprived of English programmes that were available elsewhere.
      The fourth channel also gave rise to a flowering of the Welsh language. Bringing the fourth channel in nationally gave rise to a new deprivation argument, because Wales is missing in the scheduling of other channels on the United Kingdom Channel 4. That argument was rehearsed in Committee and yesterday in the House. The need in Wales is for one channel more than exists throughout the United Kingdom.
      I warmed to the speeches of those who have the cadences of the Welsh language in their voices. I do not have those cadences. They come from an area of Wales where the Welsh language was recently very much alive, and the stamp and shadow of the language is in their speech. There is an energy and distinctiveness in the valley culture and Welsh culture.
      I do not like the expression "Anglo-Welsh" because it is difficult to know what it means. There is certainly not an Anglo-Welsh language. Some Welshmen speak English with a great deal of clarity and force, and English is spoken rather better in the valleys of south Wales than it is spoken elsewhere.
      The Welsh language is a great treasure. By any standard of European minority languages it should have died out at least 200 years ago, but we have seen the continuing miracle of its survival. People in Wales see our proceedings on television, see the strange spectacle of the programme being introduced in Welsh and hear Welsh language discussions. However, every word spoken in the House is in English, even though many hon. Members speak Welsh. If I spoke Welsh now and said, Os 'rydw i'n troi at y Gymraeg, bydd y Llefarydd yn ddweud 'dwdw i'n ddim mewn drefn y tŷ; os 'rwyn parhau i siarad yn y Gymraeg, bydd y Llefarydd yn fy nhorri allan o'r tŷ, and continued to speak in Welsh, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order, because in the House the Welsh language has the same status as riotous behaviour.
      This is the only Parliament that Wales has, and it is a shame that only one of the two beautiful languages spoken in Wales is allowed to be heard here. Perhaps the day will come when we shall see an end to that. In some Parliaments, a dozen languages are spoken, and I am sure that on some occasions we could manage to deal with two.
      I support what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Pontypridd. There is a vibrant and lively life in English and Welsh in Wales; both need wider audiences and the opportunity of full expression on radio and television.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 239, in page 11, line 30, at end insert 'or the whole of Scotland'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 15

      APPLICATIONS FOR CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 118, in page 11, line 38, at end insert—
      '(ii) if the service is to include the provision of such programmes as are mentioned in section 14(2A), the different parts of that area, or (as the case may be) the different communities living within it, for which such programmes are to be provided,'.
      No. 240, in page 11, line 45, after 'licence', insert
      'and specifying the closing date for such applications'.
      Amendment No. 49, in page 12, leave out lines 4 and 5.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 653, in page 12, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) The Commission shall, when publishing a notice under subsection (1), publish with the notice general guidance to applicants for the licence in question which contains examples of the kinds of programme whose inclusion in the service proposed by any such applicant under subsection (3)(b) would be likely to result in a finding by the Commission that the service would comply with the requirements specified in section 16(2) or (3) (as the case may be).'.
      The amendment replaces subsection (2), and makes points of clarification. We want to make it clear that the illustrative guidelines are a key part of the information that the ITC will give to prospective applicants, and that they should contain examples of the type of programme they would expect to see. However, that falls short of a specification of what should be in the applications, as obviously we are not giving the ITC the scheduling powers of the IBA. I expect the IBA to make clear a point that I regularly endorse: that when weighing up an application it would expect to see the range of programming now on Channel 3, and that any applicant that fell short of producing that range could not be guaranteed to surmount the quality threshold. However, there is a line to be drawn between giving clear illustrations of the type of application that is likely to succeed, and requiring certain programme types. It is important to maintain that distinction—hence the redraft in the amendment.
      Mr. Darling: I welcome the amendment, not because it meets what the Opposition were asking for in Committee but because it is beginning to move towards meeting it. The Government recognise that it will be necessary to specify the range of programmes that an applicant for a licence will be expected to provide. The Minister knows our position. We have felt all along that quality is the most important consideration and that price—although an important consideration—comes second.
      The Opposition would have preferred applicants to be required to provide a range of programmes to cater for all tastes and interests. It is welcome that there has been some movement, especially on religious broadcasting and children's programmes. However, we wanted to see that further specification inserted into the Bill. I understand that the Government cannot do that as it would undermine the basic philosophy outlined in the White Paper and on Second Reading, but the amendment goes some way to meeting the objections that were raised by Opposition Members in Committee. At least now the ITC can set out from the start the type of programmes, and the range of programmes, that it wants. Applicants will therefore be in no doubt about what they are expected to do.
      However, if the ITC sets out that range and an applicant still submits an application that does not meet the suggested guidelines—and none of the applicants do —does that mean that the suggestions made by the ITC fall by the wayside, or would it be entitled to say to all the applicants that none of them has met those indicative guidelines, and therefore it will re-advertise and invite people to re-tender for the franchise? If the latter is the case I would be happy, but I would be concerned if the former
      268
      was the case and applicants were entitled to take notice of the guidelines but were not required to do anything about it.
      Mr. Mellor: That is a pertinent point. The ITC is entitled to a view about the quality that it is looking for as a minimum before it would be prepared for any applicant to receive a franchise. If it took the view that all the applicants were found wanting, it would be entitled to reject them all. The grounds on which it could do so are a matter for the ITC, but one of the grounds might be that a sufficient width of programming had not been produced. That would relate not so much to the illustrative guidelines, but to the statutory basis for them, which is not just the amendment, but the requirement for programmes that cater for a wide range of tastes and interests, which has been in the Bill from the outset. If it felt that, tested against the sensible model in its mind, nobody had reached a level where it could confidently say that the matter had been fully and properly addressed, it would be entitled to reject everyone. I hope that that will not arise, but that is the implication of a quality fence: one does not lower the fence so that someone can hop over it.
      Mr. Darling: I am sure that what the Minister has said will be welcomed. It means that the Government have moved in a way that is welcome to the Opposition and many outside the House who are following these proceedings. I regard the amendment as significant. That is one reason why I felt that it should not go by on the nod. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling it.
      The Opposition have made it clear how we would have proceeded, but that does not detract from the fact that the amendment will be welcomed. I hope that having raised the fence, the ITC will also write in provisions that correspond to the general guidance when framing the licence terms. At the end of the day, the test will be what the ITC does should a franchise holder fail to live up to expectations. I hope that the ITC, when it draws up the licences, will bear that in mind.
      Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the amendment as it reflects accurately what I said in Committee. It is of considerable significance, which is why it is appropriate to be debated on its own. It bears considerable weight, for although it will not enable the ITC to issue specifications it can give a considerable steer. The Minister has said that it will go considerably beyond dealing with matters of programme content.
      The Minister said in last night's debate that guidelines might be a way of eliciting from applicant companies their attitude to such matters as training and networking, and whether or not they intended to invest heavily in programme production within a region. This broadly drafted amendment is one of the most significant Government amendments, and should be welcomed.
      The Minister was right to make specifications in respect of religious broadcasting, children's broadcasting, and educational broadcasting. However, there are clear limits to the specifying of particular types of programme that are required of Channel 3 companies, including some specifications that necessarily appear to exclude others. Through the medium of those guidelines, we can hope that the ITC will ensure that quality considerations are very much in the minds of those applying for franchises. That will allow the diversity that we hope the new Channel 3 will. offer.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 51, in page 12, line 18, leave out 'and the deposit'.
      No. 52, in line 19, leave out 'and (ii)'.
      No. 244, in line 22, at end insert—
      '(ba) the applicant's proposals for training or retraining persons employed or to be employed by him in order to help fit them for employment in, or in connection with, the making of programmes to be included in his proposed service;
      (bb) if the application is for a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service, a statement by the applicant as to whether, and (if so) to what extent, he proposes that any offices, studios or staff to be used or employed by him in connection with his proposed service should be located within the area for which that service would be provided;'.
      No. 245, leave out lines 29 to 34.
      No. 246, in line 35, after 'such', insert 'other'.
      No. 247, in line 36, leave out
      'in accordance with the provisions of this Part'.
      No. 248, in page 12, line 40, leave out 'subsection (3)(b), (d) or (e)' and insert
      'any of paragraphs (b) to (bb), (d) and (e) of subsection (3)'.—[Mr. Mellor).
      Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move amendment No. 485, in page 12, line 43, at end insert—
      '(5A) Where a person tenders an application for a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service at a time when

      (i) the same person is an applicant for another such licence and has accordingly paid a deposit which is held by the Commission under this section, or

      (ii) the same person tenders an application for another such licence,

      the Commission shall reject each such application and shall return to him anything he tendered to accompany it under subsection (3)(a)-(e); and the notice published under subsection (9) shall, in relation to each such tender, state that the Commission received a tender of application by that person and under this subsection declined to accept it.
      (5B) For the purposes of subsection (5B), the following persons shall be treated as the same person as another person, namely:

      (a) a person who controls that other person,

      (b) a person who is an associate of that other person or of a person falling within paragraph (a); and

      (c) a body which is controlled by that person or by such an associate of that person.

      (5C) In subsection (5B) "associate" and "control" have the same meaning as in Schedule 2.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 486, in page 13, line 23, at end insert
      'save in the case of an application which the Commission has rejected under subsection (5A)'.
      Mr. Steen: The amendments concern multiple bidding and the ownership of more than one franchise. This is an issue of principle, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate. It is that one television company should not be able to own or control more than one franchise.
      I immediately declare an interest in Television South West, my local station—the only television company to have stated publicly not only that it believes that one television company should be enough, but that it will not bid for more than one franchise. It believes, as the Government believe, that there is a need to preserve
      270
      regionalism and genuine regional channels which reflect the life of the area. TSW believes that those who work in a television channel and those who are involved in this powerful medium should be living and working in, and committed to, the area. I am glad to say that that has been the policy of TSW. All its producers and directors live and work in the region. It would like to see the Government committed to that principle. It believes that the Government, far from under-valuing it, should emphasise that commitment. The principal reason why TSW is so passionately against multiple ownership is its belief that that would dilute the regional commitment.
      One regional station should be enough for anyone. This is a powerful medium, but it is more important than that. One could imagine what would happen if a rural regional station were taken over by a metropolitan station. There would be economies of scale. The metropolitan station might want to centralise such things as bookkeeping and the administration, but it could have a much more devastating effect. The first thing that would probably go would be the local flavour and local emphasis.
      I have never been a particularly keen gardener, but I enjoy the nice little gardening programme broadcast in my region, in which Terry Underhill takes viewers round some of the finest gardens in the south-west. I am sure that all my hon. Friends would be delighted to see this programme. It is full of the kind of local flavour that one would want and it is about local soils and regional winds —factors about which the people in metropolitan regions will not have a clue. People living in the west country would immediately identify with such programmes. If a large metropolitan station took over my regional company, programmes such as that gardening programme would go immediately and we should end up with an urban gardening programme or one that took viewers around the country but did not concentrate on the delightful gardens with which everyone in the south-west immediately identifies.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and I are both worried about how far the Government are compromising their position by allowing more than one television company. The walrus and the carpenter were upset about the oysters and cried desperately for them while eating them. One wonders whether the commitment to regional television is not rather similar. The query over the Government's commitment to regionalism can be emphasised by an analogy with the Government's policy on schools. They want more parents to be involved with and running schools and they want to give schools greater local autonomy—decentralisation rather than centralisation—but if two franchises can go to one company, one could end up with more centralisation than decentralisation. When the IBA originally granted licences, it compelled all television companies to float a single class of shares. After 10 years, TSW can boast that 30 per cent. of its shares are held by people who live or work locally.
      The amendment is aimed at making television companies more like Members of Parliament. All of us have constituency interests in which we passionately believe, for which we passionately fight, and which we want to protect. If each television company has only one franchise, it will fight passionately for its region. As soon as the company extends to two large regions, that passionate commitment to each region will disappear.

      271
      8.45 pm
      The Government have gone to some lengths to curtail media power and ownership—that is interventionism of a kind—but I should like the Government to say something today about curbing too much power going to one company. One company could control two franchises that covered 20 million or 25 million people—about a third of the population—if it had both the London franchise and a rural franchise. Furthermore, any company or individual in the Common Market can buy into our companies, although we cannot buy into Greek, Spanish or German companies. Foreign companies could thus buy huge stakes in our television companies and control the programmes seen by a third of the population.
      The amendment is also aimed at teasing out of the Government some reduction of the power of media companies to control more than one franchise. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, when he has heard speeches in support of the amendment, will realise that this is an important matter which has perhaps slipped through the discussions in Committee. I am glad of an opportunity to air it on the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is wrong on only one point. The matter did not slip through in Committee. It was debated at great length and I moved amendments similar to the amendments before us now, which I support for broadly the same reasons as the hon. Gentleman.
      Among television companies, there is some division of opinion about the virtues of this approach. There is no doubt that some of them are potential predators and would like to acquire small companies. They have used what they call the "penny farthing" argument about this —that in the more competitive world of television in which we are moving some small regions may find it more difficult to sustain themselves. I would rather amend the law subsequently if that proved to be the case than make the kind of provision that the Bill does, which will allow the takeover of regional broadcasting companies by other, perhaps metropolitan, companies which by definition cannot establish their headquarters in a smaller and more vulnerable region. They will find it easier to centralise and make economies of scale in production by concentrating their activities in one region.
      The possibility of one region being taken over by another undermines the genuine regional commitment in the Bill. This is clearly not an oversight by the Government, because the arguments were strongly canvassed before. It is agreeable to have the support of the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he has drummed up the troops tonight so that we can give his proposals massive support. We were rather more lonely in Committee.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) mentioned the walrus and the carpenter. I think that it is a slightly fishier story than that. It is rather like Jonah and the whale. I do not want the whale to swallow Jonah and then find that we have to amend the law when the whale refuses to spit him out.
      We have Television South West—I can demonstrate equal partisanship to that of other western area Members —but an even smaller station is Border Television, and we all know what valuable programmes Border Television presents. I am fearful that, if Thames Television, a station
      272
      in the midlands or one in Italy makes successful bids for our small stations, the local flavour that we all love will evaporate. It is difficult to foresee how a fishing programme could be presented if the company that had a major stake in the station, or owned it, was based in Saudi Arabia.
      The same applies to gardening, sailing and even the inter-pub competitive games, which I suspect hinge mostly on beer consumption. Local political programmes are close to the heart of every right hon. and hon. Member. The distinctive local flavour that they offer gives us considerably more air time that we would otherwise have. Now that cross-subsidies are to continue—that surely must have been at the back of the proposed new arrangements—is there any real reason to offer the ownership of more than one television station? I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to ponder again.
      Mr. Darling: The arguments that have been advanced this evening were rehearsed in Committee. I do not intend to add to them, save to say that the Opposition support the amendments of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). The Minister has not answered satisfactorily the question about when the Independent Television Commission finds that one person is bidding for two franchises. At some stage, it will surely have to decide which bid will be favoured. I can understand that an applicant might end up winning both franchises, and that would seem to undermine the regional and almost federal structure that we are trying to establish. I say that as someone who lives in an area served by one of the smaller companies, although quite a large one. I know that people who live in the area would be disappointed and upset if they discovered that it was owned by a powerful conglomerate, for example.
      As the hon. Member for South Hams said, when he referred to a gardening programme, the dilution of the regional element would be apparent if there were a communal metropolitan garden somewhere in London SW1 and different backdrops were used to make it appear that the garden was in Cornwall at one moment and in the highlands and islands of Scotland in another.
      The arguments have been well made, and they do not need to be laboured. I do not expect that the Government will accept the amendment, and if it is not pressed to a Division, the issue will not be resolved tonight. I hope, however, that those in another place will give it some attention. If not, I fear that we shall find the concentration of ownership that we discussed earlier this evening creeping insidiously throughout the ITV system. If that happens, we shall end up with another national station, or perhaps one owned by two main players, rather than a regional or federal structure. That would be undesirable for broadcasting.
      Mr. Mellor: The final remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) do not coincide with our vision. Indeed, the Bill specifically precludes what he fears. We are committed to the regional basis of the ITV system. I hope, believe and expect that the Independent Television Commission will, as George Russell has suggested, advertise for applicants to take up franchises as based on the present map. I hope and believe that that will be the shape of the system.
      It has been my pleasure throughout the consideration of the Bill to make it clear that my convictions in favour

      273
      of the regional base are more than rhetorical. Indeed, we have substantially strengthened the regional requirements during the Bill's progress through the House. Those who considered the Bill in Committee know that only too well. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have contributed to that progress.
      We play by the rules. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that no non-European company can own an ITV franchise. I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue when she suggested otherwise. My hon. Friend was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: That was a joke.
      Mr. Mellor: I am sorry: perhaps my ability to see jokes is letting me down at this time of night.
      Whatever the rights and wrongs, only European countries can own a franchise. We cannot exclude other European countries, because of the EC rules. They would, however, have to satisfy rigorous regional requirements. I am happy to repeat that if, for example, we are talking about the franchise for Wales and the west country, it might be easier to satisfy the regional requirement if one comes from south Wales rather than the south of Italy. If that were the position, I would not be unhappy about it.
      Mr. Steen: Am I right in saying that it is a one-way system? The Europeans can invest in this country, but we cannot invest in their television channels.
      Mr. Mellor: I do not accept that. As is usually the position in Europe, the rules are different in each country. I accept that there are some bad examples. As a Minister in a responsible Government, I cannot recommend any arrangements that go contrary to the rules of Europe. I appreciate that other Governments operate on different bases. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others become somewhat angry at the cant and hypocrisy at some European gatherings, when people rhetorically commit themselves to certain policies without having the slightest intention of ever putting them into effect.
      We can only be honourable. We have to create a level playing field. It is idle to pretend that it will be easy for anyone without strong regional links and a regional base to be a credible and successful candidate. If that is the position, I think that we have done a good job. We are entitled to insist on a regional and national flavour to our broadcasting that is genuine.
      We have always felt that the ITV system has not benefited from the absence of active competition for many of the franchises. There was hardly any competition during the last franchise round. We want to encourage as many credible companies as possible to apply for Channel 3 licences. That is why we believe as strongly as ever in the concept of multiple bidding. Ownership concentration rules are firm. The maximum that someone will be allowed to own is one large and one small franchise that are not contiguous. If they were contiguous, the regional character would be undermined.
      The only exception would be if a franchise, for whatever reason, became unviable. We cannot guarantee that that will not happen, because the financial viability of some parts of the system is extremely fragile. A
      274
      commercial television system stands or falls by its ability to be commercial. Even if we have a number of penny farthings, the small franchise has to be run as an entity that by itself complies with all the rules on regionality. That is why I see no threat to the system.
      My hon. Friends the Members for South Hams and for Torridge and Devon, West have spoken with great sincerity. I warmly approve of what they have said. Nothing that the Government are doing is inconsistent with the maintenance of the programmes that my hon. Friends value, as do I. There are good people in the ITV system who sincerely believe that there are currently too many franchises. Leslie Hill of Central Television says that there should be six or seven.
      I take the view that we should start from where we find ourselves. I should be happy if, in 10 or 20 years, there were still 15 franchises. The Bill must take account of the fact that that might not be the case—but it must do so in a way that ensures that the regional base is maintained. Never has the regional base of the ITV system been more firmly enshrined in the statute than it is now as a result of the work that we have done on this Bill.
      Mr. Steen: We are always convinced by my hon. and learned Friend's arguments. In view of his strong commitment to regionalism, it would not be appropriate to push the amendment to a vote—even though, on this occasion, he did not entirely convince me of his case. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 249, in page 12, line 44, leave out subsections (6) to (8).
      No. 250, in page 13, line 18, leave out from 'shall' to `publish' in line 19 and insert—
      `, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications,'.
      No. 251, in page 13, line 22, leave out 'and'.
      No. 252, in page 13, line 23, at end insert—
      `; and

      (c) such other information connected with his application as the Commission consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 253, in page 13, line 26, after 'amount', insert 'of money'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following mendments:
      Government amendments Nos. 18 to 21.
      Amendment No. 354, in clause 17, page 15, line 9, leave out 'exceptional'.
      Government amendment No. 22.
      Government amendment No. 654, in clause 17, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
      `(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the Commission may regard the following circumstances as. exceptional circumstances which make it appropriate to award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid, namely where it appears to the Commission—

      (a) that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant is exceptionally high; and

      (b) that the quality of that proposed service is substantially higher than the quality of the service proposed—

      (i) by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or

      (ii) in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids;

      275
      and where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of subsection (3), those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.'.
      Amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 654, in line 4, leave out from 'Commission' to end and add
      'that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant—

      (a) (i) is exceptionally high having regard to the quality of the services proposed-

      (A) by all of the other applicants, or

      (B) in all the other applications which have been made for Channel 3 licences,

      and in either case is substantially higher than the quality of the service proposed by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids; or

      (ii) is to an exceptional degree higher than the quality of the service proposed by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids; and in either case

      (b) is higher than the quality of the services proposed by all of the other applicants who have submitted bids not lower than his;'.

      Amendment No. 355, in clause 17, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
      '(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) the Commission may regard the following circumstances as appropriate to award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid, namely, where it appears to the Commission that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant—

      (a) is higher than the quality of the service proposed —

      (i) by the applicant who submitted the highest bid, or

      (ii) in a case falling within subsection (2) by each of the applicants who submitted equal highest cash bids;

      and where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances for the purpose of (3) above may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.'.
      Amendment No. 704, in clause 17, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
      '(3A) Where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional for the purposes of subsection (3), those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences, and, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the Commission may regard the following circumstances as for the purpose of that subsection exceptional, namely where it appears to them that-

      (a) the service proposed by an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid is exceptionally qualified, and

      (b) the bid submitted by that applicant is higher than the bid submitted by any other applicant whose proposed service is exceptionally qualified.

      (3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), the service proposed by an applicant is exceptionally qualified if it appears to the Commission that the quality of that service—

      (a) is exceptionally high having regard to the quality of the services proposed by all of the other applicants;

      (b) is exceptionally high having regard to the quality of the services proposed in all the other applications which have been made for Channel 3 licences; or

      (c) is to an exceptional degree higher than the quality of the service proposed by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or in a case falling within
      276
      subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 24 to 34, 371, 135 and 159 to 163.
      Amendment No. 206, in clause 70, page 54, line 41, leave out 'other than one who' and insert 'who has not'.
      Government amendment No. 164.
      Government amendment No. 208, in clause 70, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
      '(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the Commission may regard the following circumstances as exceptional circumstances which make it appropriate to award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid, namely where it appears to the Commission that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant—

      (a) is exceptionally high having regard to—

      (i) the extent of coverage of the area for which the service is to be provided, and

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

      proposed by all of the other applicants; and

      (b) is substantially higher than the quality of the service proposed—

      (i) by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or

      (ii) in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids;

      and, where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of subsection (3) above, those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.'
      Government amendments Nos. 165, 166 and 168 to 176.
      Amendment No. 215, in clause 70, page 56, line 1, leave out 'granted' and insert 'awarded'.
      Government amendment No. 439.
      Amendment No. 592, in clause 94, page 71, line 40, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert
      'The Authority shall disregard the size of the cash bid in allocating the license if they consider that an applicant offering a lower bid, nevertheless offers a higher quality service more likely to meet the specific remit of the particular service and increase the diversity of available services.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 442 to 445.
      Amendment No. 5, in clause 94, page 71, line 47, leave out from 'that' to end of line 48 and insert
      'that applicant would provide a service of substantially higher quality than that proposed by the applicant who submitted the highest bid'.
      Government amendments Nos. 446 and 447.
      Amendment No. 593, in clause 94, page 72, line 2, leave out 'submitted the highest bid' and insert
      'they would otherwise award the license to.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 448 to 451, 734 and 470.
      9 pm
      Mr. Mellor: In the midst of this massive list of amendments lurks amendment No. 654, which to many hon. Members is the most significant amendment. It is a second attempt—[Interruption.] Perhaps it is the second most significant. We must have a raffle to decide the most significant. I hope that the amendment will be regarded by hon. Members as a genuine and successful attempt to honour our pledge to make it absolutely clear that the ITC can invoke the exceptional circumstances provision in

      277
      clause 17(3) if the quality of service offered by an applicant is exceptionally higher than that offered by the highest bidder.
      For many of us—and that includes me—one of the key points of the Bill has been to ensure the proper relationship between quality and price. I hope and believe that after a great deal of work, which has involved many hon. Members who are present tonight and a number of interest groups with which we have had regular meetings, we have established a substantial quality threshold over which only a good horse can jump. If those that clear the obstacle are much of a muchness—as George Russell thinks that for the most part they will be—a necessary openness is brought to the system by the competitive tender arrangement under which the highest cash bidder wins. However, we must accept that there will be other circumstances in which one of those who surmounts the quality hurdle does so with such elan and is so manifestly better that it would be perverse to permit that application to be defeated because he put in a lower cash bid.
      I have always believed that the Bill made provision for the under-bidder in those circumstances to be preferred, but it is a great joy to say that, if there was a crooked way, we have straightened it out. However, the parliamentary draftsman—it is not a policy decision by the Government —believes that we clarify the point better by establishing a double test. It is not an attempt to be clever. First, the applicant must be exceptionally good. The ITC can judge that against the others in the race, if there are a number of other applicants. However, to avoid any unfortunate consequences if there was only one other applicant, the first limb of the test might not be applicable. We discovered that flaw in our first attenpt to get things right. We have therefore removed the bid. I defend that as part of the constant quest for perfection in which we are engaged, although regularly we fall short of that. Therefore, the ITC will first have to determine whether the applicant is exceptionally good. Secondly, if that is determined and if the applicant is an under-bidder, the ITC will have to determine whether he is substantially better than the applicant who put in the highest cash bid.
      That is a logical way to do it. It will ensure that the best will always win through if it is clearly and obviously the best on quality. I believe that that is what all hon. Members want—
      Mr. John Greenway: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Mellor: Even though only one hon. Member has loyally said, "Hear, hear", I shall persist in my belief that that is what the House wants. At least, that is what it is going to get.
      I have discussed the issue exhaustively with colleagues here and with other groups. I have made no secret of the fact that I have had particular assistance from the Campaign for Quality Television, and I am glad that it is happy with the amendment because it has had an important impact on the debate. As it represents successful programme makers, I have listened without hesitation to a lot of what it has said, and I have made it clear that those who apply for franchises will have to have regard for the ITC's injuctions in the illustrative guide about what the diversity requirement should mean in practice. I endorse what George Russell has been saying about that.
      278
      I hope that, as a consequence of what we have done, the Opposition will feel able to accept that this is a successful outcome for which they are entitled to claim their share of credit because we all contributed to it. It is not pious words when I say that my ability to understand a number of points with clarity was greatly assisted by contributions made in Committee.
      I appreciate that there is always a temptation to say that the Bill does not go far enough—that most tedious of political pronouncements which hon. Members regularly use to get off the hook. I say, with genuine respect for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), that I hope that he will not do that. While I can see the attractions, in theory, in not requiring someone to be exceptional and just saying that he has to be substantially better, there is a danger that if one does not start from the assumption that someone is exceptional one reverts to the dubious science of making distinctions between one set of proposals and another, where the situation is not clear cut and where one applies subjective rather than objective criteria.
      I would always prefer the applicant who wants to put on classical music. I would probably not be so keen on an applicant who wanted to broadcast a lot of snooker. That is just me. I accept that most people would rather watch snooker and not have classical music. I gave an example in Committee about radio and preferring Lord Hanson's easy listening station to some classical station. Perhaps that was the right decision. It is difficult to see how the quality of one can be judged against another. It is an art and not a science.
      I hope that it will be viewed as a joint achievement by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber that we have got to this amendment. It is clear from its drafting that each individual franchise race can be considered separately. There is no question of having to rule out certain exceptional applicants because there cannot be that many exceptional applicants—each race can be considered separately. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. John Greenway: We are well into the second day on Report. Unlike some of my colleagues, I have not until now paid tribute to the excellent work of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the way that he handled the Bill in Committee. I deliberately waited until this brief debate because the House and the country owe him a debt of gratitude for the way in which he has listened and responded to concerns about this issue. He knows as well as I that many hon. Members have spent a lot of time in different forums talking to the television industry over the past couple of years about its concerns for the future. He also knows that many people doubted his ability to deliver on this amendment.
      I am sure that Opposition Members would agree that during the debate in Committee on the subject there was doubt in their minds as to whether he would be able to come back on Report with an amendment which attempted to define exceptional quality and to deal with the circumstance that he has just outlined. Against that background, the House has to pay a warm tribute to him For having fulfilled his promise.
      He admitted that amendment No. 654 is the Government's second attempt to get the wording right. I am sure that he will accept amendment (a) to amendment No. 654 and amendment No. 754 which stand in my name

      279
      as further suggestions as to what might be the best wording to achieve the principles that we all want to achieve—that if a bidder offered exceptional quality but not the highest cash bid the ITC would be able to award the franchise to the highest bidder without fear of judicial review.
      When the Home Affairs Select Committee considered the future of independent television, as we are now to call Channel 3, we recommended that there should be a tendering process for Channel 3 licences. But when we made that recommendation—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will support me in this—we felt that cash should be a determinant in the franchise allocation, but that it should not be the only one and that quality should also be given a fair chance. The principle that quality and cash should each play an important role is clearly established in the amendments. However, by the same token the Home Affairs Committee wanted to achieve a greater degree of openness and transparency in the way in which the franchises were allocated. The trick of the entire process is to strike the right balance between giving quality a fair chance and making sure that the franchises are awarded on a more transparent basis.
      My only remaining concern about amendment No. 654, and the reason why I have tabled two alternatives, is that, while the principle is agreed, there may be two exceptionally high bidders. If two proposals are similarly excellent, who will win? I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend recognises that this is not the last time that Parliament will consider the matter and that he will examine the wordings in the same spirit that he has adopted throughout the Committee and subsequently and will continue to consult legal experts and various television interests to ensure that we get the wording right.
      A transparent tendering process that clearly establishes what a bidder must do to win a licence is extremely desirable, whether by virtue of a high cash bid or exceptional quality. The Government's amendment is admirable and welcome so far as the principle is concerned but there must be no ambiguity in this vital matter. I certainly want the issue to be settled without deviating from the principles that my hon. and learned Friend has already laid down in his brief speech in this short debate. I suggest that he looks at the wording of the amendment to ensure that, in the event of a tie between two or more exceptionally high quality bidders, the highest cash bidder of that group should win. That would enforce the principle behind the Bill. It is a sensible suggestion, and I believe that it would improve and clarify the Bill. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will consider the matter again before the Bill is debated in detail in another place.
      Mr. Corbett: As the Minister, and the House will know, when we began debating the Bill, our major concern was the way in which the Government proposed to sell off Channel 3 licences to the highest bidder, once the so-called quality threshold had been met. Let me acknowledge immediately that that concern has now been softened to some extent by amendment No. 654. The Minister is quite right, because when we first debated the matter there was concern throughout the Committee that the Government's intentions were not stated clearly enough on the face of the Bill to protect the Independent Television Commission from judicial review from 40 bidders.
      I cannot agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). The message I received from
      280
      him was that the wording now proposed by the Government gives the ITC almost absolute protection from judicial review. I am no lawyer, and nor is he, although at one stage he was close to one end of the law, but I can foresee courts having expensive arguments—I am not nit-picking, but the point is worth making—about the difference between "exceptionally high" and "substantially higher". Many an expensive hour will be spent in court considering that.
      We welcome the fact that the Minister has made clear that the new definition of exceptional circumstances will apply to all the applications made for licences for the new commercial Channel 3 network. We feared at one stage that it might apply to one or two licences. That is an improvement and I do not want to disguise that fact. The Minister was kind enough to say that the Opposition played their part in persuading him to think again and to consult his colleagues. I should like to join the tribute that he paid to the Campaign for Quality Television and to the others who have much interest in and knowledge about these matters.
      I began by giving our objections to the method of disposing of Channel 3 licences, but how much of a change does amendment No. 654 make? It certainly makes no change in principle. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that the exceptional circumstances clause was to empower the Independent Television Commission to take into account such factors as higher quality and to enable it to award the bid on quality grounds and not to the applicant who had not submitted the most cash.
      I acknowledge that the amendment has clarified and strengthened the Bill, but the principle remains. Any money collected from the licensees other than that collected from the levy on national advertising revenue, which in effect is a continuing premium on the right to broadcast on scarce wavelengths, is money taken off the screen. It is money not going into programme diversity, range and quality; it is money that cannot be spent twice; and it is, at best, some of the money that would otherwise have been for programming.
      The Government have accepted that in a roundabout way. I believe that is why another of the strong pillars of the Bill is the dropping of many of the public service broadcasting obligations from the present ITV franchise holders. The Minister has said many times that he sees the new Channel 3 system as being a notch below public service broadcasting. Recently that nice Mr. George Russell expressed it another way when he said that he saw the new system as being about 80 per cent. of the present public service broadcasting commitment.
      Our gravest doubts centre on what will happen to the quality of programming in terms of diversity and choice. By that, I mean choice that is new and challenging and that innovates and encourages the opening of eyes and ears to what is different. I know that that concern is shared by Conservative Members, because two early-day motions —one was signed by about 60 and the other by about 80 right hon. and hon. Members—were tabled drawing attention to those concerns. It may be said that the amendment meets those concerns, but that was not just a narrow party political interest.
      As I have said, this group of amendments goes some way towards meeting those concerns. However, the highest bid—or something near to it—remains at the heart of the Bill. We believe that the viewer will pay the real price

      281
      through fewer factual programmes. I do not want to weary the House too much on this joint. However, it is worth recalling the results of the IBA survey of attitudes to television that was carried out in 1989. From that, we all know what people want more of, but it is interesting to consider for a moment what people would like less of. For example, 30 per cent. of viewers would like to see fewer older and classic films and that surprised me; 29 per cent. of viewers would like to see fewer variety shows.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh.
      Mr. Corbett: I am just quoting the research.
      The IBA survey showed that 39 per cent. of viewers would like less pop and rock music, and I am probably among that number; 42 per cent. would like fewer quiz shows; and, panel games; 43 per cent. would like fewer chat shows and bottom of the pops in this sense, a clear half of the viewers asked would like to see fewer soap operas.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What would they like more of?
      Mr. Corbett: If the hon. Lady wants to know, I will lend her a copy of the survey.
      My point is that there is a strong and growing demand according to the research for more factually based programmes. They are not dull and because they are factual it does not mean that they do not entertain. Such programmes are essentially factually based.
      From the experience of similar shake-ups in the broadcasting systems in France, West Germany and Italy, we know that the first casualties were factually based programes. I have shown that there is a strong demand. No doubt the Minister will tell me that we do not have to enshrine that in a continuation of the public service broadcasting requirements because, if it is that clear, even the thick heads running the present ITV system will respond to it.
      In our judgment, in an increasingly competitive environment in broadcasting, particularly with the advent of the two satellite channels and the promise of many more to follow, there will be growing competition for viewers. Of course, one of the ways to attract viewers is to tailor programmes for them and in turn those programmes will appeal most to the advertisers. I am not talking about viewers en masse; the advertisers will be interested in particular groups of viewers who have certain amounts of money in their pockets or purses at particular times of the day or night. That is where the pressure will be. No doubt if the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who preached the unbridled merits of the free market earlier, was here now, he would be jumping up and down and cheering at my definition.
      The Government's proposal, even with the amendments, puts the range and diversity of quality at risk. It is even more curious because in Committee the Minister told us that the amount of money that would be paid for the licence—let us describe that as the brown envelope—did not have to be tipped in up front. He said that it could be paid in instalments over the licence period. I do not object to that, but the Minister could arguably end up with less money than the income from the levy on national advertising revenue.
      282
      There is agreement that advertising revenue is hardly likely to grow at the moment. Indeed, there is some doubt whether it might dip off after a period of swift growth. It could be argued that over the whole of that licence period there will be a substantial growth in advertising revenue. The Government have the ability to adjust the levy. It is not necessarily fixed. They can change it year on year or take a gamble and say, "We shall have X per cent. throughout the period." That would fit in with the Government's free market philosophy. It is what they preach to everyone else. They tell people to try their luck and hope that the system will turn up more cash than was expected at the beginning of the franchise period on the back of the growth in advertising revenue.
      I do not criticise the Minister. I wish to be open and to acknowledge the way in which he listened, consulted and responded and came back to the House with the amendment. However, the system of which the amendment is a part will not secure real, widened choice among a diverse range of quality programmes in the year ahead. I acknowledge that there is no perfect system and that both our way and the Government's way involve some highly subjective judgments.
      The Minister denies that he is the author of the phrase "Becher's brook", and I accept that. I think that it was that nice Mr. George Russell again who used the term. The House is probably aware, but I owe it to the Radio Times for telling me, that the reason why that fence enjoys the name Becher's brook is that the first person to jump it was a rider by the name of Captain Becher and he came off his horse. The Minister said that he hoped that I would not say that the amendment did not go far enough. Well, I have not said that. However, the amendment does not meet our basic objections to the way in which the Government propose to award the licences. That is why we shall press the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Maclennan: The House can have no sense of the drama in Committee when these matters were discussed. Many members of the Committee—I venture to say almost all of them—felt that if the Government did not table an amendment such as the one before us, the future of television broadcasting would be led downhill and we should preside over a serious lowering of standards.
      We view amendment No. 654 as a lifeline for television. The drama in Committee was created because people genuinely did not know, not what the Minister had in mind but how the Government would decide the issue. The Minister was probably always sympathetic to the view, although he accepted the legalistic point that it was not necessary, that the Bill would be strengthened by spelling these matters out for the avoidance of doubt. It is therefore right to pay tribute to him. I have no doubt that he had to persuade his colleagues of the virtue of the position that he has taken and has encapsulated in the amendment.
      The amendment is well worded and I congratulate those who have played a part in drafting it. It should not lead to litigation and it will withstand judicial review. It makes it clear not only that the quality must be exceptionally high but that the bid which is lower in cash terms must be substantially higher in quality. That strengthens the quality requirement.
      Having said that the amendment is an essential lifeline, do not take the view that it is the ideal way of allocating Channel 3 licences. I acknowledge that the old system was not appropriate to a more competitive world. It lacked

      283
      transparency and meant that the market was slow moving. There was a need to free up the system to make it more competitive. The Government were right to legislate, but they should have considered legislating on the basis of competition and quality. Greater transparency in bidding would have allowed for that, as it would have enabled the regulatory authority to make its judgments in an open marketplace. Published bids would have indicated a good deal more about their quality than anything available in the past. None the less, the Minister has saved us from a catastrophe and we are grateful for that.
      The two amendments tabled in my name which appear in this group relate specifically to radio, but the Minister has taken some care about radio quality and I thank him. I do not expect that the Minister will be surprised if, enthusiastic as we are about the work that he has done, we feel it inappropriate to join him in the Lobby. We do not commend the entire scheme—we make the best of a bad job. Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will join the Labour party in the Lobby tonight.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Coombs: The amendments in my name in the group relate to clause 70, which refers to the cable industry. I thank the Government for tabling a number of amendments to clause 70 which go a long way towards meeting the points made by myself and colleagues in Committee.
      As with Channel 3, it is important that the term "exceptional circumstances" should be explained and that is why amendment No. 208 needs to be discussed. It addresses the important problem known as "cherry picking" and deserves careful thought.
      The cable industry is relatively new, but investors have already demonstrated confidence in its future by beginning to build systems and by establishing channels. The current telecommunications licence requires cable operators to cover 100 per cent. of an area. Investors may well be encouraged by the abolition—
      Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend looks dubious and perhaps I should repent on what I am about to say. I accept his amendment in principle and we shall bring forward amendments to that effect in another place, although he would perhaps rather that I did not.
      Mr. Coombs: If it were always that easy, we would not be here for nine hours at a time. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He has not had the opportunity to listen to my argument on this occasion, but I know that he is familiar with it. I am prepared to accept his undertaking that an opportunity to deal with the problem will arise in another place.
      Under the present proposals an operator can choose to develop only the most attractive part of the area for which he has been granted a franchise. He can leave the other parts of the area uncabled, but my colleagues and I believe that that would be inimical to the best interests of the cable industry, its growth and future. If my hon. and learned Friend is prepared to take steps to prevent that from happening, or at least to ensure that different types of application for the development of a franchise are dealt with carefully in the bidding process, I shall be happy not to press my amendment.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have not had the privilege of watching the Minister's evolution in Committee. I wish
      284
      that I had because it has clearly been fascinating. It is rather like the Virginia Slims advert—"You have come a long way, babe." Unfortunately, there is still a good deal to do. The real problem is not the progress that has been made since—welcome though that is, and I am not seeking to knock or denigrate the Minister whose achivement is considerable—but the starting point from which he was forced to make that pilgrimage. That starting point should never have been ordained and put into the Bill.
      The interesting question is, who decided to do so? Why did we develop the idea of auctioning television franchises? That is the crime and sin. As soon as that concept came in, it distorted the Bill's purpose. Who was responsible? I still do not know and it would be fascinating to know. Was it ordained by the Prime Minister?
      Mr. Gale rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me, fascinating as it might be. I do not think it was him, mad as the idea is. I imagine it must have been the Prime Minister—perhaps the Prime Minister's revenge on ITV or the greed of the Treasury. However, it is certainly wrong because it distorts the nature of television companies to make cash paramount. Accumulating a war chest of money and the ability to make the bid becomes the dominant consideration. As soon as that becomes paramount, the quality of production and the need to be expert producers of quality programmes goes by the board. That is why the decision to introduce the auction is already distorting the companies' nature.
      Many of the companies are taking on staff, shedding labour—as Central Television is—or worsening the conditions under which people work—as Granada Television and Yorkshire Television are. There is confrontation as the companies try to squeeze more cash out of existing businesses at the expense of good industrial relations and quality of production. That distortion is already occurring.
      The Minister has resiled, and has still further to resile from that position. We welcome that progress, but we must recognise it for what it is—progress away from a position that was wrong, insane and detrimental to good television and quality production. I say well done to the Minister for what he has personally achieved, but he should never have been put in that position in the first place.
      Sir Peter Blaker: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). I welcome what the Minister said in response to my hon. Friend about introducing an amendment in another place to pursue the theme of amendment No. 208.
      I believe that factors are relevant to quality in connection with cable other than simply the coverage of the area and the time scale of construction. For example, community programmes are, in the cable context, equivalent to regional programming in connection with Channel 3.
      My hon. and learned Friend will have observed that the pre-qualification conditions relating to cable in clause 69 are much slimmer than those in clause 16 relating to Channel 3. When he drafts the new amendment he promised, I should like him to take account of some of the factors in clause 16 that are relevant to cable, such as community programming.
      Mr. George Walden: Earlier in this debate some of my hon. Friends, each in his or her own gentle way, pointed out certain shortcomings in the Bill in relation to quality. As someone who supports a Government who purport to be radical, I thought that here was a chance to take a radical view of a broadcasting matter, look at the whole sphere of what was happening and likely to happen in broadcasting and decide to go for quality as a way to secure and perhaps to reinforce broadcasting against a possible decline of quality. I also saw it as a chance to reinforce radical policies, particularly in education. As we know, the Bill started off with another sort of radicalism that seemed entirely inappropriate in this context.
      However, as the Minister of State frequently reminds us, we must not let the best become the enemy of the good. I have looked extremely carefully at what the Minister has achieved. I see his achievements on this part of the Bill together with the provisions for the ITC to produce illustrative models of programmes. I cannot pretend that the amendments satisfy my inclinations, which would have been simply to have a quality auction and for the Treasury to sacrifice a certain amount of money in the process. Clearly that was never going to happen, and it will not happen now. It would be tedious repetition for me to go on with the arguments.
      I acknowledge gratefully what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State did in Committee. I shall finish with one more Cassandra-like thought—that once again all the debate and all the efforts will be set at naught if the Government persist in over-excited tinkering with the BBC. Having got the position more or less acceptably right, they could send the whole thing spiralling slowly downhill if they started doing anything that would interfere with the public service standards of the BBC. Those standards are by no means what they should be, but they could be made a damn sight worse.
      In not joining the Opposition for once, if it is their intention to vote against the Government, I emphasise strongly that I shall continue to scrutinise future Government policy on the BBC.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 41, with which it will be convenient—
      Mr. Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We had intimated that we would seek a Division on amendment No. 354, which was in the group with amendment No. 253.
      Mr. Speaker: We have not reached that on the amendment paper yet.

    Clause 16

      PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES
      Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 13, line 37, at end insert—
      '(bb) that, having regard to the information supplied by him under section 15(3)(d)(ii), he would be able to comply with subsection 2(c) below.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 706, in page 14, line 15, at end insert—
      286
      '(ddd) that a sufficient proportion of the programmes so included are made in the area for which the service is provided;'.
      No. 38, in clause 17, in page 15, line 9, at end insert—
      'and in considering whether there are such circumstances they shall take into account the information about use of regional facilities provided under section 15(3)(d)(ii) and the regional programming requirements under section 16(2)(c)'.
      Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 41 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who regrets that he cannot be here. I speak also to amendment No. 706 in my name.
      I wish to draw the attention of the House again to the amendment to clause 15, which was carried in Committee, and also to amendment No. 244, which the House considered last evening and which in many ways overtook amendments Nos. 41 and 706. I stress again the importance which many of us from the regions place on the regional structure of Channel 3 and on ensuring that there are proper facilities in the regions. The further a region is from London, the more important that is.
      I promised my hon. Friend that I would speak briefly to his amendment but I will not press it. I am sure the House will agree that the amendments already made go a long way to satisfying the purpose and objective of my hon. Friend and myself.
      Mr. Maclennan: I support the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). That will not surprise him because I moved similar amendments in Committee. He is entirely right in seeking to promote investment in the regions. I regret that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is not here, because there has been considerable interest in the thinking behind his amendment, especially in the north of Scotland.
      Mr. John Greenway: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 13, line 49, leave out 'any'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 200, in page 14, line 1, after 'news', insert 'and current affairs'.
      Government amendments Nos. 113 and 114.
      No. 693, in page 14, line 21, at end insert—
      '(g) that in each week not less than two hours at programmes are devoted to philosophical matters which cover Christianity and other religions of the world, agnosticism and humanism and that any such programmes are broadcast at intervals throughout the period for which the service is provided'.
      No. 39, in page 14, line 29, after '(2)(f)', insert—
      '(a) in relation to a national Channel 3 service,'.
      No. 40, in page 14, line 31, after 'and', insert—
      '(b) in relation to a regional Channel 3 service, "qualifying programmes" and "independent productions" may mean, in each case, programmes of such description, as the Secretary of State may by order specify, save that he shall not include regional news and current affairs programmes as qualifying programmes; and'.
      Government amendments Nos. 116 and 378.
      Mr. Mellor: This is a fairly central group of amendments, because they make significant changes to clause 16. Amendment No. 114 honours our pledge to

      287
      place a statutory requirement on Channel 3 licensees to provide religious and children's programmes. Amendment No. 113 enables sub-regional services to be part of the requirements for regional Channel 3 licensees. That is another example of our commitment to the regions, which include areas where a sub-regional arrangement already exists and works well.
      Amendment No. 115 requires the ITC to take account of representations made by members of the public about prospective applicants, and amendment No. 116 relates to orders made by the Secretary of State for setting a minimum level of independent production and for defining independent production. As I have said, the amendments are significant, but they all flow from discussions in Committee.
      Mr. Maclennan: Amendment No. 40 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, who is not here to move it. I moved a similar amendment in Committee. Amendment No. 40 relates to the requirement that Channel 3 broadcasters shall use 25 per cent. independent production, and seeks to exclude regional news from that calculation. From what the Minister said in Committee, I anticipated that that was the case and that the amendment is quite unnecessary. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on that, because I suspect that there is some uncertainty in the mind of Grampian Television. Will he confirm that amendment No. 40 is not strictly necessary?
      Mr. Brian Wilson: I should like to speak about Gaelic television, which has become a surprisingly prominent issue during the whole of our deliberations on the Bill. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here because I wish to pay him a rare tribute for obtaining from the Treasury £8 million for Gaelic television in Scotland. By any standard, that was an excellent achievement and I unreservedly welcome it.
      Everyone has a vested interest in ensuring that that money is well spent, but it is by no means certain that it will be. I should like to offer some thoughts on how it could best be used to ensure what everyone wants to ensure—that it does the maximum amount of good for the Gaelic language and those who speak it. I fear that the money will create not a service of the type that everyone involved with Gaelic wants to see, but a sprinkling of programmes scattered about the schedules and adding up to no great effect or impact. I suspect that that will happen unless a strategy is devised to concentrate Gaelic programming within a regular time scale on a single channel so that people know where and when they can expect programmes. We must concentrate on quality as well as quantity.
      The sum of £8 million is enormous compared with the amount that Gaelic television has at present. It is also enough in Scottish broadcasting terms to attract the interest of many people whose commitment to the Gaelic language and Gaelic television has in the past been modest to say the least. In some cases it has been zero. We want safeguards against the possibility that the money will be seized by people who see opportunities in it, but not necessarily opportunities to provide the best possible Gaelic service—which is what the Secretary of State for Scotland had in mind when the money was obtained from the Treasury.
      I believe that the only way to use the money effectively is to create in Scotland a mini-S4C system. In other words,
      288
      there should be a regular time at which Scottish people know that they can turn on their television sets and see a Gaelic programme. I am not talking about anything on the scale of S4C in terms of hours or output; I am talking about perhaps one hour per day, which is so much more than at present that it will certainly be enough to satisfy the demand. It would be infinitely better to have an hour a day at a time when people know that they will find a quality Gaelic programme than simply scattering programmes of dubious merit at all hours of the day or night.
      In the present circumstances, the Channel 3 companies will protest their willingness to feature Gaelic programming at peak viewing hours. That commitment is unrealistic and would not survive many months after the franchises had been awarded. That is especially true in the Scottish Television area, where there is a Gaelic audience of at most 1 or 2 per cent. of the total. It is not commercially sustainable to suggest that Gaelic television would be given that degree of prominence.
      I understand the reasons why companies say now that stations will be given to Gaelic, because there is the attraction of receiving a substantial share of the £8 million that has suddenly appeared. I am sure that the recent commitment of STV to Gaelic can be satisfied within the framework that I suggest. However, it is not realistic to expect it to continue to broadcast such material to a minority audience at peak viewing time, or anything approaching it.
      I fear that if it is left to the market place Gaelic television will once again be consigned to all hours in the early morning and the dead of night and the £8 million will not achieve its intended effect. The alternative is to take one hour a day—I suggest on either BBC2 or Channel 4 —and to concentrate the Gaelic programming within that time, perhaps at six or seven o'clock in the evening when it would seem sensible to group the programmes together. There are at present very small audiences in Scotland for either of those channels at those times.
      If, say, one news bulletin and one quality programme per night is produced from that large budget, that will be the beginning of an acceptable Gaelic television service. That approach would probably also be the most acceptable to the vast majority of people in Scotland who are not Gaelic speakers. Their interests must be taken into account as well. It is quite reasonable to think that the 90 per cent. who cannot understand the Gaelic programmes would find a constant sprinkling of them an intrusion. It is far better for them to be grouped together in the one place. That is the way to achieve maximum value for the Government's money. It is essential, too, that that £8 million should help to finance a centre of production based at Inverness—or somewhere within the Gaelic-speaking areas—to produce Gaelic programmes independently. That would help to create jobs which could go to young Gaelic speakers.
      As I know that the subject is of minority interest to many hon. Members, I will summarise. The Government have done well to provide £8 million for this minority language. It is in the interests of everybody that that money should be spent well rather than foolishly and that the maximum effect be achieved from it. Without going into more detail of this esoteric argument, I suggest that a concentration of programmes in a mini-S4C format is the sensible way to do this, rather than scattering programmes

      289
      around the schedules like confetti where they will be unable to compete or retain a place in the television market.
      Mr. Darling: The amendment and the debate show how much cross-party co-operation and consensus there has been. At the risk of ruining his career, I thank the Minister for tabling these welcome amendments, which are in line with the feeling expressed on both sides of the Committee when we discussed clause 16. They greatly strengthen the commitment to regional television that most if not all of us want. In particular, I am glad that applicants for franchises will have to say that they will make programmes of particular interest to people living in the area for which the service is provided.
      Having spent much of the Committee banging the regional drum, let me enter a caveat. While I hope that companies will pay regard to the regions they serve, engage local talents and make programmes that appeal to the different parts of the area, that does not mean that I want parochial regional television services. It is to the great credit of Granada, a regional company, that it made "The Jewel in the Crown", which had nothing to do with the north of England and very little to do with the United Kingdom as a whole, as it was set and filmed in India. Granada showed up the BBC, which had always given the impression that it was the only organisation that could make quality drama.
      I hope that the Channel 3 company will compete with the BBC, Channel 4, and Channel 5 if that comes about, in producing good high-quality television programmes that are both regionally based and outward looking. I should hate to think that anybody looking at these proceedings would feel that we were concerned that people living in Manchester knew only about Manchester, while those living in Aberdeen knew only about Aberdeen. That would be insular indeed.
      I am also glad that the Minister has added a requirement that news programmes must be of high quality. There was a risk that, without such a requirement, companies might be tempted to use agency news for their news programme. Although that would provide an adequate service, it would give no attention to events in the local area, and there would be no in-depth studies of such news.
      I thank the Minister for amendment No. 114, which adds the requirement that schedules must include religious and children's programmes. The Opposition would have liked the amendment to go much further. One of the Bill's weaknesses is that the quality threshold is not strong enough. We want to ensure that there is a wide range of programmes, including those on current affairs, holidays, art and drama. However, no matter how long a list, one runs the risk of leaving something out and it could be assumed that it should be included. There is a difficulty, because some people might think that, because religious programmes and programmes intended for children are included in the Bill, not so much importance should be attached to other programmes.
      Anyone who followed the proceedings in the Committee and who looks at the Bill as amended will realise that the quality threshold has been considerably strengthened. That is to the credit of the Committee and
      290
      the House. We have done in this Bill what we have singularly failed to do in other Bills because of the party divide. I think that it makes for a better Bill altogether.
      There remain fundamental differences, however, between the Conservative and Labour parties on how franchises should be allocated in the first place, as we said in the previous debate. There is no doubt that clause 16 could be improved, because things can always be improved, but I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister has accepted the many suggestions which have been made. The result of our deliberations is that the quality threshold is substantially higher than it was when the Bill was first introduced to this place. We still hold out hopes that further improvements will be made in another place. It would be wrong, however, not to give the Minister credit where credit is due and not to pay him tribute. That applies also to everyone else who was involved in the consideration of the Bill.
      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 amendment be made.
      Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for his most charming tribute. I share his pleasure that clause 16 has been improved as a result of our deliberations. It will set a quality threshold that it will not be easy to surmount unless one is an extremely effective applicant.
      Mr. Corbett: A strong horse.
      Mr. Mellor: Yes, indeed—not some poor old nag.
      I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) in succeeding in advancing arguments that relate to clause 169 while the House was discussing clause 16. I suppose that that will save some time later in our proceedings. I enjoyed his remarks and I shall consider them carefully when we formulate proposals for the Gaelic fund. I am grateful for his recognition that the Government have taken a major step forward.
      I can reassure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that it is our intention to exclude news and news-related programmes, whether regional or national, from the requirement. That intention will be enshrined in secondary legislation in due course. In other words, amendment No. 40 is not necessary. I confirm that we shall be dealing with the contents of it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 113, in page 14, line 8, leave out from 'included' to end of line 13 and insert—

      '(i) to a suitable range of regional programmes, that is to say, programmes (including news programmes) which are of particular interest to persons living within the area for which the service is provided, and

      (ii) if the service is to include the provision of such programmes as are mentioned in section 14(2A), to a suitable range of programmes for each of the different parts of that area or (as the case may be) for each of the different communities living within it, being in each case a range of programmes (including news programmes) which are of particular interest

      291

      to persons living within the relevant part of that area or (as the case may be) the relevant community,

      and that any news programmes so included in accordance with sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) are of high quality;

      (ca) that a suitable proportion of the regional programmes included in the service in accordance with paragraph (c) are made within the area for which it is to be provided;'.

      No. 114, in line 13, at end insert—
      `(cb) that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to religious programmes and programmes intended for children;'.
      No. 115, in line 26, after `(4)', insert
      `In deciding whether an applicant's proposed service would comply with the requirements specified in subsection (2) or (3) (as the case may be), the Commission shall take into account any representations made to them as to the nature of the service which should be provided under the licence applied for; and'.
      No. 116, in line 39, leave out from 'and' to 'House' in line 40 and insert
      'no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 17

      AWARD OF LICENCE TO PERSON SUBMITTING HIGHEST CASH BID
      Amendments made: No. 18, in page 15, line 1, leave out 'the amounts specified in the cash bids submitted by'.
      No. 19, in line 2, leave out `are the same,' and insert 'have submitted cash bids specifying an identical amount which is higher than the amount of any other cash bid submitted in respect of the licence, then (unless they propose to exercise their power under subsection (3) in relation to the licence)'.
      No. 20, in line 7, after 'may', insert
      `disregard the requirement imposed by subsection (1) and'
      . No. 21, in line 7, leave out
      `other than the one who'
      and insert 'who has not'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 354, in line 9, leave out `exceptional'.—[Mr. Corbett.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 256.

      Division No. 198]

      [10.1 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Allen, Graham

      Buchan, Norman

      Anderson, Donald

      Buckley, George J.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Caborn, Richard

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ashton, Joe

      Canavan, Dennis

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Clay, Bob

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Clelland, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Battle, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Beggs, Roy

      Corbett, Robin

      Beith, A. J.

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Crowther, Stan

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Blair, Tony

      Cummings, John

      Blunkett, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Boateng, Paul

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Boyes, Roland

      Darling, Alistair

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      292

      Dewar, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Eastham, Ken

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fisher, Mark

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Flannery, Martin

      Morley, Elliot

      Flynn, Paul

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Foster, Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Foulkes, George

      Murphy, Paul

      Fraser, John

      Nellist, Dave

      Fyfe, Maria

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Galloway, George

      O'Brien, William

      George, Bruce

      O'Neill, Martin

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gordon, Mildred

      Patchett, Terry

      Graham, Thomas

      Pendry, Tom

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Prescott, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Haynes, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Reid, Dr John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Richardson, Jo

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Robertson, George

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Home Robertson, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hood, Jimmy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hoyle, Doug

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Illsley, Eric

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Ingram, Adam

      Short, Clare

      Janner, Greville

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

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

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Kilfedder, James

      Snape, Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Soley, Clive

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Leighton, Ron

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lewis, Terry

      Strang, Gavin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Straw, Jack

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Turner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wallace, James

      McAllion, John

      Walley, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      McFall, John

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      McKelvey, William

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McLeish, Henry

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wilson, Brian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Winnick, David

      McWilliam, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Madden, Max

      Worthington, Tony

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Wray, Jimmy

      Marek, Dr John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Martlew, Eric

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

      Maxton, John

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Alexander, Richard

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      293

      Allason, Rupert

      Gill, Christopher

      Amess, David

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Amos, Alan

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Ashby, David

      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

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gregory, Conal

      Bendall, Vivian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Grist, Ian

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Ground, Patrick

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hague, William

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)

      Hannam, John

      Bowis, John

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

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Harris, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bright, Graham

      Hayes, Jerry

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Burns, Simon

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Burt, Alistair

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

      Butcher, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Butler, Chris

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carttiss, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Cash, William

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Jack, Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jackson, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Janman, Tim.

      Chope, Christopher

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Key, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Conway, Derek

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knapman, Roger

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Knowles, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Latham, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Curry, David

      Lee, John (Pendle)

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

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Day, Stephen

      Lightbown, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Lilley, Peter

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dover, Den

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Dunn, Bob

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Durant, Tony

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Maclean, David

      Evennett, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Favell, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Madel, David

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Malins, Humfrey

      Forman, Nigel

      Mans, Keith

      Forth, Eric

      Maples, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Marland, Paul

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Marlow, Tony

      Franks, Cecil

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Freeman, Roger

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      French, Douglas

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gale, Roger

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gardiner, George

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mayhew. Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      294

      Mellor, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Squire, Robin

      Mills, Iain

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Stern, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Stevens, Lewis

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mudd, David

      Sumberg, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Page, Richard

      Thorne, Neil

      Paice, James

      Thurnham, Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Tredinnick, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Portillo, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Price, Sir David

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Walden, George

      Redwood, John

      Waller, Gary

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Warren, Kenneth

      Riddick, Graham

      Watts, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Rost, Peter

      Whitney, Ray

      Rowe, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Wilshire, David

      Ryder, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Shersby, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sims, Roger

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Speller, Tony

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 22, in page 15, line 9, leave out 'do so' and insert 'award the licence to that applicant'.
      No. 654, in page 15, line 9, at end insert—
      '(3 A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the Commission may regard the following circumstances as exceptional circumstances which make it appropriate to award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid, namely where it appears to the Commission—

      (a) that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant is exceptionally high; and

      (b) that the quality of that proposed service is substantially higher than the quality of the service proposed—

      (i) by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or

      (ii) in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids;

      and where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of subsection (3), those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.'.
      No. 24, in line 10, leave out 'who submitted the highest bid,' and insert
      'to whom (apart from this subsection) they would award the licence in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.
      No. 25, in line 13, leave out 'granted' and insert 'awarded'.
      No. 26, in line 33, leave out 'person who submitted the highest bid,' and insert
      'applicant to whom (apart from any such requirement) they would have awarded it in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.
      No. 27, in line 35, at end insert
      'and any such rules may provide for the awarding of licences by reference to orders of preference notified to the Commission by applicants at the time of making their applications.'.
      No. 28, in line 40, leave out
      'the applicant who submitted the highest bid'
      and insert 'an applicant'.
      No. 29, in line 41, leave out from `if to end of line 46 and insert
      'that person had not made an application for the licence.'.
      No. 30, in line 48, at end insert
      'as soon as reasonably practicable after awarding the licence'.
      No. 31, in page 16, line 1, leave out
      "as soon as is reasonably practicable'.
      No. 32, in line 9, leave out 'and..
      No. 33, in line 11, leave out
      'other than the one who'
      and insert 'who has not'.
      No. 34, in line 13, at end insert
      ';and
      (d) such other information as the Commission consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 18

      HOLDER OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCE TO GIVE SECURITY AGAINST FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROPOSED SERVICE
      Amendments made: No. 370, in page 16, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 32.
      No. 371, in line 33, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 36 and insert
      'as if he had not made an application for the licence.'.
      No. 372, in line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) If at any time after a Channel 3 licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

      (a) that person indicates to the Commission that he does not intend to provide the service in question, or

      (b) the Commission for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide that service once the licence has come into force,

      then, subject to the subsection (4A)—

      (i) the Commission shall revoke the licence,

      (ii) the whole, or (if the Commission so determine) a specified part, of any security given by that person under this section shall be forfeited to the Commission, and

      (iii) section 17 shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.

      (4A) Subsection (4) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Commission have served on him a notice stating their grounds for believing that he will not provide the service in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.
      (4B) Where the Commission propose to revoke under subsection (4) a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service, they may invite the holder of any other such licence to provide his licensed service additionally for the area for which the first mentioned service is to be provided; and, where the holder of any such licence agrees to provide his licensed
      296
      service for that area, the Commission shall authorise him to do so, during such period as they may determine, by means of a variation of his licence to that effect.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 19
      ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
      Amendment made: No. 373, in page 18, line 45, leave out from beginning to 'estimating' in line 1 on page 19. —[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 20

      DURATION AND RENEWAL OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 374, in page 19, line 21, after `only', insert `(subject to subsection (5A))'.
      No. 375, in line 35, at end insert—
      `(5A) Section 17(4) to (6) shall apply in relation to an applicant for the renewal of a Channel 3 licence as those provisions apply in relation to such an applicant as is mentioned in section 17(4), but as if any reference to the awarding of such a licence to the applicant were a reference to the renewal of the applicant's licence under this section.'.
      No. 376, in page 20, line 24, leave out 'and' and insert—
      `(aa) section 18(4) to (4B) shall apply in relation to any time after the renewal of the licence but before the beginning of the period for which it has been renewed as those provisions apply in relation to an)' time after a Channel 3 licence has been granted but before it has come into force (except that section 18(4) shall so apply with the omission of paragraph (ii)); and'.

    Clause 21
      THE CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CORPORATION
      Amendment made: No. 254, in page 21, line 4, leave out `from time to time' and insert 'for the time being'.—[Air. Mellor.]
    Schedule 3

      THE CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 255, in page 149, line 34, at end insert—
      `(4) This paragraph does not apply in relation to ex-officio members of the Corporation.'.
      No. 256, in line 36, leave out `to each member' and insert—
      '(a) to each member other than an ex-officio member'.
      No. 257, in line 37, after 'allowances', insert',
      and
      (b) to each ex-officio member such allowances,'.
      No. 258, in line 45, at end insert—
      '(3A) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply in relation to ex-officio members of the Corporation.'.
      No. 259, in line 47, after 'determination', insert 'under sub-paragraph (1)'.
      No. 260, in page 150, leave out lines 37 to 50.
      No. 261, in page 151, line 14, after 'Corporation', insert
      'other than an ex-officio member'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 24

      REVENUE DEFICITS OF CORPORATION TO BE FUNDED BY CHANNEL 3 LICENSEES
      Amendments made: No. 492, in page 22, line 32, leave out 'determine' and insert 'estimate'.
      No. 493, in line 33, at end insert—
      `and the Commission may, on one or more occasions, revise any estimate made by them under this subsection.'.
      No. 494, in line 36, leave out from first 'the' to 'and' in line 37 and insert—
      'total television revenues for that year;'.
      No. 495, in page 23, line 1, leave out from 'If' to `by' in line 4 and insert—
      ', in the case of any year, the aggregate of the following amounts, namely—

      (a) the amount of the Corporation's qualifying revenue for that year as estimated by the Commission under subsection (1), and

      (b) any amount which, at the beginning of that year, is for the time being standing to the credit of any such reserve fund as is mentioned in section 25(3),

      is less than the amount of the Corporation's prescribed minimum income for that year as estimated by the Commission under subsection (1), the Commission may (subject to subsection (4)) determine that the amount of the difference shall be raised'.
      No. 496, in line 15, leave out 'Corporation' and insert `Commission'.
      No. 497, in line 18, leave out from 'Commission' to `to' in line 19.
      No. 498, in line 21, leave out 'the revised estimate' and insert—
      `any revised estimate made by them under subsection (1)'.
      No. 499, in line 23, at end insert—
      `(5A) Any amount received by the Commission by virtue of subsection (5)(a) shall be transmitted by them to the Corporation.
      (5B) Where, in respect of any year—

      (a) the Commission have imposed a levy under subsection (3), and

      (b) the aggregate amount transmitted by them to the Corporation under subsection (5A) exceeds the relevant amount,

      the Commission shall notify the Corporation of that fact; and the Corporation shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving such a notification, repay to the Commission the amount of that excess.
      (5C) In subsection (5B) "the relevant amount" means the amount by which the aggregate of the following amounts, namely—

      (a) the Corporation's qualifying revenue for the year in question, and

      (b) any such amount as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b),

      is less than the Corporation's prescribed minimum income for that year.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 25

      APPLICATION OF EXCESS REVENUES OF CORPORATION
      Amendment made: No. 500, in page 24, line 12, at end insert
      '; and no direction may be given by the Secretary of State under that subsection with respect to the application of any amount for the time being standing to the credit of that fund which has been taken into account by the Commission for the purposes of section 24(3)(b) or (5C)(b).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 26

      CHANNEL 5
      Amendment made: No. 382, in page 24, line 34, at end insert—
      '(2A) If the Commission so determine, Channel 5 shall be provided under a particular licence only between such times of the day or on such days of the week (or both) as they may determine.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 27

      APPLICATION TO CHANNEL 5 OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHANNEL 3
      Amendments made: No. 377, in page 24, line 47, leave out 'and'.
      No. 378, in line 48, leave out 'paragraph (c)' and insert 'paragraphs (c) and (ca)'.
      No. 379, in line 48, at end insert
      '; and (c) section 18 shall have effect with the omission of subsection (4B).'.[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 28

      CHANNEL 5 LICENSEE REQUIRED TO RETUNE EQUIPMENT SUSCEPTIBLE TO INTERFERENCE
      Amendments made: No. 383, in page 25, line 1, after `licence', insert
      'which is in force at the commencement of the provision of Channel 5'.
      No. 384, in line 5, after 'kept' insert
      '(being a request made before such date as is specified in the conditions)'.
      No. 385, in line 7, leave out It' and insert 'the equipment'.
      No. 386, in line 12, leave out 'the Commission may determine' and insert
      'is specified in the conditions'.
      No. 387, in line 15, at end insert—
      '(1A) Any such Channel 5 licence shall also include conditions requiring the holder of the licence to publicise, in such manner as may be approved by the Commission,. reformation with respect to—

      (a) the likelihood of different kinds of equipment suffering interference caused by the transmission of Channel 5;

      (b) the arrangements which the holder of the licence is required to make by virtue of conditions imposed in pursuance of subsection (1); and

      (c) the kinds of equipment in relation to which those arrangements are to be so made.'.

      No. 388, in line 15, at end insert—
      `(1B) The holder of a Channel 5 licence shall not be required, by virtue of conditions imposed in pursuance of subsection (1), to make any such arrangements as are mentioned in that subsection in relation to any relevant equipment unless the equipment—

      (a) is, on the date of the making of such a request as is referred to in paragraph (a)(i) of that subsection, kept by the person in question wholly or mainly for domestic purposes, and

      (b) was so kept by that person on the commencement date (if that date occurred before the date mentioned in paragraph (a) above);

      and, where any such equipment has been returned or otherwise modified in accordance with any such conditions, he holder of such a licence shall not be required by virtue of my such conditions to make arrangements on any subsequent occasion for the retuning or other modification of that equipment.

      299
      (1C) Any dispute as to when the commencement date occurred in the case of any relevant equipment shall be determined by the Commission.'.
      No. 389, in line 15, at end insert
      `(1D) Where—

      (a) in accordance with section 26(2A), more than one Channel 5 licence is in force at the same time, and

      (b) each of the licences includes such conditions as are mentioned in subsections (1) and (1A),

      the holders of the licences shall each comply with those conditions to such extent as the Commission may determine in relation to him.'.
      No. 390, in page 25, line 16, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert
      'this section "the commencement date", in relation to any relevant equipment, means the date when Channel 5 began to be provided for reception in an area which includes the place where the equipment is kept on the date of the making of such a request as is referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i); and'.

    Clause 29

      PROVISION OF NEWS ON CHANNELS 3 AND 5
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 391, in page 35, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) In subsection (2) "nominated news provider" means a body corporate for the time being nominated for the purposes of that subsection under section 30.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we can take Government amendments Nos. 392 to 400, amendment No. 488 and Government amendments Nos. 401 to 404.
      Mr. Mellor: The amendments make changes to clauses 29 and 30. First, the ITC must now invite applications for nominations as a news provider and must consult all the regional Channel 3 licensees an any nomination or termination of the nomination of a news provider. That should give some openness and an element of participation in the nomination process.
      Secondly, the review procedure on nominated news providers is now to be revoked if an applicant has been refused nomination. Otherwise, it would be a pointless exercise, as no action could result from the review. However, the reviews can take place at any intervals that the ITC decides rather than on two or more occasions. Therefore, the procedure is more practicable and flexible.
      Thirdly, there is provision for nomination to be terminated by the ITC if performance is unsatisfactory. All those who would be disqualified from holding an ITC licence by the ownership restrictions imposed by part II of schedule 2 are similarly disqualified from being nominated as a news provider. All the other amendments are minor or consequential.
      Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments, which, so far as they go, are of some value.
      Amendment No. 488 stands in my name and in the names of the hon. Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I must make it plain that the arrangements for Independent Television News are not adequate. What is proposed will have far-reaching consequences for the provision of national news.
      The Government have a choice—allowing competition and market forces to triumph or continuing the present protected non-profit-making enterprise of ITN. The Government are allowing ITN into the marketplace but ensuring that it is protected from competition, thereby
      300
      effectively creating a private monopoly that can use the resources and the prestige of television to seek profits in other markets, such as radio news, as is already happening, or in other aspects of television or information work.
      The Government's proposals have met with the opposition of almost all the companies that provide regional coverage. The case for the change has not been well made. Amendment No. 488 proposes to delete subsection (7)(b) of clause 30, which would prevent Channel 3 licensees from owning more than 49 per cent. of the shareholding of ITN.
      Some within ITN may feel that their management style has been cramped, but they owe their present position to investment by television companies. There is no guarantee that new owners, interested above all in profit rather than the end product, will be keen to invest more in programmes. It also remains wrong in principle that companies required to show a programme are debarred from holding an owning stake.
      Quality will suffer, because the new ITN will not necessarily be primarily interested in its television output. The emphasis could increasingly be on mass audiences and on cheaper production. There is further concern that a commercial management would be less understanding of the principles and requirements of broadcasting and more open to outside commercial or political pressure. It is more likely than professional broadcasters to have its own commercial or political views which it would wish, however obliquely, to be reflected in the editorial line.
      I foresee that the Minister may argue that there is a statutory quality requirement, and that there would be a threat hanging over the main nominated news provider of other companies being nominated if quality slips, but the IBA—the ITC-elect—has made it clear that it expects only one news provider to be nominated, and it is obvious that it will be ITN. While it certainly has a power and does not rule out using it to nominate other companies, it is clear that it believes that the revenues do not exist to fund more than one news provider. In other words, the market will not work.
      That is the most compelling reason for not putting Independent Television News into the marketplace. However, if the Government have confidence in the market and genuinely believe that there is a role for the market, they should have the courage of their convictions and let the marketplace operate.
      Several companies, including Visnews, believe that they are effectively equipped and financed to offer a higher quality service for less money. If it was a requirement that there should be at least one nominated rival to ITN. that would be a provision for a proper market. It would ensure some competition and the efficiency that the Government have been advocating throughout our debates. It would also give the television companies power to ensure that news programmes are perhaps less London-centred and reflect national and international news from a national and not a regional standpoint.
      The provision for Independent Television News seems to satisfy no one. It does not satisfy the companies and it is not wholly satisfactory to those in ITN, who, I believe, want to continue broadly as they are at present. The provision certainly does not satisfy others who believe themselves to be capable of providing an alternative to ITN. Because the provision reduces the stake of Channel 3 companies in the provision of news, the news customers will not necessarily be in the minds of the news providers.

      301
      I do not know of any other country where arrangements like those in the Government's proposal operate. The Government's proposal is an unacceptable compromise which the House would do well to reject. I therefore commend amendment No. 488.
      Mr. Steen: I will not delay the House with amendment No. 488. However, I want to tease from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, even at this late hour, the reason why he is so keen to give third parties the majority stake in ITN. Why cannot that be a minority stake?
      The ITN network is probably the envy of the civilised world. It is one of the most successful news programmes of its kind. Why does my hon. and learned Friend believe that it should be changed? Why does he believe that it will be better for that change—because that is the only reason why it should be changed?
      My amendment is intended to persuade the Government that they should look again at the formula and realise that there has never been a shortage of money in the ITN network. The television companies have always put in what was needed. Even at this late stage, will my hon. and learned Friend the Minister realise that it is a pity to change something that is successful on the basis that it might be better? Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will explain why he has brought forward this proposal in this way.
      Mr. Corbett: I suspect that the Minister will tell us in some perverse manner that his proposal is yet another shining example of the righteousness and beauty of market forces. However, before the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) gets too excited, I hope to demonstrate that the Government have misread the situation.
      In Committee, I referred to the Romanian question. Within almost minutes of President Ceausescu calling a rally in the main square of Bucharest to decree that glasnost and perestroika were not needed in Romania because they had arrived already, unnoticed by the population, the revolution exploded. A decision had to be taken immediately by those responsible for the management of ITN, not about whether to cover events in Romania but about how to cover them. They had to ask themselves whether the events were important enough to send at least one crew out there as fast as possible, or whether to rely on someone else doing so and try to buy the coverage from CNN, NBC or another channel.
      The House will remember that those events took place just before Christmas. There was no time for board meetings and so on. A decision was taken that, although the budget did not provide for it, ITN had to cover the story. That makes my point and shows why the Government are so profoundly wrong on the matter. Those responsible for taking spending decisions are those who put the money into the kitty. Moreover, when they knowingly exceed a budget, as they presumably had to, even if only a monthly or quarterly budget, for the instant coverage of Romania, they know that it is likely that they will have to go to the companies that chip into the pot of ITN and say, "We did this and we need some extra money from you."
      302
      10.30 pm
      I can think of no better example of accountability. The direct users of the ITV licence, the holders, are those who pay for it. Under the Government's proposals, a new factor will be introduced. If more than 51 per cent. of the company is owned by people who are not Channel 3 licence holders, those people will expect a profit. One of two things will happen: either the cost, and therefore the price, of providing the ITN news service will increase to provide that profit, or some or all of the profit will come out of what is now spent on gathering news. That must be so. It may be a combination of both. Extra money will be required which is not needed now because ITN is a non-profit-making company, as the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said. I hope that no one reads into that that ITN is careless about money. It is not.
      The new ingredient and the prime effect of what the Government propose is that the profit has to be found from somewhere.
      Mr. Gale: Taking up the hon. Gentleman's Romanian example, I hope that ITN will send a crew out to that country immediately to demonstrate to the free world how unfair and unfree the present electoral processes are. I also hope that it will scrutinise the results and the six days between the closing of the poll and the opening of the ballot boxes. I hope that it will make a further success of that by selling the coverage around the free world.
      Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that for a moment I wondered which country he was referring to. No one setting budgets for international news coverage could possibly have imagined what was about to explode in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, to which there had to be a response simply to satisfy the viewers, let alone from the point of view of selling the coverage. I have no doubt that ITN will take the points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned seriously.
      ITN will face extra competition for the viewers to whom it appeals—it is used to competition from the BBC already—from the thematic dedicated satellite channels, whether programmes on those channels are better or worse. Either the cost of the service that ITN delivers will go up or there will be pressure on it to spend less on news collection. I cannot for the life of me understand how that is supposed to add to the performance of ITN.
      Earlier, the Minister told us how rotten we were to expect Sky Television to divest itself almost instantly, as people would know that it was an unwilling seller. That argument may apply to ITN. If the clause remains as it is, what arrangements will be made and over what period to ensure that ITN is not ripped off for a valuable property?
      Mr. Mellor: The arrangements for ITN do not spring fully armed from the brow of some poor benighted Minister, either myself or my predecessor. They reflect sustained discussions, including sustained lobbying from leading figures within ITN. It would be wrong to see the arrangements as something that has been imposed on ITN or the wider industry by the Government.
      It is true that a number of people, not least the company, have an advocate in my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and that they do not like what is happening. I must advocate a fair position for the wider community rather than for the company.
      We have two objectives in the provision of news on Channel 3. First, we want to ensure that Channel 3 offers

      303
      a high-quality national and international news service able to compete effectively with the BBC. Consistent with that objective there should, wherever possible, be competition in the supply of news to Channel 3. We believe, as do a number of people outside Government, that, if Channel 3 licensees are allowed to own all of a nominated news provider, a conflict of interest will arise between a news organisation that may be seeking to expand its interests and those licensees who are solely concerned about their news service. It would therefore be to the benefit of ITN if it was liberated to some degree—leading figures within ITN share that belief. As a result of the proposed measures, a controlling interest will almost certainly still be held by the companies holding the Channel 3 franchise, as we know that 49 per cent. is an effective controlling interest in almost every company.
      The ITC will be masterminding divestment pursuant to clause 36. It will be able to do so over a specified period to avoid the problems that would otherwise arise. It will be for the ITC to determine how long a period of grace to allow, and I know that it is bending its mind to that now.
      I do not consider that the proposals pose any threat to ITN—rather, they provide ITN with the opportunity to develop. If it is consistent with the maintenance of high-quality news, national and international, that there should be a competing provider, it is right to include that caveat. We know that such high-quality news is an expensive commodity, but if it is consistent with that to have a competing provider, it is important to have a proviso that such competition does not place in jeopardy the provision of that news. Other providers may want to enter the market, and it would be wrong not to allow them to do so.
      Within a sensible framework that reflects the realities of the situation, I hope that we have introduced some much-needed competition.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 30

      NOMINATION OF BODIES TO PROVIDE NEWS FOR CHANNEL 3
      Amendments made: No. 392, in page 25, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      `(1) With a view to securing that, at the commencement of section 29(2), there is at least one body corporate nominated under this section as a nominated news provider, the Commission shall, before the commencement of that provision, invite bodies corporate appearing to them to be qualified for nomination to make applications to be so nominated.
      (1A) Where a body corporate—

      (a) applies to the Commission (whether before or after the commencement of section 29(2)) to be nominated under this section as a nominated news provider, and

      (b) appears to the Commission to be qualified for nomination,

      the Commission shall so nominate that body unless they are satisfied that to do so would be likely, in view of the number of bodies already so nominated, to be prejudicial to the provision of high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services (taken as a whole).'.
      No. 393, in page 26, line 8, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.
      No. 394, in page 26, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      304
      '(3) Where the Commission have refused to nominate a body corporate under this section on the ground that they are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1A), the Commisslion shall from time to time thereafter, at such intervals as they may determine, review the performance as nominated news providers of all of the bodies for the time being nominated under this section; and if on any such review they are satisfied, in the case of such body so nominated as they may determine, that another body corporate which—

      (a) is not a nominated news provider, but

      (b) appears to them to be qualified for nomination,

      would offer a better service than the first-mentioned body as respects the provision of high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services, they shall (subject to subsection (5)) by notice terminate that body's nomination, and shall nominate the other body under this section in its place.'.
      No. 395, in page 26, line 28, leave out from 'If' to end of line 29 and insert
      'at any time the Commission—'.
      No. 396, in page 26, line 33, leave out from 'that' to end of line 39 and insert
      `to terminate that body's nomination would not be prejudicial to the provision of high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services (taken as a whole),'.
      No. 397, in page 26, line 41, leave out from `nomination' to end of line 42.
      No. 398, in page 26, line 45, leave out 'matters complained of' and insert
      `proposed termination of its nomination'.
      No. 399, in page 26, line 46, at end insert—
      '(5A) Before nominating or terminating the nomination of, any body under this section the Commission shall consult every person who is the holder of a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service.'.
      No. 400, in page 27, line 1, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.
      No. 401, in page 27, line 17, leave out 'Channel 3 licences' and insert
      'licences to provide regional Channel 3 services'.
      No. 402, in page 27, line 21, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
      '(8) Any limit imposed in accordance with subsection (7)(a) shall have effect in relation to a particular participant as if he and every person connected with him were one person; and for this purpose the following persons shall be treated as connected with a particular participant, namely—

      (a) a person who controls the participant;

      (b) an associate of the participant or of a person falling within paragraph (a); and

      (c) a body which is controlled by the participant or by any associate of the participant.'.

      No. 403, in page 27, line 28, at end insert—
      '(9A) A body corporate shall be disqualified for being nominated under this section if, by virtue of any provision in Part II of Schedule 2, it would be a disqualified person in relation to any description of licence granted by the Commission; and any reference in this section to a body corporate appearing to the Commission to be qualified for nomination is a reference to a body corporate appearing to them to be both—

      (a) effectively equipped and adequately financed to provide high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services; and

      (b) not disqualified for being nominated under this section by virtue of this subsection.'.

      No. 404, in page 27, line 29, after '(10)% insert 'In this section—

      (a) references to a nominated news provider are references to a body corporate for the time being nominated under this section; and

      (b) references to nomination under this section are references to nomination under this section for the purposes of section 29(2);

      and'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 31

      SCHOOLS PROGRAMMES
      Amendment made: No. 655, in page 28, line 3, at end insert—
      `(dd) conditions requiring the licence holder to provide such material for use in connection with the schools programmes broadcast by him as may be necessary to secure that effective use is made of those programmes in schools;'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 32

      SUBTITLING FOR THE DEAF
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 656, in page 28, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) A Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence shall include—

      (a)conditions—

      (i) specifying the relevant minimum number of hours in a week for the purposes of this section, and

      (ii) requiring programmes with subtitling to be broadcast in the licensed service during not less than that number of hours in each week; and

      (b) conditions requiring the holder of the licence to attain such technical standards relating to the provision of subtitling as are specified in the conditions.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 657 to 669.
      Mr. Mellor: I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in his place as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) because they have both taken an active interest in this matter. It was a particular pleasure for me to be able to discuss certain changes in subtitling arrangements for the deaf with the right hon. Gentleman and I was most grateful to him for his kind words of commendation for what I announced in Committee.
      The effect of the amendments will be substantially to redraft clause 32 and to require Channel 3 licensees to subtitle at least 50 per cent. of their programmes within the first five years of the new franchises. Similar requirements have been laid on Channel 5. I should make it clear that neither channel will be able to make a charge specifically for such subtitling. The cost will have to be absorbed. I believe that that is the very least that we should expect the companies to do. It is a substantial increase on what we said that we wanted them to do at the outset. I hope very much that they will not only achieve that, but will do better. There is nothing to stop them doing so. I see the figure not as a ceiling but as a floor, and I hope that they will create a ceiling above the floor. It is a challenge that we all want them to live up to, and more than meet. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Jack Ashley: I warmly welcome the amendments because I know that they are of great value to deaf people. The amendments will be warmly welcomed by the Deaf Broadcasting Association after its vigorous campaign for them. I pay tribute to Austin Reeves and Jane Oberman who have worked so hard on the issue of subtitling.
      306
      Amendment No. 661 is the crucial one. It ensures that, by 1998, 50 per cent. of all programmes on Channels 3 and 5 will be subtitled. The House should recognise that the amendment is largely due to the Minister of State, who has shown great understanding of the problems of deaf people. It is not the first time that he has done so. When he was a Minister at the Department of Health and I sought to press him about modern implants for deaf people, I found that I did not need to do so because he found millions of pounds for that precise cause to help deaf people. By supporting the amendments he is helping to ensure that deaf people are no longer excluded from the entertainment, education and information provided by television. I am grateful to him for the work that he has done. I wish to place that clearly on the record. He has a fine record. Television has a crucial role to play in society, and from now on deaf people will be able to join in the discussions about what was on the box last night, which they could not do in the past.
      I have one reservation about the wording of the amendments, and I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with it later. The part of amendment No. 661 that refers to the year 1999 and thereafter refers only to the greatest number of hours in a week which seems to the ITC to be "reasonably practicable". Those magic words are always brought in by civil servants, whom I am not attacking for one moment, and they can be a means of evading the issue if we are not careful. They may leave a loophole so that in subsequent years the percentage could fall below 50 per cent. if that was later seen to be "reasonably practicable". That is unlikely because there would be a big row if any company tried it. Nevertheless, I hope that the wording will be changed so that deaf people can look forward to the increase in subtitling without a fear of backsliding by any company.
      I hope that there will be a steady increase in the percentage of programmes covered by subtitling year by year so that 50 per cent. is achieved in 1998 and there is a steady continuation thereafter. The goal is 100 per cent. subtitling. Deaf people have a right to understanding and comprehension of television, and I am glad that we are moving in that direction.
      10.45 pm
      I also welcome amendment No. 656; subsection (1)(b) will ensure that subtitling is of the highest standard. Amendment No. 668 will ensure that no charge is made for subtitling. Both provisions will be greatly appreciated by deaf people, who tend to be among the poorest sections of society.
      When the Bill reaches the other place, those who rely upon signing should not be forgotten. The Minister should consult the Deaf Broadcasting Association so that those who rely upon signing for communication may be included in this forward-looking provision for deaf people.
      I express again my appreciation of the efforts made by the Minister, by the Deaf Broadcasting Association and by others outside the House who have campaigned so assiduously. The provisions mean something to deaf people. Subtitling, however imperfect, is of enormous value. I watch television when it is subtitled because I can comprehend it. Being totally deaf, I cannot understand programmes which are not subtitled, no matter how hard I try to lip-read. Subtitling is crucial—the box is meaningless without it. With subtitling, it is proper television for deaf people. I welcome the amendments.
      Mr. Corbett: We all owe a particular debt to my right hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for making us more properly aware of the problems of those who have to live in the silent world of the deaf. We are grateful, too, for the representations of the Deaf Broadcasting Association and of deaf constituents. We are particularly grateful for the way in which the Minister responded in Committee by laying much higher targets on Channel 3 licence holders than were originally envisaged. I make no complaint about where we started from—it is where we end up that matters.
      Perhaps "end up" is the wrong phrase. I take the Minister's point that 50 per cent. is to be regarded in no sense as a ceiling but as an encouragement. When Channel 3 licensees know that the duty lies ahead of them, once the investment is made in people and equipment I guess that there will be rapid progress to more than 50 per cent. subtitling. I hope that there will be an expansion of signing, too, which is also important to many deaf people.
      The BBC should study the provisions carefully and should not fall behind. I am happy to acknowledge that the BBC is already committed to subtitling the "Nine O'Clock News" by, I think, the autumn. That will be a major step.
      All those responsible for broadcasting are now more alert to the needs of deaf viewers, and there is a need for those of us who are blessed with good hearing to do all that we can to ensure that deaf people are brought more and more into our world, so that they can play their roles as properly informed and active citizens. I congratulate the Minister again on his response.
      Mr. Roger Sims: I warmly endorse the tributes paid by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) to the various organisations which have so effectively and vigorously promoted the campaign for more subtitling. There was only one omission from the right hon. Gentleman's list because, of course, the right hon. Gentleman himself has campaigned effectively for a long time for the cause of the deaf. He has the admiration of all hon. Members. We all appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman does, but we cannot appreciate the disability from which he suffers. Some years ago I was unfortunate enough to catch some sort of infection which for several weeks caused me to be completely deaf. That brought home to me the sort of world in which the profoundly deaf live and made me realise how they are cut off from so much communication.
      The value of subtitling cannot be overrated. It is extremely useful, even in its present form, and the commitments made by the amendments are warmly welcomed. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for tabling them and I congratulate the Government on their response to an effective campaign.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on his splendid amendment. We are all grateful to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who has been instrumental in bringing it about. I remind the House that the amendment benefits millions of people—not just those who have a hearing problem, but those who have a language difficulty. The English language is complex and
      308
      subtitling will help millions of people in the United Kingdom for whom English is not the first language. That is important.
      The amendment will also help people who have a below average learning ability or who have difficulties with reading and listening. Spoken English is highly complex but subtitling uses simple, short words and concise sentences to get the meaning across. We are pressing for more than 50 per cent. subtitling but that is not a large, extravagant or greedy aim because Covent Garden already has 100 per cent. subtitling.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The amendments put forward by myself and others in the Committee were tame compared with those that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has tabled. Our amendments were described as draconian and unattainable by the television companies. However, my hon. and learned Friend went beyond what I and others had asked for and there was an audible gasp by deaf people and people in television when they heard his announcement. That was because deaf people recognised that the Government amendment was a major achievement brought about by their campaign.
      Many people have been prepared to ignore this problem. One deaf boy who wrote to the Deaf Broadcasting Association said that he tried all the time to lip-read what was being said on television but that sometimes people turned away. Far from turning away, my hon. and learned Friend has opened a door for that young boy and many others and we are grateful to him for that.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: A word of appreciation to the Minister is in order, and I readily thank him for the help that he has given the hearing-impaired. I also pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for all his humane concern for them.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have contributed to the achievement of these amendments—not least all those who served on the Standing Committee. The Government's proposals go much further than seemed possible on Second Reading, which is very welcome, although the beneficiaries will have to wait some years for what they have sought for so long. The proposals vindicate a sustained campaign to make the Bill more acceptable to deaf people—a campaign that I am delighted to have been able to help.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington kindly referred to my interest in the matter, and the role that I played in working for tonight's outcome of the campaign. He also referred to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), the chairman and the secretary of the all-party disablement group, which has played an important part in promoting the right of hearing-impaired people to lead fuller and more fulfilling lives.
      Television is important in almost everyone's life nowadays, and exclusion from its benefits is a gratuitous further handicap for deaf people to have to bear. Sadly, all too few of those who are not hearing-impaired fail to realise that one of the most devastating additional handicap—over and above the sensory loss—is the extent of public ignorance about the social penalties imposed by deafness.

      309
      The amendments will, in time, reduce one of those penalties by allowing the hearing-impaired some of the benefits that everyone else takes for granted. I know that the BBC, which has already shown its concern for deaf people in many positive ways, will also do all that it can further to improve its contribution to making the deaf a part of, rather than apart from, a society in which they have an undoubted right to full citizenship.
      All of us here have hearing-impaired people in our constituencies, and all of us know that they are entitled to the social equality that at present they are denied. The Bill, as amended, does not represent a millennium for deaf people, but it is a step forward for them, and one which I hope will soon lead to others on which they and their organisations have been, and will rightly go on insisting.
      Mr. Mellor: I am deeply touched by the kind words that have been said about my role. I cannot think of a better cause to have advanced, and I am sure that all the effort that we have expended has been worthwhile.
      The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised the question of the wording of the obligation after 1999. The aim is to ensure that that obligation continues, and I am more than happy to undertake to look at the wording again to make sure that it is as tightly cast as possible.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 657, in page 28, line 15, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 16 and insert
      `Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B), the relevant minimum number of hours in a week for the purposes of this section'.
      No. 658, in page 28, line 31, leave out 'this section' and insert
      `the provision of Channel 5'.
      No. 659, in page 28, line 33, leave out
      in relation to Channel 5,'.
      No. 660, in page 28, line 34, leave out 'in that service' and insert 'on Channel 5'.
      No. 661, in page 28, line 40, at end insert—
      `(2A) The Commission shall make such determinations under subsection (2) as are appropriate to secure that, subject to subsection (2B), the relevant minimum number of hours in a week for the purposes of this section represents—

      (a) in the case of Channel 3 services—

      (i) for the year 1998, fifty per cent. of the average number of hours in a week during which programmes were, during the year 1997, broadcast on Channel 3; and

      (ii) for the year 1999 and each successive year, the greatest number of hours in a week that appears to the Commission to be reasonably practicable; and

      (b) in the case of Channel 5—

      (i) for the year which includes the fifth anniversary of the date of the commencement of the provision of Channel 5, fifty per cent. of the average number of hours in a week during which programmes were, during the year preceding that year, broadcast on Channel 5; and

      310

      (ii) for the year following that year and each successive year, the greatest number of hours in a week that appears to the Commission to be reasonably practicable.

      (2B) In the case of—

      (a) a Channel 3 service provided as mentioned in section 14(3) or (4), or

      (b) a Channel 5 service provided as mentioned in section 26(2A),

      the relevant minimum number of hours in a week for the purposes of this section shall for any year be such number of hours in a week as the Commission shall determine, being such proportion of the number of hours in a week determined by the Commission for that year under subsection (2)(a) or (b) (as the case may be) as appears to them to be appropriate.'.
      No. 662, in page 28, line 41, leave out 'a' and insert any'.
      No. 663, in page 28, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert
      `this section (other than one under subsection (2)(a)(i) or (b)(i))—'.
      No. 664, in page 28, line 44, leave out
      'the licence to provide that service of their'
      and insert
      `every licence to which the determination relates of the'.
      No. 665, in page 28, line 46, leave out first 'the' and insert 'every such'.
      No. 666, in page 28, line 48, leave out '(1) and insert '(1)(a)(i)'.
      No. 667, in page 28, line 49, at end insert—
      '(3A) Where any week falls

      (a) partly within one year to which subsection (2)(a) or (b) applies, and

      (b) partly within another such year

      that week shall be treated for the purposes of this section as Falling wholly within the earlier of those years.'.
      No. 668, in page 28, line 49, at end insert—
      '(3B) The holder of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence shall not impose charges for providing subtitling in respect of any programme broadcast in his licensed service.'.
      No. 669, in page 29, line I, leave out subsection (4) and nsert—
      '(4) In this section—

      "on Channel 3" means in Channel 3 services taken as a whole;

      "on Channel 5" means in the television service referred to in section 26(1), taken as a whole;

      "subtitling" means subtitling for the deaf, whether provided by means of a teletext service or otherwise.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 33

      PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS
      Amendments made: No. 670, in page 29, line 5, leave out may' and insert 'shall'.
      No. 671, in page 29, line 17, at end insert—
      '(3) Any rules made by the Commission for the purposes of this section may make different provision for different cases circumstances.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 34
      ANNOUNCEMENTS OF PROGRAMME SCHEDULES
      Amendment made: No. 672, in page 29, line 21, leave out 'shall' and insert `may'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 35

      POWER TO DIRECT LICENSEE TO PUBLISH APOLOGY OR NOT TO REPEAT PROGRAMME
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 405, in page 29, line 33, leave out 'broadcasting of an apology' and insert
      'inclusion in the licensed service of a correction or apology (or both)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 406, 407 and 472 to 474.
      11 pm
      Mr. Mellor: These amendments make some changes in the penalties for licensees who fail to abide by licence conditions. In addition to, or in place of, requiring an apology, the ITC may require the licensee to issue a correction where misinformation has been given in a programme. The amendments also deal with the situation in which correction rather than an apology is needed, and empower the authority to determine the sort of apology that would be appropriate.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 406, in page 29, line 35, leave out 'an apology' and insert—
      'a correction or apology (or both)'.
      No. 407, in page 29, line 40, leave out 'an' and insert 'a correction or'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 408, in page 30, line 8, leave out from '4' to end of line 9.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 409 to 414.
      Mr. Mellor: Here we have added a ground for the ITC to revoke licences. In addition to revocation for giving false information in an application, the licence may also be revoked if an applicant withholds information with intent to mislead the ITC. Some consequential changes are also made.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 36

      POWER TO IMPOSE FINANCIAL PENALTY OR SHORTEN LICENCE PERIOD
      Amendments made: No. 409, in page 30, line 15, after 'pay', insert within a specified period,'.
      No. 410, in page 31, line 4, leave out from beginning to `and' in line 5.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 37

      POWER TO REVOKE CHANNEL 3 OR 5 LICENCE
      Amendments made: No. 411, in page 31, line 36, leave out from 'particular,' to end of line 38 and insert
      ', or
      (b) that, in connection with his application for the licence, the holder of such a licence withheld any material information with the intention of causing them to be misled,'.
      No. 380, in page 32, line 3, leave out 'Channel 3' and insert `such'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 38

      DOMESTIC AND NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICES
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 501, in page 32, line 23, after '(a)', insert `(subject to subsection (2A))'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 502.
      Mr. Mellor: These amendments change the definition of a non-domestic satellite service so that in the case of services uplinked from the United Kingdom it applies only when the programmes included in it are provided by a person who is neither in the United Kingdom nor in a prescribed country. This is because under the Council of Europe convention any service provided by a person in a prescribed country will have to be regulated under the law of that country.
      Mr. Darling: I do not think that we have any quarrel with the amendment, but I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me what a prescribed country is, or which they are. I think that I understand the basis of the amendment, but I should like to be sure of it.
      Mr. Mellor: The prescribed countries are those which have signed the convention, so there is a reciprocal pattern of enforcement.
      Mr. Darling: On that basis, I do not quarrel with the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 502, in page 32, line 38, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply to a service if and to the extent that the programmes included in it—

      (a) consist of material provided for inclusion in it (complete and unchanged) by a person in a prescribed country; and

      (b) are intended for general reception in a prescribed country (and are not intended for such reception in the United Kingdom).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 39

      LICENSING ETC. OF DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 381, in page 33, line 21, at end insert—
      `(bb) section 18 shall have effect with the omission of subsection (4B);'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 41

      LICENSABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES
      Amendments made: No 731, in page 34, line 19, leave out 'simultaneous'.
      No 503, in page 34, line 25, after 'group', insert 'or groups'.
      No 732, in page 34, line 29, at end insert
      'and whether the programmes are to be so conveyed as mentioned in paragraph (a) for simultaneous reception or for reception at different times in response to requests made by different users of the service.'.
      No 504, in page 35, line 1, after 'who', insert
      `does either or both of the following things, that is to say—(a)'.
      No 505, in page 35, line 2, at end insert
      `, or (b) runs a telecommunication system which is so used,'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 42

      LICENSING ETC. OF LICENSABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES
      Amendments made: No 506, in page 35, line 30, leave out '6(1) ' and insert
      '6'.
      No 507, in page 35, line 31, leave out from `effect' to end of line 32 and insert
      'subject to the modifications specified in subsection (4A).
      (4A) The modifications of section 6 are as follows—
      (a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c) of subsection (1)—'.
      No. 508, in page 35, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—
      `(b) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2)—
      "(2) In applying subsection (1)(c) to any licensed service, the programmes included in that service shall be taken as a whole.";
      and
      (c) in subsection (3), paragraph (a)(i) and the words "in other respects" in paragraph (a)(ii) shall be omitted.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 43

      ADDITIONAL SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 509, in page 36, line 10, leave out `on' and insert 'within'.
      No. 510, in page 36, line 12, leave out 'a' and insert 'any'.
      No. 511, in page 36, line 12, after '59(1)' insert
      'other than a frequency which, in pursuance of section 66(2), is assigned by the Commission to a local delivery service (within the meaning of Part II)'.
      No. 512, in page 36, line 15, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.
      No. 513, in page 36, line 17, leave out 'assigned under section 59(1)' and insert
      'falling within subsection (1)(a) above'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 44

      LICENSING OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES
      Amendment proposed: No. 673, in page 37, line 15, after `(1)', insert 'Subject to subsection (1A),'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 674.
      Mr. Rowlands: The amendments involve teletexting, and there are other aspects of subtitling. I apologise for raising yet another S4C point at this late hour, but there is the issue of subtitling in English from Welsh programmes.
      I know that S4C has writen to the Minister to tell him that it will have a 75 per cent. subtitling programme, which is way beyond the statutory requirement. I suggest that the Minister considers the statutory requirement to ensure that, where there is a wish to subtitle in English when showing Welsh programmes, there will be no problems with monopolies, such as teletext, which makes expansion difficult. I think that the Minister and I agree that S4C should be able to expand English subtitling of Welsh-language programmes.
      Mr. Mellor: Without notice, I cannot be as categorical as I would wish to be. What the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has said sounds all
      314
      right to me, but I shall check the position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have taken quite some trouble over these S4C matters. I shall drop him a note.
      Mr. Simon Coombs: I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for having responded to the campaign for the preservation of teletext on Channels 3 and 4. The issue led to a considerable argument in Committee, and it should not pass without comment on Report. The campaign will continue outside this place. I think that much was done in Committee to persuade my hon. and learned Friend that we needed to see an opportunity for the preservation of a teletext service on Channels 3 and 4, which may or may not be Oracle, for the many millions who benefit from it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 514, in page 37, line 17, leave out 'assigned under section 59(1)' and insert 'falling within section 43(1)(a)'.
      No. 674, in line 24, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Commission shall do all that they can to secure that a teletext service is provided on so much of the spare capacity available for the provision of additional services on—

      (a) frequencies on which Channel 3 services are provided, or

      (b) frequencies on which Channel 4 is provided, or both, as the Secretary of State may approve.'.

      No. 515, in line 26, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.
      No. 516, in line 27, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.
      No. 127, in page 38, line 4, after 'facilities', insert reasonably'.
      No. 128, in line 5, at end insert—
      '(5A) Any person who grants to any other person access to Facilities in accordance with conditions imposed under subsection (5) may require that other person to pay a reasonable charge in respect thereof; and any dispute as to the amount of any such charge shall be determined by the Commission.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 45

      APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 129, in page 38, line 18, after 'licence', insert
      and specifying the closing date for such applications'.
      No. 130, in line 22, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 23.
      No. 131, in line 34, leave out 'and the deposit'.
      No. 132, in line 35, leave out 'and (ii)'.
      No. 517, in line 36, leave out from 'plan' to 'indicating' n line 37.
      No. 518, in line 38, leave out 'he' and insert 'the applicant'.
      No. 519, in line 40, leave out 'he is able to do so' and insert `known to the applicant'.
      No. 133, in page 39, line 7, leave out subsections (6) to (9).
      No. 134, in line 33, at end insert—
      '(10) the Commission shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications, publish in such manner as they consider appropriate—

      (a) the name of every person who has made an application to them in pursuance of the notice;

      (b) particulars of the technical plan submitted by him under subsection (3)(b); and

      (c) such other information connected with his application as the Commission consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 46

      PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR, AND AWARDING OF, LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 520, in page 39, line 43, leave out
      'he would be able to maintain his proposed service'
      and insert
      'the services proposed to be provided under the licence would be capable of being maintained'.
      No. 135, in page 40, line 7, at end insert—
      `(aa) subsection (3A) shall be omitted;'.
      No. 136, in page 40, line 15, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) If at any time after an additional services licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

      (a) that person indicates to the Commission that he does not intend to provide the services in question, or

      (b) the Commission for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide those services once the licence has come into force,

      then, subject to subsection (5A)—

      (i) the Commission shall revoke the licence, and

      (ii) section 17 (as applied by subsection (3) above) shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.

      (5A) Subsection (5) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Commission have served on him a notice stating their grounds for believing that he will not provide the services in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 47
      ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES LICENCES
      Amendment made: No. 137, in page 41, line 19, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 48

      DURATION OF LICENCES, AND RENEWAL OF LICENCES FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES ON ASSIGNED FREQUENCIES
      Amendments madeu: No. 521, in page 42, line 13, leave out
      'an additional service which would differ'
      and insert
      'any additional service which would differ in any material respect'.
      No. 522, in line 14, leave out from 'licence' to end of line 18.
      No. 138, in line 18, at end insert
      `, or
      (c) they propose to determine that all or part of the spare capacity allocated by the licence is to cease to be available for the provision of additional services in order that it may be used by any relevant person for the purpose of enhancing the technical quality of his television broadcasting service;
      and in paragraph (c) "relevant person" means the person providing a television broadcasting service on whose frequency the licensed service has been provided.'.
      No. 523, in line 35, leave out 'service' and insert 'services'.
      No. 139, in line 43, at end insert—
      '(a)'.
      No, 140, in line 47, at end insert
      '; and
      (b) section 46(5) and (5A) shall apply in relation to any time after the renewal of the licence but before the beginning of the period for which it has been renewed as those provisions apply in relation to any time after an additional services licence has been granted but before it has come into force (except that section 46(5) shall so apply with the omission of paragraph (ii)).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 51
      WELSH AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE IN EXISTENCE AS SIANEL PEDWAR CYMRU
      Amendment made: No. 262, in page 43, line 45, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Act'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Schedule 4
      THE WELSH AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 281, in page 154, leave out lines 16 to 29.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 52

      FUNCTION AND DUTIES OF WELSH AUTHORITY
      Amendment made: No. 524, in page 44, line 9, leave out 'programme' and insert 'broadcasting'.
      No. 263, in line 29, leave out from 'normally' to end of line 33 and insert
      'a programme which is being, has been or is to be broadcast on Channel 4.'.
      No. 525, in line 33, at end add—
      '(4) In this section and section 53 "programme" does not include an advertisement.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 53

      SOURCES OF PROGRAMMES FOR S4C
      Amendments made: No. 264, in page 44, line 40, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 265, in line 43, leave out from '(3)' to 'it' in line 44.
      No. 266, in page 45, line 5, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'section 52(3)'.
      No. 267, in line 7, leave out from 'which' to end of line 8 and insert
      `are required by the Authority for the purpose of complying with that provision.'.
      No. 268, in line 8, at end insert—
      '(4) The programmes broadcast on S4C may, to the extent that they are not provided under subsection (1) or (3), be obtained by the Welsh Authority from such persons as they think fit.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      No. 572, in 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. Rowlands.]

    Clause 54

      REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH IN RELATION TO S4C PROGRAMMES IN WELSH
      Amendments made: No. 269, in page 45, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
      No. 270, in clause 54, page 45, line 11, leave out in relation to the relevant service—' and insert
      `that the following requirements are complied with in relation to S4C, namely—'.
      No. 271, in page 45, line 21, at end insert
      ', by using images of very brief duration or by any other means,'.
      No. 272, in page 45, line 29, leave out
      `included in the relevant service'
      and insert 'broadcast on S4C'.
      No. 273, in page 45, line 37, leave out 'the relevant service' and insert `S4C'.
      No. 274, in page 45, line 39, leave out 'the relevant service' and insert `S4C'.
      No. 275, in page 45, line 42, leave out 'the relevant service' and insert `S4C'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 55
      ADVERTISING ON S4C
      No. 276, in page 46, line 12, after 'in', insert ', or in connection with,'.[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 56

      FUNDING OF WELSH AUTHORITY
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 277, in page 46, line 19, leave out from 'shall' to second 'the' in line 20 and insert
      'before the beginning of each of those years ("the relevant year")—
      (a) estimate'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 278 to 280 and 526.
      Mr. Mellor: These amendments create the concept of an interim payment by S4C—I am sorry, I mean to S4C. There is an important difference, as I would expect a Welshman to notice. I was just checking that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was still with us.
      The amendments create the concept of an interim payment to S4C by the Secretary of State based on an estimate of total television revenues, that estimate to be made by the ITC. It would be adjusted up or down in the light of the actual figure for the year in question, once that had been formally calculated. We thought about this matter, and we believe that it is the most practical way to do that. For example, it will not be clear by the beginning of 1993 what the revenues were for 1992. Indeed, it might be well into 1993 before the figure emerges. This mechanism is well tried in relation to the ITV levy administered by the IBA. Everyone thinks that it will be a good way to do this.
      On amendment No. 526, we have been concerned to give S4C a reasonable degree of stability so that it can plan its future——
      Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Annunciator is only just showing my hon. and learned
      318
      Friend's name, even though he has been on his feet for three or four minutes. I apologise to the House for disturbing the debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are galloping, and these matters are therefore difficult. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that I am going too fast.
      Mr. Steen: Not at all.
      Mr. Mellor: I am always pleased if, in life, I can pass as someone else. I am not terribly bothered if my name is not on the Annunciator.
      We have been concerned to give S4C reasonable stability so that it can plan its future. Hence the provision in clause 56(5) that prevents changes to the percentage base on which S4C's income is assessed until the end of 1997. We accept that adverse circumstances could arise that would make an increase in the level of S4C's income essential so that it could meet its commitments. Amendment No. 526 enables the Secretary of State to make such a change by an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before the end of 1997. In other words, it is a way of giving S4C an uplift if it is needed. Obviously, we hope that it will not: it is a safety net.
      Mr. Rowlands: This is a useful and significant amendment. We discussed this matter in Committee, when I and other hon. Members proposed a possible safety net For S4C. The Minister rightly pointed out that problems could arise because of the complicated potential increase in the costs of transmission. I hope that the amendment is 3esigned to ensure that, if transmission costs in the Principality are higher, the appropriate adjustment will be made.
      There is also the matter of the total advertising revenue. When we initially sought a safety net, we made the point that the projections for advertising revenue suggested that there might be some problems.
      I am hoping that the Minister will confirm with a nod that the amendment allows him to take into account possible transmission costs over and above those upon which the calculation has been based, but also that, if advertising revenues fall, in the quid pro quo S4C will not lose out overall.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Fisher: I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Minister for the amendment. It is a constructive move and will be greatly appreciated in the Principality. Perhaps the Minister will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has had a substantial and constructive effect on the Bill on behalf of the people of Wales.
      The Minister will note, too, that we have not been joined on Report by either of the Plaid Cymru Members. People in Wales may be surprised at their absence. It is good for the people of Wales that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has been protecting their interests throughout all stages of the Bill.
      Mr. Mellor: I have already paid tribute to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for his assiduity on this issue.
      Only the transmission costs are covered in the amendment, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and set put the thinking behind it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 278, in page 46, line 21, at end insert—
      (b) notify the Secretary of State of that estimated amount;
      and the Secretary of State shall at the beginning of the relevant year pay to the Welsh Authority, by way of an interim payment for that year, an amount representing 3·2 per cent. of that estimated amount.
      (2A) Once the Commission have finally determined the amount of the total television revenues for a particular year, they shall notify the Secretary of State of the amount so determined by them; and on receiving any such notification the Secretary of State shall, in respect of the year following that year—

      (a) pay to the Welsh Authority any amount payable by him by virtue of subsection (1), after taking into account the interim payment made for that year under subsection (2), or

      (b) notify the Welsh Authority of the amount of any overpayment made by him by means of any such interim payment.

      (2B) The Welsh Authority shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving any notification under subsection (2A)(b), pay to the Secretary of State the amount specified in the notification.'.
      No. 279, in line 32, after 'to', insert 'estimate or'.
      No. 280, in line 38, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'each of subsections (1) and (2)'.
      No. 526, in line 40, at end insert—
      'unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary to make the order having regard to the cost to the Authority of transmitting S4C.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 59

      ASSIGNMENT OF FREQUENCIES BY SECRETARY OF STATE
      Amendment made: No. 141, in page 47, line 29, at end insert—
      '(1A) Any frequency assigned by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) may be so assigned for use only in such area as may be specified by the Secretary of State when making the assignment.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 60

      REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TRANSMISSION OF CHANNELS 3, 4 AND 5 AND S4C
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, amendment No. 527, in page 47, line 39, leave out 'direct' and insert 'by order specify'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 489, in page 47, line 43, at end insert
      '(1A) Every Channel 3 licence shall include the arrangements for charging for transmission of the service, such arrangements to be based upon the licensees's share of Channel 3 qualifying revenue, or share of population, as shall be recommended by the Commission and subject to regulation by the Office of Telecommunications for the duration of the Channel 3 licence and any extension thereof.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 528 to 530.
      Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who was a constructive member of the Committee, was concerned—very properly as he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments—to ensure that parliamentary procedures were put into the Bill wherever appropriate. These amendments put arrangements for a negative resolution procedure into Clause 60. I hope that that will be welcome
      320
      to the House, which I know would agree with the hon. Gentleman that wherever possible there should he parliamentary scrutiny of such activities.
      Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the amendments. I only regret that the Minister—I hope that he does not think me churlish—is not in a position to be so forthcoming about the arrangements for cross-subsidisation of Channel 3 licences in the Bill as he was earlier for S4C.
      However, there is a proposal in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham—amendment 489—and I hope that in response to a debate on that the Minister will give some assurance.
      Mr. Steen: It is not West Ham—it is South Hams.
      Mr. Maclennan: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. At this time of night I am looking forward to my ham and eggs.
      The general principle of cross-subsidy has been accepted by the Government, but there are many questions in the minds of companies about how it is to operate. I hope that we shall hear a little more about that aspect tonight.
      Mr. Steen: I wish to speak to amendment 489 standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). This is an important amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about transmission arrangements, to be helpful to the House, as he usually is.
      The House will know that, since the origins of ITV, the IBA has been responsible for transmission and has charged ITV companies for the costs involved. The Government intend that the IBA transmission system should be privatised by 1991–92 to a single national contractor.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that the monitor is now showing the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That shows how very well served we are by our staff.
      Mr. Steen: That is a very astute observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I was talking about transmission arrangements. It is a serious matter, and I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be listening carefully.
      By 1991–92, the IBA transmission system should be privatised to a single national contractor, and the charges should be regulated by Oftel. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has stated that, until 1996, those charges will be based upon the share of the network advertising revenue, which broadly reflects the population. However, no arrangements have been specified for the period after 1996.
      In the south-west, there are 81 transmitters, whereas there are two in London. As things stand, until 1996, the smaller television companies will be charged a percentage of their advertising revenue. The charges will not be based on the number of transmitters. Companies will be asked to put in for the franchise on the basis that they should be able to cost for 10 years, yet they have no idea how much they will be charged after 1996 and whether the charge will be based on advertising revenue or transmitter costs. If it is transmitter costs, areas such as the south-west, which

      321
      has a hilly terrain, could be charged on the number of transmitters—81, while London has only two. I invite the Minister to consider introducing an amendment in another place extending the period from 1996 to 2002 or specifying that the charge will be based not on the number of transmitters but on the advertising revenue or the population that the companies serve.
      The amendment is important. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will realise the seriousness of going blind into franchises in some of the smaller rural areas.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: I recognise the great difficulty in tying down privatised companies for 10 years. The companies will no longer be public bodies, and it is difficult to tie down public limited companies for 10 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, there will be extreme difficulties for those bidding for franchises.
      In my constituency, we have had great difficulty in getting Channel 4 to all the villages, because Devon has many hills, dales and tiny villages. I am most grateful to the IBA for the service that it has provided in the past three years in bringing Channel 4 to Chagford, Taddiport and other villages that right hon. and hon. Members know only when they visit Devon on holiday. Most of those villages can now get Channel 4, although I understand that coverage is not yet total.
      I should be sorry if, in the new era of untied broadcasting, which I welcome, the rural areas lost out and, perhaps because of loss of transmission due to high costs, could no longer share in the fulness and richness of the television service on offer. I recognise that it is probably an intractable problem, but I put it before my hon. and learned Friend to let him know of our concern.
      Mr. Mellor: My two hon. Friends will be aware that the Government are sensitive to these matters and are making provision to take account of topographical difficulties that I well recall from my youth in the west country. My hon. Friends moved to the west country, whereas I moved from it; I do not know which of us had the better deal.
      The reason for not specifying at this stage the arrangements for after 1996 is that, by that time, we intend that the BBC transmission system will be privatised. It will then be necessary to consider the future arrangements, but obviously regard will be given to transmission costs in sparsely populated areas. We have a commitment to maintain the transmission system. Our ambition is not to leave it at 99·3 per cent. but to increase it. Any arrangements in 1996 will be looked at in the light of a commitment that successive Governments will be only pleased to give—I certainly give it for this one—to the maintenance, indeed the enhancement, of a truly national system. That requires us to take account of the difficulties of rural areas and their transmission problems.
      Mr. Fisher: So that the House is not misled into believing that this problem affects only west country constituencies, may I associate the Labour party with the constructive and sensible comments made by the hon. Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson)?
      Like them, we are pleased about the Minister's commitment to the maintenance of a national network.
      322
      That is a different position from the one that the Government held a few months ago. We welcome their change of heart and commitment. But that is not exactly the point that hon. Members have been making. They mentioned not only the maintenance of a national network but the method of apportioning cost. That should not be Rine on a transmission basis, because it is a problem not anly in the west country but in Wales—my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has left the Chamber—and many parts of Scotland, where transmitters are dense on the ground, unlike London. Apportioning cost on a transmission basis would have a disproportionate effect. An assurance from the Government, perhaps in another place, would be appreciated.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 528, in page 47, line 45 leave out
      direct that that period shall'
      and insert
      'by order provide for that period to'.
      No. 529, in page 47, line 46, leave out 'his direction' and nsert 'the order'.
      No. 530, in page 48, line 18, at end insert—
      `(7) Any order under this section shall be subject to mnulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      No. 480, in clause 62, in page 48, line 44, at end insert—
      '(3A) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as applying to my amount which is required by the Commission for the making of an adjustment in respect of an overpayment made Dy any person.'.
      No. 481, in clause 114, in page 88, line 9, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as applying to my amount which is required by the Authority for the making of an adjustment in respect of an overpayment made Dy any person.'.
      No. 142, in clause 63, in page 49, line 15, leave out, under the supervision of the Commission,'.
      No. 143, in page 49, line 23, leave out `possible' and nsert Is reasonably practicable'.
      No. 144, in page 49, line 25, after '(1)', insert 'or (3)'.
      No. 145, in page 49, line 25, after 'out', insert ', under the supervision of the Commission,'.
      No. 146, in page 49, line 28, leave out from 'is' to 'to' n line 29.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 66

      LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 147, in page 50, line 39, after second 'service', insert 'provided by any person'.
      No. 148, in page 50, line 40, after 'system', insert
      'whether run by that or any other person)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 67
      LICENSING OF LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 149, in page 51, line 44, after the', insert 'first'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 68

      APPLICATIONS OF LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 150, in page 52, line 23, after licence', insert
      and specifying the closing date for such applications'.
      No. 151, in page 52, line 27, leave out from beginning. 0 'and' in line 28.
      No. 76, in page 52, line 39, leave out 'and the deposit'.
      No. 77, in page 52, line 40, leave out 'and (ii)'.
      No. 154, in page 53, line 4, leave out 'and'.
      No. 155, in page 53, line 8, at end insert
      'and
      (e) such other information as the Commission may reasonably require for the purpose of considering the application.'.
      No. 156, in page 53, line 11, leave out 'or (d)' and insert (d) or (e)'.
      No. 157, in page 53, line 15, leave out subsections (6) to (9).
      No. 158, in page 53, line 40, at end insert—
      '(9A) The Commission shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications, publish in such manner as they consider appropriate—

      (a) the name of every person who has made an application to them in pursuance of the notice;

      (b) particulars of the technical plan submitted by him under subsection (3)(b); and

      (c) such other information connected with his application as the Commission consider appropriate.'.

      No. 159, in page 53, line 43, after 'amount', insert 'of money'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 70

      AWARD OF LICENCE TO PERSON SUBMITTING HIGHEST CASH BID
      No. 160, in page 54, line 35, leave out
      'the amounts specified in the cash bids submitted by'.
      No. 161, in page 54, line 36, leave out 'are the same,' and insert—
      'have submitted cash bids specifying an identical amount which is higher than the amount of any other cash bid submitted in respect of the licence, then (unless they propose to exercise their power under subsection (3) in relation to the licence)'.
      No. 162, in page 54, line 41, after 'may', insert
      'disregard the requirement imposed by subsection (1) and'.
      No. 163, in page 54, line 41, leave out
      `other than the one who'
      and insert 'who has not'.
      No. 164, in page 54, line 43, leave out `do so' and insert
      `award the licence to that applicant'.
      No. 165, in page 54, line 44, leave out
      'who submitted the highest bid',
      and insert
      `to whom (apart from this subsection) they would award the licence in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.
      No. 166, in page 54, line 47, leave out 'granted' and insert 'awarded'.
      No. 168, in page 55, line 18, leave out
      'person who submitted the highest bid,'
      and insert
      `applicant to whom (apart from any such requirement) they would have awarded it in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.
      No. 169, in page 55, line 20, at end insert
      '; and any such rules may provide for the awarding of licences by reference to orders of preference notified to the Commission by applicants at the time of making their applications.'.
      No. 170, in page 55, line 25, leave out
      'the applicant who submitted the highest bid'
      and insert 'an applicant'.
      No. 171, in page 55, line 26, leave out from `if to end of line 31 and insert
      'that person had not made an application for the licence.'.
      No. 172, in page 55, line 33, at end insert
      324
      ', as soon as reasonably practicable after awarding the licence'.
      No. 173, in page 55, line 36, leave out
      'as soon as is reasonably practicable'.
      No. 174, in page 55, line 43, leave out 'and'.
      No. 175, in page 55, line 45, leave out
      'other than the one who'
      and insert 'who has not'.
      No. 176, in page 55, line 47, at end insert
      '; and (d) such other information as the Commission consider appropriate.'.
      No. 176, in page 56, line 1, leave out subsection (12) and insert—
      '(12) If at any time after a local delivery licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

      (a) that person indicates to the Commission that he does not intend to provide the service in question, or

      (b) the Commission for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide that service once the licence has come into force,

      then, subject to subsection (13)—

      (i) the Commission shall revoke the licence, and

      (ii) this section shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.

      (13) Subsection (12) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Commission have served on him a notice stating their grounds for believing that he will not provide the service in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 71
      ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 178, in page 57, line 4, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 72

      DURATION AND RENEWAL OF LOCAL DELIVERY LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 179, in page 57, line 12, leave out 'ten' and insert 'fifteen'.
      No. 180, in page 58, line 20 after 'section', insert—
      '(a)'.
      No. 181, in page 58, line 24, at end insert—
      ; and
      (b) section 70(12) and (13) shall apply in relation to any time after the renewal of the licence but before the beginning of the period for which it has been renewed as those provisions apply in relation to any time after a local delivery licence has been granted but before it has come into force (except that section 70(12) shall so apply with the omission of paragraph (ii )).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 73

      APPLICATION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS TO RELAYING OF FOREIGN SATELLITE PROGRAMMES
      Amendment made: No. 182, in page 58, line 37, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where any licensed local delivery service includes advertisements inserted by the person providing the service, sections 8 and 9 shall have effect as if the delivery of those

      325
      advertisements constituted the provision of a service licensed under Part I of this Act and that person were the holder of a licence in force under that Part.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 77
      THE RADIO AUTHORITY
      Amendment made: No. 415, in page 60, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Schedule 6

      THE RADIO AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 228, in page 159, leave out lines 16 to 19.
      No. 479, in page 160, leave out lines 6 to 11.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 78

      REGULATION BY AUTHORITY OF INDEPENDENT RADIO SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 416, in page 60, line 26, leave out `so provided' and insert
      'provided from places in the United Kingdom'.
      No. 531, in page 60, line 41, after 'service', insert '(other than one provided by the BBC)'.
      No. 532, in page 61, line 2, leave out or ranges of frequencies,'.
      No. 533, in page 61, line 3, leave out 'or range of frequencies'.
      No. 534, in page 61, line 6, leave out ', or range of frequencies,'.
      No. 535, in page 61, line 10, leave out 'or range of frequencies'.
      No. 536, in page 61, line 11, leave out
      ', or (as the case may be) any frequency falling within that range,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 79

      LICENSING FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 422, in page 61, leave out line 19 and insert—
      '(a) a diversity of national services each catering for tastes and interests different from those catered for by the others and of which—

      (i) one is a service the greater part of which consists in the broadcasting of spoken material, and

      (ii) another is a service which consists, wholly or mainly, in the broadcasting of music other than pop music; and'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will take amendment No. 581, in page 61, line 24, after 'of', insert 'national'.
      Government amendments Nos. 423 and 424.
      Amendment No. 588, in clause 92, page 69, line 43,
      leave out
      'the service to be provided'
      and insert
      'they believe it is technically possible for a service to be provided and which will be at least the same as the area covered by an equivalent national service provided by the BBC'.
      Government amendment No. 425.
      Amendment No. 573, in page 69, line 4, at end insert—
      326
      '(iii) the type of service to be maintained and the nature of the differentiation between it and other national radio services.'.
      Amendment No. 590, in page 70, line 10, at end insert—
      '( ) In association with the notice referred to in subsection (1) the authority shall publish illustrative guidelines which shall include an indication of the range of programmes which the Authority expect applicants to include in their programme services.'.
      Amendment No. 589, in page 70, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
      Amendment No. 574, in page 70, line 19, at end insert—
      '(c) The need for variety in radio services and the nature of the audience to which each national service is to be primarily directed.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 428 and 431.
      Amendment No. 94, in page 70, line 26, after 'interests', insert
      'and which shall include in particular, news and current affairs, religious and social action programmes in such form as may be appropriate to the general nature of the service provided.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 440 and 441.
      Mr. Mellor: These amendments are important because they deal with quite major changes to national commercial radio. With the approbation of the House, we have moved away from an internal diversity test under which we might have ended up with three national radio channels broadly the same and not necessarily with great breadth to them. We have substituted for that an external diversity test with requirements set by the Radio Authority so that one will have to be a largely speech-based station, one will have to be a station consisting of music other than pop music—I make no bones about hoping that that means classical music—and the last station is not specified but almost inevitably will broadcast pop music.
      Mr. Fisher: That is defeatist.
      Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) may call it defeatist, but we must acknowledge that there is a large audience for pop music.
      The effect of the proposals is that we have a remit for national commercial radio to which people can look forward and think will make some considerable use of the potential of the airwaves that have been vacated for that purpose. We could not have been so confident about that under the old arrangements and I am pleased to have made that change.
      Mr. Maclennan: I remember our debate in Committee on this subject and how the minds of members of the Committee moved from internal diversity requirements to the arrangements outlined by the Minister. The arrangements will be widely welcomed because they promise that the public will be able to identify more readily, as they can with BBC national radio channels, the kind of programmes to which they want to listen.
      I wish to refer to an issue contained in amendments Nos. 588, 589 and 590 which stand in my name. I am concerned by the language of the clause which sets up the national independent radio channels in that it is envisaged hat transmission may not actually be national. My amendments are designed to ensure that national radio channels are indeed national and that they provide at least he same cover as that provided by the BBC. As the Bill is

      327
      drafted, there are strong hints that a national station could effectively opt out of transmitting to far-flung areas, because of the cost of transmission.
      My amendments seek to make it a statutory requirement that coverage should be as far as technically possible, as opposed to what is financially most beneficial. I shall be relieved if the Minister assures me that that is what is intended. However, as the Bill is drafted, it appears that a national provider could opt out of covering parts of the country which at present enjoy national BBC coverage.
      Mr. Fisher: The House will welcome what the Minister said about defining the characteristics and remit of the three stations. Before that is completely cast in stone, will he bear in mind the case that we put in Committee for putting the remit of one of the national stations on a Channel 4 publishing house basis? Not only has that worked well in television—there is no reason to suppose that it would not work well in radio—but it does several other things.
      Both Opposition and Conservative Members have expressed anxieties about the financial future and viability of community stations and some local radio stations. A Channel 4 type national radio station would provide a marketplace and national forum for programmes all over the country and allow them to be broadcast. It would also provide a marketplace for those companies and a source of income and promotion. At the same time, it would provide a marketplace for independent producers in radio.
      When he was formerly at the Home Office, as well as in his present incumbency, the Minister has been in the forefront of promoting the cause of independent producers in television. There is also a great future, both in Britain and internationally, for independent producers in radio. The only way to release the potential of independent radio production companies, which could even be subsets of independent television producers, would be to create a Channel 4 type structure for one of the stations. I commend that idea to the Minister. Perhaps, as the Bill passes through its remaining stages, he will give it further thought. Both on cultural and economic grounds, there is a good case to be made for that remit.
      Mr. Mellor: With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful for the comments of both the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). In reply to the latter, there is nothing to stop someone applying on the basis that he desires. The question whether we should prescribe it is more difficult. I should like to reflect on what he said. There will be nothing to stop someone casting their application in that form. That would certainly be an interesting form in which to do it.
      I understand what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland means. He rightly wants to protect the interests of his constituency, which is in an area which is not one of the easiest to transmit to. I too should like to see a national station with universal coverage. However, that was not achieved overnight by BBC radio. Some people find the economics of national commercial radio rather doubtful. Therefore, it is a matter that we shall leave to the Radio Authority, which is presently considering the complex question of coverage planning for the new national networks. It is a matter for it, not for me. I envisage that
      328
      it will want coverage of about 70 per cent. immediately. As the station becomes successful, it is hoped that it will build up the coverage.
      The matter can be explored further with the Radio Authority. I do not want to be the bringer of bad news but it would not be easy to guarantee 100 per cent. coverage straight away. It would be wrong of me to stand at the Dispatch Box and mislead the hon. Gentleman on that point.
      Mr. Maclennan: With the leave of the House. I find the Minister's answer rather disturbing, and it will take a number of people by surprise. What have been heralded as three new national radio stations are, initially, to cover only 70 per cent. of the country. I hope that another place will give serious consideration to the implications of that.
      I wonder whether a reason for such coverage is the unwillingness of the Government to entertain other amendments that I moved at an earlier stage on the cross-subsidy of transmission costs. It is desirable that we should use our existing transmission arrangements. If it is technically possible to carry signals from one end of the country to the other, I hope that that will be done, notwithstanding the attenuation of some of the lines.
      It is clearly too late in our deliberation on the Bill to effect a change in the Government's mind, but I hope that the matter will be considered in another place with great interest.
      Mr. Cryer: Powers are included in the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend clause 79(2)(a), which allows certain variations on the national services. The proposed amendment No. 422 is welcome. What is even more welcome is the fact that any amendment to the Bill must come back to the House and be subject to an affirmative order.
      I commend the Minister's attitude to other Departments that seem to want to change primary legislation—too often, I fear—without, in some instances, a further reference to the House. If a change is made via an affirmative order, it means that the Minister remains accountable to some degree, and that is welcome.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 417, in page 61, line 27, leave out
      'between persons providing licensed services'
      and insert
      'in the provision of such services and services connected with them.'.
      No. 423, in page 61, line 28, at end insert—
      '(4) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of subsection (2)(a) as he considers appropriate—

      (a) for including in that provision a requirement that one of the national services there referred to should be a service of a particular description, or

      (b) for removing such a requirement from that provision;

      and (without prejudice to the generality of section 178(2)(b)) any such order may make such consequential amendments of section 92(1)(b)(iii) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
      (5) An order shall not be made under subsection (4) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      No. 613, in page 61, line 28, at end insert—
      '(3A) Subsection (3)(b) shall not be construed as affecting the discharge by the Director General of Fair Trading, the

      329
      Secretary of State or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of any of his or their functions in connection with competition.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 80

      LICENCES UNDER PART III
      Amendments made: No. 537, in page 61, line 35, at end insert
      '; and (without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provision) a licence may be so granted for the provision of a service which to any extent consists in the simultaneous broadcasting of different programmes on different frequencies.'.
      No. 418, in page 62, line 19, at end insert—
      '(7A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (7), the Authority 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 81

      GENERAL LICENCE CONDITIONS.
      Amendments made: No. 123, in page 63, line 10, leave out 'fee or'.
      No. 124, in page 63, line I I, after 'be', insert
      'in accordance with such tariff as may from time to time be fixed by the Authority; 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. 125, in page 63, line 12, leave out 'licence holder' and insert
      'holder of such a licence'.
      No. 126, in page 63, line 14, at end insert—
      '(3A) The tariff fixed under subsection (3) may specify different fees in relation to different cases or circumstances; and the Authority shall publish that tariff, and every revision of it, in such manner as they consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 84

      GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO LICENSED SERVICES
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 538, in page 65, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'as' in line 29.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 539 and 419.
      Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for what he said earlier. In the Bill we have made a serious effort to include parliamentary procedures in a number of instances that were not present before. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his persistent pressure on that point. At a similar hour towards the end of the Bill's Second Reading and its aftermath, I promised the hon. Gentleman to make such inclusions, and I hope that I have delivered on that promise six months later.
      The first two amendments in the group remove an inconsistency in clause 84. At the moment, clause 84(3) refers to programmes taken as a whole, while subsection (4) refers to a series of programmes. We have taken out the reference to a series of programmes, since the two subsections would have made a different attempt to define the same concept. No substantive change has been made.
      330
      Amendment No. 419 honours an undertaking I gave in Committee, that the authority should be required, so far as reasonably practicable, to consult its licensees about the programme code as well as the advertising code in clause 87.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 539, in page 65, line 29, leave put 'in other respects'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 85

      GENERAL CODE FOR PROGRAMMES
      Amendment made: No. 419, in page 66, line 10, at end insert—
      '(2A) Before drawing up or revising the code under this section the Authority shall (to such extent as they consider it reasonably practicable to do so) consult every person who is the holder of a licence under this Part.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 86

      GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 540, in page 66, line 35, at end nsert—
      '(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as prohibiting the inclusion in a licensed service of any party political broadcast which complies with the rules (so far as applicable) made by the Authority for the purposes of section 100.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 87

      CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 475, in page 67, leave out ine 11.
      No. 476, in page 67, line 20, at end insert—
      'and (to the extent that the Authority consider such consultation to be reasonably practicable) consultation with every person who is the holder of a licence under this Part.'.
      No. 420, in page 67, line 41, after 'advertising', insert 'or sponsorship'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 89

      USE BY AUTHORITY OF RECORDINGS ETC. TO MONITOR PROGRAMMES
      Amendments made: No. 619, page 68, line 39, leave out
      'may include conditions enabling the Authority to require' and insert 'shall include conditions requiring'.
      No. 421, in page 68, line 41, leave out '90' and insert 42'.
      No. 620, in page 68, line 44, leave out
      'to produce any such recording to the Authority'
      and insert
      at the request of the Authority, to produce to them any such recording'.
      No. 621, in page 68, line 46, leave out
      'to produce to the Authority'
      and insert
      'at the request of the Authority, to produce to them'.
      No. 622, in page 68, line 46, after 'script', insert 'or transcript'.
      No. 234, in page 68, line 47, at end insert—
      '(3) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as requiring he Authority, in the discharge of their duties under this Part is respects licensed services and the programmes included in hem, to listen to such programmes in advance of their being included in such services.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 90

      AUDIENCE RESEARCH
      Amendments made: No. 235, in page 69, line 1, after 'ascertaining', insert —
      `(a)'.
      No. 236, in line 3, at end insert—

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

      (c) the types of programme that members of the public would like to be included in licensed services.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 92

      APPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 424, in page 68, line 41, leave out 'and'.
      No. 425, in line 43, at end insert—

      '(iii) if the service is to be one falling within section 79(2)(a)(i) or (ii), that the service is to be such a service, and

      (iv) if there is any existing licensed national service, that the service is to be one which caters for tastes and interests different from those already catered for by any such service (as described in the notice);'.

      No. 426, in line 44, after 'licence', insert
      `and specifying the closing date for such applications'.
      No. 427, in page 70, leave out lines 3 and 4.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 70, line 9, leave out
      'in pursuance of section 96(1)(b)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 95, in line 27, leave out
      `(c) the applicant's cash bid in respect of the licence;'
      No. 97, in page 71, line 16, leave out from `part' to end of line 19 and insert
      '''qualifying revenue" means all payments received or to be received by the licence holder for any accounting period—

      (a) in consideration of the inclusion in the licensed service in that period of advertisements or other programmes, or

      (b) in respect of charges made by him in that period for the reception of programmes included in that service.'.

      No. 101, in clause 96, page 74, leave out from line 14 to line 33, and insert—
      'an amount representing the percentage of qualifying revenue determined by the Secretary of State for each accounting period to be paid in equal annual instalments throughout the period for which the licence is in force.'.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Fisher: We covered this ground thoroughly in Committee, so I shall not detain the House and the Minister long, but we wish to put down a marker yet again to say that the Government have got it wrong in their determination to make money a substantial factor in the allocation of radio franchises. We had a long debate in Committee about the importance of a quality threshold for the national commercial radio stations, and the Minister said then that he believed that radio was different from television and there was not the same need for setting quality thresholds. We believed then that he was wrong, and we hoped that, when the Bill went to another place, that debate would be taken up.
      332
      I suspect that it would be over-optimistic to think that, since we concluded the Committee stage, the Minister has seen the error of his ways. In the many strong arguments that he made in defence of his position at various stages in Committee, that was not one of his finest moments. It is difficult for him to look squarely in the face those many hundreds of thousands—millions—of people in this country who care deeply about the quality of radio, and say that, when allocating franchises in radio, he does not believe that it is necessary to have a quality threshold, whereas he does accept that television is so important that it should have quality thresholds.
      I think that, being a fair man, the Minister knows in his heart of hearts that that is wrong, and that there are millions of people for whom radio is a central part of their lives. It is important that the exciting potential of the three national stations that could add something to our radio culture should be given to the best broadcasters, and there should be a quality threshold that people applying for those franchises should have to overcome.
      The Minister made a good case about the threshold in relation to television. It is every bit as true in relation to radio, and I urge him to give himself the space and time to find the words to come back to this matter, either now or later. In his heart of hearts, I think that he knows that it is important, and many people who believe in radio would appreciate it if he put down the marker that quality in radio was as important as quality in television.
      Mr. Mellor: I certainly agree that quality is important. I think that the only issue is how best we attain it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for the understanding way in which he put his point. I appreciate that, although we have moved closer on some issues, there are others on which our positions remain apart. I cannot improve on, and certainly would not seek to repeat, the explanation that I gave in Committee, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's prediction that the other place will take an interest in the matter will undoubtedly prove true. I shall be following those discussions closely and will continue to evaluate the matter and other parts of the Bill as we progress.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 428, in page 70, line 21, at end insert—
      `(aa) the applicant's proposals for providing a service that would both—

      (i) comply with any requirement specified in the notice under subsection (1)(b)(iii) or (iv), and

      (ii) consist of a diversity of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests;'.

      No. 429, in page 70, line 22, leave out 'and the deposit'.
      No. 430, in page 70, line 23, leave out `and(ii)'.
      No. 431, in page 70, leave out lines 24 to 26.
      No. 432, in page 70, line 26, at end insert—
      `(ba) the applicant's proposals for training or retraining persons employed or to be employed by him in order to help fit them for employment in, or in connection with, the making of programmes to be included in his proposed service;'.
      No. 433, in page 70, line 27, leave out 'and'.
      No. 434, in page 70, line 28, after 'require', insert—
      '(i)'.
      No. 435, in page 70, line 31, at end insert
      ', and
      (ii) as to the arrangements which the applicant proposes to make for, and in connection with, the transmission of his proposed service; and

      333
      (e) such other information as the Authority may reasonably require for the purpose of considering the application.'.
      No. 436, in page 70, line 34, leave out 'subsection (3)(b) or (d)' and insert
      'any of paragraphs (aa), (ba), (d) and (e) of subsection (3)'.
      No. 437, in page 70, line 38, leave out subsections (6) to (8).
      No. 438, in page 71, line 15, at end insert—
      '(8A) The Authority shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications, publish in such manner as they consider appropriate—

      (a) the name of every person who has made an application to them in pursuance of the notice;

      (b) the proposals submitted by him under subsection (3)(aa); and

      (c) such other information connected with his application as the Authority consider appropriate.'.

      No. 541, in page 71, line 15, at end insert—
      '(8B) In this section "programme" does not include an advertisement.'.
      No. 439, in page 71, line 18, after 'amount', insert 'of money'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 93

      PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 440, in page 71, line 24, after 'would', insert
      'both—

      (i) comply with any requirement specified under subsection (1)(b)(iii) or (iv) of section 92, and

      (ii)'.

      No. 441, in page 71, line 25, leave out 'section 92(3)(b)' and insert
      'subsection (3)(aa) of that section'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 94

      AWARD OF NATIONAL LICENCE TO PERSON SUBMITTING HIGHEST CASH BID
      Amendments made: No. 442, in page 71, line 40, leave out
      'the amounts specified in the cash bids submitted by'.
      No. 443, in page 71, line 41, leave out 'are the same,' and insert
      'have submitted cash bids specifying an identical amount which is higher than the amount of any other cash bid submitted in respect of the licence, then (unless they propose to exercise their power under subsection (3) in relation to the licence)'.
      No. 444, in page 71, line 46, after 'may', insert
      'disregard the requirement imposed by subsection (1) and'.
      No. 445, in page 71, line 46, leave out 'other than the one who' and insert 'who has not'.
      No. 446, in page 71, line 48, leave out 'do so' and insert
      'award the licence to that applicant'.
      No. 447, in page 72, line 1, leave out 'who submitted the highest bid,' and insert
      'to whom (apart from this subsection) they would award the licence in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.
      No. 448, in page 72, line 4, leave out 'granted' and insert 'awarded'.
      No. 449, in page 72, line 22, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
      No. 450, in page 72, line 31, leave out
      'the applicant who submitted the highest bid' and insert 'an applicant'.
      No. 451, in page 72, line 32, leave out from 'if' to end of line 37 and insert
      'that person had not made an application for the licence.'.
      No. 453, in page 72, line 39, at end insert
      ', as soon as reasonably practicable after awarding the licence'.
      No. 453A, in page 72, line 42, leave out
      as soon as is reasonably practicable'.
      No. 454, in page 72, line 48, leave out
      'requirements of section 93(1)(a) and (b) were'
      and insert
      'requirement specified in section 93(1)(a) was'.
      No. 455, in page 72, line 49 leave out 'and'.
      No. 456, in page 73, line 2, leave out 'other than the one who' and insert 'who has not'.
      No. 457, in page 73, line 4 at end insert
      ; and

      (d) such other information as the Authority consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 95

      HOLDER OF NATIONAL LICENCE TO GIVE SECURITY AGAINST FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROPOSED SERVICE
      Amendments made: No. 733, in page 73, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 20.
      No. 734, in page 73, line 21, leave out from 'effect' to and of line 24 and insert
      as if he had not made an application for the licence.'.
      No. 735, in page 73, line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) If at any time after a national licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

      (a) that person indicates to the Authority that lie does not intend to provide the service in question, or

      (b) the Authority for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide that service once the licence has come into force,

      then, subject to subsection (4A)—

      (i) the Authority shall revoke the licence,

      (ii) the whole, or (if the Authority so determine) a specified part, of any security given by that person under this section shall be forfeited to the Authority, and

      (iii) section 94 shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.

      (4A) Subsection (4) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Authority have served on him a notice stating their grounds 'or believing that he will not provide the service in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the natters complained of.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 96
      ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF NATIONAL LICENCES
      Amendment made: No. 736, in page 75, line 29, leave Jut from beginning to 'estimating' in line 31.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 97

      APPLICATIONS FOR OTHER LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 458, in page 75, line 42, after `licence', insert
      `and specifying the closing date for applications'.
      No. 459, in page 76, line 11, leave out 'and'.
      No. 460, in page 76, line 12, after 'require', insert—
      '(i)'.
      No. 461, in page 76, line 15, at end insert
      ', and

      (ii) as to the arrangements which the applicant proposes to make for, and in connection with, the transmission of his proposed service; and

      (d) such other information as the Authority may reasonably require for the purpose of considering the application.'.
      No. 462, in page 76, line 18, leave out 'or (c)' and insert (c) or (d)'.
      No. 463, in page 76, line 18, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Authority shall, at the request of any person and on the payment by him of such sum (if any) as the Authority may reasonably require, make available for inspection by that person any information furnished under subsection (2)(b) by the applicants for a local licence.'.
      No. 464, in page 76, line 20, leave out '(a)'.
      No. 465, in page 76, line 22, leave out from 'question,' to 'would' in line 24 and insert
      `they shall, in accordance with subsection (1), publish a notice under that subsection relating to the proposed grant of the further licence to provide that service, unless it appears to them that to do so'.
      No. 466, in page 76, leave out lines 28 and 29.
      No. 542, in page 76, line 36, at end insert —
      '(6) In this section and sections 98 and 99 "programme" does not include an advertisement.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 98

      SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO GRANT OF LOCAL LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 467, in page 76, line 39, leave out 'in particular'.
      No. 468, in page 76, line 49, leave out 'and'.
      No. 469, in page 77, line 4, at end insert
      '; and

      (d) the extent to which any application for the licence is supported by such persons.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 99
      REQUIREMENTS AS TO QUALITY AND COVERAGE OF NATIONAL AND LOCAL SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 470, in page 77, line 7, leave out 'quality and'.[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 100

      PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS
      Amendments made: No. 471, in page 77, line 30, leave out 'or local licence may' and insert 'licence shall'.
      No. 543, in page 77, line 42, at end insert—
      '(2A) Any rules made by the Authority for the purposes of this section may make different provision for different cases or circumstances.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 101

      POWER TO REQUIRE SCRIPTS ETC. OR PUBLICATION OF APOLOGY
      Amendments made: No. 472, in page 78, line 24, leave out 'an' and insert 'a correction or'.
      No. 473, in line 26, leave out 'an' and insert 'a correction or'.
      No. 474, in line 32, leave out 'an' and insert 'a correction or'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 102
      POWER TO IMPOSE FINANCIAL PENALTY OR SUSPEND OR SHORTEN LICENCE PERIOD
      Amendment made: No. 412, in page 78, line 40, after `pay', insert within a specified period,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 103

      POWER TO REVOKE LICENCES
      Amendment made: No. 413, in page 80, line 21, leave out from 'particular,' to end of line 23 and insert
      ', or

      (b) that, in connection with his application for the licence, the holder of such a licence withheld any material information with the intention of causing them to be misled,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 104

      LICENSABLE SOUND PROGRAMME SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 183, in page 80, line 41, leave out 'simultaneous'.
      No. 184, in line 46, at end insert
      ', and whether the programmes are to be so conveyed for simultaneous reception or for reception at different times in response to requests made by different users of the service.'.
      No. 544, in page 81, line 8, after 'who', insert
      'does either or both of the following things, that is to say—

      (a)'.

      No. 545, in line 9, at end insert
      `, or

      (b) runs a telecommunication system which is so used,'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 106

      ADDITIONAL SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 546, in page 81, line 35, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.
      No. 547, in line 40, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.
      No. 185, in page 82, line 13, after 'taken', insert
      `for the purposes of this Part'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 107

      LICENSING OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 548, in page 82, line 39, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.
      No. 549, in line 40, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.
      No. 477, in page 83, line 8, leave out
      'under this Part to provide any sound broadcasting'
      and insert
      `to provide a national'.
      No. 478, line 12, leave out 'broadcasting' and insert `national'.
      No. 186, in line 17, after 'facilities', insert 'reasonably'.
      No. 187, in line 18, at end insert—
      '(5A) Any person who grants to any other person access to facilities in accordance with conditions imposed under section (5) may require that other person to pay a reasonable charge in respect thereof; and any dispute as to the amount of any such charge shall be determined by the Authority.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 108

      APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 188, in page 83, line 36, after 'licence', insert
      'and specifying the closing date for such applications'.
      No. 189, in line 40, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 41.
      No. 190, in page 84, line 8, leave out 'and the deposit'.
      No. 91, in line 9, leave out 'and (ii)'.
      No. 550, in line 10, leave out from 'plan' to 'indicating' in line 11.
      No. 551, in line 12, leave out 'he' and insert 'the applicant'.
      No. 552, in line 14, leave out
      'he is able to do so'
      and insert 'known to the applicant'.
      No. 192, in line 28, leave out subsections (6) to (9).
      No. 193, in page 85, line 7, at end insert—
      '(9A) The Authority shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications, publish in such manner as they consider appropriate—

      (a) the name of every person who has made an application to them in pursuance of the notice;

      (b) particulars of the technical plan submitted by him under subsection (3)(b); and

      (c) such other information connected with his application as the Authority consider appropriate.'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 109

      PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR, AND AWARDING OF, LICENCES
      Amendments made: No 553, in page 85, line 17, leave out
      'he would be able to maintain his proposed service'
      and insert
      'the services proposed to be provided under the licence would be capable of being maintained'.
      No. 194, in line 37, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) If at any time after an additional services licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

      (a) that person indicates to the Authority that he does not intend to provide the services in question, or

      (b) the Authority for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide those services once the licence has come into force,

      then, subject to subsection (5A)—

      (i) the Authority shall revoke the licence, and

      (ii) section 94 (as applied by subsection (3) above) shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.

      (5A) Subsection (5) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Authority have served on him a notice stating their grounds for believing that he will not provide the services in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve
      338
      such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 110

      ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 675, in page 86, line 32, leave put 'this' and insert 'his'.
      No. 195, in line 40, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Mellor]

    Clause 114

      CERTAIN RECEIPTS OF AUTHORITY TO BE PAID INTO CONSOLIDATED FUND
      Amendments made: No. 554 page 88, line 1, leave out ', satellite or additional service,' and insert
      ', or satellite service or any additional services,'.
      No. 481, in page 88, line 9 at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as applying to my amount which is required by the Authority for the making of an adjustment in respect of an overpayment made by any person.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 115

      FREQUENCY PLANNING AND GENERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
      Amendments made: No. 196, in page 88, line 24, leave out 'possible' and insert 'is reasonably practicable'.
      No. 197, in page 88, line 26, after '(1)', insert 'or (3)'.
      No. 198, in page 88, line 30, leave out from 'is' to `to' n line 31.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 118
      INTERPRETATION OF PART III
      Amendment made: No. 555, in page 89, line 8, leave out granted by the Authority' and insert 'in force'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    SCHEDULE 7

      SCHEME PROVIDING FOR DIVISION OF ASSETS OF IBA
      Amendments made: No. 567, in page 161, line 38, leave out 'take effect' and insert
      'be capable of coming into force in accordance with section—19(1) of this Act'.
      No. 568, in page 162, line 4, at end insert—
      '(4A) If, at any time after the Secretary of State has either—

      (a) approved (either with or without modifications) a scheme under this Schedule made by the IBA, or

      (b) himself made such a scheme,

      but before the scheme has come into force in accordance with section 119(1) of this Act, the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, he may determine that the scheme shall, on its so coming into force, come into force with such modifications as may be specified in his determination; and, in any such case, the scheme shall accordingly, on its coming into force, come into force with those modifications.'.
      No. 482, in page 162, line 36, at end insert—
      '(9) Nothing in this paragraph shall require a scheme under his Schedule to make provision with respect to any equipment which the IBA have agreed to dispose of in

      339
      pursuance of section (Functions exercisable by IBA before transfer date in connection with local sound broadcasting)(6).'.
      No. 687, in page 163, line 47, at end insert—
      '(4) Where, in consequence of any transfer made in accordance with a transfer scheme, all the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a particular part of the IBA's undertaking are transferred to a relevant transferee—

      (a) the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply to the transfer, whether or not they would otherwise so apply, and

      (b) that undertaking shall accordingly (whether or not it would otherwise be so regarded) be regarded for the purposes of those Regulations as an undertaking in the nature of a commercial venture.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Schedule 8

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISSOLUTION OF CABLE AUTHORITY
      Amendment made: No. 688, in page 167, line 40, at end insert—
      '(3) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply to the transfer to the Commission, by virtue of section 120(1), of the undertaking of the Cable Authority, whether or not they would otherwise so apply; and that undertaking shall accordingly (whether or not it would otherwise be so regarded) be regarded for the purposes of those Regulations as an undertaking in the nature of a commercial venture.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Schedule 10

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXISTING CABLE SERVICES
      Amendments made: No. 569, in page 182, line 17, leave out 'on' and insert
      `at any time on or after'.
      No. 570, in page 182, line 19, leave out 'date' and insert `time'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 122

      INITIAL GOVERNMENT HOLDING IN NOMINATED COMPANY
      Amendment made: No. 676, in page 91, line 33, after `(6)', insert
      'Without prejudice to the generality of section 176(2),'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Schedule 11

      THE BROADCASTING COMPLAINTS COMMISSION: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 571, in page 189, line 31, leave out
      `and the statement prepared for each financial year'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 129
      FUNCTION OF BCC
      Amendment made: No. 556, in page 94, line 21, leave out from 'service' to end of line 22.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 131

      CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS
      Amendments made: No 623, in page 96, line 2, at end insert—
      '(aa) to provide the BCC with a visual or sound recording of the relevant programme or of any specified part of it, if and so far as the relevant person has such a recording in his possession;'.
      No. 624, in line 3, leave out
      'and any member or employee of the BCC'.
      No. 625, in line 6, leave out 'possesses' and insert 'has in his possession'.
      No. 626, in line 17, at end insert—
      '(4A) For the purposes of this section, section 141 and section (Power to make copies of recordings), it shall be the duty of each broadcasting body to make a recording of every television or sound programme which is broadcast by that body and to retain that recording—

      (a) where it is of a television programme, during the period of 90 days beginning with the broadcast, and

      (b) where it is of a sound programme, during the period of 42 days beginning with the broadcast.'.

      No. 627, in page 96, leave out line 20.
      No. 628, in page 96, line 21, after 'corporate', insert 'to arrange for'.
      No. 629, in page 96, line 22, after 'body', insert
      `to attend the BCC and assist them in their consideration of the complaint'.
      No. 630, in page 96, line 23, leave out from 'individual', to end of line 25 and insert
      `to attend, or to arrange for one or more of his employees to attend, the BCC and assist them in their consideration of the complaint.'.
      No. 631, in page 97, line 2, leave out 'and assist the BCC' and insert
      `the BCC and assist them'.
      No. 557, in page 97, line 13, leave out 'by whom it was so included' and insert 'providing the service'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 132

      PUBLICATION OF BCC's FINDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 632, in page 97, line 25, leave out
      'in a form approved for the purpose by the BCC'.
      No. 633, in page 97, line 27, leave out
      `in a form so approved'.
      No. 634, in page 97, line 28, at end insert—
      '(2A) The form and content of any such summary as is mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) shall be such as may be approved by the BCC.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 135

      CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS COST OF BCC
      Amendments made: No. 677, in page 98, line 27, leave out 'total'.
      No. 678, in page 98, line 28, after 'or, insert
      'that body, in respect of'.
      No. 679, in page 98, line 33, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
      No. 680, in page 98, line 42, after `(4)', insert 'Each regulatory body and'.
      No. 681, in page 98, line 43, leave out `(1)(b)' and insert '(1)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Schedule 12

      THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS COUNCIL: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 689, in page 191, line 27, leave out 'directions' and insert 'direction'.
      No. 648, in page 193, line 2, leave out 'The Council shall' and insert
      'It shall be the duty of the Council—

      (a) to'.

      No. 649, in page 193, line 3, leave out 'and shall' and insert—
      `(b) to'.
      No. 650, in page 193, line 5, at end insert
      'and

      (c) to send copies of each such statement to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General not later than 31st August next following the end of the financial year to which the statement relates.

      (1A) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts sent to him by the Council and shall lay a copy of every such statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.'.
      No. 651, in page 193, line 6, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4).—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 138
      PREPARATION BY COUNCIL OF CODE RELATING TO BROADCASTING STANDARDS
      Amendment made: No. 558, in page 100, leave out line 13.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 139

      MONITORING BY COUNCIL OF BROADCASTING STANDARDS
      Amendments made: No. 237, in page 100, line 39, after 'any', insert 'effects or'.
      No. 238, in page 100, line 39, after 'attitudes', insert 'or behaviour'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 140

      CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL OF COMPLAINTS RELATING TO BROADCASTING STANDARDS
      Amendments made: No. 635, in page 101, line 24, leave out from 'made' to end of line 29 and insert—
      '(a) where the relevant programme is a television programme, more than two months after the relevant date, or
      (b) where the relevant programme is a sound programme, more than three weeks after that date,'.
      No. 636, in page 101, line 31, at end insert—
      '(3A) In subsection (3) "the relevant date" means—

      (a) the date on which the relevant programme was broadcast by a broadcasting body or included in a licensed service, or

      (b) where it has been so broadcast or included on more than one occasion, the date on which it was last so broadcast or included.'.

      No. 637, in page 101, line 33, at end insert—
      '(aa) that the matter complained of is the subject of proceedings in a court of law in the United Kingdom, or
      (ab) that the matter complained of is a matter in respect of which the complainant has a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law in the United
      342
      Kingdom, and that in the particular circumstances it is not appropriate for the Council to consider a complaint about it, or'.
      No. 638, in page 101, line 35, leave out 'do so' and insert
      `entertain, or proceed with the consideration of, the complaint.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 141

      CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS
      Amendments made: No. 639, in page 102, line 11, leave out from 'complaint,' to 'furnish' in line 15 and insert
      'it shall be the duty of that person, if so required by the Council—

      (a) to provide the Council with a visual or sound recording of the relevant programme or any specified part of it, if and so far as he has such a recording in his possession;

      (b) to provide the Council with a transcript of so much of the relevant programme, or of any specified part of it, as consisted of speech, if and so far as he is able to do so;

      (c) to provide the Council with copies of any documents in his possession being the originals or copies of any correspondence between him and the complainant in connection with the complaint;

      (d) to'.

      No. 640, in page 102, line 17, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
      No. 559, in page 103, line 10, leave out
      by whom it was so included'
      and insert
      providing that service'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 142

      PUBLICATION OF COUNCIL'S FINDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 641, in page 103, line 22, leave out
      'in a form approved for the purpose by the Council'.
      No. 642, in page 103, line 26, leave out
      'in a form so approved'.
      No. 643, in page 103, line 26, at end insert—
      '(2A) The form and content of any such summary as is mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) shall be such as may be approved by the Council.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 143

      POWER OF COUNCIL TO UNDERTAKE OR COMMISSION ESEARCH
      Amendments made: No. 644, in page 103, line 34, leave out
      'undertake or arrange for other persons to undertake,'
      and insert
      'make arrangements for the undertaking of'.
      No. 645, in page 103, line 36, leave out 'television or -adio programmes' and insert
      'programmes to which this Part applies'.
      No. 646, in page 103, line 41, at end insert—
      '(2A) Arrangements made under subsection (1) shall secure that, so far as it is reasonably practicable, any research undertaken in pursuance of the arrangements is undertaken by persons who are neither members nor employees of the Council.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 146
      ANNUAL REPORTS
      Amendment made: No. 647, in page 104, line 22, leave out from '139(1)(a)' to end of line 24.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 147
      INTERPRETATION OF PART VI
      Amendment made: No. 560, in page 104, line 43, after '73(1)', insert 'or (2A)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 148

      OBSCENITY IN PROGRAMME SERVICES: ENGLAND AND WALES
      Amendments made: No. 561, in page 105, line 14, leave out 'is hereby repealed' and insert
      'shall cease to have effect'.
      No. 291, in page 105, line 18, leave out 'television or sound programme' and insert
      'programme included in a programme service'.
      No. 292, in page 105, line 19, leave out 'television or sound programme' and insert 'programme so included'.
      No. 293, in page 105, line 25, leave out from 'section' to end of line 27 and insert
      "'programme" and "programme service" have the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990.".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Schedule 13

      APPLICATION OF 1959 ACT TO TELEVISION AND SOUND PROGRAMMES
      Amendments made: No. 300, in page 193, leave out line 32 and insert—
      "'relevant programme" means a programme'.
      No. 301, in page 193, line 38, leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.
      No. 302, in page 194, line 3, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
      No. 303, in page 194, line 4 leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.
      No. 304, in page 194, line 14, leave out 'television or sound'.
      No. 305, in page 194, line 24, leave out 'television or sound'.
      No. 306, in page 194, line 39, leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.
      No. 307, in page 194, line 44, leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.
      No. 308, in page 194, line 45, leave out from 'but' to end of line 47.
      No. 309, in page 195, line 2, leave out from 'a' to end of line 4 and insert
      'relevant programme is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of—

      (i) drama, opera, ballet or any other art,

      (ii) science, literature or learning, or

      (iii) any other objects of general concern.'.

      No. 310, in page 195, line 7, after '4', insert '(1) and'.
      No. 311, in page 195, line 11, leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.
      No. 312, in page 195, line 16, leave out 'television or sound'.
      No. 313, in page 195, line 18, leave out 'such a programme' and insert
      'a programme which is to be so included.'—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 149

      OBSCENITY IN PROGRAMME SERVICES: SCOTLAND
      Amendments made: No. 294, in page 105, line 37, leave out 'television or sound programme' and insert
      'programme included in a programme service'.
      No. 295, in page 105, line 38, leave out 'television or sound programme' and insert 'programme so included'.
      No. 296, in page 106, line 2, leave out from "'material"; to end of line 10 and insert
      'the words from "and" onwards shall be omitted;

      (b) after the definition of "prescribed sum" there shall be inserted—

      ""programme" and "programme service" have the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990;" and

      (c) the word "showing," shall be omitted.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

      No. 297, in page 108, line 30, leave out clause 153. —[Mr. Mellor.]
      No. 298, in page 109, line 9, leave out clause 154. —[Mr. Mellor.]
      No. 299, in page 109, line 42, leave out clause 155. —[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 157
      OFFENCE OF ALLOWING PREMISES TO BE USED FOR PURPOSE OF UNLAWFUL BROADCASTING
      Amendment made: No. 284, in page 111, line 15, leave out hovercraft.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 158

      PROHIBITION OF ACTS FACILITATING UNAUTHORISED BROADCASTING
      Amendment made: No. 283, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—
      '"broadcasting station" means any business or other operation (whether or not in the nature of a commercial venture) which is engaged in the making of broadcasts;'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 159

      AMENDMENTS OF THE MARINE, &C., BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) ACT 1967
      Amendment made: No. 285, in page 113, line 13, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 28 and insert
      'have effect subject to the amendments specified in Schedule [Amendments of the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967] (which include amendments that impose further restrictions on broadcasting at sea and on acts facilitating such broadcasting).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 160
      AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS OF 1949 ACT RELATING TO PENALTIES AND FORFEITURE
      Amendment made: No. 287, in page 114, line 18, leave out hovercraft'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 161

      EXTENSION OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE POWERS IN RELATION TO UNLAWFUL BROADCASTING ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 288, in page 115, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 2.
      No. 289, in page 115, leave out lines 5 and 6.
      No. 286, in page 115, line 15, leave out subsection (4). —[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 163

      USE AS RIGHT OF SOUND RECORDINGS IN BROADCAST AND CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES
      Mr. William Cash: I beg to move, amendment No. 709, in page 116, line 10, leave out 'or (3)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 710, in page 116, line 19, leave out '(a)' and insert after the first `the' `conditions and'.
      No. 711, in page 116, line 21, leave out from 'him' to end of line 26.
      No. 712, in page 116, leave out lines 27 to 33 and insert
      `(3) A licensing body shall not be entitled to propose a restriction on needletime unless expressly requested by a licensee, provided that where a person who has expressly so requested such a restriction later requests a relaxation of a restriction as to needletime, the condition referred to in section 135A(1)(b) shall be deemed to be fulfilled.'.
      No. 713, in page 116, line 34, leave out 'references' and insert 'reference'.
      No. 714, in page 116, line 37, leave out from 'licence' to `failing' in line 37 and insert 'includes'.
      No. 715, in page 116, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert
      "`needletime" means the amount of time a sound recording, or an aggregate number of sound recordings is included in a broadcast or cable programme service,'.
      No. 716, in page 117, line 32, leave out from 'condition' to end of line 35 and insert
      'intended to prevent or hinder unauthorised copying of the sound recordings, notice of which has been given to him by the licensing body,'.
      No. 717, in page 118, line 19, leave out 'and' and insert
      `(taking into account the provision of paragraph (d) below.)'.
      No. 718, in page 118, line 24, leave out 'less than reasonable' and insert
      `of an unreasonably low amount'.
      No. 719, in page 118, line 26, at end insert—
      `(c) if asked to do so by a person exercising the right conferred by section 135C shall determine whether the payment proposed by the licensing body in response to a request under section 135B(1) was of an unreasonably high amount and if it was may order the costs of the person on that application to be paid by the licensing body,
      (d) shall not be entitled to treat as a relevant consideration when determining whether the terms of payment are reasonable, any increase in usage of sound recordings whether as a result of a removal of a restriction on needletime or otherwise and sections 129 and 134 (factors to be taken into account) are modified accordingly.'.
      No. 720, in page 118, line 36, leave out from 'condition' to 'sound' in line 38 and insert
      'intended to prevent or hinder the unauthorised copying of the'.
      No. 721, in page 118, line 44, after 'and', insert '(i)'.
      No. 722, in page 118, line 45, at end insert—
      'or

      (ii) if it is not reasonable the tribunal may order any costs of the applicant on the reference to be paid by the licensing body.'.

      No. 723, in page 119, line 27, after licence', insert
      'save as modified by section 135D(1)(d)'.
      Mr. Cash: In one minute I shall celebrate my 50th birthday, on 10 May. That day in 1940 was a great day for this nation, but not on account of my birth.
      The Minister is well acquainted with the arguments about needletime and I should be interested to hear his response to my amendments.
      Mr. Mellor: I am glad to say that, in view of the brevity of his speech, it appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will indeed reach his birthday. Had he spoken for longer, that might have been doubtful. I shall filibuster for 30 seconds so that I can wish him a happy birthday.
      This is a complex set of provisions, but my hon. Friend has, I think, raised points which need to be considered very carefully. I am happy to give him an undertaking that we shall consider them positively, and I will write to him. If our decision is favourable, it will be possible to make some of the changes that he wants in another place. We have not yet reached the time, but I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday anyway.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Jim Lester (Broxstowe): I hope that, despite what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, he will consider the full implications of amendments that have been moved so arbitrarily at such a late hour. As I am sure he realises, there is a good deal more to them, and those who oppose them would like an opportunity to say so in —or through—another place.
      Mr. Simon Coombs: I echo what my hon. Friend has lust said. It is important for hon. Members to understand that a balance must be struck between the interests of the music industry and those of broadcasters. If the Government are to move at all, they must move with great deliberation. This is not the time to do more than put on record the fear of many Conservative Members that a move will be made to upset that delicate balance, so I merely urge hon. Members to resist the amendments.
      We discussed these matters when we debated the Bill which became the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and no change was made then. Similar amendments were defeated. If these amendments were approved, or reintroduced in another place, broadcasters would have access to unlimited quantities of material without making payments which related in any way to their volume use. That would represent a serious change in the delicate balance between the rights of the music industry and those of broadcasters.
      By all means let us debate the matter, but not at such late hour. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will mar in mind what I have said.
      Mr. Cash: Having reached the age of 50, I beg to ask eave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 164

      DUTY TO PROVIDE ADVANCE INFORMATION ABOUT PROGRAMMES
      Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 360, in page 119, line 49, at end insert
      but the person providing the programme service will not be required to make available a complete schedule for any one week period more than ten days before the first day of that week'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 365, in schedule 14, page 196, line 23, leave out 'reasonable' and insert
      'not less than three months'.
      No. 366, in schedule 14, page 196, line 27, leave out 'reasonable' and insert
      'not less than three months'.
      No. 367, in schedule 14, page 196, line 30, at end insert—
      `(c) deposit in a trust account in the names jointly of himself and the owner of the copyright in the information to which this Schedule applies an amount equal to the difference between the amount that would have been payable in the first three months of the licence in accordance with any proposal for terms of payment made pursuant to a request under paragraph 3(1)(a) and the amount which the publisher under paragraph 3(1)(b) has notified he is willing to pay in the first three months of publication, on terms that the owner of the copyright shall be entitled to have recourse to up to the whole of the amount so deposited and any interest thereon in satisfaction of any order of the Copyright Tribunal.'.
      No. 576, in schedule 14, page 196, line 48, at end insert—
      '4A.—(1) The requirement in paragraph 4 to make payments, and the requirements in paragraph 3 to give notice, do not apply in relation to any acts which consist only of the publication of the date, time and title of programmes.
      (2) Where the publisher does any such acts as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) he shall (instead of making payments under paragraph 4) pay to the person providing the programme service a fee in respect of the reasonable administrative costs of supplying the information concerned in pursuance of section 164 of this Act.'.
      No. 368, in schedule 14, page 197, line 11, at end insert ', and
      (c) where the applicant has been exercising the right conferred by paragraph 4 for a period of not less than three months and no order as to the terms of payment has been made, may if asked to do so by the owner of the copyright in the information to which the Schedule applies order the applicant to deposit such further amount in the trust account as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.'.
      Mr. Corbett: I am afraid that it is not my 50th birthday yet, but the Minister will recall our long discussions in Committee about the way in which the monopoly of the TV listings was to be broken up. Perhaps he will be kind enough to repeat what I think that he was trying to say in his press release of 24 April—that amendments will be introduced in another place which will, among other things, make the change in the monopoly ownership of programme listings in the early part of next year.
      Mr. Gale: I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 576, which stands in my name.
      There is a fear that the provisions in the Bill relating to the purchase of listings from broadcasting companies may lead to unseemly legal wrangling. The amendment seeks to simplify the issue in cases in which only the date, time and nature of the broadcast are involved. No one believes that that information should be provided at a cost to the broadcaster—by implication, secretarial time and effort will be required to provide publishers with such information—hence the second part of the amendment, which seeks to allow a small charge to be made. It would be much simpler to make the date, time and title of a television production available to publishers free of charge.
      Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the Minister's announcement in his press release of 24 April about the detail of the
      348
      arrangements that he has in mind for ending the "duopoly" in television programme listings. He will recall that in Committee I expressed my concerns, and those of Independent Television Publications Limited, a subsidiary of Reed International plc. I understand that it is gratified by the Minister's proposals, and although they are not entirely ideal for the company it regards them as a fair compromise.
      I am also anxious to hear from the Minister whether it is his intention to introduce amendments to the Bill in another place, and what he intends to do about the timing of the transition. The company naturally attaches much importance to that. The Minister's press release spoke of six months after Royal Assent being a reasonable time —a view that is generally accepted. If it is his intention to proceed along those lines, he will have achieved a satisfactory settlement.
      Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) jested about his age. This provoked me, for the first time ever, to look it up. I discoverd with great horror that he is 56 years old, so we had better treasure him while we still have him. I hasten to assure him about the point that was worrying him, lest he overload his heart fretting about it. It is our intention to implement these arrangements about six months after Royal Assent, if that comes in the summer. However, one cannot guarantee that the last stages of the Bill will not go on into the spill-over period, so perhaps I should say within the first three months of the next year.
      We have tried to do this sensibly, recognising the interests of the broadcasters, who want to ensure that the details of programmes are not disclosed so early that they can be of commercial use to other broadcasters, while allowing the development of sensible broadcasting magazines and others who could make use of this information.
      With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I do not think that this should be free, because it is copyright material and we should not prevent those holding it from charging for it. Equally, I expect the charges to be relatively modest, and the copyright tribunal will have the right to adjudicate on that.
      We have recognised the position of Reed International about which concern was expressed in Committee. It owns the copyright to ITV programmes until 1992, and we have said that it—rather than the broadcasters—can negotiate the fees involved. I discovered that the proprietor of Time Out lashed out—to use the phrase of the popular press —at these arrangements. No one has lashed out at them tonight, for which I am grateful, and I hope that most hon. Members think that they are sensible. Amendments to give effect to them will be introduced in another place.
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful for much of what the Minister has said, although he has a habit of letting out Corbett family secrets. It has been helpful to have this quick exchange, and, in the light of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 562, in page 120, line 47, leave out 'programme' and insert 'broadcasting'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Clause 166
      OFFENCE OF SUPPORTING PROSCRIBED FOREIGN SATELLITE SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 563, in page 122, line 43, after `possession', insert `for supply'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Clause 168

      RESTRICTIONS ON INCLUSION OF CERTAIN EVENTS
      Mr. Lester: I beg to move amendment No. 282, in page 123, line 31, at end insert
      `(1A) The Independent Television Commission shall do all that they can to secure that a listed event shall not be included live in any programme broadcast in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland unless that programme is capable of being received by a substantial proportion of the population of each such country.
      (1AA) Where any person has acquired broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event, that person shall be under a duty to make those rights available on reasonable terms to persons providing a domestic satellite service, a non-domestic satellite service or a cable service.
      (1AAA) The Independent Television Commission shall do all that they can to secure that the requirements of subsections (1A) and (1AA) are complied with.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 361, in page 123, line 31, at end insert—
      `(1A) Section 14(1) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 shall continue to have effect subject to the following modifications—

      (a) references to "the Authority" shall be construed as being references to the Commission, and

      (b) the words "and for the purposes of this subsection an opportunity given to the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor to acquire broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event shall be treated as given to the IBA" shall be deleted.'.

      No. 601, in page 124, line 19, at end add—
      `(8) The Secretary of State shall monitor the availability of major sporting or other events of national interest on terrestrial channels after the implementation of this Act and do all that he can to secure, if necessary, any changes required to ensure the availability of such events to the general public.'.
      No. 602, in page 124, line 19, at end add—
      '(8) Nothing in this section shall affect the availability of any extract from any sporting or national event for inclusion in any service providing a news programme and it shall be the duty of the person including such an event in their service to make such extracts available.'.
      No. 369, in schedule 17, page 202, line 30, column 3, `after `Act', insert 'except for section 14(1)'.
      Mr. Lester: I pay tribute to the stamina of the Minister, because this is his second day on the Front Bench, listening to the debates on the Bill. He has also listened carefully throughout the passage of the Bill, and made many sensible concessions. We have heard what he has done for deaf people, which is greatly to his credit. Through this amendment, I appeal to his logic, and his understanding of the broad mass of the people. As all hon. Members will know, the listed event was brought in by a Conservative Government because it was recognised that such events as the cup final, which many of us will be watching on television this weekend, the Grand National, the Derby, the all-England championships at Wimbledon and test
      350
      matches are not simply sporting events. They are events that belong to all of us—because we all have an interest in them. Whether we watch racing or not, we all take an interest in the Grand National.
      It seems illogical that, having established the list of events, we should go on, as we have in the Bill, to take the risk that, when they come up for option, any one of them could be purchased by any one of the satellite companies, and used as a trading mechanism. They could say, "If you want to watch the cup final when the present system runs out, the only way to do so is to buy Sky or BSB equipment." That seems entirely wrong in the sense of what we seek to do by listing events.
      In drafting the amendment, I have tried to be helpful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to the industry. I request in the amendment that no one should have the sole rights to any listed event unless he has a substantial viewing public. That means that either the BBC or ITV can buy the rights. It is suggested that they should have to make them available at reasonable cost to either of the satellite companies, or alternatively the satellite companies can buy the event, but only if they are in partnership with either the BBC or ITV. That means that the free market principles of my hon. and learned Friend are satisfied, and we ensure that the vast majority of the population can view these events live in the way they traditionally have.
      I hope that neither amendment will appear to my hon. and learned Friend to be contentious. Both are intended to be helpful to him. I am on the side of the viewing public and not on that of any group which seeks to purchase or to use the events for commercial purposes.
      Mr. Hattersley: I rise partly to support the arguments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and mainly to draw the attention of the House to amendment No. 361, which was tabled by the official Opposition. It attempts to achieve the same effect as the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
      The Minister has been so reasonable on so many issues throughout the consideration of the Bill that I hope that he will be helpful on listed events. It may be that neither the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe nor that which has been proposed by the Opposition is technically the best one to achieve the results that, I believe, most of the House wants to secure. If the Minister tells us that he wants to move towards our view and general public opinion on listed events, I shall be happy to withdraw the Opposition's amendment. I think that the principle should be stated once more, however, in the hope that the Minister, in his reasonableness, will accept it.
      The 12 listed events are, I suppose, with the possible exception of the boat race, regarded by an overwhelming majority as national events. The boat race enables people to make claims, of course, about the universities that they once attended. Apart from that, the other 11 events are matters of general national interest. People watch them because they seem to be occasions that concern the whole nation and its interests and not only because of their sporting interests.
      In our view and, if the opinion polls are to be believed, in the view of the entire nation, or the vast majority of it, it would be an absurdity if such national occasions were seen only by a small proportion of the population. I do not want to feed the neuroses of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) by suggesting that our concern is

      351
      restricted to one satellite company. It extends to every cable or satellite company that might bid for and obtain exclusive rights to one of the events and prevent the majority of the population from seeing it.
      On Saturday, 12 million people or more will watch the cup final. Were the final the exclusive property of a satellite company, the proportion who would watch it would not be anything like that. If, however, the listed event system is changed, there is a clear possibility that a satellite company will bid for and obtain exclusive viewing rights over these events. It would be a sensible commercial decision to do so. It would be a loss leader that would encourage millions of people to buy a dish and install the necessary equipment on the basis that it was the only way in which to see the event.
      The one occasion when I was tempted to buy a dish was when I discovered that a satellite company was broadcasting a test match live from the West Indies.
      Mr. Cryer: But my right hon. Friend resisted the temptation.
      Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend, who has known me for 30 years, knows that that is the sort of temptation that I resist. I confess that there was a moment when I felt that such a sacrifice of principle might be worth it to watch the ball-by-ball transmission of a test match from the West Indies.
      Seriously, millions of people would be attracted to the new market if it was the only way that they could see, for example, the cup final. However, there would also be millions of others who would not. While it might be a commercial proposition for a satellite company, it is not the right proposition for the nation as several million people would be prevented from seeing an event that is central to the life of the country. Such events are of interest to men and women who are not usually interested in or likely to watch such sporting occasions. They are national events as well as listed events.
      12.15 am
      I understand that the BBC, concerned about the Government's enthusiasm for competition, has suggested a compromise. It is neither exactly that proposed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe nor that proposed by the Opposition. It suggests that the national networks—ITV and BBC—should bid against each other for the listed events, thereby ensuring that there is some competition. The price would be bid up so that the cup final, the Grand National or the Derby would receive a market-oriented price from the two national networks bidding against each other.
      There should then be a second bidding—not a second coming—so that the satellite companies can obtain the rights to show those programmes on the Sunday after the event, late at night, as a recording. That would be a second opportunity for the listed event companies to obtain some revenue from selling a second right.
      The BBC's suggested alternative is acceptable to the Opposition. All that we want is the prospect of all 12 listed events being available to every family with a television set. The scheme by which that is achieved is less important than the principle.
      Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants satellite television excluded from the marketplace for the live transmission of listed events. He said that he
      352
      was tempted to buy a satellite dish—although he did not —to watch a match that neither of the other companies chose to show. The BBC has purchased Wimbledon, but it has not shown many matches for a long time. It is time that the cartel was broken.
      Mr. Hattersley: I said earlier that I hoped that hon. Members would not see this issue simply in terms of protecting the interests of satellite television. We are trying to protect the interests of the consumer—the viewer. The simple fact is that, if a satellite company, whichever it may be, bid for the listed events—which it might well be in its commercial interests to do—and obtained the exclusive rights to show them, the inevitable result would be that several million British viewers would not have the opportunity to see events which previous Governments, of both persuasions, believed to be the property of the whole nation, and which should be available for viewing by the whole nation. Put in those terms, it is not easy to argue against the principle that the hon. Member for Broxtowe and I have attempted to outline.
      By describing the compromise suggested by the BBC —which provides a place for satellite broadcasting—we want to secure the broadcasting opportunity. How it is done is much less important. If the Minister tells us that, in another place, he will ensure that listed events are universally available, we will gladly withdraw the amendment to give him time to think of the best way to meet that desirable objective.
      Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has spoken effectively. I know that he is a genuine sports fan, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). So, too, am I. I shall be among those at the cup final and I am looking forward to the game.
      This is not an issue that I regard as purely academic. I have thought about it quite deeply. I am sorry that my reputation for reasonableness will not, in the eyes of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, be much enhanced by my reply. However, I accept that it is one of those issues on which people of goodwill should find it possible to agree. It is not one about which there is any absolute truth.
      The present arrangements give no absolute guarantee that a sporting event will be made available to everyone who wants to see it. At the moment there is a right to match and a non-BBC or ITV company could put in a large bid and both the BBC and the ITV could refuse to match it, in which case it would go exclusively to that other channel. There is no absolute right at the moment. We propose to maintain the prohibition on pay per view. which is the only way in which it is likely that a channel which is not a mainstream channel will be able to afford the kind of bid that they would have to put in.
      There is no duty on sporting bodies to sell television rights and any one of the 12 could decide that it did not want to sell them and any right the public might have to see the event would fall by the way.
      By the same token, the broadcasting organisations are placed under no obligation to carry the programmes. I fully accept that channels would want to show most of the events on the list. There may be genuine reservations about the boat race, although it has the advantage of starting in my constituency. Apart from that, one cannot make a big case for it, particularly now that Cambridge seem to be losing all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear "]I knew

      353
      that I should get an appreciative cheer for that. There might be some doubt about whether the race should be shown.
      Most hon. Members would agree that the sporting event which held the most interest for people in the past six months was the England-Scotland rugby game. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook shakes his head, but even a non-rugger fan like me got quite interested in it. Although I went to see my football team instead of watching the match, I was notionally interested in the rugby match.
      None of the rugger internationals are listed events, which suggests that the list is somewhat arbitrary. I also think that all sports fans should be ambivalent about the list for this reason. I remember as a child going to events organised by the Dorset Schools Football Association, of which my father was the secretary. Those events were funded by the Football Association on the basis of the moneys they received from various activities, not least television rights to the cup final. The grass roots of sport are watered by media fees and I am not sure how justifiable it is for BBC and ITV to have an inside track to such events at a relatively low price if, as a consequence, the sports concerned cannot finance their activities as well as they might have been able to do. Sports fans must feel ambivalent about that.
      While some companies may have to spend more for such rights, I do not think that the proprietors will sell to satellite stations because they have an interest in their sport having a shop window and major access to a lot of homes. The organisers of Wimbledon have stated that in their terms.
      Also every time one watches a Wimbledon player drinking some substance—legal or illegal—out of a cardboard cup, whatever it might be, it alleges that it is a particular soft drink. No doubt it is not entirely coincidental that the label is on the drink as someone has paid a large amount of money for it. The sponsors will not welcome the prospect of that sporting event being seen only in a limited number of homes. Wimbledon said in its terms that it is not interested in a small audience.
      It is not insignificant that all of the sporting bodies concerned have welcomed the freedom that the arrangements in the amendment give. It will allow a normal, sensible and rational set of decisions to be made about the broadcasting of events which will militate in favour of a large audience. It would be much better for that to be done in the normal way in which such transactions take place, rather than through some arbitrary imposition that has become increasingly irrelevant.
      Mr. Hattersley: I wonder why the Minister is so optimistic about the organisers of sporting events wanting a larger audience as distinct from a smaller but more remunerative one. Although the Minister reminded us of what Wimbledon said, organisers of two major race meetings which get some coverage but are of no intetrest to me have written in strong terms saying that they want the right to get the biggest bid and the biggest income irrespective of the size of the audience. Why does the Minister think that Wimbledon will continue behaving in the way he described rather than behaving in the same way as the German lawn tennis association behaved? When Germany had world champions in the men's and women's
      354
      singles events at Wimbledon, only 4 per cent. of the German public could see the matches which were not shown on general German television.
      Mr. Mellor: I understand that point, but for what it is worth my prediction is that Wimbledon will stick to its clear statement that it wants a mass audience in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said that there is plenty of scope for many more games at Wimbledon to be shown. Games on the centre court and sometimes on court No. 1 are shown, but there is plenty of scope for other television organisations to cover the games on the other courts. It may just be bad luck, but whenever I have centre court tickets there is usually something much more exciting happening on court No. 16.
      However, all good things must come to an end and it is 25 minutes past 12. Suffice it to say that I understand that there is a populist sentiment behind the case for retaining the limited list. I understand that we run the risk that at some point in future a major sporting event may go to a minority channel, but there is no continued justification for a fetter on the discretion of the sporting bodies to sell their product where they wish and common sense will Insure that the British public continue to have the opportunity to see those great events on live television.
      I am sorry but I cannot assist my hon. Friend. I have given the matter intense consideration, but I cannot undermine the central pillars of the argument in favour of the major sporting bodies enjoying the same sensible and free rights of contracting as owners of important commercial products enjoy.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister was quite right to say that the England-Scotland rugby match was the most important sporting event of the year. For those of us who were there it seemed rather more like a rally against the poll tax, but we need not dwell on that.
      The speeches have revealed two apparently irreconcilable points of view. That is why I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to amendments Nos. 601 and 502 in the names of my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 601 places a duty on the Minister to monitor the circumstances Following the enactment of the Bill. The truth or otherwise pf the assertions which have been made on both sides of the House is bound to be demonstrated in due course. For that reason, I hope that he will look with some favour on amendment No. 601, which allows the freedom for which he argues to be instituted but provides protection, if necessary, for those who are most keenly interested in sport.
      Those who obtain the exclusive right to broadcast the events that we are discussing are extremely reluctant to make extracts of them available for news purposes and often particular sections of the total coverage are important for strictly news considerations. Amendment No. 602 is directed to that issue.
      I hope therefore that the Minister will be willing to give the amendments some sympathetic consideration, even if le is not willing to accept the more radical proposals which nave been referred to in previous speeches.
      Miss Kate Hoey: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said. If we are serious about finding ways of

      355
      making it impossible for a single satellite or cable company to acquire the sole right to national events, we must support amendment No. 361.
      I do not share the Minister's confidence that many of our sporting governing bodies will consider the long term rather than the short term. Given the many difficulties facing sport and the paltry increase that once again the Sports Council received this year, I am afraid that, despite what ordinary members of that sporting body may want, the enormous amounts of money available for satellite companies to show national events will win.
      12.30 am
      Much has been said to the effect that the Bill is about competition and quality, but little about the choice of the majority of people in this country who do not have access to satellite or cable television. I am not being anti-satellite or anti-cable television. As BSB and Sky become more available, there will be partnership between the BBC and the satellite broadcasting companies. We were able to get cricket from the West Indies, and we will see more football.
      There is room for partnership, but it is important that the listed events are available to everyone. This Saturday, the cup final will take place between Crystal Palace and Manchester United. Thousands of genuine supporters of those clubs will not be able to obtain a cup final ticket. People who have watched their matches week in and week out will not be able to get to Wembley. Many hon. Members will attend Wembley on Saturday who never go to football matches. I am not referring to the Minister because I know that he is a genuine football supporter.
      Mr. Corbett: No, he is not; he supports Chelsea.
      Miss Hoey: He supports Chelsea, and he is likely to be at the cup final.
      It is important to elderly and house-bound people for national sporting events to be available on television. The Minister has not given way on this in any way, but I hope that even at this late stage he will consider some way of ensuring that our national events are available on television for everyone and not just a few people who can afford or who have access to cable or satellite.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: I speak for a particular purpose. What we are really talking about again is the old profit motive—pouring money into certain people's pockets. It is a right old racket. Here we are talking about how it is happening with sport.
      There is a sport known as the noble art. We have an all-party boxing group in the House. It has not been in operation very long, but it is a successful group. I am proud to be standing next to one of the stewards of the British Boxing Board of Control. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I, when we get the opportunity, regularly watch the noble art on BBC or ITV.
      I am proud because I was lucky enough to see on BBC 1 Kirkland Laing win the European welterweight boxing championship. That is what it is all about. Millions of people could switch on BBC 1, while on ITV there was a potential heavyweight champion who won quite easily in the first round.
      The problem is cable television because not everyone can afford it. That is where the unfairness comes in.
      Mr. Skinner: And the ugly.
      Mr. Haynes: That is right. There is the good, the had and the ugly. I remember the picture in The Star yesterday of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. He was likened to Clint Eastwood. We get Clint Eastwood films on TV and they also appear on that other channel that is piped in. The ordinary person in the street cannot see those films if they do not appear on BBC, ITV or Channel 4. I object to those films appearing on cable. However, that wonderful picture of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover appeared in The Star yesterday and he was likened to that marvellous cowboy actor. I felt right proud when I saw it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has an interest in the noble art just like me. The all-party group will continue and it is connected with the British Boxing Board of Control with a view to ensuring fair play. However, we also need fair play with the TV channels.
      It is all right for the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). He has a real link with TV—he came from it. He protects the people who are raking it in day after day. Those people could not care less about the ordinary people in the street. There are many old miner pensioners in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
      Mr. Greg Knight: You are one yourself.
      Mr. Haynes: Wait a minute. Was it the hon. Member for Thanet, North who said that I was one of them? If so, he is right. I will be 65 next March and I am proud of that. I am fighting fit, but I am not fit to go in the ring. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and my other colleagues are concerned about the quality of television that our pensioners will see back in our constituencies. We want them to have channels that they can switch on and watch without having to keep on paying through the nose for it.
      I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who tabled amendment No. 361. However, I felt drawn into saying something about sport on TV. When the Labour party gets back into office, people who think that they can just walk into this country from the United States or wherever and set up their TV channels and make a fortune at the expense of the pensioners in our constituencies will have another think coming.
      The Minister of State mentioned the boat race. That might be on his doorstep and many other people can enjoy the race because it is covered by BBC and ITV. However, there are many sporting events that people cannot see because they cannot afford it. We must be fair to the people who really cannot afford to pay. We must give them a fair deal. I have got that off my chest now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Lester: I suspect that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is busy trying to become a listed event himself in terms of his parliamentary performance. I do not know what fee he might attract for that. However, I will resist his strictures about Conservative Members, because I moved the amendment.
      I was disappointed by the response from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, after having read the reports of all the debates in Committee. I crafted my amendment to deal with the points that he made in

      357
      Committee. I cannot conceive of any reason why one should not require that a substantial proportion of the population should be able to see any programme.
      I have dealt with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). The second part of the amendment says:
      "Where any person has acquired broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event, that person shall be under a duty to make those rights available on reasonable terms to persons providing a domestic satellite service, a non-domestic satellite service or a cable service."
      One could not be fairer than that. It brings in the whole range of activities that people should be able to view.
      I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will consider the proposition in the amendment. I do not consider it unreasonable. I recognise that, at this time of night, it does not make a lot of sense to divide the House on the amendment. Therefore, I am prepared to withdraw it. However, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will think again in time for the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 361, in page 123, line 31, at end insert—
      '(1A) Section 14(1) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 shall continue to have effect subject to the following modifications—

      (a) references to "the Authority" shall be construed as being references to the Commission, and

      (b) the words "and for the purposes of this subsection an opportunity given to the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor to acquire broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event shall be treated as given to the IBA" shall be deleted.'.—[Mr Hattersly]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 83.

      Division No. 199]

      [12.40 am

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McKelvey, William

      Caborn, Richard

      Maclennan, Robert

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Marek, Dr John

      Corbett, Robin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cryer, Bob

      Morley, Elliot

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Nellist, Dave

      Darling, Alistair

      Pendry, Tom

      Dixon, Don

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fisher, Mark

      Rowlands, Ted

      Foster, Derek

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Wallace, James

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretlord)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McAllion, John

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Mrs. Llin folding

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Amess, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Amos, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Batiste, Spencer

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Couchman, James

      Bowis, John

      Cran, James

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

      Brazier, Julian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      358

      Dover, Den

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Durant, Tony

      Neubert, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Gale, Roger

      Paice, James

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Patnick, Irvine

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Redwood, John

      Gow, Ian

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Gregory, Conal

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Harris, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Stern, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

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

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Irvine, Michael

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Jack, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Janman, Tim

      Trippier, David

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Watts, John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Wells, Bowen

      Knowles, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Yeo, Tim

      Lilley, Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Mans, Keith

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Mellor, David

      Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 171

  DUTIES OF BBC AS RESPECTS INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 698, in page 126, line 21, leave out subsections (3) to (9).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 606, in page 126, line 21, leave out
  'The Director General of Fair Trading ("the Director")'
  and insert
  'the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC'.
  No. 607, in line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert-—
  '(4) the Chairman shall publish any report made by him under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate and for the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to any such report'.
  No. 608, in clause 172, page 127, line 27, leave out clause 172.
  Mr. Maclennan: This group of amendments returns to a subject that we debated exhaustively in Committee relating to the requirement that the BBC should achieve a target of 25 per cent. production of designated programmes by independent producers from 1993 Onwards. The amendments deal with the Bill's proposed requirement that that should be monitored by the Office of Fair Trading. The BBC has strongly argued that that is unnecessary and will duplicate its efforts in that role. The achievement of that target is on course. This year—the year up to March 1990—independent transmissions will be running at the agreed target of 360 hours. There is no evidence that the BBC is unwilling to meet the target, and the system of monitoring in place has been carried on since the BBC was set up.

  359
  The board of governors has responsibility for regulating the BBC, and it would be a remarkable departure from the board's historic role to give the task of detailed regulation of that requirement to the Office of Fair Trading. It is not clear why that has been done. It suggests a lack of confidence in the board of governors——
  Mr. Skinner: What is the reason?
  Mr. Maclennan: I have yet to hear the reason. I think it may be that the Minister simply wanted to demonstrate the Government's hostility to the BBC, but it is an odd way of doing so.
  I shall not repeat the warnings uttered earlier by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) about the danger of tampering with the BBC in future. I take the point which has been made forcefully by the BBC—that, if this form of regulation is to be imposed upon it, it is odd that it is not being imposed upon independent producers as well. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.
  Mr. Skinner: That is one way of putting it.
  Mr. Maclennan: It is not an original way of putting it, but it is certainly a way of putting it. At this time of night, it is not too bad.
  I shall not delay the House, because the arguments were extensively canvassed in Committee and the points were made forcefully. The BBC remains strongly hostile. When the BBC is as cost-conscious as it has to be, and is making savings that are leading to cuts in manning, to sackings and to a diminution of service, it is irresponsible to impose upon it the double duty of monitoring itself and providing the information to the Office of Fair Trading at its behest. It seems like a fifth wheel, which I hope the Government will remove.
  Mr. Corbett: I do not intend to repeat the arguments which were made extensively in Committee. Very few of us can understand the logic behind the Government wanting to import the Director General of Fair Trading into this position. It looks very much as if the Government do not trust the BBC. If that is the case, it is unfair. There is no reason to assume that the BBC will not do what is asked of it, especially as it reports to the House annually.
  Mr. Mellor: The answer is that no organisation can be above regulation. The governors of the BBC, in whom we have a great deal of confidence, are part of the BBC structure. They are the broadcasters. Although the initiative is going well, the relationship can be fraught with difficulty. The independent producers are entitled to expect that there should be an independent body charged by the House with responsibility for competition policy, monitoring the way in which these arrangements are carried through. It is no disrespect to the BBC, any more than it is disrespect to Ministers that we can be made subject to Parliament, to Select Committees or to the judiciary. It is part and parcel of the checks and balances in a sophisiticated society.
  We went over the arguments in Committee. I am grateful for the forbearance of the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I cannot devise any novel arguments as to why we are doing this. We should not have to apologise for saying that there should
  360
  be objective assessment by an indpendent body charged with dealing with competition policy. That is the thinking behind the provision. We mean no disrespect to the governors of the BBC, but the governors are just that—the broadcasters in relation to the BBC. They cannot claim to stand sufficiently apart from the BBC to be accepted as entirely independent should any difficulties arise.
  On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel the need to press the amendment.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has repeated the arguments which we heard before. They carry no greater weight than they did when they were first deployed. It remains mysterious that the Government should feel so vulnerable to unreasonable criticism from other quarters removed from the BBC that they feel they must impose a duty upon the governors. It is not a duty which will involve no cost, and it will involve a considerable amount of bureaucratic time. It is unlike the Government to go down that route for what we cannot regard as a practical reason. To this audience the Minister feels that he has made his point and that there is nothing more to say.
  I hope that the Government will think again. I have no doubt that the matter will be considered in another place, where there are former senior figures from the BBC and from the regulatory authority. They will latch on to this point and reconsider it. For all the Minister's disclaimers about hostility to the BBC or lack of trust, there is no history whatever of the BBC not carrying out the statutory obligations imposed upon it by the House. If Parliament imposes upon the BBC an obligation to have a certain proportion of independently produced programmes, there can be no case on the basis of history for arguing that the BBC will not fulfil that obligation.
  The Minister has baffled us by using what seems to be a piece of dogma but not a "cost less" piece of dogma. I hope that the matter will be taken up in another place and that we shall hear more about it in later debates on the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 614, in page 126, line 35, leave out 'relevant to' and insert
  `appearing to him to arise out of, or to be conducive to,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 173

  POWER TO GIVE BROADCASTING BODIES ETC. DIRECTIONS RELATING 'TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
  Mr. Cryer: I beg to move amendment No. 682, in page128, line 30, at end add
  `such direction shall be given by order subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 362, in page 128, line 36, at end insert—
  '(3)—Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), in relation to section 168, (Restrictions on inclusion of certain events), above, international obligations include Article 9 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television.'.
  Mr. Cryer: This is a minor amendment to clause 173, which gives power to the Secretary of State to give directions relating to international obligations. The bodies to which directions can be given include the BBC, the ITC, the Welsh Authority, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Council. Rather than simply

  361
  hand that power to the Secretary of State, it would be preferable to make some more formal provision. My amendment suggests that this should be done by statutory instrument. I have not made it an affirmative statutory instrument but one that is subject to annulment in the House, so that a prayer can be tabled against it. That means that, for those interested, there would be some opportunity to table a prayer and perhaps obtain a debate.
  Amendment No. 362 shows the potential importance of the directions, because they will be to carry out international obligations, one of which is specified in the amendment. The legislation will apply to bodies such as the BBC, and rather than the Secretary of State being given powers that can be applied behind closed doors, even though there may appear to be a transparent relationship under international obligations, it would be better in cases where the Minister is giving directions that have to be followed for there to be some relationship to Parliament. Those are my reasons for tabling the amendment, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) knows that I have accepted parliamentary procedures for crucial parts of the Bill, not least the schedule 2 ownership arrangements, about which there will be an affirmative resolution. I have a problem in relation to the directive because of the number of occasions on which this might arise and whether the use of a statutory instrument would be a rather protracted way of dealing with what might be largely routine matters.
  In deference to the hon. Gentleman, I should like to reflect further on the matters that he raises. He knows that is not a pious statement, because I have made changes as a result of reflection.
  I am not suggesting that I can accept the amendment as it stands: I will, however, try to find out the likely volume of work involved, and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman to tell him that the matter can be further considered in another place.
  Mr. Cryer: In view of the Minister's interesting comments and his commitment to examine the matter—and the possibility of a debate in the House of Lords—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 177

  NOTICES
  Amendments made: No. 683, in page 130, line 17, after `on', insert `or to'.
  No. 564, in page 130, line 26, leave out
  'for the purposes of this subsection the principal office of and insert in relation to'.
  No. 565, in page 130, line 28, leave out 'is' and insert
  `, the reference in paragraph (a) or (b) to its principal office includes a reference to'.
  No. 414, in page 130, line 34, at end insert
  ', and shall be so published as soon as reasonably practicable after it is served.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 178

  REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
  Mr. Cryer: I beg to move amendment No. 684, in page 130, line 38, at end add:
  'Such statutory instruments shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 686, in clause 181, page 132, line 45, at end insert—
  '(5) Any order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Cryer: The amendment is intended merely to clear up any possibility that powers are being granted to the Secretary of State to make regulations or orders that will be exercisable by statutory instrument without reference to the House.
  There is a procedure under which Ministers can make statutory instruments that are not subject to annulment or to any affirmative procedure: they are simply made by the Ministers, who will have no further parliamentary accountability. I know that the Minister is keen to avoid that in any event, but I want to give him the opportunity to make it clear that all the orders made under the Bill will be subject to a parliamentary procedure.
  Government amendment No. 423, which the House has passed, allows an affirmative order procedure for clause 79. I should like an assurance that all the powers in the Bill with which we have dealt so far will be subject to a parliamentary procedure. If they are not, I trust that the Minister will accept the reserve power proposed in the amendment.
  Clause 181(4) states:
  "An order under subsection (3) may in particular make provision for amending, repealing or revoking (with or without savings) any provision of an Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act, or of an instrument made under an Act before the passing of this Act".
  I take it that that is subject to the ejusdem generis rule —that is, that although couched in general terms, it relates specifically to broadcasting legislation, and is not a wider power. The Minister is being given a very wide power, and I am not entirely happy that it is being subjected only to the negative procedure, although I am pleased to note that the Government amendment ensures parliamentary accountability through the statutory instrument procedure.
  The power is, in effect, one of the "Henry VIII" instruments, giving the Minister power to alter and amend primary legislation without the necessity for further legislation. I always think that that should be done by affirmative procedure, but the fact that the Government have tabled an amendment to provide for the negative procedure is at least an improvement on the provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. Mellor: We have tried to incorporate proper parliamentary procedures. The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's blanket amendment is that, by its very nature, its effect would be indiscriminate. As I said earlier, the schedule 2 issues are plainly important, and an affirmative resolution would be appropriate for them, but 'or others we consider the negative resolution procedure appropriate. In other instances, I wonder whether any parliamentary procedure would be appropriate: for

  363
  instance, we will make an order under clause 38, which defines "prescribed country", which will list the states that are signatories to the Council of Europe convention and the EC directive. I doubt whether anyone would seriously want to debate that list.
  I have made these changes on a number of occasions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me a note of any point in the Bill that he thinks we have not got quite right. I guarantee that we shall give that the most serious consideration, because, as I have said before, any one of us who takes a Bill through Parliament should be first and foremost a parliamentarian. That is what the process is about. I should be happy to look at any note that the hon. Gentleman sent me to see whether we needed some further amendments.
  Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister say something about the ejusdem generis point?
  Mr. Mellor: I understand that it goes a bit further, because it paves the way for some of the changes that will be made by way of secondary legislation. I should be happy to drop the hon. Gentleman a note about this, giving him a rather more learned response than I am capable of as I get into my 11th hour of listening to the debate today.
  Mr. Cryer: In view of the Minister's point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 179

  PROGRAMME SERVICES
  Amendment made: No. 685, in page 131, line 18, at end insert—
  `(aa) a local delivery service (within the meaning of Part II of this Act);'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 180

  GENERAL INTERPRETATION
  Amendments made: No. 343, in page 131, line 24, leave out "'advertising agency" and'.
  No. 566, in page 131, line 33, at end insert—
  '"modifications" includes additions, alterations and omissions;'.
  No. 344, in page 132, leave out lines 28 and 29.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 181

  CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
  Amendment made: No. 686, in page 132, line 45, at end insert—
  '(5) Any order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 16

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 690, in page 200, line 3, at end insert—
  '1.—(1) In section 133(2)(a) (exemptions to restriction on disclosure of information), after "the Electricity Act 1989," insert "or the Broadcasting Act 1990,".'.
  No. 691, in page 200, line 7, at end insert—

  `RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT I976 (c.34)
  . In section 41(1)(a) (exceptions to restriction on disclosure of information), after "the Electricity Act 1989" insert "or the Broadcasting Act 1990".

  COMPETITION ACT I98o (C.2I)
  . In section 19(3) (exceptions to restriction on disclosure of information), after paragraph (m) insert—
  "(n) the Broadcasting Act 1990.".'.
  No. 652, in page 201, leave out lines 16 to 48 and insert—
  '"(2) Copyright is not infringed by anything done in pursuance of—

  (a) a condition which, in accordance with any provision of the Broadcasting Act 1990, is included in a licence granted under Part I or III of that Act; or

  (b) a direction given under section 101(2) of that Act (power of Radio Authority to require production of recordings etc.).

  (3) Copyright is not infringed by—

  (a) the use by the Independent Television Commission or the Radio Authority, in connection with the performance of any of their functions under the Broadcasting Act 1990, of any recording, script or transcript which is provided to them under or by virtue of any provision of that Act; or

  (b) the use by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission or the Broadcasting Standards Council, in connection with any complaint made to them under that Act, of any recording or transcript which is provided to them in accordance with section 131(4) or (as the case may be) section 141(3) of that Act.".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 17

  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 314, in page 202, column 3, leave out line 23 and insert—

  `In section 51, subsection (6)(a) and, in subsection (8), in the definition of "material" the words from "and" onwards, and the word "showing,".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

New Schedule

  `AMENDMENTS OF THE MARINE, &C., BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) ACT I967
  1.—(1) Section 2 (prohibition of broadcasting from marine structures) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)(a) for "external waters or in tidal waters in the United Kingdom" substitute "any waters to which this section applies".
  (3) After subsection (2) insert the following subsection—
  "(3) This section applies to—

  (a) tidal waters in the United Kingdom;

  (b) external waters; and

  (c) waters in a designated area within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act 1964."

  2. After section 2 insert the following section—

  `AMENDMENTS OF THE MARINE, &C., BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) ACT I967

    Unlawful broadcasting from within prescribed areas of the high seas
    2A.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, it shall not be lawful to make a broadcast which—

    (a) is made from a ship other than one registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands while the ship is within any area of

    365
    the high seas prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State; and

    (b) is capable of being received in, or causes interference with any wireless telegraphy in, the United Kingdom.

    (2) If a broadcast is made from a ship in contravention of subsection (1) above, the owner of the ship, the master of the ship and every person who operates, or participates in the operation of, the apparatus by means of which the broadcast is made shall be guilty of an offence.
    (3) A person who procures the making of a broadcast in contravention of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence.
    (4) The making of a broadcast does not contravene subsection (1) above if it is shown to have been authorised under the law of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
    (5) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
    3. In section 3 (prohibition of acts connected with broadcasting from certain ships and aircraft, and from marine structures outside the United Kingdom)—

    (a) in subsection (1), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A) below,"; and

    (b) after subsection (1) insert the following subsection—

    "(1A) Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to any broadcast made in contravention of section 2A(1) of this Act, and subsections (1)(c) and (d) above do not apply to structures or other objects in waters falling within section 2(3)(c) of this Act."
    4. After section 3 insert the following section—

    Prohibition of management of stations broadcasting from ships, aircraft etc.
    3A.—(1) Any person who, from any place in the United Kingdom or external waters, participates in the management, financing, operation or day-to-day running of any broadcasting station by which broadcasts are made—

    (a) in contravention of sections 1, 2 or 2A(1) of this Act, or

    (b) as mentioned in section 3(1)(a) of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence.

    (2) In this section "broadcasting station" means any business or other operation (whether or not in the nature of a commercial venture) which is engaged in the making of broadcasts."
    5.—(1) Section 4 (prohibition of acts facilitating broadcasting from ships, aircraft etc.) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—
    "(aa) where paragraph (a) above does not apply but the broadcasts in question are made, or are to be made, from any structure or other object (not being a ship or aircraft) in waters falling within section 2(3)(c) of this Act, he does the act on that structure or other object within those waters; or
    (ab) where paragraph (a) above does not apply but the broadcasts in question are made, or are to be made, from a ship in contravention of section 2A(1) of this Act, he does the act in that ship within any such area of the high seas as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that provision; or".
    (3) In subsection (3)(e), for "or 2(1)" substitute ", 2(1) or 2A(1)".
    6.—(1) Section 5 (prohibition of acts relating to matter broadcast from ships, aircraft etc.) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—
    366
    "(aa) where paragraph (a) above does not apply but the broadcasts in question are made, or are to be made, from any structure or other object (not being a ship or aircraft) in waters falling within section 2(3)(c) of this Act, he does the act on that structure or other object within those waters; or
    (ab) where paragraph (a) above does not apply but the broadcasts in question are made, or are to be made, from a ship in contravention of section 2A(1) of this Act, he does the act in that ship within any such area of the high seas as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that provision; or".
    (3) In subsections (3)(a) and (4), for "or 2(1)", in each place where those words occur, substitute ", 2(1) or 2A(1)".
    7.—(1) Section 6 (penalties and legal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1)(a), for "three" substitute "six".
    (3) In subsection (5), for "on behalf or', in both places where those words occur, substitute "with the consent of the Secretary of State or".
    8. After section 7 insert the following section

    Powers of enforcement in relation to marine offences under this Act.
    7A.—(1) The following persons are enforcement officers for the purposes of sub-section (5) below—

    (a) persons authorised by the Secretary of State to exercise the powers conferred by this section;

    (b) police officers;

    (c) Commissioned officers of Her Majesty's armed forces;

    (d) officers Commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979; and

    (e) persons not falling within any of the preceding paragraphs who are British sea-fishery officers by virtue of section 7(1) of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968;

    and in this subsection "armed forces" means the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the regular army and the regular air force, and any reserve or auxiliary force of any of those services which has been called out on permanent service, or called into actual service, or embodied.
    (2) If an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting—

    (a) that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed by the making of a broadcast from any ship, structure or other object in external waters or in tidal waters in the United Kingdom or from a ship registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands while on the high seas,

    (b) that an offence under section 2 of this Act has been or is being committed by the making of a broadcast from a structure or other object in waters falling within subsection (3)(c) of that section, or

    (c) that an offence under section 2A of this Act has been or is being committed by the making of a broadcast from a ship,

    and the Secretary of State has issued a written authorisation or the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (5), below in relation to that ship, structure or other object, then (subject to subsections (6) and (7) below) the officer may, with or without persons assigned to assist him in his duties, so exercise those powers.
    (3) If—

    (a) the Secretary of State has issued an authorisation under subsection (2) above for the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (5) below in relation to any ship, structure or other object, and

    (b) an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 4 or 5 of this Act has been or is being committed in connection with the making of a broadcast from that ship, structure or other object,

    then (subject to subsections (6) and (7) below) the officer may, with or without persons assigned to assist him in his duties, also exercise those powers in relation to any ship, structure or

    367
    other object which he has reasonable grounds to suspect has been or is being used in connection with the Commission of that offence.
    (4) Where—

    (a) an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 4 or 5 of this Act has been or is being committed in connection with the making of a broadcast from a ship, structure or other object, but

    (b) an authorisation has not been issued under subsection (2) above for the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (5) below in relation to that ship, structure or other object,

    then (subject to subsections (6) and (7) below) the officer may, with or without persons assigned to assist him in his duties, nevertheless exercise those powers in relation to any ship, structure or other object which he has reasonable grounds to suspect has been or is being used in connection with the Commission of that offence if the Secretary of State has issued a written authorisation for the exercise of those powers in relation to that ship, structure or other object.
    (5) The powers conferred by this subsection on an enforcement officer in relation to any ship, structure or other object are—

    (a) to board and search the ship, structure or other object;

    (b) to seize and detain the ship, structure or other object and any apparatus or other thing found in the course of the search which appears to him to have been used, or to have been intended to be used, in connection with, or to be evidence of, the Commission of the suspected offence;

    (c) to arrest and search any person who he has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed or is committing an offence under this Act if—

    (i) that person is on board the ship, structure or other object, or

    (ii) the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person was so on board at, or shortly before, the time when the officer boarded the ship, structure or other object;

    (d) to arrest any person who assaults him, or a person assigned to assist him in his duties, while exercising any of the powers conferred by this subsection or who intentionally obstructs him or any such person in the exercise of any of those powers;

    (e) to require any person on board the ship, structure or other object to produce any documents or other items which are in his custody or possession and are or may be evidence of the Commission of any offence under this Act;

    (f) to require any such person to do anything for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this subsection, including enabling any apparatus or other thing to be rendered safe and, in the case of a ship, enabling the ship to be taken to a port;

    368

    (g) to use reasonable force, if necessary, in exercising any of those powers;

    and references in paragraphs (a) to (c) and (e) above to the ship, structure or other object include references to any ship's boat or other vessel used from the ship, structure or other object.
    (6) Except as provided in subsection (7) below, the powers conferred by subsection (5) above shall only be exercised in tidal waters in the United Kingdom or in external waters.
    (7) Those powers may in addition—

    (a) in relation to a suspected offence under this Act committed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands while on the high seas, be exercised in relation to that ship on the high seas;

    (b) in relation to a suspected offence under section 2 of this Act committed on a structure or other object within waters falling within subsection (3)(c) of that section, be exercised in relation to that structure or other object within those waters; and

    (c) in relation to a suspected offence under section 2A of this Act committed in a ship within any such area of the high seas as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section, be exercised in relation to that ship within that area of the high seas.

    (8) Any person who—

    (a) assaults an enforcement officer, or a person assigned to assist him in his duties, while exercising any of the powers conferred by subsection (5) above or intentionally obstructs him or any such person in the exercise of any of those powers, or

    (b) without reasonable excuse fails or refuses to comply with any such requirement as is mentioned in paragraph (e) or (f) of that subsection,

    shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
    (9) Neither an enforcement officer nor a person assigned to assist him in his duties shall be liable in any civil or criminal proceedings for anything done in purported exercise of any of. the powers conferred by subsection (5) above if the court is satisfied that the act was done in good faith and that them were reasonable grounds for doing it.
    (10) Nothing in this section shall have effect so as to prejudice the exercise of any powers exercisable apart front this section.
    (11) Any reference in this section, in relation to a person assigned to assist an enforcement officer in his duties, to the exercise of any of the powers conferred by subsection (5) above is a reference to the exercise by that person of any of those powers on behalf of that officer.".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. Bill to be read the Third time this day

  PETITIONS

    Local Government Finance
    1.11 am
    Mr. Harry Barnes: It is never too late to introduce a petition against the poll tax, and I have three good petitions here, although none of them has been signed by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The poll tax is the worst general taxation system that has ever been introduced into any western democratic system.
    The first petition is from constituents in Dronfield. It reads:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the Residents of Dronfield, North East Derbyshire sheweth that legislation to introduce a poll tax will
    Place an unbearable financial burden upon your petitioners.
    Subsidise wealthy people at the direct expense of others. Create fear and despondency amongst those who cannot pay.
    Disenfranchise many who will be frightened to claim their right to vote.
    Attack the civil liberties of your petitioners by opening up areas of sensitive and private information to the Poll Tax Registrar.
    Destroy the democratic freedom of your petitioners to elect local Councillors who can act with a degree of independence from the power of the central state.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take measures to repeal the Poll Tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc. This is signed by Mrs. Wendy Bower of 22 Lundy Road, Hill Top, Dronfield, and 468 other people, whose signatures she collected.
    370
    A similar petition comes from the residents of Hollingwood, Chesterfield, collected by a Mr. R. Dixie, of 52 Laburnum street. It also stresses points such as the loss of the franchise, which is quite substantial. It might lead to as many as half a million people losing the right to vote in England and Wales alone, according to the statistics that I have been collecting.
    The third petition is worded differently, and is from three young women who, in the week before Easter, were ramped on the green outside Norman porch, where they were collecting signatures against the poll tax.
    The petition reads:
    To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of Chris Carter, Aileen Ryder and Janet Woods sheweth that the implementation of the poll tax is completely against the will of the vast majority of the people. People will stand up against this tax precisely because they live in a free and democratic country.
    Even in the heart of Westminster the overwhelming majority of people we talked to are against this tax. Many freely admitted to being ex-Tory voters who could well afford it but opposed it because it is so unfair and unjust. In our own areas people are frightened and angry because so many cannot afford this tax. Families will be driven into poverty and more and more people, particularly young people, will be 'reed to live on the streets.
    The Government's claims about increased accountability have been completely discredited by their poll tax cutting plans. People are well aware that the purpose of this tax is to take from the poor and give to the rich. As Gandhi said, "The worst violence is the violence of poverty." Consequently, we believe, people will not be deterred by the aggression of the authorities, whatever form it takes, because the violence of the poll tax must be stopped.
    Wherefore your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever Pray.
    That is signed by Aileen Ryder of Lewisham, Janet Woods of Woolwich and Chris Carter of Plumstead.
    I beg leave to present the petitions.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Haemophilia
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
    1.16 am
    Mr. William McKelvey: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about an important and urgent issue. I refer to those suffering from haemophilia and the further difficulties that they have encountered. I welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Health and congratulate him on his recent appointment. He is to face his baptism at the Dispatch Box, and at this time of the morning it is hardly likely to be an exciting debate. It is probable that the temperature will not rise, but it is an extremely important debate. I know that the Minister will have done his homework. I am not here to harangue or harass a new Minister but, as I have said, the issue is important. I hope that the Minister will make a progressive response to my submissions.
    The debate was prompted by a family in my constituency. I refer to Donald and Margaret Baird and their two sons, Ian and Walter. The tragedy that surrounded that family is directly connected with the fact that the two sons are both suffering from haemophilia and both are HIV-positive. I am sure that it will help the Minister in his deliberations if I trace the difficulties that haemophiliacs have faced over recent years. There are over 5,000 people who suffer from haemophilia in the United Kingdom. Two thousand of them are seriously affected by the disease in their daily lives and receive treatment by means of blood products to enhance the ability of their blood to clot. There are 1,200 who have been identified as HIV-positive. I think that the House will agree that it is now recognised by all authoritative bodies that these people became infected through the use of contaminated blood products provided to them by the NHS, which were mostly obtained from America.
    The Haemophilia Society, to which I am indebted for the information that I am imparting to the House, has consistently campaigned for out-of-court compensation for the victims of this disaster since it was first recognised. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been involved in the campaign. The national campaign resulted in an ex gratia cash payment of £10 million in 1987. That was followed by a further £24 million last December. That has been distributed to victims and their families under the auspices of a newly created trust fund, the Macfarlane Trust.
    Everyone realises that at the time of those payments the Government made it clear that the money was intended not as compensation but as a special payment made on the basis of a claim for the special suffering and need of the victims. The sum so far given amounts to £20,000 to £30,000 per person. That falls well short of a realistic figure for compensation for livelihood and life that would be acceptable to members of the Haemophilia Society. In the absence of real compensation, a significant proportion of people with haemophilia and HIV have taken out court cases aganist their local regional health authorities and, in some cases, the Department of Health.
    The current position is not a happy one. The court cases are being substantially delayed. In England, the earliest possible start date is January 1991, but there are already strong signs that even that distant date may be too
    372
    optimistic. In Scotland, the position is even worse. It is not yet possible to obtain an estimate for the start of any court procedures. Some 50 people in Scotland are taking out court cases against their individual health authorities. However, it appears that much of the delay in starting proceedings stems from difficulties with applications for legal aid. Very few people in Scotland have obtained legal aid so that they can begin the process of going to court.
    For whatever reason, the Scottish Legal Aid Board is applying somewhat more stringent standards of documentation than its English counterparts before it grants legal aid. That is causing the current delay. It is an issue that I intend to take up privately. It may have something to do with the vagaries of the different legal systems, but any delay has serious and devastating consequences for those attempting to bring the matter to court. It is vital that we all recognise that delay must be prevented.
    While the delays continue, those unfortunate people with haemophilia and HIV continue to die. By February 1990, 118 people had died. The longer they wait to go to court, the greater will be the number of people who die. Of those 118 people, 11 died between November 1989 and February 1990. It must be all too obvious to hon. Members that by the time the cases come to court many more will have died. Given that, the Haemophilia Society and those who support its views have reaffirmed that an out-of-court settlement is the only possible humanitarian solution to a problem that will be with us for some time.
    I was prompted to request this debate by a letter from Donald Baird. He has been in contact with me for a number of years. I have not sought in any way to make publicity out of this case, and I am sure that other hon. Members do not intend to do so. It is a tragic and difficult case of two boys with haemophilia who were injected by their parents—the injections took place at home—and who have subsequently been found to be HIV positive. That was a terrible double tragedy, but they have now been informed that the elder boy, Ian, who is now 19, has full-blown AIDS. It is virtually the pronouncement of a death sentence.
    I would find it difficult to read the whole of the letter to the House because it is emotional and private, but I have given a copy to the Minister, and I am sure that he will understand why it is impossible for me to quote all of it. Nevertheless, the father can express in a few words, and much more elequently than I could, the case that he wishes me to put to the House. He writes:
    "Dear Willie, It is with a heavy heart I write to you, to confirm the fact that my son Ian has started treatment for the full blown AIDS. Although always a probability, it was such a shock that some three weeks passed before we could speak about it."
    Further on in the letter he sadly says:
    "I cry alone at night as I pray for them, and I think every day that passes I also die a little with them.
    Why oh why, can this government not realise that time is something my sons—people like them—do not have. Their insistence that the courts must settle the matters of fault and compensation means that more and more haemophiliacs will not live to see justice being done."
    It is a very moving letter, as I am sure hon. Members appreciate.
    There are steps that the Government can take. The general secretary of the Haemophilia Society wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who was a Minister in a previous Labour Government which dealt with a similar problem. In that role, David Watters, the general secretary

    373
    of the society, had asked him to approach the Prime Minister with the idea of setting up an inquiry into the matter through the office of a retired ombudsman. The Labour Government did exactly that for the outstanding thalidomide cases. Sir Anthony Barraclough could be appointed to resolve the dispute between the Government and the people with haemophilia who have contracted HIV in the course of NHS treatment. The Prime Minister is aware of the matter.
    Perhaps when the Minister speaks to the Secretary of State he will bring the issue to his attention. That would be a positive step. Sir Anthony Barraclough is much respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in all establishments outside the House. If he were to be given that opportunity, he could perhaps draw up grounds for a settlement, and that would end the matter more quickly than it could be ended by going to court, if it can ever be settled in court. In many cases—particularly in Scotland—defendants have to prove negligence by the health boards and that will be difficult.
    The third issue that we should consider is that the Macfarlane Trust has already spent most of its money.
    In cases such as that of the Baird family, when a young man has been given what is virtually a death sentence, will the Minister arrange for the Macfarlane Trust to reconsider the case? The figures that have been mentioned to me by lawyers—not necessarily to be considered as the final figure that should be accepted in settlement—if the case went to court in Scotland are in the region of £80,000 to £90,000 per person. If that sum was made available to the Baird family at the moment, it would ease much of their grief and it would give the opportunity for the boys, and Ian in particular, to live a far better life for whatever time they have left. I ask the Minister to consider that seriously.
    There is an opportunity for the Government to increase the funds to the Macfarlane Trust, to ensure that they are paid out as quickly as possible and to examine the position in general and the particular point that has been raised with the Prime Minister with a view to setting up an inquiry to settle the case.
    It seems to me that a totally unfair battle is being fought. The burden of proof is on the victims of medical accidents: they have to prove negligence. Although I cannot ask the Minister, particularly in his first days of office, to promote the legislation that would be required to provide terms whereby medical accidents could be settled through compensation, which is an extremely long and complicated process, perhaps he will ask the Government to give the matter some thought along those lines so that we can correct the imbalance.
    In this and other cases, young people cannot take their cases to court. They cannot get legal aid, and even if they get their case to court there is no telling how long it will take to settle, if they get settlement. Some people are gambling their settlements from the Macfarlane Trust to get the matter resolved in court before they expire.
    It is a David and Goliath situation: the Government represent Goliath but David is unarmed. I ask the Minister to give the points I have raised serious consideration. Although I cannot expect definitive answers from the
    374
    Dispatch Box tonight, perhaps he could give the House an undertaking that at least the matter is back on the agenda and, hopefully, we can make some progress.
    1.31 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on taking the opportunity of an Adjournment debate this evening to raise a matter of real concern to his individual constituents and to the 1,200 people who are affected by this tragedy. May I also thank him for his best wishes on my appointment. There can be no better illustration than tonight's debate of the fact that I shall need those best wishes and the best wishes of anyone else who feels able to offer them.
    The House will understand that it is a special moment for any Member of Parliament when he is asked to become a Minister. It is perhaps understandable that there is a certain amount of celebration and partying. However, the knowledge that I had to reply to tonight's debate in my first week in the Department has brought me up short. We all know in the abstract that a Minister's life is not all roses, but there can be no sharper illustration of the difficult issues that Ministers have to face than the particular human tragedy represented by the case that the hon. Gentleman has drawn to our attention.
    The hon. Gentleman sent me Mr. Baird's letter, which is quite as emotional as he described it. It underlines the special human tragedy represented by those events. Against that background, it would be totally inappropriate for me to begin with a recital of what has already happened and the Government's position. It is appropriate to begin simply by recognising that it is a tragedy and nothing that I can say from the Dispatch Box will change it. I hope to alleviate by actions and words some of the problems and effects of that tragedy, but the tragedy itself will remain and nothing that we say in the House will change its essential nature.
    I remind the House that the Government's sympathy for those affected by these tragic events has been given practical expression. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, in November 1987 we announced an ex-gratia payment of £10 million to fund the Macfarlane Trust. That money has allowed the trust to give help to families in particular need by way of grants for a wide variety of purposes and through regular payments. Up to 31 March this year, the trust had paid out almost £1·7 million in one-off grants and almost £1·6 million in regular payments. Those payments have helped to ease the financial worries of the Families who have received them.
    Furthermore, the Government announced substantial extra help on 23 November last year. Under those arrangements, each infected individual is entitled to a lump sum of £20,000. With the help of the trustees of the Macfarlane Trust, arrangements have been made to administer those payments, and I am pleased to say that payments totalling almost £24 million have been made.
    In addition to that money, the Government have made regulations to ensure that the payments from the trusts do not affect entitlement to income support, family credit or housing benefit. Payments, therefore, are genuinely additional money to those affected, and there is no question of our taking with one hand what we are seeking to give with the other.

    375
    I recognise that much hard work has been done by the trust in making payments, particularly on the £20,000 scheme, in such a short time. It is right to place on record the Government's thanks, and I am sure the thanks of the whole House, for the efforts represented by that action.
    I should like to refer to a written answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in announcing the £20,000 scheme. He said:
    "The Government accept the need to ensure that the fund has adequate resources both to meet its existing commitments and to give more generous help to families in particular need. We will be discussing further with the trust how these objectives should be met."—[Official Report, 23 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 12.]
    It is clear that when announcing the £20,000 scheme Ministers accepted the need to ensure that the original Macfarlane Trust had adequate resources both to meet its existing commitments and to enable it to give more generous help to families in particular need.
    Naturally, the first priority of all concerned has been to implement the £20,000 scheme as quickly as possible. As that has been achieved, we should be following up my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to discuss with the Macfarlane Trust the best way of providing additional targeted help.
    I should stress that, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, the £34 million total provided to the two Macfarlane Trusts represents ex-gratia payments. They are not intended as compensation because in this country, under successive Governments, there has never been a scheme of no-fault compensation for those damaged by medical treatment.
    The case for alternative means of compensating those who suffer from medical accidents was carefully considered by the Royal Commission on civil liability and personal injury, which reported in 1978. It decided against introducing a scheme of no-fault compensation. The system remains that those seeking compensation should pursue the matter through litigation. A number of haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus, as the hon. Gentleman said, are now doing just that. I am sure that the House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on issues that are before the courts.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the timetable for the hearing. He may be aware that yesterday the court decided that the main hearing of the English case should take place in March 1991. The Scottish case will, I imagine, follow that. He asked about entitlement to legal aid in Scotland. I shall look into that and write to him.
    The hon. Gentleman said that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has written to the Prime Minister seeking to establish an inquiry as a means of resolving the compensation issue. He will obviously receive a considered reply from my right hon.
    Friend the Prime Minister. However, the right hon. Gentleman tried to draw a parallel
    376
    between this case and the thalidomide case established in the late 1970s. That is not a precise parallel because in that case there was no dispute about the acceptance of liability on the part or the Distillers company. The simple question was whether there was a causal connection between the children affected on list Y and the smaller group for whom Distillers had accepted liability earlier. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the defendant does not accept any claim of liability in the negligence action.
    Mr. McKelvey: I was not trying to draw a parallel between the cases. I was just saying that the Labour Government took the opportunity to set up an inquiry. I was not asking for something that we had not done or which could not be done. There is still the possibility that the Government will set up an inquiry, particularly because the people must in effect sue the NHS or the various health boards. The Government have a responsibility to solve the matter as quickly as possible if an inquiry can be set up.
    Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will obviously respond to the specific point about an inquiry. The much narrower point that I was trying to make was that there is not a precise parallel between the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman and the Distillers-thalidomide case. Against that background, the Government are entitled to claim a degree of credit for having recognised the special circumstances of haemophiliac victims of this tragedy. Thirty four million pounds is not an insignificant sum of money to be made available to provide financial assistance.
    To sum up, the compensation that many of the haemophiliac victims are pursuing is a matter for the courts. We believe that the measures that we have already taken demonstrate the Government's willingness to do what they properly can to meet the special needs of haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus. We have already made available substantial sums of money and we have accepted also—and to some degree this responds to one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman—the need to discuss with the Macfarlane Trust how more generous help can be provided for families in particular need.
    I am grateful for another opportunity to discuss this important topic. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, while our means may differ, the Government share with him the proper human desire to respond to this very human tragedy.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Two o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public grant aid Sean Quinn Quarries Ltd., Derrylin has received for each of the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  Grant aid received by Sean Quinn Ltd. for each of the financial years from April 1985 is as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  26,795

  1986–87

  905,480

  1987–88

  2,475,004

  1988–89

  1,065,746

  1989–90

  99,756

  Enterprise Ulster
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the accounting procedures of Enterprise Ulster in regard to the supply and use of materials, whether provided by the client or by Enterprise Ulster.

  Mr. Needham
  All accounting procedures of Enterprise Ulster, including those concerning the supply and use of materials, are subject to the approval of the Department of Economic Development and subsequently to internal and external audit.

  I am satisfied that the accounting procedures are adequate and that they are properly audited.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many supervisors and area superintendents are employed by Enterprise Ulster; how they were trained in materials usage and stock control; where the training took place; and how long the courses of training lasted.

  Mr. Needham
  Enterprise Ulster currently employs nine area superintendents and 101 supervisory grade personnel.

  Instruction on materials usage and stock control is given to all new supervisory staff as part of their normal induction programme. These subjects are also included on refresher courses which are attended periodically by supervisory staff and on courses of study undertaken by them.

  EC Energy Development Programme
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of European Community funds was used to assist the creation of peat extraction businesses by the local enterprise development unit.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The information is as follows:
  122

  Amount

  1987

  Nil

  1988

  Nil

  1989

  £1,375

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Removals Industry
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received recently about the problems of the removals industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am not aware of any recent representations to this Department about the problems of the removals industry. However, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have received representations about VAT on removal charges after the completion of the single market.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what value for money savings have been achieved by his Department in the last year; and how much of this was as a result of advice from the central unit on purchasing.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for last year (FY 1989–90) are not yet available. The saving achieved in FY 1988–89. on a spend of £133·8 million, was £13·92 million, or 10·4 per cent. against the set target of 5 per cent.

  In general, it is not possible to attribute particular value for money savings to advice from the central unit on purchasing. The role of the unit is to provide advice and guidance on best purchasing practice; it provides overall support and guidance and encourages value for money across all Departments.

  Iraq Contract
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest assessment of the possible military uses of the parts of equipment already sent to Iraq by Sheffield Forgemasters and Walter Somers.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 26 April 1990]: 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.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent European Community discussions on Delors stages 2 and 3.

  Mr. Lilley
  The possible development of economic and monetary union beyond stage 1 of EMU and the arrangements for the forthcoming inter-governmental conference were last discussed at the informal meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council on 31 March and the special meeting of the European Council on 28 April which were reported to the House on 3 April at column 523 and on 1 May at column 902.

  Lone-parent Families (Income Support)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance the Inland Revenue gives to the Department of Social Security to help trace absent parents who are not paying maintenance for lone-parent families in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Lilley
  Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986 permits the Inland Revenue to provide information to the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, in connection with the operation of the benefit Acts, without breaching their confidentiality obligations. At present the information provided is confined to the details required to account for class 1 national insurance contributions, which the Inland Revenue collects on behalf of the DSS, and details of those known to be self-employed to assist DSS in collecting class 2 national insurance contributions.

  I have now asked the Inland Revenue to extend the disclosures made under its authority to include the addresses of absent parents and, where appropriate, the names and addresses of their employers, in cases where the absent parent is liable under the Social Security Act 1986 to maintain lone-parent families receiving income support.

  ESOP Trusts
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue will establish a clearance procedure under which it will advise whether or not a particular trust is a qualifying ESOP trust.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in his Budget statement a new relief from capital gains tax for those selling shares to qualifying employee share ownership trusts, as defined by schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1989. Since owners of shares may want to know if a trust is a qualifying trust before a sale of shares takes place, I have authorised the introduction of an arrangement under which the Inland Revenue will be willing to examine executed employee share ownership trust deeds and inform the trustees whether in their view the trust meets the qualifying conditions of schedule 5. The trustees will then be able to inform any potential vendors concerned as to the status of the trust itself.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional weekly, monthly and yearly income tax payments a married man on average earnings with two children would pay if tax rates were at the levels in place on 3 May 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Increase in tax liability at average earnings1 in 1990–91 if tax rates and thresholds applicable on 3 May 1979 were to he indexed for inflation and re-introduced

  £ per week

  £ per month

  £ per year

  Married man

  20·00

  86·50

  1,037·80

  1 Average earings are for full adult males in all occupations in 1990–91; £303·80 per week; in line with the assumptions in 3.02 of the 1989 Autumn statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to the amount of extra 124
  tax a married man with two children earning (a) £25,000 a year and (b) £30,000 a year would pay if income tax rates were increased to 50p in the pound and national insurance to 9 per cent.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: If the higher rate of income tax were raised from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. and the upper earnings limit for class 1 national insurance contributions were abolished so that 9 per cent. was paid on all earnings above the lower earnings limit, the extra payments by a married man in 1990–91 would be:

  Earnings £ per annum

  Increase in tax and national insurance contribution liability £ per annum

  25,000

  612·00

  30,000

  1,519·50

  The calculations assume the married man has no other forms of income and no reliefs or allowances other than the personal and married couple's allowances.

  Staff Qualifications
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish, in the Official Report, the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades 1 to 7 who have (a) arts, (b) science and (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants, (e) have post-graduate qualifications in management and (f) who were educated in (i) local authority and (ii) private schools.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 2 May 1990]: The information which is available at non-disproportionate cost, (a), (b) and (d), is as follows:

  Grade

  Arts1 degrees

  Science12 degrees

  Qualified accountants

  0–1A

  4 (100)3

  —

  —

  2

  9 (82)

  1 (9)

  1 (9)

  3

  23 (82)

  1 (4)

  —

  4

  2 (50)

  —

  —

  5

  48 (64)

  13 (17)

  1 (1)

  6

  8 (21)

  5 (13)

  4 (10)

  7

  94 (35)

  48 (18)

  18 (7)

  1 First degree subjects leading to the award of BA(Arts) or BSc(Science).

  2 Includes some "technical" degrees eg engineering.

  3 Staff numbers precede the percentages which are shown in brackets.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what volume of cannabis has been recovered each year since 1979 by the Customs authorities: what was the estimated value of the cannabis at current prices for each year; and what were the pattern of locations where these drugs were secured.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: Following is the information:

  January-December

  Total seized in kg

  Street value in £ million

  1979

  11,670

  34·04

  1980

  25,610

  71·20

  1981

  24,188

  67·55

  125

  January-December

  Total seized in kg

  Street value in £ million

  1982

  16,424

  44·58

  1983

  19,335

  54·18

  1984

  26,186

  73·52

  1985

  20,905

  58·99

  1986

  22,381

  65·81

  1987

  16,292

  47·44

  1988

  44,018

  127·34

  11989

  50,715

  166·75

  1 Provisional.

  Values are expressed in current prices based on geographical averages calculated by the national drugs intelligence unit.

  Information on the pattern of locations involved is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will now reopen investigations into Aero Technologies in respect of illegal arms exports to middle eastern countries.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: If any information comes into the possession of Customs and Excise which might warrant an investigation the Commissioners would give that appropriate consideration.

  RPI
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the increase in the retail price index due to the increase in local government expenditure not funded from the Exchequer or the business rate.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The average community charge set by local authorities in Great Britain is around £350, a rise of over 30 per cent. on domestic rates in 1989–90. This is expected to add just under 1½ per cent. to the level of the RPI from April and, correspondingly, about one percentage point to the annual rate of inflation.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on civil service vacancies and recruitment.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: My right hon. Friend keeps all aspects of the staffing of the civil service under review. Statistical information about the civil service, including recruitment, can be found in successive editions of "Civil Service Statistics"; and information about that recruitment which is carried out by the Civil Service Commission can be found in its annual reports.

  Pools Betting Duty
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what dates payment of the funds made available to football through the reduction in the football pools betting duty from 42·5 per cent. to 40 per cent. will commence and cease;

  (2) from what date the reduction in the football pools betting duty from 42·5 per cent. to 40 per cent. will apply.
  126
  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: Negotiations involving the Football Trust, the Pools Promoters Association and football authorities have reached an advanced stage. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor hopes to be able to make an announcement to the House shortly.

  Lottery Tickets (Germany)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has given to the Amex, Visa and Diners credit card groups and to joint stock banks about their facilities being used for the transmission of funds in response to posted invitations from West German state and institutional lottery groups.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: None.

PRIME MINISTER

  Dalai Lama
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria were used in deciding whether she should meet the Dalai Lama.

  The Prime Minister
  The Dalai Lama is a distinguished spiritual leader, who is welcome to visit the United Kingdom at any time. But he is also regarded by many of his followers as the leader of a government in exile, which is not recognised by any Government, and with which successive British Governments have had no dealings. I believe that a meeting with him would therefore be open to misinterpretation.

TRANSPORT

  Noise Pollution
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish different criteria in the measurement and analysis of noise created as the result of the opening of new motorways.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am satisfied that the existing criteria for measuring and analysing noise are satisfactory. However, I am aware from many representations that I have received that noise from new or widened motorways can be a problem, and my Department is seeking constantly to ensure that noise from road surfaces is kept to a minimum.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the use of EEC money for the electrification of the north Wales coast rail line.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received a number of representations. This matter was discussed in an Adjournment debate on 3 May.

  Sporting Events (Charter Trains)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail in respect of the provision of charter trains to national football and sporting events at Wembley in the interest of public safety.
  127
  Mr. Freeman
  None. British Rail has a well-established procedure for providing and policing trains to national football and sporting events at Wembley.

  Driver-only Trains
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have taken place between officials or members of the British Railways Board and the railway inspectorate respectively concerning the introduction of driver-only passenger trains on Southern Region services.

  Mr. Freeman
  There has been full consultation between British Rail and the railway inspectorate about the introduction of driver-only operation generally. The inspectorate's views have been taken into account in BR's criteria for driver-only operation.

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

  Mr. Atkins
  The value for money savings made on procurement in 1989–90 are approximately £90 million. The Department takes advice from the central unit on purchasing and it is not possible to apportion savings arising from improved purchasing practices in DTp and those arising from CUP.

  Slow Vehicles
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will encourage, either by legislation or non-legislation means, drivers of vehicles which are either slow by their nature or are slow by virtue of the load they are carrying, periodically to draw to the side of the road to permit other vehicles safely to pass them.

  Mr. Atkins
  Advice to that effect is contained in paragraph 45 of the highway code.

  Pilotage Exemption Certificates
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the report of the public inquiry into pilotage exemption certificates.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today published the inspector's report on the public inquiry held into charges for the use of pilotage exemption certificates at Portsmouth and has announced his decision. A copy of the decision letter and of the report has today been sent direct to my hon. Friend.

  Proceeds from disposal of NHS land

  Receipts in £ millions to nearest £0·1 million

  Region

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Northern

  0·2

  0·1

  0·8

  0·4

  0·9

  1·4

  1·3

  6·2

  3·9

  4·3

  Yorkshire

  0·8

  0·7

  1·0

  1·8

  0·8

  1·1

  2·0

  4·1

  5·5

  13·2

  Trent

  0·5

  1·6

  1·7

  1·6

  2·3

  3·9

  4·9

  6·3

  7·6

  13·8

  East Anglian

  0·3

  0·2

  0·4

  0·7

  0·9

  8·2

  3·5

  3·9

  3·8

  10·4

  North West Thames

  1·2

  1·3

  4·4

  2·7

  6·1

  6·7

  6·6

  24·5

  50·3

  43·6

  North East Thames

  1·8

  1·4

  1·0

  1·1

  3·8

  2·8

  6·3

  13·2

  28·0

  51·4

  South East Thames

  0·3

  0·8

  1·2

  2·2

  1·6

  2·6

  11·1

  19·8

  25·6

  30·3

  South West Thames

  0·1

  3·5

  2·0

  0·9

  2·4

  10·5

  9·1

  30·2

  24·5

  24·4

  Wessex

  1·3

  0·8

  0·4

  0·5

  1·2

  2·0

  4·7

  10·2

  5·7

  17·6

  Oxford

  0·9

  1·6

  1·2

  2·3

  1·5

  1·8

  7·6

  2·9

  10·6

  16·9

HEALTH

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the level of prescription charges paid by asthmatics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. As the result of the present wide-ranging exemption arrangements over 75 per cent. of all items dispensed in the NHS are provided free. Many patients with asthma benefit from these arrangements. Those who are not exempt but who need a lot of medication can save money by buying prescription pre-payment certificates, or season tickets. These certificates can lead to significant savings for anyone needing more than 14 items in a year or five items in a four-month period.

  To extend these arrangements or to reduce the level of the prescription charge for all patients who suffer from asthma or any other medical condition would benefit only those whose resources exceed the qualifying threshold for help on low income grounds and would therefore not make the best use of the resources available to the NHS.

  Triazolam
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received recently about the side-effects of the drug triazolam.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the last six months, the Committee on Safety of Medicines has received three reports of adverse reactions which may be associated with triazolam. A report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that there is a causal relationship with the drug. In addition, the Department has received correspondence from a physician on published papers relating to the drug.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much land has been sold by each district health authority in England in each year since 1979; and if he will give details of(a) the total value in each year and (b) the overall value for England.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not held centrally and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information is held centrally in respect of regional health authorities and the information is shown in the table.
  129

  Region

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  South Western

  1·1

  2·0

  1·6

  0·5

  1·0

  2·7

  5·0

  10·9

  10·1

  16·4

  West Midlands

  0·6

  0·5

  1·1

  1·2

  1·9

  2·3

  3·9

  3·5

  5·3

  9·2

  Mersey

  0·3

  0·6

  0·7

  1·6

  1·5

  1·1

  2·4

  4·1

  6·9

  7·2

  North Western

  0·3

  0·3

  1·4

  0·6

  1·0

  2·0

  2·5

  8·4

  4·1

  8·5

  BGs-SHAs

  0·3

  Nil

  0·7

  0·06

  4·6

  0·05

  14·3

  0·9

  12·2

  5·0

  England

  9·9

  15·2

  19·4

  18·0

  31·5

  49·0

  84·9

  149·0

  204·1

  272·2

  Special Hospitals
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 181, whether the hours women spent in seclusion in Rampton, Broadmoor, and Moss Side special hospitals during the 12 months from December 1988 to December 1989 included night hours; what percentage of women spent no time in seclusion; and what were the maximum number of hours women spent in seclusion.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Special Hospitals Services Authority advises me that the information requested is not readily available without extensive examination of individual patient records. This work has been put in hand, and the chairman of the authority will write to the hon. Member.

  Electorates
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the 25 largest parliamentary constituencies by electorate with their electorates; and what is the average constituency electorate on the current register;

  (2) if he will list the shire counties, London boroughs and metropolitan boroughs in England in ranking order according to the degree by which their electorates vary from the nationally averaged electorate appropriate to the numbers of parliamentary constituencies within them.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 1990 electorate figures have been collected and published by local authority area in OPCS Monitor EL 90/1, copies of which are available in the Library. The data are still being reassembled by parliamentary constituency, and will be published in "Electoral Statistics: 1990" (Series EL No. 17) in July.

  General Practitioners (Fund-holding Status)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is intended to reimburse the preparatory cash at those general practitioner practices preparing to submit formal applications for fund-holding status from April 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes. A preparatory allowance of up to £16,000 per practice will be available to practices which have reached agreement with their relevant regional health authority to undertake preparatory work for fund holding. The allowance will be used to reimburse the costs of additional work which practices will need to complete in order to be in a position to take on fund holding status from 1 April 1991. Parliamentary approval to this new scheme is being sought in the main estimate for hospital and community health services, family practitioner services (part) and other services, England (class XIII, vote 1). Pending that approval and the enactment of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill when formal applications for GP practice fund holding status 130
  can be made, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,500,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Nursery Schools (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of three and four-year-olds attending private and voluntary sector (i) nursery schools and (ii) playgroups in Cambridgeshire together with the percentage of the total number of three and four-year-olds in Cambridgeshire which these represent; and what is the cost of local authority support for each category(a) in total and (b) per place for the latest year in which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available centrally in the form requested.

  In January 1989, in Cambridgeshire, 117 children attended non-maintained schools registered with the Department of Education and Science. Private and voluntary nursery schools are registered with the local authorities under the Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948. Information held centrally relates to numbers of places in day nurseries, playgroups and with childminders. Places in nursery schools are not identified as a separate category. This information is published in "Children's Day Care Facilities". The most recent relates to the year ending 31 March 1988, a copy of which is in the Library. Statistics relating to the rate per 1,000 population are calculated on the total number of children aged under five. The number of children under five attending non-maintained schools in Cambridgeshire represents 2·64 per 1,000 children aged under five.

  The cost of local authority social services departments support in total was £19,000 for day nurseries and £13,000 for play groups for the year ending 31 March 1988. These figures expressed as an average for each place in voluntary and private provision was some £30 per place for day nurseries and £2 per place in playgroups. Some of the private and voluntary providers may have received no support.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number and location of (i) local authority day nurseries and (ii) local authority playgroups in Cambridgeshire together with the number of places available in each location and the percentage of the total number of three and four-year-olds in Cambridgeshire which these places represent (b) the total cost of providing and supporting each category (c) the average cost per child place in each category in Cambridgeshire and (d) the national average cost per child place for each category.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available centrally as to the location of these facilities. The number of premises and the total number of places for each
  131
  authority is published in "Children's Day Care Facilities"; the most recent relates to the year ending 31 March 1988 and a copy is in the Library.

  Children under three may attend local authority day nurseries or playgroups. The number of places is shown as a rate per 1,000 of all children under five.

  The net current expenditure by Cambridgeshire in the year ended 31 March 1988 was £467,000 on day nurseries and £129,000 on playgroups.

  The net current cost expressed as an average cost per child place at 31 March 1988 in each category in Cambridgeshire in the year ended 31 March 1988 was £2.8 thousand per place for day nurseries and £0.2 thousand per place for playgroups.

  The equivalent figure for England per child place for each category was for £3,400 per place for day nurseries and £2,400 per place for playgroups.

  Pathology Departments (Income-generating Schemes)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those National Health Service pathology departments which have established income-generating schemes which share the profits between the National Health Service and the staff; and if he will place in the Library details of all such schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available as details of all such schemes are not collected by the Department. Nevertheless, I understand that several NHS pathology departments have established income generation schemes, which they run themselves or as a joint venture with a private company. There should, however, be no question of NHS employees sharing in the profits resulting from income generation activity undertaken as part of the normal duties under their NHS contracts.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ethylene Thiourea
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the results of tests which are being carried out on the levels of the fungicide ethylene thiourea in various food products.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 29 March the food safety directorate of the Department published and placed in the Library of the House the full results of tests on samples of produce previously analysed for ethylene thiourea (ETU) by Parents for Safe Food (PFSF) and Friends of the Earth (FOE). The PFSF/FOE issued their findings in a press release dated 14 February 1989 under the heading "Dangerous Agrochemicals in Supermarket Foods." This gave rise to widespread press coverage with headlines such as "Tomato Ketchup in Cancer Scare."

  The Department's tests showed that PFSF/FOE main results grossly overstated the residues of ETU in their samples. We found no detectable ETU residues in bread, compared with PFSF/FOE findings of levels more than 300 times our limit of detection. For tomato ketchup, the PFSF/FOE results overstated actual levels by up to 150 times. For the other products for which duplicate samples were provided, residues were generally either absent or within predicted levels. Low levels of residues were found in dried potato products but presented no risk to health and would be greatly reduced after dilution and reconstitution.
  132
  One sample of tomato ketchup was found to have an elevated level of ETU. PFSF/FOE subsequently admitted that this was a sample "spiked" with additional ETU to test the validity of the Department's results. All the Department's tests were done using at least three different analytical techniques to confirm their validity, in contrast to the PFSF/FOE results which were not checked to confirm their validity before they were published.

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

  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for expenditure is largely decentralised to line managers who are in the best position to seek value for money, and there is no comprehensive record of savings achieved. However, information on savings in the field of purchasing in 1988–89 (the latest available period) indicate that departmental action has saved about £6·7 million or 6·9 per cent. of the purchasing spend. The central unit on purchasing provides general guidance on best purchasing practice and it is not possible to attribute specific savings to its advice.

  Contaminated Pigfeed
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) where the pigs on farms in Yorkshire and Hampshire discovered to have eaten pigfeed contaminated with Cyanox 425 were slaughtered;

  (2) if he will publish the preliminary results of his tests into the issues of pigs contaminated with Cyanox 425.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department has been involved in investigations since early this year into a number of cases of Ataxia (hind limb weakness) in breeding pigs. This condition has occurred on over 60 farms, mostly in Yorkshire. Although the condition is not fatal animals suffering from it are often slaughtered for welfare reasons and some 700 animals have been slaughtered in this way, mostly on the farms. Pigs subjected to post-mortem examination exhibited lesions consistent with poisoning by an organophosphorous compound. The common factor between the affected farms was the use of feed from one particular consignment of wheat screenings imported from France. Farmers were warned not to feed suspect material to their animals and the feed supplier withdrew the original material from sale. Samples of the feed were analysed at the central veterinary laboratory. The material was found to be contaminated with Cyanox 425 (widely used in the plastics industry) and Isofenphos, an organophosphorous pesticide which is licensed in France but not in this country. It is believed that the second of these was responsible for the outbreak.

  There was no threat to human health. Residues of both these agents in the meat of slaughtered animals were well within internationally recognised safety limits. We believe that none of the animals concerned entered the food chain; but even if they had, the amounts consumed even by an extreme consumer of sows and boarmeat would have been well within the acceptable daily intake prescribed internationally.

  I am grateful for the co-operation which has been shown by the feed company and by the manufacturers of

  133
  Cyanox 425, and I must pay tribute to the high quality of the work carried out by the veterinary investigation service and the central veterinary laboratory. The Department's officials visited France to investigate the circumstances surrounding this contamination and the Department will be pursuing with the French authorities the question of how it arose.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county the number of farms where pigs have been discovered to have eaten pig feed contaminated with Cyanox 425.

  Mr. Maclean
  The total number of pig farms which received the suspect feed is 106 in all: 93 located throughout Yorkshire, seven in Humberside, one in Nottinghamshire and five in Durham.

  Wool (Guaranteed Price)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce the guaranteed price for wool for the 1990 clip; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Together with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland I have reviewed the state of the wool market and prospects for the 1990 clip.

  1989–90 has been a difficult year for the wool industry. There is now a world surplus of wool, and the domestic market has been affected by a decline in consumer spending. This, and other factors, including the withdrawal of China as a major buyer, have had an adverse effect on average market prices which have fallen back sharply from a high point of 145p/kg to as low as 90p/kg, well below the 1989 clip year guranteed price of 129p/kg. For 1990 the prospects remain uncertain.

  Ministers have also had to take account of the Government's already announced intention of legislation to end the wool guarantee as soon as parliamentary time is available. I know and understand the wish of the British Wool Marketing Board that this should be done as soon as possible.

  It has also been necessary to draw up a new financial agreement to cover the period from 1990. Following discussions with the industry the new financial agreement with the British Wool Marketing Board will last for two years. It will provide a new flexibility to enable the returns to producers to reflect more quickly any substantial recovery in the wool market above the guarantee price.

  In the light of the review and taking account of these factors, it has been decided to set the guarantee at 125p/kg for the 1990 clip year—a reduction of 4p/kg on the 1989 guarantee price. At the same time the deficit in the stabilisation fund is being written off as provided for in the existing financial agreement. This relieves producers of a significant burden equivalent to about 18p/kg over two years.

  I believe that these various elements constitute a significant step towards actual market prices and provide a sound basis for preparing for the ending of the guarantee. At the same time the new financial agreement enables producers to benefit at an early stage if market prices should recover markedly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Franked Pre-paid Envelopes
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will issue guidance on the use of House of Commons franked pre-paid envelopes within the European Community.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  House of Commons franked or pre-paid envelopes are not valid for use within the European Community. Current arrangements do allow, however, for the cost of official postage to countries within the European Community to be reimbursed by the Fees Office. Discussions are at present taking place to establish a more convenient procedure. Subject to their outcome, relevant guidance will be included in the regulations governing the use of the House emblem, House of Commons stationery and post-paid envelopes, which is issued to Members.

  Television (Live Subtitling and Signing)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what arrangements he has made to demonstrate the application of live subtitling and signing to the televised proceedings of the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  As part of its continuing review of the experiment, and in response to requests from hon. and right hon. Members as well as from organisations representing the deaf, the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House has organised separate trials of both the live subtitling and the signing of Prime Ministers's Question Time.

  The live subtitling trial will take place in the weeks beginning 14 and 21 May. The subtitling itself will be carried out "as live" and unrehearsed, but for the convenience of the majority of Members who wish to attend Prime Minister's Question Time in the Chamber, it is proposed that only an unedited recording of the subtitled material will be shown on a special monitor set up in the No Lobby. Four separate Prime Minister's Question Times will be subtitled and the tapes will be available for viewing between 4pm and 5pm on each Tuesday and Thursday of the two weeks trial period. Copies of the tapes will also be supplied to organisations representing the deaf in order to give them an opportunity to submit comments to the Select Committee if they wish.

  The trial with sign language insets will be conducted on the same basis, but will take place in the weeks beginning 4 and 11 June. The tapes will be shown between 5pm and 6pm on each Tuesday and Thursday of the trial period.

  The purpose of these trials is to establish the acceptability to Members from an editorial and aesthetic point of view of the use of these two techniques for assisting the deaf. In the case of live subtitling, it will also be important to test the ability of the system (which involves the use of innovatory technology) to cope with the speed and specialist vocabulary of Question Time.

  I should, however, stress that there is as yet no commitment on the part of the broadcasters to adopt these techniques as part of their parliamentary coverage and the Select Committee itself has not reached any conclusions on the subject.

DEFENCE

  Exercise Mallet Blow
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to(a) NATO and (b) to the United Kingdom of Exercise Mallet Blow.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) on 30 March 1990 at column 331.

  Faslane Submarine Base
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been issued to his Department's personnel at the nuclear submarine base on whether signing the petition organised by Dumbarton Conservative party to oppose planning permission for the Faslane peace camp would infringe the Queen's regulations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Queen's regulations forbid service personnel from taking an active part in the affairs of any political group. There is, however, no restriction on attendance at public meetings provided that service uniform is not worn, service duties are not impeded and no action is taken which would bring the service into disrepute.

  The signing of local petitions by service personnel as private citizens is not seen as an infringement of Queen's regulations. Advice to this effect was issued to all personnel at the Clyde submarine base by the Commodore Clyde in a memorandum dated 9 March 1990.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on behalf of the schoolchildren at Mintlaw academy, whose exams were disturbed by the aircraft exercises over their school, on 26 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Apart from representations made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the Ministry of Defence is aware of only one representation, made to RAF Buchan, on behalf of the schoolchildren at Mintlaw academy. Should any schools feel that the examination performance of their pupils might have been adversely affected, it is a matter for them to make appropriate representations to the Scottish Examination Board which will, I am sure, give them careful consideration.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, when planning any future low-flying air defence exercises, he will take into account the timing of certificated exams taking place in the areas over which the exercises will be happening; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing to add to the letter of 27 April 1990 to the hon. Member from my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Exercise Elder Forest 90
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of any representations he has received regarding the disruption caused by the recent Exercise Elder Forest 90; what was the nature of these complaints; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Apart from representations made by the hon. Member, the Ministry of Defence is aware of only three complaints about disturbance caused by low-flying aircraft during Exercise Elder Forest 90. One related to activity in the Scunthorpe area and two to activity to the west of Peterhead.

  Kola Peninsula
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest assessment of the Soviet military presence on the Kola peninsula; and if there have been any noticeable reductions in recent months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been no significant reductions in recent months in either the level of activity or size of the Soviet military presence (including the northern fleet) on the Kola peninsula. The northern fleet continues to evolve as an increasingly modern and professional force; we believe other forces are essentially unchanged.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy of encouraging the export sale of arms to reduce unit costs to United Kingdom armed services.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government's policy is to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas whenever this is compatible with the United Kingdom's political, strategic and security interests. Defence exports contribute to a strong, viable defence industry. They also provide longer production runs and enable economies of scale in providing equipment for our own armed services, in addition to the foreign earnings which are reflected in the balance of trade.

  Parachute Training
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the units which provide parachute training; and if he will give for each the numbers trained.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Around 60 units provide parachute training, but I am not able to give further information on security grounds.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the preliminary training given to trainee parachutists for them to acquire the L5 landing certificate.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The syllabus of training for Regular Army personnel attending No. 1 parachute training school (PTS) for basic parachute training allocates approximately two and a half hours to achieve the appropriate level of competence in landing techniques to commence "L5" training. The TA soldier is required to have achieved this level of ability prior to commencement of training at No. 1 PTS and is given instruction, at unit level, by an appropriate detachment parachute jumping instructor.
  137
  The precise length of training will vary according to the abilities of the trainee. No trainee is permitted to parachute unless the instructor is satisfied with his level of ability in all respects.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents and deaths occurred during parachute training at Brize Norton in 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1989, 1,704 Regular and TA troops completed static line parachute training at No. 1 parachute training school, Brize Norton and carried out 12,310 descents. There were a total of 97 injuries including one fatality. Over half of these injuries were minor enough to allow trainees to return to parachute training within a week.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways medication given to parachute trainees is monitored to check that no medication which might impair reactions is given in the period before a jump; and on what occasions such medication was given to a parachute trainee at Brize Norton in 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A parachute trainee who has reported sick will not recommence training until he has been certified fit to do so by the medical officer, and any medication thought likely to impair reactions will necessitate withdrawal from training for an appropriate period. It is essential for any trainee feeling ill to report the matter before undergoing further parachute training.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedure is adopted if parachute trainees report sick.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Arrangements to see the medical officer will be made for trainees reporting sick. The trainee is briefed to return the appropriate medical form to the course flight sergeant after examination, with the medical officer's written comments.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical checks are made on parachute trainees during their training and before their jumps.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Unless a trainee reports sick, indicates to an instructor that he is sick, or displays some infirmity which is recognised by the training staff, no medical checks will be carried out. Each individual arrives with a medical certificate declaring his fitness to undergo training. It must be the responsibility of the individual to declare any lack of fitness to continue which may not be readily noticeable.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of the parachute trainees at Brize Norton in 1989 who arrived without an L5 landing certificate were(a) given a certificate without the training for it, (b) given training at the base to enable them to acquire the certificates and (c) sent home;

  (2) how many of the parachute trainees going to Brize Norton in 1989 had with them an L5 landing certificate on arrival; and how many of these were the result of training given by Brize Norton staff instructors at other bases.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The vast majority of trainees arriving at Brize Norton will have possessed a L5 certificate. None would have been allowed to commence 138
  parachute training without proof of their competence to do so and none would have been provided with a L5 certificate without undergoing the training required. The further information requested in the hon. Member's questions has not been recorded.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Modern Languages
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department's policies of the national council for modern languages' report on the teaching of oriental and African languages, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Jackson
  Consistent with Government policy to increase the scope for higher education institutions to respond to the various demands placed on them, it is for the institutions themselves to determine provision for all subject areas, in consultation as necessary with the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what value for money savings have been achieved by his Department in the last year; and how much of this was as a result of advice from the central unit on purchasing.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not yet available but for the previous year (1988–89) the figure was approximately £2 million.

  In general, it is not possible to attribute particular value for money savings to advice from the central unit on purchasing. The role of the unit is to provide advice and guidance on best purchasing practice; it provides overall support and guidance and encourages value for money across all Departments.

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

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has fully evaluated the system but at present the items currently covered by the GSI do not form a significant part of our expenditure and it is not therefore economically viable to join the system. If the situation changes the matter will be reconsidered.

  Schools (Voluntary Aided Status)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many current applications for voluntary aided status for schools are lodged with his Department; and when he expects to announce a decision on each of them.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There are currently 12 proposals published under section 13 of the Education Act 1980 for establishing a voluntary aided school which fall to be decided by my right hon. Friend. In addition there are two
  139
  proposals before him under section 54 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to change the status of a voluntary controlled school to voluntary aided. He will reach a decision on the proposals as quickly as is compatible with a full and careful consideration of all the issues involved. He has stated that it is his intention to come to a decision on statutory proposals within five months of publication wherever possible. Delays in some cases arise from factors outside the Department's control.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the latest available figures on the number of 16 to 18-year-olds on YTS who receive part-time education at further education colleges.

  Mr. Jackson
  In November 1988 the number of students studying part-time in maintained colleges of FE in England as part of a YTS was as follows:

  Aged 16

  Aged 17

  Aged 18

  Aged 16–18

  All part-time (including evening)

  62,000

  56,000

  5,000

  123,000

  The ages are those at 31 August 1988.

  Nursery Schools (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give(a) the number and location of (i) nursery schools, (ii) nursery classes and (iii) under-five units in reception classes provided by Cambridgeshire education authority together with the number of places available at each unit and the percentage of the total number of three and four-year-olds in Cambridgeshire which these places represent (b) the total cost of providing and supporting each category, (c) the average cost per child place in each category in Cambridgeshire and (d) the national average cost per child place for each category.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the number of under-five units in reception classes and the number of places available at each unit is not available centrally. Information on the total cost of providing and supporting each category is no longer collected separately by the Department. In January 1989 the number of nursery schools, nursery classes and the number of pupils under five in Cambridgeshire is as follows:

  Number

  Pupils under five

  Percentage of the esti-mated 3 and 4-year-old popula-tion

  Nursery schools

  7

  661

  4

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  31

  1,355

  8

  Other classes

  5,073

  30

  Total

  7,089

  42

  Teacher Shortage (Tower Hamlets)
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has received on children of school age in the London borough of Tower Hamlets 140
  unable to find a school place in the current academic year because of shortages of teachers; what discussions he has had about this problem with the Inner London education authority and the London borough of Tower Hamlets; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that all children in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets enjoy the basic right to state education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The local education authority estimates that, excluding rising fives, there were about 220 children of compulsory school age not in school at the end of the spring term. These figures take no account of the take-up of 180 places at Bigland primary school which opened this term.

  The Department is in regular contact with the local education authority about this and other matters, and will continue to give support to the measures Tower Hamlets is taking to secure an adequate supply of teachers.

  Bangladeshis
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has taken to implement recommendations 7 to 15 of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its first report in Session 1986–87 on Bangladeshis in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am able to report the following developments since the Government response to the Home Affairs Select Committee Report "Bangladeshis in Britain" was published in July 1987. The Department issued last July a circular (16/89) to local education authorities and others, instituting from September 1990 a national scheme for the collection of ethnically based statistics on school pupils. Three projects aimed at addressing the particular educational needs of Bangladeshi pupils have been included in the education support grant programme on ethnic diversity.

  Local education authorities are already required to set targets and performance indicators for English language support teaching funded through grants paid under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. In the proposals for the future administration of the grant recently published by the Home Office, local authorities will be required to review the effectiveness of existing section 11 funded provision and set specific objectives and quantifiable targets for continued funding.

  Pre-school provision of children from linguistic minorities and home-school liaison, particularly with parents who speak little English, are eligible for support under current arrangements for section 11 and continue to be identified as areas for support in the proposed new arrangements.

  As regards recommendations 11 and 14 concerning local authority support for voluntary initiatives, under current section 11 arrangements it is open to local authorities to apply for grant support for posts to work on detached duty with voluntary organisations.

  Under the proposed new arrangements for the grant the Government will expect local authorities to include in their funding bids applications for posts based in the voluntary sector, although as with current applications in respect of the voluntary sector, these will have to meet the relevant criteria for grant. Bengali has been included among those modern foreign languages specified as eligible to be taught as a national curriculum foundation subject. Since last

  141
  autumn, schools have been able to offer Bengali towards the national curriculum requirements, provided that they also offer at least one of the working languages of the European Community.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners held on remand in each year from 1979 to 1989 were found not guilty.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest information is published in table 2.8 of "Prison statistics England and Wales 1988" (Cmn. 825), a copy of which is in the Library. Final data for 1988 and provisional data for 1989 are not yet available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overstayers were granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom in the latest available year having given evidence of stable marriages to British citizens with right of abode in the United Kingdom.

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

  Prison Officers Association Annual Conference
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Minister from the Home Office will be attending and speaking at this year's Prison Officers Association annual conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend have been invited to attend or speak at the Prison Officers' Association annual conference.

  Race Relations Board
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines he issues to the Race Relations Board over its encouragement and help of complainants in bringing cases before an industrial tribunal;

  (2) whether, when next he meets the chairman of the Race Relations Board, he will discuss with him his policy of encouraging individuals to bring cases of complaint where those individuals have deliberately approached several companies for employment as a test exercise.

  Mr. John Patten
  The criteria on which the Commission for Racial Equality considers applications from complainants for assistance are laid down in section 66 of the Race Relations Act 1976. I am assured by its chairman that the commission would want to avoid supporting any complaint made as the result of a "test exercise" approach to a number of employers, as opposed to assisting genuine job applicants who complain of discrimination.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation to compensate those people who are put to expense in defending actions brought before industrial 142
  tribunals with the support of the Race Relations Board where the case is dismissed or the complainant drops his or her allegations at a late stage.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has no plans to extend the provisions in the Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1985 to cover the award of costs in all cases where a case is dismissed or dropped at a late stage.

  Pregnant Prisoners
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give a breakdown of the charges faced by pregnant women currently held on remand.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 1 May 1990 there were eight pregnant females held on remand. Of these one is charged with murder, one with burglary and theft, four with theft or fraud, one with arson, and one with criminal damage.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners were pregnant at the last count.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 1 May 1990, 35 female prisoners were known to be pregnant.

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

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not available.

  The annual reports of the work of the prison department do however record the number of pregnant females temporarily removed to outside hospitals for delivery and returning to establishments afterwards. The figures are:

  Number

  1988–89

  63

  1987–88

  75

  1986–87

  71

  1985–86

  71

  11984–85

  70

  1983

  270

  1982

  251

  1981

  74

  1980

  75

  1979

  274

  1 Covers 15 month period.

  2 Additionally, in each of the years 1979, 1982 and 1983 there was one delivery in an establishment.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown of the sentences subsequently received by pregnant women held on remand in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not available.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give a breakdown of the offences for which pregnant women who have been sentenced to jail have been convicted.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 1 May 1990 there were 27 pregnant females serving sentences of imprisonment. Of these:
  143

  10 had been convicted of offences of theft or fraud.

  7 had been convicted of offences of violence against the person.

  6 had been convicted of drugs offences.

  2 had been convicted of burglary offences.

  1 had been convicted of a sexual offence.

  1 had been convicted of aiding and abetting blackmail.

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

  Murderers (Film Payments)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the introduction of legislation of forbid the payment of money to people convicted of murder by those making films based on their crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: It is deplorable that criminals—especially those convicted of the most heinous offences—should be able to profit indirectly from their crimes by payments for publication of them, in films or any other medium. We are already considering what steps could be taken, although we recognise that there are practical difficulties because benefits can be received indirectly, or covertly, or outside our jurisdiction.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received in recent weeks regarding food convoy movements in Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The latest information available on the southern line operation for transporting food across the conflict lines is that in the period 20 March (when the operation started) to 2 May, 61 convoys have carried 8,803 tonnes of food into northern Wello and Tigray. Of this total, 4,214 tonnes have been delivered to Makelle in Tigray. In the six days up to 2 May a total of 2,067 tonnes was delivered.

  In addition, substantial amounts of food have been delivered into Eritrea and Tigray by convoys operated by the Eritrean Relief Association (ERA) and the Relief Society of Tigray (REST). We do not have details of movements of convoys along these routes.

  Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to ensure that aid to eastern Europe is counted separately from aid to developing countries in development assistance committee calculations of official development assistance.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government supported the proposed conclusion, reached by the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, that assistance to eastern Europe should not be included in the calculation of official development assistance as a proportion of GNP used in DAC statistical presentations.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-governmental organisations in receipt of grants from his Department in 1989–90; and what is the size of each grant.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figures for 1989–90 are not yet available. The figures for 1988–89, including support both for long-term development projects and for emergency and refugee relief, are as follows:

  Overseas Development Administration

  Non Governmental Organisation

  Amount (£)

  ACAFESS (Afro Caribbean Community Organisation)

  130,130

  Acord

  1,157,918

  Action Aid

  1,308,095

  Action Around Bethlehem

  27,550

  Action on Disability and Development

  97,163

  Action Water

  10,000

  Afghanaid

  1,313,580

  Africa Now

  10,300

  Aga Khan Foundation

  1,560,040

  Appropriate Health Resources and Technologies Action Group (AHRTAG)

  468,754

  Aid for India

  20,826

  African Medical Research Foundation (AMREF)

  182,541

  Avon Industrial Award Scheme

  5,000

  Band Aid

  169,953

  Boston-Jalchatra Project

  12,000

  Boys Brigade

  15,349

  British Airways Trust

  48,500

  British Executive Services Overseas

  300,006

  British Red Cross Society

  1,714,379

  British Refugee Council

  6,000

  CAB International (Commonwealth Mycological Institute)

  57,437

  Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD)

  3,814,990

  Care Britain

  4,139,404

  Centre for Economic Policy Research

  49,827

  Centre for World Development Education

  135,000

  Christian Aid

  5,433,561

  Christian Outreach

  189,103

  Christians Abroad

  17,000

  CIIR

  994,673

  Commonwealth Human Ecology Council

  50,013

  Concern

  1,137,451

  Council for Education in World Citizenship

  6,500

  Council Of Europe North South Campaign

  30,000

  Co-operation For Development

  544,584

  Commonwealth TUC

  51,020

  Cusichaca Project

  32,155

  Disasters Emergency Committee

  2,106,700

  Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme

  5,000

  Equipment for Community Hospitals Overseas

  6,307

  Food and Agriculture Research Mission

  12,514

  Friends of Urambo and Mwanhala

  13,672

  Hand in Hand

  17,636

  Health Unlimited

  48,175

  Help the Aged

  199,903

  Homeless Trust

  169,237

  International Council for Bird Preservation

  37,570

  International Institute for Environment and Development

  55,000

  Institute of Development Studies

  1,262,000

  Intercare

  9,732

  International Bee Research Association

  29,600

  International Boys Town Trust

  21,621

  International Extension College

  198,200

  International Medical Relief

  14,500

  Int Committee of the Red Cross

  610,000

  Intermediate Technologies Development Group

  1,902,562

  International Voluntary Service

  774,886

  King Mahedra Trust

  14,750

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  57,691

  145

  Non Governmental Organisation

  Amount (£)

  Leprosy Mission

  25,030

  Lifeline

  9,842

  Ludhiana British Fellowship

  4,763

  Marie Slopes International

  194,699

  Namibia Refugee Project

  10,000

  National Children's Home

  11,000

  National Council of YMCA

  62,500

  Ockenden Venture

  260,736

  Operation Raleigh

  3,530

  Order of St John

  140,000

  Overseas Development Institute

  715,203

  OXFAM

  7,722,798

  Panos Institute

  79,551

  Parkes Foundation

  3,000

  PLAN (Foster Parents Plan/World Family)

  126,250

  Plunkett Foundation

  9,000

  Population Concern

  190,739

  Quaker Peace and Service

  125,382

  Ranfurly Library Service

  77,880

  Regional Conference on International Voluntary Service

  4,300

  Richmond Fellowship

  13,000

  Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind

  203,336

  Royal Society

  112,000

  Rural Development Consultancy for Christian Churches in Africa (RURCON)

  25,750

  Ryder Cheshire Mission

  23,000

  Salvation Army

  7,000

  Sandy Gall Afghan Appeal

  100,000

  Save the Children Fund

  6,215,874

  Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund

  107,252

  Scottish Education and Action for Development

  6,000

  The Scout Association

  21,092

  Send a Cow

  34,500

  SOS Sahel International

  49,557

  Special Projects in Christian Missionary Areas

  83,439

  St John Ambulance

  8,721

  Tear Fund

  91,213

  Tree Trust

  11,130

  Uganda Society for Disabled Children

  212,386

  UK Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific

  24,860

  UN Association International Service

  490,000

  UNICEF

  550,000

  UNIPAL

  12,500

  Urban Aid

  20,000

  Voluntary Service Overseas

  8,694,564

  War on Want

  149,643

  Water Aid

  447,172

  Women's Corona Society

  34,000

  Women's Environmental Network

  10,000

  Work Start Overseas

  36,156

  World Press Centre

  45,000

  World University Service

  490,462

  World Vision

  1,369,091

  Worldwide Fund for Nature

  420,890

  Y-Care International

  212,040

  You and Me

  27,550

  YWCA

  52,785

  Zimbabwe Trust

  28,075

  Total

  63,024,299

  Note: These figures exclude the United Kingdom share of grants to British NGOS through the EC.

  Diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Non Governmental Organisation

  Amount £

  Afghan Support Committee

  25,000

  Anglo Irish Encounter

  27,000

  Atlantic Treaty Association

  3,500

  British Atlantic Committee

  61,215

  British Youth Council

  44,000

  British Yugoslav Society

  12,000

  College of Europe, Brussels

  2,500

  European Movement

  5,000

  146

  Non Governmental Organisation

  Amount £

  Exchange of British and Soviet Weeks

  10,138

  Franco-British Council

  60,000

  Fund for International Student Co-operation

  76,000

  NGOs Engaged in Explanation of Arms Control and Defence Issues

  10,000

  Great Britain/China Centre

  123,000

  Great Britain/East Europe Centre

  130,000

  Great Britain/USSR Association

  186,000

  Hague Academy of International Law

  5,000

  International Commission of Jurists

  10,000

  International Committee of the Red Cross

  250,000

  Peace Through NATO

  113,000

  Trilateral Commission

  2,250

  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service

  10,000

  United Nations Association

  24,000

  West India Committee

  15,000

  TOTAL

  1,204,603

  Charitable Institutions
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what investigations are made by his Department into the political activities of those charitable institutions in receipt of grants from his Department;

  (2) what guidelines are set for charitable organisations in receipt of Government grants from his Department regarding any policy that might be influenced by political considerations of the officers of that charity;

  (3) whether he will consider withdrawing all grants from his Department to any charitable organisation that is under investigation by the Charity Commissioners.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My Department does not make general grants to voluntary agencies. Our support is confined to specifically identified and agreed projects, both for long-term development and for emergency and refugee relief. Our prime concern is the quality and relevance to local communities in developing countries of the proposed projects. We also take account of the probity and administrative and professional competence of the agencies to operate and maintain the projects; and they are required to account to us for the use of our funds.

  We do not fund voluntary agencies' campaigning or political activities. They are independent organisations and as such are free to express their own views. The way in which they do that and the content of their campaigning is essentially a matter for the agencies, their supporters and the Charity Commissioners. I certainly do not see eye to eye with some agencies' views, and when appropriate I do not hesitate to take issue with them. But it is for the Charity Commissioners to judge whether an agency over-steps the guidelines on what constitutes acceptable activities for a charity and it would not be proper for me to seek to intervene in the commissioners' deliberations.

  I look forward to continuing to support the excellent work of the NGOs in developing countries. Our support will continue to be confined to agreed projects and will be available only to those agencies which are properly maintaining charitable status.

  Know-how Fund (Czechoslovakia)
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the know-how fund for Czechoslovakia is now in operation; and if he will give details of the specific help on offer.
  148
  Mrs. Chalker
  The extension of the know-how fund to Czechoslovakia was announced during the visit of President Havel to Britain in March. Detailed projects and programmes have not yet been worked out, but assistance will initially be concentrated on the financial, employment, energy and environment sectors, and on the provision of management training.

WALES

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the national curriculum in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  We have received many representations concerning the national curriculum in Wales, most of which have been in response to the numerous consultations we have conducted.

  Schools (Repair and Decoration)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to facilitate the repair and decoration of schools in Wales for this financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  In framing the local authority finance settlements for 1990–91 we have allowed for current spending of £1,001 million on education—some 10·1 per cent. above last year's expenditure provision—and gross capital spending of £53·7 million—confirming the enhanced position of recent years and bringing the total capital increase since 1985–86 to 60 per cent. These levels should permit local education authorities to meet their responsibilities for the repair and maintenance of schools, particularly if additional resources are released by measures such as removal of surplus places.

  In the context of the efficiency initiative, local authorities have established a property management group and this is addressing the condition of the local authority estate, including educational establishments. A report on property management has been prepared which recommends the setting up of appropriate records in regard to the age and condition of buildings, including schools.

  Floods
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make cash payments of £70,000 each to the north Wales sea flood inundation funds of Clwyd county council, Colwyn borough council, Rhuddlan borough council and Delyn borough council: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The existing sea-wall at Towyn has now been repaired and strengthened to ensure that a breach should not occur again, even in extreme conditions. In addition, work has already started on the options for improving the defences still further and this will be taken forward urgently. My Department will be ready to provide resources towards any agreed scheme. This is in addition to the £12 million of work already planned in north Wales over the next few years.

  The most important form of aid that the Government are able to give is, of course, aid under the Bellwin scheme and this is available to all the relevant local authorities in north Wales. The grant will be paid at the rate of 85 per cent. instead of the more customary 75 per cent. In addition the period over which it can be paid has been extended by a further three months to 31 July and we will review the position towards the end of July and, if necessary, extend the scheme still further.

  The amount of money which will be paid under the scheme will be very substantial. Colwyn borough council
  150
  has made a preliminary estimate of £1·25 million expenditure eligible for Bellwin assistance and if' this proves to be accurate it will result in a payment by the Government of more than £1 million. Further claims may well come in from Colwyn borough council and, of course, from the other councils in north Wales which have been affected.

  There is a strange misunderstanding that the £150,000 donation which the Welsh Office gave to the appeal funds of the mayors of Colwyn, Delyn and Rhuddlan was the total amount of Government aid. It is, of course, only a minute proportion of the total expenditure in which the Government will be involved and the donation was made in the hope that it would encourage many others to make a similar donation. Never previously have the Government made a donation to such funds unless loss of life has been involved.

  Achievements (Cost of Reply)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of(a) printing and circulating information to the press about his reply to 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 and (b) its publication in the Official Report.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This answer was circulated in the normal way to the House of Commons and the press Lobby with seven other answers at an estimated cost of £15. Printing in Hansard is estimated to have cost £44.

  Parking Restrictions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review the designation of parking restrictions and prohibitions by local authorities in Wales and the effectiveness of such systems in residential and commercial areas.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The need for, and the effectiveness of, parking restrictions on local roads is entirely a matter for consideration by local highway authorities who have a statutory duty under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to exercise their powers to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many cases of glaucoma were recorded as diagnosed in each month of 1989(a) in each health authority area in Wales and (b) in Wales as a whole;

  (2) how many cases of glaucoma were recorded as diagnosed in each month of 1989 in South Glamorgan;

  (3) how many referrals to ophthalmic surgeons were made in each month in 1989 in (a) South Glamorgan and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on Tuesday 8 May at column 58.

  Pathology Departments (Income)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those National Health Service pathology departments which have established income
  151
  generating schemes which share the profits between the National Health Service and the staff; and if he will place in the Library details of all such schemes.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office monitors National Health Service income generation activity as part of its annual review of health authorities. The 1989 review did not reveal the existence of any such schemes in Wales.

  Caernarfon Cottage Hospital
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the difference between the Welsh language version and the English language version of the letter sent by P. R. Gregory of his Department to C. H. Thomas of Gwynedd health authority on the conditions to be met prior to the closure of Caernarfon cottage hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  The difference between the Welsh and English versions of the fifth paragraph of the letter arose during the process of drafting in English and translation into Welsh. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a further letter has been sent to the general manager clarifying that only the English version currently sets out the conditions of closure.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to inspect(a) the steps taken to reprovide general anaesthetic dental clinic facilities at ysbyty Gwynedd and (b) the proposed motorised mobile dental clinic facilities prior to allowing Gwynedd health authority to close the cottage hospital, Caernarfon;

  (2) what is the proportion of the staff at (a) the cottage hospital, Caernarfon and (b) ysbyty Gwynedd who are Welsh-speaking;

  (3) if he will publish in the Official Report the updated estimated cost of running the cottage hospital, Caernarfon on the basis of which he agreed to confirm the closure; and what were the assumptions relating to (a) bed occupancy rates and (b) the number of persons using the casualty facilities at that hospital on which these cost estimates were based;

  (4) what proportion of the patients currently treated at the cottage hospital, Caernarfon will be treated in (a) Eryri hospital, Caernarfon and (b) Bryn Seiont hospital, Caernarfon after the proposed closure of the cottage hospital;

  (5) what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the Gwynedd health authority complies with the recommendations of Welsh Office circular WHC(89)28 on the future development of community dental services with regard to setting up an effective monitoring system to evaluate the efficiency of the arrangements for transfer of appropriate patients from the community dental services to the general dental service; by what date he expects this to be achieved; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) whether he has received from Gwynedd district health authority any application for the partial closure of the cottage hospital, Caernarfon; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) if he will make a statement on the letter of 20 April by P. R. Gregory of the Welsh Office to C. H. Thomas, the district manager of Gwynedd district health authority, paragraph 32 of annex 'A', with regard to alternative cost saving options considered by the health authority instead
  152
  of closing the cottage hospital, Caernarfon; and if he will list in the Official Report the alternatives which were considered;

  (8) what consultations his Department had with general practitioners in the town of Caernarfon before approving proposals to close the cottage hospital, Caernarfon.

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

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received representations from the chairman of Gwynedd health authority during the past six months on the current expenditure budget provision made for that authority for the financial year 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Neither my right hon. Friend, nor his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) have received any representation in the past six months from the chairman of the Gwynedd health authority concerning the authority's budgetary requirements for the current financial year. However, in a letter dated 7 February to the director of the NHS in Wales, the general manager of the authority outlined the authority's financial situation for 1989–90 and provided a projection of an overspend of some £4 million in 1990–91 if further action was not taken to restore financial balance.

  Following discussions between the NHS director and the general manager, the authority has re-engaged the management consultants, Deloittes, Haskins and Sells to assist its officials in preparing proposals on how this might be achieved. My right hon. Friend is willing to give sympathetic consideration to any request from the authority for temporary financial assistance, so long as any such request is underpinned by a well-thought-out strategy for restoring financial balance in the medium term.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital closures have been approved by his Department between 1 June 1987 and 30 April 1990; and if he will list these hospitals.

  Mr. Grist
  A list of those hospitals the closure of which has been approved by this Department between 1 June 1987 and 30 April 1990 is given in the following table:

  Approved

  Closure of Madog memorial hospital Porthmadog

  3 March 1989

  Closure of Druid hospital, Llangefni

  3 March 1989

  Closure of Groesynyd hospital, Conwy

  3 March 1989

  Closure of St. David's hospital, Bangor

  3 March 1989

  Closure of Pentwyn and Tyntyla hospitals, Mid Glamorgan

  4 July 1989

  Closure of Cottage hospital, Caernarfon

  20 March 1990

SCOTLAND

  Health Board Expenditure
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the (i) capital, (ii) revenue and (iii) total expenditure of each of the Scottish health boards in each of the last five years and in the last financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 May at columns 70–72.

  Rent-to-Mortgage Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent to date by his Department in promoting his rent-to-mortgage scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the promotion of the rent-to-mortgage scheme rests with Scottish Homes, and the Scottish Development Department has not incurred any promotional expenditure specific to that scheme.

  Right to Buy
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount in 1990 prices was spent to promote the right to buy in Scotland in each full year of operation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested, which is set out in the table, relates to publicity campaigns undertaken by the Scottish Office promoting right to buy.

  Year

  1£

  1980

  112,000

  1981

  127,000

  1982

  96,000

  1983

  —

  1984

  137,000

  1985

  196,000

  1986

  —

  1987

  144,000

  1988

  —

  1989

  —

  1990

  162,000

  1 Prices current in 1989–90.

  Foreign Language Teachers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many foreign language teachers there were in Scotland for each year since 1975.

  Name of site

  Area approved for treatment (ha)

  Area actually treated (ha)

  Insecticide used

  Aerial Spraying in 1986

  Truderscaig

  784

  200

  Diflubenzuron

  247

  Fenitrothion

  North Dalchork

  2,080

  328

  Fenitrothion

  13

  PfNPV and Virox

  Inveroykel

  570

  570

  Fenitrothion

  Strathrannoch (Ross and Cromarty)

  189

  155

  PfNPV

  34

  Fenitrothion

  Garbat (Ross and Cromarty)

  707

  None

  Achentoul Estate

  252

  196

  Fenitrothion

  Ben Armine

  98

  98

  Fenitrothion

  Suisgill

  320

  320

  PfNPV

  Creag Dubh

  27

  27

  Diflubenzuron

  Badenloch I

  39

  39

  Diflubenzuron

  154
  Mr. Lang
  The numbers of modern language teachers teaching in education authority secondary schools in Scotland at each September since 1975 for which information is available, are set out in the table:

  Numbers (full-time equivalents) of modern language teachers

  Number

  1988

  1,750

  1987

  11,820

  1984

  12,100

  1983

  2,180

  1982

  2,100

  1981

  2,235

  1980

  2,280

  1979

  2,300

  1978

  2,300

  1976

  2,290

  1975

  2,190

  1 Number of full-time and part-time teachers.

  At present the supply of language teachers matches demand, measured at the national level.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the names, locations and areas of sites which have been subject to aerial spraying with products other than fenitrothion to combat forest pests in the years 1986 to 1989; and if he will list the products used in each case;

  (2) if he will list names of sites, their locations and areas within Scotland, England and Wales, for which (a) Forestry Commission and (b) private forestry concerns have sought approval for the use of fenitrothion for the purpose of aerial spraying during each of the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989; and whether he will list which areas were sprayed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The information is set out in the following tables. All the applications for approval for aerial spraying with insecticides, in respect of both Forestry Commission and privately owned forests, were sought by the commission. All the areas treated were in the highland region of Scotland and, except where indicated in the table, were in the Sutherland district of that region. No aerial spraying was required in 1989.
  155

  Name of site

  Area approved for treatment (ha)

  Area actually treated (ha)

  Insecticide used

  Fiag

  45

  45

  PfNPV

  South Dalchork

  269

  269

  Diflubenzuron

  Strathcuileannach

  145

  93

  PfNPV

  Mid Penny

  21

  None

  Braemore

  50

  50

  Diflubenzuron

  Camster (Caithness)

  101

  None

  Borgie

  103

  103

  Virox

  Craggie

  207

  207

  Virox

  Aerial Spraying in 1987

  Achentoul

  155

  None

  Braemore

  180

  180

  Fenitrothion

  Camster

  101

  None

  Caplich

  122

  122

  Fenitrothion

  Craig Dubh

  40

  None

  Dalnessie

  27

  27

  Fenitrothion

  Inveroykel/Birchfield

  573

  573

  Diflubenzuron

  Mid Penny

  21

  None

  North Dalchork

  230

  130

  PfNPV

  Rimsdale

  484

  448

  Fenitrothion

  South Dalchork

  246

  111

  PfNPV

  65

  Fenitrothion

  Suisgill

  56

  None

  Syre

  136

  136

  Diflubenzuron

  Truderscaig

  72

  None

  Garbat (Ross and Cromarty)

  59

  None

  Poulary and Kingie (Lochaber)

  474

  473

  Fenitrothion

  Borrobol

  136

  None

  Aerial Spraying in 1988

  Copaig

  574

  330

  Fenitrothion

  244

  Virox

  Cnoc a' moid

  184

  184

  Fenitrothion

  Truderscaig

  229

  103

  Fenitrothion

  126

  PfNPV and Virox

  Achairn (Caithness)

  500

  500

  Virox

  Braehour (Caithness)

  465

  465

  Virox

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total quantity of fenitrothion used in forestry operations in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990.]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  kg active ingredient

  1985

  1,450

  1986

  440

  1987

  400

  1988

  190

  1989

  None

  Child Psychotherapists
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage the appointment of child psychotherapists in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: Decisions on the level of Health Service staffing including the appointment of child psychotherapists are matters for individual health boards.

  Foreign Language Training
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish(a) business community, (b) higher education authorities and (c) unions regarding the need for training in foreign languages in Scotland especially from 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The views of these and other bodies have been given in meetings and through correspondence on a variety of occasions.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what objective factors he has taken into consideration in order to decide the number of adequate teachers of foreign languages in Scotland; and how often the situation is reviewed.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The factors taken into account in determining intake targets for teacher training courses are described in the SED statistical bulletin "Teachers—Key Statistics on Demand and Supply" No. 12/B7/1989 published in November last year, a copy of which is in the Library. These factors are reviewed annually. Colleges of education consult education authorities to decide the subject specialist mix of each annual intake to secondary training.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Income Tax
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the figures relating to payments under a local income tax given in his answers of 13 June 1989,Official Report, columns 360–61, and 24 May 1989, Official Report, column 594.

  Mr. Chope
  Updated figures were placed in the Library on 4 April. These show the rate of local income tax which could apply in each area were such a system introduced. The bill payable by any resident is calculated by multiplying the local income tax rate by that resident's taxable income. The figures placed in the Library show as an illustration the bill payable in each area with a taxable income of £12,800. This is equivalent to average male earnings less the single person's tax allowance.

  On that basis, the figures sought by my hon. Friend are as follows—a man on average male earnings in England would pay £949 and a man on average male earnings in Kirklees would pay £1,093.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what official efforts are being made to educate drivers about the various grades of unleaded petrol and their application to different types of car engines.

  Mr. Portillo
  From 1 October, all new cars will be required to be able to use 95 octane unleaded petrol. The vast majority can already do so. The Government have issued a free booklet "Adjust to Unleaded" which gives guidance on the use of this fuel in existing cars. The booklet also deals in general terms with the higher octane grades which will enable certain additional existing models to run on unleaded petrol. It would, however, be excessively complicated to include detailed information on individual models, and motorists who are in doubt should consult their vehicle manual or seek advice from a qualified source.

  Housing
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private and public authority homes were built in each of the past five years in the constituency of Richmond and Barnes.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department collects housebuilding statistics for local authority areas. Figures for the London borough of Richmond upon Thames, which includes this constituency, appear in "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas 1980 to 1988" and for the first nine months of 1989 in "Local Housing Statistics, No. 92". Copies of both are in the Library.

  Integrated Pollution Control
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to ensure that processes requiring approval under integrated pollution control will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Trippier
  As I said on 26 April at column 343 in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr.
  158
  Porter), I have placed in the Library of the House a timetable for the implementation of integrated pollution control (IPC). It is our intention to introduce the initial phase of integrated pollution control on 2 January 1990 and thereafter to bring all processes prescribed for control into the new system by 1995. Once an application is made, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will have four months to determine the grant of an authorisation. If the inspectorate has not reached a decision at the end of that time the applicant will have a right of appeal for a determination to the Secretary of State.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is due to be published in September.

  Human Sewage Sludge
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to recommend the spreading of human sewage sludge on land for fertilising purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The use of sewage sludge as a fertiliser in England and Wales is controlled by the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 (SI 1263) and more detailed advice is contained in the code of practice for agricultural use of sewage sludge, published by the Department in 1989.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to in which of the European Community countries it is permissible to spread human sewage sludge on land for fertilising purposes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Sewage sludge is used as a fertiliser on agricultural land in all European Community countries.

  Toxic Wastes
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions have been made for the storage and disposal of toxic wastes arising from British Nuclear Fuels' activities at Springfields, Capenhurst, Chapelcross, Calder Hall works and Sellafield.

  Mr. Trippier
  This is a matter for the waste disposal authorities in whose area the premises are situated.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions have been made for the storage and disposal of toxic wastes arising from United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and AEA Technology activities at AERE Harwell, Winfrith, the Windscale research laboratories, Dounreay nuclear power development establishment and Risley.

  Mr. Trippier
  In England, responsibility for controlling the storage of non-radioactive toxic waste covered by part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and for the licensing of sites used for waste disposal, falls to the
  159
  relevant waste disposal authority in whose area the premises or disposal site are situated. The storage and disposal of radioactive waste is authorised under the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Corresponding controls in respect of Dounreay are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Rate Capping
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much in total was spent by local councils on unsuccessful legal challenges to rate-capping legislation.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The Department does not have this information.

  Building Control
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private companies or individuals are involved with building control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: The National House-building Council Control Services Limited is the only private company authorised under the Building Act 1984 to undertake building control functions as approved inspectors.

  Some local authorities use private consultants to assist them in their building control work. No statistics are kept on the number of private companies or individuals involved in such work.

  Loft Insulation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure by his Department on grants towards the cost of loft insulation under the homes insulation scheme for(a) 1988–89 and (b) 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: My Department's expenditure on the homes insulation scheme in 1988–89 was £11·4 million and in 1989–90 it was £5·8 million. These amounts include the administrative expenses of local authorities.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to develop or expand the role of the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: None, beyond the proposals contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill to expand the Audit Commission's functions to cover the National Health Service.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department assisted the Data Protection Registrar with his investigation into possible unauthorised disclosure of poll tax data by the London borough of Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am not aware that the Data Protection Registrar has asked for any such assistance.
  160
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the total amount to be raised by local government through the community charge in the current financial year exceeds the amount which would have been raised had the last year's income from domestic rates been increased in line with inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: English local authorities have budgeted to raise £12·7 billion from the community charge in 1990–91. This is 30 per cent. higher than the amount they raised from domestic rates in 1989–90 and £2·2 billion more than if they had increased income by the March 1990 RPI.

  The local authorities have budgeted to raise £35·8 billion from community charge, grant and business rates. This is £2·5 billion more than the equivalent figure for 1989–90 adjusted for changes in function and increased by the March 1990 RPI.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his estimates of the costs to local authorities in 1991–92 of implementing legislation on(a) community care and (b) environmental protection.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: Estimates of the costs to local authorities and others of implementing the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and the Environmental Protection Bill are contained in the explanatory and financial memoranda to those Bills.

  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions permitting the preparation and publication of standard spending assessments for the community charge.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: Standard spending assessments are calculated according to the revenue support grant distribution report (England) made under section 80 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and approved by the House on 18 January 1990. The Community Charges and Non-domestic Rating (Demand Notices) (England) Regulations 1990 (1990, No. 156) require standard spending assessments to appear on community charge demand notices.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors influenced his decision not to charge-cap the City of London.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: My right hon. Friend did not designate the City of London for charge capping because its budget was not in his opinion excessive.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is given to local authorities on the exercise of discretion on the levying of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: It has been the long-established and sensible practice of local authorities to exercise discretion not to seek to collect very small amounts where the cost of collection would exceed the amounts concerned. The introduction of the community charge does not alter this, a fact mentioned in community charge practice note No. 24 which is about to be issued.
  161
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his written answer of 3 May to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, if he will list which grants fall(a) inside and (b) outside aggregate Exchequer finance.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The grants falling within AEF for 1990–91 are listed. National non-domestic rate payments are also with AEF. All other grants to local authorities are outside AEF.

  Grants within AEF

  Revenue support grant

  Low rateable value areas grant

  Inner London education grant

  Police grant1

  Magistrates' courts grant1

  Probation services grant

  Commonwealth immigrants grant

  Urban programme1

  Civil defence

  Sheltered employment

  In-service teacher training

  Education support

  Housing benefit administration

  Social services training

  AIDS and HIV

  Careers service strengthening grant

  National parks supplementary grant

  Education of travellers' children

  1Excluding the loan charges element.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his written answer of 3 May to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East1, if he will provide similar calculations which exclude from the Government grant total (a) community charge rebate figures, (b) grants outside of AEF and (c) the figures in (a) and (b) combined2; if he will give reasons for including grants outside AEF and community charge rebates within his calculations.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The figures requested are (a) Government grants 35 per cent., (b) business rates 29 per cent., (c) community charges 35 per cent. The figure for community charges is gross of community charge rebates and transitional relief grant. Figures do not add to 100 per cent. due to rounding.

  The figures given in my answer to the hon. Member on 3 May 1990 at columns 617–18 included as central Government grants grants outside AEF and community charge rebates because these are part of direct and indirect support from central Government to community charge payers and help them to meet local authority spending.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his written answer of 3 May to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, if he will list the equivalent percentage details for each district council area in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: This information is not available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for Great Britain and for the west midlands region for each year from April 162
  1986 to the most recent date, of the total number of YTS trainees (a) in training and (b) with disabilities in training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures for the number of YTS trainees in training and with disabilities in training for Great Britain and the west midlands for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date are as follows:

  Great Britain

  West Midlands

  Total in training

  Disabled in training

  Total in training

  Disabled in training

  March 1987

  305,676

  9,331

  39,751

  1,146

  March 1988

  375,564

  11,269

  44,647

  1,264

  March 1989

  376,622

  12,046

  42,227

  1,256

  March 19901

  359,460

  9,586

  39,394

  962

  1 Subject to revision.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce an age-related increase in the YT allowance for those aged 18 years and over.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There will be no change to the value of the higher rate of the youth training allowance. The present level of this allowance represents a clear lead over the corresponding level of the income support for 18-year-olds which came into effect in April.

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

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures for 1989–90 are being processed and are not yet available. However, the statistics in the table show for all parts of the ED group the improvements in 1988–89 as published in the 1989 progress report to the Prime Minister. It is not possible to attribute particular savings to advice from central unit on purchasing. The role of the central unit on purchasing is to give advice and guidance on best purchasing practice; it provides overall support and guidance and encourages value for money across all Government Departments.

  Value for money improvements

  (£ million)

  1988–89

  Departments

  Spend

  VFM

  Per cent. achieved

  Per cent. targeted s

  Department of Employment

  94·2

  14·91

  15·8

  10·6

  Training Agency

  91·4

  7·11

  7·8

  5·0

  Health and Safety Executive

  27·0

  1·55

  5·7

  5·0

  Special Needs Training
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria he will use in assessing whether the training requirements of special needs groups are being met by TECs.

  Mr. Eggar
  Each TEC will set out in its corporate and business plans how it intends to meet the training requirements of groups with special needs. These plans will be subject to my approval and performance against them
  163
  will be regularly monitored. In addition, the training standards advisory service will be appraising the quality of training provision offered by TECs to people with special training needs.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action has been taken or guidance has been given to TECs to develop special needs training.

  Mr. Eggar
  TECs have received detailed guidance on the issues that should be addressed in their corporate and business plans, including the provision of training for people with special needs. My Department is also preparing material for TECs to promote good practice and high quality special needs training.

  Training (Funding)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has had any recent meetings with the business community to discuss the public/private sector mix of the funding of training schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have frequent meetings with the business community at which a number of issues are discussed, including the need for greater investment by employers in training. Training and enterprise councils will have substantial public funds for training and will be well placed to encourage the private sector to contribute.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his criteria for allocating training budgets(a) between different regions in England and Wales, (b) between different areas within each region and (c) between different training providers within each area.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training budgets for programmes operated through the Training Agency are allocated between different regions in England and Wales on the basis of historical spending levels and expected requirements in the year for which the allocation is being made. Particular criteria will be different for each individual programme depending upon its aims and objectives.

  Allocations of budgets to areas within regions are normally on the same basis as allocations to regions. Budgets for different training providers are established through negotiation and will depend mainly upon the nature, type and scale of provision being delivered.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants are involved in managing the TEC programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  Civil servants from my Department are engaged in facilitating the setting up of training and enterprise councils and managing the contractual relationship with them. They will also work in training and enterprise councils on a secondment basis. Training and enterprise councils are being established progressively throughout the year and it is not possible to state how many civil servants are involved at any one time.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from training and enterprise councils against the cuts in funding for training.
  164
  Mr. Eggar
  I have received a number of representations from training and enterprise councils (TECs) about reductions in funding for training. I have explained that these reductions need to be set against sharp falls in unemployment and the drop in numbers of young people.

  Coal Mining (Major Injuries)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for employment what was the number of major injuries in(a) British Coal deep coal mines, (b) licensed private deep coal mines, (c) British Coal opencast mines and (d) licensed private opencast mines in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is as follows for 1988–89:

  Site

  Major injuries

  British Coal deep coal mines

  685

  Licensed private deep coal mines

  25

  British Coal opencast mines

  40

  Licensed private opencast mines

  5

  Figures for 1989–90 are not available.

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been undertaken for failing to report industrial accidents in each year up to and including 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is available only for the years 1981 to 1988–89 and is given in the following table:

  Prosecution action taken by HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and local authorities under NADOR and RIDDOR 1981 to 1988–891

  Date of hearing

  Number of informations laid

  1981

  25

  1982

  230

  1983

  55

  1984

  43

  1985

  102

  1986–87

  102

  1987–88

  191

  1988–89

  179

  1 Provisional.

  2 Action taken by HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates only.

  NADOR—The Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1980.

  RIDDOR—The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list each of the advisers who evaluated the offers made for the Government skill centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Deloitte Corporate Finance, as the Government's main sale adviser, evaluated all offers to purchase skill centres and other parts of the Skills Training Agency.

  The Government Actuary's Department advised on bidders' proposals for pension arrangements to cover staff

  165
  who would move out of the civil service as a result of the sale. The Government also received advice from Deloitte Haskins and Sells management consultancy division and King and Company on property issues, and from Field Fisher Waterhouse on legal matters connected with the sale.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the sites of which he is currently negotiating to sell the freehold to Astra Training Services Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Astra Training Services Ltd. has acquired the freehold at part or all of the following sites:

  Billingham

  Dundee

  Durham

  Hillingdon

  Tyneside

  Bradford

  Cheshire

  Hull

  Manchester

  Preston

  Rochdale

  Wigan

  Birmingham

  Gwent

  North Staffs

  West Glamorgan

  Wrexham

  Bristol

  Gloucester

  Redruth

  West Sussex

  Basildon

  Enfield

  Medway

  Milton Keynes

  Peterborough

  Irvine

  There are no further negotiations in progress on the sale of freehold sites in Astra.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the task of recontracting with training agents, training managers and managing agents to be completed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Recontracting with employment training (ET) training agents, training managers and with YTS managing agents should be substantially complete by 28 May 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the need to reduce average unit prices within employment training to a level consistent with resources available in 1990–91 and the volume requirements associated with those resources.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend's assessment is that overall unit costs, including allowances, will be increased by 1 per cent. in 1990–91.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give from the employment training budget in 1990–91 the total expenditure allocated to(a) training week delivery and (b) trainee leaving employment training for a positive outcome.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1990–91 £571 million is available for employment training (ET) programme costs. Of this about £306 million is expected to be paid to training and enterprise councils, about £31 million on the basis of positive outcomes achieved and £275 million on the basis of trainee weeks delivered.

  Energy Grants
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure by his Department on energy grants towards the cost of draught-proofing materials in(a) 1988–89 and (b) 1989–90.
  166
  Mr. Nicholls
  The total expenditure by the Employment Department Training Agency on community insulation project energy grants towards the cost of draught-proofing materials in 1988–89 and 1989–90 was £6,237,037 and £6,234,372 respectively.

  Low Pay (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), 2 April, columns 460–62, how many firms were prosecuted in Wales in each of the years from 1979 for paying below wages councils minima.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: Two employers have been prosecuted in Wales since 1979 for paying below wages council minima—one in 1987 and one in 1988.

ENERGY

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provisions have been made for the disposal or long-term management of(a) low-level radioactive waste, (b) intermediate-level waste and (c) high-level waste arising from contracts signed for the reprocessing of foreign spent nuclear fuel prior to 1976; and what volumes of waste will arise in each category from these contracts on the completion of reprocessing.

  Mr. Baldry
  Overseas reprocessing contracts signed by BNFL before 1976 did not contain options for the return of wastes arising. The latest estimates of total volumes of waste which are likely to arise from these contracts are:

  Cubic metres

  High-level waste

  100

  Intermediate-level waste

  4,000

  Low-level waste

  50,000

  These wastes will represent only a small proportion of total wastes arising in the United Kingdom. They will be disposed of along with other United Kingdom waste but will not require extra disposal facilities to be provided here.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provisions have been made for the disposal or long-term monitored storage of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste arising from the contracts recently signed by British Nuclear Fuels plc with electricity utilities in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Baldry
  In line with all other contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel signed since 1976, the new contracts between British Nuclear Fuels plc and electricity utilities in the Federal Republic of Germany contain options for the return of wastes arising. For the Government's policy on the return of wastes, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 May 1986 at columns 502–03.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on what basis James Capel advised journalists that the electricity supply industry would be sold at a value of £10 billion; and what consultations it had with him prior to these briefings.

  Mr. Wakeham
  James Capel did not advise journalists of the value at which the electricity industry would be sold. It is too early to estimate the likely proceeds from the sale of the companies.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) who advised him on the post-privatisation salary of the chair of the NEEB;

  (2) who advised him on the post-privatisation salary of the chair of NORWEB.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government have decided that board members of the new electricity companies will not receive major increases in salaries before flotation.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to retain in Government hands after flotation any of the shares in the electricity distribution and generating companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government will not decide for some time on the proportion of the shares to be sold in the electricity companies in England and Wales.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what advice he received from Coopers and Lybrand on post-privatisation salaries of electricity industry chairmen and board members.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Board members of the new electricity companies have not and will not receive major increases in salaries before flotation.

  The Government will not be responsible for salaries after flotation.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what undertakings were given about post-privatisation salaries to any persons appointed by him as chairs or board members of any electricity company on their appointment or reappointment over the last year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None.

  Station

  Capacity

  Type

  Consent given

  Ashford

  150 MW

  GT

  5 September 1975

  Bull's Bridge

  280 MW

  GT

  12 October 1972

  Carmarthen Bay

  300 KW

  WT

  23 July 1981

  350 KW

  WT

  20 June 1985

  330 KW

  WT

  23 July 1987

  500 KW

  WT

  20 February 1989

  330 KW

  WT

  20 February 1989

  Cwm Dyli

  10 MW

  HE

  22 September 1987

  Hams Hall

  27 MW

  GT

  8 December 1977

  Ince B

  1,000 MW

  Oil

  22 November 1971

  Inswork Point

  1,300 MW

  Oil

  23 August 1973

  Killingholme

  4,000 MW

  Oil

  16 June 1972

  Killingholme A

  1,000 MW

  CCGT

  18 April 1990

  Killingholme PowerGen

  750–1,000 MW

  CCGT

  31 January 1990

  Leicester

  120 MW

  GT

  2 May 1972

  Letchworth

  150 MW

  GT

  21 July 1971

  Littlebrook D

  2,000 MW

  Oil

  19 July 1972

  Nechells

  300 MW

  GT

  29 June 1973

  Newton Abbot

  300 MW

  GT

  28 March 1974

  Ocker Hill

  300 MW

  GT

  11 October 1971

  168
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for what reasons Treasury guarantees totalling £50 million were given to NORWEB.

  Mr. Wakeham
  To enable it to finance its operations in the most cost-effective manner possible.

  Coal Equivalents
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the factors by which his Department multiplies oil and gas tonnages to achieve coal equivalents; and when these were last changed or modified.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The factors generally used to convert data on tonnages of oil and gas (including petroleum gases) to coal equivalent are 1·7 and 2, respectively. These factors, which have been widely adopted for a number of years by both national and international organisations, are based on standard thermal contents of 250 therms per tonne of coal, 425 therms per tonne of oil and 500 therms per tonne of gas. I am not aware of any reason why these factors should be changed or modified.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list power station developments completed since January 1970, giving for each(a) the location of the power station, (b) the generating capacity, (c) the type of generation, (d) the date of completion, (e) the main equipment suppliers and (f) the nationality of the main equipment suppliers;

  (2) if he will list power station authorisations given by the Secretary of State since January 1970, giving for each (a) the location of the proposed power station, (b) the generating capacity, (c) the type of generation, (d) the date of authorisation, (e) the main equipment suppliers and (f) the nationality of the main equipment suppliers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: The stations for which consents have been given for construction under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909 or section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 since January 1970 are as listed. The completion dates of the stations which were constructed, the main equipment suppliers and the nationality of the equipment suppliers are matters for the relevant companies.
  169

  Station

  Capacity

  Type

  Consent given

  Padiham

  224 MW

  Oil

  31 August 1973

  Portskewett

  1,300 MW

  AGR

  14 December 1972

  Richborough

  1 MW

  WT

  2 February 1987

  Roosecote

  150 MW

  GT

  9 November 1972

  Sizewell B

  1,200 MW

  AGR/HTR/SGHWR

  5 February 1975

  1,200 MW

  PWR

  12 March 1987

  Taylors Lane

  150 MW

  GT

  12 December 1972

  Watford

  150 MW

  GT

  21 July 1971

  West Burton B

  1,800 MW

  Coal

  23 March 1990

  Wimbledon

  300 MW

  GT

  28 March 1974

  Notes:

  AGR = Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor.

  CCGT = Combined Cycle Gas Turbine.

  HE = Hydro Electric.

  GT = Gas Turbine.

  HTR = High Temperature Reactor.

  PWR = Pressurised Water Ractor.

  SGHWR = Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor.

  WT =Wind Turbine.

  The table does not include consents given for changes in fuel or extensions such as the retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment at Drax.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Iraqi relations in the light of recent developments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Despite our recent difficulties with Iraq, which have not been of our making, we continue to attach importance to our bilateral relationship. There are many issues of concern about which we need to talk to the Iraqis, not least the continued detention in Iraq of Mrs. Daphne Parish and Mr. Ian Richter. We want a frank and forthright relationship with an honest exchange of views. We do not expect to agree with Iraq on every issue, but an open dialogue is needed if we are to make progress on those issues which divide us.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India concerning the situation in Kashmir.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India concerning the situation in Kashmir.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government concerning the situation in Kashmir.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India concerning the situation in Kashmir.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are in regular contact with both the Indian and Pakistani Governments who are aware of our views on the current situation in Kashmir.

  Soviet Jews
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Soviet and Israeli officials concerning the likely place of permanent settlement of Jews emigrating from the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Both the Soviet and Israeli authorities are aware of our view that Soviet Jews should have the right to emigrate freely but that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including east Jerusalem, are illegal. We and our European partners have urged the Israeli Government not to jeopardise prospects for peace by allowing or encouraging Jewish immigrants to settle in the occupied territories.

  South Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to pay an official visit to South Africa to discuss United Kingdom-South Africa relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans for a further visit to South Africa.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to meet Mr. Nelson Mandela to discuss the Government's policy in relation to South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs expects to meet Mr. Mandela on 3–4 July to discuss how the process of peaceful change in South Africa can best be taken forward.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters will be discussed during the forthcoming visit to London by President de Klerk of South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We expect to discuss with President de Klerk how the process of negotiated change in South Africa can best be taken forward, and other matters of mutual interest.
  171
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the President of the Republic of South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We make regular representations to the South African Government on a wide range of issues.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the South African Government about progress to end apartheid.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 4 April at column 1198.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards free and democratic elections in Bulgaria.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards free and democratic elections in Bulgaria.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Elections will be held on 10 and 17 June under a democratic electoral system agreed in round table talks between the Government and the Opposition groups. We are concerned at recent reports of possible malpractice and urge all concerned to see that the electoral campaign and the actual poll are conducted with scrupulous fairness. We shall be sending a team of local government officials to observe the elections.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to support the Australian and French Governments' proposals for a conservation convention for Antarctica.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will be supporting the Australian Government and French Government proposals for a conservation convention for Antarctica.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The French and Australian proposals will be a useful contribution to the discussions at the special Antarctic treaty consultative meeting to be held in November in Santiago. We are preparing our own proposals for that meeting about which we intend to consult our Antarctic treaty partners.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries have now ratified the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No countries have yet ratified this convention.
  172
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in connection with the forthcoming meeting of Antarctic treaty parties to discuss protection of Antarctica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On 3 May the French ambassador and the Australian high commissioner left with us a joint Franco/Australian paper setting out their views about a possible agreement on the protection of the Antarctic environment.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of other European Community Governments concerning the forthcoming meeting of Antarctic treaty parties to discuss protection of Antarctica.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Consultations at official level with representatives of EC Governments signatories to the Antarctic treaty took place in the course of the XVth Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Paris last October. Since then there have been further bilateral consultations at official level with France and the Federal Republic of Germany. The French authorities have also informed us of their joint proposal, with the Australian Government, for a new agreement on the conservation of the Antarctic.

  Lithuania
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Soviet Union about Lithuania.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Soviet Union about Lithuania.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart regarding the United States response to recent developments in Lithuania.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what correspondence there has been between his Department and his counterparts in the United States regarding the imposition of sanctions against the Soviet Union as a result of recent developments in Lithuania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are keeping in close touch with our allies and partners, including the United States, over developments in Lithuania. This was one of the subjects discussed at the meeting held on 3 May between Foreign Ministers of the Twelve and Secretary Baker.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions between his Department and his counterparts in the European Council of Ministers regarding sanctions against the Soviet Union following recent developments in Lithuania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are keeping in close touch with our partners in the Twelve over developments in Lithuania. This was among the subjects discussed at the EC Foreign Ministers' meeting held on 21 April.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he proposes to make any changes to his departmental policy in pursuance of equal opportunities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The FCO is fully and actively committed to being an equal opportunities employer.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now establish an ambassador in Cambodia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. Consideration of restoring diplomatic relations with Cambodia must await a comprehensive political settlement of the conflict there.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks he has held or plans to hold with the United States Secretary of State on Cambodia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discusses Cambodia regularly with the United States Secretary of State.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to send a British delegation to Cambodia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Two British officials visited Cambodia in December 1989. We have no plans at the moment to send a further British delegation to Cambodia.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with the various factions involved in the war in Cambodia; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had no recent talks with members of any of the Cambodian factions.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider his decision not to grant a visa for a representative from Phnom Penh to visit London for a parliamentary briefing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 21 March 1990]: There has been no such decision.

  Anti-semitism
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what can be done by the Government to minimise anti-semitism in eastern and central Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We shall continue to condemn instances of anti-semitism in central and eastern Europe. We shall also continue to press for universal respect for the rights of minorities as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is 174
  taking to assist Governments of central and eastern Europe in their efforts to guarantee the rights of Jewish and other minority communities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We would be ready to look at any requests for assistance and advice from the Governments of central and eastern Europe in addressing these questions. We shall also continue to urge all participants in the CSCE process to uphold the commitments they have made on minority rights.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the know-how fund is being spent on direct projects for economic development; and what percentage is being spent on funding(a) advertising and (b) consultancies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The objective of the know-how funds is to help the countries of central and eastern Europe make the transition to political pluralism and, in particular, market economies. Thus the know-how funds in their entirety will contribute to social and economic development. Up to 15 per cent. of total expenditure has been on consultancy studies: negligible amounts have been spent on advertising.

  Short-range Weapons
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of NATO to discuss short-range weapons.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of NATO to discuss short-range weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Secretary-General at the NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting in Brussels on 3 May, at which they discussed the proposals put forward by President Bush on 4 May. He expects to have further discussions with the Secretary-General and NATO colleagues at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Turnberry on 6 to 8 June.

  Palestine-Israel Conflict
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to finding a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israel conflict acceptable to the international community.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are continuing to encourage a dialogue between Israel and representative Palestinians as a first step towards a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute. We look to the next Israeli Government, as we do to the PLO, to play a positive and constructive part in developing such a dialogue.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for peace in the middle east of advice given by Yasser Arafat at a meeting of leaders of the Intifada held in Baghdad, to the effect that the Palestine Liberation Organisation's supporters should open fire on new Jewish immigrants.
  175
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The reports of Mr. Arafat's remarks appear to derive from one newspaper article of doubtful authenticity which has been denied by the PLO. The PLO is well aware that we deplore violence from whatever quarter.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning the continued occupation of the west bank and the Gaza strip; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Israeli Government are well aware of our view that Israel should withdraw from territories occupied since 1967 as part of a comprehensive peace settlement.

  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to discuss recent statements by Mr. Yasser Arafat.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. They are already well aware of our view that only peaceful dialogue, not violence, can achieve peace in the middle east.

  European Community General Affairs Council
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues will be raised at the next meeting of the European Community General Affairs Council.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues he expects to be discussed at the next meeting of the European Community General Affairs Council.

  Mr. Maude
  The Foreign Affairs Council on 18 and 19 June is likely to discuss, among other matters, political union, preparations for the European Council meeting on 25 and 26 June, European Community/EFTA relations, European Community-Eastern Europe and European Community policy towards the Mediterranean.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the last meeting of the European Community General Affairs Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The European Community Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 7 May. I represented the United Kingdom at it, and at a meeting of the European Community-Cyprus Association Council which took place subsequently.

  The Council adopted decisions on the European Training Foundation and the trans-European mobility scheme for university studies (TEMPUS) to extend the amount of help given by the Community to Poland and Hungary. It invited the Commission to start negotiations with Romania on a possible trade, commercial and economic co-operation agreement. Similar agreements with Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and the German Democratic Republic were signed. The Council also had a first discussion of possible G24 aid to Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia.

  Ministers noted that all member states would lift their visa requirement for the German Democratic Republic,
  176
  and agreed to keep their visa requirements for other eastern European countries, particularly Hungary and Czechoslovakia, under review.

  The Council discussed preparations for the negotiations intended to extend the single market to EFTA countries.

  Ministers discussed procedures for handling the remit from the Informal European Council on 28 April for an analysis of possible changes to the Community's institutions—"political union"—and the handling of the meeting on 17 May with the European Parliament to consider the inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union, institutional aspects of which they also touched on briefly.

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has established a timetable for ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has established a timetable for ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has established a timetable for ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on 19 April 1990. We intend to ratify the convention as soon as possible.

  European Commission
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of the European Commission; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met M. Delors on 3 May on the occasion of the European Community Foreign Ministers meeting with United States Secretary Baker. Relations between the United States and the Community and a range of other international issues were discussed.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Lithuania and Estonia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no such plans.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy towards the Baltic states.
  177
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have repeatedly stressed the need for progress through dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians, so that a settlement acceptable to both sides can be reached, enabling the Lithuanian people to decide their own future. This was the theme of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's message to Mrs. Prunskiene when the latter called on her at 10 Downing street this morning.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the right to self-determination of the Baltic states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 4 April at column 701.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what correspondence his Department has received on the treatment of conscripts in the Baltic states who join the Soviet Red Army.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received a number of letters from members of the public about conscription from the Baltic states, but none about the treatment of conscripts.

  Syria
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of British-Syrian relations.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any proposals to re-establish diplomatic relations with Syria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We recognise that Syria is a major regional power with an important role to play in middle east issues. The continuing absence of diplomatic relations with Damascus stems from Syrian involvement in terrorist activities. A more constructive Syrian attitude to this problem and help in the release of United Kingdom hostages in Lebanon would undoubtedly have a positive effect.

  United Nations Forces (Equipment)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will now support the United Nations Secretary-General's call for the United Nations peace-keeping forces to have a stockpile of equipment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Nations committee responsible reported last year that the financial case for a stockpile had not been made. We await a further report by the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to extend his Department's scholarships and awards scheme for overseas students to include more students from the countries of eastern Europe.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes. In 1989–80 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spent £530,000 on awards for 178
  students from eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In 1990–91 we expect to spend almost three times that amount.

  Namibia
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to meet the new president of Namibia; and what subjects he intends to raise.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met President Nujoma in Windhoek in March when attending the Namibian independence celebrations. He has no present plans for a further meeting.

  Hostages
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British hostages in the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are delighted that the former American hostage, Mr. Frank Reed, has confirmed that John McCarthy is alive and in reasonable condition. Mr. Reed's release indicates that Iran and Syria can. if they wish, secure the release of hostages in Lebanon. We shall persevere in our efforts to persuade them that continued holding of hostages is in nobody's interest. We believe that this is true both in Lebanon and elsewhere.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals are currently held hostage in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Three British nationals are currently held hostage in the middle east. They are Mr. John McCarthy, Mr. Jack Mann and Mr. Terry Waite. We have consistently called for the release of all hostages wherever and by whomever they are being held. We will continue our vigorous efforts to this end.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new measures Her Majesty's Government have taken and propose to take with regard to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have regularly made our concerns known to the Sri Lankan Government, most recently in conjunction with our European partners on 4 April.

  Anglo-French Summit
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Anglo-French summit on 4 May.

  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Anglo-French summit on 4 May.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary had valuable discussions with President Mitterrand, M.
  179
  Dumas and M. Chevenement, covering a wide range of issues. Both sides agreed on the importance of strengthening co-operation on defence and security matters.

  Economic Refugees
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international action is being considered to deal with migration from Third-world countries of those fleeing from abject poverty.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom will continue to support international action to stem migratory pressures at source, by working for peace and respect for human rights, and for sustainable economic development achieved through liberal trade and investment policies and targeted development aid.

  Israel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with the Government of Israel.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Israeli Foreign Minister postponed his visit to London in April. I saw the Israeli Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Olmert, on 15 March. We look forward to close working relations with members of the new Israeli Government when it is formed.

  Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a conference on security and co-operation in Europe meeting will take place in the current year.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a conference on security and co-operation in Europe meeting will take place in the current year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 28 March at column 188.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Vietnam with the President of the United States.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had no recent discussions on Vietnam with the President of the United States.

  We have regular contact with the United States Administration on a wide range of subjects, including Vietnamese boat people.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the non-governmental organisations which are involved in Vietnam about a United Kingdom aid package to that country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 4 April at column 704, and to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 12 March at column 17.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards free and democratic elections in Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign arid Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards free and democratic elections in Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards free and democratic elections in Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Free and democratic elections are to be held on 8–9 June. We are confident that these will be conducted properly and on a genuinely pluralist basis.

  German Unification
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what progress was made at the first ministerial session of the two-plus-four talks on the future of Germany.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The first ministerial two-plus-four meeting on 5 May was marked by a serious and constructive approach on all sides to the task of carrying forward the external aspects of German unification. It was agreed that the agenda for subsequent two-plus-four meetings should consist of borders, politico/military issues, bearing in mind approaches for suitable security structures in Europe, Berlin, and final settlement under international law and termination of the Four Power rights and responsibilities

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent political developments in Cyprus.

  Mr. Maude
  Following elections in northern Cyprus on 22 April and 6 May, we understand that United Nations officials will shortly hold consultations with the leaders of the two communities. Their aim, which we fully support, will be to promote a resumption of the intercommunal talks on the basis of Security Council resolution 649.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about United Kingdom relations with Ethiopia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our contacts with the Ethiopian Government enable us to raise human rights issues, to take action to relieve famine and to urge a negotiated settlement of the long-standing civil wars in that country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I met the Ethiopian Foreign Minister in London on 4 April.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the governor of Hong Kong to discuss the provisions contained in the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill.

  Mr. Maude
  We are, of course, in close contact with the governor of Hong Kong about the provisions contained in the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no immediate plans to meet the governor. But I discussed this issue in detail with the governor during my visit to Hong Kong last month.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek powers to grant internal self-government to the colony of Hong Kong within the next two years.

  Mr. Maude
  In practice, Hong Kong already enjoys a considerable degree of autonomy in virtually all internal matters, as well as in certain aspects of external relations. The joint declaration guarantees that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy when it becomes a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China in 1997.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government intend to table any proposals to the forthcoming conference on the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The main purpose of the review conference of the non-proliferation treaty is to review the operation of the treaty over the past five years. As a depository power of the treaty, the United Kingdom will make a full contribution to the discussions.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on decisions taken at the recent third preparatory committee meeting of the fourth quinquennial review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The third preparatory committee successfully concluded arrangements for the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which will start on 20 August.

  European Union
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold meetings with his French and German counterparts in the European Community Council of Ministers to discuss progress towards economic and monetary union as agreed at the Stuttgart declaration of 1983 and subsequent meetings of the European Council.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to the future constitution of the European Parliament in the context of European political union.
  182
  Mr. Maude
  As agreed at the informal European Council in Dublin on 28 April, EC Foreign Ministers will undertake a detailed examination and analysis of the need for possible treaty changes. We expect the powers of the European Parliament to be discussed in that context.

  Eastern Europe (Investment)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help he is giving to British companies interested in investing in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Investment promotion and protection agreements are in force with Poland, Hungary and Romania. Double taxation agreements have been signed or initialled with all eastern European countries. Overseas investment insurance scheme is open for applications for British firms seeking to invest in eastern Europe. Our know-how fund can meet half the cost of pre-investment studies, and the training costs of potential joint ventures in qualifying countries. British embassies and the Department of Trade and Industry offer information and advice on joint ventures and legislation.

  Romania
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards free and fair elections in Romania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been some progress. The interim authorities have passed an electoral law and welcomed outside observers. But we remain concerned at the continuing allegations by some opposition parties that they are being unfairly treated during the election campaign.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Romanian Government on future progress towards full democracy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently made clear our hope to see progress towards democracy and economic freedom in Romania to the Romanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Celac, in Windhoek on 20 March.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards free and fair elections in Romania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been some progress. The interim authorities have passed an electoral law and welcomed outside observers. But we remain concerned at the continuing allegations by some opposition parties that they are being unfairly treated during the election campaign.

  EC Policies
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community partners for the development of Community policies.

  Mr. Maude
  We will put forward a number of positive and constructive proposals in the Community over the coming months.

  Parker Report
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department of the Parker report, "Speaking for the Future: A Review of the Requirements of Diplomacy and Commerce for Asian and African Languages and Area Studies".

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We welcomed the extra provision for Asian and African studies resulting from the Parker report. It has been helpful for our work in so far as we draw on institutions of higher education for expertise in language teaching and studies relevant to foreign policy issues.

  British High Commission, Delhi (Sikhs)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Sikhs are employed by the British high commission in Delhi; how many are employed as interpreters; and what other positions they occupy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The British high commission in New Delhi does not ask for, or record, details of the religious affiliations of its locally engaged staff.

  EEC Institutions (Powers)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent proposals he has had from the EEC about a further extension in the powers of Community institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement on 1 May by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reporting the discussions at the informal European Council in Dublin on 28 April.

  Israel
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel about their funding of the intrusion into the traditional Christian sector of Jerusalem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made clear to the Israeli Government our concern at this provocative action, and reminded them of our view that all Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, including east Jerusalem, are illegal under international law.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation as regards the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong and the trend in arrivals.

  Mr. Maude
  On 27 April 1990 there were 54,587 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. Out of that total, 10,910 are refugees, 8,111 have been definitively screened out as non-refugees and the remainder are awaiting or undergoing screening. The total number of arrivals in 184
  Hong Kong so far this year is 1,250, 64 per cent. less than in the corresponding period last year. Two thirds come from the south of Vietnam, a reverse of the trend in 1989 when the great majority came from the north. Sixty-five per cent. are ethnic Chinese.

  Antarctic Bases
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present population of each of the five British bases in Antarctica.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  The present (overwintering) population of the British Antarctic bases are:

  Halley IV—20; Halley V—10; Rothera—15; Faraday—10; Signy—15.

  In addition, there are three people on the sub-Antarctic Bird island, South Georgia.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in respect of waste disposal from the five operating British bases in Antarctica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  The British Antarctic survey (BAS) has always maintained stringent controls on safeguarding the Antarctic environment in the vicinity of its bases and elsewhere. These controls are currently being updated as part of BAS's current environmental management strategy and in line with recommendation XV-3 from the XVth meeting of the Antarctic treaty consultative parties, held in Paris in October 1989.

  From the 1989–90 season, all new waste materials, with the exception of human waste, are being brought out of the Antarctic and as much material from earlier activities is being removed as carrying capacity allows. The British Antarctic survey has appointed an environmental officer to co-ordinate the introduction of new procedures of waste management and improve environmental management further. He will take up his appointment in June 1990.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the programme to remove the United Kingdom abandoned Antarctic bases is expected to be completed, pursuant to recommendation XV-2 as agreed at the meeting of the Antarctic treaty parties in Paris in October.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  Following the 1989 autumn public expenditure statement, funding was made available to assist the British Antarctic survey to remove surplus material and stored waste from these sites. This will be achieved as fast as the limitations of the Antarctic climate and ship time and capacity allow.

  As part of its current environment management policy, the British Antarctic survey is commencing a detailed review of all unused British sites to consider whether they should be maintained as emergency refuges, removed or, in a limited number of cases, maintained as historic monuments.

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 Morris of Castle Morris
Brian Robert Morris, Esquire, having been created Baron Morris of Castle Morris, of St. Dogmaels in the County of Dyfed, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Birk and the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.

European Air Traffic Control
2.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the prospects of serious delays to flights in Western Europe this summer because of air traffic control problems caused by congestion or industrial disputes.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government cannot make a firm prediction at this stage, though of course we cannot rule out the possibility of delays this summer. Industrial disputes have already caused delays this year and there could be further disputes. However, the United Kingdom and other European countries are making strenuous efforts to reduce air traffic congestion by improving co-operation between air traffic centres.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. While it seems that most trouble will be caused by industrial disputes abroad, is it not bad news for British holidaymakers that they are likely to have to spend many hours delayed in great discomfort at airports? Are there channels of communication with neighbouring countries by which routes can immediately be rearranged or similar alternative measures taken?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that conference communication facilities came into operation last year between the air traffic flow management units of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. These facilities played a valuable role in rerouting traffic during the strike by French air traffic services staff last summer and no doubt will do so again if necessary.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I realise that the Minister will not agree that unified air traffic control is the best way of dealing with this matter. However, does he accept that the reason it has not been dealt with in the past is the inefficiency of a system which deals with and relies on far too many centres? Does he recall that I asked him last week
1362
whether it is true that 42 centres will still be necessary in 1998? Did the Minister not hear what I said? I am sorry if I was not clear. Does he recall that last week I asked him whether it is true that in 1998, under the harmonisation the Government prefer, some 42 different centres will be required instead of the six or eight that are really necessary?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I always hear what the noble Baroness says. If she thinks that I do not hear it, she repeats it. I am unable to predict exactly how many centres will be needed in 1996 or 1998. Did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, say something? If so, I did not quite catch it.
In March 1989 ICAO experts agreed on a new traffic orientation system which will spread traffic on the busiest European routes more evenly over the European ATC network. European states are co-operating to make certain weekend routes available, in agreement with military authorities, at peak traffic periods on weekdays. That is what is happening for this year.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House what action is being taken to increase the number of UK air traffic controllers thereby increasing the safety of air travel and reducing the danger of congestion and the possibility of industrial disputes?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there has been no suggestion so far that industrial action is expected in the UK. Last year UK controllers did a marvellous job in minimising the delays caused by industrial action elsewhere in Europe. We expect them to do the same this year should the need arise. The CAA plans to recruit more air traffic controllers over the next few years to meet a downturn in the number of controllers who took up their posts just after the war.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how much his tribute to British air traffic controllers will be appreciated by all those who have worked with them?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The controllers deserve such tribute.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, political unification of the centres and technical advances are very important. However, should not the immediate step—even, perhaps, the long-term step—be improved conditions under which air traffic controllers work? Anyone who has visited a control tower will realise that the pressures are incredible. Is not the best and quickest solution to have more fully trained controllers?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government entirely agree. In the United Kingdom, NATS plans an accelerating investment programme and increased recruitment of controllers—from 80 a year in 1988 to a target of 200 this year, rising to 240 from 1999 onwards. I agree that controllers work under very difficult conditions. We are planning investment to ensure that such improvements are achieved.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I did not hear the Minister say anything on the matter of the 42 centres. Is it not correct that he and I were both hopeful that I might receive a reply today to a Question I asked a week ago? Is that reply still delayed?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I thought that I had replied to the noble Baroness. However, I think that we must just continue to travel hopefully.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the system adopted on 24th April by European transport ministers enable controllers in one country to direct aircraft flying over it and landing in another?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there has been a certain amount of press speculation on the matter. However, so far as I can see, the system will not be available in the foreseeable future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Viscount be more specific about the Government's view regarding what will happen at our airports during the high peak holiday season? Does he recall that in the past few years there have been serious logjams at all airports around London—and, indeed, in the North—and that people have been kept waiting in departure lounges for many hours? The Government must have a view on what will happen in response to his noble friend's Question. What is that view?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I thought that I had given the Government's view. However, I shall go a little further. I can say that the Government's view is that the overall prospect for the summer of 1990 is that, given the expected growth in traffic and the lack of a significant increase in capacity, there will be air traffic delays this summer. Those delays could be seriously aggravated by industrial action elsewhere in Europe. We are doing our best to ensure that such aggravation is minimised.

World Population Growth
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking, in concert with the governments of other countries, to deal with the problem of increasing world population.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we give high priority to population-related activities within the overseas aid programme. We are major contributors to the main population multilateral organisations. We also work through our bilateral aid programmes and support relevant research and teaching and the work of British charities. Our spending in this sector has increased from £6·5 million in 1988 to over £17 million in 1989.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the population explosion, and all that follows therefrom, is the biggest problem facing mankind at present? Is he aware that the laudable attempts being made by many countries are simply not solving the problem? Is it not now time—indeed, it is long overdue—for a fundamental rethink of policies? How can we not be concerned about the situation when the latest United Nations report on population growth states that the present world population of 5 billion people will increase to 8 billion in the year 2024? I must tell the Minister that I am rather disappointed in the reply he has given today.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is disappointed with my reply. We do give priority to the issue. We support the major multilateral organisations; that is, the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the World Health Organisation's human reproduction programme. I agree with the noble Lord that it is indeed one of the biggest problems facing the world at present. I also agree with the figures he quoted in his supplementary question.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, apart from an increase in the aid we give towards population services in under-developed countries, perhaps the greatest service we could provide would be to increase our aid towards the education and training of women in third world countries?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we already have a substantial aid programme. Much of it indirectly helps slow population growth because it improves economic and social prospects for the poorest which in turn reinforces the desire for smaller families. We are ready to do more. Bilateral spending is of course dependent upon recipient governments giving population growth a high priority in their own plans. We are encouraging them to do so.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may support what my noble friend Lady Robson said and ask the Government to view the matter as one of great urgency. Undoubtedly one of the best ways to reduce the population is to increase the education of women. Support earmarked for that purpose through government aid and the voluntary organisations which can give it is in the long run probably one of the best ways of doing so. Cannot the Government attach a much greater priority to giving of that kind?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we give the matter a high priority. We take account of the role of women in all parts of our aid programme and shall continue to do so. As I have said, we are ready to do more bilaterally if we can persuade, as we are trying to do, recipient governments to give the problem a high priority.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the close relationship between poverty, especially rural poverty, and the rapid population increase? Is he

1365
further aware that the burden of external debt in relation to GNP is greatest in the poorest countries, especially in Africa where the population increases most rapidly? Are the Government planning to take active steps to break the vicious spiral of debt, which leads to poverty and increased population, which in turn lead back again to poverty and more failure to repay the debt? Is it not time to cancel the external debts of the poorest countries?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are involved multilaterally in the problem of overseas debt, which is a subject different from the one we are discussing today. As I said earlier, through our aid programme we seek to improve the economic and social prospects of the poorest, which helps with the population problem.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole House should be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, for asking this Question on a vital topic which is so often ignored? On a practical level, is the Minister aware that the Reagan Administration cancelled all United States Government funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation as a result of pressure from the so-called "Life Lobby" and that the United States' funding was at that time the main source of the IPPF's income? Will the Government use their influence with the Bush Administration to have that decision reversed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware of the United States position with regard to the IPPF. I shall take note of what the noble Lord said. The IPPF is the largest single recipient of the funds that I have described this afternoon.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree with UNICEF that the only way to decrease world population growth is by reducing the level of infant mortality, which, as the noble Baroness said, is a reason for women having bigger families? Does he believe that more aid should go towards improving the health of small children and babies as well as towards the education of women? Are Her Majesty's Government currently commissioning any research into population growth and the means of reducing it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness makes a good point in her first question. Part of our funding goes towards research. In 1988 we spent £80,000 directly on research and a further £296,000 on training awards.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that by the time we have Question Time in the House tomorrow there will be another 250,000 people on the planet? Does not that kind of frightening statistic show how inadequate—I realise the difficulties facing this Government and other governments—present policies are?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is of course a difficult problem. We recognise that it is a sensitive issue in many countries. Fortunately, it is probably
1366
a less sensitive issue now than it was a little while ago. We must continue to work to educate people along those lines.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Rea, does the Minister agree that history shows that a deceleration of population growth only comes with an increase in standard of living and that that is especially the case in countries where a large percentage of children die before the age of five? Is there not a case for the Government to increase their overseas aid instead of decreasing it by something like 40 per cent. as they have done over the past 10 years?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our aid programme, currently standing at £I -65 billion, has not been decreased in cash terms over the past few years. It is a substantial programme which is extremely well targeted and well spent.

IIASA
3.5 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, now that the USSR is to refer draft legislation on its economic reforms to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, they will rejoin that institute.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are currently reviewing the question of United Kingdom funding of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, good. Do the Government agree that President Reagan's action in walking out of IIASA in the days of his belief in the evil empire was probably unhelpful to the world? Is not the Soviet action in apparently deciding to lay before IIASA every so often the draft of all legislation affecting its economic reforms a most remarkable action which shows willingness to depend upon the collective goodwill of Western and world academics? Do the Government agree that it would be very much in this country's interests if we could be part of that collective goodwill?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, we are reviewing the situation at the moment. We withdrew our funds in 1982 because the scientific community doubted the value of the institute's work. The strength of the scientific case will be the deciding factor in our decision whether to renew funding, which we hope to take later this year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the creation of stable economies in the countries of Eastern Europe, especially the Soviet Union, is of the first importance in the interests of world peace and other matters at the present time? Does he agree that in those circumstances it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to rejoin and reactivate the international institute with a view to making certain

1367
that when the economic problems of the Soviet Union and those other countries are brought to the institute they are discussed in a co-operative and friendly way?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question that stable economic conditions for the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc are important in terms of world peace, especially in the Soviet Union. We have to decide whether rejoining the institute is the best way forward. That is why we are seeking from Vienna further information on the institute's programmes and are consulting government departments and research bodies.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Minister's reply was vague and unsatisfactory. Her Majesty's Government ceased to take an interest in the international institute. Given his constructive reaction to my suggestion that economic stability in Eastern Europe is of the first importance, cannot Her Majesty's Government take a more positive step towards co-operation in the institute?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should have thought that we were being positive by reviewing whether to rejoin the institute. We have been out of it since 1982 for good reasons. We are now looking into whether we should rejoin.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that stability in Eastern Europe and whether we rejoin the international institute do not necessarily run together? If we left the institute because we did not think its contribution was worthy of the cost and our attendance, we should not think of rejoining until we are satisfied that its ability has improved to a satisfactory level.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is the point that I was trying to make to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.

West Lambeth Health Authority: Cuts
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether cuts are planned in the services and staff of St. Thomas's Hospital, London; and, if so, what they will be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, West Lambeth, like all health authorities, must operate within its resources. To enable it to do this in 1990-91, after consultation with medical and nursing staff, the authority has agreed a package of measures which includes a reduction of around 60 beds at St. Thomas's Hospital and a corresponding loss of posts.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. Will she confirm that in its
1368
decision the West Lambeth Health Authority has decided to cut not only 60 beds and 60 medical and nursing posts at St. Thomas's but also four psychiatric wards at Tooting Bee, the geriatric ward and 50 per cent. of the family planning service, with a severe cutback in operating theatre time? Does she accept that, with ward closures, and including Charing Cross, Central Middlesex and Westminster, this brings to about 500 the number of hospital beds that have been closed in the past few weeks?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I said nothing about 60 posts being lost in the process. I simply mentioned a corresponding loss which we expect to represent existing vacancies and natural wastage.
As concerns Tooting Bee, the South Western Hospital and community services, changes that were being made were part of the reorganisation. It was planned to transfer them into the centre at St. Thomas's. In many cases it represents much better facilities for operations.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying to me that the health authority can do without four psychiatric wards, the geriatric ward and the family planning service? I cannot believe that for a moment.
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords. I should like to remind the noble Lord that as part of the good news about St. Thomas's Hospital he should not overlook the splendid new south wing development due to be formally opened in July. It cost over £13 million. The fine new accommodation for the Dreadnought Seafarers' Hospital opened in September 1988 and the Baroness Lane-Fox Unit opened at the end of last year.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend observed that, with the exception of the single supplementary question from my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, every supplementary asked during this Question Time has involved pressure to expend further sums of money? On the assumption that each of those suggestions was worthy, is it not also clear that all of them cannot be fulfilled?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. I also wish to draw to the attention of the House the importance of the National Health Service reforms that we are introducing. They will very much help the situation which has been referred to in the Question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Baroness, with her noble and learned friend, recognise that very few supplementaries have come from the Benches opposite? Does that imply that Conservatives are not prepared to engage in these debates?
Baroness Hooper: Not at all, my Lords.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that part of the problem of St. Thomas's Hospital is that resources in the NHS have been

1369
moved out of London into the provinces? Does she further agree that the person who had a great deal to do with the movement of resources was none other than the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, himself?
Further, does she accept that part of the problem at St. Thomas's Hospital is that a device was used called "the suspense account"? If one receives a bill and does not know what to do with it one puts it in the suspense account, also known as "the dustbin". This is a perfectly reasonable device so long as one looks in the dustbin at regular intervals. The failure at St. Thomas's resulted from not looking in the dustbin for a period of about a year.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has considerable experience with the predecessor of the West Lambeth Health Authority. He had to threaten it with the use of default powers in order to encourage it to restrain its overspending. I am grateful to my noble friend for having drawn my attention to the "dustbin" or suspense account.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, the two questions from the other side perhaps illustrate why it is better that they should remain silent. Does not the noble Baroness think this situation a scandalous waste of the resources of the highly skilled and dedicated staff of St. Thomas's? I speak from personal knowledge of them. They cannot do a full job because unfortunately they cannot carry out surgery without beds for people after their operations. The hospital has had to close a further 60 beds in addition to the closures that have already taken place. This means that the national loss and London's loss are that much the greater.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it remains the aim of the West Lambeth Health Authority that the 1989–90 activity levels should be maintained through 1990–91. As I said in my original Answer, the measures were agreed only after lengthy consultations with medical and nursing staff. It was on the understanding that they would have the least possible effect on patient services. One advantage is that services should not be subject to the sudden curtailments of recent years, when last minute efforts were made to stay within cash limits.
Lord Annan: My Lords, how far is the reduction of these services due to the fact that there has been an attempt over the years to rationalise teaching and research at St. Thomas's Hospital with that at Guy's Hospital? Does this reduction in the number of beds flow from the decision to try to rationalise the teaching and research in both hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not aware that that is so. However, I know that there is a history of overspending by this authority. I emphasise that, with the White Paper and National Health Service and Community Care Bill proposals under which the money will follow the patient, a hospital such as St. Thomas's, which has expertise in so many clinical fields a central location and an internationally recognised name, is bound to benefit.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is correct and the Minister agrees with it, is it not a serious matter? Should it not be reported to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not quite sure which aspect of my noble friend's question the noble Lord refers to. When the regional health authority discovered the extent of the current overspending it commissioned a report—namely, the John Barnes Report. That report was published towards the middle of April and it concentrates not only on the underlying problem but on finding solutions to it.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am one who has benefited from treatment at St. Thomas's, for which I am extremely grateful. Does this cut result in a worsening of the service to the patients? Has there been any lessening in demand by the patients, or is it alleged that there is inefficiency in their treatment? How can it be justified that after 11 years of this Government we should have to reduce health services in one of the poorest areas of London?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to a previous Secretary of State for Health, or for the DHSS as it was in those days, who had similar problems with this authority. Everybody must operate within some cash limit and we aim to achieve the most efficient use of available funding and to ensure that patients certainly do not suffer.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the RAWP formula, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, was introduced by me 13 years ago? It received the support of both sides of another place. It has not been stopped because it succeeded in its purpose. Further, does she accept that some of the blame for what has happened at St. Thomas's has been put on the former finance director for spending too much time on health service reforms? We should bear in mind the fact that that hospital has just voted by a margin of five to one against becoming independent and self-governing as the National Health Service Bill requires it to be. Is that not one of the matters that is causing the problems in the National Health Service and St. Thomas's at the present time?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware that the RAWP formula was originally introduced in 1978. The John Barnes Report to which I referred earlier identified a disorganised and hoping-for-the-best type business culture in the authority as one of the chief sources of its financial problems.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Shannon and Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not

1371
less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit, but I know that noble Lords will keep their speeches within limits in conformity with the spirit of these short debates. In the case of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Chief Whip has made a Business Statement, I wish to ask him, or possibly the noble Lord the Leader of the House, a business question. A reference to the Second Reading of the Environmental Protection Bill has appeared for the first time on the statement of forthcoming business. The Second Reading is to take place on Friday 18th May. Is it not possible to revise that date, as very few noble Lords attend the House on Fridays and there is minimum media coverage on that day?
I know the answer to such a query is that the matter is decided through the usual channels. However, this concerns all Members of the House in all parties and in none. A major Bill of this kind should have its Second Reading at a time during the week when it is convenient for a large percentage of the membership to be present and when it will receive full media coverage. Will either the noble Lord the Chief Whip or the noble Lord the Leader of the House reconsider this matter and find possibly a Wednesday to use for the Second Reading of this important Bill?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I understand the concern which the noble Lord expresses. However, this matter has been agreed through the usual channels.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, we have the example of the Second Reading of the Social Security Bill which took place a few weeks ago on a Friday. There was a lack of attendance and interest at that Second Reading debate. That Bill concerned one of the biggest spending departments in the Government, but because the Second Reading took place on a Friday it did not receive the attention to which it was entitled. Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House not concerned at that? If the trend is to have Second Readings on Fridays, is there not some merit in the concern that has been expressed by myself and by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby? Is it not possible to reconsider allocating a Wednesday for the Second Reading of the Environmental Protection Bill?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to that question, does he recall that the debate on the Social Security Bill was extremely interesting and valuable? Is he aware that many of us thought it was a great advantage that, unlike much other legislation, the Second Reading took place in daylight?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I understand the concern which the
1372
noble Lord, Lord Stallard, expresses. However, I must say once again that the matter was agreed through the usual channels. The noble Lord will forgive me if I add that I had hoped the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Hatch, would take the hint behind what I was saying, which was that if they feel stongly about the matter they must take it up with their Chief Whip.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord again whether he will reconsider this matter through the usual channels. Members on all sides of the House, including those on the Cross-Benches, have told me of their concern that a number of noble Lords who want to speak in this debate will be prevented from doing so as it is on a Friday. That fact also means that the debate will receive minimum media coverage. Will the noble Lord reconsider the matter through the usual channels?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my hints do not seem to be getting across very well today. The hint behind my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, at the beginning of these exchanges was that the answer was no.

Waste: Environmental Policy
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon rose to call attention to the case for a national environmental waste policy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have sought to call attention to the need for a national environmental waste policy and for the establishment of a national council for environmental waste policy as the Government have failed to demonstrate a cohesive waste policy and the mechanism to evolve such a policy. Before discussing my proposals, I wish to refer to the discussion which has just taken place across the Floor of the House on the concern of noble Lords over the Environmental Protection Bill. As has just been observed, we have been told at short notice that the Second Reading of the Bill is to take place in this House on Friday, 18th May.
The Commons Committee stage of the Bill had 32 sittings. The Bill has now emerged with 13 new clauses and four new schedules. Members of your Lordships' House will have had little time to consider the Bill as it is now amended. It has been suggested in the national media and not just in your Lordships' House that the choice of the time for the Bill's Second Reading was in part a means of ensuring that Members of this House would have less time to scrutinise the measures contained in it.
We should bear in mind that few members of the public know of the existence of the Bill because the Department of the Environment has done so little to publicise it and because the media have largely ignored it. Therefore I believe that Members of this House should and must have more notice and time to deliberate it fully.
A senior official from the European Commission stated last week to a number of Members of this House and others that,
"Waste is now the priority environmental issue for the foreseeable future from any point of view".
If that is the case, I think the Minister should regret the timing to which I have referred. I am sure he will give us assurances that such a timing was not intended for those reasons. Further, I hope he might feel led to assure the House that there will be limited repetition, if at all, of this kind of procedure. Last Sunday the Observer newspaper stated:
"Almost everyone has been waiting for the House of Lords to sort out this mess".
The article was referring to the Bill in question. Yesterday the first European response to the 1987 Brundtland Report began in the form of an international conference in Bergen, Norway, at which 24 nations, including the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, are represented. The main item on the agenda will be that all participants should bind themselves to producing for the United Nations a national annual report on environmental progress. I must say that I find difficulty in believing that our Minister, Mr. David Trippier, will be prepared for that if he only includes in his case for the United Kingdom the need to upgrade the publicly unknown Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics as an appropriate response to the likely Bergen initiative.
One hopes that the Government will be more imaginative when attending the 1992 world conference on the environment and development which will take place in Brazil. One hopes that before that conference all government departments will recall the Prime Minister's remarks in her Royal Society address:
"It is possible that … we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.
I make that point because it is reported that Whitehall will resist some, if not all, of the Bergen conference's final declarations which the Secretary of State for the Environment had hoped to include in the promised environment White Paper. If there is substance in that view, what possible grounds do the Government have for believing that they have the British public's confidence on matters related to the environment? The Government have been given no mandate to experiment with the system of these fair isles.
Seeing no committed environmental policy from the Government and witnessing politico-economic abuses of the land, waters and air of this country, the unelected people of this land have donned the green mantle of common sense. They have drawn up their own mandate. It obliges us all to listen and respond in order that there may be a planet Earth worth living on in 40 year's time.
This groundswell of public concern and action is not indifferent to sustainable development but it must be sure that environmental considerations are an integral part of all economic policies emanating from government, industry and the business community alike. However, as the Council for the Protection of Rural England puts it:
"Vague rhetoric, exhortation and limited gestures will not do".
In the current issue of CBI News, commenting on the views of some 250 companies, out of a sample of 2,500 companies which had responded to a survey on environmental issues conducted by the CBI/PA Consulting Group, a PA spokesman said:
"I believe that the Single European Market, after 1992, will exert a much stronger environmental pressure on British industry than appears to be recognised in the results of this survey".
The PA spokesman added:
"The survey shows that industry is more concerned about minimising the effects of legislation and less about opportunities for actively addressing the environmental issues ahead of legislation and thereby creating competitive advantage.
Another important survey was conducted by Strategy Europe Limited, a company with which I have a connection. It is a government and public affairs group. The survey was carried out at my request. Among the respondents were leading British companies including BP International, Shell UK, British Gas, Sainsbury, Boots and Pilkington, together with waste management companies, local and waste disposal authorities, waste trade associations and environmental research organisations and also universities and polytechnics, other professional bodies and Members of both Houses of Parliament.
The responses to the survey revealed overwhelming support for a national environmental waste policy. There was also massive support for the involvement of manufacturing industry and the public in the development of a policy for waste. The exerperience of many companies and the need to educate many others in reducing and dealing with huge quantities of waste generated in the modern economy were the dominant reasons for consulting and involving industry. Education of the public and the need for their support for the numerous different measures required to deal with waste also demanded that any waste policy was directed at them. Strong support was given by industry as well as others for statutory directions of industry's own policies towards the environment.
One response to the survey's questions came from the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Mr. John Collier who said that,
"from long experience in the nuclear industry and of observing the behaviour of other industries, it is essential that a company's duties in the area are dictated by statute. Otherwise, competitors will interpret their responsibilities in the 'least cost' mode".
Curiously, at the time of the survey, it was reported that only one waste management disposal company in the United Kingdom, Shanks and McEwan, had carried out a complete environmental audit. I leave your Lordships to decide for yourselves what that says about the majority of the members of the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors or of that organisation itself.
The survey to which I have just referred set the scene for an important conference which I called on 23rd April. It was held in a committee room here, with Mr. Peter Thompson, deputy chairman of Strategy Europe Limited. Speakers included the Minister for the environment and the countryside, Mr. David Trippier; the director of industry and the environment from Directorate-General XI of the European Commission; Mr. J. W. Huismans from the United Nations Environment Programme

1375
(UNEP); Mr. Andrew Waite, secretary-general of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association; and Mr. Michael Cohen, director of the Department of Trade and Industry's business and environment unit. That was a very impressive list of speakers. The guests included many scientists, academics, chief executives of major companies, environmental research organisations and many others with specialist knowledge of waste minimisation, production, management, recycling and usage as well as some Members of your Lordships' House.
I was glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was able to attend the conference for part of the time, having in mind his Environment Protection Bill which was debated in this House. Some of us hope that certain measures contained in the noble Earl's Bill may still be considered—although the Bill has been withdrawn—in the autumn White Paper, if not in part considered when the Government's Environmental Protection Bill reaches this House on that fateful Friday next week.
The theme of the conference was the same as the theme of this debate, and out of it the environment Minister agreed to support, in principle, Mr. Thompson's proposal for the establishment of a national council for environmental waste policy, having concurred that the Environmental Protection Bill fell,
"short of a national plan for waste disposal [and] did not have all the answers".
The new council would evolve an integrated environmental waste policy related to waste minimisation, re-use, recycling and disposal.
That policy would be based on consultations with local authorities, industry and the business community, directly and through trade and employer groups. Trade unions, public and consumer pressure groups and specialists in the waste sector would also be consulted. Other responsibilities of the council would include ensuring that manufacturing companies committed themselves to using raw materials which were conducive to environmental criteria laid down by the council.
Environmental audits leading to acceptable corporate environmental strategies would also be monitored by the council, and where waste producing businesses did not meet an acceptable environmental criterion laid down by the council, a ruling would be posted to shareholders and the investors involved with that company, and the appropriate government departments would be notified. Too few companies at the moment have such strategies, although some have taken the initiative to consult organisations like Industry & Environment Associates which have considerable experience in devising corporate environmental programmes.
The council would have its own corporate investigative arm. The method of investigation would be best compared with the quality systems procedures employed by leading companies such as Shell UK which are checked by independent third
1376
parties against the requirements of the British Standard for quality systems, BS 5750. The investigations of a company's environmental audit and corporate environmental strategy by the new council's quality systems-type investigators would be paid for by the company, and that company would be obliged to co-operate by law.
Earlier, I drew attention to the public reaction to the politico-economic exploitation of our environment related to waste issues. Like the United States group Environmental Strategies, I believe that matters would be dramatically improved if the following conditions were fulfilled: first, when industry, government and the public co-operate in addressing environmental issues; secondly, when voluntary disclosure of information relating to the environment is common practice, company by company; and, thirdly, when we have compliance with effective legislation providing for strict liability.
The public would then have peace of mind, knowing that resources were being directed to resolve environmental problems rather than being diverted to litigation and transactional costs as has been the case in the United States. At the moment however, the public sees no ideal world and lacks confidence in the ability of the national and local government to solve environmental problems. That view is endorsed by many experts in the field.
What the public does not know about is "green consumerism" which has begun to influence industry. The world-wide market for environmentally friendly products and technologies is estimated at between £100 billion and £150 billion. There has also been a development of "green" unit trusts, such as the Merlin Ecology Fund, which invest only in companies which show sound financial and environmental performance, according to the Institute of Directors' current issue of The Director magazine.
The CBI points out that it is estimated that business expenditure on environmental improvements could be approaching £4 billion per year. Should the Government take notice of my proposals today, and given the existence of the Environmental Protection Bill, business will be well rewarded and the public's peace of mind assured. After all, the environment Minister, at my conference spoke at length about self-sufficiency and private sector initiative. I beg to move for Papers.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Layton: My Lords, the first thing that I must do in this debate is to declare an interest. I am a director of a small company involved in the research and development of a container for the transport and storage of toxic waste products. I am also a director of an environmental consultancy.
Since the so-called absence of a waste management policy and the reliance on market forces within a framework of monitoring and regulation is in itself a policy, I shall not speak about whether we should have one, but about what type we should have, what direction it should take and, above all, why we must have a positive, fully functional waste management policy in the United Kingdom. Among other things,

1377
the degree to which the Government are committed to the solution of pollution problems is reflected in the nature and effectiveness of their environmental policy.
For brevity's sake, I shall take it as read that the worldwide objectives of environmental problem-solving from the public's point of view are, broadly speaking, identical in aim, if not in emphasis or application. Many buzz words and phrases appear frequently in reports and surveys, regulations, legislation, codes of practice, directives and conventions which indicate similar thinking internationally. They include "the duty of care", "the polluter pays", "self-sufficiency" and "long-term sustainable development". All those concepts are highly commendable. They are more than commendable; they are the essential basis of the considerable commitment necessary for all of us to make if we are to correct our errors of the past, to lessen pollution today and to leave a satisfactory legacy for future generations.
How are those objectives to be achieved? I shall take as a guide the current European strategy for waste management. Incidentally, that is explicitly on the face of legislation in Holland, Denmark and West Germany, in which, apart from the regulation of transport and remedial action, there are three other headings. The first is waste minimisation along with the development and application of clean technology. That responsibility lies with industry or, should I say, potential polluters, who must at all times be encouraged not only to look to the means of production used and the ways in which they can alter or eliminate waste products, but to the potential, long-term effects that their products may ultimately have on the environment.
The best publicised examples of polluting products are PCBs and CFCs, which have direct consequences, and fossil fuel used in the generation of power and in motorised transport. A very good example of waste minimisation was shown on the programme "Tomorrow's World". In Northern Ireland a company which has the most advanced sawmill in Europe no longer uses a conventional sawing technique but what appears to be a very large chisel to cut its raw material, thus eliminating sawdust as waste, saving the equivalent in number of trees and increasing the company's profits.
Secondly, there are recycling, residue recovery and the re-use of raw materials. They are not only an essential part of the reduction of waste in general; it must also be stressed that they are a necessary preservation or topping up of ever dwindling resources. Recycled paper means that fewer trees are cut down over a given period of forest development. Preservation is a cornerstone of that concept of sustainable long-term development so succinctly outlined in the report Blueprint for a Green Economy prepared by David Pearce and his team for the Department of the Environment.
At this time government procurement policy in the United States requires that wherever possible purchases must contain at least 50 per cent. of recycled products. That is a very good example of leading from the front with policy making.
1378
Direct landfill and municipal incineration of domestic waste in this country must be classed as two of the most wasteful uses of potential raw materials. All over the United Kingdom schemes have been instigated locally for recycling raw materials for the generation of power and heat for the community. But those schemes are piecemeal and patchy because they involve capital expenditure that some local authorities are ill-equipped to undertake. A national waste policy that not only imposed a statutory duty on such councils but also gave them some kind of financial assistance could well be the inducement needed to turn those schemes into a homogeneous effort throughout the country.
Thirdly, we come to optimisation of final disposal. Final disposal must take place at the point at which waste cannot be recycled, reused or recovered in any way, and when there are no other avenues open—although in the United States there is a process that even makes it possible to turn fly-ash into bricks, which puts some incineration into the previous category of recycling.
The alternatives for final disposal are incineration, chemical treatment, chemical fixation, physical fixation, storage under stable conditions and, lastly landfill, which should only be considered for disposal of waste that has been rendered inert. In this country landfill is used far too freely, to the detriment of both the general public and the development of other means of disposal available. I mean that so long as we are happy chucking things into holes in the ground, we limit the incentive to find more satisfactory methods.
Certainly we do not have unlimited potential for usable landfill sites. In time we shall be forced to make use of those other methods in which sadly we shall have fallen far behind the rest of Europe. We should benefit greatly from the kind of research and development programmes that are carried out at the moment in countries such as West Germany, where they spend 10 times the amount that we do. We shall eventually become importers of technology in fields in which we are capable of being world leaders. The powers that be seem to dislike the options that are available elsewhere. The attitude is that landfill has been okay in the past and will be okay in the future. If things were so great in the past, how come we are worried about the environment at all?
All those parts of the European strategy for waste management are areas that should be targeted by environmental policy and a national waste management policy. The Government set great store by the power of market forces to regulate the waste management business. Unfortunately, in dealing with waste at this embryonic time of our environmental awareness, "market forces" means that not-in-my-backyard or the cheapest alternative nearly always wins the day. Thus arises the overuse of landfill.
The concept of self-sufficiency must be engineered by policy. And what of the principle of BPM (best practicable means) or BATNEEC (best available technique not entailing excessive cost)—the new acronym introduced by the Environmental Protection Bill? Who is to decide what is best? It will be Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, which is

1379
overworked, under-resourced both financially and in manpower, and which will have even more jobs to do under the concept of integrated pollution control. That is the main policy thrust of the new Bill. Despite the dedication and expertise, it is unable to come anywhere near fulfilling its appointed tasks now.
A woeful tale was brought to my attention recently. It highlights the problems that can arise with market forces and the introduction of a new technique. A company in this country has a process available for the elimination of paint sludge. Because of its association with suppliers of production lines and paint shops to the motor industry, that has been the company's targeted market. The process is used by General Motors and by Chrysler in the United States. A treatment centre has also been set up in Ohio. The process is under consideration by various European car manufacturers. Moreover, the company offers it on a leasing basis so that no capital outlay is involved.
Paint sludge is a toxic waste which contains solvents and heavy metals, mainly lead, cadmium and chrome. The process reduces the volume by 92 per cent., removing and destroying the solvents and leaving a residue of heavy metals sealed in an inert resin that is used as a base for the manufacture of paint. Paint sludge is currently disposed of to landfill. It is dewatered but still contains solvents and heavy metals. Unfortunately for the motor industry, it means a 1,000 per cent. increase in cost per unit to dispose of the sludge using the process as opposed to using landfill. The figures have persuaded the industry's accountants that the costs are too high.
The cost to landfill is 8p per car. The cost for processing is £1 per car. I find the motor industry's attitude unacceptable. Paint sludge is not only produced by the motor industry. This process could eliminate paint sludge completely from the toxic waste list and place it firmly on the list of material for recycling. That is the kind of anomaly that arises from relying too heavily on the operation of market forces in the waste business. It must be remembered that this is a market where nobody wants the end product.
As I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to achieve any kind of self-sufficiency in waste management and disposal on a local, national or international basis if no coherent and consistent policy exists as the overall guiding framework. It is essential that we have a national policy to standardise the methods of disposal. It is essential that that policy should be part of the process of standardisation throughout Europe since with the coming of 1992 the concepts of "local" and "national" will spread to include the whole of the European Community.
Self-sufficiency and the constructive operation of market forces can only operate within a strong regulatory framework based on the highest possible standards supported by satisfactory monitoring and stringent enforcement. I also believe that all stick and no carrot in our national policy would be counter-productive. Standards must be improved, but incentives also must be given to industry and local government to make the necessary capital outlays for clean technology, minimisation, new
1380
methods of disposal, recycling and, above all, for continued and extensive research. Whether the Environmental Protection Bill is the right place for the introduction of incentives is open to conjecture. The Budget is probably a better place to introduce the kind of incentives that are necessary.
I should like to take up the proposal made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for setting up a national council for environmental waste policy. I must admit that my first reaction was, "Oh dear, not another association. Haven't we enough already?" However, I feel that any association that can set high standards of waste management policy and implement them effectively has a part to play in the overall framework. But I still feel that the spreading of responsibility, when the Government are trying to achieve their policy of integrated pollution control, leads to more complexity and masks the fundamental problem of environmental policy in this country and the fundamental problem of the Environmental Protection Bill.
The Bill has many flaws, not the least of which is clarity. I believe that its greatest failing is that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution will still be totally inadequate to fulfil the responsibilities being vested in it. If HMIP does not obtain the financial resources and manpower necessary no amount of policy will make the slightest difference to the environmental problems that we face in this country. At the moment we are constructing a skeleton with a brain but no muscle with which to operate and no food to sustain it. At this rate we shall continue to be called, however unfairly, the dustbin of Europe.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, it is sad and disappointing that the list of speakers is so short. It makes us all the more grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for giving at least a few of us the opportunity to debate a problem of the greatest importance to everyone in this country and others too.
I confess to having no expertise in the matter. Until I was privileged to sit as a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee considering air pollution from municipal waste incineration plants, I had a very simplistic attitude towards waste of any kind. Waste was something that one put in a dustbin; someone took it away and disposed of it; and one forgot about it. Occasionally—speaking as a farmer—if one was fortunate enough to live near a factory which produced asbestos waste (I speak of a time long before anyone became aware of its dangers) it was a useful item for making up farm roads. That was what waste meant to me. I believe that to most people in this country waste is not a matter to become excited about. It is disposed of by someone in some way or another, and that is that.
However, listening to the evidence put before the committee, I realised what a very big and dangerous problem it is. Dealing with waste of any kind is hazardous. We were told that in the county of Staffordshire the total cost of waste disposal amounts to £4-5 million or 1 per cent. of the total expenditure of the county council. That is a significant amount.

1381
In the county of Somerset, with no very large conurbations and no great industrial complexes, the cost of waste disposal every year is in the neighbourhood of £625,000. I was interested and rather distressed, although not surprised, to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rayton, said about the average cost of landfill. It runs at over £2.70 per tonne whereas the new site cost is just over £5 per tonne. Again one can see the magnitude of the problem. It is not a matter on which one can turn one's back and say, "It has gone all right so far and will continue to go all right."
What can we do? We cannot go on dumping waste in the sea as some urban districts and those living near sea coasts have been able to do. That is a cheap way of getting rid of waste and forgetting about it.
Incineration is obviously the largest and most effective way of dealing with waste, but again the costs are very substantial. The cost for Sheffield is nearly £10 per tonne. To acquire incinerators equipped with the most up-to-date techniques which are essential in order to prevent dioxane and other harmful gases being spread into the atmosphere can cost £15 million to £20 million. A new incinerating plant on the outskirts of Paris was estimated to have cost that amount. It is far in excess of the funds available to local authorities. Such incinerators deal with large amounts of waste, if not in an entirely satisfactory way, at least in one which minimises the harmful emissions and leaves the residue in a relatively inert and harmless form. It still has to be disposed of in one way or another. But that is a very much easier thing to do because it has been reduced so much in volume.
On the landfill method of disposal, perhaps I may briefly recount to your Lordships a day that I spent visiting sites in Somerset. My overall impression was of the amount of highly developed technology that is necessary even for landfill which one considers a perfectly simple way of dumping waste in a hole in the ground. It is not only a question of collecting the material and transporting it, but of sorting it to a certain extent. Bottle banks are a good example. There is the sorting of CFC gases from refrigerators so that they can be dealt with separately; there is the sorting of metal which, being of some commercial value, may bring some money to the local authority. That is one aspect.
However, there is the further aspect of the choice of site. Consideration has to be given to the permeability of the subsoil so that there is no risk of contaminating water supplies, and to the remoteness of areas from habitation so that the smell—which is inevitable at times—does not disturb people. One has to ensure that birds—above all, crows which pick up the bits and pieces—do not cause damage or annoyance to neighbouring farmers and inhabitants.
In addition, such large areas must be designed and laid out so that there is adequate drainage and no contamination of the water supplies which will eventually be extracted for human use. We must be able to trap the methane gases which are produced and use them for generating electricity which will earn a small revenue. Dealing with environmental waste is increasingly becoming a technological
1382
operation, even as regards the simple matter of landfill.
I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, who has a great knowledge of the subject. I also agree with the general thesis put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon; that we need to have a more serious attitude towards the problem of waste disposal. It is a growing problem and it is becoming increasingly serious. There is a potential source of useable material, if not wealth. A great deal more effort should be devoted to the recycling of waste. It should be separated and use should be made of certain items rather than simply dumping and forgetting about them. Far more research should be carried out into incineration. There is already a great deal of knowledge but there is room for more. We must study the toxic gases which are emitted even from the best-constructed incineration plants.
All such measures must be carried out with a real degree of urgency. As was mentioned by both noble Lords who have spoken, there must be adequate inspection to ensure that those who are responsible for the collection and disposal of waste material, whether household or toxic industrial, carry out their jobs properly. They must have due regard to the widest aspects of the environment not merely to the emission of toxic gases. The whole gamut of environmental protection measures must be carried out on an international scale and certainly on a national scale. However, I believe that the responsibility of collecting waste products of any kind should rest with the local authorities which should be given strong guidance and money for research from central funds. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Layton, that there should be a skilled and experienced inspectorate. At the present time it is woefully understaffed and it will remain so if its responsibilities are further increased as I hope they will be.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, on introducing his appeal for a national environmental waste policy so robustly. I also congratulate him on the conference that he called. I apologise to him for not having submitted my name earlier. However, with the rapid approach of the Bill time is short and we are all so busy that sometimes we miss our opportunities. I thank the House for giving me an opportunity now.
Many national organisations already exist; for example, the British Institute of Cleaning Services, the British Institute of Wastes Management, the British Cleaning Council and Tidy Britain of which I have the pleasure to be chairman having succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. All those bodies are concerned with the general disrepair of Britain and the fact that it has suffered great difficulties with untidiness and waste disposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has already pointed out that the local authorities are the true experts in the matter. The existing sites which are managed by the local authorities are rigidly controlled and efficiently managed. The British Institute of Wastes Management focuses professional and other attention on the problems

1383
caused by infill projects and local authority tips. However, as we in this House approach the new legislation it must be said that, just as there are already existing national councils, there is existing legislation. Part of the problem is that it is flouted by those who create waste and those who fail properly to dispose of it. The carrying of waste across the country for disposal is a source of untidiness, litter and toxic infection. Legislation has long existed to control that but in many cases it is flouted.
In many cases the existing technologies are under-used, as has already been hinted at. In addition, research into the problem is underfunded. We have an understanding of the nature of the problem but we have an inefficient and under employed use of resources.
It so happens that 1990 is Tidy Britain year. It is also the beginning of the decade which has been declared "the clean nineties". It is hoped that the new legislation will deal with some of the fundamental problems that have been outlined in the debate. I shall not take the time of the House by repeating what has been said. However, I wish to emphasise that if there is a move towards setting up yet another council to introduce a cohesive national environmental waste policy—and I consider that that has merits—account should be taken of all the existing bodies before it becomes of interest to those who now see that not for much longer will they escape the consequences of flouting the existing legislation.
The House is today debating the subject and will discuss it again on a Friday. Despite that, there is in Britain a general consensus that we should tackle the problems of dirty beaches, foul water supplies and litter and that we should do so in a national, co-ordinated way. I wish to point out to the Government in a friendly fashion that local authorities have come to think that they are not properly respected by central government and that their efforts are not properly regarded. I make an appeal that in this case we should have a body of expert inspectors of the environment throughout the country in local authorities, which, with diminished resources, have grappled with the growing problem.
I wish to give the House an example of how daily the nature of the problem becomes more difficult as the attempts to grapple with it become more serious. In Pembrokeshire, my home county, agriculture is basic to the economy of the area and the people. I have noticed that there is a new technology whereby every early potato is planted under a plastic cover. Now as one drives through the lanes and highways of Pembrokeshire, one sees that each field is covered in plastic. When the south-westerly gales come off the Cleddau estuary the plastic is lifted from the potatoes and wrapped around the blackthorn bushes. The plastic is indestructible and is causing a new problem, or a new aspect to an old problem.
Telephone directories have been buried in the infill projects of the world and show the date when each layer was laid. As the sites are dug up one can see from the date of the telephone directory, which has not changed its nature in the slightest, exactly
1384
when it was put into the infill project. I believe that most, if not all, of the states of the United States have outlawed infill projects and that that material will be dug up. In fact, there is a saleable product emerging from some of the new technologies and there is an end buyer for some of it. I know that your Lordships will know of the great machines which produce material called fines. That can then be used in agriculture and horticulture. Therefore, there is marketable product.
The first important point to bear in mind is that we have steeled our nerve about the problem. The second is that we are in the nervous nineties. In grappling with the Bill I believe that we should try to make certain that it is amended in order to face up to some of the very basic problems with which it does not seem to deal in its present form.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are particularly indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for enabling us to have what could be described as a curtain raiser debate to the debate which we shall have in a few days' time on the Environmental Protection Bill. Our attention has already been drawn to the unfortunate choice of a Friday for such an important debate but, quite apart from that, the Bill deals with so many wide-ranging matters—and waste is one of the more important of them—that to have a preliminary discussion at this stage seems to me entirely appropriate. This is all the more the case as noble Lords who have spoken so far have personal experience of the subject and I believe that they have made a very positive contribution to the developing debate.
The fact is that the whole question of waste has entered more and more into the public domain. However, let us not assume that this is the first time in our national history that we have been anxious about waste. In the days of horse-drawn traffic the accumulation of manure on the streets of London caused serious problems. Calculations were made by the economists of the day as to how that would grow into great mountains before the century came to an end. Before the century came to an end another means of transport was developed. Human ingenuity knows no bounds. However, in turn that led to other emanations which have caused other sorts of problems with which we are now seeking to grapple. Therefore, this is an ever changing scene. It may be argued that because it is ever changing at no point in time can one say,
"Well, this is it. Now let us have a clearly defined policy to deal with it".
However, I suggest that we have reached a situation in which enough has been done to recognise the problems of waste in the society in which we live at present to enable us to have a more clearly defined policy than we have at present but which would allow for flexibility and change in the future.
The problem of waste divides itself naturally into two parts: industrial waste—the waste associated with a manufacturing process; and what is called post-consumer waste—domestic waste. In the case of industrial waste the real problem is that a number of industrial processes lead to noxious by-products which must be very carefully disposed of in a

1385
controlled manner. I believe that much progress has been made in that direction and more measures of that sort are proposed in the Bill which we shall soon be debating.
What I feel is a shortcoming in our attitude towards waste in industry is that on the whole that attitude is reactive. Enterprises are constrained to carry out certain measures and ways of doing that are found, quite rightly, with the minimum possible expenditure. We need a more pro-active attitude. A good example of that was given by the noble Lord, Lord Layton in his very interesting speech, of a saw mill in Northern Ireland which has found a way of sawing wood without creating sawdust. Therefore, a waste problem is automatically eliminated. That should be encouraged.
How can it be encouraged? Businessmen are businessmen and the best way of encouraging them is to give them an incentive. I feel that some sort of fiscal incentive would be highly desirable and certainly there should be no fiscal disincentive such as a I found in the coal industry when dealing with the problem of pit heaps. We developed a way of reclaiming the material on the pit heaps for the purpose of providing road in-fill material. However, as long as the pit heap remained in place it was not rateable. As soon as we started to take away the material and began filling in roads with it, it became a commercial operation and we immediately had to pay rates. That made it much more difficult for us. I regard that as a fiscal disincentive to being pro-active. I merely illustrate the mysterious ways in which we seem to operate. Perhaps in reviewing the whole policy of waste in industry we might, in order to stimulate positive thinking, have a degree of fiscal incentive.
When one looks at domestic waste, that is a different problem. It all comes together in the family dustbin at the end of the day. However, there has been one big social change: we notice that in all our households our wives, children and so on are keen to do something about the problem. That is a big phenomenon which is emerging in Britain today and I do not believe that we are taking sufficient advantage of it. I believe that people who feel that they should so something about the problem are not clear as to what they can do. There may or may not be a local bottle bank or a place where tins can be disposed of. There may or may not be a waste paper collection. In the end, most people say, "We'd like to do something about it but we can't work this out", and they shove all the waste into one dustbin which is then taken to the landfill site and disposed of in what we all recognise as the least effective manner.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that the aim of the Government is to recycle at least 50 per cent. of recycleable materials in domestic waste by the end of the century. That is a very laudable and desirable objective. However, we must ask how that is to be achieved. How are we to move from where we are today—when the proportion reclaimed is in low single figures—to the Secretary of State's 50 per cent.? Many changes must be introduced.
One simple way of setting about change is to facilitate the separation of household waste. That is
1386
being practised in other countries. For example, in Ontario, Canada, there is the blue box system. They have separate collections at different times of the day and week for different forms of waste. Experiments are now being carried out on a similar basis by forward-looking local authorities such as Sheffield, Richmond and one or two others. I strongly recommend to the Government that, as soon as those experiments and any other studies which are considered necessary are concluded and if they are serious about the idea that domestic waste can be recycled in such high proportions, they should introduce a legislative framework within which the separation of domestic waste can be brought about and facilitated.
Therefore, there are ways in which, through the adoption of clearly defined policies to be enshrined in the appropriate legislation, we can move forward very positively. Where I believe the Environmental Protection Bill falls short is that, while it sets up a regulatory and monitoring system, it leaves open the actual policies to be pursued. I read Part II of the Bill with great care to find out what those policies were to be. I am afraid that they are not very clearly defined. There are all sorts of restrictions on doing wrong things but what those wrong things are is not properly defined and there is no incentive to do the right things.
I suggest that, in tackling that part of the Bill, we bear in mind that there has been a gigantic step forward in the public attitude towards the waste problem. I believe that industry and the public in general are really prepared to move but there must be guidance. More than guidance, there must be a clearly defined legislative framework which must reflect the work being done within the European Community and in other countries. In an area in which international efforts are very considerable, we have an opportunity to move forward so long as we do it in a way which is more practical and effective than we have so far.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, on his choice of subject for the debate this afternoon, and for the way in which he introduced it. I do not think that even he realised quite how topical the debate was going to be when he won the ballot. This, after all, is the week when the 23 other members of the conference taking place in Norway, which was called by Ms. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Prime Minister of Norway, expressed great shock that the Secretary of State for the Environment, having undertaken to attend the conference himself, decided to send a junior Minister.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State for the Environment has major problems with the poll tax, but I suggest that they will not go away because he is absent for a few days at an environmental protection conference. I suggest that if he is making any attempt to preserve the green credentials which he so proudly waved when he first took office, he would have been wiser to attend the conference himself and not send a more junior Minister.

1387
The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has a second reason for being fortunate in his timing in that, as he observed he has timed this debate for the week before the Second Reading of the Environmental Protection Bill. I am not one of those who protested loudly with regard to the timing of the Second Reading debate. That is not because I do not agree with those who said that the subject matter of the Bill was of great importance and should have the utmost prominence in the timetable for business in your Lordships' House, but because I do not believe that the Bill is very important. It is in no way adequate to address the major issues which confront our society in the control of pollution and environmental protection.
Even if the Bill goes through with the major amendments for which we shall be looking, I fear that it will still need to be followed by a more comprehensive programme for environmental protection rather than simply for control of pollution. That must certainly be undertaken in the next Session and the subject must be treated as a high priority by the Labour Government which will be elected at the next election. The debate therefore is one which continues. It is not one which we should anticipate in too much detail on Second Reading next week.
The thrust of the noble Earl's speech, and of his conference which he held towards the end of April, concerned the need for government to impose obligations on industry and to ensure that it is forced by statute to declare environmental protection programmes and strategies and to act on them effectively under the control of an inspectorate. We disagree with none of that. Many of us feel that we already have an environmental inspectorate in the form of the officers of local authorities, who have been our environmental protection inspectorate for around 150 years. However, that is a relatively minor disagreement.
We, in our Labour policy, have been in agreement for many years with almost everything that the noble Earl says. He refers to the need to enshrine the polluter pays principle. He refers to the need for adequate access to information on environmental matters; and that means information from individual plants and companies,not just in general terms. He refers to the need for strict liability. With all those matters we on these Benches strongly agree. If the noble Earl intends to introduce amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill along those lines, he will find that we have comparable amendments. We shall have to come together to ensure that they have the greatest effect because they are best presented in agreement with each other.
The most interesting point arising from the debate this afternoon is the way in which it is already clear that the Government will be surrounded by well-informed and very able critics of the Environmental Protection Bill. I do not mean faced by able critics; I mean surrounded in the sense of the Cross-Benchers and the Minister's own Benchers.
Obligations on industry, however valuable, and however important it may be that they are supported
1388
by statute, as the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority said in response to the noble Earl's survey, are only part of the effort required if we are to have effective environmental protection. Noble Lords will forgive me if I state a number of examples regarding the way in which local authorities, the voluntary sector and the academic community can play a role in environmental protection. These examples are taken almost at random because there are so many, but they will give a flavour of the way in which we could and should be making progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the blue bin system being considered in Sheffield. I commend to him and to the House the activities of Leeds City Council, which, together with a company called SWAP—Save Waste And Prosper Limited set up by the voluntary bodies in the community in Leeds in collaboration with the city council—has been investigating the possibilities of what is called the split bin system. In other words, they have the same bin with divisions for organic and inorganic materials and a separate collection system for recyclables. I have confessed to the House before that I have great difficulty in differentiating between organic and inorganic. I was a student in the United States in the 1950s. I never understood the distinction between garbage and trash which was required by the local authority of the city of Columbus, Ohio. I knew what the article was; it was the correct name which caused me difficulty.
The idea of a split bin system seems to me to be eminently reasonable. There is a division in the bin, and when the waste goes into the vehicle there is a division in the vehicle. That achieves what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is rightly commending, which is the separation at source of different sorts of waste for which different solutions are required.
There is an important economic lesson to be learnt when dealing with recyclables. Glass manufacturers estimate that it costs £35 to recover a tonne of glass which, in turn, is only worth £25. On strict Thatcherite principles that means that the whole exercise is pointless. However, if one looks at the effect on the environment, the cost of disposal of that glass by other means and the effect of the lower utilisation of the raw materials of glass, the balance of financial advantage becomes quite different. The difficulty is that a single company cannot make that social cost calculation. It has to be done by society as a whole. We need to balance in our costing the value of the recycled material together with the cost of alternative, less satisfactory methods of disposal.
The same is true of cars and tyres. Norway introduced a system whereby a deposit is paid when a new car is purchased. That deposit is returned only when the car is scrapped by an authorised dealer who has the responsibility and the facilities to recover the metal and the plastic material from the car. That is something which requires government action. It is not up to individual companies to do it. The Government have to take an initiative in imposing that kind of penalty for inadequate scrapping of cars.
The same argument applies to tyres. I will not deal with the economics of using tyres as a source of heat, although there are experiments in California and

1389
Connecticut which show that it is possible. There are methods of cryogenic reduction of waste tyres. There is probably one tyre made waste each year for each member of the population of this country. That means that tyres combined with other materials would become not only a relatively cheap but also a very effective method of road surfacing. That has been done in Sweden. Why is it not being done in this country? I hope that is another question which the Minister will consider in his reply.
1 now turn to the recycling of plastic from domestic refuse. It may be that there are individual commercial companies which carry out the work. The example which comes to mind is the study being carried out in Manchester by the University of Salford Business Services Limited, the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority and the Government's laboratory at Warren Spring. Here the collaboration between government, local authorities or ex-local authorities and the academic sector means that there is a possibility of significant improvement in the recycling of plastic.
Perhaps the most urgent and widely known problem which the Government now face is not how to deal with new waste but how to deal with old waste. In recent months we have learnt of the dangers from the very large number of landfill sites around the country containing toxic materials which are seeping out. Any governments who claim to have a coherent environmental protection policy must do rather better than this Government have done so far by saying what they will do about the dangerous landfill sites. Lists have been published for the first time. In effect, these sites have been concealed for many years. They are rightly causing concern in hundreds if not thousands of communities around the country.
I will not give other examples of the way in which waste policy in this country is inadequate. From the very few examples that I have given it is quite clear that, in addition to the remedies proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, relating to the responsibilities of industry, we have major responsibilities which the Government must assume. They must collaborate with local authorities and the voluntary sector. I am not going to make an advance or a rehearsal Second Reading speech on the Environmental Protection Bill, though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that when it comes to defining the evils which it seeks to prevent it is remarkably vague.
The fundamental issue which noble Lords must consider this afternoon and which we must consider when we debate the Bill during the summer and autumn is this: who pays for an effective environmental protection policy? Where do the costs lie and now are we going to assume a proper balance with fiscal incentives, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, or penalties and recalculation of the cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, said in his admirable speech?
My noble friend Lord Parry and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke about the role of local authorities. In the balance of the responsibilities between government and local authorities I do not believe we have yet got the matter right. There is a
1390
good way further to go. There is a need for much more listening to the expertise of local authorities as we consider the Bill, the White Paper and the legislation which is to follow. In the meantime the noble Earl's initiative is most welcome. We agree with a very large part of what he had to say.
4.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, on his choice of subject for today's debate and on his timing. I knew well before the debate the depth of expertise in your Lordships' House on this subject. I well remember last year piloting the Private Members' Control of Pollution Amendment Act through your Lordships' House and the high standard of debate which that promoted. I have not been disappointed today by the distinguished contributions.
The timing of today's debate is also particularly fortunate. It offers a curtain raiser to the much longer debates which I am sure that we shall be having on the Environmental Protection Bill over the next few weeks. The subject of waste occupies the largest single section of that Bill, and it is a valuable opportunity to put the government measures in the Bill in the context of our wider policies on waste.
I must first of all remind your Lordships that the Government have waste management policies. There has been criticism that our general approach, and this Bill in particular, are piecemeal in the way that they tackle waste management problems. Partly this reflects the fact that the Bill and our other measures are building on the existing system in the 1974 Act and partly it is true that the Government have been fire-fighting problems as they arise. Such problems as the import of toxic waste and landfill gas at abandoned waste disposal sites have come very suddenly into public prominence. We have had to take measures to deal with them.
It is also true that we cannot consider the United Kingdom's policies in isolation. The UK's membership of the European Community is the greatest external influence on the development of our waste policy. At first the Community adopted environmental law only where it was necessary to equalise the conditions of trade, but since the coming into force of a Single European Act in 1987 the Community has had an express remit to legislate on the environment. The European Community now has a sheaf of directives on waste.
There is the so-called framework directive of 1975 which defines waste and which requires member states to set up competent authorities and requires these competent authorities to produce waste management plans and to license waste disposal facilities. It is no exaggeration to say that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 was the model for this directive. There is the toxic and dangerous waste directive of 1978 which lays down more stringent controls for toxic and dangerous waste than in the framework directive. There are two directives on particular types of waste—on the disposal of waste oils and on the disposal of PCBs. Finally, there are two directives on the transfrontier shipment of

1391
hazardous waste. A number of these directives are now being renegotiated.
Although the Community issued these merit-worthy directives, there was no context and no overall Community waste policy into which they fitted. That was a deficiency corrected in March of this year when the Council of Environment Ministers adopted a resolution on waste policy. The resolution starts off from the premise that unless there is a waste management policy as a consequence of economic growth—the fundamental purpose of the Community—more and more waste will be created. It describes a waste management policy that will reverse this trend, this peril of affluence.
The use of low waste and clean waste technology is endorsed, as it is more easy to dispose of products themselves. Where waste is unavoidable, recycling and the re-use of waste is encouraged. Where waste cannot be recycled or re-used, the council said that the Community must plan for and build an adequate network of disposal sites. More than this, the council said that it was desirable for member states individually to aim at self-sufficiency in waste disposal. All these ingredients of a Community waste management policy, it will be noted, play their part in the Government's national waste management policy.
There are of course other international influences at work. At the global level the United Nations environment programme has produced the Cairo guidelines on waste management and the Basel convention on the specific subject of the transfrontier shipment of waste. Then there is the OECD, which is made up of the free market democracies. The OECD has almost specialised in the subject of transfrontier shipments and it was a major source for UNEP's Basel convention.
The UK supports these international measures, each and every one. In the case of the European Community they are hardly international measures but measures from our own hearth. There is an international waste management policy and a national one, and they coincide. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 was the progenitor of the European Community's framework directive. I am not too bashful to detect a new British influence on the Community mind as it now turns to revise the framework directive.
Within this international context, we have domestic overall policies on waste. These are reflected in the Bill which will be coming before your Lordships' House on Friday week. I shall pick out a few of the strands of policy which noble Lords will find in the Bill.
First, the polluter pays principle is being introduced to waste. One modest step towards this is the introduction of charges by regulation authorities. The regulation of waste management is expensive and is likely to become more so. It is only right that the producer of waste, which ultimately means the consumer, should meet these costs through the charges on licences.
It is vital that all waste producers should meet the full costs of the waste they produce. That is not only
1392
fair it is also the most effective market means of encouraging waste minimisation and recycling. Waste minimisation and recycling must be made to succeed on the basis of genuine economic viability. Undeserved subsidies are not a long-term solution to encouraging environmentally friendly routes. We do not want to lower the cost of recycling by subsidy; rather we want to increase the comparative cost of disposal, which will happen anyway as a by-product of meeting increasingly tough environmental standards.
But that brings in another strand of policy. The higher the standards and the higher the costs of disposal, the more incentive there is for evasion and law breaking. If we are expecting the legitimate disposal industry to invest heavily in plant, equipment and sites to a very high and expensive standard, we must ensure that it is not undercut by a lower standard or downright illegal competition. That means that we must make the flow of waste from producer to disposer tightly sealed against leakages from the system. However, the biggest step to curb illegal dumping is to cut off the supplies of waste before they ever reach the unscrupulous who could undercut.
That is where the duty of care comes in. The duty of care, for which credit is due to the Select Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, is not only a means of making producers responsible for the subsequent destination of their waste. It also offers a big step forward in enforcement and detection for waste regulation authorities. Combined with the registration of carriers under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act, the duty of care will provide a chain of movements of waste that can be traced from producer to disposer to find where anything has gone wrong. That is without the necessity for a bureaucratic and cumbersome scheme of registering every waste producer in the country and without a formal consignment note system on a prescribed format such as we use for special waste. I believe that this is quite a reasonable balancing act between minimising bureaucracy and ensuring a sealed pipeline of waste from producer to disposer that can be properly policed.
With this sealing of waste disposal routes we can and shall press for much higher environmental standards. This will be largely achieved by turning the screw on waste management licences. The department will continue to issue waste management papers on the technical standards to be expected at disposal sites. We are determined to see a steady raising of pollution control standards everywhere, so that even the worst sites are operated at the standard of today's best. The control of standards by setting and enforcing licence conditions is the unglamorous bread and butter side of waste management that will not be found in the newspapers. But it is also the most important.
Another problem area, also touched on in the Bill, is that of the international trade in waste. In the past two years there has been rather more heat than light on the subject of waste imports. The odd thing is that, almost unnoticed amidst the thunder of outrage, we have reached a consensus on policy. It is now

1393
generally agreed that movements of waste across international frontiers are to be discouraged. Developed countries should certainly be able to deal with their own waste. It is also agreed that there may have to be exceptions and that we may need to help out developing countries and some of the smallest developed ones which lack specialist facilities. There is also a case for exempting movements of waste destined for recycling from those same countries where there are special cases. That is now the Government's policy and we are now very close to hammering out a policy on these lines in Europe and in the OECD. The Bill provides powers for the Secretary of State and local authorities to control international waste movements to implement that policy.
The final major issue addressed in the Bill's provisions on waste is the role of local authorities. I know that many noble Lords and people elsewhere would prefer that the Government had decided to strip the waste regulatory function away from the local authorities completely. The Bill, however, does not take this route. But we expect regulation authorities to show the consistent high standards of work that only a few of them have achieved up to now. I shall explain why the Government believe that statutory regional waste regulation authorities are not the best way forward. We should begin by looking at the measures that we have on the face of the Bill, and which incidentally, we believe, command general support.
Much of Part II of the Bill is concerned with increasing the powers of waste regulation authorities. But we also have to ensure that the authorities themselves do their job. That is why we place so much importance on the separation of poacher and gamekeeper. In future all waste regulation authorities will be divorced from their operational function, which will go into arm's length companies. For the first time regulators throughout the country will be able to concentrate effort and resources on enforcing high standards. There should be no more allegations of poacher and gamekeeper, and the income from licence charges will stop authorities from using the excuse of inadequate resources if they fail to come up to scratch as regulators.
The Secretary of State will issue guidance about licensing and enforcement of which authorities will have to take account. Regulators will be able to gain access to sites and information to enable them to see exactly how waste is being managed in their area. There will also be the tougher licensing regime carrying forward what we had in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and improving on it in a number of significant areas to close loopholes.
Regulation authorities will have to account for their performance in annual reports, which will lead to local pressure on them to raise standards. But that is not all Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution will inspect and report on the performance of regulation authorities, taking into account the authorities' annual reports. It is worth reminding ourselves that the role of HMIP is not to inspect every waste disposal site in the country. That is the role of the regulation authorities. Rather HMIP will audit the performance of the authorities and publish reports
1394
on their performance, praising the good authorities and castigating the bad.
So we will have single purpose regulation authorities, freed from their operational role and untainted by conflicts of interest, enforcing the new licensing system to higher standards and accounting for their performance to their local electorates and to HMIP. I am confident that these measures will lead to higher standards of waste management. But we do not stop there. The Secretary of State will be given new finely targeted default powers to use against authorities which fail in their duties. I hope those powers will rarely, if ever, need to be used but they are there and regulators should take note that they will be used if necessary.
Running alongside all those measures to raise standards, there will also be encouragement for authorities to co-operate in voluntary joint arrangements for waste regulation. This voluntary co-operation will lead to greater consistency in waste regulation. The Department of the Environment is now actively pursuing this with the local authority associations and I am convinced that the associations will play their full part in formulating voluntary regional arrangements. Indeed there has already been some co-operation between authorities.
The improvements to waste management standards which we all wish to see can be achieved by the measures in Part II of the Bill, implemented by regulation authorities participating in voluntary regional co-operation. We must not disrupt local authorities just at the time when they are being given the tools to do the job. But rather we should build on the strengths of the existing authorities. If we did go in for a wholesale re-organisation of local authority functions we could well jeopardise the genuine gains which will result from the measures in this part of the Bill. I hope therefore that we can all agree that there is a place for voluntary regional co-operation between local authorities. By encouraging and guiding that co-operation and co-ordination of effort and resources we can gain the benefits of higher and more consistent standards without causing unnecessary and damaging disruption.
Those are a few of the policies which find reflection in the Environmental Protection Bill. But I have to agree that such policies are not in themselves a strategy. I believe that we need a national waste strategy, though I am not sure that I agree with everyone else's views on what such a strategy should comprise. I believe that it should include what is proper for government both central and local to do, but is should exclude what is not within the power or competence of government.
We have to recognise that market-based solutions are the best answer to many environmental problems. It is the Government's job to set the standard and the authorities' to enforce it, but within a regime of regulation. It should be perfectly possible for the market to determine the answer adopted for particular wastes. That is especially so in this country where we have a well developed and impressively geared up waste disposal industry. What the industry and the country do not need is anything like a national plan for waste disposal, which might

1395
attempt to specify within itself what should happen to which sort of waste and where. With that caveat in mind, I do feel that there is a place for the Government to endorse a national waste strategy as a guide for local authority decisions and a confidence building backdrop for the private sector to make the necessary substantial investments over the next few decades.
One area in which such a strategy could be helpful is in identifying and planning to enable the provision of a sufficient network of strategic specialist facilities around the country. The facilities themselves will have to be provided by the private sector. But public authorities should be able to provide the assurance that a place will be found for them. Responsible local authorities, who are both planning and waste regulatory authorities, should be above the practice of NIMBYism. They should plan for the waste needs of their areas and make sure that the planning and licensing system enable the private sector to bring those facilities into operation. Every region produces waste: no region should expect another to dispose of it for them.
There is a need for strategic co-operation at a level higher than that for an individual authority. Many specialist facilities need a catchment area greater than that of a single county. There is quite a rational case, recognised freely by the Government in our publications, for regional scale co-operation in the planning for waste management. We have not taken the route of setting up statutory authorities; but we believe that authorities should be co-operating on a regional scale.
One facet of this is the ending of waste tourism. On the international scale, we have agreed within Europe on the general principle of minimising waste movements between countries. I see no reason why this policy should not also be applied on a regional level. There is no good reason why major flows of waste should have to take place from one end of the country to another or one end of a county to another; it cannot be environmentally beneficial, nor is it entirely driven by the consumer. More often, major flows of waste reflect differences in the willingness of different parts of the country and their local authorities to deal with their own waste or to regulate it to the same standards as their neighbours. That is not a responsible, rational or tolerable situation. Waste disposal facilities should be provided in places that are most suitable for those facilities, and where the market for waste disposal exists. They should not be provided in areas of least organised public protest and most obliging councillors and officials.
These are among the issues which the Government believe should comprise a national waste strategy. I am not sure that we can meet on all points with the views expressed by the noble Earl, both at his conference and during today's debate. However, I can say that we share his wish to create such a strategy. Officials of the department are now in contact with the local authority associations who must be our essential partners in any new strategic approach to the problems of waste management responsibilities. I expect to be able to come before
1396
your Lordships' House at a later date to report the progress that we are making.
I move on now to deal with specific points raised by noble Lords during today's debate. My noble friend Lord Layton and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned the funding of HMIP and what they referred to as the lack of resources. I can assure the House that the Government and the department are well aware of the problems which have arisen. We have increased the salaries of inspectors by about 30 per cent. in order to ensure that recruitment continues successfully and that the inspectorate vacancies are filled. I can assure both noble Lords that HMIP is not being starved of resources to achieve the ends to which it most valuably has to contribute.
Certain noble Lords referred to the United Kingdom as being the dustbin of Europe. I refute that assertion most strongly. If the articles written by Mr. Richard North in the Independent— which I think could be described as an independent newspaper in its own right, apart from its title—were perused by noble Lords, they would see that the newspaper holds a view which states that we are one of the best compilers with European directives both as regards those which lie behind us and those which lie ahead.
My noble friend Lord Layton said that he thought the UK was falling behind in Europe as regards landfill. We feel that we are far from falling behind; in fact, we are actually leading from the front on the issue. We are one of the first countries to have an effective licensing system. No other country has yet proposed a general duty on all waste producers to match the duty of care mentioned in the Bill which will be coming before this House on Friday of next week.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to the recovery of methane from landfill sites. I can assure him that the Government are actively pursuing, through the Department of Energy's energy technology support unit, a number of schemes for the recovery of methane gas from old landfill sites for electricity generation. We are also looking to exploit the considerable potential which lies ahead in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to local authorities and the perceived shortage of money. I should point out that the new system, to be introduced by the Bill, of charging for licences should ensure that that is not a problem; indeed, the reverse is the case. They will be fully funded and able to carry out their statutory requirements without any hindrance.
Lord Parry: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. When he reads his speech tomorrow, the noble Lord may find that the adjectives therein give the impression that it is much more likely that one would find a local authority dodging its obligations rather than a polluter. Is he prepared to make some correction to that statement?
Lord Hesketh: I am most surprised by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Parry. I like to think that my words will receive the unqualified

1397
support of his noble friend Lord Mcintosh on the Front Bench. The Government are endorsing local authorities as being pro-active in these arrangements. Far from suggesting, as did the noble Lord, that I used adjectives that do not encourage local authorities, the reverse is the case.
The noble Lords, Walston and Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords, referred to recycling and the need for its encouragement. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to single figure percentage points against the 50 per cent. figure envisaged by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by the end of the century. The Bill contains many measures to promote recycling. Waste collection authorities will be required to draw up recycling plans. They will be able to keep back waste from the waste stream to recycle. Moreover, my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment has announced that on Third Reading an amendment will be brought forward in your Lordships' House to ensure that they, and others who recycle waste, will benefit financially from the reduced cost to disposal authorities. Such authorities will be required to pay them a proportion of the cost saved. I hope that that will be part of an overall and bigger programme which will achieve the figures that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State desires.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Mcintosh of Haringey, both referred to the "blue box" system. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to it in respect of Sheffield and the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, extended the examples to Leeds, if I heard correctly. The Bill provides many measures to encourage this system and others; for example, the preparation of waste recycling plans and the payment of rebates to which I referred earlier by disposal authorities. Those are just two examples of what I hope will be an extension and in no way anything other than an encouragement for the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, referred to tyre recycling. I can assure him that the matter is at present being researched and studied at the Warren Spring Laboratory. The noble Lord referred to the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not be present at Bergen. He said that the task had been passed to a junior Minister. He was of course referring to my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment, who I should have thought is a very suitable Minister to be attending the conference. I can assure him that there are many reasons for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State being busy. I am sure that he will understand when I smile at him and suggest that hope springs eternal.
I should like to say a few words about the noble Earl's suggestion that there should be a council for environmental waste policy. The Government have some reservations. We have had such bodies in the past, and we do not believe that they achieved a great deal. The noble Earl intends that that body should be jointly funded by industry and government and that it should produce a voluntary policy for industry in the management of its waste. I wonder whether there is a need for such a group. The CBI and the CIA—I should point out that that is the Chemical Industries' Association and not another
1398
body on the other side of the Atlantic—already produce excellent guidance on waste management for their members which is available to a wider audience. That guidance is drawn up in the way that the noble Earl proposes for his council—by consultation within industry, using the expertise available through the trade associations.
The question is: how would a new council add to that expertise and how would it avoid duplicating it? I am sure that we can look to the industry associations to continue to provide the advice for their members that they have produced so well in the past. If they see a need to come together in larger groups, they will do so. I do not at this moment feel that there is a need for a joint industry and government council. However, we are agreed on the need for a national strategy and for the planning of the provision of waste disposal facilities. I thank the noble Earl for his efforts in promoting such a strategy and for organising the seminar on the subject which occurred last month.
5.11 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short, short debate. We may have been short on numbers, but I believe that your Lordships will agree that the quality of the contributions was that generally associated with your Lordships' House. All contributors spoke with great knowledge on the various aspects of the subject.
We are all waste producers. Waste is something that will not just go away. A charming example was given by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, when he said, "We put it in the dustbin. We shut the lid, and we turn our backs on it. It is someone else's job". The trouble is that we have made it, and so it is something that we must consider.
As we have heard, there is no universal panacea. Recycling, incineration, minimisation and landfill—not one is that universal panacea. We must have a strategic blend of all those processes. Our decisions on that blend must be based on proper scientific evidence and not on some euphoric dream of an impossible Arcadia.
Perhaps I may give one small example. When one mentions domestic waste, one of the first reactions one receives is, "Oh, excess packaging". No one has yet defined what excess packaging is. It is a statement which has clearly not been thought through. I may not get the percentage figures right, but they are of the right order. The person who complains about the packaging that goes into his dustbin does not seem to realise that over 30 per cent. of the food produced in developing countries is lost before it reaches the consumer. In developed countries, the loss is of the order of 5 per cent. Why? Packaging. We cannot suddenly say, "Get rid of packaging. Get it out of my dustbin." Let us then see how our food bills will increase. The wastage of food will be enormous. We must have good scientific evidence before we start to take any decisions.
Furthermore, we must remember that we, the producers—we are all producers of waste—are the baddies in this game. The goodies are those who are trying to get rid of it, provided that they are

1399
responsible. They should be regarded properly if they are worthy of it.
I was pleased to hear what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, with his considerable knowledge of the subject and his technical knowledge of paint sludge, and the chisel, or whatever it was, that does not produce any sawdust. I noticed that, unlike the Minister, he kindly gave approval to my idea of a council. In support of that idea I should like to give a small quotation from a letter received by a colleague of mine from the deputy chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment in the other place who said:
"I am therefore delighted that you have formed a council for environmental waste policy. That seems to me a very welcome step forward".
We also have encouragement from elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the fiscal incentives to business to use new technology. That was followed by a fairly broad hint from the Minister that there would be something of that nature in the forthcoming Bill. The noble Lord also referred to public enthusiasm, both domestic and industrial, which needs encouragement and direction. That is not like the Duke of Plaza-Toro, leading his troops from behind, which I strongly suspect is what one finds in Part II of the forthcoming Bill. It is strong on, "Thou shalt not", but does not contain a great deal of leadership as to which way we are going.
We also heard about the blue bin experiments in recycling. I have heard that they may not be fully economic; but any subsidy which may be found to be required will also be found to be well spent in the long run. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh of Haringey, about something with which I was involved many years ago in the Glass Manufacturers' Federation. He pointed out that the glass manufacturers did not want all that cullet back again but were prepared to take it back and make a financial contribution to the environment.
We are pleased to hear that something seems to be in hand with regard to inspection. I would disagree slightly with the Minister because there is no such thing as "the polluter pays". They are the buzz words referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Layton. Let it be fairly and clearly understood: the polluter never pays. It is always the consumer who pays, because eventually the price returns to him.
The Minister kindly gave a carefully delineated list of unenforced directives. When we have inspection and enforcement the situation may improve. It was good to hear of the building up of the network of strategic specialist facilities. Specialist facilities in this field can be expensive. It would clearly be useful for the movement of waste to be dealt with properly rather than improperly because of the need for transportation.
We have had a good short debate. Once again I thank all of your Lordships who participated. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the many wise suggestions made. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Rights of Way Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Medicine: Complementary and Conventional Treatments
5.19 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley rose to call attention to recent developments in the field of complementary medicine and its relationship to conventional treatment; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to introduce the subject of complementary medicine in your Lordships' House this afternoon. It is two and a half years since it was last debated. It was introduced on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, who is most disappointed that he cannot take part today because of an engagement this evening.
I was asked by a noble Lord when I spoke briefly on this subject in a debate on the National Health Service recently what was meant by the word "complementary". There have been a number of attempts to define it, but these have often resulted in more confusion than before. It refers to that body of therapies which in the bad old days were known as "fringe", then more recently "alternative", and which are also sometimes described as "natural medicine". I suppose a useful working definition would be those approaches to health care which do not feature in the conventional medical or paramedical curricula. The better known and developed ones are: osteopathy, chiropractic, herbalism, homoeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy and healing. But this is in no way to play down the many other approaches that have a great deal to offer.
We should not forget that these are unorthodox only by reference to a particular time and place. For example, chiropractic and osteopathy are mainstream medicine in Canada and the USA. Homoeopathy is orthodox in Germany, France and India, while medicine from plants is still the most widely used therapy throughout the world.
My own interest in the subject is threefold. I came to it—as most people do—as a patient. I had a chronic condition which took complementary methods first to diagnose and then painstakingly to clear up. In the course of a personal odyssey I have experienced more therapies from the patient's end than most people. At the same time, I did my best to study and understand what was going on at each stage, to talk to practitioners about their work, to attend courses and conferences. Arising from this, I acquired two particular interests which I ought to declare. I sit on the Research Council for

1401
Complementary Medicine and I chair a board which has been set up to accredit the training of acupuncturists. I shall speak more of this later.
Probably the most significant development in the last two and a half years has been in public acceptance of what the complementary therapies have to offer. Surveys show an ever-increasing willingness to use them, now encompassing about one-third of the population, and an even greater wish to see the major ones at least available on the National Health Service. Whenever I talk to Members of your Lordships, House about health problems, I find that more often than not they have consulted an osteopath, an acupuncturist or a healer as well as—and this is the normal pattern—their GP and specialist. It is not just the patients who are involved. It is significant and profoundly encouraging that medical attitudes are changing fast and official attitudes with them. Probably about half of all doctors now wish to learn about complementary therapies, many with a view to practising them after suitable training. This is a big change.
There is a widening use of massage and aromatherapy among nurses. A major study by the Department of Public Health Medicine at the University of Sheffield, though still unpublished, is expected to show much improved communication between complementary and general practitioners. The Department of Health no longer holds totally aloof from complementary developments and the Medical Research Council continues to help with occasional joint funding of projects. All this is most welcome. The number of practitioners has for years been rising at more than 10 per cent. annually and new clinics and health centres are opening all the time to satisfy public demand.
The Government have always been properly concerned about the professional organisation and training of practitioners, since the public must be safeguarded. It is now accepted, I believe, that it is up to each therapy to make its own arrangements in the light of its own peculiar historical and therapeutic circumstances. Some, like the osteopaths, are moving towards statutory registration. A working party has been established for this purpose with medical representatives who include my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant, supported by the King's Fund. I am sure that the noble Baroness the Minister will be pleased to learn that osteopaths have heeded and acted on the advice of her predecessors.
The body which I chair has arisen from a joint initiative of the Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which continues to be active in promoting educational standards, and the Council for Acupuncture, which represents the major colleges. We are setting up an accreditation board consisting of representatives from acupuncture, the medical profession, education, the other therapies and the public interest, with the aim of establishing professional standards in training and accrediting those colleges which meet the standards. It is a model which is working successfully in the USA and which other therapies may perhaps decide to follow.
Another development of interest is that the healers—who are now far more widely accepted than
1402
they were a few years ago—through their umbrella Confederation of Healing Organisations have produced a very thorough code of conduct which has won the approval of the royal colleges. They have also forged links with many hospitals and family practitioner committees. They are in the process of mounting a series of clinical trials into the effectiveness of their work.
This brings me to research. It is a key area in terms of demonstrating what a therapy can or cannot achieve. It is also a difficult area because both money and research expertise are in short supply in the complementary medical world. Drug companies do not give funding to therapies that might put them out of business. The RCCM has been addressing these issues since its beginnings in 1983 and has found money for a number of valuable studies as well as, more fundamentally, for a research methodology fellowship at Glasgow which has just successfully run its course.
We have recently seen the publication of results from Queen's University, Belfast, which show the effectiveness of acupuncture in nausea from cancer chemotherapy and in morning sickness in early pregnancy. In 1988 the British Medical Journal published the results of a successful study in teaching GPs how to teach their patients relaxation techniques to reduce blood pressure. The chiropractic profession's research department at its college in Bournemouth has been running successful projects on back pain and other areas which involve close co-operation with hospitals in 11 health authorities.
A project run from the Centre for the Study of Complementary Medicine in Southampton is busy investigating the body's electro-magnetic fields, which may be able to give advance warning of impending disease. These are just a sample of the research projects which have been mounted over quite a wide area.
Academically the picture is encouraging. Both the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic and the British School of Osteopathy have recently gained degree status for their courses. Complementary medicine is now on the curriculum in Glasgow, the largest medical school in Europe. Exeter University, whose centre for complementary health studies is the only one of its kind in the Western world, will run B.Phil and M.Phil courses from this autumn, looking at complementary health care from a wide perspective. Finally, there is the real possibility of a chair of complementary medicine being established at one of our leading universities.
Co-operative ventures with mainstream medicine are increasing. Those of your Lordships who come to the parliamentary group meetings will have heard of the integration of therapists in the cardiac department of the Charing Cross Hospital and at the Marylebone Health Centre where significant savings are being shown in drugs, hospitalisation and referrals. There is now a fruitful link between the Bristol Cancer Help Centre and the Hammersmith Hospital. That is something that until recently would have been unthinkable, so deep was the philosophic divide. A national consultative council has just been formed to try to bring therapists together on the

1403
political front. Through all this the Institute for Complementary Medicine continues to provide an information service for the general public.
It is sad to report that there was no follow-up to the pioneering colloquia under His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at the Royal Society of Medicine between 1984 and 1987. The doctors in charge at that time seemed to feel that co-operation had gone far enough for the present. However, a good account of proceedings was eventually published. It can be found in the Library under the title Talking Health.
Those in the field of complementary medicine in this country are grateful for the freedom to practise their art under common law. It is a freedom which brings responsibility with it, and I have tried to show how some of this responsibility is being faced. I trust that the Government will continue to defend this freedom and will not give way to sectional interests, whether from this country or abroad, however plausibly represented.
What complementary medicine offers is, I believe, of enormous worth. I am not thinking just of the financial savings which are there for the taking if the massive investment in high technology intervention after the event can be reduced. I am thinking of a different way of looking at things, of innovation, which is a vital ingredient in a profession. In a number of areas modern medicine has become stuck. Cancer is one such area. There are approaches here that merit a lot more investigation than they are getting. Dietary and psychological approaches are just two. It is the fashion to say that health is too important to embark on this kind of approach. I believe it is too important not to. As a patient I also believe that it is too important to be left to doctors. I think doctors would tend increasingly to agree with that.
These other therapies, however, cannot make their full contribution without more funding. We all know that homoeopathy is in theory available on the health service, but the financial disincentives to doctors to train are so dire that in practice there are few of them about. The recent change in the rules on licensing herbal medicines is a sad step in the wrong direction and threatens a whole range of well tried remedies. There are social reasons too. To give one example, once homoeopathy is fully accepted the efficacy of the infinitesimal dose will cast quite a different light on arguments for the safety of pollutants in the environment.
But it is not just a question of money. Despite the many advances I have outlined, there is still a gap of understanding in some scientific quarters. I have thought for some time that this revolves round a confusion between the aims of science and medicine, which are too often treated as though they were the same thing. Science sets out to explain the natural world; medicine sets out to make people well. They often overlap but they are essentially different.
A malign consequence of this confusion is that only one kind of evidence is generally accepted in medical circles. Anything outside this is called "unscientific". That is an unhelpful use of language, as what it usually means is only that the principles
1404
are not yet understood. Was the principle of, say, television unscientific in 1900 but scientific by 1940? There is also still a tendency to talk of fraud and charlatanism when what is really involved is, again, a failure to comprehend. Frauds there are of course, but I think they are few. They are far outnumbered by the enthusiasts who may have a valuable therapy but who have also a cavalier attitude to evidence of any kind. That is as unproductive in one direction as the rigid scientific view is in the other.
There is a striking scene in Brecht's Life of Galileo where the scientist is standing in front of his telescope while the academics argue whether or not to look through it. He urges them repeatedly to come and look, but in the end they decide there is no point because they know already that the heavens cannot be as Galileo says they are. Innovators who were likewise pilloried include Pasteur, Lister, Freud and many, many others.
The resisters of change are always there. They are the ones who only ever discuss acupuncture at the level of infected needles, or herbs in the context of an exceptionally rare adverse reaction. They generally take care never to get too close to the phenomena they ridicule. They forget that probably only about 20 per cent. of modern medical techniques have themselves been scientifically validated. That figure was put forward by the conventional physicians in the RSM colloquia I mentioned. They help create the kind of climate in which a majority of patients do not dare to tell their GPs they have sought help elsewhere. I often wonder how many so-called spontaneous remissions may in fact be due to undeclared visits to a healer or herbalist. Of course I do not claim that the seeds of distrust are sown only by the orthodox, because there is fear and incomprehension on the other side too.
Anything the Government can do to help complementary therapists legitimately to find their feet through training, research, registration or other means will, I think, be effort and money well spent. They suffer at present under quite a few handicaps. There is gratitude for what has been done so far and for a new openness to complementary approaches. There is gratitude also for the stance of benign neutrality which contrasts with that of many other governments. If this stance could become a bit more benign and a bit less neutral, I know the country would benefit. I beg to move for Papers.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, it is my great pleasure on behalf of your Lordships to thank the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for introducing this debate. As he said, it is the first debate that we have had on complementary medicine in this House for two-and-a-half years. I must first of all apologise to the noble Earl, my noble friend and to the House for the fact that, due to a previous engagement, I shall not be able to stay for very long. Some noble Lords will ask themselves what on earth I am doing speaking on alternative medicine. I too wonder why I am speaking today, but as the immediate past president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents I hold the safety of the public close to my heart. It was for that reason that I readily agreed to

1405
take over the sponsorship of a survey of osteopathic schools from our late dear friend Lady Lane-Fox. Now noble Lords know the reason why I am speaking in this cebate.
I should like to make some general remarks which, while principally concerning the training of osteopaths, do, I think, hold lessons for all the main complementary therapies. I was surprised and not a little disturbed to learn that training courses in osteopathy range from a four-year degree course to part-time and correspondence courses offering little more than a few weekends' training in manipulation. In an independent primary contact profession such as osteopathy it is clearly essential for the safety of patients that all practitioners are trained sufficiently in the skills of diagnosis. This is not to enable them to compete with doctors but to communicate and work more closely with the medical profession, which is clearly of benefit to patients.
Practitioners must be capable of identifying conditions where osteopathic treatment would be inappropriate or even hazardous and thus know when a patient requires immediate referral to his general practitioner. I feel sure that the public interest would be best served by legislation that registered as many practising osteopaths as possible. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister would agree that any system of statutory registration should require and be based upon the highest possible standards of training. I believe that the future of complementary medicine will depend upon its ability to provide credible standards of training and an educational provision based upon the accepted norms within other comparable orthodox health care professions.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Balwin, for referring to the King's Fund Working Party on Osteopathy, which resulted from discussions that took place after the last debate on complementary medicine initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley. It seems appropriate that the King's Fund, which is so often at the centre of important developments in the field of health care, should be involved in this initiative. I know that osteopaths would wish me to express their thanks to both the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, and to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who, as President of the King's Fund, encouraged this important development. Ministers should also be congratulated on their part in supporting the work of the working party by the appointment of two officials from the Department of Health to act as observers to the working party.
I believe that the other main therapy groups will be watching developments within the osteopathic profession with interest. Clearly osteopaths have engaged in the detailed work which will provide a route that others may more easily follow in the future.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I too should like to express my appreciation to the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity for this debate. He skilfully outlined the very wide spectrum of different therapies. I should like to confine my remarks to
1406
a particular field which the noble Earl mentioned several times, namely that of homoeopathy. I am in no way an expert but my credentials are that I have benefited for the whole of my life, as a patient, from homoeopathic treatment as well as from orthodox medicine.
As the noble Earl said, in the homoeopathic field there is a considerable and growing patient demand. At the same time there is an upsurge of interest among young doctors and medical students. But it is not yet remotely possible to satisfy that growing demand because of the insufficient supply of specialists, educators, research workers and clinical opportunities in hospitals.
However, there are hopeful aspects. In the last year, as the noble Earl indicated, there have been signs of a considerable change of heart among doctors. The medical school of Glasgow, which is the largest medical school in Europe, may be taken as an illustration. It is accepted there by orthodox practitioners that complementary medicine must be evaluated. There are currently 350 places on homoeopathic courses at Glasgow. For the past three-and-a-half years there has been a fellowship to examine this area, 50 per cent. financed by the Medical Research Council. That is very encouraging. The fellowship has been exploring integrated care for the benefit of patients, referring patients either to orthdox practitioners or to forms of complementary medicine as their particular circumstances require. Sometimes in the homoeopathic field and elsewhere in the complementary sector that approach has had enormous success.
Great strides have been made in education in Glasgow. Some 80 medical professionals are about to start on a three-year training course after graduation. The course offers alternatives according to the interest and ability of the trainees and the amount of time they can afford to devote to it. Each of the three years is self-contained. If the trainees attend for just one year they will at least gain an awareness of the potential. They can then direct patients to homoeopathic specialists even though they are not necessarily equipped to practice themselves as specialists. Those who take the full course emerge after their three years of pre-registration medical training and three years orthodox medical training, followed by an additional three or four years of specialist homoeopathic training, with considerable specialist ability.
What incentive is there to potential doctors to embark on such a long course of training when there is still no specialist qualification recognised by the Joint Committee on Higher Medical Training at the end of the tunnel? Three years ago in our last debate I ventured to draw the attention of your Lordships to that anomaly. How much progress has been made in the affairs of the joint committee since then? So far as I know, none whatever. That is profoundly disappointing and is not a credit to the royal colleges and those they designate to serve on the joint committee. I hope very much that the change of heart that we have heard is taking place will be reflected in this field. At the moment, while there is demand for treatment and interest among young doctors, there remains that very serious disincentive.

1407
The needs of the five homoeopathic hospitals in the National Health Service remain acute. Glasgow needs a new hospital. The Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital desperately needs rejuvenation. Its premises have not been touched for over 30 years. I believe that a very difficult situation exists in Bristol.
Here we have a manifestation of the effect of a passive lack of interest on the part of the highest strata in the medical establishment. I know that that is not reflected in many parts of the higher strata, such as the noble Lord sitting beside me, but the fact remains that until there is a change of heart in those circles we shall not see the support for innovation, research and development that we require.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, on the comprehensive way in which he introduced our debate this afternoon. I must declare some interests: I am president of the Natural Medicine Society, I am a patron of the Blackie Foundation and, with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I am joint president of the Parliamentary All-Party Committee on Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Finally, I try to steer my patients towards complementary therapies whenever possible.
In his address to the British Medical Association in 1983, the Prince of Wales voiced his fear that our current preoccupation with the sophistication of modern medicine would divert our attention from:
"those ancient, unconscious forces, lying beneath the surface, which will help to shape the psychological attitudes of modern man".
Prince Charles went on to suggest that the concept of modern medicine might be slightly off balance. He said that he believed the art of healing should nevertheless take account of the long neglected complementary therapies which,
"in the right hands, can bring considerable relief, if not hope to an increasing number of people".
His Royal Highness used the word "complementary". I think that that is preferable to "alternative", which might seem to represent a position of opposition or even antagonism to orthodoxy. Incidentally, the French call it médecine douce. That composite medicine represents a form of comprehensive diagnosis and treatment, the therapies having not been subjected to the process of "scientification".
Medicine has always been an art. It was not until the advent of statistics and the double blind trial was introduced in the 1940s that technological medicine took over in the form that we know today. Despite the improvements being made in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, the crisis in health care is still with us. Our debates on so-called health are not about health at all; they are about how much money goes into the orthodox system of health care, which, as noble Lords know only too well, will never be sufficiently funded, whichever administrations are in control.
1408
The modern, research-based scientific advances in medicine over the past 50 years have been spectacular and have brought relief, healing and sometimes health to countless numbers of patients. The growth of knowledge has been such that the different specialties have developed, each competing for and making legitimate demands on the National Health Service budget, which always has fallen short and always will fall short of the personnel and materials needed to benefit all those patients who are perceived by conventional methods of diagnosis to be ill. It has been estimated that about one-third of all patients with chronic symptoms have no organic disease and that another third have symptoms which are unrelated to their organic condition. The skill to understand and relieve the suffering of those patients is just not available within the accepted framework of conventional medicine.
Scientific advances in medicine have also affected the patient-doctor relationship and caused difficulty in communication. Such misconceptions might be why help is sought from practitioners of complementary medicine where patients can at least be assured of a listening ear, despite the fact that the majority declare themselves satisfied with the National Health Service. The complementary therapist has in general more time to talk and inquire into environmental factors which some overburdened general practitioners may overlook or regard as unimportant. The therapy offered usually involves the active participation of the patient. That has obvious appeal in an age when authority, including that of the medical profession, is being challenged and health is considered to lie in self-help.
Noble Lords have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, about the work that the individual therapies are doing to put their houses in order. In her address to the Royal Society of Medicine in June 1986, my noble friend Lady Trumpington said:
"I am firmly of the view that alternative therapists must address the question of standards and qualifications … Many arguments have been put forward for limiting freedom to practise—perhaps through the use of registers".
In many therapies that is now the case. Following our last debate on the subject, discussions took place, for example, with Ministers and leading members of the medical profession which culminated in a consensus that osteopaths should work speedily towards a system of statutory registration. Last week, noble Lords from all sides of the House discussed an amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill to enable budget-holding practices and other GPs to buy services from the complementary therapies for their patients. That amendment was rejected by the Government. Perhaps my noble friend could tell me whether an increase in the use of complementary healers by the NHS might be more likely to occur if the process of statutory registration were to be extended to include many more therapies. Can she give me any advice on the Government's views on self-regulation for the therapies and what they should do in the 1990s to obtain government recognition?
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if, as president of the Natural Medicine Society, I repeat an argument which I raised during

1409
our last debate on the subject in November 1987. We are still concerned that the advisers to the department who are looking at the problems faced by the Department of Health in reviewing and running a licensed medicine system are predominantly experts in orthodox medicine. It must be logical that the assessment of natural and herbal medicines and the vast range of homoeopathic remedies should be carried out by experts who are familiar with their use and practical application.
Perhaps I may repeat my question and ask the Minister why, despite the fact that there is provision for a special advisory committee on alternative medicines under the Medicines Act 1971 and the fact that many other countries have such a committee, the department continues to refuse any contribution by such experts? I shall remind the Minister of the existence of the Medicines Advisory Research Committee within the Natural Medicine Society. It remains a medicines commission in exile, comprised of people who are able to advise the Government on the licensing of medicines when asked to do so. The refusal of the Secretary of State to accept the nominations of any members of that committee remains a strong disappointment to all of us who believe in the use of natural medicines and are concerned about the effects that that might have on the granting of product licences and on the draft EC directive on homoeopathic medicines.
Once again, I should like to pay tribute this evening to the contributions that my noble friend Lord Ferrier has made over a number of years in campaigning for the acceptance of chiropractic within the NHS. I know that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will cover that subject in more detail and that my noble friend Lord Ferrier will read our debate. I hope that the Minister will have some encouraging words for him at the end of the debate.
Complementary medicine has a long and distinguished pedigree. It emphasises the holistic approach and the necessity to consider every aspect of the patient, all of which bear on a sense of well-being. It is health and well-being—indefinable terms scientifically—at which complementary medicine aims, with as little interventionist treatment as possible, with a view to enhancing the body's self-healing, self-repairing, self-defending and self-reproducing mechanisms.
In conclusion, I should add my support to that of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the Research Council for Complementary Medicine in their plea for more government support for research. Up to £500 million is spent each year on orthodox medical research. Just 1 per cent. of that would make a tremendous difference and, incidentally, match the amount given by the German Government to their complementary research programmes.
In debates in this House I am continually impressed by many noble Lords who are classical scholars and are able to use classical quotations. I should like to emulate them this evening and finish with a quotation from Plato. Despite having taken Latin O-level, I shall use the English translation, which reads:
"The cure of the part should not be attempted without treatment of the whole. No attempt should be made to cure the
1410
body without the soul, and if the head and body are to be healthy you must begin by curing the mind, for this is the greatest error of our day in the treatment of the human body that physicians first separate the soul from the body".
5.59 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Baldwin of Bewdley for giving us the opportunity to discuss the subject once again. Like many noble Lords, I am a user of complementary medicines, particularly homoeopathy and acupuncture. I am a satisfied user. I discovered just before the debate began that my noble friend knows my acupuncturist very well. Having talked to him on the telephone, I am happy to pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he is doing as chairman of the accreditation board looking into the training of acupuncturists. Much useful work has already been achieved.
My noble friend made passing mention of the Marylebone health centre where Dr. Patrick Pietroni, who has recently retired as chairman of the Holistic Medical Association, has been running a model to try to address the problem of the economic issue of complementary medicine when combined with an NHS unit. In all three areas of prescribing, referral and admission, there have been substantial reductions due to the complementary therapies. That has resulted in overall savings for the NHS purse. Admittedly, complementary therapies are costly. However, I argue that they are cost effective and have the added advantage of increasing human caring contact with the patient. I stress the word "caring". Therefore, complementary therapies are not only clinically effective; they can also be economically viable within the system.
Under new government plans, GPs are to be given their own budgets. If they were to use therapy as an alternative to drugs, it might be possible to pay the therapists out of the savings gained. However, that depends on the administering authorities which decide how any savings are to be spent. At the moment savings can only remain in a general practice within certain parameters. I suggest that those parameters should be extended to include complementary therapies.
Massage and counselling, in which I include the increasingly important stress management, have been found to be the most useful therapies and are sought after by both patients and GPs. My wife's experience confirms that. She works in both those fields and her work now extends to the terminally ill, with whom there have been some very encouraging results. Both osteopathy and acupuncture also have been found most useful for immediate pain relief.
I conclude by expressing my belief that complementary medicine or therapy is here to stay. Customers want it; there is no doubt about that. It echoes the spirit of the times; it is "green" if I may so describe it; and it coincides with a need to look after our own planet. That is a matter that increasingly concerns us all.
I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply and her department keep their fingers on what I am sure will be an increasingly strengthening pulse.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as my noble friend foresaw, I should like to deal with one type of complementary medicine that was referred to by the noble Earl when he introduced the debate; namely, chiropractic. My interest almost inevitably stems in part from personal experience. I have undergone that technique to relieve back pain—successfully, I might add—on more than one occasion. But my interest also comes from the fact that for two years I was a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security. During that time, alternative medicine, as I think it was then called, was part of my policy area. There is a third connection in that my brother is a practitioner of chiropractic. Naturally, much of his enthusiasm has rubbed off on me, let alone his excellent treatment. However, I am not here to give a commercial for him.
I believe that it is important to try to focus a little on the statistics. Recently I read that each year about 2 million people go to their general practitioners with back pain. About 70 per cent. are better in a month and 90 per cent. within three months. But 30 per cent. of them have a recurrence within 12 months. Each year about 400 000 people are referred to hospital with back pain. According to some estimates, the result is that 33 million working days are lost annually. That represents 10 per cent. of all absences from work owing to ill health. According to the Office of Health Economics the cost of back pain amounts to over £1,000 million a year in terms of lost production. Those figures are stark indeed.
If the existing techniques under orthodox medicine cannot be used in full to meet the problem, other techniques will have to be considered and looked at positively. Where does chiropractic fit in? So far as I know there are only two schools of the technique. One is the Institute of Pure Chiropractic, which is often called the McTimoney School, and of which my brother is a practitioner. The other is the British Chiropractic Association which is based at Bournemouth. I have been treated with both techniques and I know of many others who have had one or both of them.
To help reduce the costs and numbers to which I have referred, it was my hope as a health Minister that perhaps one of the techniques most usually recognised as being efficacious in treating back pain might be more formally linked and available to the National Health Service than had been the case. Both osteopathy and chiropractic seemed to fit the bill. But, as I regularly explained to those who encouraged me to make either of those therapies available on the National Health Service, Ministers do not decide which medical treatment should be allowed. That is, or was, a matter for the Committee on Professions Supplementary to Medicine. In other words, it was for doctors to decide. I have to say that doctors were not universally sympathetic.
As I understand it, neither of those two techniques has yet been judged suitable. That is disappointing. The reason lies partly in the fact that the two schools of chiropractic to which I referred do not have a common syllabus, nor do they use precisely the same technique. Although it attempts to do much the same, osteopathy is different again. I urged all of
1412
them to reconcile their differences. Indeed, one of the overall problems is, or at least was, that the various proponents of alternative therapies were unable to speak with one coherent voice. That made advances in recognition much more difficult to achieve. The setting up, I think, in January this year, of the national consultative council to which the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, referred—the National Consultative Council for Alternative and Complementary Medicine—is a welcome step in the right direction. It is an organisation for all therapists and is controlled by the therapists themselves. It aims to allow natural therapies access to a platform from which one voice would come.
I believe that its principal challenge is to incorporate into one organisation disparate therapies at different levels of training and competence. To that extent no doubt it will consider the system of minimum requirements, deal with training, safety, a basic code of ethics, insurance cover, and membership of a properly constituted professional body with complaints and disciplinary procedures.
I believe that the development of the council is encouraging. It deserves support, acknowledgement and the chance to prove itself. I am concerned that restrictive legislation, based on the claims of one specific therapy, or group within a therapy, should not be contemplated before all those concerned get their act together. In replying to the debate, I hope that my noble friend will be able to indicate that she recognises the force of that argument.
I should like to refer briefly to one other related matter: the effects of the EC and 1992 upon this important topic. It is particularly important that all patients should be free to choose a therapy that is appropriate to their needs. That was very much the theme of the noble Earl when he initiated the debate. Therefore I trust that Her Majesty's Government will resist the kind of directive from Europe which many fear and which might limit all therapeutic medicine to fully qualified medical practitioners. There are many people in this country who would testify not only to the expertise of chiropractors, which I have dwelt on today, but also to the success rates of acupuncture, homoeopathy (as we heard), osteopathy and many others. If we do not take care, we may find that many of the very successful practitioners of a number of those therapies were unable to practise. That might be widely regretted. It would be unjust and retrograde.
I hope that my noble friend will bear that point in mind and perhaps assure the House, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, would have her do, that Her Majesty's Government will not be dictated to in a way which disadvantages practitioners who find themselves inadvertently in the forefront of a fundamental fight to preserve the structure of benefits and freedoms in what hitherto has been enshrined in our common law approach to social legislation.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, two years ago, on 21st May 1988, Sir Richard Bayliss of the Royal College of Physicians wrote in his college's journal

1413
a note of warning about the current increased interest in complementary medicine. He observed that most patients use unconventional treatments to complement, rather than as an exclusive alternative to, orthodox medicine. He has the protection of the word "most" before "patients", but statistics show that many patients enter complementary medical treatment with no prior orthodox treatment or current care—for example, 22 per cent., 27 per cent. and 25 per cent. of those presenting for complementary treatment for neck, back and low back problems respectively. He concluded, however, with the important words:
"Leaving out blatant charlatanism, the main choices are acupuncture, hypnosis, homoeopathy, osteopathy, chiropraxy, herbalism and megavitamins … the same standards of assessment should be used to determine the efficacy of complementary as of orthodox medicine and drugs".
It was for that reason that eight years ago the Research Council for Complementary Medicine (the RCCM) was established. During that period of eight years 109 projects have been presented to the council for a call upon its very limited funds. But in March this year the Department of Health grant of £70,000 towards administrative costs of the council came to an end. Although much appreciated, it pales into insignificance beside the sum of £500 million of government funding and charitable donations for orthodox medical research, about which we have heard already from other noble Lords.
The RCCM has struggled to support some 20 of the proposals put to it on the basis that these would be of primary value in discerning the proper use or mechanism of some of the complementary therapies; and to answer Sir Richard Bayliss's stricture that the same standards of assessment should be used to determine the efficacy of complementary as of orthodox medicine and drugs. But it is difficult to compete with £500 million on a budget of £70,000 plus annual donations.
To me, an exciting example of an easily understood forthcoming project is one to be conducted soon at Huddersfield Polytechnic for a budget of around £5,000, into manipulation for acute back pain. That accounts for a burden estimated by the Office of Health Economics in 1982 at £156 million to the National Health Service. It was alone equivalent to 20 per cent. of the then National Health Service annual capital budget. Remarkably and significantly, in spite of having to pay for the treatment themselves, some three-quarters of a million patients are seen each year by the 330 registered members of the British Chiropractic Association.
With reference to the project, it is believed that back pain patients have abnormal patterns of spinal movement which distinguish different kinds of back trouble and that these patterns can identify patients who will respond well to manipulative treatment. The project seeks to justify those beliefs scientifically. Using an electromagnetic movement analyser developed initially for the aerospace industry, the spinal movement patterns of back pain patients, will be monitored for some months to determine the characteristics of those who respond well to treatment. It is anticipated that the project will not only increase understanding of the types of
1414
back trouble but will also enable descriptions to be made of those for whom early manipulative treatment will reduce suffering and incapacity and thus loss of work time. That is all for the sum of £5,000 in contrast to £500 million for conventional medicine.
Demand for complementary medicine and complementary therapies is growing consistently and rapidly in terms of numbers of practitioners, statistically recorded consultations, and surveys in opinion polls. Six months ago a MORI poll recorded that an average of one in three would consider using acupuncture, homoeopathy and osteopathy, and that the vast majority who used complementary therapists—up to 93 per cent. of chiropractic patients—were very satisfied or fairly satisfied. One in three on a national representative basis is about 15 million people.
A slightly earlier attitude study by the City Health Centre in 1988 concluded that the majority—across age, sex, income and occupation—wanted complementary medicine to be available on the NHS and on private health insurance schemes. That was coupled with the key finding that complementary medicine is now a significant health care resource viewed with respect and confidence by a large section of the population.
The European view is still more emphatically towards complementary medicine both in practitioner numbers and in funding. With the approach of 1992 and our ever-increasing links with Europe there is a real need for a co-ordinated research programme into the various complementary therapies that are proving ever more popular through Europe and beyond. France has 10,000 doctors who also practice homoeopathy. We have 500. Validity of homoeopathy and acupuncture is accepted by the French Academy of Science and the prescriptions and consultations to which they give rise are reimbursed by social security payments. In Germany, naturopathy and nature cure are the dominant therapies. Its government are spending 800,000 deutschmarks on complementary medical research, rising to 3 million deutschmarks after three years. In the Eastern bloc, herbalism is very popular. In Switzerland, acupuncture and homoeopathy are widely practised. In Britain, oesteopathy and homoeopathy are perhaps the most consulted therapies.
In conclusion, I believe that additional government funding for the RCCM in Britain would guarantee that adequate research is done, protecting patients from exploitation and encouraging authentic therapeutic practitioners, leading also to greater co-operation between orthodox and complementary practitioners and, importantly, to considerable economies for the NHS, in particular for the drug bill.
The doubters and the unsympathetic would do well to remember that in a Gallup poll four years ago, 50 per cent. agreed with the statement that,
"Human nature is such that we are frequently prevented from seeing that that which is taken for today's unorthodoxy is probably going to be tomorrow's convention".
6.18 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, many of your Lordships will know of my long-standing interest in osteopathy. I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for initiating the debate today and for drawing attention to the exciting development of the King's Fund Working Party on the regulation of that profession.
There are a number of other issues affecting the osteopathic profession which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention. The vast majority of health insurance companies now pay benefit for treatment given by osteopaths registered with the General Council and Register of Osteopaths provided that the patient has been referred by his doctor. BUPA, however, will pay benefit only if the registered osteopath providing the treatment is also a registered medical practitioner. That is anti-competitive because not only does it discriminate against different members of the same register, it also distorts competition between osteopaths and physiotherapists whose treatment costs are reimbursed under BUPA policies. If, as I suspect, in winding up my noble friend says that it is a matter for BUPA and not for the Government, I should ask them to exert their influence on BUPA to come into line with the other health insurance companies.
There is another issue which relates to health insurance. The Government have recently introduced a system of tax relief on private medical insurance policies for the over-60s. Provision for alternative medicine, which in this instance includes the practice of osteopathy is, however, excluded from policies which are eligible for tax relief. The Inland Revenue argues that it wishes to target tax relief on to areas that will result in the relieving of pressure on NHS resources. The Inland Revenue appears to have failed to appreciate that the 3 million treatments given by registered osteopaths each year do indeed relieve the pressure on the NHS.
That regulation does not allow registered osteopaths or other complementary therapists to compete on an equal basis with other paramedical professions such as physiotherapy within the private sector. Surely it is for the insurance companies to determine which treatments should be made available to their clients and for doctors—not the Inland Revenue—to determine which forms of treatment might benefit their patients.
There is also a very serious problem which could have profound implications for the general public. In March 1989 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reported on the services of professionally regulated osteopaths. Since then the General Council and Register of Osteopaths, which represents 75 per cent. of all regulated osteopaths, has been engaged in negotiations with the Office of Fair Trading regarding the relaxation of its rules on advertising. The general council has now agreed with the Office of Fair Trading the complete text of its new advertising rules with the exception of the use of unsolicited direct mailshots. The general council believes that to allow direct mailshots by practitioners would be against the public interest, as patients who consult an osteopath are already
1416
anxious about some aspect of their health and are thus vulnerable to exploitation.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has recognised the argument, which is supported by the Department of Health, in relation to the advertising by medical specialists. However, the same argument applies equally to the services provided by osteopaths because patients do not register with a particular osteopathic practice as they do with a general practitioner. They consult an osteopath only when they are in pain or distress.
It appears to be wholly inappropriate for a health care profession such as osteopathy, which is not yet regulated by statute, to be forced to allow the use of unsolicited direct mail to members of the public. In the absence of statutory regulation the osteopathic profession simply does not have the ability to control, or to impose effective sanctions for, abuses of this form of advertising. If responsible osteopaths were forced to allow the use of unsolicited mailshots other groups in alternative medicine would undoubtedly follow. The General Council and Register of Osteopaths firmly believes that it would be failing in its duty to protect the public if it were to accede to the demands of the Office of Fair Trading.
I understand that the Office of Fair Trading has now reported to the Department of Trade and Industry and that representatives of the General Council and Register of Osteopaths will be meeting the Minister responsible later this month. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the very real problems which will be created for both the osteopaths and the general public if the profession is forced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to allow the use of unsolicited mailshots. I should be grateful if the Minister would look into that matter and explain to her colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry that osteopaths are working hard towards a system of statutory registration and that now is not the appropriate time to force the issue of direct mail.
Finally, we have heard today about the many different therapy groups and organisations which purport to represent them. In the previous debate on complementary medicine my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, speaking on behalf of the Government, mentioned the apparent confusion that existed between those therapy groups which favoured an umbrella approach and those which favoured a group-by-group approach to both regulation and liaison with government. I am sure that all those involved with the natural therapies will welcome clarification of the Government's view of the matter.
6.26 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I declare an interest in the matter. I am a trustee of the Research Fund for Complementary Medicine, which is a body that raises money for the Research Council for Complementary Medicine. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Baldwin on initiating the debate and on the speech which launched it.
It is appropriate that we should be discussing complementary medicine because clearly it has a

1417
great fund of good will in this House as evidenced by a debate on the subject two-and-a-half years ago. Indeed, the well-attended meetings of the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine show that there is also a great deal of interest in the subject in another place. Nor—and we are grateful—is there any lack of sympathy in government circles. It is right that that should he so. Complementary medicine provides a means by which some of the intolerable and in financial terms infinite burdens on the National Health Service can be reduced.
In short, it is a situation in which comparatively modest expenditure on properly controlled research and practice—which is what the RCCM exists to carry out—can result in considerable savings to the national health bill. Complementary medicine can effect savings not only because of its emphasis on preventive medicine and treatment, dealing with some symptoms before they reach the stage where they might require expensive orthodox treatment, but also in reducing the size of the drugs bill. For example, the use of expert osteopathy on a difficult back instead of repeated doses of painkillers is in the long run cheaper and almost certainly more effective. That would be a desirable solution, would it not, in most cases? But its efficacy is inevitably reduced by the fact that such treatment is almost always available only for paying patients and is rarely to be found within the National Health Service.
The position of orthodox and complementary disciplines has been bedevilled in the past because of misunderstanding. As the noble Earl said, the terminology used to describe those practising natural therapies proves the point. From being described as "fringe" medicine in the 1960s, it moved to "alternative" in the 1970s, before reaching today its eminently more sensible description of "complementary" medicine. The use of "fringe" to describe an extensive corpus of natural medical disciplines, some with proven pedigrees going back for many hundreds of years, is patently ill informed and in some ways mischievous, implying as it does some element of quackery, which, although present to a small degree, does great disservice to the overwhelming number of skilled and honourable practitioners. More recently there has been extensive use of the word "alternative", which in its own way is just as damaging, implying as it does an either/or choice—a confrontational stance which cuts to the very heart of what complementary medicine stands for. I very much hope that all that is now behind us.
For example, it is good to detect a certain softening in the stance of some bodies representing orthodox medicine. The truth is that general practitioners have often been ahead of their own representatives in seeing benefits to some of their patients by referral to complementary practitioners. One must admit with some sadness that in former years the attitude of, for example, the British Medical Association has been unhelpful. It is rather as if on the field of Waterloo Wellington turned away Blüicher's troops because they were not wearing the right boots. Happily, it seems that they are now listening to their own troops anxious to win the battle against the common enemy—ill-health.
1418
I referred earlier to the aura surrounding natural medicine encapsulated in its description as "fringe". Of course in the past practitioners have acted in what I regret to say was an unprofessional manner. It seems likely that the individual disciplines which come within the complementary medicine fold are well able to set their own standards and, indeed, are doing so at present.
In addition, I am in favour of the creation of an umbrella organisation representing all sides of complementary medicine with which government can deal. I must add, however, that in what is inevitably a fragmented and fiercely independent sector, that will require a substantial act of faith, much patience and no little tact.
Today we have an ironic and paradoxical situation. I have already referred to the fact that the last time the subject was debated in this House there were professions of good will towards complementary medicine from all sides. I am confident that that will be so today and, indeed. there have been already. Some noble Lords have experience of homoeopathy, others of acupuncture and osteopathy. All know something about the subject and most have good words to say about it.
However, at the end of the day the brutal truth remains. Complementary medicine is not just underfunded; it is barely funded at all. However, at this point I must mention that all in the field of complementary medicine were very grateful to the Government for two sums of £40,000 and £20,000 given in the past two years towards the administrative costs of the RCCM.
As I disclosed an earlier interest as a fund-raiser for that body, noble Lords may be forgiven for repeating the well known phrase, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" Be that as it may, nevertheless, I must emphasise, with the honourable exception to which I have just referred, that every penny which the RCCM receives comes from private and corporate donations. The task is certainly daunting. The RCCM is now firmly established thanks to the far sightedness and dedication of Dr. Richard Thompkins and others and is playing in its own field a role similar to that of the Medical Research Council.
However, the latter receives, as noble Lords have already said—but good tunes stand replaying so I make no apology for repeating the figures—approximately £500 million per year from the Government, the pharmaceutical industry and other sources. Noble Lords have said too that just 1 per cent. of that total would transform the whole position of complementary medicine. If it is thought that that figure is pie in the sky, repeating the figures again, I must point out that the German Government are spending 800,000 deutschmarks on natural therapies, rising in three years to 3 million deutschmarks. Even allowing for what some may feel, perhaps ungenerously, is a more prosperous economy than ours and a different system of priorities, such a commitment is in stark contrast to our reluctance to give support to what is an increasingly popular complementary medical service.

1419
As the popularity of complementary medicine increases, as it surely will—your Lordships need only look at the dramatic leap forward in the past 20 years—so the pressure will increase from the public for adequate control and research. Patients have a right to expect that everything that can be done will be done. If complementary medicine is given appropriate and imaginative support, I am confident that the means exist to ensure that that need will be met in full.
The way forward is to see the two bodies—orthodox and complementary medicine—working together, each with respect for the other's skills in a fruitful partnership which can only ultimate be of benefit to those who matter most, the patients. I look forward to the day when they are as one and have ceased to be separate entities.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for giving us the opportunity of this debate. I have been interested to hear remarks by noble Lords from all sides of the House with which I am in total agreement. Much of what I intended to say has already been said. I should like however to speak about medical herbalists. I am not one myself; but I have been connected with medical herbalism in its various forms for the past 20 years. Its practitioners are the legatees of very ancient arts. Most of the information of the ancient healers of Galen and Pliny was lost in the Middle Ages but recovered by the great herbalists of the 16th and 17th centuries whose names will be known to your Lordships. Great strides have been made in research in the past 40 years.
As with other disciplines in the field of the public need, more protection is required. That protection should perhaps be in the form of the registration of practitioners. There are doubts among various practitioners of herbal medicine about registration because they are reluctant to lose the benefits of common law which have supported them for so long. However, registration could be made by schools of practice which in turn would need an academic basis. Many schools have been mentioned today. For instance, the Glasgow school which already has agreed recognition. However, in terms of medical herbalism, if a school in Kent started and developed by medical herbalists from funds supplied by patients—another illustration of how badly funded is the sphere of complementary medicine—could be given academic status, it would be in a position to supply degrees instead of diplomas. Those qualifications might then receive a status equivalent to a certificate in the medical profession.
As noble Lords have said, many schools are in existence. However, further funding is required. Of course, the schools would provide scientific research into therapeutic efficiency, so regularly called for in the face of rising public perception of and demand for complementary medicine. The Centre for Complementary Health Studies at Exeter, which has already been mentioned, is a vital source of research and covers all therapies mentioned by your Lordships. The herbalists have produced the British
1420
Herbal Pharmacopoeia which has some 90 items attached to it, and the Centre for Complementary Health Studies is producing a compendium which will give support for that pharmacopoeia.
That is all being paid for out of patients' fees. There is no support from the Government. While we may not ask for a National Health Service payment for complementary health therapies and fees, welcome though that would be, there could arise the situation—which we hope will occur in the future—where general practitioners will refer their patients to a registered recognised complementary practitioner. In that event some arrangement will be needed, especially if the GP is in a fundholding practice, a matter discussed in an earlier debate.
I shall not have the temerity to nominate the complementary treatments that apply to various disorders, but I am a great devotee of the osteopath. I suffer a displaced disc now and again and when that happens I may crawl crabwise on to the osteopath's table. However, after 20 minutes of grinding noises and cracking necks, I walk out upright, if somewhat pained. I believe the alternative would be to spend 10 days in a national health hospital bed under traction consuming vast numbers of unnecessary pills. I also suffer periodically from a certain amount of cramp. For that I receive quinine, from both my GP and the herbal practitioner.
Perhaps I could pay a tribute to the local general practice in my village at Tisbury, which performs a magificent service. I have no wish to detract from that service which helps with the principle of healthy lifestyle, promoted as part of the natural process. The herbalist perhaps creates the idea of the natural healthy lifestyle more than any other. He provides a modus vivendi which helps the immune system to be kept regularly in tune. When in tune it is more able to resist casually contracted ailments, and of course involves the patient in becoming more of a client in an on going situation rather than the occasional patient. The regular checks and balances offered by medical practitioners in the medical herbalist field help the healthy client to live to an active old age and be less dependent upon society.
The National Health Service has to deal with illness, accident, surgery and other emergencies which are not the remit of any part of the complementary services. However, as many noble Lords have pointed out, there are millions of patients today who want, need and receive therapies which modern medicine does not recognise. I hope that the medical authorities will help to recognise the importance of these therapies. If they do, they will recognise the call of the people for ready access to their chosen therapy which conserves National Health Service money, reduces waiting lists and actually cures people with medicines which do not carry a health warning on the label.
There is a great deal to be done; a great deal of funding is needed, as always. I ask your Lordships to support this excellent cause.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, previous speakers introduced many instructive and worthy details relating to the many types and qualities of

1421
alternative or complementary medicine, for which details we are all most grateful. I may repeat certain points. Being of "an olde family", I often recourse to the often used, well-tested alternative means of curing such basic ills as the common cold; I indulge in a good brew of hot toddy, or two, or three!
A Scotsman in his sixties (and I hope not to cause offence to the noble Members of this House whose families hail from that wonderful part of the United Kingdom) was being lectured by an enthusiastic general practitioner about the benefits of new medicines and drugs. After the doctor had finished his oration the listener was asked for his opinion. His answer was simple. "My father", said he, "believed in a stiff measure of whisky per day. He was rarely sick. He died when 96 years old and three days after his death he looked a good deal fresher than you do now!"
Few of us deny that to boost one's moral, help relieve a sore throat, we have indulged in alcohol, but we are only attempting to cure a cold, a disease. Disorders can be and are often cured by hand, by manipulators—by osteopaths or chiropractors, the two areas I wish to discuss.
Certain of your Lordships had the opportunity of listening to and questioning the Secretary of State for Health at a private meeting in the corridors of this fine Palace and heard his reaction to osteopaths and to chiropractors. He spoke of them as one body. That is not a fact as, although both may manipulate the bones, the chiropractors are aware of and so also treat the nerves, tissues and muscles relating to those bones. The most important structural bone conglomeration is our spine, a gathering of 24 vertebrae and 23 discs. That does not include the lower sacrum and the coccyx. Both osteopaths and chiropractors have to attend a college of education and receive the same bachelor of science degree as our other 12 royal colleges of medicine.
I should like to bring to the attention of the noble Baroness a matter which is of concern to the private training institutions within complementary medicine which offer approved degree courses. Those schools with formally validated degree courses may apply for recognition for mandatory student grants. However, the Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science said that I whereas for universities and polytechnics the fee element in a mandatory award will rise in 1990 from £607 per annum to £1,675 per annum, for students at private institutions it will remain at £607 per annum Students at schools such as the British School of Osteopathy and the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic will therefore have to meet virtually the full cost of their course, receiving only £607 towards the real fees of over £4,000 per annum.
As well as the obvious injustice of that situation, it seems odd that a Government who are trying to get institutions of higher education to be more market orientated should discriminate against institutions which have demonstrated their independence and willingness to help themselves. I should be most grateful if the Minister would bring that anomaly to the attention of her colleagues in the appropriate department.
1422
There is generally a certain scepticism shown by the general practitioner towards such alternative medicines as, for instance, osteopathy and chiropractic, but there are signs that that mistrust is breaking down. Many more general practitioners are referring patients with back pains to either osteopaths or chiropractics. In Avon, of the general practioners questioned during a survey about alternative-complementary medicine, 93 per cent. believed that complementary practitioners needed statutory regulation.
Should the osteopath or chiropractor feel that there would be a medical contra-indication resulting from their treatment, they will recommend that the patient see his general practitioner. I am sure that going through the minds of many noble Lords are stories of those who purport to hold qualifications to practise the art of chiropractic or osteopathy. As already mentioned, before one can honestly practise these alternative medicines one must have passed the four-year degree course and earned the B.Sc. qualification. Correspondence courses in such complementary medicines exist. This "quickie" qualification takes six months for the person interested in chiropractic. These six-month people are therapists but they are not doctors or chiroprac-tors.
The properly qualified osteopaths and chiropractors are keen to establish a system of statutory regulation for the safety and protection of their patients, which is another obvious and essential ingredient in their case for registration. It must be remembered that registration, not membership of the National Health Service, is what is sought at present by osteopaths and chiropractors.
It may be that certain statistics give extra power to the argument for the registration of these alternative or complementry medicines. In remembering that general practitioners generally deal with diseases and that osteopaths and chiropractors deal with disorders, one must also bear in mind that over 46 million days are lost each year through back pains. That is a slightly updated figure from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. It combines the two. Three million treatments are given annually by osteopaths.
Back pains in patients cost the National Health Service about £160 million each year. One should consider the lost production when the labour force is so affected and the amount of money lost in benefit payments to those unable to work. That is 46 million working days at £10-50—the standard statutory sickness benefit per day—which equals £483 million. We have heard from all speakers about the benefit that the nation can gain from complementary and alternative medicine when practised by qualified practitioners. The cost savings to the National Health Service and the DHSS have been outlined.
But what about the patient? The cost of treatment is not cheap. There already exist in this country health insurance schemes which will cover treatment from an osteopath or chiropractor. Have the Government thought of introducing something similar (though much broader) to the scheme which exists in the United States of America? In that

1423
country, those with an income below a certain level receive Medicaid to cover their insurance. Those who are old age pensioners or who are disabled receive Medicare.
Her Majesty's Government set a precedent in 1988 by allowing employers and individuals partially to opt out from the national insurance charge payable for pension benefits by adopting a private pension arrangement. Many insurance companies are involved in that scheme. If the Government required all the parties—not stopping at those who earn £360 per week but including the many who earn more than that—to pay a common fixed percentage of their gross weekly income into a health insurance fund the whole population would have the benefit of health care coverage.
As with the existing major health insurance companies such as BUPA and PPP, the profits made by the scheme would be ploughed back into it. That would include the National Health Service in the case of the government-run health insurance scheme. We should remember the number of health authorities and hospitals that have been sued for wrongful medical practice. That would be covered by the insurance scheme and the costs would not be drawn out of the national health compensation fund. The registration of osteopaths and chiropractors makes both financial and health care sense.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, once again my noble friend Lord Baldwin has not disappointed us. He gave a brilliant introduction. I do not know whether I agree entirely with everything he said. However, he was at his best this evening.
Why do I rise to speak tonight? It is mainly to congratulate those who have agreed with the Royal College of General Practitioners, the King's Fund and others to conduct controlled studies in complementary medicine in relation to the efficacy of treatments. We have heard a great deal tonight almost entirely concerned with the treatment of people where presumably the diagnosis is certain. We have heard little about diagnosis except that two speakers mentioned sending patients back to their general practitioners. I should like to hear my noble friend say a little more on this point because it seems that to a large degree the system might depend on collaboration between the general practitioners and the therapists. In other countries, of course, many who are medically qualified take up different forms of therapy.
As a professor of materia medica who had given it up at one time in my life, I thought I would say a few words about that and some of the difficulties. I entered medical school in the 1930s. By that time wise physicians had discarded the materia medica of the 18th and 19th centuries and were discriminating. They recognised that there were perhaps five or six drugs which were efficacious. One was quinine, which was a drug that cured malaria. Another was morphia, or laudanum, which was a painkiller and so useful as a symptomatic treatment for distressing symptons. Those are two important categories of drug.
1424
A little later on in my professional career sulphonamide drugs were discovered by the fine chemical industry in Germany. They were active against bacteria in infections. Many studies were enthusiastically started into the sulphonamide drugs to find out their effects on different diseases. They were, in effect, uncontrolled clinical trials. Some years later, a good friend of mine, Professor McKeown of Birmingham, pointed out the claims being made for sulphonamide drugs and their use. In fact, the mortality rate for certain diseases had fallen many years before the introduction of sulphonamide drugs. Those figures correlated accurately with the improved water supply and better nutrition. It was those factors which had reduced the mortality rate in the first instance.
All this had happened before the drugs were discovered. That is just a reminder of the need for careful controls. I can remember very vividly the first clinical trials that I did with a new drug. There was an unexplained improvement in the control group which had been given a placebo. Was that due to the psychological effect on the patients or the effect of the doctors' charm on their confidence? There is another factor which must be included even with complementary therapies. There is a need for controls. In my professional life, penicillin, antihistamine drugs and a whole range of new analgesics have been introduced into this country. Large numbers of antibiotics have been produced by the pharmaceutical industry.
How did one find out whether the drugs produced toxic effects in human beings; whether they were therapeutically active and what was to be done in a situation where the drug was toxic but effective therapeutically? Into this area came the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, ably guided by Sir Austin Bradford Hill, a statistician, and his pupil, Richard Doll. They had produced dramatic results demonstrating the effect of smoking in causing lung cancer. Tony Bradford Hill is still alive. He is well over 90 years of age. He has demanded that I send him a copy of this debate.
The Committee on the Safety of Medicines was succeeded by the Medicines Commission, which monitors the situation today. So traditional treatments, as they have been called here, have been scrutinised and examined by this system, as has the pharmaceutical industry. Modern biotechnology is now facing up to the complicated challenge of what happens in the nervous system and inside the cell. Perhaps in 20 years' time one will know about the inheritance of diseases—the family trait—which may explain a great deal in new therapies. Perhaps that will be better understood. Also it may be that the cause of cancer can be identified at cellular level.
One of the inevitable results of controlled clinical and therapeutic trials is their inadequacy. The results show the inadequacy of modern medicine. Under these circumstances no sincere or conscientious doctor would deny his patient, if the evidence is there, one form of treatment or another. There is no difference between us in relation to treatment if the evidence is available to support the use of that treatment. What is most important for complementary medicine and its future is for it

1425
to subject itself to the same therapeutic trials and examinations as occur in what we call orthodox medicine. I am told that one stumbling block is the idea of tailoring the whole treatment to the patient's individual needs. But I do not think that is a problem. It is still possible to have "double blind" controlled trials under these circumstances.
My only hope is that by this and other means we can extend the range of treatments available to sick people. My continuing lingering fear is that, without detailed examination, grave disease masquerading as back pain or something like that may occasionally be missed.
7 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, on introducing the debate and on doing so with such an excellent and comprehensive survey of the present position. I should not like any doctors to be present, I am not quite sure how many are—I can count two—on a kind of doctor bashing occasion. My life has been saved by the medical profession on one occasion for certain. It has probably been saved on others too as one never knows what might have happened if one had not gone to the doctor. Nevertheless, there are reasons why a large number of us consult complementary practitioners when orthodox medicine seems to have failed us.
There is an unresolved conflict which has been touched on by several noble Lords. We tend to feel—perhaps justly, perhaps not—that orthodox medicine believes that if it cannot find out what is wrong, then nothing is wrong; and that if one cannot prove scientifically that such and such a therapy works, then it does not work. Those two propositions are questionable. Complementary medicine is readier to accept that there may well be disease which is not easily definable. It can bring an easing or elimination of disease without clear evidence as to how it is done. A patient consulting a practitioner in a complementary therapy knows that he will be given time to tell his troubles and have them listened to. This point has already been made by one noble Lord.
Most complementary therapies have the holistic approach. It makes sense that the therapist should approach a human being, not just a symptom. Another benefit is hope—the hope of a remedy and not just a symptom suppressor or a painkiller. When people are old they do not want to be told by their GPs, as I am sorry to say a number of old people are, that their ailments are only to be expected at their age, that there is nothing that can be done about them, and that they must learn to live with them. That is not a consoling result of going to the surgery.
A number of complementary therapists are keen to convey to their patients the idea that they must play an active part in their own therapy. That is an excellent principle. Even if it helps only the mental attitude, it is a crucial factor in any healing process. The idea of self-help leads me to speak briefly on a subject I have mentioned before in your Lordships' House. I refer to the Alexander technique. It is not
1426
strictly speaking a therapy. It is a re-education. Those who practise the technique are particular not to class themselves with other complementary therapists. Nevertheless, I do not think they would mind their being talked about briefly.
Noble Lords will probably know about the little Australian actor who was born in 1869. He was just beginning his career in Melbourne when he was suddenly stopped short by a failure in vocal control. He would start a recitation with his voice in perfectly good trim but by the end of the evening he would become so hoarse that he was practically speechless. He could not discover why this happened. He consulted doctors, who gave him medicines, gargles and throat sprays, but there was no difference. He decided—and this shows that he was an exceptional man—that he must find out for himself.
He set up an elaborate arrangement of mirrors and, believe it or not, sat in front of them, whenever he had a spare moment, for nine years. He was looking to see precisely what happened when he recited. He watched his minutest movement. In the end he stumbled on the discovery that has given rise to the enormous spread of what is known as the Alexander technique. He discovered that as he recited he thrust his head slightly backwards and down. This constricted the free passage of his vocal powers.
He discovered later than not only did he do this when he was speaking but also with every action—when he sat down, when he got up and when he did anything else. There was an infinitesimal and almost imperceptible backward thrust of the head. He came to the conclusion that it had bad effects on the body as a whole. It compressed the spine and the whole upper part of the body so that he could not breathe properly. The internal organs were compressed as well.
His final discovery was that he was not unique. He discovered that all his friends were doing the same thing. He became so interested that he gave up all idea of being an actor. He decided to learn how to help himself and others to overcome this difficulty by using the body more effectively. His methods were extremely subtle and involved the utmost sensitivity of the hands, which guided his pupils—those who learn the technique are pupils and not patients—into the correct use of the body. Incidentally, it is not, as many people think, a relaxing process; it is a process of releasing energy, which is much more interesting. He devoted the rest of his life to it.
The technique has been found to be beneficial in numerous ways. It facilitates correct breathing, an essential to health, and eases back problems. The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, and the noble Lords, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Clifford, referred to the economic as well as the human cost of back pain. I venture to say that had many people been lucky enough to be pupils of the Alexander technique they would never have gone so far as to see an osteopath. It is also thought to have been helpful in blood pressure problems, insomnia and circulation defects. It leads to an upright and most graceful carriage, which is why it is of interest to actors and why

1427
most drama schools have the use of an Alexander technique teacher.
I have run short of time but I should like to express a strong hope. The Research Council for Complementary Medicine has at the moment an application for funds for a research project into the technique. It is hoped that that will be successful. It is a move in the right direction. One hopes that ultimately the technique will become recognised, like the other therapies about which your Lordships have been speaking this afternoon, and that it will be available to all under the National Health Service.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is my pleasure to conclude the debate from this side of the House. I should first declare an interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said, both he and I are joint presidents of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Complementary Medicine. Moreover, although he did not say so, we are also both patrons of the Research Council for Complementary Medicine, which was referred to by other noble Lords.
I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, not only on choosing the subject but also on the eloquence of his presentation. In my view, it was partly that eloquence which led to such well-informed contributions from all sides of the House. Indeed, we have heard some excellent speeches, with noble Lords often speaking from their own experience.
The noble Earl also showed excellent timing in managing to arrange for the debate to be tabled today. As some noble Lords will know, it comes after the debate on an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, myself and other noble Lords to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and before the Report stage of that legislation. I think, and I think that he thinks, and I also hope that your Lordships will think, that it is important to have some reference to complementary therapies on the face of the Bill. We must devise a means to do so which will convince the Government of the wisdom of such action.
Not only is there a continuing increase in public interest and support for natural therapies. There are also two other conclusions which I should like to mention at the beginning of my contribution. The first is the recognition that as a nation we are inclined to take far too many pharmaceutical prescriptions. The Government are perhaps mainly worried about the cost of such prescriptions, as indeed am I. However, I am also worried by the thought that people increasingly think that for every problem what is needed is a pill. In fact, the alternative complementary therapists are often able to produce a solution which no pharmaceutical product could achieve. Some of those products—I am thinking now of tranquillisers—can be addictive and others can literally cause damage, especially if taken in doses in excess of those laid down by the doctor. Therefore, there is a general wish to cut down on the amount and the cost of medication.
My second observation concerns a fear which I have that an increase in the private sector of the
1428
health service, perhaps in the wake of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, will lead to unnecessary surgery, of which the United States is a warning to us all. It is clear that the more people go to private hospitals, whether it be in Britain or elsewhere, the more they are likely to have expensive surgery, which many people believe could be avoided, quite apart from the fact that the need could be met by alternative treatment.
In winding up the debate for the Opposition I should like to emphasise the need for all of us—the therapists, the Government and the public—to prepare carefully for the possible consequences of the single European market in 1992. The most direct reference to this was made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. We must, as must the therapists, face up to the challenges, the dangers and the benefits of the market after 1992. Bearing in mind the differing legal status of practitioners in the United Kingdom with this unlimited freedom compared with the Continental nations, we must ask whether 1992 will be the beginning of the end for the traditional UK freedom to practice what medicine we like and to receive what treatment we like or whether it will be the start of a bright new era of health care in which the natural therapies and those who practise them will be elevated to their just status in a fresh and newly enlightened society. If it is to be the latter—that glorious future—a great deal of work will have to be carried out between now and then.
The question is: how do we ensure that natural and holistic therapies continue to be available while satisfying the needs of the European Community policy? It is a question both for the Government and for the practitioners. They must both be prepared, without delay, to accept that increasingly policy affecting Britain comes from Brussels and not from London.
Clearly the most satisfactory way forward is to ensure that all non-registered practitioners belong to organisations which have strict codes of conduct and high standards of membership. Training and accreditation will and must be the name of the game. If the various therapies can measure up to the standards and compare, for instance, with those of the Society of Homoeopathy, which has been referred to by many noble Lords, they may be able to protect themselves and their members from accusations of malpractice. The year 1992 may act as a stimulus to the therapies to do what some have been slow to do in the past—to get themselves organised and get their act together. What may seem to some of them to be threats may to others be the stimulus to seize the opportunities which are now opening up.
There are developments among the therapists. Apart from the Research Council for Complementary Medicine to which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and others referred and which has now, as we have been reminded, received its first research grant from the Department of Health, there is the Institute for Complementary Medicine and the newly established National Consultative Council for Alternative and Complementary Medicines, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.

1429
It is interesting to note the change in public attitudes. Together with that there is the increase in the use of complementary therapies. I am informed that the use of complementary treatments is increasing at the rate of about 15 per cent. per year. There are probably already 7 million to 8 million treatments given annually in the United Kingdom. It is therefore likely that the growth of complementary treatment will continue until it has reached the point of saturation, which could come in the next quarter of a century. Those assumptions are well supported by available data.
I must say that I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, was able to take part in the debate. If I remember correctly, no doctor took part in the debate in this House two-and-a-half years ago. His wise and cautionary words, both of which qualities we usually get from the noble Lord, were most helpful to us this afternoon.
Doctors will be able to concentrate on surgical operations and acute medical conditions, where their training makes them supreme. The specialist complementary practitioners would concentrate upon the wide range of chronic conditions such as aches and pains and back pains about which we have been talking. I have a special interest in back pains, not just because I have ankylosing spondylitis and will suffer from back pain for ever but also because when I was Secretary of State for Social Services I set up the working party on back pain. It did not stop back pain out as least we know a little more about the subject than we did.
As I said, the specialist complementary practitioners would concentrate on a wide range of chronic conditions, not only aches and pains but body misalignments and degenerative and emotional problems. For example, it is not reasonable that a doctor trained over a six to nine-year period in allopathic medicine should be expected to undergo additional training to treat a condition which a specialist osteopath can correct. Equally, chronic complaints should not occupy allopathically trained people who have little training in counselling, nutrition, hypnosis or the Alexander technique, to which a most interesting reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee.
I mentioned the Institute for Complementary Medicine. It has set up the first British register, with a comprehensive list of qualified practitioners in most complementary medicine disciplines. Sections of the register include osteopathy, chiropractic, traditional Chinese medicine, homoeopathy, hypnotherapy, psychotherapy, nutrition, reflexology, medical massage, radionics and others. Others are being added to the list.
There is also, as has been said, the newly established National Consultative Council for Alternative and Complementary Medicines, which has some 39 affiliated organisations. It is interested in inter-organisational co-operation, training and education in the natural therapies, leading to accreditation and registration, codes of practice, research and development and the setting up of independent councils for every therapy. It is important that such bodies should, as I said, get their act together. In the end, the getting of their act
1430
together has to be in association with the medical profession. I am satisfied that when we talk about complementary medicines we are talking about the necessity for a basis of collaboration with medicine. They also have to satisfy government. By "government' I mean whatever government: this Government or the next government, a Conservative Government or a Labour Government.
We should be talking about including those therapies as part of the NHS if they are therapies and proved as such—the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred to the need for proof—which is sometimes difficult because I might find it difficult to prove the efficacy of some medical treatments. Nevertheless, they must be proven. If it is ever to become an expense upon the NHS, government of whatever colour must be satisfied.
I welcome the extent to which the organisations of different complementary therapies are trying to get their act together. I referred to two bodies which have similar objectives. I am not certain that there is a place for two competing organisations. Heads have to be knocked together. I shall not offer to do it. I do not suppose that the Minister will offer to do it when she replies. The parliamentary group may have to try to do it. A house divided against itself cannot survive. The movement must realise that not only has it to face up to the European scene; it has to come to terms with government of whatever party. That is the lesson it has to learn. The year 1992 is close. As I said earlier, on the one hand it is a threat but on the other it is an opportunity. In the same way as for business and the world of commerce 1992 is a threat and an opportunity, so must it been seen to be for the complementary therapies.
If ever there was a need for a debate in order to encourage people who believe in complementary medicine and those who practise it to get their act together and think of the future, now is the time. So we are especially grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, for having introduced this debate on such a timely occasion.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may join all those who have expressed their gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for introducing the debate. We have had a wide-ranging and stimulating discussion on a matter which attracts considerable public interest. Almost everyone who has participated has done so with the benefit of personal experience.
At the outset the noble Earl referred to confusion over the various terms which are used to describe alternative and complementary therapies. Perhaps I may follow the example of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale on a previous occasion and plump for the term "natural therapies" as one which appears to embrace all the various concepts.
There are many calls for the greater availability of natural techniques and medicines within the NHS and that is reflected in the speeches today of a number of noble Lords. It seems right for me, therefore, to restate at the outset the Government's stance on natural therapies and medicines both in relation to the NHS and also to private practice. My

1431
right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has a statutory duty laid upon him to provide a comprehensive health service; but that duty, onerous in itself, also carries with it the wider one of safeguarding the health of the nation. Those two factors must always govern any discussion about provision.
It cannot be stated too often that by law all medical treatment under the NHS must be given by a registered medical practitioner. That is the "who": the "what" is more complex. Registered medical practitioners can provide any treatment they wish, including the use of natural techniques, if they feel competent to do so and provided that in their professional opinion it will help the patient. A small but growing number of registered medical practitioners are practising natural techniques and the use of these techniques within the NHS is increasing. The noble Earl referred to that fact. The rate of growth must, however, depend upon those doctors who use natural techniques persuading more of their fellow practitioners of their benefits and effectiveness. However, I must sound a note of caution. Many doctors remain unconvinced that there is scientifically sound evidence to show that the vast majority of the natural therapies and medicines are effective.
As your Lordships are aware, practitioners of natural therapies who are not registered medical practitioners are still permitted to practise under United Kingdom common law. There are restrictions on certain forms of treatment; for example, those for cancer, venereal disease, TB, diabetes and epilepsy, and in some areas covered by the Medicines Act concerned with the giving of injections. There are restrictions too on who may practise certain professions. Those who are unqualified are not permitted to practise, for example, as dentists, midwives, pharmacists or veterinary surgeons. Other than those however, the Government have no wish to place any restriction on natural therapy practitioners or to curtail in any way the freedom of the individual to seek the benefits of natural therapy. We do, however, believe that members of the public using those therapists have a right to be safeguarded in the same way as those using the NHS professions. That is the challenge to the natural therapy professions and one which in the Government's view needs to be addressed by each profession acting independently rather than, as some, including my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, advocate, action by associations seeking to represent all or most of the natural therapy professions.
I am aware of the National Consultative Council, which was set up some 12 months ago, and of the fact that the council sees itself as a response to past ministerial pleas for a single source of advice on the natural therapies. I am also aware of the Institute for Complementary Medicine to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred.
However, the Government's stance on umbrella bodies has changed in recent years. There is little homogeneity among the various natural therapy professions, and the major groups now see their way
1432
forward not through umbrella organisations but by a group by group approach following consensus within their ranks. After all, if we look at orthodox medicine for a model, we see, for example, that the medical and dental practitioners, clinical psychologists and opthalmologists have far more in common with one another than the vast majority of natural therapists. Yet they all have independent and individual governing and registering bodies and associations which represent their interests.
At one time, we were of the view that there might be advantages if all the natural therapies came together in mutual understanding. But, given the diversity, practice and aspirations of those professions—coupled perhaps with their increasing proliferation—we now believe very firmly that it must be for each therapy group to determine its own future development.
That leads me on quite naturally to statutory regulation. When the subject was last debated, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale went into the matter in some detail. He welcomed the possibility of self-regulation on the part of the natural therapy professions, but only if it achieved common recognised standards for all to see and to which all practitioners subscribed. He accepted that this would, at some stage, probably require the force of law. He also mentioned meeting representatives of osteopaths when they had aired their plans for statutory regulation.
As a number of your Lordships have said, the osteopaths have made considerable progress in the intervening two and half years. They have secured a large measure of agreement within the profession on common standards of education and training; they have secured the support of the medical profession; and, as we have heard, a joint working group to look at the mechanics of statutory regulation has been established. The osteopaths have kept Ministers fully informed of developments and we shall await with interest the report of the working group and hope that it will point the way to statutory regulation.
We have eyed developments within the osteopathy profession with considerable interest, not only from the osteopaths' point of view but also as a possible model for other professions, particularly those which have reached an appropriate level of maturity with an established form of voluntary regulation and infrastructure and which wish to pursue the path to regulation. I know that several other groups are interested in statutory regulation; one group of chiropractors in particular has made plain in recent months its desire for regulation. The osteopaths have clearly shown the way forward and it is for others to follow.
Perhaps I may now speak of Europe, of 1992 and all that. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has drawn attention to this aspect, along with others in the course of the debate. I know that there is a very real concern among the natural therapies and those who use their services about the fate of natural therapies and medicines after harmonisation in 1992. Some of our fellow member states are considered to be antagonistic towards British-style unlicensed practitioners of natural therapy and the fear is that they could take the opportunity afforded by

1433
harmonisation to remove the right to practise for all but those who are medically qualified. That fear emanates, it seems, from two directives adopted by the European Commission—a directive on higher education diplomas and another on homoeopathic medicines.
So far as the Government are aware there is no European Community legislation in prospect which would restrict the practice of natural therapy in this country or choice by the public in using such services. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that we shall certainly continue in our European Community negotiations to press for something compatible with UK interests and traditions. I can assure your Lordships also that the Commission has repeatedly made it clear that at present it has no intention of introducing centralised legislation on the ground that the fundamental divergence between member states' legislation in this area would make it difficult to envisage harmonisation at Community level.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say a little about alternative medicines. I refer to the medicinal substances used as opposed to the practice of the alternative therapies themselves, because there are special points to consider here. When the government attitude towards alternative therapies is debated, there is a tendency sometimes to think in general terms, as if what applies to, say, acupuncture should also apply to homoeopathy; or that what is good for osteopathy should apply to herbalism. In many ways, of course, some of these philosophies are similar, but in one important aspect the alternative therapies fall into two clear categories—those which use actual medicinal substances and those which do not.
We all know that in spite of what the advocates have said today, many people harbour a deep scepticism and indeed open hostility towards alternative treatments and will use any argument, no matter how specious, to denigrate them. It is not for the Government to take sides here, but it is a simple fact that one argument that cannot be used against chiropractic or osteopathy for example is that it may poison patients. But homoeopathy and herbalism are open to this charge, either because of what is in the medicinal product used or because of the way it is prepared, simply because the treatment usually involved the patient swallowing or being injected with something. The Government have an obvious responsibility here to protect the public health; yet the controls which have to be exercised through the Medicines Act 1968 are often resented by the people who use or produce the medicines concerned. They argue that because these products are natural and traditional, their safety can be assumed. This, we believe, is a fallacious notion, since any active substance has the potential to be harmful as well as beneficial.
Health Ministers have a duty, under the Medicines Act 1968, to look at the safety, quality and efficacy of all medicines in any decision they have to make about entry to, or removal from, the market. That is inescapable and, as I have said, a proper duty of government, but we undertake that duty, I hope, with sensitivity. With regard to herbals, for
1434
example—currently the only alternative products subject to a European Community requirement to review—in 1985 my noble friend Lady Trumpington approved guidelines agreed with the herbal industry which took account of the traditional nature of these products in relation to their efficacy. On safety and quality we cannot compromise, and it seems to me that it is to the benefit of the industry as well as the general public that a reviewed product licence means that the product has been examined critically by a government agency and "passed the test" as it were. I confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that there has been no change in these guidelines. They still apply.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn raised the question of membership of the advisory committees to the licensing authority and questioned the fact that the nominees of the National Medicines Society and its own advisory committee were not represented. I believe that it is a mistake to think in terms of nominating bodies being represented on the committees, as your Lordships will remember. These committees have to be expert, not representative. Committee members advise impartially in the sphere of their expertise and we are satisfied that the existing membership contains the best available expertise to advise the licensing authority on the safety, quality and efficacy of all medicinal products.
The fact that the nominees of a particular body were not appointed should not be taken as implying that they were not considered. All nominations are considered. The criteria of safety and quality are, as I have indicated, the same for all medicinal products, natural or synthetic. We cannot budge on that. As far as concerns efficacy, since 1985 we have recognised the special considerations for herbals.
With regard to homoeopathic products, the position is less settled. Unlike herbals, these products have not been subject to review but the European Commission has had a commitment since 1986 to produce proposals to harmonise the conditions for the manufacturing and marketing of these and other products exempted from existing directives. As I mentioned, the Commission has produced a draft which was laid before the Council of Ministers in March and which will of course be scrutinised by Parliament in the usual way.
I now turn to some of the specific points that were raised in the course of our debate. My noble friend Lord Cullen referred to tax relief on private medical cover. The Government's objective in introducing tax relief is to enable people who have purchased private medical cover during their working lives to continue to do so in retirement and thus help reduce pressure on the National Health Service. In considering what forms of treatment should be permissible, we decided that only treatments which are normally provided free under the National Health Service should qualify. To allow for alternative treatments would not only create all kinds of difficulties between what might and might not be permissible but, fundamentally, it would not meet our prime objective of reducing demands upon the National Health Service. I know that some of the natural therapy professions feel that this might create difficulties for them under their health insurance

1435
contracts, but I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the reasons for taking the line that we have.
My noble friend also raised the question of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That report was accepted by Ministers, and the Director General of Fair Trading was instructed to negotiate the removal of the restrictions. The director general has just reported on the outcome of his negotiations and that report is currently under consideration by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Health. As your Lordships will appreciate, I am unable to comment on the report or on the likely reaction of the two departments at this moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to the provision of natural therapy by fund-holding GPs. That was referred to again later in the course of the debate. We investigated this matter when my noble friend Lord Colwyn moved his amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The gist of the Government's argument is that alternative and complementary therapies are not among the range of treatments for which a GP can directly refer patients. These natural therapies are not available under the National Health Service and if fund-holding GPs were able to purchase such services—this could not be done by non-fund holding practices—it would, in effect, create a two-tier service. However, should my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wish at any time to extend the range of services available under the National Health Service, there are powers under Section 3 of the National Health Service Act 1977 which would enable him to do so. I hope that that also answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, mentioned problems with homoeopathy training. I would point out that the role of government in medical training in general is restricted to providing the facilities and resources. The substance of training is for the professions and their educational bodies. There are arrangements for the postgraduate training of doctors who wish to obtain qualifications in homoeopathy and indeed in osteopathy. That point was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, referred to fees for private institutions. The purpose of the changes which are to take place in the forthcoming academic year is to shift the balance of public funding of higher education to a fees basis. Representations have been made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that, for students at private institutions such as those which provide tuition for members of the natural therapy professions, the fee element will be considerably lower than at state supported institutions. They believe that the effect of this will mean the loss of many highly motivated students of good quality. I understand that the matter is still being discussed and that my right honourable friend is giving careful consideration to all the representations he has received. However, at present there seems little prospect of finding additional funds, given the many other calls on resources.
1436
The public demands the right to choose which type of medicine it prefers to use. However, we also have the right to expect that when we do so we are safeguarded by professions which are well regulated, whether on a statutory or on a voluntary basis. Consideration of that factor is the basis of the Government's attitude. I believe that this debate has highlighted the difficulties as well as the benefits of natural therapies. It has also most certainly called attention to recent developments and, as a result, I believe it has been most worth while.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am most grateful for the wide-ranging participation and support of so many of your Lordships this evening. At the risk of seeming invidious, I wish to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and say how particularly glad I was that my noble friend Lord Hunter took the time to participate in the debate. He has been very busy with the National Health Service Bill but we appreciate the fact that he took time to contribute to the debate from his rather more mainstream stance. I should like to go into the question of diagnosis, which the noble Lord invited me to discuss. However, I do not think we have the time to do so this evening. It would not be an easy answer because, again, the therapies have their different ways of looking at things. An acupuncturist would have a completely different scheme of diagnosis from many other people. The healers, for example, specifically set their face against diagnosis. They say that that is a job for the doctors.
I cannot resist making the observation that in the different estimates that I have read of the accuracy of orthodox medical diagnosis, the method has never achieved even as high a rate as 50 per cent. There is obviously room for some give and take as regards the different schemes of diagnosis. But perhaps that is for another time.
I am also grateful to have been supported by a distinguished former Secretary of State for Health in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I was grateful for his wise words. We were all naturally most interested in the remarks of the Minister. I know we shall study them with care in the written record. I found what the noble Baroness said on Europe particularly encouraging. However, I still think she is quite wrong as regards the Medicines Commission.
There has been a large degree of unanimity this evening but we should not delude ourselves into thinking that beyond the ranks of the converted, who, significantly, consist mainly of people with first-hand experience, things are quite so straightforward. Statistics certainly show increasing interest and participation, but there is some way to go before complementary therapies are widely available on an affordable basis. It is towards that that we should particularly work, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, indicated. The question is whether orthodoxy will now work with the tide. I believe that it will and that we shall not always have to talk about two sides in matters of health care. I am most grateful for the opportunity of holding this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Peat Resources
7.48 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to halt the depletion of the national peat resource and what role they intend to play in the development of a peatlands conservation strategy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have decided to take part in this debate at this relatively late hour. I imagine that until very recently few of us thought there was any need to worry about peat. Many people are dimly aware that there is a lot of peat in Britain. They are right. Over 10 per cent. of the land area in Scotland and 5.8 per cent. of that of Britain as a whole has peat soils. We have been using peat for centuries. Why then the current fuss? To begin with, many of our peatlands have been drained or planted over. The resource is dwindling fast and less and less untouched bog remains. There are particular areas where irreplaceable habitats are being destroyed. That is especially true of lowland peat.
It was, as is so often the case, the Nature Conservancy Council which sounded the alarm bell about what it describes as this largely ignored Cinderella habitat. The council conducted a survey in 1978 which showed that there has been a 96 per cent. loss of lowland peat mire since 1850 and that only 4 per cent. is now left. The NCC estimates that less than 10,000 hectares of living lowland bog now remain.
So, though there is still a great deal of peat soil, some valuable peatlands are fast disappearing and urgent action needs to be taken if we are not to lose an important part of our now scarce wetlands and of our national heritage.
As your Lordships may know, bog peat is mainly formed from sphagnum moss in waterlogged, acidic bogs where there is no oxygen and few bacteria can live. Consequently there is no normal decomposition and dead moss accumulates as peat at the rate of some two millimetres a year. We have three different types of peat. Blanket peat, or wet heather moor, is formed in areas with high rainfall, mostly the Highlands of Scotland, upland Wales and the Pennines. It is of this that the flow country in Caithness and Sutherland is formed. I do not propose to say much about blanket bog tonight except that two years ago the International Mire Conservation Group, the main expert body, passed a resolution declaring that the flow country "merits protection in its entirety" and that it was,
"with some astonishment that the IMCG has learned of the British Government's recent approval for a further 1,000 hectares of state afforestation in the Flow Country".
The second type is lowland fen peat, the peat remaining where raised bogs and swamps have disappeared, as in East Anglia and part of the Somerset Levels. Lastly, there are lowland raised bogs. These are isolated domes of acidic rain-fed peat in a non-peat landscape, like drops of water on a flat surface, which may rise up to 10 metres above the surrounding land. The best remaining intact examples are in Wales—at Cors Goch on the Teifi, inland from Borth, and Cors Fochno near
1438
Aberystwyth—and in Scotland at Flanders Moss. All of our raised bogs are of conservation and wildlife importance. They contain perfectly preserved records of post-glacial history—from early man to pollen—and are valuable habitats for plants, birds and insects. They are of international significance.
For thousands of years we have been using up our peat reserves. Essentially, because of the enormous time-scale, they are a finite, non-renewable resource. In East Anglia we long ago drained the Fens and the same process has now dried out the Somerset Levels. According to the NCC,
"forestry remains one of the largest threats to all bog habitats".
Forestry Commission figures show that in Scotland half to three-quarters and in England and Wales a quarter, of all afforestation up to 1978 was carried out on peat soils. Since time immemorial peat has been cut by hand for fuel, as it still is, for example, in the Hebrides.
Since the 1960s there has been a new threat to the valuable lowland raised bogs. They produce the peat suitable for horticulture. Instead of being cut out slowly by hand this peat can now be extracted far more efficiently and thoroughly by huge machines by processes known as sausage extrusion and surface milling. This is accompanied by the digging of deep drainage ditches—15 miles of them in Yorkshire and Humberside last year—which dries out the bog, reduces the surface to a bare desert and makes the prospect of regeneration remote.
What this means was described in an article by Jeremy Purseglove in Landscape Design last year. He wrote:
"the unforgettable spectacle which Hatfield Chase presents … a sight which makes visitors' jaws sag …… is not so much its natural splendour as the ruin which man is inflicting upon it. Behind a discreet screen of wind-scorched Leyland's cypress are the shabby huts, tramlines, and stacked bales of the peat works: and beyond them extends 2,000 acres of totally stripped-out, black, gleaming peat; an area equivalent to that of a sizeable town. The remaining 1,000 acres of vegetation … is also scheduled for destruction … machines, looming out on the moor like space-age dinosaurs, pick over the raised mire, systematically dismembering it until there is nothing left. Hatfield Chase took 3,000 years to evolve … Now, in perhaps ten years or less, it will be gone, taken away bag by bag … for brief summer crops of tomatoes in our greenhouses, and to be scattered on people's rockeries".
This industrial extraction of peat has gone hand in hand with a horticultural revolution—the replacement of the sale of bare-rooted plants to be put in in the late autumn or winter by that of container plants grown in peat which can be planted at any time of the year, and the development of garden centres selling these container plants, growing bags, peat pots, and so on. Peat is highly convenient for such a trade, being light, clean, consistent and, with nutrients added, an excellent growing medium. So, all over Britain, pieces torn out of a unique, shrinking habitat, bundled up in plastic, are being sold to the public Peat is also much used for propagating vegetables, growing mushrooms and tree planting. Horticulture probably now accounts for three-quarters of the peat we use.
The result has been catastrophic for the lowland bogs. Of the 10 best raised bogs, only four have not been partially or completely cut over. The firms which supply the garden trade often operate, in England, on old planning consents with no

1439
conditions imposed which were granted in the 1940s before conservation was much understood and before high-tech extraction was thought of. In Scotland, it is mainly newly-granted consents which are causing loss. Peat is defined as a mineral and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 overrides wildlife legislation and SSSI designation so that there is little protection.
The largest lowland raised mire system in Britain, Thorne Waste and Hatfield Moors near Doncaster, is being cut extensively, mainly by Fisons, the market leaders, whose horticultural division, however, provided only about 4 per cent. of the company's profits in 1988. I believe that 90 per cent. of Fisons peat holdings are in SSSIs. The Sunday Times reported last year that Fisons was so sensitive about its operations in Yorkshire that a photographer from the paper investigating its activities had to be rescued by police after he had been held against his will by the company's employees, who blocked his car for 45 minutes and demanded unsuccessfully, that he hand over his film. That does not sound as though Fisons was particularly proud of what it was doing there. Fisons is also cutting another important SSSI on the Solway Firth.
Another company, curiously named the Land Improvement Group, which owns a subsidiary called Croxdens, is cutting the mires on the Shropshire-Clwyd border where it has acquired three-quarters of an outstanding SSSI and intends, I believe, to quadruple production from 15,000 to 60,000 tonnes a year.
Little thought seems to have been given by the firms concerned to what can be done when the horticultural grade peat runs out, as it will, if nothing is done, in 20 to 30 years. It seems, moreover, very doubtful whether a raised bog, once destroyed, can ever be recreated. Dutch attempts to reconstitute peatlands have cost the almost unbelievable amount of £2 million per square metre.
Not only are we using up our own peat but we import large quantities, much of it from the Irish Republic, where vast quantities have been used to burn in power stations and vast quantities exported. Their unprotected raised bogs are likely all to be gone in about seven years' time.
At the eleventh hour serious public concern has become apparent. Ten conservation groups have joined forces to organise a peatlands campaign. They have commissioned research into alternatives from Sheffield University. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation in particular is doing a great deal to make the facts widely known. The Prince of Wales, patron of that society, recently put out a statement saying:
"I am most concerned to learn that 96% of the lowland peat bog in this country has already disappeared. The campaign by a number of respected conservation bodies, with over two million supporters, to attempt to secure the continued existence of the remaining 4% has my full support.
The use of peat in gardening and landscaping schemes seems to me to be causing quite unnecessary destruction of a richly varied and scarce wildlife habitat. Most of us who love our gardens care deeply about the natural environment … we would do well to set an example by not treating our peatland habitat as 'useless bog' to be drained, dug up and scattered about in our
1440
gardens. I have therefore decided to stop using peat on my garden at Highgrove and contracts for landscaping schemes for the Duchy of Cornwall will now specify that peat is not to be used".
Both Kew and the Royal Horticultural Society's gardens at Wisley are using less and less peat and experimenting with alternatives. Others—for example, the Severn-Trent region of the National Rivers Authority—have banned the use of peat in their gardening and landscaping activities. I hope that their lead will be widely followed.
What else can be done? The public can, and I hope will, build up consumer resistance to the unnecessary use of peat. If enough people stop buying peat products and demand alternatives, that will influence the market. There are alternatives. No single product replaces peat but a whole range covers different uses—bark, wood chips, leaf mould, spent mushroom compost, processed refuse and waste, coconut coir, rock wool, vermiculite, perlite and, last but not least, home-made garden compost.
I recognise that gardeners may not initially be enthusiastic if encouraged to use sewage sludge mixed with straw in place of peat, but with a real effort by the industry, the horticultural trade and the public, the use of satisfactory alternatives can become general. After all, Australia has a thriving horticultural and landscape industry which does not rely on peat. The media can also help to publicise the problem and the solutions. I am thinking of programmes such as the fascinating "Gardeners' Question Time". The use of peat in landscaping should stop now.
What can the Government do? It would be too much to expect them to react with the speed and decisiveness of the Prince of Wales, but I am moderately encouraged by the answer that the Minister for the environment gave to a question by Ms. Walley in another place on 30th April. I believe that our Government can and should devise a national peat conservation policy, as Finland and Canada have done or are doing. That means protecting those peatlands of conservation importance and conducting and encouraging more effective research into substitutes. We must also ensure—this is perhaps the key—that the planning machinery is used to conserve our peat heritage by refusing new planning permissions for extraction; reviewing and if necessary revoking existing planning permissions and providing funds for compensation; preventing the afforestation of peatlands of conservation importance; fully implementing relevant international conventions such as the Berne and Ramsar conventions and Community directives; ensuring that government departments stop using peat themselves or in contracts that they let; banning the import and export of peat; stopping the research into the use of peat as an energy source at present conducted by the Department of Energy; and providing the NCC with more resources for peatland survey, for too little is still known about the resource and we must know what exactly we still have.
Incidentally, the NCC has at present just two peat experts—one, Mr. Richard Lindsay, on bogs and another on fens. What, I wonder, will happen if the Government go ahead with their plans to dismember

1441
the NCC? There are quite different problems with peat in England, Scotland and Wales. How do you divide two into three; or is each country to have its own peat experts? Perhaps we shall hear about that when we discuss the Environmental Protection Bill.
Meanwhile, I hope that the Minister can tell us tonight whether the Government regard the rapid disappearance of our peatlands, and particularly of lowland peat, as serious, and if so what they propose to do about it.
8.2 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for having tabled this Question. I congratulate him on the elegant and comprehensive way in which he described the grave problem that we are discussing this evening. I should start by declaring a double interest. First, I am a member of the Nature Conservancy Council and, secondly, I have recently become president of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. I should add that I was not in any way involved in the situation when the photographer has his troubles on Thome and Hatfield Mosses.
I have long marvelled at the properties of peat, one of the reasons being that above my fireplace at home I have a giant elk's head with a span of nine feet six inches which is purported to be between 7,000 and 14,000 years old. That says much for the preservation powers of peat, but perhaps rather less for the sentiments of the people of Ireland towards my forebear, Sir Robert Peel, to whom it was presented when he was Secretary of State for that country. That was despite his granting of Catholic emancipation.
Living as I do in the Yorkshire Dales, I am surrounded by peat, but it is different from the raised peat bogs to which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred. He gave a comprehensive review of the difference between the two types of peat. In fact, he mentioned three types of peat.
I do not wish to concentrate my remarks on the uplands. Although I have strong feelings about them and could go on for many hours about them, I shall not bore noble Lords with those comments tonight. However, I do not wish to underestimate the problems. The noble Lord referred to the flow country. There is a serious problem there which I sincerely hope will be redressed as quickly and efficiently as possible. The two types of bog are very different. They have different characteristics and different ecosystems. The other main difference between them is that one is still relatively intact while the other is disappearing, as the noble Lord said, at a fast and worrying rate.
There is nothing wrong in the exploitation of a natural resource if it is sustainable or if it is of no importance. However, lowland bogs are an important wildlife resource and a most important indicator as regards environmental change. We should all be deeply concerned. Unfortunately, the modern methods of peat extraction make that resource unsustainable. There is no doubt that we need positive steps to secure the remaining bogs and a management strategy to ensure an acceptable
1442
conservation policy over the areas which have been and will be exploited. Sir William Wilkinson, the chairman of the NCC, recently said that peat extraction is the major cause of long-term damage to SSSIs in Great Britain.
The first thing that we do not want to do is overcriticise and thus lose the good will of those companies involved in peat extraction. However, there are strong feelings in Yorkshire, not just among the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust members but among others, about the illegal activities that took place at Thorne Moss—the exploitation of peat where no planning permission was held. I hope that, in view of that, particulary generous efforts will be made by that company in working towards a rewarding conservation strategy for the future.
We must remember that planning permission was granted on many of those bogs before SSSIs were designated. There is nothing untoward in the commercial extraction of peat on those sites. With hindsight, many more SSSIs should have been granted and many more areas protected, but we must work with the present and not hark back to what has been if we are to salvage the best conservation package for the future.
Furthermore, it would be counter-productive to buy out most of those areas—never mind the cost—as any degree of restoration would be virtually impossible to achieve without the co-operation of the peat industry. It has the machines and the know-how. It knows how to work the peat and, perhaps above all, it is the expert in hydrology. That is vital in trying to retain the peat bogs for the future.
Any strategy for our lowland peat bogs should be achieved by a strong partnership between the Government, the NCC and the companies concerned. However, one thing is absolutely sacrosanct; namely, that we must prevent any further exploitation of the pristine bogs—those that have not as yet been touched. If compensation is required from the Government where planning permission exists, those firms must be compensated. It is the last resort. For heaven's sake, let us not use them. David Bellamy said that, if we do not protect those bogs, we are in no position to comment on tropical rain forests.
I should also like to see the Government and the NCC negotiate to buy out the extraction rights on selected areas of SSSIs where damage has to date been limited in nature conservation terms. Thorne and Hatfield are examples. I speak of limited areas; I do not for one moment suggest that we can buy out all the areas that we should like to have. We have carefully to select areas and try to conserve them.
I believe that we should also negotiate for the maintenance of what are known as refugia—those areas which should be left as resource areas so that the bogs in question have some chance of recovery. There should be small areas left unexploited and to provide a base for rebuilding. Also, I am informed that the combined traditional last cut methods which are so important to the rehabilitation of peat bogs are expensive and probably would require some degree of compensation. I believe that that should be done again in selected areas.

1443
There should also be the re-introduction of sphagnum moss, which is so vital to the survival of the peat. I realise that Fisons, among other companies, is already doing that. I welcome it and congratulate the company. There should be management strategy to secure, as I mentioned before, the hydrological integrity of these sites, which is so crucial to their survival.
I am advocating the building and continuation of a working partnership between the NCC and the companies concerned. That must comprise a commitment from the Government, financial if necessary, with the expertise of the Nature Conservancy Council, and a commitment from the companies to accept their nature conservation responsibilities. They have taken a lot out; they have to put back in a certain amount of it. Then we can work toward an acceptable future for the sites when they have been finally exploited. The question of what will happen to those sites at the end of the day has not been addressed. I hope that the NCC and the operators will discuss fully the future management of the sites in the very near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has already referred to the importance of peat to the horticultural business. I realise that that is a difficulty. In this country we are rapidly reaching the end of this finite resource. Therefore I believe that it is the responsibility of the companies concerned to find an alternative to it. The noble Lord was quite right to draw attention to what is undoubtedly a complex situation which needs a strategy to ensure that we can at least hold on to a little of this highly prized and valuable resource in the shape of both pristine bog and the best of the exploited areas.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for raising this important environmental issue to which I think not nearly enough attention has been paid. I hope that this debate will raise awareness. I might just repeat one or two of the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Earl. I apologise if I do but I believe that they are important and could well be re-emphasised.
I imagine that most people—certainly those noble Lords who are present tonight—know something about the special qualities of peat. It is a fossil fuel which is readily available to those living in a peat area. It is easily and cheaply extracted and processed. Because of its texture, water-holding properties and relative sterility, it is a very useful medium in horticulture, especially for encouraging seedlings. Peat bogs provide a specialised habitat for some of the rarest species of bird, insect and plant. Peat absorbs and imprisons carbon dioxide, thus helping to control one of the most potent causes of the greenhouse effect—that is until the peat bogs are drained.
When peat dries out it oxidises to carbon dioxide, water and a tiny amount of mineral salts. Each 40 kg bag of peat that is sold represents up to 58 kg of carbon dioxide, which is eventually released into the
1444
atmosphere. The shrinkage of soils in the Fens is produced by the same effect. Here the ground level has sunk by more than 15 ft. since 1850 and has released more carbon dioxide (I am told about 734 million tonnes) than the United Kingdom's entire annual output of carbon dioxide from coal, gas and oil. That information was given by Chris Rose at the Disappearing Peat Conference last December.
Peat can act as both a reservoir and purifier of water supplies. Because it excludes air it has a fantastic preservation power and so can act as an historical index. In 1850 the perfectly preserved and fully clothed body of a Romano-British person was found in a bog on the Grewelthorpe Moors in Yorkshire. So Victorian man was able to see with his own eyes exactly how his counterpart of perhaps 1,500 years earlier would dress—in a green cloak, an undergarment of scarlet cloth, yellow stockings and leather shoes. We hear a great deal about "Pete Marsh", the Lindow man. But only half of him was found and apparently he is now in the British Museum. However, there was a whole man on Grewelthorpe. Even more usefully one can discover by the techniques of pollen analysis exactly which plants have grown in a bog over millenia and so deduce the whole climate and weather pattern of the area.
What has now sharpened our appreciation of those qualities is the sudden discovery that this unique resource is being exhausted at a horrifyingly rapid rate. One statistic out of many will suffice, which is probably one that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has given. Of the 10 best raised peat bogs in the United Kingdom only four have not been partially or completely cut over for peat. There are two main causes for that devastation.
First, the means of extracting peat has become enormously more efficient. What was once patient cutting by human hand tools is now a mechanical and often completely automated operation on a vast scale. Secondly, the operators, with a much bigger product to sell, have succeeded in persuading many more customers that they cannot do without it. The use of peat in gardening has become a fad and a fetish. The fact that the boom cannot last is cynically disregarded. Whereas the old-fashioned peat cutting gave the bog some chance of regeneration, the new, mechanical extraction cleans out all the peat and removes any chance of eventual recovery. But those who see a way to maximise a short-term profit are careless of posterity: after them, the deluge.
Something must be done to restore peat to the state of being a renewable resource. The obstacles in the way of that are serious. Peat is defined as a mineral. Its extraction is governed by planning law—the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Thus, especially in the lowlands, protection is usually dependent on the decisions of the planning authority. Even though the site may be of international importance for nature conservation, the Nature Conservancy Council under the 1981 wildlife legislation can only advise the planning authority. The system therefore depends on the wildlife and commercial arguments being weighed objectively by the local authority and whether the case goes to inquiry by the Secretary of State. In

1445
Scotland, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation's review of the peat issue discovered that the general attitude of local authorities to peat was that it was an exploitable mineral. New applications are thus tending to be approved even on SSSIs.
In England the position is different because the majority of surviving sites are either nature reserves or have planning permission going back many years. The Peat Report published last year shows 5,711 hectares in England with planning permission. Those old consents have no associated planning conditions and not even an expiry date. Modification or revocation of such consents is possible only through the local authorities under the provision of the 1981 minerals legislation. That Act asks local authorities to review consents in order to assess whether they are appropriate. However, no timescale is given for the review; nor is it mandatory. The ceiling or compensation (£100,000) is totally inadequate for most peat operations.
I should like to quote another Answer on 30th April in another place. Ms. Walley asked how many orders modifying the planning permission for mineral and peat extraction or requiring the use of land to be discontinued or continued subject to conditions had been granted since 1981. Mr. Moynihan replied:
"According to our records, since 1981 no orders have been made which relate to peat extraction. Six orders have been made relating to other minerals".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/90: col. 380.]
The peat producers can sit on their assets and resist any offers of conservation management agreements from the NCC or inadequate, as they think, compensation from local authorities. Local authorities, squeezed for cash, are not in a good position to offer compensation. The Peat Producers' Association has produced a code of practice. However, it does not tackle any of the basic problems but instead relies on the concept of restoring bogs after working. Bogs take 7,000 years to develop. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has said, the Dutch have experimented with one of their last, severely damaged, bogs. The cost was £2-5 million per square metre. That is not therefore a practical proposition. The code does not address the point that peat bogs are a living archive.
Only new legislation revoking licences issued before a certain date and laying down much stricter conditions for new ones can stop the rot that looks likely to finish our peat by the middle of the decade. Are the Government alive to that and actively proposing to do anything about it, as Germany has done? In Germany in 1972 a federal law withdrew all existing licences for mineral extraction, including peat. Companies were obliged to apply for new ones when conditions were imposed over working methods and restoration. No compensation was payable for any losses that companies might suffer as a result of introducing the new provisions. We should go for as tough a measure as that. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggested that compensation should be offered. I believe that we could be a little tougher than that.
A second course of action is highly desirable in the shape of education. Peat is not essential for
1446
gardeners. I quote from an article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph today:
"Mr. Ian Richardson, spokesman for the Peat Producers' Association said: 'There is no economic alternative to peat at the moment, and the industry has an unparalelled record on nature conservation.'
But Mr. David Border, of Hensby Biotech, a company jointly owned by Anglian Water and Hensby Holdings, a leading producer of mushroom compost, said substitutes existed for 70 per cent. of gardening and horticultural applications".
I believe that many alternatives of equally effective products are now, or are shortly to be, available. Some of them make use of materials such as straw or household waste or sewage sludge for which a harmless means of disposal is urgently sought. Who will put that message across? We must emphasise that there are alternatives to the 2-5 million cubic metres of peat that we use every year that will not cause the destruction of some of the most important sites of special scientific interest in the country.
I read in a local paper last week that a primary school in Bluntisham, in my county, has gone into business selling bags of peat substitute donated by a local firm, Hensby Compost, to raise money for school funds and gardeners were hurrying to buy them; so there is a good example. But what we wish to hear from the Minister tonight is what the Government's intentions are. Will they encourage more research into peat substitutes? Are they seized of the seriousness of the situation? The arrival of the Environmental Protection Bill in the House may provide an opportunity for legislation.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, after four such excellent speeches, I find that half of what I was going to say is superfluous. I should merely be repeating what has already been said. I could not do so with the degree of clarity that has so far been expressed. The main aspect that strikes me is one that runs through the entire environmental debate. We go through stages of awareness of what we are doing to our environment. We start by regarding anything that is part of the natural world as something to be used. We then go through a period of regarding it as something purely to be looked at in aesthetic terms. We then start to appreciate its constituent parts, its entity value.
The rain forests are an excellent example. The rain forests were considered as jungles that one had to conquer and exploit for their timber and so on. There followed a period of saying, "Don't they look nice." We know that they have economic value. We now realise that they will not last for ever and we shall be doing ourselves a favour by helping people to maintain them.
The same is true of the peat bogs in our environment. For instance, the marsh or fen country had a very bad press in our history and folklore. Anyone who comes from East Anglia, as I do, will be able to dig around for a few of the local stories about the fen country. They inevitably refer to an evil smelling place with many unpleasant things coming out of deep holes in the ground and invariably going down to hell. One then has the idea that one should drain the place, remove it, and use it for something useful. In other words, one regards

1447
it as totally wasteful. That is patent rubbish. We then have the stage of saying, "It doesn't look very nice," or, "It does look nice, so we'll leave it alone." Either way one can argue around that by saying that it should be put to some use. Thus in East Anglia all the fen country was put to the plough. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has pointed out, that has resulted in the shrinkage of the land and a great release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
When we talk about the environment, it is virtually impossible to talk about a single part of it. Each question interrelates with dozens of others.
As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, morality is involved. The only piece of primaeval landscape left to us is the peat bogs. They are left over from the last Ice Age. We cannot replace them. Yet we are destroying them at a rate of knots. We then tell very much poorer, less developed countries with less resources available to them to stop felling trees because it will harm the atmosphere. They can tell us that either thousands of years ago or very recently we felled all our trees, and that we too are attacking our own wild environment. They could say, "You have no right to speak to us like that. Why should we worry if your sea levels rise?" A moral question is involved.
We are beginning now to discover the value of peat lands for their own scientific worth. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, they provide an excellent record of life in earlier times, of temperature and climatic changes—again coming back to the greenhouse effect—and archaeological finds.
I am interested in the archaeological finds because only half of "Pete Marsh", or Lindow man, was found. One wonders what happened to the other half. Does someone have a potted plant with the other half of him sitting in it? People should not be too squeamish about using a mulch made from sewage sludge and straw if they have such a decaying piece of animal—be it elk or man—sitting in their garden pots.
We must try to convince the general public that peat should not be regarded as the amazingly convenient plant potting material which it now serves as. Other substances can do the job just as well in the vast majority of cases. When I began to research the subject I was overawed by the number of other substances that can be used instead of peat; for example, wood shavings, straw, sewage, sludge and bark. Almost anything that is biodegradable can be formed into some form of compost. The leaves currently collected from out public parks and inner cities to be thrown away could make a vast amount of compost. There is no reason why in the vast majority of cases we should use peat. Its removal destroys our natural environment. No matter how ill one thinks of peat bogs and marshes they look a great deal better than a series of fields which have been ploughed and churned up to look like a filmset for the battle of the Somme.
We must try to look at the problem in the same way as we are looking at all other environmental problems; as part of our culture and history. The
1448
areas provide vitally important habitat for many different kinds of wildlife. It has been pointed out to me on many occasions that if one wants to preserve a species one must first ensure that its habitat is kept. There is no better way of destroying a wild animal than to destroy its habitat. That is far more efficient than shooting it with guns.
We must look at the problem on many different levels. Peat is not essential to us. It is an inefficient fuel. It is running out rapidly; it is forecast to run out in 10 years' time. Therefore, I suggest that all the companies now making money out of it will soon be out of business unless they rapidly involve themselves in finding alternatives. I humbly suggest that the marketplace should be encouraged to deal as heavy a blow as possible to them. The depletion of the peat resources also damages our heritage.
Taking all that into consideration, surely the Government should be looking at helping the public to provide a series of sticks and carrots. Undoubtedly this debate and others like it will make people think twice about peat before using it for potted plants. The Government should at least bring forward planning controls so that people cannot attack the areas of virgin wilderness left in this country. That is the least that they should be doing. That may mean offending certain of the interests which are digging up areas of our national heritage but they should be stopped forthwith. If the Government decide to give them some form of compensation so be it, though I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that they do not deserve compensation because they have already had their pound of flesh. If they have not looked far enough into the future, as I have outlined, they deserve what is coming to them.
Finally, we must look at the overall question when considering the environment; we cannot look at only one issue. We must consider our moral standpoint, the scientific value and the right of the public to preserve the country in the state that it wants and deserves. That is not as one huge agricultural or industrial wasteland.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I too compliment the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on tabling this timely Unstarred Question about the future of United Kingdom peatlands. I also compliment all those who have spoken on the subject with such clarity, interest and challenge. There is an urgent need to question the continuing destruction and accelerated depletion of our peatlands. The Government must surely have a positive answer to the request for a realistic conservation strategy, especially in the light of their Environmental Protection Bill currently being enacted by Parliament.
During my early boyhood in Ireland the mention of boglands inevitably gave rise to solemn faces. It usually meant a journey into the dreary wasteland bogs where one strenuously laboured in wet, cold and windy conditions, cutting and stacking sodden peat. Weeks later one returned to transport the dried turf for use as domestic fuel. The Irish emigrants' lament, "The Auld Bog Road", with its 20 verses, did little to romanticise or make popular the wild

1449
and wonderful habitat of the boglands, no matter how well it was sung. At the same time I have pleasant memories of the delightful hours I spent at the Gerry Boag in Country Antrim. I watched the skylarks and listened to their glorious song as they rose higher and higher into the heavens.
Until recently I had given little serious thought to the peatlands of Northern Ireland. However, while motoring through some of the more remote areas of County Antrim and County Tyrone I was saddened by the sight of large tracts of peatland. They are stripped of their surface vegetation and had large open drains made ready for the machinery of the commercial peat extractors. I am sorry to say that a lack of awareness of the environmental importance of peatlands remains widespread throughout Northern Ireland. It is evident that any programme designed to conserve our peatlands and such parts of our natural heritage will require a range of concerted measures including legislation, land management, scientific research and programmes of relevant public information and education as part of a government-sponsored strategy.
I am glad that the debate is taking place so soon after the recent launch of the peatlands conservation campaign. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation and a number of other well known conservation groups joined that concerted campaign to end the commercial extraction of peat and to work for the development of an effective national peatlands conservation strategy. It is worth noting that a number of other countries have adopted national peatlands conservation policies. They include Canada, Finland, Switzerland, West Germany, Sweden and the United States of America. Indeed, many international bodies interested in the development of a worldwide peatlands conservation strategy are looking to the United Kingdom for leadership in achieving those objectives. That has been stressed at many international conferences.
I am pleased to add that the Dublin-based Irish Peatlands Conservation Council is associated with the campaign. I am also pleased that at an international conference on peatlands held last year in Dundee, the countryside and wildlife branch of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland presented a positive and encouraging discussion paper on conservation strategy for peatlands in Northern Ireland.
There is already an international responsibility to protect peatlands. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Berne and Ramsar conventions, both of which emphasise the importance of the need for concerted governmental conservation measures, as does the EC directive. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 for Great Britain and the Planning Order 1972 for Northern Ireland have in practice only limited control over peat extraction. Notification of a bog to the Nature Conservancy Council as a site of special scientific interest in Britain (SSSI) or an area of special scientific interest in Northern Ireland (ASSI) does not provide protection. Planning consents override conservation needs and designations. There is no compulsion to take the advice of a statutory conservation agency for Great Britain or of the newly established
1450
semi-autonomous body in Northern Ireland—the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside. As already mentioned by my noble friend Lady David, the law and planning rules override nature conservation.
Earl Peel: My Lords, as I understand it, it is quite clear that under the 1981 Act the Secretary of State for the Environment has the power to intervene and stop if he so wishes. This may require some degree of compulsory powers but I believe that the Secretary of State has those powers and could use them if he so wished.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. That is reinforced to some degree by another point which I wish to make. As regards environmental powers of control over peat extraction and the establishment of effective conservation measures, perhaps the more recent EC directive No. 85/337 will prove to be more objective and encouraging. I await the Minister's response to those two aspects of the matter. The directive relates to environmental assessment regulations introduced in 1988. Among other relevant matters, the regulations require activities concerning peat extraction to be subject to assessment of the effect of the particular project on the environment.
I should be grateful if the Minister will reply to those points. Perhaps he can also indicate how the Government propose to encourage representatives of voluntary and community groups to make suitable applications for assessment of a particular project. It is from such groups that there comes the dynamism at community level. What research have the Government undertaken into the existence of procedures under the directive and the legislation which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has mentioned? How effective has the directive been in its implementation?
There are two principal organisations in Northern Ireland with a direct remit concerning peatlands in the Province. The first is the countryside and wildlife branch of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment; the other is the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside. The latter was appointed by the Northern Ireland Office to advise, assist and critically examine the work of government departments in the discharge of their statutory functions and the promotion of conservation services.
In general conservation and wildlife matters, I am glad that we in Northern Ireland have a considerable number of lively and active, voluntary bodies. The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside is highly committed and professional in the exercise of its role and functions and is widely representative of nature conservation voluntary bodies in the Province.
Both the council and the departmental branch are in dire need of adequate financial resources to carry out their functions effectively. I understand that of 10 selected bogs in Northern Ireland, five have been declared areas of special scientific interest and three more may soon be similarly designated. It is obvious that more requires to be done. Some of the more

1451
important peatlands in conservation terms are the subject of planning consent and covered by planning requests for commercial and horticultural exploitation.
The real threat is the small peat extrusion machine which can irreparably damage large areas in a short time. Where peat is extracted for personal use, no planning permission is required under the system of turbary rights. Those are well known rights which have existed for perhaps two centuries. But there appears to be a large grey area where the law is not enforced and where difficulties often arise in tracing rightful ownership.
To heighten public awareness of the cultural and ecological values of the peatlands—and I add their economic benefits from the point of view of tourism—the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment and the Council for the NCC have co-operated in the development and construction of a peatland park. That is a major feature and unique, I understand, in the United Kingdom. Specially developed attractions include pools and a bog garden for demonstrating bogland plants which can be viewed from a boarded walkway. The visitors centre will house exhibits concerned with both the cultural and natural history of peatlands. It is designed with the special interests of school and further educational establishments in mind. The centre is to be formally opened on 9th June. All in Northern Ireland who are directly concerned with the peatlands should be proud of that first step on the way towards promoting information and new approaches to conservation.
There can be no doubt that the future of the peatlands and any real impact on the scale of depletion will depend on at least three factors. First, there needs to be the growth of a lively and sympathetic public attitude towards the cultural and ecological values of the peatlands. Secondly, the proposed new statutory nature conservancy councils for England and Scotland and the Countryside Council for Wales, together with the council in Northern Ireland, should be given genuine government support and the necessary resources effectively to carry out their full role and functions. Those matters will arise when we debate the Environmental Protection Bill in this House. Thirdly, and most importantly, the Government should produce a strategy to save our precious peatlands in consultation with the statutory bodies and representative voluntary groups together with commercial and horticultural interests.
Peatlands are not dull and barren places but are valuable and delicate resources. Urgent attention and careful thought must be given to their use so that the resource is not lost and wasted forever. I await with interest the Minister's reply to the debate.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like other noble Lords I wish to express my debt to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for drawing our attention to this important problem. He will not be surprised to discover that I cannot follow him in some of the propositions he made in the course of his submissions this evening.
1452
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, returned to one of his favourite themes. In a recent forestry debate he wished to impose on Scotland the same prohibition on planting which now exists throughout England and Wales. That is what is wrong with the argument of the environmentalists. They make blanket assumptions on all sorts of cases, irrespective of the impact which they have on other land use activities or on individuals who earn their living in the countryside.
I want to introduce a note of caution into this debate on the conservation of the peatlands. I subscribe to the general proposition and idea that sensitive areas which are important to the wildlife habitat of our country should be protected. However, I am sorry to say that sometimes the good and worthy cause is not promoted by individuals who are sensitive to other interests in the countryside. I quote the interesting case of David Bellamy, who descended on the island of Islay and a public meeting was called to invite the people to stop cutting peat.
Anyone who has calculated the cost of bringing other fuels into that island will readily appreciate why for centuries people have heated their homes by cutting peat. In addition, Islay has nine distilleries. It contributes more to the national Exchequer than any other comparable area in the United Kingdom. For generations the distillers have used peat, their native resource, in keeping the distilleries going. I am not sure whether that influences the taste of the product.
However, David Bellamy addressed the people of Islay, who rapidly escorted him to the pier and sent him home.
Lord Blease: Shame!
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Shame, my Lords? If the noble Lord lived in Islay he would not call "Shame".
Lord Blease: I live in Ireland.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I know that, but people in Ireland also have an interest in peat.
The point is that David Bellamy had a case concerning the conversion of other fuel resources for use in the distilleries. But the case should have been negotiated and discussed and a balanced programme developed so that his impact might have been more rational and acceptable. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and others trot out the case of the flow country. The flow country has a nice sound, but very few people in this House have seen it. It is a great marshy swamp in Sutherland. Some people find it possible to make a living there by planting trees, caring for them, and marketing and delivering them to the pulp mills where they are used. The noble Lord and others would say, "Let us just blanket the entire flow country and have no economic activity whatever because we must protect some aspect of wildlife habitat". It is that unreasonable approach which has prejudiced the case for the environmentalist.
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Most of us object to the planting of trees or the churning up of the

1453
environment because we now realise that there is a value in the natural habitat as it exists. We are not totally against economic activity in these places. But if it destroys the country, which ultimately it will by such a huge change in its form, some other form of economic activity must be found elsewhere because we cannot replace the countryside.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Lord has already stated his case and has made that point. With all due respect, I presume he knows the flow country. The Secretary of State for Scotland quite rightly said that there is sufficient land in the flow country to protect the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and other environmentalists and at the same time provide a degree of economic activity in which people will be able to earn their living.
One of the most attractive aspects is a living countryside in which people find it possible to earn their living, send their children to school and develop a rural economy. They will not be able to do that if we blanket great areas of Scotland and say that they are to be protected exclusively for wildlife habitat and people must keep out, or alternatively it must be kept for the tourists. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that the Nature Conservancy Council must not be split. Most of the protests with regard to the splitting of the NCC have come from south of the Border.
There are important judgments to be made regarding land use in which it is vital that people who are close to the local situation should be involved and should understand. Decentralisation of the Nature Conservancy Council certainly provides that and will have wholehearted support.
We are not doing too badly in Scotland, working alongside the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Forestry Commission and local authorities. We are developing what is called an indicative strategy as the result of negotiation, discussion and balancing the various interests. We are developing that indicative strategy and having it accepted by all involved in community activity. We are designating preferred sites for development and sensitive areas so that there will be guidance in an intelligent land use policy. It is by that careful balance and negotiation, weighing up the interests of all the various people involved in the countryside, that we will arrive at sensible conclusions.
This is an important debate and I fully subscribe to the alarm bells which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, started ringing about the depletion of our peatlands. But at the same time let us consider all the elements in the countryside.
Lord Blease: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he read Hansard tomorrow and see that every noble Lord tonight spoke in terms of consultation and prosperity with regard to the land? There is no question of land simply being allowed to lie idle in a blanket situation.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, with due respect, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that he wants the whole of the flow country designated as a
1454
non-development area for any commercial purpose. That is a fairly common theme. I am sure that if we read Hansard it will be realised that what I am calling for is a balanced approach to land use.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I hope that I may be excused if I intervene to refer to a Welsh interest which has caused considerable local concern. I do not tonight propose to make the speech I hope to make Friday week.
I have just received a faxed message from the director of planning for Clwyd County Council regarding the large area of peat at Fenn's Moss in what was once part of my constituency. It lies on the edge of the Shropshire border where a similar but smaller area may also be affected. In all, in 1953 the Nature Conservancy Council designated around 1,700 acres—a considerable area—as a site of special scientific interest. That was reconfirmed, as was required, in 1983.
As was explained so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and other noble Lords, that designation has not nullified the planning permission to work the peat granted by Shropshire in 1949 and by what was then the Overton Rural District Council in 1950. The recent alarm which has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has arisen because a new company employing modern methods is now in a position vastly to increase the output of that very significant peat area.
At a meeting yesterday of the appropriate committee of Clwyd County Council it was reported that active discussions are proceeding with the NCC either as to purchase by it of the site or as to the enactment of a satisfactory management agreement. I am not so much against some element of compensation or recompense for a company which has taken a property on the understanding that it can be worked and then finds that for good reason it cannot be to anything like the extent it reasonably expected. Nevertheless, it is extremely important that the discussions should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.
I understand that officials from the Department of the Environment have been involved in discussions with the local authorities concerned. Several Members of the other place have taken the matter up, as have a number of environmental pressure groups in Wales and across the Border. One can only hope that those pressures will succeed, and quickly, otherwise an important SSSI is likely to be irretrievably damaged. My apprehension is that the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales may be so preoccupied with its own domestic reorganisation that precious time may elapse before positive action is taken. I can only hope that I may be proved wrong.
9 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as other speakers have said, we owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for introducing this very topical and important subject. I believe that this matter has been brought more sharply to the notice of the average person because of a recent publicity campaign and

1455
exposure in various sections of the media. Probably the most important exposure of all was on television. I have seen television programmes depicting what is going on.
It would be remiss of me to try to introduce any new facet into the debate, because almost everything that can be said has been said. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, regarding a particular area which has a specific interest. I concur with his approach; namely, that there should be the closest consultation so that an agreed programme can be carried out in that unique area.
However, that is not what is frightening us. We are frightened by the rapid ripping out of peat which has taken thousands of years to form and without there being any possibility of it being replaced. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who mentioned the astronomical cost to the Dutch who became involved in the programme of replacement.
We have to be very understanding about what man has done in the past. He does not emerge very well when one considers his past actions. I have in mind some of the species which have disappeared from the earth and some of the areas of the earth which have been ripped apart for no other purpose that to make money. Certain groups of people have populated the earth and then disappeared. Man exploited such people and he should take a great deal of the blame. However, man was allowed to get on with the problem.
Even today there are people who want to start hunting the whale despite all the campaigns that have taken place to try to preserve that magnificent creature. The people involved in peat extraction on a commerical scale should not be too surprised if the public, including the noble Lords who have spoken tonight, view them with great suspicion. I do.
I would not offer compensation. Why should the peat extractors be offered compensation? They did not put the peat there: that was done by time and history. I see no particular reason to compensate people for something which was not theirs in the first place. As regards co-operation with some of the people involved in large-scale peat extraction, during this debate one noble Lord referred to the fact that there had been a rather unfortunate experience somewhere in Yorkshire. A representative of the media went there to take some pictures and he was roughly, and in some respects illegally, handled by employees of the large private company involved in extracting peat from that area.
Noble Lords who have already spoken have given some idea of some of the measures that can be brought in to deal with the situation. More than one noble Lord has referred to the fact that a good deal of the peat is being extracted under legislation which has become out of date and which should be modernised. I believe I heard one speaker correctly when he said that the NCC was making recommendations in connection with particular areas but was being overruled because of local planning permission which had been given in the past. That seems rather odd.
1456
During an intervention the noble Earl, Lord Peel, expressed the opinion that the Secretary of State for the Environment already had within his control sufficient powers to issue directives to deal with the problem. If that is so, then that is a condemnation of successive Secretaries of State, because they have never invoked those powers. They have never used them.
Your Lordships' House is asking the Government to look now at this problem in a comprehensive way and as a matter of urgency. A difficult situation has emerged. If a great deal of time is taken in evolving an acceptable policy the damage which could be done in the interim by machines of juggernaut size would be of enormous dimensions and difficult to calculate. In the intervening period work undertaken on a large scale in a particular area would result in irreparable damage.
Noble Lords have already spoken about a variety of substitutes that can be used to reduce the reliance on peat. I believe the figures have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and by my noble friends Lady David and Lord Blease concerning Northern Ireland. There has been a tremendous growth in the use of peat because of its greatly increased use in horticulture. I understand, however, that a large number of substitutes could be used for the purpose. Will the Government commission a programme of research with a view to producing speedy progress on different substitutes?
Is the Minister aware of the research programme being undertaken at Wye College with the support of the Shell company? I understand that it is primarily aimed at encouraging farmers to use for compost materials for which at present there is no suitable use. Does the research have government support? If they are not supporting it, I ask them to do so as a matter of urgency. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned substitutes such as sewage and the animal by-products of farming which are lying about in abundance in some areas but are not being used. They are not being used because people are able to get their hands on a ready-made commodity without recourse to anything else.
I hope that the debate, which was superbly opened by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who presented his case and the facts for his argument in great detail, will indicate the need for an urgent preservation programme. If the Minister cannot give noble Lords answers to specific questions today, I trust that the debate will have served the purpose of making the Government understand that, in this important problem as in many others, time is not on our side. We do not want action tomorrow. We want it today or as quickly as is humanly possible in the national interest. I hope that the noble Lord will convey those sentiments as quickly as possible to his colleague the Secretary of State.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for introducing this most illuminating debate and for giving me the opportunity to give an account of the Government's thinking on and approach to the important issue of

1457
the measures needed to safeguard one of this country's most important natural habitats. The noble Lord made a powerful case. I shall endeavour to meet his request that I should tell the House what the Govenment are proposing to do and I shall return throughout my speech to points which he raised.
Although in the field of nature conservation as a whole we believe that we have policies and a record of which we can be justly proud, we are not complacent. Our recognition of the dynamism of the subject area with which we are dealing precludes it. New difficulties continually emerge as a result of economic growth and technological advance. We therefore value highly the dialogue with various voluntary conservation bodies. We greatly appreciate, for example, the work put into the Peat Report by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and all he other voluntary bodies. The Peat Report expresses persuasively legitimate concerns about the exploitation and loss of our peatlands.
The extraction of peat for sale is a mineral working operation which in Great Britain requires planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for England and Wales, and the equivalent 1972 Act in Scotland. The noble Lord suggested that the commercial peatlands should be brought within the planning law. That is already the case.
One of the Government's policy objectives for minerals planning control, as stated in our series of minerals planning guidance notes, is,
"to ensure that land taken for mineral operations is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity and is capable of an acceptable use after working has come to an end".
The after use for an individual mineral site may be its former use or a new, different and acceptable use. To achieve this objective we would now expect permissions for mineral workings of all types to include conditions on restoration and aftercare which are appropriate to the site in question.
However, the Government recognise that in many cases the permissions governing the existing peat workings, particularly in England and Wales, were given a considerable time ago, mainly by predecessors of the present mineral planning authorities in the early years after the first Town and Country Planning Act in 1947. They contain few, if any, controls on the method of working and lack even basic requirements for restoration and aftercare. Many of the permissions were given before the nature conservation importance of the peat areas had been fully appreciated. Moreover, technological advance, as several noble Lords pointed out, has transformed the techniques for peat extraction. New techniques mean that the peat is drained—and no speaker explained this more graphically than the noble Lord, Lord Moran—and worked more rapidly to a greater depth. The effect of this is that in many cases regeneration of the peat is not possible or would take a very considerable time.
Several noble Lords referred to the 1981 minerals Act. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggested that a major review of planning consents should take place, that consents should be withdrawn pending the review and that compensation should be available from public funds.
1458
The Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 introduced new powers and duties for mineral planning authorities. They have a duty to review, though not within any specific time limit, the workings and permissions in their areas. The purpose of the review is to monitor all recently active sites or sites authorised but not yet started to ensure, where practicable, that conditions are consistent with current minerals planning practice. Following this review, the authority will then wish to establish priorities for action. The legislation requires authorities to make formal orders to achieve their objectives where they consider this appropriate. These orders enable planning authorities to revoke or modify permissions and thus raise environmental standards.
Under legislation stretching back to the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, if a planning consent is revoked or amended, compensation is payable by the local planning authority. We recognise that the terms of many of the peat extraction permissions which have been highlighted in today's debate are such that if a mineral planning authority were to seek to revoke or substantially modify them, substantial compensation is likely to be payable by the authority to the mineral company. However, the solution to the planning problems may not always be a formal order. Other measures, such as voluntary agreements between the parties about, for example, working methods may be appropriate.
In cases where the NCC judges that nature conservation is particularly important, the council may enter into a management agreement with a mineral company and pay compensation for the profit it forgoes by modifying its working practices for the benefit of nature conservation. As a very last resort, direct purchase may be agreed. Either course of action can be extremely expensive and the NCC must consider such options against other expenditure priorities for the benefit of nature conservation.
As I said, the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 places a duty on MPAs to review sites in thier areas and I understand that some review work is in hand. The Government believe that this approach will enable the issues to be considered fully by the parties. They are also always ready to consider proposals for management agreements or purchase that may be put forward by the NCC.
But the Government are not content to leave matters as they are. Discussions have been held with the mineral planning authorities, which have responsibilities for the major areas of workings, and the NCC, and we intend to hold discussions with the industry. We are therefore convinced of the need for the kind of co-operation with industry, the NCC and the MPAs for which my noble friend Lord Peel is hoping. We believe that this will enable us to obtain a clearer idea of the scale of the problem from all viewpoints and will help to keep the Government fully informed on the issues. Further, the Nature Conservancy Council is preparing a peatland resource date inventory which for the first time will bring together in a coherent form the best available information on the extent of our peatlands, their characteristics and their significance for wildlife. We

1459
shall also wish to consider whether there is a need to commission research, in conjunction with other interested parties, into working and restoration techniques. We shall then be in a position to consider what further planning guidance may be required about nature conservation and land-use matters affecting peatlands.
In addition, the Department of the Environment is already committed to assessing the practical operation and implementation of the powers contained in the 1981 Act during the next year to 18 months. In this assessment we will wish to consider the special problems with regard to peat extraction. It is already clear, however, that many of the remaining lowland areas in England are important for nature conservation and are under severe threat from mineral extraction. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Moran, and other noble Lords, made that point. We have therefore asked officials to report to us on the key areas under immediate threat and on the available options to balance nature conservation against legitimate mineral extraction interests. Your Lordships will of course be kept informed of the decisions we take on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, raised the question of alternatives to peat. Whenever possible alternatives to peat are already used by government departments and we shall consider carefully extending their use. The noble Baroness asked whether we were encouraging research into alternatives for peat. Work is being carried out by the Ministery of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the use of alternatives. ADAS is at present closely involved in the re-evaluation of alternatives and is working with commercial firms in those areas, We are greatly encouraged by the potential of some of those materials of providing an acceptable alternative to peat for the horicultural industry, although their main application thus far has been in landscaping projects. In deciding our research priorities, we shall be taking into account the need to replace peat with acceptable alternatives while meeting the specialist needs of the horticultural industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked about environmental impact assessment. The EC directive applies only to applications made after the directive came into force in July 1988. Permissions granted before that date are not affected.
My noble friend Lord Peel also contributed to the discussion about whether the Secretary of State has power to intervene once planning permission has been granted. The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 contains reserve powers for the Secretary of State to direct the revocation or modification of planning permission. However, I am not aware of those powers being used. It would probably be
1460
undesirable in the present context. Such action would still mean that compensation would be payable by the local authority. It would destroy the co-operation between the parties to which my noble friend referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned Fenn's Moss. We are aware of the anxiety being expressed about the future of that site. I understand that a number of proposals have been considered, including one that some peat extraction on previously worked areas could take place without destroying the scientific interest of the site. Other proposals involve the possible purchase or lease of areas of the moss. I cannot comment further at this stage, but I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall take into account the many views being expressed should firm proposals be put to the department by the NCC and/or the county councils involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked whether I was aware of research into alternatives to peat being conducted by Wye College. I was not aware of that research, and am pleased to know of it. I am aware of the other work being done by ADAS and the Department of Transport.
The noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, raised in different senses the question of forestry in Caithness and Sutherland. The Highlands Regional Council has produced an indicative forestry strategy which has been agreed by the NCC and the Forestry Commission which indicates areas where forestry can proceed without significant damage to the overall nature conservation interests of the flow country. The Secretary of State for Scotland has endorsed the strategy and any permissions for afforestation will be granted in accordance with it. The HRC report in our view points a sensible way forward that we hope will result in the reconciliation of opposing interests.
To conclude, the Peat Report has usefully highlighted important questions about the conservation of our peatlands and the urgency for action to preserve an important part of our natural heritage. The Government are well seized of those issues and, as I hope I have explained, they have a number of actions in hand which will inform the consideration of the problems and illuminate the development of their policies. It will be a little while before that work is concluded and therefore my remarks this evening have necessarily been in the nature of a progress report. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for giving me this opportunity to demonstrate that the Government are seriously concerned about those matters. I look forward to keeping your Lordships' House informed as further progress is made.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.

  PRISONS: DISTURBANCES
  PRISONS: DISTURBANCES
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: MP AND MEP INVOLVEMENT
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: MP AND MEP INVOLVEMENT